Commercials pilots: stall warning, and they pull up!

[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 This goes especially for military pilots which are basically outdated already and will be completely replaced by autonomous drones and remote controlled systems within the next 30 years I assume.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!!!

[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..

[TomcatViP]

Who are you to tell others to shut up ?

Yes it's a difficult job environment but does it means that we have to excuse any potential fails ? No !

By the way didn't they have a valid instrumented alt indication ?

Regarding icing conditions at low alt that's it's a totally different situation : it's an external factor !

[ruggbutt]

I have several airline pilots in my squadron, as well as a couple current fighter pilots (Hornets). The airline pilots are ex-fighter pilots as well. Anyhow, there has been a discussion on our squadron forums for quite a while about this. Especially about the Air France Airbus crash. Seems that all of the airlines are skimping on training to save money and hiring less experienced and lower pay grade guys while at the same time forcing higher paid/high hour guys to "retire". One of ours who flies for Northwest (now Delta) is retiring. We hear all about the charlie foxtrot that the airlines are now and commercial air travel is in worse shape than it was at the turn of the last century. You're going to see more crashes, more dead people and it will still be cheaper to pay off a lawsuit rather than pay for proper pilot training. Be it initial or ongoing refresher training.

It's not just the U.S. that is seeing this, one of ours is a 747 driver for Qantas. Same s**t, different airline and country.