The BEA is too closely linked, or should we say, part of the French government, to be trusted with an unbiased report.
Have no doubt, the French government wants nothing to affect sales, especially from a company, EADS, in which it has a controlling interest.
And, it may not be a mystery most if not all incidents involving Airbus aircraft are blamed squarely on their pilots and others and rarely the manufacturer. No less, in all their hubris, Airbus aircraft are the best!!
The number of factors that added to this accident is huge, and the comments character limit precludes going into enough detail to do the subject justice.
Training, experience requirements, tardy maintenance by Air France (known-to-be-faulty pitot tubes), weather, lack of weather avoidance, and design characteristics of the Scarebus that may have added to the confusion are all factors. Modern Boeings are also fly-by-wire, but the 'rules' are much different.
They thought they were flying. They thought the gages were wrong. Remember there had never been a crash like this one in Aviation history, I'm pretty sure. Technically u could say they were falling, but they had level wings all the way down. RIP
@PInk77W1 never been a crash like this in aviation History? in what way? ...They had level wings becuase allegedly they were close to manouvering out of the stall...they may have only needed 500ft? 1000ft? extra to regain control of the plane...a real shame
Wrong. Fail. It would be OK if your tone weren't so snotty, but you are badly misinformed, so be quiet. The wings were not quite level, but reportedly more-or-less level due to the excellent flight characteristics of this airplane. The PF (pilot flying) wasted most of his efforts on controlling roll (as he held the stick full back, hardly the correct stall recovery technique). In addition, trim was almost full-up (is still automatic in ALT 2), unnoticed in the cockpit.
@organfreak well i think the AS (air speed) was too low so as this report said (ATRS). According to the TPS report filed by the NTSB, comments that include plenty of acronyms sound intelligent without actually stating or proving anything....pardon my snotty tone. IBQN (I'll be quiet now)
@organfreak who trained those guys? I thought pointing the nose down would increase airspeed...but what would i know. What happened to the stall warning STALL STALL STALL...?
Training protocols are being reconsidered as a result of this accident. Stall training had been limited to takeoff and landing stalls (such as windshear), and the techniques are different from those needed for an upset at high speed and altitude. Pilots seldom hand-fly in cruise, they rely on the autopilots, and are actually forbidden by some airlines to practice hand flying in cuise. The stall warning turned off when he pulled up b/c it won't function @ speed below 60Kts.
@1greenMitsi no widebody has ever flown into the middle of any ocean because the pilot didnt know what to do as far as i have ever heard. A perfectly good airplane.
@PInk77W1 dude, when a plane stalls it means the plane has lost enough air speed for there to be no lift from its wings. when this happens, it free falls at 9.8 m/s acceleration until it reaches terminal velocity (doubt it does with an airplane).
I find it hilarious that your original comment is a top comment. God bless America :)
@1greenMitsi AF447 didnt "free fall"... read the report...... AF447 hit the water at 110mph.
PSA 1771 hit the earth at 700mph..... u do the math. basically the pilot flew the plane into the ocean. he killed 228people including his wife. basically he froze under pressure.
Spacial disorientation kills more pilots than anything. They did still have the artificial horizon though. I often wonder why airliners don't have a cruise speed bug on the throttle quadrant. At anyrate in the flat stall, recovery was unlikely. A ballistic chute may have saved them and it could be done. what "cost" do you put on passengers lives.
Harry Smith, you are missed. CBS News has further dipped into oblivian since your departure. Edward Murrow is spinning in his grave at 9000 RPM since the 1980s.
@oomblikkies Negative. You have to understand GPS only uses ground speed. What we call True Air Speed (TAS) is what a pilot or autopilot needs to ascertain if theyre going fast enough not to stall.
@oomblikkies that's because the space shuttle doesnt need to take any airspeed consideration since it doesn't use its wing for lift when it launches. An aircraft needs a certain speed of flow over its wings not to stall. At cruise altitude the difference of ground speed between head-wind and tail-wind can easily be past 100 knots. Alot of light aircraft can take-off at 80 knots so you understand what a massive difference it can make. I'd go into further detail but have no space left
The "pilots" aboard this aicraft were either extemely incompetent or deliberatly trying to crash the plane. Nobody would hold the nose up during a stall or refuse to look at their instruments. There is a difference between 5,000 hours of flight time and 4,999 hours sitting in the cockpit scratching your ass while on autopilot and 1 hour flying the fucking plane!
It's amazing to see all the arm chair pilots out there passing quick judgement. Some are actually pilots I'm sure, but flying an aircraft at high altitudes is very different and very difficult. Especially an Airbus. It is so difficult it is rarely done and almost never done with out auto thrust engaged even it smooth air. I personally don't have experience at high alt. but I have many friends that do. A quote from one of the highest time A330 pilots in the world follows...
@pietenpol2010 Here is the quote: "Taking into consideration that Air France 447 was at FL 350 (where the safe speed envelope is relatively narrow), that they were in the weather at night with no visible horizon, and that they were likely experiencing at least moderate turbulence, it does not surprise me in the least that the pilots lost control of the aircraft shortly after the autopilot and autothrust disconnected."
@excelerater A quote from one of the higest time airbus pilots in the world..."Despite all of my experience in the aircraft, I am not the least bit certain that I would have been able to maintain control under the same circumstances. I do feel certain that were you to spring this scenario on pilots in a simulator without warning less than half of them would have a successful outcome." Was it the design or training to blame? Probably both. The FAA has even said as much.
@launchsa is partially correct- Airbus pilots should pull up under Normal (fly-by-wire) Law. The aircraft should never stall and would simply auto-increase thrust to compensate. Unfortunately, because of the pitot issue earlier, the aircraft switched to Alternate Law which means that the co-pilot should have descended to gain speed before levelling out. Its a cluster fuck and make no mistake.
I think that while pitot tube failures may have started the crisis, it was the pilots not knowing how their flight systems actually worked that eventually killed them. From the interim report. They were flying too slowly (stalled). Push stick forward, valid data, stall warning sounds. Pull back stick, Invalid data, warning stops. If they appreciated that how the flight comp reacted to valid/invalid data, they might have been coped with the stall, if they did it quickly enough.
The real culprit in all this is AirFrance that A: ignored their own pilots warning them about the pitot tubes and B: not maintaining a training routine and level that is appropriate for the a3x0 airbus series.
AirFrance should be skinned alive in settlements for this outright manslaughter of 200+ innocent people.
@Foxx1981 "Taking into consideration that Air France 447 was at FL 350 (where the safe speed envelope is relatively narrow), that they were in the weather at night with no visible horizon, and that they were likely experiencing at least moderate turbulence, it does not surprise me in the least that the pilots lost control of the aircraft shortly after the autopilot and autothrust disconnected." A quote from one of the highest time A330 pilots in the world.
Jesus, imagine what the passengers were thinking with just minutes to live. I would grab the first chick next to me and fuck her like no tomorrow, I think we'd both share that opinion.
@lukefinch101 I agree! I was confused about the whole recreation of it! The CA seat is on the left, the FO seat is on the right. They had it backwards in the video, I was confused. There is a difference between three bars and four bars!
This shows that technology is not beneficial to airplane pilots and I suggest that all pilots that go to training school learn the basics of flying a plane like a DC-6 without modern computer instruments to guide them so they can actually learn to fly a plane instead of flying a plane by computers. Computers are not beneficial to pilots. Sullenberger didn't start flying Airbus A330's when he started. He started on the old planes. That is how you learn how to fly, and it's not with computers.
I have seen the documentary. It seems like the pitot tubes got iced over by supercooled water at an altitude of 35,000 ft. The supercooled water froze the pitot tube, and when the pitot tubes failed almost everything in the cockpit failed with it. When the instruments were down the co pilot reacted, and stalled the plane instead of increasing speed with the throttle lever, and raising an angle of 5 degrees to allow the plane to fly at a stable rate to the nearest airport. This doomed everyone.
the pilots did all they could with the training they had. They are NOT to blame ...they were not even flying blind...worse they were flying with faulty readings on all their displays...since the crash air France and many other carriers have retrained their crews in high alt stalls as well as corrected pitot systems
Not an ideal situation to be faced with,but the pilots should have done better. Setting power and attitude to keep the plane flying should have been their first priority.
This is probably the most informative short video on the nightmarish conditions of this crash. I skimmed through the long accident report just released on this crash. They were unable to recover from the stall. There seemed to be a lack of urgency among the 2 pilots and the captain was out of the cockpit for too long when the crisis started. I am confused from a comment the captain made to one of the co pilots before he went on break. He asked him if he had a commerical pilots license?
"the aircraft was descending at a high rate of speed causing tremendous G force" what a dumb guy this is. Descending at a high rate of speed casues no G force.
G force is caused by acceleration not speed. i am a high school drop out and even i know this.
@PInk77W1 Listening again he says: "[..] descending at a high rate of speed, tremendous G-force [...]" He does not say "causing". He was perhaps just indicating a list of bad things the passengers may have been experiencing in a sound-bite friendly way. Mabye high-G forces just before impact? The recording apparently show some fleeting attempts to gain airspeed then pull up just before impact.
After 37 years associated with the Air Force (Reserve), you'd HOPE he'd have half-clued!
@PInk77W1 I am sure he was referring to the negative G-forces produced as the airplane free fell from the sky, during a stall the airplane continuously accelerates and decelerates causing great discomfort to the occupants, it never an event that goes unnoticed.
@PInk77W1 I believe he was referencing the accelerations encountered due to rapid changes in pitch and the rolling that occurred upon aerodynamic stall. He could also be referencing the _significant_ acceleration encountered upon impact.
@PInk77W1 negative g forces are created when you drop at a high rate of speed. It's the feeling of weightlessness. Positive G's are created by acceleration that pushes the body down towards the ground or back into your seat.
@PInk77W1 A plane accelerating towards the deck at a high velocity as AF447 will cause negative vertical g forces to be felt by the passengers. I am not a high school drop out and even I know this.
In fact, the acceleration downwards was quite quick and apparently went completely unnoticed by all three pilots! (If they had felt that, they would have immediately started stall-recovery procedures.) Once terminal velocity is reached (quickly) it cannot fall any faster, and so after that, there are no more G forces to feel. Pink77W1 is correct.
@organfreak they WERE in stall recovery...because the plane had stalled!! are you saying the 10,000 ft/min fall (because of the stall) went unnoticed? what are you smoking man? troll yes?
As a matter of fact, I'm smoking a fine, PacNW backyard strain, but nonetheless, I know exactly what I'm talking about. I've read all the BEA reports and am spending lots of time reading the PPRuNe forum threads-- thousands of posts from mostly professionals. It is widely agreed in those forums that the stall, unbelievably, remained unrecognized until the very last moments, when ND inputs were made at last, far too late. Troll no. I like facts, and they were NOT in recovery, no!
Acceleration to terminal velocity (can't go any faster) was quite rapid (the pilots never commented on it!) and after that, no sensation of falling at all. There were, however, lots of rolls, some of them quite steep, so it was likely a very scary ride. Don't forget, nobody could see anything out the windows.
@organfreak ru saying that a jetliner carrying 228 passengers and weighing god knows how many tons was reached terminal velocity in its fall? and quite rapid?? please divulge on how u came to that conclusion or your sources
My sources are anonymous professional pilots posting to a forum, once again, called "PPRuNe," but these facts are not in dispute by any of those folks. It's simple laws of physics/motion.
@organfreak simple laws of physics? I think thats what you need to re-visit....a LIGHT body mass like a feather will reach terminal velocity 'quite rapidly'....something heavy will keep accelerating at the earths gravitational pull. Physics 1.01
'The basic rules of thumb, though, are that objects will have a higher terminal velocity when: there is more of it, making a heavier weight; the density of the gas it’s falling through is lower, as in upper atmosphere; the object has a lower drag coefficient, meaning it has been built to be more streamlined, like a raindrop; or there is less area to drag, usually meaning the object is more dense.'
Once you grab the report, look at the charts in Appendix 4 beginning on page 106 (BEA's page numbering, not Acrobat's) The entire vertical acceleration graph for the accident is the blue line 3rd from the bottom.
@PInk77W1 yep, but he is thinking about the high drama required to maximise news ratings, and also there will be as much money to be claimed in compensation. it all makes good sense.
The plane stalled so was falling toward the earth at the earth's gravitational pull, accelerating at a rate of 9.8 m/s. Thats why if a person jumps off a high enough building, they pass out before they hit the ground (pardon the example)...& yes i did go to college :)
@PInk77W1 it was not falling per se? 'falling 10,000 ft/min'?...'dropped from 5 miles'? sounds and looks as if it lost a bit of height to me...without reading the official report
@organfreak it didnt fall in the traditional sense. it more or less flew into the ocean. Usually a plane that "falls" is broken. This plane was perfectly capable of flying except for the pilot pulling back on the stick for 3.5 minutes.
I'm sorry, but that's just incorrect. The airplane was fully stalled and fell 38,000 to the water. Get BEA interim report No3, it's available for download, and read it. I have. Yes, the plane "was capable of flying," but only if stall recovery was initiated, and early-on. They never even recognized the stall. No moon, no light, no visible horizon....and they had no idea which instruments were lying and which ones to trust.
Well done ABC. Just when I was about to give up on American Journalism, someone got it right. Yeah, they missed the side stick...big deal. The pertinent facts are there without over dramatization.
Another quote from the same pilot: "Unfortunately, airline pilots rarely practice hand-flying at high altitude, and almost never do so without autothrust engaged. As a result, we forget that the aircraft is very sensitive to control inputs at high altitude, and overcontrol is the usual result. Because the Airbus sidestick provides no feedback "feel" to the pilot, this problem is dramatically compounded in this aircraft."
As a check pilot for a major airline, sitting here at 1g and 0 knots, it's clear that this crew did not have the proper training to recognize and recover from this stall. Hopefully, the industry will smell the coffee and encourage more hand flying in glass cockpits while incorporating high altitude stall recovery training.
@jaxfr8dog question for u... if the PF would of pushed down on the stick do u think they would of survived? For your info i am a complete layman. Thx much
@pietenpol2010 Yep. I think Dr Kathy Abbott, Human factors specialist for the FAA sums it up nicely. "Failure assessment is difficult, failure recovery is difficult, and the failure modes were not anticipated by the designers."
I'm not an expert, but had the co-pilot followed the unrealiable airspeed procedure, the stall would've never happened. It's not only hindsight, because Air France has had more than a couple of these kinds of situations in the past two years, and I bet it's not a coincidence that other airliners don't face the same problems. (Lack of proper training?)
From one of the highest time A330 pilots in the world: "Despite all of my experience in the aircraft, I am not the least bit certain that I would have been able to maintain control under the same circumstances. I do feel certain that were you to spring this scenario on pilots in a simulator without warning less than half of them would have a successful outcome." Something to think about.
Even the pitot tubes had malfunction, didn't the pilots has some sense of speed based on the throttle? When you have a stall warning, why don't you increase the speed? How miserable that a pilot has to rely on instrument 100%
The animation artists had no idea how an Airbus look like. Airbuses have joy-stick type of control, instead of control column. This looks more like a Boeing.
I have a question. From what I've been reading, the plane appeared to reach a point called 'coffin corner', where the minimum speed needed for the plane to stall (low speed stall) and the maximum speed needed for a stall (also called a high speed stall) are just marginal, which is common at high altitudes.
Could it be the pilot got the stall warning when pitching nose down (since it was going too fast and stalled), and pulled back up thinking this would alleviate the stall?
Faulty equipment. As if someone can tell the difference between 120 mph and 500 mph when in a storm with no visibility. How can the pilots handle the situation when their equipment isn't telling them what's wrong?
The pilots are trained to pull up in a stall warning. watch?v=cggDnHVDoCA
Airbus does not want their planes to be the blame of the crash as they will lose big orders. Buggy software and Pitot tube failure in a storm caused the crash. rely completely on software flying the plane and in total control
@adriebm the pitot tubes were being replaced and this plane was due to be retrofitted in a couple of months.That's not good enough.If there is a known problem with an aircraft then it is the duty of the airline company to make their pilots aware of what is going on and to ,at least,give some kind of training how to react to a failure of this component.
@launchsa they were pullin up to test a new system on the A320 that when the stall warning goes off, the thrust is automaticaly put into 100% to give the plane extra power. Most pilots are trained to pitch down, and give thrust to the aircraft to gain more speed, if they are not equipped with tht type of equipment.
@launchsa No. The fact that one of the copilots pulled up despite the stall warning is exactly what caused this crash. The co pilot pulled up and a stall warning sounded which was ignored. The co pilot continued continued nose up inputs and the plane stalled at 38,000 feet. The plane started to descend in a stall.
@LtMercutio The engines were near maximum thrust but because a co pilot continued nose up inputs the plane's angle of attack was approximately 30 to 40 degrees and so the plane remained stalled for the 3 minutes it took to for the plane to fall from 38000 feet to the ocean. The crash was caused by human error in causing and then failing to recognize a stall despite obvious stall warnings.
With time constraints, this CBS report didn't tell the whole story. There is a 4 part series that explains it all. So much automation and less actual pilot experience flying the planes. They could have gotten out of the stall - if they had the experience.
air france should go out of business... two pilot error crashes on the most modern and safest aircraft ever made within a couple of years!!!??? fuck that company dude
@angryman1007 But was company training responsible for the pilots making the errors? And out of how many flights? Air France is one of the world's largest airlines.
The Toronto flight crash occurred in 2005, and the Rio flight in 2009
@VicenteMosin dunno man.. they have a tendency of inexcusable fuck ups on aircraft with practically spotless safety records. and two pilot error crashes is in four years is way more than most other large airlines.
She said the pitots where faulty. Were they? I think I remember there being lots of incidents with bad pitots on airbus' and they were rolling out replacements... but in this case the pitots were likely completely frozen but suspected supercooled water in the storm system they were flying into... surely that's design flaw not a faulty pitot. Maybe totally wrong.
@rewindablender It is possible to have 2 co-pilots along wiht a captain on certain long haul flights such as this one here. At the time of the accident, the captain was resting, so the 2 co-pilots were monitoring the autopilot of the aircraft. This is why you can find seat/s behind the seats of the captain and the first officer, I think they're called "jumpseats" I'm not sure, but yes, there can be up to 3 flight crews on board an aircraft, so no this wasn't poor research, as you thought it was.
Typically two of the flight crew fly from takeoff. One goes to bed, and the relief crewperson comes in. Then towards the end the other guy is replaced, and the two there land the plain.
As many have pointed out, this video is inaccurate. The airbus has a side stick, not a yoke. This is poor research from the tv company that produced this video.
The only way to learn is through real experience. But what can be taught (and clearly isn't emphasised enough or taught extensively to pilots) are the procedures needed to prevent a disaster like this from happening. Most airline pilots get very little training when it comes to manual flight, 90 % of it s automated using the Flight Management Computer in combination with the auto pilot. When it comes to crunch time, they plainly don't know what to do!
Sadly, any attempt at this happened way to late and as a result the aircraft plummeted to the sea at 10000 feet per minute - horrific for anyone on board. The problem with modern airliners is that there's too much emphasis on automated flight. You can't teach an Air Transport Pilot (Airline Pilot) to stall in a simulator... In fact it isn't taught at all, because the simulator isn't able to simulate the rapid, aggressive movements of a stall.
The first thing the pilots should have done was to pitch the nose forward, thereby regaining air flow over the wings and averting the stall. Then the throttle levers should have been set by consulting the N1 speed and setting both engines to 85% (you can't feel the throttle levers move in an Airbus, so you have to observe the N1 Guages), after which the nose should be pulled up to a 5 degree pitch. This would have retained a safe airspeed at the altitude they were at.
@checuba4 Uhm, the BEA hasn't released all of the information related yet. It's too early to say "the pilots should have done" X and X until the final report, or even an interim with a complete CVR transcript comes out
All the pitot tubes, clearly failed. No pitot tubes, no systems - all the systems shut down or fail, due to the lack of one basic item of information - air speed. With the With the catalogue of failures happening one by one, one after another, the pilots were clearly pre-occupied with dealing with the failures and failed to get quick control of the plane manually. You can still fly an Airbus without air speed information and indeed, quite accurately.
ok, i fix crashed planes, comon dudes, you cant feel you butt cheeks falling? full power guys! break the planes wings off, go supersonic! stupid idiots why the hell would they pull back?
The dumbest fucking (typical of all mainstream media fools) question I ever did hear. What would those three and a half minutes...? Is she fucking stupid or what? Man some people really don't have anything going on between their thick skulls at times, dumb ass bitch reporter should show some respect for the family who may have watched the clip.
They were flying normally. Then they got a storm ahead of them. The pito tubes froze. The plane gave the pilots warnings and malfunction stuff. The pilots did not know what to do. One of the pilots checks the guidance book. Nothing. They are in deep trouble. The pilot switches to manual. He was flying to slow. The plane was losing height. And they chrashed. Everybody died. It was painfull.
Irresponsible comments and uninformed reporting. "I dont have any more indications" aside pitot tube failures was this comment meant to be failure of all instrument readings? The Air Data Reference Units were failing. Were they of the faulty units installed in aircraft not replaced by the French ongoing maintainence flops? The marrying of the CVR and FDR and ACARS ans METSAT and NASA MET analysis has not even been covered. Even the animation is not Airbus witch have sidestick control. LAME!
Is it just me, or is it just air france?
MegaPotco 1 day ago
retards on the control
maydayfire 6 days ago
i remember that... i was drawing a plane when my mother told me about it.
firestarloverwarrior 1 week ago
The BEA is too closely linked, or should we say, part of the French government, to be trusted with an unbiased report.
Have no doubt, the French government wants nothing to affect sales, especially from a company, EADS, in which it has a controlling interest.
And, it may not be a mystery most if not all incidents involving Airbus aircraft are blamed squarely on their pilots and others and rarely the manufacturer. No less, in all their hubris, Airbus aircraft are the best!!
LesTroisOiseaux 1 week ago
@lukefinch101
I was thinking the same thing. 330 is fly by wire, correct?
larryjones2078 3 weeks ago
@larryjones2078
yes the madness that airplanes be driven by computers not pilots is what caused the death of over 200 innocent people
steven8hamilton 3 weeks ago
@steven8hamilton & larryjones too:
The number of factors that added to this accident is huge, and the comments character limit precludes going into enough detail to do the subject justice.
Training, experience requirements, tardy maintenance by Air France (known-to-be-faulty pitot tubes), weather, lack of weather avoidance, and design characteristics of the Scarebus that may have added to the confusion are all factors. Modern Boeings are also fly-by-wire, but the 'rules' are much different.
organfreak 3 weeks ago
@organfreak
Yes but the fact that these aircraft makers have designed and built planes that are mainly driven by computers and not pilots is madness and unsafe
steven8hamilton 3 weeks ago
They thought they were flying. They thought the gages were wrong. Remember there had never been a crash like this one in Aviation history, I'm pretty sure. Technically u could say they were falling, but they had level wings all the way down. RIP
PInk77W1 4 weeks ago
@PInk77W1 never been a crash like this in aviation History? in what way? ...They had level wings becuase allegedly they were close to manouvering out of the stall...they may have only needed 500ft? 1000ft? extra to regain control of the plane...a real shame
1greenMitsi 4 weeks ago
@1greenMitsi
Wrong. Fail. It would be OK if your tone weren't so snotty, but you are badly misinformed, so be quiet. The wings were not quite level, but reportedly more-or-less level due to the excellent flight characteristics of this airplane. The PF (pilot flying) wasted most of his efforts on controlling roll (as he held the stick full back, hardly the correct stall recovery technique). In addition, trim was almost full-up (is still automatic in ALT 2), unnoticed in the cockpit.
organfreak 4 weeks ago
@organfreak well i think the AS (air speed) was too low so as this report said (ATRS). According to the TPS report filed by the NTSB, comments that include plenty of acronyms sound intelligent without actually stating or proving anything....pardon my snotty tone. IBQN (I'll be quiet now)
1greenMitsi 4 weeks ago
@1greenMitsi
LOL!
The airspeed was so low b/c PF had the damn thing pointed WAY up. He climbed them right into the stall.
organfreak 4 weeks ago
@organfreak who trained those guys? I thought pointing the nose down would increase airspeed...but what would i know. What happened to the stall warning STALL STALL STALL...?
1greenMitsi 4 weeks ago
@1greenMitsi
Training protocols are being reconsidered as a result of this accident. Stall training had been limited to takeoff and landing stalls (such as windshear), and the techniques are different from those needed for an upset at high speed and altitude. Pilots seldom hand-fly in cruise, they rely on the autopilots, and are actually forbidden by some airlines to practice hand flying in cuise. The stall warning turned off when he pulled up b/c it won't function @ speed below 60Kts.
organfreak 4 weeks ago
@1greenMitsi no widebody has ever flown into the middle of any ocean because the pilot didnt know what to do as far as i have ever heard. A perfectly good airplane.
PInk77W1 3 weeks ago
Not falling n the classic tumbling out of control falling. They were fooled tosay the least.
PInk77W1 4 weeks ago
@PInk77W1 dude, when a plane stalls it means the plane has lost enough air speed for there to be no lift from its wings. when this happens, it free falls at 9.8 m/s acceleration until it reaches terminal velocity (doubt it does with an airplane).
I find it hilarious that your original comment is a top comment. God bless America :)
1greenMitsi 4 weeks ago
@1greenMitsi AF447 didnt "free fall"... read the report...... AF447 hit the water at 110mph.
PSA 1771 hit the earth at 700mph..... u do the math. basically the pilot flew the plane into the ocean. he killed 228people including his wife. basically he froze under pressure.
PInk77W1 3 weeks ago
@PInk77W1 clearly u dont understand what a stall is and the effects thereafter on an aircraft
1greenMitsi 3 weeks ago
Why is she at the airport?
scrabtree1 1 month ago
A string of G-forces will create a G-string by mistake. This is called Error on a G-String. Every musician knows this.
hoagylover 1 month ago
It´s easier to blame humans, than machines.
hermespolemica 1 month ago
I feel so terrible for the poor passengers on this flight. There last minutes had to be horrific.
bashfulbrother 1 month ago
i feel sory for all the women and childeren
MrBubby27 1 month ago
pee toe tubes ???? you pi-ott tubes its spelled pitot tubes but its pronounced ugh what ever.
masterman3178 1 month ago
Comment removed
fakeBULL 1 month ago
Spacial disorientation kills more pilots than anything. They did still have the artificial horizon though. I often wonder why airliners don't have a cruise speed bug on the throttle quadrant. At anyrate in the flat stall, recovery was unlikely. A ballistic chute may have saved them and it could be done. what "cost" do you put on passengers lives.
cybermarsactual 1 month ago
RIP Flight 447 victims
ScooterpupReljac 2 months ago 2
Harry Smith, you are missed. CBS News has further dipped into oblivian since your departure. Edward Murrow is spinning in his grave at 9000 RPM since the 1980s.
ScooterpupReljac 2 months ago
Could GPS have saved the plane? Is Airbus reluctant to implement this technology?
oomblikkies 2 months ago
@oomblikkies Negative. You have to understand GPS only uses ground speed. What we call True Air Speed (TAS) is what a pilot or autopilot needs to ascertain if theyre going fast enough not to stall.
Foxx1981 2 months ago
@Foxx1981 What you say is probably true, but all I'm trying to say is that the Space Shuttle used GPS data to aid its autopilot.
oomblikkies 2 months ago
@oomblikkies that's because the space shuttle doesnt need to take any airspeed consideration since it doesn't use its wing for lift when it launches. An aircraft needs a certain speed of flow over its wings not to stall. At cruise altitude the difference of ground speed between head-wind and tail-wind can easily be past 100 knots. Alot of light aircraft can take-off at 80 knots so you understand what a massive difference it can make. I'd go into further detail but have no space left
Foxx1981 2 months ago
WHAT DA FUDGE IS THAT GUY TALKN' ABOUT. HE IS FULL OF CRAP!! NO G-FORCE, HORRIFIC ,HE IS SOO STUPID at 2:10.
birdwatcherlj 2 months ago
The "pilots" aboard this aicraft were either extemely incompetent or deliberatly trying to crash the plane. Nobody would hold the nose up during a stall or refuse to look at their instruments. There is a difference between 5,000 hours of flight time and 4,999 hours sitting in the cockpit scratching your ass while on autopilot and 1 hour flying the fucking plane!
benjaminnetanyahoo 2 months ago
It's amazing to see all the arm chair pilots out there passing quick judgement. Some are actually pilots I'm sure, but flying an aircraft at high altitudes is very different and very difficult. Especially an Airbus. It is so difficult it is rarely done and almost never done with out auto thrust engaged even it smooth air. I personally don't have experience at high alt. but I have many friends that do. A quote from one of the highest time A330 pilots in the world follows...
pietenpol2010 2 months ago
@pietenpol2010 Here is the quote: "Taking into consideration that Air France 447 was at FL 350 (where the safe speed envelope is relatively narrow), that they were in the weather at night with no visible horizon, and that they were likely experiencing at least moderate turbulence, it does not surprise me in the least that the pilots lost control of the aircraft shortly after the autopilot and autothrust disconnected."
pietenpol2010 2 months ago
RIP <3
iknowundso1 2 months ago
Harry@ 2:36.......Asshole looking to play the blame game.......Its simple,operator error..RIP
excelerater 2 months ago
@excelerater A quote from one of the higest time airbus pilots in the world..."Despite all of my experience in the aircraft, I am not the least bit certain that I would have been able to maintain control under the same circumstances. I do feel certain that were you to spring this scenario on pilots in a simulator without warning less than half of them would have a successful outcome." Was it the design or training to blame? Probably both. The FAA has even said as much.
pietenpol2010 2 months ago
@lukefinch101 very nerdy.
Culpano 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@launchsa is partially correct- Airbus pilots should pull up under Normal (fly-by-wire) Law. The aircraft should never stall and would simply auto-increase thrust to compensate. Unfortunately, because of the pitot issue earlier, the aircraft switched to Alternate Law which means that the co-pilot should have descended to gain speed before levelling out. Its a cluster fuck and make no mistake.
IKEARiot 3 months ago
Comment removed
IKEARiot 3 months ago
I think that while pitot tube failures may have started the crisis, it was the pilots not knowing how their flight systems actually worked that eventually killed them. From the interim report. They were flying too slowly (stalled). Push stick forward, valid data, stall warning sounds. Pull back stick, Invalid data, warning stops. If they appreciated that how the flight comp reacted to valid/invalid data, they might have been coped with the stall, if they did it quickly enough.
4k8t 3 months ago
problem was...complacency
Sniki3 3 months ago
@Sniki3 "Failure assessment is difficult, failure recovery is difficult, and the failure modes were not anticipated by the designers."
Dr Kathy Abbot FAA human factors specialist. Based on accident and incident data and line operation safety audits over the period 2001- 2009.
pietenpol2010 2 months ago
The real culprit in all this is AirFrance that A: ignored their own pilots warning them about the pitot tubes and B: not maintaining a training routine and level that is appropriate for the a3x0 airbus series.
AirFrance should be skinned alive in settlements for this outright manslaughter of 200+ innocent people.
Foxx1981 3 months ago
@Foxx1981 "Taking into consideration that Air France 447 was at FL 350 (where the safe speed envelope is relatively narrow), that they were in the weather at night with no visible horizon, and that they were likely experiencing at least moderate turbulence, it does not surprise me in the least that the pilots lost control of the aircraft shortly after the autopilot and autothrust disconnected." A quote from one of the highest time A330 pilots in the world.
pietenpol2010 2 months ago
Jesus, imagine what the passengers were thinking with just minutes to live. I would grab the first chick next to me and fuck her like no tomorrow, I think we'd both share that opinion.
luckyStrike89ru 3 months ago
@lukefinch101 I agree! I was confused about the whole recreation of it! The CA seat is on the left, the FO seat is on the right. They had it backwards in the video, I was confused. There is a difference between three bars and four bars!
UnitedJetSetter 3 months ago
This shows that technology is not beneficial to airplane pilots and I suggest that all pilots that go to training school learn the basics of flying a plane like a DC-6 without modern computer instruments to guide them so they can actually learn to fly a plane instead of flying a plane by computers. Computers are not beneficial to pilots. Sullenberger didn't start flying Airbus A330's when he started. He started on the old planes. That is how you learn how to fly, and it's not with computers.
America100000able 4 months ago
@America100000able problem is complacency
Sniki3 3 months ago
I have seen the documentary. It seems like the pitot tubes got iced over by supercooled water at an altitude of 35,000 ft. The supercooled water froze the pitot tube, and when the pitot tubes failed almost everything in the cockpit failed with it. When the instruments were down the co pilot reacted, and stalled the plane instead of increasing speed with the throttle lever, and raising an angle of 5 degrees to allow the plane to fly at a stable rate to the nearest airport. This doomed everyone.
America100000able 4 months ago
the pilots did all they could with the training they had. They are NOT to blame ...they were not even flying blind...worse they were flying with faulty readings on all their displays...since the crash air France and many other carriers have retrained their crews in high alt stalls as well as corrected pitot systems
cwalborn1 4 months ago
Not an ideal situation to be faced with,but the pilots should have done better. Setting power and attitude to keep the plane flying should have been their first priority.
berniezarsov 4 months ago
The reason why that plane crashed is because it wasn't made by Boeing
Jampang66 4 months ago
@Jampang66 lol i agree
ikolkyo967 4 months ago
Have they found the Pitot-static system in the wreckage?
cubanangel1985 4 months ago
This is probably the most informative short video on the nightmarish conditions of this crash. I skimmed through the long accident report just released on this crash. They were unable to recover from the stall. There seemed to be a lack of urgency among the 2 pilots and the captain was out of the cockpit for too long when the crisis started. I am confused from a comment the captain made to one of the co pilots before he went on break. He asked him if he had a commerical pilots license?
Nocgirl 4 months ago
"the aircraft was descending at a high rate of speed causing tremendous G force" what a dumb guy this is. Descending at a high rate of speed casues no G force.
G force is caused by acceleration not speed. i am a high school drop out and even i know this.
PInk77W1 4 months ago 11
@PInk77W1 Listening again he says: "[..] descending at a high rate of speed, tremendous G-force [...]" He does not say "causing". He was perhaps just indicating a list of bad things the passengers may have been experiencing in a sound-bite friendly way. Mabye high-G forces just before impact? The recording apparently show some fleeting attempts to gain airspeed then pull up just before impact.
After 37 years associated with the Air Force (Reserve), you'd HOPE he'd have half-clued!
jgpp 2 months ago
@jgpp but there is no indication of tremendous G force. he just asserts it. he didnt say "may."
PInk77W1 2 months ago
@PInk77W1 I am sure he was referring to the negative G-forces produced as the airplane free fell from the sky, during a stall the airplane continuously accelerates and decelerates causing great discomfort to the occupants, it never an event that goes unnoticed.
matatanXtreme 2 months ago
@PInk77W1 I believe he was referencing the accelerations encountered due to rapid changes in pitch and the rolling that occurred upon aerodynamic stall. He could also be referencing the _significant_ acceleration encountered upon impact.
rayjaydeseintay 2 months ago 3
@PInk77W1 He didn't say 'causing', just a pause
RexButler 2 months ago
@RexButler he implied it
PInk77W1 2 months ago
@PInk77W1 Maybe he was referring to the force of the impact?
wikieditspam 1 month ago
@PInk77W1 negative g forces are created when you drop at a high rate of speed. It's the feeling of weightlessness. Positive G's are created by acceleration that pushes the body down towards the ground or back into your seat.
funandy97 1 month ago
@PInk77W1 No G forces !!
ridorr 1 month ago
@ridorr because the plane accelerates downwards
ridorr 1 month ago
@PInk77W1 A plane accelerating towards the deck at a high velocity as AF447 will cause negative vertical g forces to be felt by the passengers. I am not a high school drop out and even I know this.
eugeniusbastard 1 month ago 6
@eugeniusbastard:
In fact, the acceleration downwards was quite quick and apparently went completely unnoticed by all three pilots! (If they had felt that, they would have immediately started stall-recovery procedures.) Once terminal velocity is reached (quickly) it cannot fall any faster, and so after that, there are no more G forces to feel. Pink77W1 is correct.
organfreak 1 month ago
@organfreak they WERE in stall recovery...because the plane had stalled!! are you saying the 10,000 ft/min fall (because of the stall) went unnoticed? what are you smoking man? troll yes?
1greenMitsi 4 weeks ago
@1greenMitsi
As a matter of fact, I'm smoking a fine, PacNW backyard strain, but nonetheless, I know exactly what I'm talking about. I've read all the BEA reports and am spending lots of time reading the PPRuNe forum threads-- thousands of posts from mostly professionals. It is widely agreed in those forums that the stall, unbelievably, remained unrecognized until the very last moments, when ND inputs were made at last, far too late. Troll no. I like facts, and they were NOT in recovery, no!
organfreak 4 weeks ago
@eugeniusbastard
Acceleration to terminal velocity (can't go any faster) was quite rapid (the pilots never commented on it!) and after that, no sensation of falling at all. There were, however, lots of rolls, some of them quite steep, so it was likely a very scary ride. Don't forget, nobody could see anything out the windows.
organfreak 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
1greenMitsi 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@organfreak ru saying that a jetliner carrying 228 passengers and weighing god knows how many tons was reached terminal velocity in its fall? and quite rapid?? please divulge on how u came to that conclusion or your sources
1greenMitsi 3 weeks ago
@1greenMitsi
My sources are anonymous professional pilots posting to a forum, once again, called "PPRuNe," but these facts are not in dispute by any of those folks. It's simple laws of physics/motion.
organfreak 3 weeks ago
@organfreak simple laws of physics? I think thats what you need to re-visit....a LIGHT body mass like a feather will reach terminal velocity 'quite rapidly'....something heavy will keep accelerating at the earths gravitational pull. Physics 1.01
1greenMitsi 3 weeks ago
@1greenMitsi
Sorry, but you are embarrassingly mistaken. Don't you have a Google?
organfreak 3 weeks ago
@organfreak whose embarrassed? sorry im able to discuss without getting my ego involved. sure i have google...what would you like me to bring up?
1greenMitsi 3 weeks ago
@1greenMitsi
I gave you a detailed reply with specific links but this interface doesn't allow links.
1. Newton's Laws of Motion
2. PPRuNe pilot's forum (ends in dot org) THOUSANDS of posts from mostly pro pilots on this topic
organfreak 3 weeks ago
@organfreak
'The basic rules of thumb, though, are that objects will have a higher terminal velocity when: there is more of it, making a heavier weight; the density of the gas it’s falling through is lower, as in upper atmosphere; the object has a lower drag coefficient, meaning it has been built to be more streamlined, like a raindrop; or there is less area to drag, usually meaning the object is more dense.'
I googled it...and like i said, Physics 1.01...
1greenMitsi 3 weeks ago
@1greenMitsi
And the source of this quote is....?
organfreak 3 weeks ago
@organfreak dont worry about the source, just get a physics tutor to explain it to you :)
1greenMitsi 3 weeks ago
@1greenMitsi
Search for "BEA Interim Report No 3" (PDF)
Once you grab the report, look at the charts in Appendix 4 beginning on page 106 (BEA's page numbering, not Acrobat's) The entire vertical acceleration graph for the accident is the blue line 3rd from the bottom.
organfreak 3 weeks ago
@organfreak Ive been watching dogfights for too long....so they drowned? oh great... I wouldve prefered to pass out personally..
1greenMitsi 3 weeks ago
@PInk77W1 yep, but he is thinking about the high drama required to maximise news ratings, and also there will be as much money to be claimed in compensation. it all makes good sense.
amemy1 1 month ago
@PInk77W1 wrong
The plane stalled so was falling toward the earth at the earth's gravitational pull, accelerating at a rate of 9.8 m/s. Thats why if a person jumps off a high enough building, they pass out before they hit the ground (pardon the example)...& yes i did go to college :)
1greenMitsi 4 weeks ago
@1greenMitsi if u read the official report, u will c that u r wrong. the plane was not falling per se and it was not accelerating at all.
PInk77W1 4 weeks ago
@PInk77W1 it was not falling per se? 'falling 10,000 ft/min'?...'dropped from 5 miles'? sounds and looks as if it lost a bit of height to me...without reading the official report
1greenMitsi 4 weeks ago
@1greenMitsi the plane didnt fall, it FLEW into the ocean. Unless of course u think every jetliner that ever lands "falls."
PInk77W1 3 weeks ago
@PInk77W1
Wrong. It stalled and fell for 3 1/2 minutes! That's a fact, read the reports.
organfreak 3 weeks ago
@organfreak what were the characteristics of the fall? 5 miles in 3.5 minutes?
1greenMitsi 3 weeks ago
@organfreak it didnt fall in the traditional sense. it more or less flew into the ocean. Usually a plane that "falls" is broken. This plane was perfectly capable of flying except for the pilot pulling back on the stick for 3.5 minutes.
PInk77W1 2 weeks ago
@PInk77W1
I'm sorry, but that's just incorrect. The airplane was fully stalled and fell 38,000 to the water. Get BEA interim report No3, it's available for download, and read it. I have. Yes, the plane "was capable of flying," but only if stall recovery was initiated, and early-on. They never even recognized the stall. No moon, no light, no visible horizon....and they had no idea which instruments were lying and which ones to trust.
organfreak 2 weeks ago
Well done ABC. Just when I was about to give up on American Journalism, someone got it right. Yeah, they missed the side stick...big deal. The pertinent facts are there without over dramatization.
jaxfr8dog 4 months ago
well the a330-200 is really fake, it doesnt hav a yoke, but has a joystick
CaptainMike97 4 months ago
Another quote from the same pilot: "Unfortunately, airline pilots rarely practice hand-flying at high altitude, and almost never do so without autothrust engaged. As a result, we forget that the aircraft is very sensitive to control inputs at high altitude, and overcontrol is the usual result. Because the Airbus sidestick provides no feedback "feel" to the pilot, this problem is dramatically compounded in this aircraft."
pietenpol2010 4 months ago
As a check pilot for a major airline, sitting here at 1g and 0 knots, it's clear that this crew did not have the proper training to recognize and recover from this stall. Hopefully, the industry will smell the coffee and encourage more hand flying in glass cockpits while incorporating high altitude stall recovery training.
jaxfr8dog 4 months ago
@jaxfr8dog question for u... if the PF would of pushed down on the stick do u think they would of survived? For your info i am a complete layman. Thx much
PInk77W1 4 months ago
@PInk77W1 Yes, it appears that way, but...I don't truly know the entire puzzle that
confronted them. I also have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.
jaxfr8dog 4 months ago
@jaxfr8dog very true. very sad
PInk77W1 4 months ago
@pietenpol2010 Yep. I think Dr Kathy Abbott, Human factors specialist for the FAA sums it up nicely. "Failure assessment is difficult, failure recovery is difficult, and the failure modes were not anticipated by the designers."
pietenpol2010 4 months ago
@pietenpol2010
I'm not an expert, but had the co-pilot followed the unrealiable airspeed procedure, the stall would've never happened. It's not only hindsight, because Air France has had more than a couple of these kinds of situations in the past two years, and I bet it's not a coincidence that other airliners don't face the same problems. (Lack of proper training?)
jounihat 3 months ago
From one of the highest time A330 pilots in the world: "Despite all of my experience in the aircraft, I am not the least bit certain that I would have been able to maintain control under the same circumstances. I do feel certain that were you to spring this scenario on pilots in a simulator without warning less than half of them would have a successful outcome." Something to think about.
pietenpol2010 4 months ago
Great explanation... By the way, i can't imagine falling 3:30....
marcelodelagoXD 5 months ago
So the Case is cracked?
GalaxyMaster99 5 months ago
rip jane you will be missed
rickenbackerlawlor 5 months ago
Even the pitot tubes had malfunction, didn't the pilots has some sense of speed based on the throttle? When you have a stall warning, why don't you increase the speed? How miserable that a pilot has to rely on instrument 100%
PeaceOnEarthDotOrg 5 months ago
The animation artists had no idea how an Airbus look like. Airbuses have joy-stick type of control, instead of control column. This looks more like a Boeing.
PeaceOnEarthDotOrg 5 months ago
Comment removed
dwunw 6 months ago
@dwunw off
HittokiriBatosai 5 months ago
@dwunw It was cruising 120 when it crashed. A plane typically goes upwards of 500.
OptimumForge 5 months ago
Air France stay away from these planes they are faulty autimations are defective.
Dorisequador 6 months ago
My dad worked with a guy who died on this flight.
marcokull 6 months ago
My prayers are with all the victims of this crash and their families. May you all rest in peace.
borntofly926 6 months ago
I have a question. From what I've been reading, the plane appeared to reach a point called 'coffin corner', where the minimum speed needed for the plane to stall (low speed stall) and the maximum speed needed for a stall (also called a high speed stall) are just marginal, which is common at high altitudes.
Could it be the pilot got the stall warning when pitching nose down (since it was going too fast and stalled), and pulled back up thinking this would alleviate the stall?
borntofly926 6 months ago
pedo tubes
greencat45 6 months ago
Faulty equipment. As if someone can tell the difference between 120 mph and 500 mph when in a storm with no visibility. How can the pilots handle the situation when their equipment isn't telling them what's wrong?
phillyguy95 6 months ago
I ride Air France!!!
pinkey2332 7 months ago
yoke ?????? Its airbuss or boeing? argh
bmwagain 7 months ago
Just like the 757 that went down by Dominican republic 1996
excalibur9900 7 months ago
If the pilots had done nothing maybe they would have been saved. Why didn't they all take a rest ?.
chemerich 7 months ago
The pilots are trained to pull up in a stall warning. watch?v=cggDnHVDoCA
Airbus does not want their planes to be the blame of the crash as they will lose big orders. Buggy software and Pitot tube failure in a storm caused the crash. rely completely on software flying the plane and in total control
launchsa 7 months ago 2
@launchsa Allways they blame the pilots!
adriebm 7 months ago
@adriebm the pitot tubes were being replaced and this plane was due to be retrofitted in a couple of months.That's not good enough.If there is a known problem with an aircraft then it is the duty of the airline company to make their pilots aware of what is going on and to ,at least,give some kind of training how to react to a failure of this component.
rw5791 7 months ago
@launchsa they were pullin up to test a new system on the A320 that when the stall warning goes off, the thrust is automaticaly put into 100% to give the plane extra power. Most pilots are trained to pitch down, and give thrust to the aircraft to gain more speed, if they are not equipped with tht type of equipment.
sushiboy805 4 months ago
@launchsa You're kidding?! NO! You have to point the nose DOWN in a stall, right??!
5Lursa 3 months ago
@launchsa No. The fact that one of the copilots pulled up despite the stall warning is exactly what caused this crash. The co pilot pulled up and a stall warning sounded which was ignored. The co pilot continued continued nose up inputs and the plane stalled at 38,000 feet. The plane started to descend in a stall.
LtMercutio 3 months ago
@LtMercutio The engines were near maximum thrust but because a co pilot continued nose up inputs the plane's angle of attack was approximately 30 to 40 degrees and so the plane remained stalled for the 3 minutes it took to for the plane to fall from 38000 feet to the ocean. The crash was caused by human error in causing and then failing to recognize a stall despite obvious stall warnings.
LtMercutio 3 months ago
Man im sitting in a klm/air france business lounge and saw this lol scary
grantmo7 7 months ago
Crews can be very slow to get into operating the throttles manually which is very essential of course to maintain a decent airspeed
amrfouda1 7 months ago
LOL the control colum is a sidestick on airbus not boing control colum
pilot2w 7 months ago
Air France 447
228 souls sent to heaven
They thought it was the pitot tubes
I guess it was the pilot noobs.
PushyLittleKid 7 months ago
With time constraints, this CBS report didn't tell the whole story. There is a 4 part series that explains it all. So much automation and less actual pilot experience flying the planes. They could have gotten out of the stall - if they had the experience.
AquaCarb 7 months ago
@AquaCarb But even then, we won't know the whole story until the BEA releases the final report - the interim notice had snippets of info
VicenteMosin 7 months ago
air france should go out of business... two pilot error crashes on the most modern and safest aircraft ever made within a couple of years!!!??? fuck that company dude
angryman1007 7 months ago
@angryman1007 But was company training responsible for the pilots making the errors? And out of how many flights? Air France is one of the world's largest airlines.
The Toronto flight crash occurred in 2005, and the Rio flight in 2009
VicenteMosin 7 months ago
@VicenteMosin dunno man.. they have a tendency of inexcusable fuck ups on aircraft with practically spotless safety records. and two pilot error crashes is in four years is way more than most other large airlines.
angryman1007 7 months ago
When the plane is stalling, INCREASE POWER!!! YOU FUCKING IDIOTS!
Seigu007 8 months ago
@Seigu007 But did they know that such a stall was occurring?
We'll know more when the BEA final report comes out
VicenteMosin 7 months ago
magnum ice cream tastes like shit
MrArsen1983 8 months ago
dont call her a stupid bitch!!!!
stavparavxavier 8 months ago
terrible what a tragity
stavparavxavier 8 months ago
She said the pitots where faulty. Were they? I think I remember there being lots of incidents with bad pitots on airbus' and they were rolling out replacements... but in this case the pitots were likely completely frozen but suspected supercooled water in the storm system they were flying into... surely that's design flaw not a faulty pitot. Maybe totally wrong.
doubledoorsd4 8 months ago
"what do you think those last 3 minutes would have been like for passengers and crew?"
Who the fuck asks a question like that? Stupid bitch!
mrceebees14 8 months ago 4
2 co pilots?? i thought it was only captain and ONE co pilot. POOR RESEARCH
rewindablender 8 months ago
@rewindablender It is possible to have 2 co-pilots along wiht a captain on certain long haul flights such as this one here. At the time of the accident, the captain was resting, so the 2 co-pilots were monitoring the autopilot of the aircraft. This is why you can find seat/s behind the seats of the captain and the first officer, I think they're called "jumpseats" I'm not sure, but yes, there can be up to 3 flight crews on board an aircraft, so no this wasn't poor research, as you thought it was.
kienh109 8 months ago
@kienh109 ok thanks!
rewindablender 8 months ago
@rewindablender There are two copilots for long flights
Typically two of the flight crew fly from takeoff. One goes to bed, and the relief crewperson comes in. Then towards the end the other guy is replaced, and the two there land the plain.
VicenteMosin 7 months ago
Part 5
As many have pointed out, this video is inaccurate. The airbus has a side stick, not a yoke. This is poor research from the tv company that produced this video.
checuba4 8 months ago
Part 4
The only way to learn is through real experience. But what can be taught (and clearly isn't emphasised enough or taught extensively to pilots) are the procedures needed to prevent a disaster like this from happening. Most airline pilots get very little training when it comes to manual flight, 90 % of it s automated using the Flight Management Computer in combination with the auto pilot. When it comes to crunch time, they plainly don't know what to do!
checuba4 8 months ago
Part 3
Sadly, any attempt at this happened way to late and as a result the aircraft plummeted to the sea at 10000 feet per minute - horrific for anyone on board. The problem with modern airliners is that there's too much emphasis on automated flight. You can't teach an Air Transport Pilot (Airline Pilot) to stall in a simulator... In fact it isn't taught at all, because the simulator isn't able to simulate the rapid, aggressive movements of a stall.
checuba4 8 months ago
Part 2
The first thing the pilots should have done was to pitch the nose forward, thereby regaining air flow over the wings and averting the stall. Then the throttle levers should have been set by consulting the N1 speed and setting both engines to 85% (you can't feel the throttle levers move in an Airbus, so you have to observe the N1 Guages), after which the nose should be pulled up to a 5 degree pitch. This would have retained a safe airspeed at the altitude they were at.
checuba4 8 months ago
@checuba4 Uhm, the BEA hasn't released all of the information related yet. It's too early to say "the pilots should have done" X and X until the final report, or even an interim with a complete CVR transcript comes out
VicenteMosin 7 months ago
Part 1
All the pitot tubes, clearly failed. No pitot tubes, no systems - all the systems shut down or fail, due to the lack of one basic item of information - air speed. With the With the catalogue of failures happening one by one, one after another, the pilots were clearly pre-occupied with dealing with the failures and failed to get quick control of the plane manually. You can still fly an Airbus without air speed information and indeed, quite accurately.
checuba4 8 months ago
they had altitude, and vertical speed
seattlefw190 8 months ago
ok, i fix crashed planes, comon dudes, you cant feel you butt cheeks falling? full power guys! break the planes wings off, go supersonic! stupid idiots why the hell would they pull back?
seattlefw190 8 months ago
FAIL REPORT ! The airbus has a side stick not a fucking yoke !
miniarma 8 months ago
@miniarma whatever
87earth 8 months ago
The dumbest fucking (typical of all mainstream media fools) question I ever did hear. What would those three and a half minutes...? Is she fucking stupid or what? Man some people really don't have anything going on between their thick skulls at times, dumb ass bitch reporter should show some respect for the family who may have watched the clip.
MrUAV100 8 months ago 8
228 people R.I.P.
klopmn 8 months ago
They were flying normally. Then they got a storm ahead of them. The pito tubes froze. The plane gave the pilots warnings and malfunction stuff. The pilots did not know what to do. One of the pilots checks the guidance book. Nothing. They are in deep trouble. The pilot switches to manual. He was flying to slow. The plane was losing height. And they chrashed. Everybody died. It was painfull.
TheUltrablaster 8 months ago
Irresponsible comments and uninformed reporting. "I dont have any more indications" aside pitot tube failures was this comment meant to be failure of all instrument readings? The Air Data Reference Units were failing. Were they of the faulty units installed in aircraft not replaced by the French ongoing maintainence flops? The marrying of the CVR and FDR and ACARS ans METSAT and NASA MET analysis has not even been covered. Even the animation is not Airbus witch have sidestick control. LAME!
coffeecation 8 months ago
@CBS - in manual mode, the plane is controlled with stick.
vaky 8 months ago
I thought it broke up in the air?
marulpragasam 9 months ago