Wow!! I gotta say my highest respect for the people involved in this. To recover a tiny part from 4 km below the surface is just incredible. I hope the data is viable and we can finally figure out why this airplane fell out of the sky for no apparent reason. I am guessing disorientation combined with instrument failure.
Air France 447 data module recovered!!!
- Thread starter nottyboi
- Start date
Usually when there's a disaster it wasn't just one thing that resulted in catastrophe. Usually it's a combination of things going wrong at the same time. Unexpected weather leading to some mechanical failure, a pilot error, and some structural defect combining to create the incident would not surprise me.
A robust system survives one or two things going wrong, and airplanes, generally, are robust.
A robust system survives one or two things going wrong, and airplanes, generally, are robust.
I would cut the Toronto AF pilot some slack though, the wind data he received was incorrect as well as I believe the ceiling. I don't know why they don't have a transponder at the end of the runway.. all they have to do is enter the runway length, req runway for config, and when they pass the threshold the system monitors the situation.
Rub, isn't 'pilot error' synonymous with 'errors in judgement'?
Can't a modern jet airliner fly through thunderstorms, or do passenger jets normally fly around or over them?
As for the crash in Toronto, wasn't that the same runway which had other airline accidents involved? If I recall correctly, isn't the end of that runway a gulley or ravine valley - it's certainly not the most forgiving. It's also shorter than other runways at Pearson no?
Can't a modern jet airliner fly through thunderstorms, or do passenger jets normally fly around or over them?
As for the crash in Toronto, wasn't that the same runway which had other airline accidents involved? If I recall correctly, isn't the end of that runway a gulley or ravine valley - it's certainly not the most forgiving. It's also shorter than other runways at Pearson no?
Sure it can. If nothing else goes wrong. Just in case something might go wrong, and owing to the catastrophic outcomes possible, it's generally better to avoid those risks and fly around (or over) the bad weather.
I agree with rub that if the pilot knew he was flying right into horrendous weather that he made an error in judgement. Whether it rises to the level of criminal I don't know, I'll leave that to the people who are more familiar with flying passenger jets, and the protocols that commercial passenger jet pilots are taught to follow.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/insidenova/2010/06/air-france-447-one-year-out.html
This a very interesting documentary on what happened. It's amazing to me how much information they got from satellite data of the plane even without the black boxes. They suggest the pilot flew into what was a smaller system hiding a larger system behind it.
This a very interesting documentary on what happened. It's amazing to me how much information they got from satellite data of the plane even without the black boxes. They suggest the pilot flew into what was a smaller system hiding a larger system behind it.
yes I know the system I suggested does not exist. How to pilots assess how far past the threshold they are today? I am amazed you can be so critical of the Toronto AF pilot when you almost crashed in similar circumstances. Imagine if he had chosen to divert when weather conditions were within range? GTAA should be criticized. There is no way a major airport should have minimal runoff followed by a ravine. They should have crushable concrete to stop the planes.There is no such thing as a "transponder at the end of the runway".
The transponder is in the airplane and is used to communicate position and altitude data to the air traffic controllers and other aircraft for collision avoidance.
There is nothing at the end of the runway except lights and dirt.
As for the "system" you are talking about I have even less of an idea about what you are talking about than you.
But this just goes to prove my point. All this talk about systems, technology, data etc does not and cannot override the pilot's decision to land in the vicinity of such an intense thunderstorm.
EVERY pilot knows that the winds and turbulence within twenty five miles of a thunderstorm can be wildly variable such that you can lose control of the aircraft or structural damage can occur.
I admit to having flown between cells as close as three miles apart in a line of cold front thunderstorms with no problems, not a bump. I also recall many decades ago flying under a huge black cloud with weird bumps underneath it that looked like tits!
When I looked the cloud up in the books later I found that it was called mammatus and that the most severe turbulence could be found beneath them. Yet it was smooooooth as silk for me.
I have also flown around mountain waves with lenticular clouds while soaring. Again, smooth as silk and being in a sailplane (glider) we went looking for this. In a powered aircraft, you stay wayyyyy clear of mountain waves and "lennies"
Anyways, it would be easy to fall into the trap of these successes causing one to lose fear or respect of these powerful weather machines. And the more you succeed the more confidence you get and the more often you think you are special and that you are so good that you can get away with it again.
Until you don't.
Fortunately I learn from others, have been involved in a few accident investigations and gone to a few funerals of fellow pilots. So I am now a chicken and stay the fuck away from bad weather.
One interesting story where I didn't listen to my own advice.
I was on my way back from the Bahamas and was landing in Raleigh-Durham North Carolina. I was getting tight on fuel and they also had cheap gas. We were solidly in the clouds (IFR-Instrument flight rules) with steady rain typical of a large low pressure system.
There was a small cell (building convective cloud/thunderstorm) directly on the approach about two miles from the runway. I asked to hold until the cell had passed.
Fifteen minutes later ATC advised that the tail end of the cell had passed through the localizer (approach path) and we were cleared to begin the approach. Cutting it a bit close but this was a busy airport and I didn't want to be seen as less than a pro by asking to hold longer!
So away we went. Everything was perfect. Autopilot was tracking the ILS (Instrument Landing System) airspeed was right on the money, and the rain had even lightened up from the constant beating on the windshield. But we were still in the clouds and could see nothing. It was just getting past sunset and it was not dark but getting there.
Then like lightning.... LIGHTNING! It struck the wingtip and all the panel lights and radios glowed and then we lost all electrical power. The autopilot kicked off and I had to hand fly. Fuck, what to do now that we had no radio or nav equipment but we had gyros and should be breaking out of the clouds any second....
I kept up the descent as we were stable descending through 700' AGl and the ceiling was reported at 600' AGL. Sure enough in ten seconds the clouds wisped away and we could see the runway ahead. THEN the turbulence began! We literally got rolled on the side to 90 deg knife edge and got sucked back up into the clouds! Then SLAMMED down so hard that I smashed my head on the ceiling even though I always keep the seatbelts very tight on the approach and landing. It almost knocked me out.
We came down out of the clouds at 2000 fpm and with ful power we could not arrest the descent. I saw the ground come up and knew we were certainly going to crash. I jsut hoped to hold things level as possible to try for the best controlled crash to maybe survive.
Then it was smooth.
We landed without any further problems.
So what is the lesson? Can you land or should you go elsewhere when thunderstorms are in the area?
I want to fly with you rub. To be overly cautious is a very good thing when the results can be catastrophic and very deadly. I come from a seafaring family and they have great respect and fear for the ocean. They will go to great lengths to avoid or go around storms.
Winds were gusty, heavy downpour on flare, and a downdraft that cause the pilot to add thrust to reduce sink rate. Yes it is pretty obvious he should have aborted the landing. But he touched down almost in the middle of the runway...the 200 foot markers were not very helpful and good luck relying on visuals in bad weather. It seems this landing went bad at the very last minute. It is to simplistic to say he should not have landed. If there is so certain the runway should have been closed. A plane landed just before 358. Anyway, after full reviews the pilot in charge is still flying for Air France as far as I know. As a major airport in Canada's largest city, it should have all the latest safety features no? This run off right into a ravine has been criticized before.. of course nothing was done. The cost would be a few million $ and now a $150M plane was destroyed and 200 lives put at risk because it was not there.
Lol reminds me of a quote I read in a book way back where an experienced seaman was talking with a new sailor who was going on about all the navigation stuff there was. It went something like "You can take all the courses you want, buy all the equipment you want and train all you want. That just means you'll know exactly where you are when Mother Nature decides she wants to kill you."
Rub, I had friends from high school that became pilots (a couple flew your Cessna type plane in latter years of highschool). One guy became an inspector for Transport Cda for a while. Another flies for a major corporation (I think a Bombardier craft), and another who's a captain for one of the major airlines (his dad was a commercial jet pilot). I knew an underling way back who's brother flew an F-18 for the Cdn AF. Good of you to share your info.
One of my favourite shows is Mayday.
One of my favourite shows is Mayday.
Rubmeister,
I agree wholeheartedly with your points, well said.
As far as AF 447, while I don't want to second guess what the Captain was thinking as he flew into a line of thunderstorms, it does raise a lot of concerns in terms of their decision making and their inability to properly assess the severity of the situation they were flying into.
All pilots are taught early on in their training the importance of knowing what weather awaits them on their planned route .................. one would think that seasoned pilots flying A330's would be well aware of the potential for danger a thunderstorm can present.....let alone a line of thunderstorms.....
As far as the AF flight that overshot the runway at Pearson, let me say that it is beyond me how a Captain of an A340 can think it is ok to float halfway down a runway and still think he can safely land his plane, especially during a thunderstorm....... am i oversimplifying it....yes, because frankly the decision to abort a landing in the situation he was in, is what we are trained to do every single day....... it is really a simple one.....
I agree wholeheartedly with your points, well said.
As far as AF 447, while I don't want to second guess what the Captain was thinking as he flew into a line of thunderstorms, it does raise a lot of concerns in terms of their decision making and their inability to properly assess the severity of the situation they were flying into.
All pilots are taught early on in their training the importance of knowing what weather awaits them on their planned route .................. one would think that seasoned pilots flying A330's would be well aware of the potential for danger a thunderstorm can present.....let alone a line of thunderstorms.....
As far as the AF flight that overshot the runway at Pearson, let me say that it is beyond me how a Captain of an A340 can think it is ok to float halfway down a runway and still think he can safely land his plane, especially during a thunderstorm....... am i oversimplifying it....yes, because frankly the decision to abort a landing in the situation he was in, is what we are trained to do every single day....... it is really a simple one.....
You don't need to fill in the ravine, just install the arrestor concrete blocks on the run off . You blather about all your experience, but the Captain had far more experience then you will ever have.. yet he felt he could land safely. All the second guessing in the world is rubbish. When would you have aborted:
a) you said do not try.. all indications are that the best info they had led them to believe they had the minimums.
b) their approach was stable and controlled until the last few seconds when they hit a squall and down draft..
c) they landed long.. we are talking a decision making process in the realm of 15 seconds... abort.. and maybe go around or end up crashing with even more energy... you understate the time pressure in this process. In your Cessna things happen a LOT slower then in an A340. Sure it is easy to say abort and alternate in a Cessna.. but as a commercial pilot if you go alternate and the data indicates you had the conditions to land, you have some explaining to do since you just cost the company maybe 100 to 200K.
a) you said do not try.. all indications are that the best info they had led them to believe they had the minimums.
b) their approach was stable and controlled until the last few seconds when they hit a squall and down draft..
c) they landed long.. we are talking a decision making process in the realm of 15 seconds... abort.. and maybe go around or end up crashing with even more energy... you understate the time pressure in this process. In your Cessna things happen a LOT slower then in an A340. Sure it is easy to say abort and alternate in a Cessna.. but as a commercial pilot if you go alternate and the data indicates you had the conditions to land, you have some explaining to do since you just cost the company maybe 100 to 200K.
They have also recovered the Cockpit Voice Recorder. However, it remains to be seen what can be read from the FDR and CVR.
Well flying into the side of a cloud covered mountain would probably be more dangerous.
I believe my uncle (used to be a private pilot) referred to those cloud formations as "Cumulo Granitus" or something like that. (Forgive me it was probably about 25-30 years ago)
But seriously you've provided some good insights and have made for interesting reading.
1' water column ~= .43 psi (fresh water) or .44 psi (salt water) so at 13000' it would be about 5720 psi. Good rough estimate!
