Air France A330 - Missing over Atantic

True, but if it got me killed, I'd expect a "Dumbass" since I earned it. I own my mistakes, no problem.
I have no problem with people calling me a dumbass because I have done many dumbass things... in airplanes and in life. The problem I have is with people who have some sort of superior attitude that they would never do anything as stupid as <insert act here>.
 
One would expect some degree of speculation abut airplane crashes on an internet chat board for pilots. It's the internet for goshsakes!
 
One would expect some degree of speculation abut airplane crashes on an internet chat board for pilots. It's the internet for goshsakes!

wrong.jpg
 
Word today that they've recovered the body of the (lead) pilot and one FA.
 
Word today that they've recovered the body of the (lead) pilot and one FA.
Actually, they've reportedly recovered a lot more than that.
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20090623/Brazil.Plane/ said:
The two are among 50 bodies pulled out of the ocean in the international search for remains of the 228 victims and wreckage of the May 31 crash.
 
Some interesting posts are circulating on the problem.

Best,

Dave
=====================================================

Some very interesting messages have been directed my way. I thought that I'd share them with you.

First one is from some one unknown to me. Obviously a airline F/O.

The second one is from a NASA DC-8 flight engineer that I have flown with in the past. He confirms that water can exist at -57 degrees C.

First PIREP:

Well, I'm sure you have all heard of the Air France accident. I fly the same plane, the A330.

Yesterday while coming up from Hong Kong to Tokyo, a 1700nm 4hr. flight, we experienced the same problems Air France had while flying thru bad weather.
I have a link to the failures that occurred on AF 447. My list is almost the same.
http://www.eurocockpit.com/images/acars447.php

The problem I suspect is the pitot tubes ice over and you loose your airspeed indication along with the auto pilot, auto throttles and rudder limit protection. The rudder limit protection keeps you from over stressing the rudder at high speed.

Synopsis; Tuesday 23, 2009 10am enroute HKG to NRT. Entering Nara Japan airspace.

FL390 mostly clear with occasional isolated areas of rain, clouds tops about FL410.
Outside air temperature was -50C TAT -21C (your not supposed to get liquid water at these temps). We did.

As we were following other aircraft along our route. We approached a large area of rain below us.
Tilting the weather radar down we could see the heavy rain below, displayed in red. At our altitude the radar indicated green or light precipitation, most likely ice crystals we thought.

Entering the cloud tops we experienced just light to moderate turbulence.
(The winds were around
30kts at altitude.) After about 15 sec. we encountered moderate rain. We thought it odd to have rain streaming up the windshield at this altitude and the sound of the plane getting pelted like an aluminum garage door. It got very warm and humid in the cockpit all of a sudden.
Five seconds later the Captains, First Officers, and standby airspeed indicators rolled back to 60kts. The auto pilot and auto throttles disengaged. The Master Warning and Master Caution flashed, and the sounds of chirps and clicks letting us know these things were happening.
Jerry, the Capt., hand flew the plane on the shortest vector out of the rain. The airspeed indicators briefly came back but failed again. The failure lasted for THREE minutes. We flew the recommended
83%N1 power setting. When the airspeed indicators came back. we were within 5 knots of our desired speed.
Everything returned to normal except for the computer logic controlling the plane. (We were in alternate law for the rest of the flight.)

We had good conditions for the failure; daylight, we were rested, relatively small area, and light turbulence. I think it could have been much worse.
Jerry did a great job fly and staying cool. We did our procedures called dispatch and maintenance on the SAT COM and landed in Narita. That's it.

Second PIREP:

Gentlemen and Ladies,

Some of you heard this before about what we do with the NASA DC-8-72 airplane in reference to the AF accident. We started flying thru and around and in and out hurricanes in 1993. The first thing that happens is you lose both airspeed. And within seconds of each other. Soon after, the outflow valve freezes due to the enormous amount of water the air conditioning systems (PACKS) are UNABLE to sling out via water separators. And that means a run away cabin altitude. Must vacant high altitude to at least 25,000 where things start to return to normal. But how could this be, was the question years ago, to have all this water at 39,000 feet? The science world immediately named this phenomenon: Liquid Cooled Droplets. Yup, even at -57 degrees. There is just too much volume of water in these weather systems for it all to freeze.

But if you really have to do this Suicide For Science flying like we do occasionally at NASA, get an Airborne Battleship. Also known respectfully, as a DC-8.
 
Similar failures on a recent NW flight. The FO sent this to a friend yesterday. Made the WSJ today.

Best,

Dave


According to the memo written by one of the crew, the twin-engine Northwest jet was cruising at 39,000 feet when it "approached a large area of rain below us." The plane's weather radar indicated only light precipitation or perhaps ice crystals straight ahead. The memo recounts how pilots were surprised to see substantial rain "streaming up the windshield" at that altitude and "the sound of the plane getting pelted like an aluminum garage door."

In the course of five seconds, according to the memo, airspeed indicators for both the captain and copilot showed a huge rollback in the plane's forward velocity. The standby indicator also rolled back. With autopilot and automatic-throttle controls disengaged, the cockpit was filled with beeps and bright warning signals indicating various system malfunctions.

According to the Northwest crewmember's account, the captain "hand flew the plane on the shortest vector out of the rain."

Airspeed indicators continued to waver, but the crew maintained the recommended steady engine settings. Once the airspeed indicators resumed functioning, "we were within 5 knots of our desired speed," according to the memo. "I think it could have been much worse," the memo writer concluded.

http://tinyurl.com/owpdz6
 
Circulating as in unsolicited and confirmed source email? Or you know who wrote this? I am very cautious about believing anything I get in an email that is forwarded around.

The fella that fowarded them is a former airline captain. He didn't know the FO that sent the first post, but found it very credible. He knew the DC-8 pilot as he said. You'll see above, the WSJ found the NW post credible enough to print and the NTSB seems to be looking into it.

Best,

DAve
 
The fella that fowarded them is a former airline captain. He didn't know the FO that sent the first post, but found it very credible. He knew the DC-8 pilot as he said. You'll see above, the WSJ found the NW post credible enough to print and the NTSB seems to be looking into it.

Best,

DAve

WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch these days. It's not your father's WSJ. Jes' sayin'.
 
CNN reporting AF investigators decided it hit straight down, did not break up prior.. However they also said it hit flat. Those seem to be contradictory statements.
 
CNN reporting AF investigators decided it hit straight down, did not break up prior.. However they also said it hit flat. Those seem to be contradictory statements.

Unless it was in a flat spin.

However, since it's Airbus, and it's France, I don't trust them. I'll wait until the NTSB says something.
 
Last I read, they were going back out to look some more. New boxes were supposed to be designed to last longer. Don't know how they intend to locate them with the batterys now dead. Perhaps some new underwater equipment.

Best,

Dave
 
I just saw this teaser on a pay-per-view blog. Has anyone heard anything like this?
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Search for Air France ‘Black Boxes’ Resumes
By Ramon Lopez/Editor, AT’s Daily Brief
French aviation investigators have expressed cautious optimism about finding the black boxes of Air France Flight 447, which crashed in the Atlantic last June en route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris. All 228 people aboard the plane were killed. A third search for the Airbus A330 was launched in late February...
 
BEA will also interview passengers that were on a November 29 flight that was also flying from Rio de Janeiro to Paris. The pilots from that flight brought the plane down 2,000 feet to avoid turbulence. They acted on their own after requesting permission from air traffic controllers in Dakar, Senegal and not getting a reply.
Wow. Taking an airliner to 2000' and back up has got to suck up a lot of fuel!
 
Just saw the NOVA show on this. The NOVA folks conducted their own investigation and came up with a possible explanation:

The flight path went right through a huge thunderstorm (which we all knew), but satellite images showed a small cell ahead of the main storm along the flight path that may have hid the larger portion from radar view. Additionally, they suggest a strong possibility of pitot icing, and a recent history among AF pilots of delayed pitch and power correction as a result of this situation. The plane stalled and rolled over down to the ocean.

And now there is a show on the Tenerife accident. PBS knows how to keep me in front of the TV.
 
Just saw the NOVA show on this. The NOVA folks conducted their own investigation and came up with a possible explanation:

The flight path went right through a huge thunderstorm (which we all knew), but satellite images showed a small cell ahead of the main storm along the flight path that may have hid the larger portion from radar view. Additionally, they suggest a strong possibility of pitot icing, and a recent history among AF pilots of delayed pitch and power correction as a result of this situation. The plane stalled and rolled over down to the ocean.

And now there is a show on the Tenerife accident. PBS knows how to keep me in front of the TV.

Why would that be? Deficient training?

I fly AF, possibly second behind United (which isn't saying a lot b/c United is far ahead in number one) and I think of that accident each time I get on board their planes. In fact I was in Paris when it happened, and had just landed that morning - on AF.
 
I heard about the Nova show, but don't get cable. Sounds interesting. Having a small cell block out a potentially larger cell is definitely possible - that's part of why I like having both NEXRAD and on-board radar if I can. The NEXRAD can tell me "Hey, idiot, there's a really big cell over there behind that little cell." Of course, they don't have NEXRAD in the middle of the ocean...

I thought the potential pitot icing and resultant delayed pitch and power was an Airbus problem, not an Air France problem. Goes back to the fact that the planes are severely overcomplicated. As they say, if it ain't Boeing...
 
I thought the potential pitot icing and resultant delayed pitch and power was an Airbus problem, not an Air France problem. Goes back to the fact that the planes are severely overcomplicated. As they say, if it ain't Boeing...

There was a not so subtle criticism of the high amount of automation on AB planes. The iced pitots would caused a failure of the autothrottle controls (this was seen on the aircrafts datalink, which showed about 2 dozen system faults in about 4 minutes). Maybe that particular failure was lost in the pile of other failures.

Also, it could be an Air France problem, if it is a training issue.
 
Last edited:
There was a not so subtle criticism of the high amount of automation on AB planes. The iced pitots would caused a failure of the autothrottle controls (this was seen on the aircrafts datalink, which showed about 2 dozen system faults in about 4 minutes). Maybe that particular failure was lost in the pile of other failures.

Always possible. I'm not a fan of the Airbus systems at all. That said, I'll get on one without concern. The probability of crashes like that happening are very, very low.

Also, it could be an Air France problem, if it is a training issue.

Agreed, I have no idea what their training is like.
 
I thought it was a well done program. Basically they said the pilots went from a fully automated state to a hand fly situation in just a few seconds due to loss of airspeed data. The error was forgetting to increase power and allowing the airplane to stall. When the AB autothrottles decrease power, the levers do not move, so there is no visual or tactile clue to the pilots. The engine speed gauge is in the middle of the panel and therefore a little out of the scan range. They had no reliable airspeed indication.
The show had a pretty good depiction of the flight deck as this was happening. Everything was going wrong at once, at night, in a storm, over the ocean with no logical explanation. How would you have reacted as a pilot? It was pretty sobering to me.
One thing that was never mentioned when they were talking about the inadvertent stall entry was angle of attack. Does anyone know if the AB has an AOA indicator? Is it in the normal scan?
 
The show had a pretty good depiction of the flight deck as this was happening. Everything was going wrong at once, at night, in a storm, over the ocean with no logical explanation. How would you have reacted as a pilot? It was pretty sobering to me.

Not to mention the fact that they're in an plane with highly complex systems that I'm not convinced give the pilot a great idea of what's going on unless you're really, really staying on top of everything.

We all probably would've ended up the same.
 
One thing that was never mentioned when they were talking about the inadvertent stall entry was angle of attack. Does anyone know if the AB has an AOA indicator? Is it in the normal scan?
There's a good chance that AoA readings generated by the air data computers and are dependent on accurate pitot and static pressure.
 
WTF. So, how do they increase power then, if the levers are already forward? :dunno:
Methinks there's an "autothrottle" range with a "max power" position ahead of that. My next door neighbor flies A330s, I can ask him.

Edit: Just chatted with the neighbor. The power levers have three detented positions: TOGA, climb, and idle. TOGA (takeoff/GoAround) overrides the autothrottles. Climb is used for almost everything else and in that position the FMS controls thrust and can command anything from max to idle. There's a switch on the power levers which disables the autothrottles and reverts to "manual" control of power which makes the engines respond in a similar manner to conventional thrust lever setups. Also, the EPR gauges have indications for the current commanded thrust as well as for the setting of the power levers. When switching from auto to manual control one normally would move the levers until the two indications matched first so there's no transient thrust change when manual control in engaged.

He also said that there's no AoA presentation on the panel.
 
Last edited:
WTF. So, how do they increase power then, if the levers are already forward? :dunno:
Yeah, I did wonder about that. I hope Lance's neighbor can give us the answer.
Why would AOA indication have anything to do with pitot or static pressure? I do think the AOA measuring unit would go through the air data computer (and may have been iced up as well), so if in the Air France case the ADC had pretty much given up, the indicator might not read correctly. Any error message about this would have been lost to the pilots in the stack of other error messages they were getting.
 
Why would AOA indication have anything to do with pitot or static pressure? I do think the AOA measuring unit would go through the air data computer (and may have been iced up as well), so if in the Air France case the ADC had pretty much given up, the indicator might not read correctly. Any error message about this would have been lost to the pilots in the stack of other error messages they were getting.

There are many ways of measuring AoA. The most common is a trailing vane which works much like a weathervane but there are some more modern methods which require no moving parts making them more robust and less failure prone. Most if not all of the latter types utilize what amounts to a pitot like probe with multiple ports. The pressure from those ports are converted to electronic signals and a computer combines them to determine AoA. In some cases all the necessary pressures are sensed by the probe's ports but AFaIK it's also common to incorporate pressures from other points such as the pitot and static systems especially when those ports are already being used by the same air data computer that calculates AoA. On something like a A330 there are probably several independent pitot and static systems and multiple air data computers but a lightning strike induced electrical failure might just be able to knock them all offline.

But according to my neighbor there is no AoA indicator on the A330 so in the case of this crash I don't expect that erroneous or missing AoA indications played a role.
 
Back
Top