Air France Black Box ResultsPilot Error

"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."

"The final moments inside the cockpit of the twin-engine Airbus A330, these
people said, indicate the pilots seemingly were confused by alarms they received
from various automated flight-control systems as the plane passed through some
turbulence typical on the route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris. They also faced
unexpectedly heavy icing at 35,000 feet. Such icing is renowned for making
airspeed-indicators and other external sensors unreliable."



Entire article at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...ist_smartbrief



Vaughn

"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?

James Robinson writes:

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

At Airbus, pilots are always at fault by definition, no matter who or what was
actually at fault. Remember Habsheim.

Mxsmanic wrote:

James Robinson writes:

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

At Airbus, pilots are always at fault by definition, no matter who or
what was actually at fault. Remember Habsheim.

Ignoring much of the controvery over the investigaion, the pilot at
Habsheim should get a major chunk of the blame. Anyone who chose to risk
an aircraft, full of passengers, at the limits of its capability, during an
unpracticed demonstration, over an airfield he was unfamiliar with, should
have his head examined.

James Robinson writes:

Ignoring much of the controvery over the investigaion, the pilot at
Habsheim should get a major chunk of the blame. Anyone who chose to risk
an aircraft, full of passengers, at the limits of its capability, during an
unpracticed demonstration, over an airfield he was unfamiliar with, should
have his head examined.

Any combination of Airbus and Air France is hazardous, because Airbus doesn't
like to admit when its planes have defects, and Air France pilots are cowboys
who greatly overestimate their skills and don't like to do things the safe
way.

Mxsmanic wrote:

James Robinson writes:

Ignoring much of the controvery over the investigaion, the pilot at
Habsheim should get a major chunk of the blame. Anyone who chose to
risk an aircraft, full of passengers, at the limits of its
capability, during an unpracticed demonstration, over an airfield he
was unfamiliar with, should have his head examined.

Any combination of Airbus and Air France is hazardous, because Airbus
doesn't like to admit when its planes have defects, and Air France
pilots are cowboys who greatly overestimate their skills and don't
like to do things the safe way.

Airbus' overall safety record is just as good as Boeing's, so your rants
are misdirected.

Air France, on the other hand, seems to have emerging culture problems that
I thought they had shaken after their spate of accidents in the 1960s.
Their safety group has to be under a management microscope with all their
recent problems. Korean Air seems to have sorted their problems out, no
reason Air France can't.

On 2011-05-26, James Robinson wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
At Airbus, pilots are always at fault by definition, no matter who or
what was actually at fault. Remember Habsheim.

Ignoring much of the controvery over the investigaion, the pilot at
Habsheim should get a major chunk of the blame.

The aircraft also actually performed slightly better than book figures.
The aircraft was put in a situation from which it would be impossible
to get away without hitting those trees, whether it was fly by wire
or fly by steel cable.

In article ,
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?

Scuttlebutt is that a Northwest crew faced a similar problem (in an
Airbus) but reverted to basics and flew the airplane, rather than try to
figure out the automated stuff. A good friend used to fly Airbusses for
American, but he did not LIKE them! He would rather fly Boeings.

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

In article ,
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?

Scuttlebutt is that a Northwest crew faced a similar problem (in an
Airbus) but reverted to basics and flew the airplane, rather than try
to figure out the automated stuff. A good friend used to fly Airbusses
for American, but he did not LIKE them! He would rather fly Boeings.

There have been similar incidents in other Airbuses and Boeings (777)
where the pilots managed to keep control of the aircraft. What was the
difference this time? Was it inadequate training, confusing cockpit
alarms and displays, the lack of outside visual references? Blaming it
entirely on the crew at this early stage is premature.

As for preference, it's a little like people's views about Ford or Chevy.
There really isn't that much difference between them, but there are
passionate defenders of both brands. There are many pilots who fly both
brands who prefer Airbus. The relative safety records for thousands of
aircraft of both types are quite similar, so there is no systemic reason
to complain about one over the other.

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article ,
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?

Scuttlebutt is that a Northwest crew faced a similar problem (in an
Airbus) but reverted to basics and flew the airplane, rather than try to
figure out the automated stuff. A good friend used to fly Airbusses for
American, but he did not LIKE them! He would rather fly Boeings.

Automation has some opportunity to make things better or worse. Take
auto-throttles. Most commercial jets have some sort of automatic
throttling - change a setting and the throttles adjust. In a Boeing, you
adjust the setting and the throttle levers actually move. It makes it easy
for the pilot to do a quick scan or feel for verification or in unusual ops.
In an Airbus, on the other hand, the engineers seem to think that the pilot
is a redundant component in the cockpit and doesn't need any feedback -
auto-throttle DOES NOT move the throttle levers when they're adjusted. The
Airbus thinking seems to be that the computer is always right so don't argue
with it. There's a LOT more that makes Airbus less than a treat to fly.

If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going.