On Jan 28, 9:28*pm, "
wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:57:24 -0800 (PST), "





wrote:
On Jan 26, 9:02*pm, "
wrote:
They didn't "lose control" at all. *They flew it (tail first) into the ocean.

I think the NTSB and most people would consider an airplane that
stalled and fell tens of thousands of feet into the water tail first,
"loss of control". * The plane was stalled and not in any
normal flight envelope.

I would say an airplane that went in nose first wasn't much "in control",
either. * The fact is that they had perfect control over the plane and *flew*
it tail-first into the ocean. *Purely a pilot error.

Which part of an airplane that hits the ground first doesn't
determine whether it was due to loss of control or not.
Loss of control doesn't mean the flight controls were not
working. *It means the pilots lost control of the airplane,
it was not in a normal mode of flight.

They *WERE* in complete control of the aircraft. *They flew it into the
ground.

As I said before, you're definition of "in complete control" is not
what most people would agree with. It's certainly not in the
lexicon of the NTSB which would consider any plane that impacts
the earth in a stall after plumetting tens of thousands of feet,
"loss of control". An example of a plane that is flown into the
ground is one that is still in a normal flight envelope but where
the pilots have lost altitude/terrain awareness and impacted
a mountain. That is called "controlled flight into terrain".
Clearly the A340 was a loss of control situation.

Here's a question. Take another case. A pilot is in IFR
conditions, becomes disoriented, the plane starts banking,
enters a spiral dive. Along the way down, the pilot puts
in a variety of control inputs, but the plane crahes into the
water tail first. Is that a loss of control accident, yes or
no?




Which obviously they did, because they were trying to
get it to just fly level. *Instead it was stalled and plumetted
30,000 feet to the ground.

They were trying but because they were incompetent they flew it into the
ocean.

The experts agree it was loss of control:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...lt-was-it.html

"The details in today’s report confirm that this crash should not be
considered on its own. It is another in a series of disasters
involving what is technically called “loss of control” – a problem
which has become the number one cause of air crashes. The trend is so
alarming that it was the subject of heated debate at a Flight Safety
Foundation conference in Turkey earlier this year.
At the heart of the issue is how pilots respond when faced with an
imminent aerodynamic stall, which comes down to just one movement on
the flight controls: the need to push down the nose of the airplane,
not pull it up.
At the conference, Michael Coker, Boeing’s senior safety pilot, cited
a series of crashes, beginning with that of the Colgan Air crash that
killed 50 people at Buffalo in 2009 and including others in Venezuela,
Amsterdam, and France. In each case the airplane had reached the brink
of a stall, where the wings lose the ability to provide lift, and the
pilots, rather than putting the nose down to regain speed—a basic
tenet of Piloting 101 since the beginning of flight—had instead pulled
up the nose and produced a fatal outcome.
The case of Air France Flight 447 now joins that list as the deadliest
of all."





Try applying what you are saying to driving a car.
Accident occur everyday where drivers lose control
of a car and cause a crash.

It's not unheard of for a car to drive, under full control, into a bridge..

Yes, if the driver is suicidal or asleep. But not if the driver
has the car under control and is trying to avoid hitting the
bridge.




The loss of control
could be initiated by some factor, such as swerving too
much to avoid a deer. *The car is now careening out of
control, despite the fact that the driver still can
move the wheels and activate the brakes. *They have
lost control of the car because it is no longer doing
what they want it to do, which is to go straight down the
road.

Strawman.




No, it's just a very fair comparison.




Two inexperienced pilots were at the controls (the captain was "sleeping" in
the pilot's quarters), at the time. *One of them thought they needed more
altitude and kept the control stick all the way back. *The other knew they
needed more airspeed (stall warnings were going off) and pushed his stick
forward. *Now the problem: *the stupid system *averaged* the input of the two
sticks (and still came up "climb"). *Now, why in *hell* would you want to
*average* the input from the two pilots? *(Is this like AGW where "consensus"
is more important than "right"?) *The system should have _at_least_ flagged an
error when the two controls didn't agree and let one override the other.

The problem was the correct procedure with loss of all airspeed
reference is not to do ANY of that. *It's to simply follow the book
and training which is to set the power at a certain setting and
pitch the aircraft nose up by a set degree. *The plane will then
continue to fly just fine while you sort out what is going on.

The problem is conflicting sensors.
Altitude is safety. *So is airspeed. *The
pilots disagreed on the solution but never told each other that they were on
opposite teams, further confusing things. *The aircraft didn't help because it
allowed them to play their tug-o-war game with the stick.

The problem was NOT conflicting sensors. *They knew
they had lost AIRSPEED indication. *The autopilot
disconnected completely because it had no airspeed
input. *Per the Airbus manual,
in that situation the correct procedure is to apply a certain
power setting and a certain pitch setting. *The plane will
then fly perfectly fine without knowing the airspeed.

Try READING.



Of the two copilots, one had 3000 hours experience, the
other 6600 hours, not what I would call inexperienced.

It wasn't their vast experience that flew them into the ocean.

I don't know what you are arguing here. *You claimed
the pilots were inexperienced. *Do you now agree they
actually had substantial experience?

The ones at the controls were. *They made a rookie mistake. *The captain was
not at the controls.




So now you're back to 6600 hours and 3000 hours experience of
the two pilots actually flying the plane makes them
inexperienced.....
And the captain was not sleeping during the event. He was
back in the cockpit observing and giving
direction during the crisis and he had even more experience.





The second biggie was that the captain didn't take over when it was apparent
that they were in trouble, leaving the two inexperienced pilots fly them into
the ground.

IMO that system in a disaster waiting to happen.
It turns out that the proper procedure when you have
no airspeed reference is to set the throttles at a
certain power point, like 75%, and put the plane
some degree pitch up, like 3%. *The plane will
then continue to fly safely. * So, instead of dumping
the plane back to the pilots, why didn't the
flight computer apply those settings, continue to
fly the plane, while alerting the pilots to what was
going on? *The pilots unfortunately did not follow
that procedure and allowed the plane to stall.

The idea is that the human is better at understanding a failing system than
the system itself.

I always prefer to fly in a Boeing, but I'm not
sure what their aircraft would do in the same
situation.

I don't agree that it's a problem. *It is *intentionally* done that way.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You think it's OK for an autopilot system that has the plane
under control to just disengage in the middle of the night, in
severe turbulance, over water and dump the whole thing
back into the hands of the pilots?

As opposed to continuing on with a program where it knows it has erroneous
information? *Absolutly. *That's what the pilots are there for.

It's unbelievable that anyone would argue that it's better
to just abruptly dump the plane back into the hands of the
pilots in the middle of a thunderstorm, with severe turbulance,
at night, over the water, instead of just defaulting to Airbus's
own manual which say set the power at X, the pitch at Y,
and the plane will continue to fly safely.

It's hard to believe that anyone would suggest a programmer, who isn't there,
knows more about a bad situation than the supposedly trained pilots, who are.

That determination was made a long time ago by Airbus and Boeing.
There newest fly-by-wire aircraft all have computer controls which
look out for the pilots making what you call rookie mistakes. For
example, they limit the rate of roll a pilot can command. They limit
the max rudder deflection as a function of airspeed so that a pilot
can't put so much force on a control surface that it causes the tail
to rip off.

And no one is suggesting that the computer have absolute control.
Only that the computer not go from it handling the plane in severe
turbulance, at night, over water, to dumping it in the hands of the
pilots. The computer could
have simply applied the correct procedure for the situation, ie
set the power and pitch to the manual numbers, telling the pilots
that it was doing so. If the pilots wanted to take other action,
then they could have disconnected the autopilot.

You put ultimate faith in humans. But it's a well known fact that
humans frequently are more fallible in many circumstances than
a computer. And I'd say the results of this and other accidents
speak for themselves. So does the reference I provided.



And that same computer did continue on with the program
for quite awhile. *As airspeed indication was lost, it backed
down through a couple of alternate ways of controlling the
airplane. *If it could do that, there is no reason that it could
not have applied the power/pitch setting as the last
solution. *If it had, 200 people would likely be alive.

Could? *Sure it *could*. *You don't let a computer have control after it's
impaired.

The computer was never impaired.
One more time. Go read up on the flight modes of the A340
system. The computer continued to have control as it lost
sensor input. It backed down from the main flight control mode
to alternate flight modes as it continued to control the airplane.
It's only at the end, where it dumped the plane back to the
pilots instead of going to the final alternate flight possibility
that is right in the manual.

Your preference is clear. You'd rather the computer dump it
back to the pilots in a horrific emergency situtaion and hope
that they react properly and also remember the correct
power setting of x% and the correct pitch setting of y%.
How about neither one of them, in that terrifying environment,
can remember the correct procedure? I'd prefer the computer do it.






And as I pointed out before, a similar scenario had
already happened before. *The A340 pitot tubes were
in the process of being replaced because they were
known to ice over. *And in some previous incidents
the pilots, confronted with an unusual scenario,
also did not apply the correct power/pitch
procedure per the book. *Should they all have reacted
correctly? *Sure. *But humans are known to screw
up, particularly when confronted by a major crisis
where you only have seconds to react correctly.
That's why having that autopilot continue to keep
the plane in a safe envelope by just setting power
and pitch makes sense.

...and computers (and their programmers) are infallible? *Get real!



The history of aircraft computers is pretty damn good.
Can you find us one accident report for a modern airliner
where the blame was placed on the computer?
And in this case, again, all that had to be done is apply
the correct power and pitch. And besides, the computer
was still involved in running the airplane anyway. Without
it they would not be able to move any of the basic flight
controls. So, if you don't trust computers and their
programs, you better not fly today.

I'd especially trust a computer program that was written
over years by multiple programmers, tested many hours before entering
service, etc, over pilots confronted with a panic situation.





I think the results speak
for themselves. *Had the computer instead set the throttles
at 75% power and pitched the nose up 3 deg, or whatever
the book setting was, 200 people would likely be alive
today. *It could have done that while issuing a message
to the pilots: *All airspeed indication lost. *Going to
flight mode 4, control by default power and pitch!"

If they had a pilot or two who had a clue they wouldn't be in the mess.. *If
they were flying a plane designed by someone sane they would have discovered
their mess.

Easy for you to judge the dead pilots who were
confronted with a major crisis in some of the worst
circumstances possible. *Wonder how you would
perform under similar circumstances.

I AM NOT THE PILOT, DUMMY. *The *fact* is that they killed a *lot* of people
for no good reason. *It was *purely* pilot error by an obviously inexperienced
crew.


And now you resort to name calling? You are judging pilots and
from your insistence that this was not a loss of control situation,
it's clear you're not even familiar with aviation terminology.
I'll leave it for others to decide who's the dummy here.
And again you're back to "inexperienced pilots?"
I



I didn't judge. *That's the conclusion drawn from the investigation after the
BB was recovered.

Simple then.
Show us where the accident report says the pilots were
inexperienced, as you claim. Show us in the accident report where it
says the plane was designed by someone insane.



As for the sanity comment, not sure what you're referring
to. *The pilots knew they had lost airspeed information.

Yet one continued to try to *GAIN* altitude. *Sanity?


They should put you, the armchair expert pilot in a simulator
and see what happens. Ever hear of spacial disorientation?
Vertigo? That's what happens when you get confused
enough from the vaious inputs to the body that you know longer
know up from down. And neither that, nor panic, can happen
to a computer.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 07:29:08 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Jan 28, 9:28*pm, "
wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:57:24 -0800 (PST), "





snip

Which part of an airplane that hits the ground first doesn't
determine whether it was due to loss of control or not.
Loss of control doesn't mean the flight controls were not
working. *It means the pilots lost control of the airplane,
it was not in a normal mode of flight.

They *WERE* in complete control of the aircraft. *They flew it into the
ground.

As I said before, you're definition of "in complete control" is not
what most people would agree with. It's certainly not in the
lexicon of the NTSB which would consider any plane that impacts
the earth in a stall after plumetting tens of thousands of feet,
"loss of control". An example of a plane that is flown into the
ground is one that is still in a normal flight envelope but where
the pilots have lost altitude/terrain awareness and impacted
a mountain. That is called "controlled flight into terrain".
Clearly the A340 was a loss of control situation.

That's certainly not a useful definition. By that definition, a plane is, by
definition, "out of control" anytime something bad happens. ...even if it
crashes into a mountain-top at straight-and-level.

Here's a question. Take another case. A pilot is in IFR
conditions, becomes disoriented, the plane starts banking,
enters a spiral dive. Along the way down, the pilot puts
in a variety of control inputs, but the plane crahes into the
water tail first. Is that a loss of control accident, yes or
no?

Not as long as he has complete control of the aircraft, driving it into the
ground, no. A spin, of course, would be out-of-control.


Which obviously they did, because they were trying to
get it to just fly level. *Instead it was stalled and plumetted
30,000 feet to the ground.

They were trying but because they were incompetent they flew it into the
ocean.

The experts agree it was loss of control:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...lt-was-it.html

"The details in today’s report confirm that this crash should not be
considered on its own. It is another in a series of disasters
involving what is technically called “loss of control” – a problem
which has become the number one cause of air crashes. The trend is so
alarming that it was the subject of heated debate at a Flight Safety
Foundation conference in Turkey earlier this year.

If you define "loss of control" as you do, certainly it's a leading cause. It
is the only cause possible.

At the heart of the issue is how pilots respond when faced with an
imminent aerodynamic stall, which comes down to just one movement on
the flight controls: the need to push down the nose of the airplane,
not pull it up.

Which they did *NOT* do.

At the conference, Michael Coker, Boeing’s senior safety pilot, cited
a series of crashes, beginning with that of the Colgan Air crash that
killed 50 people at Buffalo in 2009 and including others in Venezuela,
Amsterdam, and France. In each case the airplane had reached the brink
of a stall, where the wings lose the ability to provide lift, and the
pilots, rather than putting the nose down to regain speed—a basic
tenet of Piloting 101 since the beginning of flight—had instead pulled
up the nose and produced a fatal outcome.
The case of Air France Flight 447 now joins that list as the deadliest
of all."





Try applying what you are saying to driving a car.
Accident occur everyday where drivers lose control
of a car and cause a crash.

It's not unheard of for a car to drive, under full control, into a bridge.

Yes, if the driver is suicidal or asleep. But not if the driver
has the car under control and is trying to avoid hitting the
bridge.

Fog.


The loss of control
could be initiated by some factor, such as swerving too
much to avoid a deer. *The car is now careening out of
control, despite the fact that the driver still can
move the wheels and activate the brakes. *They have
lost control of the car because it is no longer doing
what they want it to do, which is to go straight down the
road.

Strawman.




No, it's just a very fair comparison.

No, you're proposing a scenario set up with the conclusion stated. A
strawman.

snip


I don't know what you are arguing here. *You claimed
the pilots were inexperienced. *Do you now agree they
actually had substantial experience?

The ones at the controls were. *They made a rookie mistake. *The captain was
not at the controls.




So now you're back to 6600 hours and 3000 hours experience of
the two pilots actually flying the plane makes them
inexperienced.....
And the captain was not sleeping during the event. He was
back in the cockpit observing and giving
direction during the crisis and he had even more experience.

He was called to the cockpit *after* the disaster was already in play. He
didn't assume command and if he had done so, the disaster would probably have
been averted. The two flying *were* inexperienced; one holding his control
stick in the *FULL CLIMB* position with stall alarms going off. That doesn't
exactly match your assertion that he was very experienced.

snip

It's unbelievable that anyone would argue that it's better
to just abruptly dump the plane back into the hands of the
pilots in the middle of a thunderstorm, with severe turbulance,
at night, over the water, instead of just defaulting to Airbus's
own manual which say set the power at X, the pitch at Y,
and the plane will continue to fly safely.

It's hard to believe that anyone would suggest a programmer, who isn't there,
knows more about a bad situation than the supposedly trained pilots, who are.

That determination was made a long time ago by Airbus and Boeing.
There newest fly-by-wire aircraft all have computer controls which
look out for the pilots making what you call rookie mistakes. For
example, they limit the rate of roll a pilot can command. They limit
the max rudder deflection as a function of airspeed so that a pilot
can't put so much force on a control surface that it causes the tail
to rip off.

They are fly-by-wire, sure, but when things go to hell control is still
"dumped", as you say, back on the pilots.

And no one is suggesting that the computer have absolute control.

You *ARE*!

Only that the computer not go from it handling the plane in severe
turbulance, at night, over water, to dumping it in the hands of the
pilots.

You *DID*!

The computer could
have simply applied the correct procedure for the situation, ie
set the power and pitch to the manual numbers, telling the pilots
that it was doing so. If the pilots wanted to take other action,
then they could have disconnected the autopilot.

You *DID* again!

You put ultimate faith in humans. But it's a well known fact that
humans frequently are more fallible in many circumstances than
a computer. And I'd say the results of this and other accidents
speak for themselves. So does the reference I provided.

You put the ultimate faith in computers. Foolish! ...particularly when
things are already going south. The FACT that the aircraft manufacturer (and
the FAA and just about everyone else) disagrees with you is instructive.

And that same computer did continue on with the program
for quite awhile. *As airspeed indication was lost, it backed
down through a couple of alternate ways of controlling the
airplane. *If it could do that, there is no reason that it could
not have applied the power/pitch setting as the last
solution. *If it had, 200 people would likely be alive.

Could? *Sure it *could*. *You don't let a computer have control after it's
impaired.

The computer was never impaired.

It's inputs were, dummy.

One more time. Go read up on the flight modes of the A340
system. The computer continued to have control as it lost
sensor input. It backed down from the main flight control mode
to alternate flight modes as it continued to control the airplane.
It's only at the end, where it dumped the plane back to the
pilots instead of going to the final alternate flight possibility
that is right in the manual.

I've read the report. No, I'm not going to read it again because some moron
on the Usenet is second-guessing the professionals who designed the thing,
rather than the real cause of the crash; the loose nuts behind the yokes.

Your preference is clear. You'd rather the computer dump it
back to the pilots in a horrific emergency situtaion and hope
that they react properly and also remember the correct
power setting of x% and the correct pitch setting of y%.
How about neither one of them, in that terrifying environment,
can remember the correct procedure? I'd prefer the computer do it.

When things are already going South, no I'd rather not trust my life to a
programmer who's life isn't on the line. I'd rather trust a pilot who is
doing his job (really, his only job). I've been around computers long enough
(designing them for almost 40 years) to know better. Your trust in technology
is just amazing.

And as I pointed out before, a similar scenario had
already happened before. *The A340 pitot tubes were
in the process of being replaced because they were
known to ice over. *And in some previous incidents
the pilots, confronted with an unusual scenario,
also did not apply the correct power/pitch
procedure per the book. *Should they all have reacted
correctly? *Sure. *But humans are known to screw
up, particularly when confronted by a major crisis
where you only have seconds to react correctly.
That's why having that autopilot continue to keep
the plane in a safe envelope by just setting power
and pitch makes sense.

...and computers (and their programmers) are infallible? *Get real!



The history of aircraft computers is pretty damn good.

Because they're out of the loop when bad things happen.

Can you find us one accident report for a modern airliner
where the blame was placed on the computer?
And in this case, again, all that had to be done is apply
the correct power and pitch. And besides, the computer
was still involved in running the airplane anyway. Without
it they would not be able to move any of the basic flight
controls. So, if you don't trust computers and their
programs, you better not fly today.

I'd especially trust a computer program that was written
over years by multiple programmers, tested many hours before entering
service, etc, over pilots confronted with a panic situation.

You're a fool. It's instructive that no one in the business agrees with you.

snip

Easy for you to judge the dead pilots who were
confronted with a major crisis in some of the worst
circumstances possible. *Wonder how you would
perform under similar circumstances.

I AM NOT THE PILOT, DUMMY. *The *fact* is that they killed a *lot* of people
for no good reason. *It was *purely* pilot error by an obviously inexperienced
crew.


And now you resort to name calling?

I'm just putting a name on what you're proving yourself to be.

You are judging pilots and
from your insistence that this was not a loss of control situation,
it's clear you're not even familiar with aviation terminology.

You're clueless. (just another statement of fact)

I'll leave it for others to decide who's the dummy here.
And again you're back to "inexperienced pilots?"
I

Obviously inexperienced.


I didn't judge. *That's the conclusion drawn from the investigation after the
BB was recovered.

Simple then.
Show us where the accident report says the pilots were
inexperienced, as you claim. Show us in the accident report where it
says the plane was designed by someone insane.

I'm not going back through the articles just to prove some irrelevant point.
The *fact* is that it was pilot error, not an error of design.



As for the sanity comment, not sure what you're referring
to. *The pilots knew they had lost airspeed information.

Yet one continued to try to *GAIN* altitude. *Sanity?


They should put you, the armchair expert pilot in a simulator
and see what happens. Ever hear of spacial disorientation?
Vertigo? That's what happens when you get confused
enough from the vaious inputs to the body that you know longer
know up from down. And neither that, nor panic, can happen
to a computer.

What a dumbass!

On Jan 29, 12:34*pm, "
wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 07:29:08 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:
On Jan 28, 9:28*pm, "
wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:57:24 -0800 (PST), "

snip





Which part of an airplane that hits the ground first doesn't
determine whether it was due to loss of control or not.
Loss of control doesn't mean the flight controls were not
working. *It means the pilots lost control of the airplane,
it was not in a normal mode of flight.

They *WERE* in complete control of the aircraft. *They flew it into the
ground.

As I said before, you're definition of "in complete control" is not
what most people would agree with. *It's certainly not in the
lexicon of the NTSB which would consider any plane that impacts
the earth in a stall after plumetting tens of thousands of feet,
"loss of control". *An example of a plane that is flown into the
ground is one that is still in a normal flight envelope but where
the pilots have lost altitude/terrain awareness and impacted
a mountain. *That is called "controlled flight into terrain".
Clearly the A340 was a loss of control situation.

That's certainly not a useful definition. *By that definition, a plane is, by
definition, "out of control" anytime something bad happens. *...even if it
crashes into a mountain-top at straight-and-level.

Good grief. I just gave you an example of a plane flying
straight and level into a mountain top. It's called
"controlled flight into terrain" by the NTSB in their
accident classification. Another category is "loss
of control", which is what you have when an aircraft
crashes stalled, in high rate of decent, abnormal
attitude, etc like the Air France crash.

Try reading some NTSB accident reports.



Here's a question. *Take another case. *A pilot is in IFR
conditions, becomes disoriented, the plane starts banking,
enters a spiral dive. *Along the way down, the pilot puts
in a variety of control inputs, but the plane crahes into the
water tail first. * Is that a loss of control accident, yes or
no?

Not as long as he has complete control of the aircraft, driving it into the
ground, no. *A spin, of course, would be out-of-control.



Take that up with the NTSB. Here's an example of one
such accident, that of JFK Jr.

"The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) ruled the crash was
caused by: "the pilot's failure to maintain control of his airplane
during a descent over water at night, which was a result of spatial
disorientation".

The probable cause of the accident, as stated in the accident report,
is:

"The pilot's failure to maintain control of the airplane during a
descent over water at night, which was a result of spatial
disorientation. Factors in the accident were haze and the dark
night."

And what exactly makes a spin so special? Spins can be recoverd from
too provided the pilot makes the appropriate inputs.








Which obviously they did, because they were trying to
get it to just fly level. *Instead it was stalled and plumetted
30,000 feet to the ground.

They were trying but because they were incompetent they flew it into the
ocean.

The experts agree it was loss of control:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ance-flight-44...

"The details in today’s report confirm that this crash should not be
considered on its own. It is another in a series of disasters
involving what is technically called “loss of control” – a problem
which has become the number one cause of air crashes. The trend is so
alarming that it was the subject of heated debate at a Flight Safety
Foundation conference in Turkey earlier this year.

If you define "loss of control" as you do, certainly it's a leading cause.. *It
is the only cause possible.

The dfefinition of loss of control is not mine. It;s the accepted
aviation industry's and the one used by the NTSB. Here's NASA's
definition:

"Loss-of-control is generally associated with flight outside of the
normal flight
envelope, with nonlinear influences, and with an inability of the
pilot to control the aircraft."



At the heart of the issue is how pilots respond when faced with an
imminent aerodynamic stall, which comes down to just one movement on
the flight controls: the need to push down the nose of the airplane,
not pull it up.

Which they did *NOT* do.



No **** Sherlock. That's my whole point. By the flight
control system dumping the plane in the pilots hands
in the middle of a severe crisis, instead of simply applying
the appropriate measure for maintaining level flight in
the absence of airspeed, it created a huge problem
that resulted in catastrophe that could have been
pervented.






At the conference, Michael Coker, Boeing’s senior safety pilot, cited
a series of crashes, beginning with that of the Colgan Air crash that
killed 50 people at Buffalo in 2009 and including others in Venezuela,
Amsterdam, and France. In each case the airplane had reached the brink
of a stall, where the wings lose the ability to provide lift, and the
pilots, rather than putting the nose down to regain speed—a basic
tenet of Piloting 101 since the beginning of flight—had instead pulled
up the nose and produced a fatal outcome.
The case of Air France Flight 447 now joins that list as the deadliest
of all."

Try applying what you are saying to driving a car.
Accident occur everyday where drivers lose control
of a car and cause a crash.

It's not unheard of for a car to drive, under full control, into a bridge.

Yes, if the driver is suicidal or asleep. *But not if the driver
has the car under control and is trying to avoid hitting the
bridge.

Fog.


But fog wasn't involved in the loss of control of the A330.








The loss of control
could be initiated by some factor, such as swerving too
much to avoid a deer. *The car is now careening out of
control, despite the fact that the driver still can
move the wheels and activate the brakes. *They have
lost control of the car because it is no longer doing
what they want it to do, which is to go straight down the
road.

Strawman.

No, it's just a very fair comparison.

No, you're proposing a scenario set up with the conclusion stated. *A
strawman.





I don't know what you are arguing here. *You claimed
the pilots were inexperienced. *Do you now agree they
actually had substantial experience?

The ones at the controls were. *They made a rookie mistake. *The captain was
not at the controls.

So now you're back to 6600 hours and 3000 hours experience of
the two pilots actually flying the plane makes them
inexperienced.....
And the captain was not sleeping during the event. *He was
back in the cockpit observing and giving
direction during the crisis and he had even more experience.

He was called to the cockpit *after* the disaster was already in play. *He
didn't assume command and if he had done so, the disaster would probably have
been averted. *The two flying *were* inexperienced; one holding his control
stick in the *FULL CLIMB* position with stall alarms going off. *That doesn't
exactly match your assertion that he was very experienced.


You're very confused here and it's a good thing you're not
an accident investigator. In your mind, being experienced means
you can't make serious mistakes. In reality, experience is
measured in hours flown. You could have a pilot with 20,000
hours screwing up and one with 2,000 hours that performs
the same task fine. The two pilots flying when the crisis
began had a combined 10,000 hours of experience. In
any reasonable persons definition, that is not inexperienced.

And if we just wrote off all accidents as "inexperienced" like
you want to do with this one, we'd never learn from it and
safety would be compromised. I showed you where a Boeing
engineer made a presentation on the problem where pilots
of varying experience levels, are having accidents just like
the Airbus one. Inexplicably doing the wrong thing when
presented with a basic problem like a stall.
And I previously gave you the example of
the worst airline crash in history, where the pilot had
12,000 flight hours and was KLM's chief pilot for the whole
company. Yet, he proceeded to take off without clearance.
In fact, he started to do it twice, the first time the co-pilot
intervened.


And regarding the pilot taking back control of the plane,
again, easy for you to say. Ever been in a plane in
severe turbulance? What happens when you try to
get one pilot out of a seat and yourself back in while
the plane is shaking violently? It was all over in a
few minutes. He made the decision to sit in the jump
seat, observe what was happening, and give
directions. Had he ordered the co-pilot out of the
left seat, you'd be here arguing what was the wrong,
foolish move.







It's unbelievable that anyone would argue that it's better
to just abruptly dump the plane back into the hands of the
pilots in the middle of a thunderstorm, with severe turbulance,
at night, over the water, instead of just defaulting to Airbus's
own manual which say set the power at X, the pitch at Y,
and the plane will continue to fly safely.

It's hard to believe that anyone would suggest a programmer, who isn't there,
knows more about a bad situation than the supposedly trained pilots, who are.

That determination was made a long time ago by Airbus and Boeing.
There newest fly-by-wire aircraft all have computer controls which
look out for the pilots making what you call rookie mistakes. *For
example, they limit the rate of roll a pilot can command. *They limit
the max rudder deflection as a function of airspeed so that a pilot
can't put so much force on a control surface that it causes the tail
to rip off.

They are fly-by-wire, sure, but when things go to hell control is still
"dumped", as you say, back on the pilots.

No, you cannot dump the whole operation of the plane
back to the pilots. There is no physical connection from
the pilots joystick to the control surfaces, nor is there
a connection between the throttle levers and the engines.
You still are relying on flight computers all the time,
where if they fail, the plane is going to crash,.



And no one is suggesting that the computer have absolute control.

You *ARE*!

Don't make stuff up here. All I said was the autopilot, instead
of disengaging and dumping the plane onto the pilots in the
middle of turbulence, a thunderstorm at night, etc, it should
have gone to the Airbus manual procedure to maintain level flight
without airspeed indication. And that is to apply a specific
power setting and pitch setting. I said at the same time it
should have announced what it was doing. Now the
pilots have a chance to sort out what is wrong, figure out
what is happening, while the plane is still in controlled,
normal flight.

Instead, you argue, it should make the pilots fly the damn
thing through turbulence, through a thunderstorm, while
trying to keep the plane flying right and sort through what
has gone wrong.

The results speak for themselves.



Only that the computer not go from it handling the plane in severe
turbulance, at night, over water, to dumping it in the hands of the
pilots.

You *DID*!

Yes, I sure did advocate that.



The computer could
have simply applied the correct procedure for the situation, ie
set the power and pitch to the manual numbers, telling the pilots
that it was doing so. *If the pilots wanted to take other action,
then they could have disconnected the autopilot.

You *DID* again!

I sure did. Now tell me where I ever said in any of that the
autopilot computer should have absolute control. You can't
because I never said any such thing. The pilots were
free to turn off the autopilot at any time as they should be.


You put ultimate faith in humans. *But it's a well known fact that
humans frequently are more fallible in many circumstances than
a computer. *And I'd say the results of this and other accidents
speak for themselves. *So does the reference I provided.

You put the ultimate faith in computers. *Foolish! *...particularly when
things are already going south. *The FACT that the aircraft manufacturer (and
the FAA and just about everyone else) disagrees with you is instructive.

Oh, really? Show us where any one of them has said they
think having that A330 go to power and pitch setting instead
of dumping it to the pilots in a case like this is a bad idea. I have
yet to see anyone who disagrees with me on this but you....



And that same computer did continue on with the program
for quite awhile. *As airspeed indication was lost, it backed
down through a couple of alternate ways of controlling the
airplane. *If it could do that, there is no reason that it could
not have applied the power/pitch setting as the last
solution. *If it had, 200 people would likely be alive.

Could? *Sure it *could*. *You don't let a computer have control after it's
impaired.

The computer was never impaired.

It's inputs were, dummy.

Unable to argue with the facts, it's back to more insults.
Sad. I'm beginning to lose respect for you here.

The point here is that to keep the plane safely flying, it
did NOT need the airspeed inputs, which is all that was
lost. Otherwise the aircraft was functioning perfectly.
All it had to do was set the power at X and the pitch at Y.
Capiche?




One more time. *Go read up on the flight modes of the A340
system. *The computer continued to have control as it lost
sensor input. *It backed down from the main flight control mode
to alternate flight modes as it continued to control the airplane.
It's only at the end, where it dumped the plane back to the
pilots instead of going to the final alternate flight possibility
that is right in the manual.

I've read the report. *No, I'm not going to read it again because some moron
on the Usenet is second-guessing the professionals who designed the thing,
rather than the real cause of the crash; the loose nuts behind the yokes.

You don't even understand the basic definition of "loss of control"
and it's distinction from "controlled flight into terrain" and you're
calling me names?

I've read many of your posts here over the years. I've agreed with
many of them. Disagreed with some. But I've never called you an
internet moron. Sad, so sad.



Your preference is clear. *You'd rather the computer dump it
back to the pilots in a horrific emergency situtaion and hope
that they react properly and also remember the correct
power setting of x% and the correct pitch setting of y%.
How about neither one of them, in that terrifying environment,
can remember the correct procedure? *I'd prefer the computer do it.

When things are already going South, no I'd rather not trust my life to a
programmer who's life isn't on the line. *I'd rather trust a pilot who is
doing his job (really, his only job). *I've been around computers long enough
(designing them for almost 40 years) to know better. *Your trust in technology
is just amazing.



I've been involved with computers for almost as long. And yes,
in the situation under discussion, in the middle of a severe crisis,
I'd want the autopilot to keep the plane flying level while telling
the
pilots what's going on, giving them a chance to figure out what
the problem is, etc.

What exactly is the downside to that? If the pilots feel they need
to, they are free to push one button and disconnect the autopilot
at any time. I guess in your world real men are supposed to react
perfectly
despite being in severe turbulance, a thunderstorm, etc. And if
they don't better that 200 should die, right? I can show you
thousands that have died because of pilot error. How many
can you show us that have died because of computer error?
And why is that computers are trusted to land aircraft everday
in near zero visibility, a very complex, precision feat,
but should not be relied on to keep a plane
flying by just setting power and pitch in an emergency?

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:34:31 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Jan 29, 12:34Â*pm, "
wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 07:29:08 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:
On Jan 28, 9:28Â*pm, "
wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:57:24 -0800 (PST), "

snip





Which part of an airplane that hits the ground first doesn't
determine whether it was due to loss of control or not.
Loss of control doesn't mean the flight controls were not
working. Â*It means the pilots lost control of the airplane,
it was not in a normal mode of flight.

They *WERE* in complete control of the aircraft. Â*They flew it into the
ground.

As I said before, you're definition of "in complete control" is not
what most people would agree with. Â*It's certainly not in the
lexicon of the NTSB which would consider any plane that impacts
the earth in a stall after plumetting tens of thousands of feet,
"loss of control". Â*An example of a plane that is flown into the
ground is one that is still in a normal flight envelope but where
the pilots have lost altitude/terrain awareness and impacted
a mountain. Â*That is called "controlled flight into terrain".
Clearly the A340 was a loss of control situation.

That's certainly not a useful definition. Â*By that definition, a plane is, by
definition, "out of control" anytime something bad happens. Â*...even if it
crashes into a mountain-top at straight-and-level.

Good grief. I just gave you an example of a plane flying
straight and level into a mountain top. It's called
"controlled flight into terrain" by the NTSB in their
accident classification. Another category is "loss
of control", which is what you have when an aircraft
crashes stalled, in high rate of decent, abnormal
attitude, etc like the Air France crash.

Try reading some NTSB accident reports.



Here's a question. Â*Take another case. Â*A pilot is in IFR
conditions, becomes disoriented, the plane starts banking,
enters a spiral dive. Â*Along the way down, the pilot puts
in a variety of control inputs, but the plane crahes into the
water tail first. Â* Is that a loss of control accident, yes or
no?

Not as long as he has complete control of the aircraft, driving it into the
ground, no. Â*A spin, of course, would be out-of-control.



Take that up with the NTSB. Here's an example of one
such accident, that of JFK Jr.

"The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) ruled the crash was
caused by: "the pilot's failure to maintain control of his airplane
during a descent over water at night, which was a result of spatial
disorientation".

The probable cause of the accident, as stated in the accident report,
is:

"The pilot's failure to maintain control of the airplane during a
descent over water at night, which was a result of spatial
disorientation. Factors in the accident were haze and the dark
night."

And what exactly makes a spin so special? Spins can be recoverd from
too provided the pilot makes the appropriate inputs.


And has enough altitude. Altitude can be traded for airspeed, so it is
like money in the bank. "Always fligh 3 mistakes high" is excellent
advice for ANY pilot.






Which obviously they did, because they were trying to
get it to just fly level. Â*Instead it was stalled and plumetted
30,000 feet to the ground.

They were trying but because they were incompetent they flew it into the
ocean.

The experts agree it was loss of control:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ance-flight-44...

"The details in todays report confirm that this crash should not be
considered on its own. It is another in a series of disasters
involving what is technically called €œloss of control€� €“ a problem
which has become the number one cause of air crashes. The trend is so
alarming that it was the subject of heated debate at a Flight Safety
Foundation conference in Turkey earlier this year.

If you define "loss of control" as you do, certainly it's a leading cause. Â*It
is the only cause possible.

The dfefinition of loss of control is not mine. It;s the accepted
aviation industry's and the one used by the NTSB. Here's NASA's
definition:

"Loss-of-control is generally associated with flight outside of the
normal flight
envelope, with nonlinear influences, and with an inability of the
pilot to control the aircraft."



At the heart of the issue is how pilots respond when faced with an
imminent aerodynamic stall, which comes down to just one movement on
the flight controls: the need to push down the nose of the airplane,
not pull it up.

Which they did *NOT* do.



No **** Sherlock. That's my whole point. By the flight
control system dumping the plane in the pilots hands
in the middle of a severe crisis, instead of simply applying
the appropriate measure for maintaining level flight in
the absence of airspeed, it created a huge problem
that resulted in catastrophe that could have been
pervented.






At the conference, Michael Coker, Boeings senior safety pilot, cited
a series of crashes, beginning with that of the Colgan Air crash that
killed 50 people at Buffalo in 2009 and including others in Venezuela,
Amsterdam, and France. In each case the airplane had reached the brink
of a stall, where the wings lose the ability to provide lift, and the
pilots, rather than putting the nose down to regain speed€”a basic
tenet of Piloting 101 since the beginning of flight€”had instead pulled
up the nose and produced a fatal outcome.
The case of Air France Flight 447 now joins that list as the deadliest
of all."

Try applying what you are saying to driving a car.
Accident occur everyday where drivers lose control
of a car and cause a crash.

It's not unheard of for a car to drive, under full control, into a bridge.

Yes, if the driver is suicidal or asleep. Â*But not if the driver
has the car under control and is trying to avoid hitting the
bridge.

Fog.


But fog wasn't involved in the loss of control of the A330.








The loss of control
could be initiated by some factor, such as swerving too
much to avoid a deer. Â*The car is now careening out of
control, despite the fact that the driver still can
move the wheels and activate the brakes. Â*They have
lost control of the car because it is no longer doing
what they want it to do, which is to go straight down the
road.

Strawman.

No, it's just a very fair comparison.

No, you're proposing a scenario set up with the conclusion stated. Â*A
strawman.





I don't know what you are arguing here. Â*You claimed
the pilots were inexperienced. Â*Do you now agree they
actually had substantial experience?

The ones at the controls were. Â*They made a rookie mistake. Â*The captain was
not at the controls.

So now you're back to 6600 hours and 3000 hours experience of
the two pilots actually flying the plane makes them
inexperienced.....
And the captain was not sleeping during the event. Â*He was
back in the cockpit observing and giving
direction during the crisis and he had even more experience.

He was called to the cockpit *after* the disaster was already in play. Â*He
didn't assume command and if he had done so, the disaster would probably have
been averted. Â*The two flying *were* inexperienced; one holding his control
stick in the *FULL CLIMB* position with stall alarms going off. Â*That doesn't
exactly match your assertion that he was very experienced.


You're very confused here and it's a good thing you're not
an accident investigator. In your mind, being experienced means
you can't make serious mistakes. In reality, experience is
measured in hours flown. You could have a pilot with 20,000
hours screwing up and one with 2,000 hours that performs
the same task fine. The two pilots flying when the crisis
began had a combined 10,000 hours of experience. In
any reasonable persons definition, that is not inexperienced.

And if we just wrote off all accidents as "inexperienced" like
you want to do with this one, we'd never learn from it and
safety would be compromised. I showed you where a Boeing
engineer made a presentation on the problem where pilots
of varying experience levels, are having accidents just like
the Airbus one. Inexplicably doing the wrong thing when
presented with a basic problem like a stall.
And I previously gave you the example of
the worst airline crash in history, where the pilot had
12,000 flight hours and was KLM's chief pilot for the whole
company. Yet, he proceeded to take off without clearance.
In fact, he started to do it twice, the first time the co-pilot
intervened.


And regarding the pilot taking back control of the plane,
again, easy for you to say. Ever been in a plane in
severe turbulance? What happens when you try to
get one pilot out of a seat and yourself back in while
the plane is shaking violently? It was all over in a
few minutes. He made the decision to sit in the jump
seat, observe what was happening, and give
directions. Had he ordered the co-pilot out of the
left seat, you'd be here arguing what was the wrong,
foolish move.







It's unbelievable that anyone would argue that it's better
to just abruptly dump the plane back into the hands of the
pilots in the middle of a thunderstorm, with severe turbulance,
at night, over the water, instead of just defaulting to Airbus's
own manual which say set the power at X, the pitch at Y,
and the plane will continue to fly safely.

It's hard to believe that anyone would suggest a programmer, who isn't there,
knows more about a bad situation than the supposedly trained pilots, who are.

That determination was made a long time ago by Airbus and Boeing.
There newest fly-by-wire aircraft all have computer controls which
look out for the pilots making what you call rookie mistakes. Â*For
example, they limit the rate of roll a pilot can command. Â*They limit
the max rudder deflection as a function of airspeed so that a pilot
can't put so much force on a control surface that it causes the tail
to rip off.

They are fly-by-wire, sure, but when things go to hell control is still
"dumped", as you say, back on the pilots.

No, you cannot dump the whole operation of the plane
back to the pilots. There is no physical connection from
the pilots joystick to the control surfaces, nor is there
a connection between the throttle levers and the engines.
You still are relying on flight computers all the time,
where if they fail, the plane is going to crash,.



And no one is suggesting that the computer have absolute control.

You *ARE*!

Don't make stuff up here. All I said was the autopilot, instead
of disengaging and dumping the plane onto the pilots in the
middle of turbulence, a thunderstorm at night, etc, it should
have gone to the Airbus manual procedure to maintain level flight
without airspeed indication. And that is to apply a specific
power setting and pitch setting. I said at the same time it
should have announced what it was doing. Now the
pilots have a chance to sort out what is wrong, figure out
what is happening, while the plane is still in controlled,
normal flight.

Instead, you argue, it should make the pilots fly the damn
thing through turbulence, through a thunderstorm, while
trying to keep the plane flying right and sort through what
has gone wrong.

The results speak for themselves.



Only that the computer not go from it handling the plane in severe
turbulance, at night, over water, to dumping it in the hands of the
pilots.

You *DID*!

Yes, I sure did advocate that.



The computer could
have simply applied the correct procedure for the situation, ie
set the power and pitch to the manual numbers, telling the pilots
that it was doing so. Â*If the pilots wanted to take other action,
then they could have disconnected the autopilot.

You *DID* again!

I sure did. Now tell me where I ever said in any of that the
autopilot computer should have absolute control. You can't
because I never said any such thing. The pilots were
free to turn off the autopilot at any time as they should be.


You put ultimate faith in humans. Â*But it's a well known fact that
humans frequently are more fallible in many circumstances than
a computer. Â*And I'd say the results of this and other accidents
speak for themselves. Â*So does the reference I provided.

You put the ultimate faith in computers. Â*Foolish! Â*...particularly when
things are already going south. Â*The FACT that the aircraft manufacturer (and
the FAA and just about everyone else) disagrees with you is instructive.

Oh, really? Show us where any one of them has said they
think having that A330 go to power and pitch setting instead
of dumping it to the pilots in a case like this is a bad idea. I have
yet to see anyone who disagrees with me on this but you....



And that same computer did continue on with the program
for quite awhile. Â*As airspeed indication was lost, it backed
down through a couple of alternate ways of controlling the
airplane. Â*If it could do that, there is no reason that it could
not have applied the power/pitch setting as the last
solution. Â*If it had, 200 people would likely be alive.

Could? Â*Sure it *could*. Â*You don't let a computer have control after it's
impaired.

The computer was never impaired.

It's inputs were, dummy.

Unable to argue with the facts, it's back to more insults.
Sad. I'm beginning to lose respect for you here.

The point here is that to keep the plane safely flying, it
did NOT need the airspeed inputs, which is all that was
lost. Otherwise the aircraft was functioning perfectly.
All it had to do was set the power at X and the pitch at Y.
Capiche?




One more time. Â*Go read up on the flight modes of the A340
system. Â*The computer continued to have control as it lost
sensor input. Â*It backed down from the main flight control mode
to alternate flight modes as it continued to control the airplane.
It's only at the end, where it dumped the plane back to the
pilots instead of going to the final alternate flight possibility
that is right in the manual.

I've read the report. Â*No, I'm not going to read it again because some moron
on the Usenet is second-guessing the professionals who designed the thing,
rather than the real cause of the crash; the loose nuts behind the yokes.

You don't even understand the basic definition of "loss of control"
and it's distinction from "controlled flight into terrain" and you're
calling me names?

I've read many of your posts here over the years. I've agreed with
many of them. Disagreed with some. But I've never called you an
internet moron. Sad, so sad.



Your preference is clear. Â*You'd rather the computer dump it
back to the pilots in a horrific emergency situtaion and hope
that they react properly and also remember the correct
power setting of x% and the correct pitch setting of y%.
How about neither one of them, in that terrifying environment,
can remember the correct procedure? Â*I'd prefer the computer do it.

When things are already going South, no I'd rather not trust my life to a
programmer who's life isn't on the line. Â*I'd rather trust a pilot who is
doing his job (really, his only job). Â*I've been around computers long enough
(designing them for almost 40 years) to know better. Â*Your trust in technology
is just amazing.



I've been involved with computers for almost as long. And yes,
in the situation under discussion, in the middle of a severe crisis,
I'd want the autopilot to keep the plane flying level while telling
the
pilots what's going on, giving them a chance to figure out what
the problem is, etc.

What exactly is the downside to that? If the pilots feel they need
to, they are free to push one button and disconnect the autopilot
at any time. I guess in your world real men are supposed to react
perfectly
despite being in severe turbulance, a thunderstorm, etc. And if
they don't better that 200 should die, right? I can show you
thousands that have died because of pilot error. How many
can you show us that have died because of computer error?
And why is that computers are trusted to land aircraft everday
in near zero visibility, a very complex, precision feat,
but should not be relied on to keep a plane
flying by just setting power and pitch in an emergency?

On Jan 29, 5:01*pm, wrote:

And what exactly makes a spin so special? *Spins can be recoverd from
too provided the pilot makes the appropriate inputs.

And has enough altitude. Altitude can be traded for airspeed, so it is
like money in the bank. *"Always fligh 3 mistakes high" is excellent
advice for ANY pilot.



Curious, you being a pilot, what's your opinion on the
current hot topic itself? Better that the autopilot disconnected
on the AirFrance 330 in the middle of severe turbulance,
thunderstorm, etc or would it have been better if the computer
were set up to
apply the manual rule for maintaining level flight with
no airspeed indication? That rule being to set the power
and pitch to the correct value which depends on the
altitude. And of course at the same time notifying the
pilots what it was doing.

I don't see any downside in the autopilot going to
the last method to keep the plane safely flying.
Obviously 3 pilots with a lot of experience between
them couldn't come up with the correct actions.
Seems a lot better to me to be able to have the
plane take care of itself while giving the pilots time
to figure out what was wrong. In the whole minutes
just before the crash, the pilots made all kinds
of basic mistakes and never once even discussed
what the correct power setting/pitch was.
Apparently for a jet that envelope at altitude is
fairly small, so I don't know if they would even
know what the right numbers were without
looking them up.

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:23:34 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Jan 29, 5:01Â*pm, wrote:

And what exactly makes a spin so special? Â*Spins can be recoverd from
too provided the pilot makes the appropriate inputs.

And has enough altitude. Altitude can be traded for airspeed, so it is
like money in the bank. Â*"Always fligh 3 mistakes high" is excellent
advice for ANY pilot.



Curious, you being a pilot, what's your opinion on the
current hot topic itself? Better that the autopilot disconnected
on the AirFrance 330 in the middle of severe turbulance,
thunderstorm, etc or would it have been better if the computer
were set up to
apply the manual rule for maintaining level flight with
no airspeed indication? That rule being to set the power
and pitch to the correct value which depends on the
altitude. And of course at the same time notifying the
pilots what it was doing.


My thought is it should let the pilot know in no uncertain terms that
there is an input problem (air speed invalid) and that it is handing
over control in 10 - 9 - 8 - 7 seconds and it is the pilot's
responsibility to TAKE control. This should happen BEFORE the
autopilot has LOST control. The autopilot should be able to determine
the airspeed is not compatible with the power settings, rate of climb
or decent, and aircraft attitude - and warn the pilot early on in the
flight sequence.

I don't see any downside in the autopilot going to
the last method to keep the plane safely flying.
Obviously 3 pilots with a lot of experience between
them couldn't come up with the correct actions.
Seems a lot better to me to be able to have the
plane take care of itself while giving the pilots time
to figure out what was wrong. In the whole minutes
just before the crash, the pilots made all kinds
of basic mistakes and never once even discussed
what the correct power setting/pitch was.
Apparently for a jet that envelope at altitude is
fairly small, so I don't know if they would even
know what the right numbers were without
looking them up.
All those numbers should pop up on the "glass cockpit" screen as
soon as an anomoly is detected.
I believe the weak point was the computer did not detect the anomoly,
either on time, or at all.

On Jan 30, 3:22*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:23:34 -0800 (PST), "





wrote:
On Jan 29, 5:01*pm, wrote:

And what exactly makes a spin so special? *Spins can be recoverd from
too provided the pilot makes the appropriate inputs.

And has enough altitude. Altitude can be traded for airspeed, so it is
like money in the bank. *"Always fligh 3 mistakes high" is excellent
advice for ANY pilot.

Curious, you being a pilot, what's your opinion on the
current hot topic itself? *Better that the autopilot disconnected
on the AirFrance 330 in the middle of severe turbulance,
thunderstorm, etc or would it have been better if the computer
were set up to
apply the manual rule for maintaining level flight with
no airspeed indication? That rule being to set the power
and pitch to the correct value which depends on the
altitude. *And of course at the same time notifying the
pilots what it was doing.

My thought is it should let the pilot know in no uncertain terms that
there is an input problem (air speed invalid) and that it is handing
over control in 10 - 9 - 8 - 7 *seconds and it is the pilot's
responsibility to TAKE control. This should happen BEFORE the
autopilot has LOST control.

That's what it did, except there wasn't the
10 sec countdown. Given the accident sequence it appears
unlikely an additional 10 secs would have prevented
what followed. The autopilot never lost control
and could have continued to fly the plane if it used
power/pitch.
It was the pilots who lost control shortly after the
autopilot disconnected because they made mistake
after mistake. starting with going into a climb.
But it was a terrible environment,
in a thunderstorm, severe turbulence, etc. and
the plane quickly got way ahead of the co-pilot
who was trying to fly it.


*The autopilot should be able to determine
the airspeed is not compatible with the power settings, rate of climb
or decent, and aircraft attitude - and warn the pilot early on in the
flight sequence.


I think the pitot tubes iced over rather quickly once
they started to go, so from start of a problem to the
autopilot disconnecting may not have been very long.
The pilots got a 2 sec duration warning announcement
that the autopilot was disconnecting, but it's not clear
if that 2 secs is before it disconnected, after, etc. And from
the voice recorder that is the first audio indication or
conversation between the pilots indicating anything
was wrong with the plane.




I don't see any downside in the autopilot going to
the last method to keep the plane safely flying.
Obviously 3 pilots with a lot of experience between
them couldn't come up with the correct actions.
Seems a lot better to me to be able to have the
plane take care of itself while giving the pilots time
to figure out what was wrong. *In the whole minutes
just before the crash, the pilots made all kinds
of basic mistakes and never once even discussed
what the correct power setting/pitch was.
Apparently for a jet that envelope at altitude is
fairly small, so I don't know if they would even
know what the right numbers were without
looking them up.

* All those numbers should pop up on the "glass cockpit" screen as
soon as an anomoly is detected.
I believe the weak point was the computer did not detect the anomoly,
either on time, or at all.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, it definitely detected what was happening. The airspeed
indicators had iced up and it lost airspeed first from one
sensor and shortly after from all sensors. The plane
was flying perfectly when the autopilot disconnected.

KRW obviously disagrees and you may too. But I
think the autopilot disengaging when it could just
as well keep the plane flying safely is a very bad
idea. The results of what happened tend to prove
it. If the autopilot had just applied the manual
emergency procedure of power and pitch setting,
the plane would fly OK while the pilots deal with
the PROBLEM, instead of consume resources
flying the plane.

It's a good question if the power/pitch settings
needed came up automatically. If they did, there
is nothing on the cockpit voice recorder to show
the pilots were aware of it. In fact, the stall
warning sounded like 70 times for minutes and
there was never the word "stall" exchanged
among the 3 pilots. If they don't come up
automatically, I think it's asking a lot for the
pilots to either remember what it is for every
altitude or to be able to pull it up on the
display or in a book in time to save the plane.

Another thing I just learned reading about this
is a big difference between Boeing and Airbus
flight controls. With Boeing, the fly-by-wire
behave like the old cable controls. If the co-pilot
moves the stick, the pilot's also moves,
so he knows what the other guy is doing.
With Airbus, there is no linkage.

Same with throttles. On Boeing, as the computer
changes throttle settings, the levers on the flight
deck move. With
Airbus, whatever they were set at, they stay there,
even though the computer has changed the actual
setting. Seems very strange to me.

In the A330 crash, one of the big problems was the
co-pilot was pulling back on his joystick almost the
whole time of the crisis. Apparently neither the other
co-pilot who was in the left seat, or the pilot who had
returned to the flight deck and taken the jump seat,
were aware of that.