AF 447 disaster, June 2009

[onetrack]

Nev, the bottom line is, every single A330 aircraft manufactured, flew consistently without a major fatality in passenger service - for FIFTEEN years - between 1994 and 2009. AF 447 became the first major fatality disaster and hull loss for that model aircraft, and it can only be put down to crew incompetence in dealing with a flight upset.

This problem is common to many aircraft disasters, and it's the reason why pilots and crew are found to be at fault in the vast majority of aircraft disasters, where perfectly good aircraft are destroyed due to inadequate piloting skills, and personalities that are unsuited to the peculiar demands of piloting. No doubt, you have personally declined to train some students in the art of flying, due to the fact you recognised that they were an accident looking for a place to happen.

[Garfly]

It doesn't have to to be one thing or the other. I think it's all of the above.

You might say, as Sully sort of does, that side-stick tech was also an accident looking for a place to happen.

Panic, as we know, might turn an otherwise competent pilot to mush.  And it's hard to simulate in training or testing.

So we look to systems as backstops for HF failings.

 

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 03:23 AM by Garfly

[facthunter]

Only ONE that I can recall and He crashed 2 aeroplanes injuring a Passenger in each CASE. One plane Burned to a crisp. I had another with only One eye who had depth Perception issues. A few here and there that I Have advised they get another hobby. Not necessarily MY own students. Not everyone is good Pilot Material and shouldn't expect that Having Paid Money a Pass is Guaranteed. Often Long term Pilots will Fail a conversion onto a New type and Leave the Industry.. It's not an easy game to get a Job in and you spend Heaps of Coin to get the Qualifications. You can Medical out also.

   Nothing in all this should deter you from flying Airbus.  High altitude UPSETS are More trained for. I've NEVER taken a plane through a Storm cell since Radar was fitted.   Mid 60's. Nev

[Garfly]

 

 

Some interesting observations from these two (the short version: 18:00 > 32:00)

 

 

 

Also this YT comment:

 

@DEJLinguist

4 hours ago (edited)

With AF447 I seem to remember that one factor was they were so used to the stall protections of normal law that they felt 'safe' pulling back with abandon and it wasn't sufficiently clear to them that in alternate law the responsibility for avoiding a stall was fully on them. Another factor that probably wouldn't have been encountered in a Boeing. I also seem to recall I think a test flight accident where a factor in the crash was that the non normal law they found themselves in meant they had to manually trim which they were not used to something a Boeing pilot does all the time instinctively. Airbus should have neon signs flash up saying 'you are now responsible for this flight critical task when the law level drops.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

I may have this next speculation all wrong;

 

At about the time of this accident, was it not common for airlines to give preferential training to "ab initio" applicants?

My understanding of this term is, applicants with little or no prior (flight) training.

The idea being that the airline flight school would train the aspiring pilot in their way/culture. In doing so the pilot would somehow be more appropriately skilled/safer

An unforeseen by product of this is, that the new pilot may have had little or no time/experince in small aircraft.

Small aircraft flying is often regarded as "seat of the pants" in that it instills basic responses to aircraft behaviour eg In a stall, lower the nose/add power. No airspeed indication , maintain straight & level add/decrease power , etc

 

Captain Sullenberger of A380/Hudson River fame & glider pilot, is often sighted as an example of the desirability of those who advocate for commercial pilots having a grounding in small aircraft flying.😈

 

 

[facthunter]

 It's called a Multicrew Licence.  Nev