Air France 447 crash.....possibly found after 2 years

[TAMR]

An ignorant statement from someone who has never flown a transport category aircraft. My airline flies the A330. there is nothing inherently wrong with the aircraft. It just takes good systems knowledge and proper training so the unique characteristics of the aircraft are known.

Not to mention, the Colgan flight was a Dash 8 by Dehavilland of Canada, not Airbus. Secondly, the Colgan pilot didn't respond necessarily incorrectly, for a T-tail tail plane stall, pulling back on the stick is the correct action to recover when the stall is ice induced, which is what the pilots thought caused the stall.

Sent from my HTC Evo 3D

 

[JD81]

the Colgan pilot didn't respond necessarily incorrectly, for a T-tail tail plane stall, pulling back on the stick is the correct action to recover when the stall is ice induced, which is what the pilots thought caused the stall.

Sent from my HTC Evo 3D

I am an instructor for an airline who's airplanes all have T-tails, not one of them recovers from a stall by pulling back on the stick/yoke, no matter what caused the stall.

 

[TAMR]

I am an instructor for an airline who's airplanes all have T-tails, not one of them recovers from a stall by pulling back on the stick/yoke, no matter what caused the stall.

I may be interpreting this document wrong, but this was written by NASA on ICTS (top of page two): http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/1999/TM-1999-208901.pdf

Or page 4 of this FAA advisory circular:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...50e1cc3a86256b6e004fcd3f/$FILE/AC23.143-1.pdf

You'd know way more than I would on the subject, but again that was my interpretation. I know when the NTSB was having a hearing many experts came in and spoke in favor of this argument; but I guess we'll never know for sure.

 

[HAL Pilot]

Not to mention, the Colgan flight was a Dash 8 by Dehavilland of Canada, not Airbus. Secondly, the Colgan pilot didn't respond necessarily incorrectly, for a T-tail tail plane stall, pulling back on the stick is the correct action to recover when the stall is ice induced, which is what the pilots thought caused the stall.

The Colgan pilots did not think they had a tail plane stall. They talked about icing but never said they had or thought they had a tail plane stall. they just fucked it away. There was some talk by speculators and the investigators of the possiblity they might have had a tail plane stall, but it was quickly dismissed. If it had been a tail plane stall, those passengers would probably still be walking around today and calling the pilots heroes as they would have inadvertantly recovered the aircraft with the nose up control inputs and raising the flaps. But it wasn't and they're dead.

I am an instructor for an airline who's airplanes all have T-tails, not one of them recovers from a stall by pulling back on the stick/yoke, no matter what caused the stall.

Actually, as much as I feel Ray-Ban is posting out of his depth, the correct response to a tail plane stall is to pull back on the yoke, retract the flaps and reduce power. But you have to be very positive you have a tail plane stall as if you are in a regualr stall, this will just completely fuck you over. T-tails, especially turboprop A(vice jet - i.e. B-727, DC-9, etc.) are especially suseptible to tail plane icing. The biggest symptom of tail plane icing is the aircraft wanting to nose over and this tendency increasing as you increased power/airspeed. If your plane abruptly noses over as you add flaps, you are in a tail plane stall. In the Twin Otter, as we picked up ice, we had to increase power to maintain airspeed. If all else remainded the same, we had normal icing. If the nose started pitching down when we added power, we suspected tail plane icing and we would land with less/no flaps and a higher Vref to guard against a tail plane stall.

 

[Brett327]

I think Ray Ban is confusing a tail plane stall with a normal wing stall.

Brett

 

[JD81]

The Colgan pilots did not think they had a tail plane stall. They talked about icing but never said they had or thought they had a tail plane stall. they just fucked it away. There was some talk by speculators and the investigators of the possiblity they might have had a tail plane stall, but it was quickly dismissed. If it had been a tail plane stall, those passengers would probably still be walking around today and calling the pilots heroes as they would have inadvertantly recovered the aircraft with the nose up control inputs and raising the flaps. But it wasn't and they're dead.

Fucked it away is what I concluded to and I am not very educated on the crash other than hearing/reading the tapes and some general FDR stuff.

Actually, as much as I feel Ray-Ban is posting out of his depth, the correct response to a tail plane stall is to pull back on the yoke, retract the flaps and reduce power. But you have to be very positive you have a tail plane stall as if you are in a regualr stall, this will just completely fuck you over. T-tails, especially turboprop A(vice jet - i.e. B-727, DC-9, etc.) are especially suseptible to tail plane icing. The biggest symptom of tail plane icing is the aircraft wanting to nose over and this tendency increasing as you increased power/airspeed. If your plane abruptly noses over as you add flaps, you are in a tail plane stall. In the Twin Otter, as we picked up ice, we had to increase power to maintain airspeed. If all else remainded the same, we had normal icing. If the nose started pitching down when we added power, we suspected tail plane icing and we would land with less/no flaps and a higher Vref to guard against a tail plane stall.

Concur on all. The airplane I am on hates to fly slow, and when it does it stalls and is virtually unrecoverable if your slow enough, no matter how much power and forward stick you throw at it. Tail plane stalls are not taught/discussed, however tailplane icing is a big issue, especially after one particular de-ice crew a few years back was afraid of heights and I shit you not would not raise the bucket up to put fluid to the tails. A lot of the companies airplanes were very close to uncontrollable with that situation, iced up tails and trying to takeoff.

 

[TAMR]

I don't think I'm posting "out my depths"... this is a discussion, can I not give me two cents? While I only have 100 or so SEL hours, I think the FAA/NTSB are fairly strong sources to cite...

I know there were talks about a tail plane stall during and after the case, but I hadn't heard much beyond that, so they may have dismissed it. I know the general "conclusion" about the Colgan flight was that the pilots were undertrained and fatigued; and we saw yet another example of the FAA's "tombestone technology".

 

[wlawr005]

Here it comes...

 

[wink]

Honestly, I think Oregon qualified his comments well enough and was careful to simply repeat what was said by authorities. In any case, learning has occurred.

 

[707guy]

especially after one particular de-ice crew a few years back was afraid of heights and I shit you not would not raise the bucket up to put fluid to the tails.

There is no excuse for that... If you can't handle the heights then you shouldn't have the job. Unfortunately I can see that happening with the mentality that goes into hiring ramp workers these days. "Pulse?" "Check!" "You've got the job!"

 

[HAL Pilot]

I don't think I'm posting "out my depths"... this is a discussion, can I not give me two cents?

My apologies. I was thinking you were also the poster who mentioned Colgan in conjunction with design flaws - but looking back I know see that was a different person.

 

[illinijoe05]

Word I heard from a person in the know was that this aircraft was in something called a deep stall. Even if normal stall recovery techniques had been used they would not have gotten out of it.

 

[FrankTheTank]

I agree with you, although I'm curious... Are there any FBW wide bodies that the control yokes don't move independent of each other? I only ask, because it seems as though if they did move together, it would be something to add to the crew's CRM decision making process... You know, "dude, the yoke is pushing against my belly, why don't you push it forward dumb ass?"

Airbus-300/310 Controls move together. I seem to remember the B-727 did also.

 

[Catmando]

The A300 and A310 use conventional mechanical flight controls.

However the Airbus A330-200 that was Air France 447 did not have such combined, conventional controls. Theirs were fly-by-wire side-stick control rather than yokes or mechanical controls, and were separate from each other.

 

[FrankTheTank]

The A300 and A310 use conventional mechanical flight controls.

However the Airbus A330-200 that was Air France 447 did not have such combined, conventional controls. Theirs were fly-by-wire side-stick control rather than yokes or mechanical controls, and were separate from each other.

Actually A300/310 is fly by wire also (no cables and pullies) but yes it does have a yoke and false feedback to give the feel of 'real' flight controls. But they do move in conjunction with each other.