Black Boxes

[Bob]

Watched a news program yesterday and read a couple of online articles about this accident and the report the French just issued. Overall, it seemed to me that the French report was much too kind on the crew of this airplane and the airplane itself.

 

I have no expertise at all in this and, with that understanding, I am still going to make a few comments.

 

(1) The Captain wasn't in the cockpit when the incident began to happen (he was on his routine break) and the remaining crew more than once (given they couldn't figure out what was happening) commented more than once "where the hell is the captain" or words to that effect. Once the Captain showed up, it didn't seem to me that he took control of the situation (or had any better clue himself as to what was happening).

 

(2) In a 777 or any other modern aircraft, one of the main ways you point the nose of an airplane up or down is by pushing in or pulling back the yoke. This Airbus plane (all Airbus planes?) didn't have that feature but instead has a small lever to the side of the seats. Apparently, in this incident, the co-pilot had pulled his lever back and anybody in the pilot's seat would not have been able to physically see that. Other pilots have made the following comments:

 

( a ) Based on the cockpit conversations, there was some confusion as to if or who was pointing the nose of the aircraft up. It's possible that had the Captain (once he got back from break) had been aware that the co-pilot had pulled his lever back that the Captain might have told him to alter that move.

 

( b ) Multiple pilots made the comment that an experienced pilot in most airplanes would have known a stall was going on just by the feel from his hands on the yoke (which will shake or shudder when a stall is happening). That feature/ability wasn't on this Airbus plane (either because the "little lever" referred to above doesn't transmit those shudders and/or because the pilot's and co-pilot's hands are gripping the wheel). In this particular accident, it might seem that the "old" system might have been better.

 

(3) I'm a bit clueless as to how this crew couldn't realize they had the nose pointed so far up as to stall. The report indicates that we're talking about at least a 35 degree pitch (up) throughout the entire descent and that's friggin' huge (a typical take-off ascent is at a 14-17 degree angle). Aren't there instruments on board that tell you that (besides the audible warning going off that you're stalling the friggin' airplane)? Isn't there a horizon line meter(I realize I'm using the wrong terms here) right in front of both pilots? Wouldn't they have least felt the incline? Heck, a glass of water sitting there would have physically shown a 35 degree pitch big time! Puzzling, at least to me.

[kokopelli]

Apparently some of these planes are so automated that it is difficult to fly them manually although possible. I saw an interview with Capt. Sully Sullenberger who ditched his aircraft in the Hudson River in New York City. He could not understand how the pilots on the Air France flight screwed up so badly but did state that flying an airplane without automatic controls was a challenge.

[Guest fountainhall]

Some points re Bob's comments.

 

1. I don’t think any of us can really imagine the chaos and panic that had been going on in that cockpit. The speed sensors indicated a ridiculously low speed (which alone should surely have been a warning that something was wrong with the speed indicator system - if only because an aircraft simply cannot fly at that speed, and Air France itself had suffered from several incidents of pitot tube icing), the automatic pilot had cut out, and the airplane was doing things it was not supposed to. Two co-pilots were in charge, yet the captain had left for his break period without informing them who was actually in charge in the flight deck – contrary to Air France regulations. When the captain returned, as Bob points out, he seemed to be as clueless as the others.

 

Yet, having looked over an earlier version of the Cathay Pacific Flight Training Manual for the A330 and A340 (dated 25 July 2006), it makes very clear near the outset –

 

The autopilot automatically disengages if the aircraft flies significantly outside the normal flight envelope limits.

http://www.smartcock...ning_Manual.pdf

 

If Air France had that in their flight manual, it should have been obvious right from the start that the aircraft was not flying correctly. The manual goes on (on page 8.20.15) to highlight that the action in the event of a stall when not flying close to the ground, is to reduce pitch attitude to between 5% and 10%.

 

2. I don’t pretend to understand the detail of fly-by-wire. But from what I read, it seems there is not a great deal of difference between the 777 system and the A320. Both rely heavily on computers. There is an interesting article on askcaptainlim.com about the difference between these two fly-by-wire systems. Although Boeing had used it in military jets for years, its 777 was the first commercial aircraft to use it, and this partly because Airbus was already using it in its A320.

 

Although the Boeing 777 and the Airbus 320 adopted this new concept, there are slight differences in their applications. Airbus has taken a much different philosophical approach to using computers than Boeing. The European airplane maker designed its new fly-by-wire jets with built-in protections or hard limits.



 

The Boeing Company, on the other hand, believes pilots should have the ultimate say, meaning that on the Boeing jets, the pilot can override onboard computers and their built-in soft limits. The issue is, should pilots or a computer have the ultimate control over a commercial jetliner as the plane approaches its design limits in an emergency? There were strong arguments by pilots on both sides of the debates. Some pilots were of the opinion that computer protection of the A320 is very good whereas other pilots support the Boeing philosophy that they must have the final say in controlling the airplane.
Both have valid arguments.

http://www.askcaptai...bus-system.html

 

That said, there is no escaping the fact that, whilst the A320 is today regarded as one of the safest planes around and is the backbone for many commercial fleets, in its early days there were at least 6 A320 crashes. In one in France, the pilots were ‘showing off’ by making a low pass over an airshow. Since it was a fly past at very low altitude, they had lowered the landing gear as a precaution. The computer assumed that with the aircraft flying at only 30 feet off the ground and the landing gear down, in that configuration the pilots are about to land. And land it did. Sadly, it crashed into trees beyond the runway.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5NXpar4Ouw

 

Since those early days, there have been very few A320 incidents.

 

But that website also relates an incident where a Boeing 757 crashed into a hillside in 1995 when the pilot forgot to retract the speed brake (on the top of the wings). That could not have happened on an A320 because the computer would have done it automatically.

 

2b & 3. The continuing voice commands to move the nose up are the least comprehensible in any stall situation. At first, it was the exact opposite of what should have been done when the co-pilots read that they were flying so slowly the plane would literally fall out of the air. They had to drop the nose to pick up speed. Then, on the cvr you can hear very clearly multiple and continuing stall warnings. It would have been impossible for three trained pilots not to hear at least some of them. That means the pilot must angle the nose down. Yet, they kept increasing the angle of attack making an irrecoverable stall all but inevitable.

 

I believe the artificial horizon should have been another indicator that the angle of attack was way too steep. I have not yet read that it was not working.

 

 

Another interesting discussion to come out of all this will be: do former fighter pilot crew make better captains in these days of fly-by-wire than those whose sole experience has been in flight simulators?

[Bob]

the artificial horizon should have been another indicator that the angle of attack was way too steep. I have not yet read that it was not working.

 

Okay, sorry, guess that's what it's called. I flew a few times in a friend's plane and he let me fly on occasion. I remember that he spent a little time carping at me to keep the plane flying level at the same altitude so the altimiter and artificial horizon were the instruments that allowed me to do that (besides just looking out the window and having a sense of what I thought was "level").

 

I remain dumbfounded how those pilots didn't know about their extreme nose-up attitude. As I mentioned before, the take-off ascent is usually at a 14-17 percent incline and you sure can feel that in a plane. One would think that common sense (hearing the engines operating which means you've got some power) and feeling the extreme nose-up angle of 35+ degrees (over double the incline of a take-off ascent!) would have clued in even an inexperienced pilot that a stall was happening (and, again, one must remember that an audible "stall" warning was screaming in the cockpit at the time!).

 

Your last comment about fighter pilots is interesting. Perhaps you're attempting to say that flight experience in planes without all the fancy knobs and computers actually counts for something and with that I agree wholeheartedly.

[Guest fountainhall]

If it was only that very steep nose-up angle, I'd expect any pilot would have recognised it and taken remedial action. But we know how easily it is for pilots to become disorientated when there is also mayhem going on outside - whether that be a severe tropical storm or a sludgy mist. An aircraft can also be banked heavily to the left or right and the pilots not be aware of it.

 

Most of us will remember that John Kennedy Jnr. crashed his plane and killed 3 people when disorientated in a mist. If he had just trusted his instruments, he would probably still be alive today. With the Air France pilots, there was mayhem outside and in. But they, too, failed to heed some of the instruments and the aircraft's repeated stall warnings.

 

As far as I am aware, most of today's pilots who do not come from an air force, receive their basic training in small flight schools in single engine planes. From there it is on to simulators and eventually to sitting in the right seat in a cockpit. There is surely nothing to compensate for the lack of knowing how an aircraft handles at 35,000 feet in all sorts of weather conditions and with minimal computer input.

[Guest thaiworthy]

It is interesting to note that when you ask people who are afraid to fly why they feel that way, they will invariably respond with "because I have no control." The comparison seems as if they're saying they have more control driving a car. I'm not sure of the logic in such an admission, but for me, the practicality of getting from one place to another more quickly and conveniently seems to override any fear or trepidation over danger and death in the unlikely event of a crash. This response is especially true when you start quoting statistics. The resounding theme is lack of control, regardless.

[Rogie]

There is surely nothing to compensate for the lack of knowing how an aircraft handles at 35,000 feet in all sorts of weather conditions and with minimal computer input.

 

The resounding theme is lack of control, regardless.

 

Maybe we need to take stock here and reflect on the sheer demand for fully trained pilots. I seem to recall reading about (maybe on GT!) how China was dealing with their own particular shortage by offering very generous salaries to pilots from other country's airlines hoping to tempt them.

[Guest fountainhall]

There is one problem with hiring former military pilots – the need to dumb down their gung-ho attitudes when commanding commercial aircraft. This was one of the problems faced by China as its aviation sector began to grow when the country’s economy took-off in the 1980s. The only source of pilots was the air force and these guys were often taking unacceptable risks. There were several major crashes, including one I recall at Guangzhou airport where a pilot came in for a landing at too steep an angle, crashed on the runway and then careered into another jet waiting for take-off. Taiwan's China Airlines had similar problems and even more crashes. Even TG had problems for a while as most of their cockpit crews used to be from the Air Force. At least one crash with 102 deaths was attributed to an over-zealous captain (December 1998).

 

Rogie is correct. There is a major shortage of pilots, not only in China but worldwide, and it is getting worse by the day.

 

According to an article in the Washington Post, Asia alone will need over 225,000 new pilots in the next 20 years

 

http://www.aviations.../pilot-shortage

 

One source of these pilots is already the United States. If there isn’t a shortage problem in North America now, there may well be in the very near future, according to another recent article in Bloomberg News.

 

http://www.bloomberg...ain-s-seat.html

 

With all the recent airline mergers in the USA, getting into the captain’s seat now takes much longer than before, even for first officers with a huge number of flying hours. The same is true with captains on commuter jets wanting to graduate up to the more lucrative carriers. Since the pay differential is very significant, a first officer in their 40s/early 50s is no longer prepared to wait when foreign airlines come along with tempting offers which can easily more than double their salaries and benefits.

 

However, cultural problems can and do arise when there are different nationalities in the cockpit. In August 1999, I was at Hong Kong’s new airport waiting for an evening Cathay Pacific to Bangkok where I would register my apartment at the Lands Department the following morning. Around 7:30 pm in the Cathay lounge, I noticed everyone rush to the window. I only realised about 20 minutes later that a China Airlines MD11 had flipped over on landing and was lying half way down the runway on its top. Mercifully there was heavy monsoon rain at the time and this helped douse the flames and prevent an explosion. Only two people died that night, when one would have expected dozens to be killed in that sort of accident.

 

The investigation report blamed both the plot, who was Italian, and the co-pilot, who was Taiwanese. If I recall correctly, the co-pilot had called for landing to be aborted and was overruled by the captain who stubbornly believed he had the experience to land the plane in such conditions. The Chinese respect for authority then kicked in and he shut up rather than persist in his belief that the landing was too dangerous.

 

This issue of multi-cultural cockpit crews is spreading – and, seemingly, to blame in some crashes. This from the same aviationschoolsonline article quoted above –

 

To combat the shortage some countries in Asia and the Middle East have turned to pilots from Eastern Europe, where English is rarely spoken. As English is the international language of flight, this can, and does lead to confusion in the cockpit and with the tower.

 

The May 2010 Air India crash highlights some of the most challenging aspects of anticipated pilot shortage. Not only was the Serbian’s grasp of English questionable, he apparently slept through more than half of the flight and was too disoriented to land properly when the time came. With a growing number of pilots needed it is likely that airlines will start to cut corners in the hiring process.

 

Then last month at Lagos in Nigeria, the Dana Air aircraft which crashed and killed 163 souls had an American captain, an Indian co-pilot and an Indonesian flight engineer (although it seems at present that technical problems appear to have been the primary cause of this crash).

http://news.blogs.cn...h-pay-overseas/

 

So a key issue in future will be the ability of all those in a cockpit to operate as a team rather than two or more individuals.

[Guest thaiworthy]

There have been occurrences of airline pilots showing up drunk in the cockpit before a flight. There have been at least 4 incidences of this in the last few years.

 

http://abcnews.go.co...35#.T_lyAY6TSrg

 

While it is really no laughing matter, this video is kind of funny.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhoJqf9-Wk0

[Guest fountainhall]

Very funny!! Just what is needed after all the doom and gloom in this thread, I suspect!

[KhorTose]

Very funny!! Just what is needed after all the doom and gloom in this thread, I suspect!

'I agree, since reading these articles and statements I've decided to walk back to the USA next time I go home. I was thinking about taking a ship but then I remember the concordia. Oh well, I figure by the time I get to Siberia someone will have built the bridge to Alaska. Now if I can only get safely by Sarah Palin, I'm home free.

[Guest fountainhall]

I have some great winter weather gear left over from my trip to Harbin last January. Can I sell it to you?