Commercials pilots: stall warning, and they pull up!

[bongodriver]

You make it sound like you're a pilot with a major airline. Without looking into the details let me say one thing: I'm suprised that you say it's a gamble!

At that flight altitude with a stall warning - bad weather or not (should've been over-, underflown or avoided in the first place?) - it was only a gamble because they didn't do what would've been done ususally - either leveling out that plane OR descent to get out of that stall, or am I wrong there?

Would there be any reason to not descent until you get out of the stall or at least level it out before pulling the controls back?

I guess the age of safe travel is over until we get fully automated machines. Real people can't ever be good pilots by sitting there sleeping for the whole flight and only flying simulators back home to get some experience. That's not trained at all - it's the opposite.

No I'm Not, I fly Bizjets, but we all go through the same training....what difference would it make if I fly for a 'major airline' or not?
Why is it not a gamble? those guys found themselves in exeptional circumstances, with limited information, I don't need to fly for British airways to be able to say that whatever happened must have been extremely confusing for them and their actions were based on whatever information that lovely super-duper airbus computer alowed them to see.
as for replacing pilots......I'd like to see how you feel being replaced by a computer, thats what this world really needs isn't it?

[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.

[IvanK]

"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."

Err they got a darn sight more than just a Stall warning ... they got a whole series of conflicting warnings including many transient and erroneous airspeed readings/fluctuations and changes in flight control laws as well. That aside on the surface there apperrs to be some Human factors issues in that incident based on the interim report made after FDR and CVR evaluation.

http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol....mai2011.en.pdf

Like all accidents though its better to wait until the full investigation is complete before making sweeping statements.

For the record here are the memory recall items for a stall in the biggest bus:



As you can see AOA reduction is the first action.

[Madfish]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Fra...interim_report

Not sure which part of that I am unable to comprehend but by my logic they did wrong all they could. The only thing that would've been the right thing to do was to nose down. And that was even before the whole thing happened?

[IvanK]

A simple stall warning is pretty straight forward event to handle. In an Airbus aeroplane its also quite an exceptional event.

What they got was a bucket load of trouble, Multiple warnings, erratic airspeeds, and a change in Flight control laws to boot. It was not a simple event.... they had their hands full.

All will be revealed when the final report comes out.

[Anvilfolk]

I'm not so sure - I've not seen anything in these reports to indicate that any other sensors but speed were malfunctioning. I mean, the speed changed from 300kt to 60kt suddenly? Even if you don't notice such an absurd change, wouldn't you realize that you don't want to climb at 60kt?

According to the report, they were rolling around like crazy, 40 degrees and more. It doesn't seem it was because of their inputs, so it should've been obvious they were in a stall. They barely did nose-down inputs, mainly nose-up.

That's the thing that frightens me... you identify you are in a stall (or don't, despite what seems like relatively obvious signs), and your gut tells you to pull up?

[Blackdog_kt]

In case of pitot related malfunction you can get all sorts of weird and conflicting instrument readouts. There was a case, i think in Chile, where the instruments were displaying warnings for overspeed while the stick shaker was activated. What is this you might ask?

Well, since these aircraft are usually fitted with fly by wire or otherwise assisted controls, the pilots don't have the same kind of tactile control feedback that simpler rod and linkage controls allow. In a cessna you can feel the stall because the stall buffet transfers through the control linkages to the yoke, in a fly by wire system you can't. So, these airliners have a feature that simulates this by shaking the control column when they near a stall, it's like force feedback.

Apply that knowledge to the above example and you'll see that a malfunctioning pitot system caused an overspeed warning on the caution lights panel at the same time that the stick was telling pilots they were stalling.

My point being, things are not that cut and dry. Especially at the speeds and altitudes these things fly where it's not that easy to judge airspeed by eyeballing it and simply looking at the ground, not to mention that the accident i'm talking about also happened at night.

Pilots are trained to reduce AoA when approaching a stall. Some might have botched this at times, but for the most part if a pilot is pulling up with a stall warning in place he's probably got a reason for it: conflicting information that forces him to make a choice between two completely opposite scenarios.

If you get simultaneous overspeed and stall warnings with no other reliable means to confirm which one is wrong what do you do? Well, if you're high enough and know you can recover the particular plane from a stall, i'd say go ahead and stall it mildly. If you're wrong you'll just loose a few thousand feet of altitude and then you know the overspeed is a false alarm that you can disregard from that point on, if you're right and you don't take any action however you'll overspeed it and have it disintegrate in mid-air.

In other words, it's all highly situational. In low altitude flight and provided some form of speed perception is available by looking out the window, i'd say avoid the stall first.

The problem (at least according to what an airliner pilot told me) is not so much why they did what they did, but the fact that too many young pilots in airliners are conditioned to go through the motions mechanically and rely a lot on automation, instead of flying the plane first and foremost.

[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.