Commercials pilots: stall warning, and they pull up!

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Madfish

You didn't answer my question. The information was alright - they got a stall warning and pulled up. Considering their altitude this was the most unlogical thing to do I believe. They could've just nosed down a bit and see if that levels the plane out, clears the stall warning or makes it accelerate. Pulling up is not a gamble - it's just stupid.


And why it makes a difference? Because those huge airliners behave like cargo ships compared to racing boats. They are not just a simple chessna with the weight of a fly. Also they carry hundres of passengers, not just 2 or a dozen. There is a HUGE difference of responsability and you'd expect only the elite of the elite to fly a REAL passenger plane.

These guys clearly made a mistake and were unable to cope with the situation. From what I've read they just acted on some panic feeling instead of going through real emergency procedures also. Not a very good sign.

As for replacing pilots completely, times change. People get replaced by better tools and computers all the time. Feelings have nothing to do with this. How do you think the families of the people who died on that flight feel?
Let me tell you straight: everyone would've felt better if there was 50 backup computers instead of 2 untrained pilots. The people who died. The families of the dead. The ocean that wouldn've have to get polluted once again. Air France if they didn't lose a multi million dollar plane. And also the pilots who wouldn't be ashamed if they lived through it.

I can't see a single reason why you'd try a nose up with a stall warning. It's like when my car's automatic brake system tells me on a highway I'm about to crash into a car ahead but I override it and I accelerate because I gamble that it might be wrong.

Of course.......because someone who doesn't fly anything always know better, what a troll!!

[Madfish]

I agree ruggbutt.

@Iku_es, aren't you a bit overprotective of the pilots?

The reason I am asking is because the alarm scenario you describe wasn't what that flight experienced. But even if they would have - the issue I still have is that I simply cannot think of any reason for a nose up but of many for a nose down. Is there actually a single reason for a nose up during a stall warning?.

Also please don't say that they have been scared by an alarm. Seriously, I may not be a pilot for a living but I got my fair share of experience with emergencies, even during flight. I don't want to disclose details but let me mention this: what do you think are they getting paid for? Trained for? So they can be scared when it counts? Even more of a clear sign that human pilots should be replaced as soon as possible.

I absolutely agree that is possible the pilots aren't the cause for the crash at all. What I'm saying is that from what the blackbox reveiled so far they didn't act according to what normal procedures would be and what you'd expect.

I'm just extremely interested in an actual reason for a nose up in that situation. You and for example IvanK defended the pilots behavior but on what basis? Procedures during a stall warning are as seen above: Nose down!
Collision with ground was highly unlikely when a plane exceeds its maximum permissable altitude I assume. So what kept them from nosing down? I simply cannot understand.

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Of course.......because someone who doesn't fly anything always know better, what a troll!!

Bongodriver, you're joking right? Why is it we always see the same defense to cover up for something that eventually killed hundreds? I wonder who is the troll here. Why can't you just kindly elaborate how they followed procedures and why a nose up was necessary, even breaking the max altitude?

Also I get the suspicion you're not even a real pilot. At least not one with deep knowledge and manners. After all you should know that most of the people who now analyze the crash aren't pilots either. Many of those are "just" stupid engineer "trolls". I guess you get the idea and why I'm interested in an actual answer.

I'm not saying they are the cause for the crash - I'm saying they didn't follow common sense from what I can tell and most likely also violated procedures.

As I mentioned above, and I probably asked for about 3 times already, I'm just highly interested why they'd nose up during stall warnings? I'm sure you are much wiser than I / we are so could you enlighten me on the subject instead of assaulting me verbally? That'd be amazing.

Also let me ask you this: would you trust a pilot that pulls the nose up during a stall at that altitude with absolutely no risk of ground collision? Why didn't they just mayday and descend?

Suspiciously every time someone jumps to defend the aircrew they never actually explain their behavior wich was obviously not leading to a safe landing of the plane and violating many procedures. IvanK even posted them. Is it because there is no real explanation or is it just so top secret that it cannot be shared?

[Iku_es]

Maybe you're right Madfish, maybe I'm being overprotective with the pilots, I dont't know.

The fact is that I'm tired of listening on the news, "experten" attacking pilots after an accident without a basis, people that know nothing about airplanes, selfproclaimed aviation experts.
I don't know if this happens in your country, but here in Spain it's very common. Everyone knows about everything and talks a lot about it (and they don't have a clue, of course). This makes me feel sick sometimes.

But as I said, we don't have the official crash report, we only know the information that was leaked.
Let the pro's establish the causes of the accident, and then we judge the pilots.

I'm not saying that the scenario I described before is what actually happened. It was only an scenario, that maybe fits, i don't know.

Also I expressed myself bad (english is not my native language), I wasn't trying to say that the alarm scared them, the alarm itself is not scary, it's designed to catch the atention of the pilots because something dangerous it's happening. The thing that would have scared me is the inconsistent readouts, and the overhelming situation.
I think is a rule in all emergencies, but if you panic you're dead. You need to calm down, assess the situation and act acordingly.
Emergency situations are trained in sims to avoid panic, and are mandatory

But as I've said sever times, we don't have enough information. We know the stall warning was triggerd several times and that it kept going on and off, and that the pilot keep pulling the stick.
But what about the rest of the info?
- ECAM messages: These messages are crucial in order to know why the pilots reacted the way they did.
- Autothrust status: Were the autothrust enabled or overrided? If overrided:
- Power settings: Were the engines in IDLE, Manual, MCT, CLB, TO/GA?
- Alarms/Warnings: Were more alarms triggered? Bank angle, overspeed, smoke in the lavatory?
- Altimeter status?

I'm also very interested in the reason for the nose up. No pilot will deliberately raise the nose during a stall, I'm sure of that. Its counter-intuitive and a suicide. Anyone who has attended to a flying lesson will confirm that this is repeated several times, and trained.
Every real life pilot, and most of the simpilots knows this.

The only emergency reason to pull up without risk of ground collision I can think about in this moment is overspeeding and approaching VNE.

Even more of a clear sign that human pilots should be replaced as soon as possible

You're joking, aren't you?. I'll never fly in a plane with no pilots aboard. As a software designer, i'll not trust my life 100% to a piece of software without and human backup, sorry, I can't.

[Madfish]

Hehe, don't worry about language - many of us aren't native english speakers either, including myself.

You're right about overspeeding. But that wasn't the case I'd assume - since they had reduced throttle because of turbulences.
Most likely there wasn't any altimeter problem either. (can still change but right now blackbox says altimeters were fine) But then again - how would the plane drop so fast? They must've know there was no way they were too low.

Much of the information you said we don't have is actually available already. The blackbox was analized and the reports reveal much of the info you request. Check the wikipedia link, sources are given there.
Of course, since it's not final, the situation can still change drastically. But it's very unlikely that the blackbox data will change that much.



Regarding human pilots though - what do we still need them for? All Airliners are fly by wire or optics. Humans don't fly the plane anymore - they only make decisions. Decisions that sometimes save or destroy the plane of course.
I'm very sure we'll have "pilots" for a long time still but the question is are they still pilots? In the past I'd have said yes but for the future...?

Some human input will probably always be necessary. But 90% of the pilots duties can be done by a computer and much more efficiently and safer. Even in emergencies - checklists like back in the old days? A computer could run them in under a second.

Further the probability of human error is actually extremely high. And even just driving a car you realize that concentration is a big problem already. Especially when you're basically just a passenger as well - sitting there and dozing off. Humans are by far the most critical element - both during the design process and also during the service time of course.

I believe the pilot of the future would have to be educated almost only in emergency situation management. Flying itself could be done by the computer.

So as it'd appear I'm the opposite of you regarding that. I'd very much prefer a computer over a human pilot. Of course this will still take a few years but I believe it's possible. And also I believe that the area of real influence that a pilot still has over a plane is shrinking more and more. This goes especially for military pilots which are basically outdated already and will be completely replaced by autonomous drones and remote controlled systems within the next 30 years I assume.

It'd be very interesting to see how many airliner accidents could've been prevented if a computer was controlling the plane. I know a few. Contrary it'd also be interesting to see how many accidents of computer failure didn't result in a crash because a human pilot saved the plane.

A great example this reminds me off was the hudson river incident. To my knowledge the pilot could've made it back to an airport but no one even questions his decision because things went well. Lucky pilot or just an ace? But then again, this was a gamble that, although surprisingly, went extremely well.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Madfish

I agree ruggbutt.

@Iku_es, aren't you a bit overprotective of the pilots?

The reason I am asking is because the alarm scenario you describe wasn't what that flight experienced. But even if they would have - the issue I still have is that I simply cannot think of any reason for a nose up but of many for a nose down. Is there actually a single reason for a nose up during a stall warning?.

Also please don't say that they have been scared by an alarm. Seriously, I may not be a pilot for a living but I got my fair share of experience with emergencies, even during flight. I don't want to disclose details but let me mention this: what do you think are they getting paid for? Trained for? So they can be scared when it counts? Even more of a clear sign that human pilots should be replaced as soon as possible.

I absolutely agree that is possible the pilots aren't the cause for the crash at all. What I'm saying is that from what the blackbox reveiled so far they didn't act according to what normal procedures would be and what you'd expect.

I'm just extremely interested in an actual reason for a nose up in that situation. You and for example IvanK defended the pilots behavior but on what basis? Procedures during a stall warning are as seen above: Nose down!
Collision with ground was highly unlikely when a plane exceeds its maximum permissable altitude I assume. So what kept them from nosing down? I simply cannot understand.



Bongodriver, you're joking right? Why is it we always see the same defense to cover up for something that eventually killed hundreds? I wonder who is the troll here. Why can't you just kindly elaborate how they followed procedures and why a nose up was necessary, even breaking the max altitude?

Also I get the suspicion you're not even a real pilot. At least not one with deep knowledge and manners. After all you should know that most of the people who now analyze the crash aren't pilots either. Many of those are "just" stupid engineer "trolls". I guess you get the idea and why I'm interested in an actual answer.

I'm not saying they are the cause for the crash - I'm saying they didn't follow common sense from what I can tell and most likely also violated procedures.

As I mentioned above, and I probably asked for about 3 times already, I'm just highly interested why they'd nose up during stall warnings? I'm sure you are much wiser than I / we are so could you enlighten me on the subject instead of assaulting me verbally? That'd be amazing.

Also let me ask you this: would you trust a pilot that pulls the nose up during a stall at that altitude with absolutely no risk of ground collision? Why didn't they just mayday and descend?

Suspiciously every time someone jumps to defend the aircrew they never actually explain their behavior wich was obviously not leading to a safe landing of the plane and violating many procedures. IvanK even posted them. Is it because there is no real explanation or is it just so top secret that it cannot be shared?

Madfish......The main reason nobody is explaining this to you is because like 'most' sensible people we will wait for the 'official' report on exactly what happened, if you really want me to tell you why they 'pulled up' then I'm sorry I can't, but I can tell you that any pilot will not 'pull up' if the only situation he is faced with is a stall, but the Air France incident is much more than just a 'stall', they encountered something much more elaborate and were being fed information (in all probabbility) that was conflicting and they were left to make action on a 'best guess' basis (that is why I used the analogy of a gamble)
I personally don't care if you believe I'm a pilot or not and won't waste any time trying to convince you, but I will explain that 'pulling up' during a stall is not the biggest mistake, in actual fact 'most' aircraft will suffer no ill effects from keeping the stick back in a stall, all that happens is the aircraft remains in a stalled condition and descends at a highish rate.....but if you put a rudder input in in this condition then you 'could' induce a spin, I have stalled the Learjet in real life (not in the sim) and it is a pussycat in the stall, I can't honestly say I have flown any aircraft that has undesireable stall effects, but I have flow a few that will kill you if you don't handle the spin correctly.

[bongodriver]

Oh and on the subject of replacing pilots with computers........I pray to god it never happens, and that is not because I am frightened to lose my job, if you believe the technology being developed is primarily for safety then think again, it is really designed to save money, automation is saving the airlines huge amounts of money because it fly's the aircraft marginally more efficiently than a real pilot, fly-by-wire's main benefit is to save weight....nothing to do with saving lives....just money....again, computers fail, that is why there are at least 7 in the Airbus but you only need 2 pilots, what if the aircraft is hit by lightning?......trust me, regardless of all the bonding the avionics are not immune.....zap and all 7 shiny computers are a box of junk, do you think that a computer would have had the judgement and skill to put an airbus into the Hudson river after a double flameout?....NOPE!!!

[el0375]

very nice and informative thread, thanks to all

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

do you think that a computer would have had the judgement and skill to put an airbus into the Hudson river after a double flameout?....NOPE!!!

I guess it will just send an email to the company lawyers saying : Time to Fire UP !

@Ikus :
Thousands of pilots are saying that it was strange they did this pull up , it might be time to stop arguing it was not. Air France is a great company, Airbus have done some great design in the past but my own butt is and the ones of the hundreds of passengers in back of that plane hve surely been reliable enough to makes them understand how horrific was the situation for those interminable seconds.

That is my point : they should hve know they were stalling. If they didn't then their competencies are questionable. If they did hence the situation was far more complex than false instruments indications or ill designed Pitot with even the some of the flight automation ctrl being questionable.

Last but not least, the fact that the crash site was discovered only days after Airbush loose the Tanker contest is also questionable.

Like all the others here, MadFish, RuggButt, MadDog, Bongo (sry if I forgot some) I think that it is a freaking concerning case of accident just like were the series of strange flame-out a couple of years ago. Also the problem of the "Experteen" as you mentioned it is not that of the ones on the internet community or any stupid bloggers. It's the ones in the real world that have the same financial interests or jobs etc.. (refer to my earlier post)

Personally I don't like experts. I am a Cartesian and like to doubt even of my own thinking.

~S!

Wow - interesting thread.

The black box data has been released and won't change, unless it is determined to be faulty (not likely).

Soooooo

My gut reaction (as a private pilot and airbus mechanic) is that the bad airspeed indication gave them the impression that the ENTIRE pitot/static system (or just the static) was unreliable (airspeed, altitude, rate of climb) but only the pitot system (airspeed) was. They may have remembered the 757 in South America that went down due to blocked static ports. This would explain why they didn't seem to react too adversely to the dropping altitude (125mph straight down, 107mph forward, with the nose up more than 15 degrees). But then, why react (either way, let alone backwards) to the stall warning?

The AoA and ball (attitude indicator) should have been used to keep nose pointed at the horizon at a reasonable speed while they pursued the pitot/static problem. My instrument instructor back in the '70s hammered home a fundamental instrument scan along with instrument cross checking - he was always throwing instrument failure(s) at me as well as discussing how to determine different failures (he was very old school). It just seems like if they had refly and a moment they would have easily gotten it right the second time.

For anyone who is nervous about Airbus fly-by-wire ... the 787 will be be a real eye-opener.

PS. these planes are hit ALL THE TIME by lightning - I helped work 28 individual lightning strikes on a 320 a while back, and we had another one with over 100. (Once we had a 757 lose a radome in flight due to lightning.)

[Davinci..]

Originally Posted by Madfish

I simply cannot think of any reason for a nose up but of many for a nose down. Is there actually a single reason for a nose up during a stall warning?.

I absolutely agree that is possible the pilots aren't the cause for the crash at all. What I'm saying is that from what the blackbox reveiled so far they didn't act according to what normal procedures would be and what you'd expect.

I'm just extremely interested in an actual reason for a nose up in that situation. You and for example IvanK defended the pilots behavior but on what basis? Procedures during a stall warning are as seen above: Nose down!

This is exactly why Bongo is suggesting people who aren't pilots(ie, desktop pilots), have absolutely zero place commenting on issues like this..

Cant think of one situation why you would pull up during a stall.. skip to 1:20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1daPJJKhEE#t=01m20s

This video deals primarily with turbo props, and icing(which was likely what happened in Buffalo). Now, do i think this is what the pilots in this case were doing/thinking.. No.. but I think you could see, knowing what you are talking about, and not knowing what you are talking about(cant think of a single reason to pull up during a stall), are very different things..

Those pilots had a tremendous amount of information being thrown at them. And most of it, was miss-information, that simply didn't make any sense. A blocked pitot tube is a horrible thing, compound that with IFR conditions, and you've got a real mess on your hands..

From the wiki page on the incident
"Roughly 20 seconds later, the pilot decreased the plane's pitch slightly, air speed indications became valid and the stall warning sounded again and sounded intermittently for the remaining duration of the flight, but stopped when the pilot increased the plane's nose-up pitch."

Here is a situation where, pitching up stops the stall warning, and dropping the nose restarts the stall warning, no valid airspeed data, and no visual reference to tell what is right, and what is wrong. You think there is a textbook solution to this? Hindsight is 20/20, and armchair pilots have the luxury of it.. These guys didn't..

If you aren't a pilot, you should probably keep quiet, because there is a damn good chance you don't have a clue what you are talking about(especially what these guys went through). After all, you cant think of a single situation where you would pull up in a stall..