Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Didn't AF 447 Go Back Into Normal Law?  
User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 672 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4773 times:

AF447 reverted to alternate law due to the airspeed disagreement. But after the ice in the pitot cleared and the airspeed became reliable again, why didn't the A330 go back to normal law?

Would the crew have had to manually switch it back to normal law, or would the aircraft simply have stayed in alternate law for the rest of the flight (had it not crashed)?

Or did the fact that the aircraft was stalled when airspeed came back, (or was it earlier?) and so outside its safe flight envelope inhibit a return to normal law?

Thanks all.


Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 4728 times:

I assume you are wondering why the AOA/alpha max protections did not kick in and help the airplane recover from its stalled condition. Here's why:

When an Airbus exits the normal flight envelope it enters what Airbus calls the "peripheral flight envelope". In this peripheral envelope, control law protections activate. When the aircraft goes beyond this peripheral area, (i.e. the aircraft is in an extreme upset, as was the case for AF447), the control law protections disable, permitting the pilot full control authority. In other words, AF447 was in an area of the flight envelop where the control law protections are disabled and the pilot control inputs are in no way overridden by the airplane. This is true, even when the airplane is fully intact and operating in normal law.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 2, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4679 times:

Quoting bueb0g (Thread starter):
AF447 reverted to alternate law due to the airspeed disagreement. But after the ice in the pitot cleared and the airspeed became reliable again, why didn't the A330 go back to normal law?

How would the airplane know that the airspeed was reliable again? Once you've flagged data as invalid it generally gets ignored completely. You don't want a bad signal getting tagged as valid just because it happens to pass through a valid range. These types of failures normally need some positive crew action or the end of the flight to reset themselves.

Tom.


User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4512 times:

Quoting bueb0g (Thread starter):
AF447 reverted to alternate law due to the airspeed disagreement. But after the ice in the pitot cleared and the airspeed became reliable again, why didn't the A330 go back to normal law?

Did it ever? If the aircraft was never recovered from a stalled conditon (as the evidence seems to indicate), then there was never a reliable airspeed indication once the upset occured...therefore, no reliable airspeed indication.



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17173 posts, RR: 66
Reply 4, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4491 times:

I think the questions bueb0g is asking is this: If the aircraft had recovered from the upset and started cruising as normal, and if the speed indication had been "fixed", would the aircraft have gone back to Normal Law. Or more simply, can an aircraft go to Normal Law in flight if it has gone to Alternate Law.

In this case, as Tom says, the speed indication having been invalid would have prevented it. However is there ever any provision for going back to Normal Law?



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4488 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 4):
In this case, as Tom says, the speed indication having been invalid would have prevented it. However is there ever any provision for going back to Normal Law?

If there were, I'm sure that one of the requirements would be that you are inside the flight envelope. If you're stalled, then by definition, you are outside the flight envelope  



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17173 posts, RR: 66
Reply 6, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4427 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 5):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 4):
In this case, as Tom says, the speed indication having been invalid would have prevented it. However is there ever any provision for going back to Normal Law?

If there were, I'm sure that one of the requirements would be that you are inside the flight envelope. If you're stalled, then by definition, you are outside the flight envelope

Hehe. Yes I get that. However what if you were unstalled and back in cruise?

Can an Airbus ever go back to Normal Law in flight if it has degraded to another law?



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6965 posts, RR: 76
Reply 7, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4338 times:

No it cannot. It will remain in ALTN law, and if I remember correctly, direct law once landing gear is out.
The reason being, the computer does not want bad data because it can result in the computer ending up causing the tragedy. It is designed that way.
Once you have unreliable airspeed, you run through the unreliable airspeed procedure, which includes checking which ADR is correct and which is wrong, and then if I remember correctly, switch off the bad ADR(s), and fly on the good ones (if any). If the crew determines that none is good, then they fly with the best one they think is available, but fly on pitch and power only, use the remaining ADR to provide stall warnings only.

The ones with the BUSS installed, if you find no good ADR, switch all of them off, and the Backup Speed Scale (BUSS) will come on, and you fly using that.



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 8, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4217 times:

The way I read some of the other UAS incidents - the aircraft doesn't go back into Normal Law while still in flight.

However, the crew is able to use the Autopilot again after the type of troubleshooting described above and isolating the cause of the UAS.

And as is also obvious, the crew of AF447 never did that troubleshooting.


User currently offlineAirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2476 posts, RR: 24
Reply 9, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3885 times:

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 7):
and if I remember correctly, direct law once landing gear is out.

As far as I know, this only applies to the A32X series.. I heard it is due to lack of computing power but it is not written anywhere. Likely because the A320 is older than the 330/340/380


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why Didn't AF 447 Go Back Into Normal Law?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Didn't Boeing Extend The 747 Upper Deck? posted Thu Apr 15 2010 08:32:15 by tonyban
Normal Law? Direct Law? Can Someone Explain? posted Tue Nov 18 2008 10:26:45 by Mastropiero
Why Does The Nose Go Up? posted Fri Mar 23 2007 20:40:35 by Xbraniffone
AI's Needed Time To Get Back To Normal Schedule? posted Thu Jun 9 2005 19:11:25 by JMO-777
Getting Back Into Flying posted Wed Jun 23 2004 08:07:44 by F86sabre
Why Didn't GE Offer A Powerplant For The 757? posted Mon Feb 2 2004 05:07:51 by Thrust
DHL: Why Didn't It Explode? posted Tue Nov 25 2003 13:36:56 by Captjetblast
Why Didn't The A300 Dominate Sales In The 70s? posted Tue Jul 8 2003 03:12:24 by IslandHopper
Why A Jet Stop Smoking When They Go Into A/B posted Thu Apr 26 2007 05:38:35 by 747400sp
Why Go-around After Hard Landing? posted Mon Mar 28 2011 18:59:17 by Kurtjeter
Why Didn't Boeing Extend The 747 Upper Deck? posted Thu Apr 15 2010 08:32:15 by tonyban
Normal Law? Direct Law? Can Someone Explain? posted Tue Nov 18 2008 10:26:45 by Mastropiero
Why Does The Nose Go Up? posted Fri Mar 23 2007 20:40:35 by Xbraniffone
AI's Needed Time To Get Back To Normal Schedule? posted Thu Jun 9 2005 19:11:25 by JMO-777
Getting Back Into Flying posted Wed Jun 23 2004 08:07:44 by F86sabre
Why Didn't GE Offer A Powerplant For The 757? posted Mon Feb 2 2004 05:07:51 by Thrust
DHL: Why Didn't It Explode? posted Tue Nov 25 2003 13:36:56 by Captjetblast
Why Didn't The A300 Dominate Sales In The 70s? posted Tue Jul 8 2003 03:12:24 by IslandHopper
Why A Jet Stop Smoking When They Go Into A/B posted Thu Apr 26 2007 05:38:35 by 747400sp

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format