Lost: The mystery of flight 447

Captain Slow IRL

Heads up, this is on tonight on BBC2 at 10pm.

absolutegroove

nice one - i've have been waiting for a programme about this.

ellieh1

If only we could find out what happened....we lost my cousin on this flight xx

adamski8

Very interesting and seemingly plausable to me. The pilots not following SOP seemed abit weird. You would think if failures like that happen then it would be drilled into them to go to 85% thrust and 5% pitch.

I didnt understand the thing about the trottle not moving?!!
So if autopilot reduces or increases thrust the manual trottle doesnt move in those aircraft right?
So what is the trottle on? 75% 80% etc etc?
Say if the trottle is at 80% and then the autopilot changes it to 70% and the trottle doesnt move (as they said it doesnt) then the autopilot disengages: now the manual trottle says 80% but in reality it is at 70%

P.S. I know I don't have a clue what im talking about really so pardon the confusion

View Profile

Its spelt "throttle".

Don't know about Airbus but in Boeing's the thrust levers physically move when commanded to by the auto-throttle.

Must give it a watch, sounds like an interesting program.

andy_g

i missed it if theres a link please post :P

globemaster1986

Anybody else have trouble watching this last night? It kept skipping and the pictures were all distorted, I tried to watch it and I was really looking forward to it but it was painful and impossible to make out almost anything. I switched it off and came back to it again but still the same???

bandit197

View Profile wrote: »

Its spelt "throttle".

Don't know about Airbus but in Boeing's the thrust levers physically move when commanded to by the auto-throttle.

Must give it a watch, sounds like an interesting program.

Yeah it was mentioned in the programme that unlike Boeing the thrust levers in the Airbus don't physically move with the auto-throttle. I'm sure there is a valid reason for this but I cant help thinking that it may have made an already difficult situation even more difficult to deal with.

I'm guessing here but perhaps it is designed this way to ensure pilots are using the thrust level indicators for reference, rather than the position of the levers as they may not be accurate references.
Also should the thrust level indicators be positioned beside the artificial horizon to make it easier for pilots to maintain 5deg pitch and 85% thrust in a situation like this.

Bluetonic

andy_g wrote: »

i missed it if theres a link please post :P

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00sndh5/Lost_The_Mystery_of_Flight_447/

Use a UK proxy to watch.

KamiKazi

Will it be available on their website?

*Kol*

bandit197 wrote: »

Yeah it was mentioned in the programme that unlike Boeing the thrust levers in the Airbus don't physically move with the auto-throttle. I'm sure there is a valid reason for this but I cant help thinking that it may have made an already difficult situation even more difficult to deal with.

I'm guessing here but perhaps it is designed this way to ensure pilots are using the thrust level indicators for reference, rather than the position of the levers as they may not be accurate references.
Also should the thrust level indicators be positioned beside the artificial horizon to make it easier for pilots to maintain 5deg pitch and 85% thrust in a situation like this.

The Airbus has auto thrust rather than auto throttle. The levers do not move as there are no physical cables from the levers to the engine (as in Boeings). The Airbus throttle are fly by wire so there is no need for the throttle levers to move.

adamski8

*Kol* wrote: »

The Airbus has auto thrust rather than auto throttle. The levers do not move as there are no physical cables from the levers to the engine (as in Boeings). The Airbus throttle are fly by wire so there is no need for the throttle levers to move.

so if the autopilot switches off would the throttle not be in the wrong position? Or are u saying that would matter as the pilot should be looking at the thrust reading on the screen and adjust the throttle manually to get 85% thrust?

*Kol*

If auto thrust/auto pilot was disengaged then the pilot would have to move the throttle levers to get 85% thrust.

Tea 1000

adamski8 wrote: »

Very interesting and seemingly plausable to me. The pilots not following SOP seemed abit weird. You would think if failures like that happen then it would be drilled into them to go to 85% thrust and 5% pitch.

I didnt understand the thing about the trottle not moving?!!
So if autopilot reduces or increases thrust the manual trottle doesnt move in those aircraft right?
So what is the trottle on? 75% 80% etc etc?
Say if the trottle is at 80% and then the autopilot changes it to 70% and the trottle doesnt move (as they said it doesnt) then the autopilot disengages: now the manual trottle says 80% but in reality it is at 70%

P.S. I know I don't have a clue what im talking about really so pardon the confusion

I would assume that if the autopilot has the throttle at 70% and the actual lever position is at 80% then the throttle level will be at 70% until the autopilot is turned off, at which point the throttle will increase to 80% itself to match the lever position. Otherwise you could never keep up with the discrepancy.

Delancey

The programme suggested that the aircraft stalled and hit the water in a broadly level attitude. Now correct me if im wrong but I thought all Airbus planes were fitted with anti stall systems that made it impossible for them to stall ?
The programme did not seem to answer this point....

John_Mc

delancey42 wrote: »

The programme suggested that the aircraft stalled and hit the water in a broadly level attitude. Now correct me if im wrong but I thought all Airbus planes were fitted with anti stall systems that made it impossible for them to stall ?
The programme did not seem to answer this point....

That protection is based on the aircraft being in Normal law mode. If the pitot tubes were blocked, as is the hypothesis, then the aircraft cannot tell its speed or attitude so it changes to Alternate law (I think). That mode offers no protection to the pilots.

aircraft tech trng

The investigtion has gone on so long now its pretty doubtful if the definite cause will ever be found. Maybe it was pilot error, or technical or from a external sourse. Suggestions & ideas will always arise but will we ever know the truth? It will be a real shame to all if the cause is never found as it could prevent a reoccurance. I've heard of at least 3 cases of the CF6-80 having inflight shut downs due to super cooled water droplets (in each case the fadec relit the engine). Considering the number of engines probably 1000's and 1000's of hours in fight 3 cases is probably les than 0.0001%.There is not alot that can be done to prevent this but at least knowing the cause the crew can avoid certain weather conditions.

A320

*Kol* wrote: »

If auto thrust/auto pilot was disengaged then the pilot would have to move the throttle levers to get 85% thrust.

You can have A/P off and still have A/THR on and A/THR will have total command over the speed,when any A/P is on they both work together,

taking off in these planes,Thrust lever is pushed to FLX MCT or TOGA(Rare) detent with A/P off and the engines will produce a thrust that is based on the pilots calculations of weights/temperature etc into the FMGC pre flight

*Kol*

For anyone who didn't see it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00sndh5

http://www.zshare.net/videoplayer/player.php?SID=...

IvySlayer

Watched it, was interesting to watch.

Supercooled water freezes all 3 pitot tubes? Heating element needs a serious upgrade then.

Until the black boxes are found all this is just speculation. If I remember correctly didn't they mention something about it being underground?

Milan Cobian

When A/THR is engaged, the levers remain in what's called the CLB (climb) detent. This permits the A/THR to deliver power in a range from idle thrust to maximum climb power. It is possible to move the levers forward 1 detent to command MCT (maximum continuous thrust) or fully forward to command TOGA (take-off/go-around) power. The latter two are manual thrust settings, ie. if set, that level of thrust will be delivered without the automatics making any adjustment.
Back to the normal operations, with the levers in CLB. With A/THR engaged, the position of the levers always defines the maximum level of thrust that the automatics can command. So when the levers are in CLB, then maximum climb thrust can be delivered, if so demanded. This is the normal setting. It is possible to move the levers backwards while leaving the A/THR engaged. In this case, the maximum deliverable thrust will be reduced commensurate with the lever position.
If the A/THR disengaged, the levers function like conventional aircraft, i.e. deliver thrust according to the lever position. So if the A/THR is disengaged with the levers in the CLB detent, the thrust will immediately increase to max climb power match the lever position. However, the lever position is indicated by a small circle ("donut") on the outside of the main power gauge (N1). To smoothly disengage the A/THR the pilot matches the donut to the actual power level as indicated by the N1 gauge and presses the disconnect button on the levers. The power level thus remains as it was and manual control is assumed.

A320

I have to admit from working on Airbus aircraft they have a mind of their own sometimes,things seem to go bonkers(CIDS comes to mind) a lot more than anything on the boeing!!! however they are a lot lot better designed for maintenance personnel!! The CFDS is a dream!!!

Andrew33

I watched this the other night and while interesting, nothing really new came out of it. One interesting point was made though, the fact that because so much of the pilots work is now done automatically, when the sh1t hits the fan, the pilot is unable to cope due to a lack of real "hands on" experience. Also they never mentioned the fact that the senior officers body was found in the crew rest area. Would this have made a difference to the outcome? Probably not.

Tea 1000

Andrew33 wrote: »

Also they never mentioned the fact that the senior officers body was found in the crew rest area. Would this have made a difference to the outcome? Probably not.

?? I thought they didn't find the wreckage yet?

Dacian

Andrew33 wrote: »

I watched this the other night and while interesting, nothing really new came out of it. One interesting point was made though, the fact that because so much of the pilots work is now done automatically, when the sh1t hits the fan, the pilot is unable to cope due to a lack of real "hands on" experience. Also they never mentioned the fact that the senior officers body was found in the crew rest area.

Actuallly I liked this programme as they focused on the KNOWN facts rather than using dramatic license.

No mention was made of the captains body being found and thus assumed to have been outside the cockpit. Until this is proven it is not a fact. However I think the program did hint at it by having a relatively young pilot in the left hand seat.

One point that perhaps should have been stated clearly was that historically commercial pilots were ex-military so therefore they had previous stick time pushing aircraft to the limits. Modern commercial pilots may be direct entry cadets or through a flying school so only have experience of commercial flying. The English training captain did allude to this.