Air France Black Box ResultsPilot Error

Have you catch the episode of aviation destroyed and cause of bee. A bee has build a small net on the rear side of wings. Just because of that simulator showing a wrong reading and pilot increased the speed though he know that something wrong is happening.

James Robinson wrote:
"vaughn" wrote:

"The pilots of an Air France jet that crashed into the Atlantic Ocean
two years ago apparently became distracted with faulty airspeed
indicators and failed to properly deal with other vital systems,
including adjusting engine thrust, according to people familiar with
preliminary findings from the plane's recorders."

An unfortunate rush to judgement on the part of the media. The aircraft
appears to have had major systems fail, and the pilot is blamed for not
being able to deal with it. There is even some question that Air France
trains the pilots on how to handle such problems.

Maybe system failure or inadequate training is more to blame, and the
pilots were simply the victims?


The PBS NOVA TV series aired an episode in February that attempted to apply
accident forensics on the facts then known. This being nearly two years
after the crash, with the not unreasonable assumption that the recorders
would never be recovered, they could not be accused of leaping to
conclusions.

If the preliminary indications from the recorders are as claimed, then it
appears the NOVA experts did a remarkable job in determining the most
probable accident sequence sans recorder data.

The NOVA show can be viewed online here (I thought it well done for its
target audience):

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/c...light-447.html

Jim Logajan wrote:

The PBS NOVA TV series aired an episode in February that attempted to
apply accident forensics on the facts then known. This being nearly
two years after the crash, with the not unreasonable assumption that
the recorders would never be recovered, they could not be accused of
leaping to conclusions.

If the preliminary indications from the recorders are as claimed, then
it appears the NOVA experts did a remarkable job in determining the
most probable accident sequence sans recorder data.

The NOVA show can be viewed online here (I thought it well done for
its target audience):

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/c...light-447.html

A professional airline pilot writing on another blog doesn't agree with
its quality:

"Nova tried to explain the events leading up to the crash. I'll address
only the Wx radar here.

Their expert, from NCAR part of NOAA, said the Wx radar on AF447 had only
50 mile range. Strike one. It's 320 miles, if the storm is dense enough
to matter.

Nova showed a small/medium sized cell in the plane's track toward the
major line of storm. Nova said the small cell would obscure the radar
view of the major storm, causing them to stumble into it.

Poppycock/BS/Hogwash! The Wx radar on 447 returns were calibrated for
rainfall intensity. When the intensity of return is high, an algorithm
called "Path Attenuation Compensation" kicks in to assure calibrated
display. When the storm is too intense for penetration without reserve to
see the full picture of the "storm behind the storm," the Wx radar puts
up a yellow band, called PAC Alert, at the outer range ring of the
display.

I have great respect for Public Broadcasting in the US, but this program
failed miserably. I wonder if major sponsor, billionaire David H. Koch,
didn't have too much editorial input?
--------

PS: Why did they choose to interview a radar guy unfamiliar with that
specific airborne Wx radar? The least the guy could have done would be to
study the Pilot's Guide in NCAR's own C-130, which is operationally just
like the WX radar that was in AF447."