IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Nova: 'Crash of Flight 447' -- virtuoso sleuthing
Gamers or non- -- many surprising aspects to flying at 35K feet you will not have thought about.
(You may.. have thought about: just how much time DO pilots get? in these computer-game-controlled buses, with all the auto-stuff turned off
== seeing how, actually you might.. fly the sucker, when it's gone All-Windows on you??)

I give it **** as a suspense-filled sleuthing fable. Should be on, most places this week.


[Those Poor Bastards..]
New Thanks for the pointer. I'll have to watch next time.
New New debris field found.
http://www.nytimes.c...ope/04brazil.html

It's good they haven't given up. It would be even better if they find evidence pointing to the cause.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Missed that.. thanks.
I reiterate that that Nova version of deduced events is a keeper. Hope there's a followup.
Larger than this disaster though, is the subtle implications of increasingly 'automated' pilot-brains proliferating in aviation
(along with everywhere else)
this-all eroding the opportunity/necessity! of retaining competence in FLYING, when all the pitot-tubes freeze up
-- or any number of other perfectly imaginable glitches cause The System to go AWOL.

Finding the Black Box would corroborate the deductions in the program, fuel an authentic WAIT! Let's Reassess!! response which this merely-brilliant thesis cannot precipitate.
(It also illuminates the nature and physics of the 35,000' enviro, on any flight ... something rarely thought about by regular travellers.)
The more a one knows about the detail-guts of these massively complex creations, the scarier get the odds of MTBF + human insouciance.

(And note:Nova's clear deductions ensuing from just One of the screenfuls: aka One and then *All- pitot tubes failed.)
-- The ""AI"" of this A-300 mondo-kluge clearly was absent any such simple/Useful Boolean hint;
that plus a Reminder of the the absolute Necessity of [thrust-at-85% / 5-degree angle-of-attack!]
== that by which the Nova simulator crew indeed, attended to Flight First, and succeeded, in replay.

There's no HAL-9000 and without one, IMhO: an Airbus A300 and similar -- are machines I shall eschew in any next events, For Cause.


* Ed: I recall reading a while ago of a crash clearly precipitated by Just the one-and-Only method of speed determination, the bloody pitot tube:
someone had left them covered / missed on pre-flight inspection.
All dead IIRC..

Next? GPS delta-V calcs as backup? Think bloody Physics! 'designers'. {sheesh}

Expand Edited by Ashton April 5, 2011, 05:04:59 PM EDT
New Just a side note
Failure of instruments is a difficult situation for both computers and humans. Pilot tubes affect a number of instruments - most notably airspeed indicator.

If, however, the static port was affected, that would affect airspeed, altimeter and vertical speed indicator.

Any any case, if the aircraft was flying on instruments (ie: bad weather), lost of instruments is very difficult to recover from.

(As a sidenote: I do dislike the Airbus system to a degree....the computers have too much authority.)
New I note the availability, now of an emergency Attitude
Indicator for private (or other) aircraft, own-battery op for at least an hour / own gyros etc. -- this ad on a TV program done by EAA on Pilots.
It can replace the normal indicator in panel, costs ~$3500 IIRC. This instrument repair facility was Thinking.

As the Nova program makes clear, there was a remedy available to crew, in absence of any pitot-derived info: keep +5-degrees and thrust at 85 (87?)%
== assures a flyable speed. At 35K' alt. -- there is only a small delta-V allowable (+/- 10 Knots!) without precipitating a stall,
then roll-over (for folks never trained for recovery from 'fighter-plane' type aerobatics.)

Windoze-controlled or no, I (still) look to Physics to provide an Other device for V/Alt determination, at least to precision needed at these altitudes,
given the rough enviro in which pitot tubes must operate and Not freeze up via super-cooled liquid mist (or any other nemesis.)


Luck.. you Passengers!
New Well, for strictly Attitude Indicator...
The GPS would be the obvious ideal replacement.

For the pitot tube, though, there's not much to replace it with. A GPS can give you ground speed (which is different that airspeed), but should be close enough for government work (ie: keep the plane flying).

The trick to it all is that there is confusion in the cockpit. Most computers (and pilots) forget that instruments can fail.

There are (scary enough) recorded accidents from the pitot tubes being blocked (actually just one of them) where both excessive airspeed and stall warning were going off at the same time. The pilot couldn't resolve it fast enough and the plane crashed.
New Thanks for the information.
Wikipedia seems to have a good page on various failure mechanisms related to pressure readings, including several crashes.

http://en.wikipedia....stem_malfunctions

Blocked static port

A blocked static port is a more serious situation because it affects all pitot-static instruments.[6] One of the most common causes of a blocked static port is airframe icing. A blocked static port will cause the altimeter to freeze at a constant value, the altitude at which the static port became blocked. The vertical speed indicator will become frozen at zero and will not change at all, even if vertical airspeed increases or decreases. The airspeed indicator will reverse the error that occurs with a clogged pitot tube and cause the airspeed be read less than it actually is as the aircraft climbs. When the aircraft is descending, the airspeed will be over-reported. In most aircraft with unpressurized cabins, an alternative static source is available and can be toggled from within the cockpit of the airplane.[6]


:-(

But it sounds like the ADIRU might have been at least part of the issue ... http://en.wikipedia....al_Reference_Unit

Cheers,
Scott.
New While I no-AI-chops, I did run Eliza on my Otrona..
And as regards the Airbus crash, it's already clear(?) that, perhaps just TWO Summary-deduction messages might have enabled this crew to achieve what the crew in the simulator did == keep the plane Flying:
(Of course sans Black Box, the step-by-step road to demise remains speculation, however competent)

1) You have lost all reliable airspeed monitoring -- no pitot tubes operational
2) Reset thrust to (87%?) and vertical angle to +5 degrees to maintain critical flight attitude!
{{sigh}}

TMI is no longer just a wry/exasperated comment on the unsortedness of massive amounts of info, mostly-irrelevant to any object of search. TRIAGE needs next to be #1 in the mentation of all who write s/ware for such complexities as flight (or at, say, CERN: accelerators {cough} -- where life-threatening sequences could develop, not only involving the obvious radiation matters.)

<stupidity rant 1-B>
Seeing that scrolling mass of Unix-level factoids, so-like some arcane/unlabeled Windoze 'report' as it eats-itself == prima facie evidence that the designers of this system never even THOUGHT of the effect of so much serial, unsorted Stuff [even the abridged set sent to pilots] would flummox Any human.. not just one at 35,000 feet, within a massive storm at night, and needing to keep plane's speed within an absurdly-tiny limit of +/- 10 Knots or so.

Watching NOVA's replay of the actual data which went only to the maintenance base was horrifying. NOR was there any procedure! for signaling to Maintenance:
>>Help Pilots NOW<<
How much more is needed to be known to rate this, overall as ... completely unacceptable planning, design and execution of their entire control-system 'philosophy'? Eh?

(I have seen results of an unWise technician putting the giant ex-Minesweeper motor-gens for the Bevatron into 'Dynamic Braking'
... despite visual evidence of massive sparking, etc. == for which events, 'coast' was The Correct response,
even if it might take hours+ for the suckers to stop. Several hundred $K/ many days wasted on stator rewinds via Westinghouse, etc. But no bodies.)

And since most of these Airbuses DO operate in similar conditions, late-night, storms possible etc. I aver that riding in one of these amateur-spawned auditoria is, as of 2011
-- foolhardy, to say the least.
</stupidity rant>

Pshaw.

New Thanks for the reminder.
I just finished watching the "Crash of Flight 447" Nova show. It's very well done and presents a compelling case.

http://video.pbs.org/video/1685933496/

(It was 85%, 5-degrees.)

The fact that there were so many examples of 2 pitot tubes failing, and so many examples of pilots not going to 85%/5-degrees quickly is a smoking gun.

The idea that a big airliner can stall at 35,000 feet if its airspeed is 10 knots off seems nuts to me! But I never thought about it before....

Better training always helps when peoples' lives are on the line. But I wonder how realistic it is to expect that pilots will be able to cope with failure of so many systems at once. Supposedly there are many fighters that cannot be flown manually - they're aerodynamically unstable and need constant adjustment by their flight computers. With the push to make airliners more fuel efficient yet faster, and the limited airspeed windows at altitude that are already present, it seems like the automation problems will get more severe in the future.

:-(

IIRC, there's been talk of requiring GPS backups to help in cases like this. I guess the thinking was a Garmin in the cockpit might have helped, but given all the turbulence and the klaxxons and the flashing lights, who knows if they would have had the presence of mind to look at it. And there's the issue that GPS gives groundspeed, not airspeed, and if you're at 35,000 feet in a 150 mph headwind, well... :-/ (The FAA is going to be having planes use GPS for navigation, not airspeed.) So much for that.

Thanks again.

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who doesn't get to see Nova on TV very often and will have to visit the web site more frequently.)
New Black box surfaces.. but no memory!
http://www.nytimes.c...ox%20found&st=cse

..yet. Well, it's something; can the rest of the module remains be far away?
New They found the memory unit. ~1 week+ to decode.
http://www.nytimes.c.../02airfrance.html

The French Bureau of Investigations and Analysis said the memory unit of the flight data recorder was found early Sunday and brought to the surface, although it will be more than a week before it can be examined.

Investigators were initially disheartened last week when an underwater drone located the recorder’s protective housing without the cylindrical memory module attached.

But on Sunday, the mood at the bureau’s headquarters was charged with anticipation.

“This is a very happy surprise,” Jean-Paul Troadec, the bureau’s director, said in an interview.

Investigators had said the memory unit was probably dislodged from the housing when the plane hit the water, making it less likely that it would be found amid the rest of the wreckage, on a sandy plane nearly two and a half miles below the surface. “We had been expecting a lengthy search,” Mr. Troadec said.

Photos of the memory module showed that it had suffered little exterior corrosion, he said, though it was not clear whether the memory chip inside had been damaged. If it is still readable, it could provide critical information on the plane’s position, speed, altitude and direction when it ran into trouble.

“First we need to know if we can read it,” he said.


It is good news. With luck, they'll find the voice recorder too.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Had any thoughts about pitot tubes?
How about..

One with a center rod (also heated) ergo: an annulus instead of only an 'outer' surface of a cylinder? == more effective instant-heating / via local e- feedback from embedded thermistors etc. etc.
Mr. Bernoulli wouldn't care.

And if that fails: TWO backup retractable devices with mondo hot-air flow periodically around and through THEIR surfaces ... naturally not simultaneously with taking air data.
During deice cycle, sufficient hi-pressure air sends out any collected chunks, ETC.

as in, {{{Sheesh!}}} I mean.. AFTER all those reported losses of 2 out of 3 -- they left this problem to bizness droids to decide on the design? and the time-frame for mods??
New Might be worth a try.
I don't know enough about such things to have an informed opinion. While they're quite old technology, they're heavily optimized. Making them fail-safe for -40F supercooled water and 150+F sitting on a tarmac before takeoff would seem to be a challenge. But existing instrument-rated planes require heated pitot tubes, so they must be aware of the issues. I don't know if an additional heater would help or not.

I think there needs to be a redundant technology in case the pitot fails (like the Shuttle was designed with 4 computers for redundancy, and a 5th of a different design in case there was a common failure of the first 4 - http://history.nasa....puters/Ch4-4.html .) What that would be, I don't know.

Here's an interesting thread on the effect of pitot tube failure on some autopilot software. It apparently is not uncommon, so training and software that is properly designed is probably the biggest fix. http://cloudcapsuppo...x.php?topic=306.0

Cheers,
Scott.
New Pitot blocks shouldn't be fatal.
But sometimes they are. I recall hearing of a commercial flight somewhere in South or Central America where the pitot was blocked and the pilots kept pitching up and cutting power trying to "slow" the aircraft down. They did that until they stalled the airplane and it made a hole in the ground.

This is precisely why you don't have one instrument in the cockpit and why you practice partial panel flight. One problem that is growing even in the general aviation community is that you have new and/or young pilots who believe everything their electronic displays tell them. Certainly a jet (particularly an Airbus) is much more sophisticated, but there seems to be a growing tendency among pilots of all stripes to believe that simply because you've got more electronic gizmos in the cockpit, you can fly into conditions you shouldn't be flying into. "The glass panel/gps/satellite weather/traffic avoidance/autopilot will get us there." Even if the pitot hadn't failed in this instance, I believe there was an excellent chance the aircraft couldn't have sustained the tremendous forces of that storm anyway.

Just my 2,
Mikem
New I still think it's more
static port than pitot tube.
New Alternate static *should* have handled that.
I still think it's over-reliance on electronic displays. We're losing piloting skills everywhere. ;0(
New CVR found, too. If interested.
http://www.avweb.com...red_204582-1.html
New Thanks.. 3 weeks to hear more.
New First reports from flight recorders.
http://english.aljaz...271416196601.html

An Air France jet that crashed into the Atlantic Ocean two years ago stalled three times before plunging into the sea, killing all 228 people on board, information from the plane's flight recorders shows.

French investigators said on Friday that data from the devices, known as black boxes, revealed the final minutes of the air disaster, with two co-pilots struggling to regain control of the Airbus jet.

The emergency began with a stall warning two and a half hours into flight 447 between Rio de Janeiro and Paris on June 1 2009.

The captain was on a routine break at the time and was summoned back to the cockpit by the second and third in command, but did not retake the controls.

The co-pilots wrestled with the plane's controls for three and a half minutes as it descended rapidly, falling 3,350 metres per minute, rolling from left to right and finally plunging into the Atlantic.

"There was an inconsistency between the speeds displayed on the left side and the integrated standby instrument system (ISIS), the French Bureau of Inquiry and Analysis (BEA), said.

"This lasted for less than one minute".

However the investigators said it is still too early to give the causes of the crash, and a full report is expected to be released this summer.

[...]


:-(

A little more at the link.

I suspect Ask The Pilot at Salon and Fallows at the Atlantic will have some comments in the near future.

Cheers,
Scott.
New that sounds a lot like
pitot tubes freezing up.

I'm wondering if they dropped the nose (to regain airspeed), and exceed Vne.
New Not likely.
From what I've read the aircraft was largely in tact when it hit the ocean. I'd expect greater structural damage prior to impact if they'd exceeded Vne. Especially when one considers how fragile those plastic airplanes from Europe are. Remember this?

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this ACC as follows:
the in-flight separation of the vertical stabilizer as a result of the loads beyond ultimate design that were created by the first officer's unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs. Contributing to these rudder pedal inputs were characteristics of the Airbus A300-600 rudder system design and elements of the American Airlines Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program.


http://www.ntsb.gov/...11130X02321&key=1

Since this is a fly-by-wire a/c, it's pretty interesting how the pilot was able to apply "unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs" while flying well below Va. If these Eurotrash a/c can't handle a little wake turbulence, I doubt very seriously they'd stay together at Vne.
----
bcnu,
Mikem
New Did some searching
and that thing was dropping like a rock. Something like 10,000 ft a minute.

I had not realized that they flew INTO a thunderstorm.

http://www.theatlant...-tells-us/239598/
New Yup. ~ 120 mph down. AKA "terminal velocity" :-(
If one knows the numbers for mass, appropriate cross-sectional area, once can calculate the terminal velocity here - http://www.grc.nasa....rplane/termv.html

150 ft/sec = 100 mph.

Cheers,
Scott.
New One possible nit.
With the airbus' FBW [fly by wire] system and passive stick, the crew would have none of the force or buffet cues through the side-stick that might have told them this.

I am very far from an ATP and I know next to nothing about Airbus control systems. But, after about 9 years of hangar flying with some ATP's, it's my understanding that even fly-by-wire a/c have "shakers" in the control yokes. These are designed so that the pilot gets a physical cue that a stall is imminent. Maybe it malfunctioned or is not part of the Airbus design (if not, that, in and of itself, would be alarming).

This is very dangerous flying, I don't care who you are. In IMC, you're taught to "trust your instruments" because, well, that's the only thing that's going to tell you if you're upside down or not. It's a hell of a thing to be in hard IMC and not be able to rely on your instruments.
     Nova: 'Crash of Flight 447' -- virtuoso sleuthing - (Ashton) - (24)
         Thanks for the pointer. I'll have to watch next time. -NT - (Another Scott)
         New debris field found. - (Another Scott) - (7)
             Missed that.. thanks. - (Ashton) - (6)
                 Just a side note - (S1mon_Jester) - (5)
                     I note the availability, now of an emergency Attitude - (Ashton) - (4)
                         Well, for strictly Attitude Indicator... - (S1mon_Jester) - (3)
                             Thanks for the information. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                 While I no-AI-chops, I did run Eliza on my Otrona.. - (Ashton) - (1)
                                     Thanks for the reminder. - (Another Scott)
         Black box surfaces.. but no memory! - (Ashton) - (8)
             They found the memory unit. ~1 week+ to decode. - (Another Scott) - (5)
                 Had any thoughts about pitot tubes? - (Ashton) - (4)
                     Might be worth a try. - (Another Scott)
                     Pitot blocks shouldn't be fatal. - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                         I still think it's more - (S1mon_Jester) - (1)
                             Alternate static *should* have handled that. - (mmoffitt)
             CVR found, too. If interested. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                 Thanks.. 3 weeks to hear more. -NT - (Ashton)
         First reports from flight recorders. - (Another Scott) - (5)
             that sounds a lot like - (S1mon_Jester) - (4)
                 Not likely. - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                     Did some searching - (S1mon_Jester) - (2)
                         Yup. ~ 120 mph down. AKA "terminal velocity" :-( - (Another Scott)
                         One possible nit. - (mmoffitt)

Sittin' on the Group W bench.
83 ms