AF 011 go around - Possible flight control issue

m007j · Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:50 pm

zeke wrote:
Polot wrote:
The warning is not there to tell you that you are immediately about to fall out of the sky, but to remind you not to forget to retract the flaps (or extend gear) as there are few times you need to be flying in such a configuration.

So tell me what is the EICAS message produced fir this warning ? Just looked up the FCOM and didn’t see this nonsense.

It does not pass the smell test to generate a mater warning for that, master warning are for significant things like overspeed, stall, fire. Not for flying around in a perfectly acceptable configuration.

How do you know it’s not flap overspeed ?

From Volume 2, section 15, Warning Systems, of the B777 FCOM for multiple airlines:

Landing Configuration Warning
The landing configuration warning system alerts the crew the landing gear is not
extended for landing. The EICAS warning message CONFIG GEAR is displayed
if:
• the airplane is in flight, and
• any landing gear is not down and locked, and
• any of the following configurations exist;
• either thrust lever below a nominal glideslope thrust, and below 800
feet, or
• FLAP lever in landing position

If the message is displayed because a thrust lever below a nominal glideslope
thrust at low radio altitudes, the message remains displayed until the Thrust levers
are advanced or landing gear is down and locked.
If the message is displayed because the FLAP lever is in landing position, the
message remains displayed until the landing gear is down and locked.

Additionally in the aurals table (same section) for a GEAR CONFIG message:

Aural: Siren (If caused by Thrust lever at idle, silence by pushing Master WARNING/CAUTION Reset switch)
Lights: Master WARNING lights (If caused by Thrust lever at idle, extinguish by pushing Master WARNING/CAUTION Reset switch)

Scoreboard · Thu Apr 07, 2022 5:04 pm

Captrlp wrote:
Scoreboard wrote:
This is for an incident in 2011 and a report issued in 2014 - sounds like somebody is trying to resurrect a story to make Air France look bad.
The report, in my reading, shows that the crew were monitoring the situation.

The incident occurred on 5 April 2022…you may want to delete your post…or at least correct it.

As mentioned in the next post #5 the report originally quoted was for the 2011 incident, hence the confusion

LAX772LR · Thu Apr 07, 2022 5:10 pm

cedarjet wrote:
Such a shocking safety culture. Speaking French on the radio at an international airport so every other plane on the frequency has no idea what’s going on, that alone is just ridiculous.

Um, no.

First of all, by far the two most pertinent entities to the convo would be the tower/ATC and the distressed aircraft. Sure it'd be nice if others could have a heads-up at this point, but their needs are surplus.

Second, using native language in native airspace, is extremely common.

Third, it's probably safest for the party most at risk (the distressed aircraft) to NOT have to throw translation on top of what could be a myriad of other problems.

...if you've flown past the 'Rozo' beacon, your ship may be locked on to 'Romeo,' which is taking you off course

zeke · Thu Apr 07, 2022 5:43 pm

m007j wrote:

From Volume 2, section 15, Warning Systems, of the B777 FCOM for multiple airlines:

Landing Configuration Warning
The landing configuration warning system alerts the crew the landing gear is not
extended for landing. The EICAS warning message CONFIG GEAR is displayed
if:
• the airplane is in flight, and
• any landing gear is not down and locked, and
• any of the following configurations exist;
• either thrust lever below a nominal glideslope thrust, and below 800
feet, or
• FLAP lever in landing position

If the message is displayed because a thrust lever below a nominal glideslope
thrust at low radio altitudes, the message remains displayed until the Thrust levers
are advanced or landing gear is down and locked.
If the message is displayed because the FLAP lever is in landing position, the
message remains displayed until the landing gear is down and locked.

Additionally in the aurals table (same section) for a GEAR CONFIG message:

Aural: Siren (If caused by Thrust lever at idle, silence by pushing Master WARNING/CAUTION Reset switch)
Lights: Master WARNING lights (If caused by Thrust lever at idle, extinguish by pushing Master WARNING/CAUTION Reset switch)

I obviously wrong then.

Just reading CAT-141 R1 which says 5G interference can cause false gear config warnings.

thepinkmachine · Thu Apr 07, 2022 5:46 pm

m007j wrote:

From Volume 2, section 15, Warning Systems, of the B777 FCOM for multiple airlines:

Landing Configuration Warning
The landing configuration warning system alerts the crew the landing gear is not
extended for landing. The EICAS warning message CONFIG GEAR is displayed
if:
• the airplane is in flight, and
• any landing gear is not down and locked, and
• any of the following configurations exist;
• either thrust lever below a nominal glideslope thrust, and below 800
feet, or
• FLAP lever in landing position

If the message is displayed because a thrust lever below a nominal glideslope
thrust at low radio altitudes, the message remains displayed until the Thrust levers
are advanced or landing gear is down and locked.
If the message is displayed because the FLAP lever is in landing position, the
message remains displayed until the landing gear is down and locked.

Additionally in the aurals table (same section) for a GEAR CONFIG message:

Aural: Siren (If caused by Thrust lever at idle, silence by pushing Master WARNING/CAUTION Reset switch)
Lights: Master WARNING lights (If caused by Thrust lever at idle, extinguish by pushing Master WARNING/CAUTION Reset switch)

Yup. It happens quite often to get the siren blaring at you when you extended the final landing flap too quickly, while the gear is still in transit. Quote annoying IMO…. The same goes for go-around when the gear is selected up with flaps still in landing position.

zeke · Thu Apr 07, 2022 6:43 pm

thepinkmachine wrote:
Yup. It happens quite often to get the siren blaring at you when you extended the final landing flap too quickly, while the gear is still in transit. Quote annoying IMO…. The same goes for go-around when the gear is selected up with flaps still in landing position.

How very odd, your not busy enoug with that rubbish ontop.

Have you ever had your outer ailerons frozen with ice and not get them to move as you slow down ? Few of my 777 friends have.

mcdu · Thu Apr 07, 2022 6:55 pm

zeke wrote:
thepinkmachine wrote:
Yup. It happens quite often to get the siren blaring at you when you extended the final landing flap too quickly, while the gear is still in transit. Quote annoying IMO…. The same goes for go-around when the gear is selected up with flaps still in landing position.

How very odd, your not busy enoug with that rubbish ontop.

Have you ever had your outer ailerons frozen with ice and not get them to move as you slow down ? Few of my 777 friends have.

Never in over 9k hours on the 777 had the outboard ailerons freeze. Never seen a bulletin advising that’s a possibility.

mcdu · Thu Apr 07, 2022 6:57 pm

zeke wrote:
m007j wrote:

From Volume 2, section 15, Warning Systems, of the B777 FCOM for multiple airlines:

Landing Configuration Warning
The landing configuration warning system alerts the crew the landing gear is not
extended for landing. The EICAS warning message CONFIG GEAR is displayed
if:
• the airplane is in flight, and
• any landing gear is not down and locked, and
• any of the following configurations exist;
• either thrust lever below a nominal glideslope thrust, and below 800
feet, or
• FLAP lever in landing position

If the message is displayed because a thrust lever below a nominal glideslope
thrust at low radio altitudes, the message remains displayed until the Thrust levers
are advanced or landing gear is down and locked.
If the message is displayed because the FLAP lever is in landing position, the
message remains displayed until the landing gear is down and locked.

Additionally in the aurals table (same section) for a GEAR CONFIG message:

Aural: Siren (If caused by Thrust lever at idle, silence by pushing Master WARNING/CAUTION Reset switch)
Lights: Master WARNING lights (If caused by Thrust lever at idle, extinguish by pushing Master WARNING/CAUTION Reset switch)

I obviously wrong then.

Just reading CAT-141 R1 which says 5G interference can cause false gear config warnings.

The 5G interference issue is not supposed to be an issue in Europe vs the USA and its issues due to how the antennas are angled slightly downward in Europe whereas they are mounted vertical in the USA creating the opportunity to interfere with aircraft.

thepinkmachine · Thu Apr 07, 2022 7:33 pm

zeke wrote:
thepinkmachine wrote:
Yup. It happens quite often to get the siren blaring at you when you extended the final landing flap too quickly, while the gear is still in transit. Quote annoying IMO…. The same goes for go-around when the gear is selected up with flaps still in landing position.

How very odd, your not busy enoug with that rubbish ontop.

Have you ever had your outer ailerons frozen with ice and not get them to move as you slow down ? Few of my 777 friends have.

Well, all planes have their quirks and ‘gotchas’ - the siren only catches you when you do things out of sequence and generally is nothing but a minor annoyance. (It’s loud enough to scare the CC in the forward galley :eek:

)

OTOH, when I flew the A320, I did once forget to extend the LG (we both became distracted during a visual approach or some such) and we only caught it when reading the Landing Checklist. In the 777/787, the blaring siren would have made the error obvious much earlier - so perhaps there’s some merit in that logic…

As for frozen ailerons, never heard of that. Then again I only fly the 787 and not for long… Spoiler faults are fairly common, but unlikely to cause significant control problems.

zeke · Wed Apr 27, 2022 6:59 pm

The BEA have release their preliminary findings https://bea.aero/fileadmin/user_upload/ ... 270422.pdf

In short, nothing wrong with the aircraft, it was pilot inputs.

“No failure warning was activated during the occurrence10. No anomaly was observed on the aeroplane.
At this stage, the analysis of the parameters does not show inconsistencies, in particular between the movements of the controls and the movements of the aeroplane. The validation and the analysis of the parameters are continuing. Particular attention will be given to reproducing the forces applied to the controls and to the relationship between these forces and the movements of the controls.”

psolk · Wed Apr 27, 2022 8:55 pm

Yep...

p until the go-around, the flight path had remained within the operator’s stabilization criteria. The recorded parameters show that the two pilots then simultaneously made inputs on the controls.

The control columns were then desynchronized8 for 14 seconds due to opposing forces. The captain held the control column in a slightly nose-down position while the co-pilot made several, more pronounced, nose-up inputs. Two brief episodes of wheel desynchronization were also observed.

The configuration warning was displayed9 and the associated aural warning (siren) sounded. The two pilots continued to simultaneously make inputs on the controls. The captain made more pronounced nose down inputs for a few seconds.

The sustained input on the controls led to the PTT button and the AP disconnect switch being involuntarily pressed, the latter action causing several activations of the associated warning. No failure warning was activated during the occurrence10. No anomaly was observed on the aeroplane.

At this stage, the analysis of the parameters does not show inconsistencies, in particular between the movements of the controls and the movements of the aeroplane. The validation and the analysis of the parameters are continuing. Particular attention will be given to reproducing the forces applied to the controls and to the relationship between these forces and the movements of the controls.

Spetsnaz55 · Wed Apr 27, 2022 9:17 pm

Had a good laugh reading all previous posts

Avatar2go · Wed Apr 27, 2022 9:24 pm

Interesting that they applied enough force to separate the control columns through the torque tube mechanism, but didn't notice at the time, or report excessive force.

I guess if you believe the aircraft is not responding to controls, the stress level would be pretty high and you'd develop tunnel vision.

BEG2IAH · Wed Apr 27, 2022 9:46 pm

I don't understand why would both pilots make inputs simultaneously. Were they communicating while they were doing just the opposite? This really makes me think twice before stepping onto another AF flight.

Avatar2go · Wed Apr 27, 2022 10:35 pm

BEG2IAH wrote:
I don't understand why would both pilots make inputs simultaneously. Were they communicating while they were doing just the opposite? This really makes me think twice before stepping onto another AF flight.

Somewhat similar to AF447. In that case they had sidesticks that were not connected and without force-feedback. In this case the columns are linked until forcibly separated. But you are right that pilots must always communicate who is in control.

GlobalAirways · Wed Apr 27, 2022 11:02 pm

WOW... this is scary this seems like a pilot training problem at Air France.

Avatar2go · Thu Apr 28, 2022 2:08 am

GlobalAirways wrote:
WOW... this is scary this seems like a pilot training problem at Air France.

A lot of training goes out the window in high-stress situations. One of the drawbacks of simulator training. Also something that differentiates military from civilian pilot training.

Aaron747 · Thu Apr 28, 2022 3:59 am

Hopefully not a cockpit culture issue at AF. Ideally any crew member who feels an approach has degraded below stable condition should be able to say so and suggest corrective action.

JibberJim · Thu Apr 28, 2022 6:26 am

Avatar2go wrote:
GlobalAirways wrote:
WOW... this is scary this seems like a pilot training problem at Air France.

A lot of training goes out the window in high-stress situations. One of the drawbacks of simulator training. Also something that differentiates military from civilian pilot training.

Where was the stress here though? It seems from what's been said so far there was no problem until the two pilots started doing the different things, or were they reacting to a problem at that point?

Avatar2go · Thu Apr 28, 2022 10:36 am

JibberJim wrote:

Where was the stress here though? It seems from what's been said so far there was no problem until the two pilots started doing the different things, or were they reacting to a problem at that point?

I think in this case, the stress arose from their conviction that the aircraft was not responding to controls, while on approach and in close proximity to the ground. The incident probably started with an ambiguity about who was PF, with minor control inputs at first, that began to escalate. By the time they separated the control columns, they were freaking out. They said in their report that the aircraft "just went nuts".

I liken it to driving on black ice, when you suddenly realize you're no longer in control. I once came upon a huge wreck on the interstate, slowly braking. The car did not actually stop, it just started rotating in slow motion toward the shoulder. Another time on a country road, I was in a dip and the car would not go forward or backward. So I got out, stood on the shoulder, and pushed it sideways onto the opposite shoulder. Worst time, the car actually did a few 360's at about 30 mph, before embedding in a snow bank without damage. I was really lucky all 3 times. But it's an awful feeling in those moments.

toneale · Thu Apr 28, 2022 10:57 am

The number of incidents involving dual inputs is really perplexing. All pilots are taught that there is ONE pilot flying. There should always be a positive control hand-off . . . I have the controls . . . your airplane. It's not that hard.

ltbewr · Thu Apr 28, 2022 11:48 am

Seems to me there was a serious breach of Cockpit Resource Management procedures. CRM was developed to prevent such conflicts that could lead to a crash and here it was too close to a potential tragedy. I hope and expect there will be a review at AF of CRM procedures, all pilots taking a refresher on it as part of continuous training.

LTEN11 · Thu Apr 28, 2022 12:37 pm

ltbewr wrote:
Seems to me there was a serious breach of Cockpit Resource Management procedures. CRM was developed to prevent such conflicts that could lead to a crash and here it was too close to a potential tragedy. I hope and expect there will be a review at AF of CRM procedures, all pilots taking a refresher on it as part of continuous training.

It would seem for AF this should be part of every pre flight briefing.

GlobalAirways · Thu Apr 28, 2022 3:59 pm

Avatar2go wrote:
GlobalAirways wrote:
WOW... this is scary this seems like a pilot training problem at Air France.

A lot of training goes out the window in high-stress situations. One of the drawbacks of simulator training. Also something that differentiates military from civilian pilot training.

Don't they do full psychiatric evaluations as part of pre-employment testing to determine how a person would respond in situations like these? I get it that the real thing is different but this seems chaotic and a real loss of leadership from the Captains seat.

Revo1059 · Thu Apr 28, 2022 6:18 pm

If it's not there already they should bake into AC a big ol noisy warning when there are conflicting inputs from the 2 sticks....."WARNING CONFLICTING COMMANDS" or something like that.

Avatar2go · Thu Apr 28, 2022 7:52 pm

Revo1059 wrote:
If it's not there already they should bake into AC a big ol noisy warning when there are conflicting inputs from the 2 sticks....."WARNING CONFLICTING COMMANDS" or something like that.

I think the torque tube that connects the columns is broken loose only with a large differential force. It's not the kind of thing that happens by accident. So that will be a question for the investigation to answer.

But your idea of an alarm could not hurt.

Noshow · Thu Apr 28, 2022 7:54 pm

How can the pilot not flying interfere without telling his colleague?

Revo1059 · Thu Apr 28, 2022 8:00 pm

Avatar2go wrote:
Revo1059 wrote:
If it's not there already they should bake into AC a big ol noisy warning when there are conflicting inputs from the 2 sticks....."WARNING CONFLICTING COMMANDS" or something like that.

I think the torque tube that connects the columns is broken loose only with a large differential force. It's not the kind of thing that happens by accident. So that will be a question for the investigation to answer.

But your idea of an alarm could not hurt.

Yeah and if the connection is broken then it should yell something like control sync disconnect. I would think that when either of those conditions are met (conflicting inputs or a break of the connection) the A/C should start yelling at the pilots, preferably in a thick New Jersey accent "HEY STUPID! One of ya is doin somethin dumb!"

GlobalAirways · Thu Apr 28, 2022 8:33 pm

Revo1059 wrote:
Avatar2go wrote:
Revo1059 wrote:
If it's not there already they should bake into AC a big ol noisy warning when there are conflicting inputs from the 2 sticks....."WARNING CONFLICTING COMMANDS" or something like that.

I think the torque tube that connects the columns is broken loose only with a large differential force. It's not the kind of thing that happens by accident. So that will be a question for the investigation to answer.

But your idea of an alarm could not hurt.

Yeah and if the connection is broken then it should yell something like control sync disconnect. I would think that when either of those conditions are met (conflicting inputs or a break of the connection) the A/C should start yelling at the pilots, preferably in a thick New Jersey accent "HEY STUPID! One of ya is doin somethin dumb!"

How about a Boston accent and yell a few expletives containing the letter "R"

FluidFlow · Thu Apr 28, 2022 8:39 pm

GlobalAirways wrote:
Revo1059 wrote:
Avatar2go wrote:

I think the torque tube that connects the columns is broken loose only with a large differential force. It's not the kind of thing that happens by accident. So that will be a question for the investigation to answer.

But your idea of an alarm could not hurt.

Yeah and if the connection is broken then it should yell something like control sync disconnect. I would think that when either of those conditions are met (conflicting inputs or a break of the connection) the A/C should start yelling at the pilots, preferably in a thick New Jersey accent "HEY STUPID! One of ya is doin somethin dumb!"

How about a Boston accent and yell a few expletives containing the letter "R"

Scottish please nothing sounds funnier than a Scot insulting you

hivue · Thu Apr 28, 2022 9:20 pm

"At 07:51:12, when the aeroplane was at an altitude of 1,115 ft, banked 7° to the left, with the wheel oriented 16° to the left6, the crew carried out a go-around7. Up until the go-around, the flight path had remained within the operator’s stabilization criteria."

Something is missing here. The BEA seems to have the CVR recordings but the report does not say who called the go around. They've obviously talked to the crew but there's not a word regarding why the crew thought a go around was needed on this stabilized approach.

"The co-pilot became the PF again."

The report doesn't say anything about the point at which the captain originally took over PF duties from the FO. I realize that functionally they were both PFs for a lot of this mess, but the report indicates there was an orderly handover of PF duties back to the FO.

Aaron747 · Fri Apr 29, 2022 12:00 am

Noshow wrote:
How can the pilot not flying interfere without telling his colleague?

Terrible CRM. Ineffective training programs. Poor communication culture. Poor habits ignored/uncorrected by management. Lots of ways...

Starlionblue · Fri Apr 29, 2022 3:41 am

Revo1059 wrote:
Avatar2go wrote:
Revo1059 wrote:
If it's not there already they should bake into AC a big ol noisy warning when there are conflicting inputs from the 2 sticks....."WARNING CONFLICTING COMMANDS" or something like that.

I think the torque tube that connects the columns is broken loose only with a large differential force. It's not the kind of thing that happens by accident. So that will be a question for the investigation to answer.

But your idea of an alarm could not hurt.

Yeah and if the connection is broken then it should yell something like control sync disconnect. I would think that when either of those conditions are met (conflicting inputs or a break of the connection) the A/C should start yelling at the pilots, preferably in a thick New Jersey accent "HEY STUPID! One of ya is doin somethin dumb!"

Like on an Airbus, which will very loudly yell, "DUAL INPUT!" at you while flashing a light in your eyes.

:stirthepot:

GlobalAirways wrote:
Avatar2go wrote:
GlobalAirways wrote:
WOW... this is scary this seems like a pilot training problem at Air France.

A lot of training goes out the window in high-stress situations. One of the drawbacks of simulator training. Also something that differentiates military from civilian pilot training.

Don't they do full psychiatric evaluations as part of pre-employment testing to determine how a person would respond in situations like these? I get it that the real thing is different but this seems chaotic and a real loss of leadership from the Captains seat.

Not really. Most people don't have an innate ability to deal with situations like this. That's where training comes in. In this case CRM training.

Given the non-connected sidesticks on Airbus some emphasis is placed on this scenario. Not sure about Boeing.

nm2582 · Fri Apr 29, 2022 7:22 am

I'm wondering if disorientation or fatigue was a factor. They departed JFK at 9:16 PM local at night, and it sounds like it was about a 6.5 hour flight through the night.

The 10 second period of reduced inputs, followed by more rapid (but small) inputs, and then astonishment at a bank angle which (based on my reading of the article) was basically 0? The copilot (who was PF at that time) was giving additional left input as the aircraft banked further left. The captain sounds like he had good situational awareness of the aircraft attitude though. He must not have perceived that the copilot was struggling, since he let the copilot shoot the second landing.

It comes across as disorientation or reduced / degraded situational awareness in the right seat.

Avatar2go · Fri Apr 29, 2022 7:31 am

nm2582 wrote:
I'm wondering if disorientation or fatigue was a factor. They departed JFK at 9:16 PM local at night, and it sounds like it was about a 6.5 hour flight through the night.

The 10 second period of reduced inputs, followed by more rapid (but small) inputs, and then astonishment at a bank angle which (based on my reading of the article) was basically 0? The copilot (who was PF at that time) was giving additional left input as the aircraft banked further left. The captain sounds like he had good situational awareness of the aircraft attitude though. He must not have perceived that the copilot was struggling, since he let the copilot shoot the second landing.

It comes across as disorientation or reduced / degraded situational awareness in the right seat.

I think part of the confusion was that once the columns are separated, each side has diminished control authority, even if there are no inputs from the other side. So that may have added to the perception that the aircraft was not responding properly. The right seat may have been applying excessive control inputs to overcome the perceived lack of response

xl0hr · Fri Apr 29, 2022 8:59 am

Are there statistics available about these kinds of incidents? Subjectively, AF seems to make the news more often than say LH or DL.

dynamo12 · Fri Apr 29, 2022 10:24 am

I think the trace showed a huge pitch up (+24 degrees?) at slow speed on the go around which the captain may have been fighting as well (fo pulling into a stall). Scary as that get's very close to earlier AF issues with perfectly functional planes. Good job on captain if they saved things there.

KingOrGod · Fri Apr 29, 2022 10:46 am

wjcandee wrote:
Give it a rest, guys. There was a go-round. Probably fighting the automation. Likely pilot error. Plane landed safely. Who cares?

This is why investigation is important....

9w748capt · Fri Apr 29, 2022 1:33 pm

Geez, which country were these pilots trained in?

ikolkyo · Fri Apr 29, 2022 2:54 pm

Maybe I'm just overlooking this detail but what caused the initial deviation? I don't get it, were both pilots literally trying to land the plane?

Avatar2go · Fri Apr 29, 2022 3:27 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
Maybe I'm just overlooking this detail but what caused the initial deviation? I don't get it, were both pilots literally trying to land the plane?

The preliminary report doesn't make that clear. Obviously there was confusion about PF. Sounded like the left seat was the one interfering with the right.

Revo1059 · Fri Apr 29, 2022 3:41 pm

It does? Not to veer too far off topic but where was that feature when AF 447 went down (not saying sarcastically, genuinely curious)?

Starlionblue wrote:
Revo1059 wrote:
Avatar2go wrote:

I think the torque tube that connects the columns is broken loose only with a large differential force. It's not the kind of thing that happens by accident. So that will be a question for the investigation to answer.

But your idea of an alarm could not hurt.

Yeah and if the connection is broken then it should yell something like control sync disconnect. I would think that when either of those conditions are met (conflicting inputs or a break of the connection) the A/C should start yelling at the pilots, preferably in a thick New Jersey accent "HEY STUPID! One of ya is doin somethin dumb!"

Like on an Airbus, which will very loudly yell, "DUAL INPUT!" at you while flashing a light in your eyes.

:stirthepot:

Etheereal · Fri Apr 29, 2022 4:44 pm

wjcandee wrote:
I thought that one is permitted to speak in the native language of the country involved, particularly in an emergency. (If only the AA guys in Cali had spoken to the controller in Spanish, there likely never would have been an accident.) Give it a rest, guys. There was a go-round. Probably fighting the automation. Likely pilot error. Plane landed safely. Who cares?

How the tables have turned, right? Now you see why its soo important to study and investigate INCIDENTS.

wjcandee · Fri Apr 29, 2022 5:23 pm

Etheereal wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
I thought that one is permitted to speak in the native language of the country involved, particularly in an emergency. (If only the AA guys in Cali had spoken to the controller in Spanish, there likely never would have been an accident.) Give it a rest, guys. There was a go-round. Probably fighting the automation. Likely pilot error. Plane landed safely. Who cares?

How the tables have turned, right? Now you see why its soo important to study and investigate INCIDENTS.

Agreed, it's worth reviewing. And it reinforces the fact that aircraft these days almost always do what you tell them to do, contrary to all the crazy speculation out there when this first happened ("IT'S NOT FOLLOWING COMMANDS!" was the incorrect translation.) It's just sometimes you're not speaking the airplane's language; it's doing what you're actually telling it to, you just think you're telling it to do something else. Here, I do think that it was correct for the crew to communicate in French with ATC, and that they probably need a little refresher on communicating with each other when things get thick.

My "who cares"? was addressed to all the speculation about problems with the 777 automation. Yeah, no.

Etheereal · Fri Apr 29, 2022 6:08 pm

I agree with you, the 777 has no automation problems as far as im concerned. What this investigation has shown so far, is a very concerning lack of CRM within *some* AF pilots.

TUGMASTER · Fri Apr 29, 2022 6:35 pm

Right at the top of this thread, a well respected member,”Cedarjet” called them Air Chance.
I rest his case.

So so many AF incidents should get Bells ringing.!!!!

BEG2IAH · Fri Apr 29, 2022 6:40 pm

TUGMASTER wrote:
So so many AF incidents should get Bells ringing.!!!!

I wonder how AF pilots would have fared had they had to deal with an MCAS issue?

Etheereal · Fri Apr 29, 2022 8:08 pm

BEG2IAH wrote:
TUGMASTER wrote:
So so many AF incidents should get Bells ringing.!!!!

I wonder how AF pilots would have fared had they had to deal with an MCAS issue?

ET302 is that exact scenario, if that's the one where one of the pilots was actually using the electrim trim to counteract it, and the other wasnt.

9w748capt · Fri Apr 29, 2022 10:06 pm

Etheereal wrote:
BEG2IAH wrote:
TUGMASTER wrote:
So so many AF incidents should get Bells ringing.!!!!

I wonder how AF pilots would have fared had they had to deal with an MCAS issue?

ET302 is that exact scenario, if that's the one where one of the pilots was actually using the electrim trim to counteract it, and the other wasnt.

I don't think that's similar at all.

Starlionblue · Fri Apr 29, 2022 11:54 pm

Revo1059 wrote:
It does? Not to veer too far off topic but where was that feature when AF 447 went down (not saying sarcastically, genuinely curious)?

Starlionblue wrote:
Revo1059 wrote:

Yeah and if the connection is broken then it should yell something like control sync disconnect. I would think that when either of those conditions are met (conflicting inputs or a break of the connection) the A/C should start yelling at the pilots, preferably in a thick New Jersey accent "HEY STUPID! One of ya is doin somethin dumb!"

Like on an Airbus, which will very loudly yell, "DUAL INPUT!" at you while flashing a light in your eyes.

The AF447 aircraft most definitely warned "DUAL INPUT". It is impossible to know for certain but it seems the pilots were quite disoriented by that point. For sure, they were not cooperating.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net