Let's nip it in the bud right now and stop using that phrase, shall we?
Deep stall is only possible with T-type tailplane.
Posted on 05/23/2011 6:36:43 AM PDT by libh8er
What happened on board the Air France jet that crashed into the Atlantic en route from Rio to Paris? According to information obtained by SPIEGEL from the analysis of flight recorder data, pilot Marc Dubois appears not to have been in the cockpit at the time the deadly accident started to unfold.
The fate of Air France Flight 447 was sealed in just four minutes. That short time span began with the first warning message on one of the Airbus A330 aircraft's monitors and ended with the plane crashing into the Atlantic between Brazil and Africa, killing all 228 people on board.
Since last week, investigators from France's BEA civil aviation safety bureau have been analyzing the flight data and voice recordings extracted from the cockpit of the Air France flight that crashed on June 1, 2009 while traveling from Rio de Janeiro to Paris. What they have learned from the recordings seems to suggest both technical and human failure.
Sources close to the investigative team have revealed that the recordings indicate that Marc Dubois, the aircraft's 58-year-old pilot, was not in the cockpit at the time the trouble began. It is reportedly audible that Dubois rushed back into the cockpit. "He called instructions to the two co-pilots on how to save the aircraft," the source with inside knowledge of the investigation told SPIEGEL.
But their attempts to save the plane were ultimately in vain.
At the beginning of May, underwater robots were able to retrieve the flight recorders from the wreckage almost four kilometers (2.5 miles) below the surface of the Sargasso Sea. Two weekends ago, investigators succeeded in extracting data from the black boxes. Within 24 hours, reports were circulating suggesting that the crash seemed more likely the result of pilot error than a manufacturing flaw by Airbus.
(Excerpt) Read more at spiegel.de ...
“Technically”, meaning legally and factually, they had enough fuel to reach their destination with required reserves on their reclear flight plan. Deviations enroute for weather might put them below their reclear point fuel but in that instance they are required, by their FAA equivalent, to proceed to their reclear destination and refuel.
So, not only is your assumption that they flew into the area of bad weather because of an insufficient fuel state wrong but your assertion they did it because their “bosses” would be pissed at them flies in the face of regulatory requirements that they comply with the rules regarding reclear flight plans.
You've still got the fact that AF 447 tried to pick its way through a weather system that other flights went around.
Once upon a time you pressed your foot on the accelerator and that force open the throttle through a simple mechanical linkage;now your car computer reads a sensor and calculates the pedal position and sends a signal to the injector system.Lots more stuff to go wrong;that it doesn't go wrong more often is a testament to good engineering.
I have a question. If an Airbus flight computer suffers the blue screen of death is it still possible to fly the aircraft? If the aircraft maintained a +5 degree pitch all the way down to the ocean why didn’t the PIC or co-pilot just put the nose down a little to get out of the stall? If the controls were locked up because of the flight computer was malfunctioning then there was nothing the pilots could do except press the reset button.
As far as I know you can still fly a Boeing jet even if the flight computer is not functioning, correct?
The first place where the cascade of error messages (sent automatically by the aircraft down to the ground) was a problem with one of the toilets. Maybe the captain had some really, really bad gas.
Let's nip it in the bud right now and stop using that phrase, shall we?
Deep stall is only possible with T-type tailplane.
I understand what you are saying; we own a Cherokee which I would argue is probably easier to fly than any of the other planes you just mentioned. But, actually it has been proved repeatedly by scores of pilots that it is fairly easy to lose control of almost any aircraft. All you have to do is pull the yolk all the way back and apply full rudder.
You can't do that in a stock “spin proof” Ercoupe since they don't have rudder pedals, but you can still fly it into a cloud ... get disoriented and inadvertently point the nose toward terra-firma.
I live on an airpark (a small airport with houses built around it). I personally have known several “pilots” over the years who have managed to permanently escape the limitations of this imperfect physical world. In most cases all it took was just a small amount of overconfidence in their aircraft or their abilities. I have shared similar personality traits so but for the grace of God go I. I like to think that most of them are still experiencing the joys of flight in a place where the laws of gravity and aerodynamics no longer can cause an abrupt end to what should have been another fun day of flying.
I remember when I was first getting into hang gliding; I had explained to my skeptical new bride how safe it really was. I thought it would be a good idea to take her to the Cloud Base Country Club monthly meeting to introduce her to some fellow pilots. Unfortunately it had been a turbulent spring. The Shakeys Pizza Parlor felt like eerily similar to a hospital ward from a Marx Brothers movie. It seemed like every other person was being wheeled in with one limb or another in some sort of traction. She is very courageous... so I still managed to get her 5000 feet over launch under a tandem hang glider.
Fortunately for me since that time my wife has been my constant flying companion. She brings up the Pizza Parlor when I start making risky decisions. I can't help but wonder if she couldn't have helped the crew of the ill fated Airbus. I suspect that the sequence of events leading to the incident started much earlier than when the captain had to leave the cockpit for a potty break.
I’m guessing it was due more to complacency than to a desire to make their reclear point with required fuel but only the CVR will tell the tale. If it is ever made public.
“They should have been flying to plane instead of dorking around with computer reboots.”
Except with the Airbus the computer is what flies the plane. There is no direct controls to engine/control surfaces interaction. If that flight computer fails then so does the ability to control the aircraft.
If you could see the booger eating morons that develop flight computers you would never get on an airplane.
The Cub is the safest airplane in the world; it can just barely kill you. Attributed to Max Stanley, Northrop test pilot
The Speigel article reports that data from the FDR indicates the plane attempted to steer around the storms.
“But the flight path recorded by the black box reportedly shows that the crew had been trying to find the safest possible path through the storm front. They initially appear to have succeeded as the flight data doesn’t contain any evidence of more severe turbulence.”
That’s what *I* thought as well. The elevator/elevon can’t steer the aircraft, in a T-tail plane in a “deep stall”.
That’s why I made that comment about the text in that illustration.
But supposedly fly by wire planes (F-16s for example) can get in a flat stall like situation because the computer can’t figure out how to fly the inherently unstable airframe.
Again, I am VFR, single engine, head-out-the-cockpit. Low and slow works great for me.
Why waste fuel getting to 2000 AGL???
As you suggest, too many pilots void the ground contact warranty by being fixated on what they are looking at on the ground in a slow turn.
Slow speed stall. Insufficient airspeed and altitude to recover.
You can even do that in a 152 — essentially a powered glider — but it’s hard.
Short wing Tri-Pacer was different ‘cuz it had a steep low power glide slope. Had to pay a little attention to power settings and air speed when you landed that one!
You have provided a good illustration and while technically your argument is correct; I consider it to be somewhat irrelevant. There are so many variables that even with all of the theory, engineering and testing... it is still not possible to predict every scenario that a pilot can get an aircraft into.
When I was taking spin training. I asked the instructor what would happen if I didn't take the proper corrective action. She was an award winning aerobatic pilot, but she admitted that in the plane we were in that she didn't know. One would reasonably assume that the plane would keep spinning until it hit the ground. Actually in the aerobatic plane we were flying... after rotating half a dozen times the plane picked up enough speed to start flying again and we had actually lost less altitude than we did when using the proper procedure.
It is possible that another student and instructor in the same plane who weighed less than we did could have tried the same thing on a hotter day and the plane might have gone into an unrecoverable flat spin. It is not very likely. I would be careful about speaking in absolutes when discussing aviation. For what ever reason the crew was not able to recover from the situation they placed themselves in. I hope that something can be learned from this situation that will help avoid future tragedies.
Flight path data for other aircraft flying through that airspace show that they gave the storms a much wider berth than the Air France flight did. Picking your way between cells is very different than flying around the line of storms. Much trickier.
Also, a BIG storm in your RADAR’s line of sight will obscure the next one behind it etc. You don’t know what you are really flying into.
IIRC, some of these storms had tops up over 50,000 feet.
As a VFR pilot, a 180 is my best friend.
The pitot tubes are heated to prevent them from icing. I am also sure there is redundancy in the system and procedures already in place to prevent or correct instrument failure. Don’t assume that those of us discussing this are “smarter” than the aircraft designers. Although this plane is the result of a partnership between a government and industry so that in itself could be a recipe for trouble.
Bingo
180 is a nice plane. I don’t get to enjoy light plane flying as much as I would like. You’re a very lucky person.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.