• Join FlightAware (Why Join?)
  • Login
  • US Flag 
10:04AM EDT


 

Airport Tracker/Info


-or-


 

Squawks & HeadlinesCapt Sullenberger lessons from AF447

Back to Squawk list

Capt Sullenberger lessons from AF447

Submitted
Four years after Air France Flight 447 disappeared over the Atlantic Ocean, experts have pieced together what they believe happened on board the airliner that June evening. (www.cbsnews.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


pilot62
Scott Campbell 6
Well theres no question... a stick shaker would've saved them all.
Sorry this is A VERY BIG problem for Airbus, no way around it.
But who lets the low time pilot take command when you've lost all your
pitot tubes, flying in a storm, and without the auto pilot???
Sorry the real blame goes to the senior co-pilot in the left seat, for not assuming command, and the failure of ANY real CRM skills,.. . never even discissing the reason for the stall horn... the Airbus auto trim also comes into question.. once he set the attitude it was over. THE aircraft itself, the Pilots, and failure to communciate,... in that Order,
ca71447
Christian Ahlberg 5
... one simple change in the software that Airbus uses could have fixed this. And that change would be that both of the sidesticks react to any inputs made. If the copilot pulls back on his stick, the captains stick reflects the same movement. If both sticks relayed the input from each other, the guy in the left seat would have known imediately what the guy in the right seat was doing. In Boeing aircraft you KNOW exactly what each other are doing with the controls.
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
I agree with you with one minor over site. Software upgrade, but will probably require hardware upgrade as well. The joysticks must have some sort of force feedback to actually actuate the stick. I am not sure if that is part of the system at this time.
Doobs
Dee Lowry 1
Exactly Christian...nobody was on the same page. Disregarding the stall warning...the pitot tube was absolutely operating. The stall warning was going off over 4 minutes and sounding 75 times?? If you have a "Stall Warning" why would a one pull back on the stick?? I don't get it...and it is truely unfortunate.
R.I.P.
teutz
daniel klein 1
For those interested what happened on flight 447 , you can watch Mayday episode here:
http://www.planecrashes.org/air-crash-investigations-s12e13-vanished.html
erichhodel
Erich Hodel 3
Actually it wasn’t that simple; the stall warning stopped whenever they were below a certain forward speed because system logic said the airplane can’t be airborne. Whenever they lowered the nose and the speed increased above that threshold the stall warning came on again. Very confusing if you neglect your pitch attitude and thrust (they had full TOGA thrust all the way down)..
preacher1
preacher1 3
Well, part of all the personnel part goes to the Captain for not leaving a clear "IN CHARGE" when he left the cockpit, OR, maybe he did and left Jr. in charge. It is interesting. In all defense of the young guy., while a serious error, he apparently was qualified or he would not have been there in the 1st place. Reference is made to TT and not time in type. Doesn't change anything but just sayin'.
preacher1
preacher1 1
I don't know if it would have saved them or not but it would have gotten somebody's attention; but who knows, if they blew off the stall warning horn 75 times, they might have blew it off too.
zedair
Brian Allen 1
.... But who lets the low time pilot assume control ....

Air France.

A colossal screw-up posing as an airline. This "accident" reminiscent of the "accidental" loss of Concorde at the end of and the inevitable consequence of a criminal comedy of aircraft-maintenance, overloading, out-of-C-of-G, poor (downwind) runway-maintenance and runway-choice errors and at the hands of a 300-hours-on-type "captain" and a "flight-engineer" operating completely independently of the rest of the cockpit crew!
RAYGIB
RAY GIBOULEAU 5
If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going.....
pilot62
Scott Campbell 5
No! just the comment that currently a Yoke can be the difference in arriving alive,
and this situation proves what Airbus did not do ...by simple engineering. And that's NO YOKE ..

Sometimes NEW is not better, and for me this proves why Boeing is still the leader no matterwhat the Volume of sales, and why they still produce aircarft without side sticks. I've flown on most Airbus Aircarft and prefer the comfort of the 320-321 over most Boeing single aile aircraft. But over the long haul Id rather trust my life in a 57 - 87
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
I Agree... the Joystick is not the best.
preacher1
preacher1 2
Well, the 787 is totally FBW and Boeing kept the stick/yoke, primarily because of familiarity of pilots, and as with others, they are linked.
elainewelzel
Elaine Welzel 1
Ha! I like that Ray! Lol
tdrucker55
Terence Rucker 4
Unfortunately, as usual, it was a number of things that contributed. Most ALs train pilots to power out of an approaching stall. You can guarantee a failed check ride if you actually let the stall develop. There needs to be more actual stall awareness in the training cycle. From the transcript, it seems the PF never thought they were in a stall even with all the instruments and horns to the contrary. What if the incident had happened in daylight conditions? Even a casual look out would have helped the PF get a handle on things.
Under most normal operating conditions, the AB is an easier plane to 'fly' It is those rare, but not impossible, situations where the Boeing flight control philosophy is geared toward letting the plane and pilot communicate. Can you imagine what AF447's captain would have said immediately upon entering the cockpit if he had spotted the PF with a yoke back in his lap? The first rule is always "Fly the Plane" not "Manage the Flight Computer under Alternate Law."
Still, its easy to monday-morning-qb. RIP to those guys and all the pax.
Hopefully, and it looks like it is the case, all will learn from this tragedy and apply the hard lessons.
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
I think that you are right... It is almost never that you see an airliner in a full stall. they definitely need something like this in the sim.
Doobs
Dee Lowry 2
Well said, Terence Rucker!
dkgambler
Dean Kennedy 0
I'm tired of every Airbus incident devolving into a Boeing vs. Airbus shoot-em-up. As you so perfectly stated, this is just like any other crash whereby the outcome was a result of an error chain and not as simple as taking out the sidestick and bringing in a yoke. After two experienced AA pilots flew a brand new 757 into a mountain in Colombia how many people said "if it ain't Airbus, I ain't going?" Also notice the lazy reporter saying "traditional airplanes, in other words Boeing, have yokes". Oh and Embraer, and Canadair. Bottom line this airplane crashed because the two guys flying it were 1) idiots, 2) not sufficiently trained, or a combination of both. I'd bet it was a heavy dose of number 2.
preacher1
preacher1 1
In the actual interview, Sully mentioned the non-linked sidesticks as he is aviation consultant for CBS and thought that might be more understandable to the non flying public. Putting everything else aside, taking that at face value, had the PNF been able to tell that they were nose up and actually in a stall, at the initial altitude of FL380, they would have had plenty of time to recover and at least keep the plane flying. That assumption was made if all else was OK. It obviously was not and whether it would have made a difference or not is just speculation. Your analogy to the AA 757 is a good one. We weren't there. Boeing has had their share of problems over the years too. The main reason AB is taking such a beating these days is that they are the new kid on the block.
WtfWtf
WtfWtf 3
What if it was struck by lightning and it totally threw off the digital readouts, and they were frozen on totally wrong info? They did mention saint elmos fire and a burning smell in the cockpit in the CVR transcript. Who knows? It could have said the nose is pitched down when it wasn't? I know there are backup steam gauges usually but who knows? Computers do wacky things when they are compromised by some outside influence.. as we all know.
sparkie624
sparkie624 3
What happened to Airbus being able to take control of the plane with the computers to save it.... That is what took the plane down at a France Airshow... Computer commanded opposite of the captain.
delmaracer
Bob Miller 3
There is no substitute for knowing how to fly. To really know how to fly. I believe that Bonin did not know how to fly. To really fly. He was trained in the operation of operating an aircraft, but that is very different. 75 stall warnings and he did not make the connection that the A/C was in a nose up condition, put in that attitude by use of the sidestick? He also didn't understand the real function of aircraft trim. Clearly a most unfortunate and preventable accident. And the failure of the more senior flight officer not taking command. Cockpit management? Where was that?
jccatcher
Joe Campbell 3
Hey, I can dream can't I? Haha
sparkie624
sparkie624 3
There are a lot of what if's... There were too many things that showed this plane in a stall... Pitot static was working, it was not frozen over. The AOA, flight Recorder showed a stall. The crew refused to believe it. The crew was wrong. Plane and simple, the lost situation awareness and paid the ultimate price. DFDR and CVR all collaborate Pilot Error.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 2
It remains that the guy doing the flying did the wrong thing at the wrong time. There was no way for anyone to check his actions because the aircraft design didn't allow it. The idea of a co-pilot in an Airbus doesn't exist. If this guy had frozen at the controls, the only way to transfer command would be to cold cock him. With control selected to the right seat the left seat is a passenger. It's the old fight between engineer and pilot; who's in charge here and who's flying this thing.
TXCAVU
Elizabeth Robillard 1
Good point.
HerrThor
HerrThor 1
You hit the nail! Computers and Fly-by-wire are wonderful, but they can fail and the fail would be a severe one! Maybe the pilots were totally confused by the contradictory readings.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
"Totally confused" seems accurate.
joelwiley
joel wiley 5
Anniversary observance. No new ground. Are we going to see another 100-200 comment BA vs AB religious battle again?
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 2
You're looking at it now!!!
HerrThor
HerrThor 1
BA vs AB religious battle, lol!!!!
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
If you're anglosaxon, Angle or Saxon? One can split any hair. 8)
dkgambler
Dean Kennedy 0
Hey have you heard this one? "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going"? Yuk yuk. But in fairness when two AA pilots commanded a brand new Boeing 757 to fly into a mountain in Colombia, after which the airplane dutifully complied, I remember everybody saying "if it ain't Airbus I ain't going". Oh wait, nevermind.

Not to mention, if America's Pilot Sully was OK flying an Airbus, shouldn't we be?
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
I have never heard anyone anywhere in any state of mind state that about Airbus.... However, I have heard them called "Air Scuds" before.
dkgambler
Dean Kennedy 1
Yes, and that's the dirty little secret. Two pilots either not properly trained or simply not doing their jobs can program a FMS-controlled, perfectly functioning Boeing 757 into terrain with amazing efficiency. So with any luck the Boeing vs. Airbus silliness will stop and real people can find real solutions to real problems instead of the usual mindless drivel.
gearup328
Peter Steitz 0
Yeah, Dean, they flew into that mountain because of poor navaids (how many NDB navaids do you use?)and programming and situational awareness but never is only one thing that causes the accident. Had Boeing designed an airplane where the spoilers would retract with TOGA power, they would have survived. How stupid is it to not build in a micro switch that would retract spoilers when the throttle levers were advanced to a high thrust setting is just beyond me.
preacher1
preacher1 1
That must have been changed too or at least it's an option; everything we have right now, which is a 767-200ER, mod CRJ200 and KA90, has a center mounted TOGA button on it, to be handled by PNF. When/if PF calls TOGA, it is activate and as PF goes for the thrust, it resets everything for the go around. Makes it real nice but also speeds things way up. That AA crash was in Dec of 1995, so I am sure the have been time for changes
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Keep in mind, it was not that they did not know who to use it, but the NAV aid they needed to select was on their 2nd page of the FMS, not the first, and if I remember correctly the station ID's were very close.
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
FMS selected ROMEO as default rather than desired ROZO. went undetected too long
see:
http://sunnyday.mit.edu/accidents/calirep.html
preacher1
preacher1 1
Plane was apparently doing what it was told. It can't help the fact that there was a 900' mtn in the way. I guess we are pilot error here too?
gearup328
Peter Steitz 1
preacher, garbage in=garbage out. I teach to always evaluate the answer you get. I see lots of young pilots simply plugging in some variables into a computer and accepting the results. Think about the result and compare it to your awareness of the situation. Sometimes the answer is wrong and they will just accept it. Wrong!!
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
I know it's getting away from the AF447 anniversary thread, but do you think the that the FMS defaulting to something may be a design flaw for a critical system? Most systems do partial string selection as a matter of course. Do should such convenience features override safety? Or would this go to far in idiot-proofing the system? Or is this splitting hairs too finely?
preacher1
preacher1 1
Agreed. BTW, I meant 9000' mtn.lol. The FMS is like a lot of other programs these days in that it will bring up a close reading to help you out and keep you from scrolling hell's half acre but that is not always what you want and you have to input the whole entry. Had they verified that at the beginning, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Multi thousand hour pilots but a very simple error.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Personal opinion: you can only go so far as idiotproofing something. Her you had multi-thousand hour pilots that just simply didn't pay attention. If they had've and went ahead and confirmed the entry as they should have, we would not be having this conversation. Reminds me of a state park not far from here. Beautiful view spoiled by a fence that has a big ugly sign on it that says BLUFF-DO NOT CROSS
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
I guarantee you if you make something IDIOT PROOF, I can find an IDIOT to prove you WRONG?
preacher1
preacher1 1
There is such a thing known as
S*** Happens, and it cares not for the consequences
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
I spent quite some time developing applications for which, I am glad to say, I had a group of computer-hostile testers. They tried diligently to break them with malice aforethought. When they went into production they were robust and capable of dealing with bad input. Never considered them totally secure from the One DEE TEN TEE errors.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
You just have not found a big enough "One DEE TEN TEE" or as I prefer to call it in less political terms... "ID10T"
preacher1
preacher1 1
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
A most common liveware error code
gearup328
Peter Steitz 1
Yes, we learn from accident reports. I show these examples in all my aviation classes.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Yeah, that might have saved their bacon but as Joel notes in a post somewhere on here and it's in the report, there was either confusion on the FMS entry to begin with and it defaulted to the wrong one, going undetected. Looks like the plane did what it was told and CFIT
sparkie624
sparkie624 4
Specializing Pitot Static systems and have done so for over 29 years now myself and others knew from the beginning that this was not a Pitot Static Failure... Where was his standby instruments, DME, IRS readouts that give ground speed. These guys simply lost situational awareness, As Sulley stated with the sticks, they need to be linked. Not being linked can be a very big problem, and one reason I never liked this technology. Both crew members should be able to tell what the other one is doing without looking at the other crew members joy stick.
emmanuelaponte
emmanuelaponte 1
DME in the middle of the atlantic?!?
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
They were not that far out they could not have gotten a signal... They could have gotten a Ground Speed readout on their IRS... Lots of ways to get it worked out quickly... The FMS/RNAV/GPS would help as well.
preacher1
preacher1 2
Well, still not really explained(pilot action) but linked sidesticks apparently would have solved the problem, at least of keeping the AC flying and in looking at that diagnosis, although speed tubes went out and caused the AP to drop off, apparently the stall warning was valid, unlike what some have thought, but it still appears that there was loss of situational awareness in the cockpit, by both pilots.
canuck44
John Donaldson 5
True, but the failure to have linkage or even an indicator on what is happening in the opposite seat reduces human input by 50%. This is like having the first year resident do your surgery while the senior resident is sitting in a corner "supervising" and the consultant surgeon out on the phone to his broker...except they are killing just one patient.
JetMech24
JetMech24 0
It may very well have helped, but linked controls are not a guaranteed life saver. Remember that suicidal pilot on that B767?
sparkie624
sparkie624 3
Linked flight controls would have at least shared information and would at least let the other pilot know what was commanded.
JetMech24
JetMech24 0
Thats why I said it may have helped, but just like the B767 example, the AF pilots had 2 different ideas of how to correct the problem, regardless of linked controls as the FDR recording have shown, with linked controls, they would have been arguing as to who was right and who was wrong.
bishops90
Brian Bishop 3
There is only ONE PIC. No argument.
JetMech24
JetMech24 1
So the PNF is just supposed be quiet if he knows the PIC is going to crash the airplane? Get a grip.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
If the other guy had knew he was pulling back, maybe he could have convinced the guy that it was the wrong thing to do... either way, they made the wrong decision. There was nothing wrong with the plane. Everyone likes to use the Pitot Static as an escape goat, but it has been proven that it was not, and they have also proven that it was not iced over... It was plain and simple "PILOT ERROR". If they had dropped the nose, you could ask them yourself today.
boughbw
Brian Bough 3
Sully addresses that -- in a Boeing, the pilot's response would have been obvious to everyone in the cockpit. Without feedback on the sidestick, the pilots had no idea they were entering contradictory input into the plane. Yes, the pilots were in disagreement, but the design of the plane ensured they had no idea this was happening until they were seconds from death.
JetMech24
JetMech24 3
The pitot problem is a known issue and something made the the AP disengage to start everything. It may have not been the pitot system, but something was giving the airplane erratic overspeeds which disengaged the AP. So, what do YOU do if you're getting overspeed indications, I assume that you are smart enough to cut the throttle and pull up the nose, right?
Doobs
Dee Lowry 2
Good point, Jet!
JetMech24
JetMech24 -1
You need to learn to take anything "Sully Sellout" says with a grain of salt.
yr2012
matt jensen -1
Having the inexperienced pilot taking the controls made this the issue. Had the more full qualified co-pilot been at the controls - the a/c may not have crashed. It's like putting a loadmaster at the controls instead of the ten thousand hour co-pilot.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 3
Quit speculating! We all know it was sabotaged by Bush.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 2
Bird in the water beats two in the bush...
zennermd
Michael Zenner 3
Terrible.... just terrible :)
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 2
Sure hated to see the Perrier and Fat Bastard deep sixed. :-)
gearup328
Peter Steitz 2
I have to chime in here on this BA/AB debate. Both are great aircraft and computers are all over them. The newest military aircraft are fly-by-wire. The F-16 is an OLD aircraft now and it is totally FBW. Not wanting to get into the sidestick and how it functions, I want to point out the fact that the relief captain held the nose up, ignoring 75 stall warnings and he was really the cause of the accident. You only have to review the FAA video of Colgan 3407 at KBUF to understand that airlines train to never loose more than 100 feet during stall recovery. The outcome in this tragic case was the same---CFIT. However, the crews need to understand that you always have to lower the angle of attack first. Sometimes you will have to do this only 500 feet AGL. The airplane will not fly if beyond the critical angle of attack. Get the wing flying, add full power and you break the stall. If you already have full power (TOGA in the case of AF) you need to lower the pitch and get the wings flying again. He and the Colgan captain, somewhere along the line, never learned this. Colgan had about 800 feet. AF had 30,000 feet. What in hell was he holding the nose up at that altitude? I have to admit, I wasn't there. I don't know the implications of the weather. There must have been lots of panic and poor decision making. Let's learn.
n1064s
John Campbell 2
It's unclear to me why Sullenberger focuses on the stick but doesn't even mention the attitude indicator (electronic or stand-by). Irrespective of whether the pitot tubes were operable, how could both pilots not have noticed that the aircraft was pitching up. Also, wasn't this aircraft equipped with an angle of attack indicator and, if so, that would provide the certainty that the reason for the descent was a stall. Finally, it's remarkable to me that AF447 apparently didn't spin, even when the crew completely mismanaged the problem. If anything, that is a tribute to the Airbus design.
preacher1
preacher1 4
He probably concentrated on the stick because that would be most understandable by the general public. You have to remember that he is the aviation consultant now for a national news organization. I think it had all that instrumentation but there was a total loss, for whatever reason of situational awareness by the crew. I have alway hit on that hard to Jr. crew members and thought it would never happen to me, but while doing fill in in for my old employer, me and the guy that took my place,whom I trained, lost about 5 miles of an approach one nite due to bad wx,in a 767, should have diverted and didn't, landed bad hot,nearly killing us all, and it caused both of us to have a good self examination over the next 2-3 weeks.
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
I thought you wanted to forget about that one... :)
preacher1
preacher1 1
You don't never forget something like that. You remember it as experience and thank the Good Lord that he brought your stupid butt down alive.LOL
HerrThor
HerrThor 1
Wow! Thank you for sharing your experience!
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 0
Yup. It always made me think. There have been countless times in my too short life when God or one of his emissaries changed the course of events. That I'm alive is no fault of mine to be sure. Sometimes I could feel Him pat me on the can and tell me "you'll do better next time". The thought of a next time made me shake at the knees. But He was right. I improved. 'I learned about _______ from that'
preacher1
preacher1 1
Yeah you do, and it's not generally an easy lesson.LOL
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 2
The school of hard knocks is not generally a gentle teacher, yet pretty effective if you're taking the course for credit
preacher1
preacher1 2
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
It was not labeled "HARD KNOCKS" because it was fun or easy. But it sure has a way of making you remember something.
preacher1
preacher1 3
At the risk of armcharing more and not having been there, FBW is not really the issue, nor is the sidestick itself. Military have had sidesticks for a good while on fighters. FBW has been around a long time. Though set up a little different with some feel to it, the 777 and 787 are both FBW and the 767 has some FBW functions, though not all.
The big question is what caused the AP to drop off in the first place.That started the whole process. There have been many theories and guesses but no real answer. Both here and in the Colgan crash, regardless of all the training in the world, it was probably just human nature that took over that caused the pullback on the stick. This was compounded by the fact that they were not linked and actions could not be seen by the PNF and in the short time it took the Captain to get back to the cockpit and rcognize the situation, it was too late. The rest is history.
gearup328
Peter Steitz 1
Preacher, I agree about the linking and feedback in the sidestick. I can't imagine not feeling what I was doing with the flight controls. The issue about not being linked together is new to me in this discussion. A single seat fighter doesn't have a link (to who?). A commercial airliner always has two pilots. I never flew an Air Bus and will have to ask a friend of mine who did, more about it.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
Sh--t happens!
preacher1
preacher1 1
I have never flown a Bus either but that is a well noted thing about the independence of the sticks. Seems to me a simple sensor or programming change could take care of that
gearup328
Peter Steitz 1
you got it!
SLKoeppel
Steven Koeppel 1
Aircraft won't spin if yaw damper keeps the ball centered.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
Why didn't they notice a lot of things. Why would the 2nd officer for lack if a better term hold the stick back rather than the alternative. How do you know the aircraft wasn't in a flat spin. Wing designs and control computers do a lot of things without input other than automatic and programed changes. No one will ever answer those things. All the print outs were for maintenance items and failures not flight information. But for a nail the war was lost, or something like that. Cause and effect.
erichhodel
Erich Hodel 1
Never say never. But it’s a simple fact that no commercial airliner will fly at cruising altitude with a pitch of more than 5° up.
2.5° pitch up and 95% thrust will cover your ass until you investigate further…
inoc
JM Whitson 1
Stall warning off with decreasing airspeed/increasing pitch, on with increasing airspeed/decreasing pitch.That's the answer.
It would be confusing to any pilot who didn't understand that about how the Airbus is programmed.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Stall Warning, Decreasing Airspeed, Pulling back on the stick.... doh.. Wonder what to expect.. The Obvious... A Real Stall and not just a warning. and even at that they continue to hold the stick back.
jetlagged
Martin Weaver 1
Once again...if it don't say Boeing, I ain't going. I miss my 767-300ER.
preacher1
preacher1 1
I like our 200-ER.I won't say nothing much about a Bus as I have never flown one, but my whole career was on Boeing big iron. Still doing some fill in with it, a CRJ200mod and a King Air. Point is there was never a reason to change and that 200ER is just going on 3 years old so cost definitely was not a factor. I guess if I ever fly pax again, I'll go on whatever is at the gate but that don't mean I'll have to like it.LOL
WtfWtf
WtfWtf 1
AOA indicators on all airplanes..
gearup328
Peter Steitz 2
Yep, in the cockpit. AOA sensors are on all new commercial aircraft. Most don't give the crew a direct readout. Info is only sent to the computers. Wings don't stall on airspeed--they stall on angle of attack (any airspeed). OK, lower the nose = lower angle of attack = increasing airspeed = recovery. If they only did those simple items. And they had 30,000 feet to do it!!!!
preacher1
preacher1 2
Loss of situational awareness by both, for whatever reason and a massive brain fart by instintively pulling back on the sidestick when the AP dropped off. Why all that happened, we'll never know. All I know for sure is that I'll bet that Airbus and AirFrance are glad there was a determination of pilot error. I said way back 3-4 years ago that regardless of the problem that's how it would be ruled. Dead men tell no tales.
gearup328
Peter Steitz 2
Tough summary ,ol' preacher. But true.
HerrThor
HerrThor 1
I agree, it is always easy to blame the deceased pilots. But maybe AFR has to change its training proceadures.
preacher1
preacher1 1
A simple problem, losing the airspeed , hence the AP kicking off, started the whole thing. There was absolutely no reason for him to pull back that stick. Something else had to have happened. He may have been the Jr Pilot of the 2, BUT both of them were muti-thousand hour pilots and qualified to be on the pointy end or they wouldn't have been in there in the first place
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
I agree with most of that, The stall speed is a product of AOA, Airspeed, and Altitude. The AOA feeds directly to the Stall Protection Computer and the Airspeed and Altitude comes from either BOTH of the ADC's or the Standby Altimeter/Airspeed or ISIS.

You state that it is on all new a/c, not sure where you are stating with new, but the system was out in the early 60's as the 727's and 737's have always had it installed.

The only readouts are on some EFIS Screens in words such as "STALL", you are correct, there is not a direct readout or visual display.

One other thing that AOA does that people do not understand is that it is not showing AOA based on attitude, but vs current wind, With this it also plays a role in find Wind Shear as with other systems on board the a/c, so if you are in down draft or updraft as in going over mountains at low altitude it can help there, and also for Micro Bursts.
gearup328
Peter Steitz 2
Sparkie, I'll retract the "new". You sound very informed about SPC's, ADC's and ISIS. As far as stalling goes, in any normally powered aircraft(less than 1:1 thrust ratio) the wing does the lifting. It will stall even if inverted if the critical angle of attack is exceeded. Under usual flight conditions, weight and airspeed determine when the critical angle will be exceeded. On the F-4 way back in Vietnam, we had a direct readout of AOA. I had to learn a whole new way of flying final. AOA was held constant and power was used to stay on the GS.
yr2012
matt jensen 0
Really Sully? I suppose now you'd rather have flown a 737-700 into the Hudson, instead of the A320-214 - assuming the Boeing would have made it and floated.
WtfWtf
WtfWtf 9
He actually said if it weren't for airbus flight envelope protection system he could have landed it softer and safer.. It didn't let him grease it on the water bc it limited nose up pitch.
preacher1
preacher1 6
Well, he just simply stated a fact about the AB flight envelope and this is a prime example of not having time to change the law to go outside of it. It is also the first time that a National Figure has come out with the fact that the non-linked sidesticks were a problem.
sparkie624
sparkie624 3
I would have rather been in a Boeing.
dkgambler
Dean Kennedy 1
Sully is America's Pilot so I suggest doing nothing but blindly singing his praises. Trust me, I know. I'm still scorched.
bishops90
Brian Bishop 0
This again?
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 0
It was an incredibly stupid pilot error that should have never happen and reinforces what I've always said and taught my own students... accidents from pilot error always happen because the pilot does something stupid.
nessman
Les Wilson 0
Just goes on to prove that the most dangerous component of any airplane is the moron at the flight controls.
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
There are many names for them... To name a few: "Loose Nut in the Cockpit", "Bad Yolk Actuator", "Bad Throttle Actuator". There are all types.

Had a captain to call up with his FMS already deferred and wrote up in the Logbook: "With FMS Deferred, both Nav's when crossing a station go hard to the right, then hard to the left and then begin working again." and then left the plane. The on coming pilot called and advised us of this and asked what the problem was. If anyone wants to know what the problem was I will post it and give you a quick lesson on VOR to VOR Point To Point Navigation.

At this point the only nav system available on the plane was the ADF... Had to have an avionics person to come out and sign it off, an since it was at an out station and not one of companies mechanics we had to defer the CAT II and pay about $500 bucks because of this "Loose Nut".
boughbw
Brian Bough 2
Airbus can call it pilot error because the pilots did not recognize they were in a stall. But that conveniently leaves out that the computers were giving them contradictory information, the Pitot tubes were froze over, and the sidesticks allowed the pilots to input contradictory information without knowing what the other was doing. If the pilots cannot rely on information from the plane, if they cannot rely on the inputs they were giving the plane to be carried-out, and if they cannot recognize their situation relative to this situation, how can you blame the pilots for the crash? Yet again, Airbus takes none of the blame.
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
Among the easiest ways to blame the pilots for this is: Be AirBus. I wonder from a HW/SW design perspective, did airbus overlook linking the sidesticks in design, or did they consider it and discard it for some reason? (Consider the decisions in the number of lifeboats on the Titannic in design and production stages). I also wonder if airbus is considering addition of such linking.
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
You are incorrect on the Pitot Static. If they were froze over, they would not have seen Altitude and Airspeed changes. This information was logged in the FDR. Probes have been PROVEN to have been working the entire time. They had the correct Altitude and Airspeed... They just read them wrong, and did not believe what they were reading.
JetMech24
JetMech24 1
You better go back and re-read the report, the FDR showed that they lost airspeed indication.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
They probably discarded it because it was too expensive and they wanted to cut cost. Would have required extra hardware, and that too would have had to been FAA Approved.
preacher1
preacher1 1
I'm a thinkin' that the loss of airspeed was what caused the AP to drop off in the first place. What else started in to cause the onset of panic and confusion, I don't think will ever be truly known
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
I am going to watch the entire program today... Even with the loss of airspeed, there are other ways that they can get a calculated readout... The IRS for one would have given it to them, Could have calculated of of GPS very easily.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
I watched the program, and they did state that the PITOT froze and the A/P Disconnected. I stand Corrected. By the same scenario they had a letter to the crews that told them that this could happen and what to expect. They were told to hold the A/C steady in the letter. Instead one person pulled the stick back and continued to pull it all the way back. The other crew member a short time later commanded the stick forward and the captain was called to the flight deck. The captain upon arrival trying to asses the situation and the about time Terrain warning came on descending flat at over 6000 feet per minute the first officer said look, I have been holding it all the way back and it is not climbing. The captain called out and said no, don't climb.... CVR Recording ended....

End of story. that is what was on the voice recorder. Pilot Error and no room to argue.
gearup328
Peter Steitz 1
You MUST have a sidestick that is connected.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
If the sticks were connected, they would be here today to tell you about it... As it is... They did not know what hit them until it was WAY too late.
preacher1
preacher1 1
What I can't really understand here is simple CRM. Why did the PNF take his stick forward. He had not been given control, regardless of Jr or Sr. To boot, it did not override the other. At best it just went neutral. Too little, too late
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
That is a good question... You can see from the FDR Data that the plane did level, but continued to descend. Maybe if he had done that earlier they could have gotten some of their speed back, but obviously too late... He should have told the other guy to give it too him... He could have felt he did not have time, or just froze on his words... That is some info that resets on the bottom of the ocean...
2jennaabby
Randy Poropatich -4
Someone shut Sully up! I had to put up with his ego in a recurrent once. Once, seemed like an eternity.
delmaracer
Bob Miller 3
Remind me, what he (Sully) did, again?
boughbw
Brian Bough 1
He overwhelmed Randy with his (Sully's) ego.