Air France flight crash

[TheSilverBuick]

As far as French pilots having military history - they do.... get white handkerchief, attach to pole, wave vigorously at enemy.

Finally something in this thread we can agree on!

[BangShift McT]

A lot of what contributed to Sullenberger's success was his experience with flying as well as gliding. He knew there was no way to make it to LaGuardia or Teterboro without wasting time doing the calculations. His glider experience is what kept the aircraft in one piece and floating when he splashed it.

[Silver68RT]

I think what Capt. Sully did was remarkable. He very quickly and accurately assessed his situation and his available options, taking into account a huge number of factors, and selected what was probably the only option that wouldn't have killed them all. He then executed his chosen course of action perfectly. You can't ask for more than that. I think calling it a miracle is a bit of an injustice, because I think all the credit belongs to Capt. Sully. If you contrast what he was faced with (near impossible situation, total loss of thrust, low altitude, in a major city) vs. what the Air France pilots started out with (failure of a sensor causing the auto pilot to shut off at 35,000 feet while cruising), I think it's clear that skill and good decision-making ability counts for a lot, and a bad decision can kill a hell of a lot of people.

[SuperBuickGuy]

I don't see anything twilight zone going on, and there was no reason the plane had to crash if the pilots had taken the appropriate actions. They pulled it up into a stall, and kept it stalled until it smashed into the ocean. There were apparently 3 stall warnings that they did not acknowledge verbally. The only thing that makes sense is that for some reason they became disoriented, and thought that they were diving nose first at 11,000 fpm, and kept trying to pull up for that reason. Surely the instruments would clearly indicate that they were nose up instead of nose down though, which is what I don't get. If they'd put the nose down, picked up some speed and reduced the angle of attack to something where the airplane could generate lift again, I see no reason they couldn't have saved it.

I'd be very interested to see Captain Sullenberger's take on the actions of the crew. Apparently he trains pilots how to respond to emergency situations. I'd think his military background probably helped a lot in the Hudson River case, I wonder if any of the Air France pilots had any military history.

my wife pointed out that Capt. Sully had substantial experience in flying gliders - it was part of our on-going debate about what constitutes a miracle.

As far as French pilots having military history - they do.... get white handkerchief, attach to pole, wave vigorously at enemy.

[Silver68RT]

I don't see anything twilight zone going on, and there was no reason the plane had to crash if the pilots had taken the appropriate actions. They pulled it up into a stall, and kept it stalled until it smashed into the ocean. There were apparently 3 stall warnings that they did not acknowledge verbally. The only thing that makes sense is that for some reason they became disoriented, and thought that they were diving nose first at 11,000 fpm, and kept trying to pull up for that reason. Surely the instruments would clearly indicate that they were nose up instead of nose down though, which is what I don't get. If they'd put the nose down, picked up some speed and reduced the angle of attack to something where the airplane could generate lift again, I see no reason they couldn't have saved it.

I'd be very interested to see Captain Sullenberger's take on the actions of the crew. Apparently he trains pilots how to respond to emergency situations. I'd think his military background probably helped a lot in the Hudson River case, I wonder if any of the Air France pilots had any military history.

[SuperBuickGuy]

it's widely known in avation circles that it's not a good idea to fly a plane into a storm. Considering there were storms present and dead ahead of them, and knowing what happens when you fly an airliner into a downdraft already, it's probably going to be pretty hard to blame all of this entirely on Evil Computer Control Systems with any credibility.

I'm also not so sure it's a good idea to gripe about computer controls in general, even if it was 100% a software or computer hardware problem, the computer controlled aircraft have moved more passengers safely per mile than the old school manual controls.

Meanwhile, I used to make fun of Airbus and joked about them being crappy until I saw that one of them made a water landing without ripping it's wings off. Other airliners have tried the same and usually end up tearing the wings from the fuselage and rolling dangerously... airbus must not build too bad of a plane if a captain can land one safely (and comfortably) on water.

I agree - it is amazing that it didn't take the wings off, miraculous even, despite ripping the engines off.... however, let's not forget that a 747 literally blew the tail off an Airbus just after 9/11.


this flight is most (ummm what word) frightening? because it happened 1) when airplanes almost never crash; 2) these people had to know they were going down; 3) it almost seems some twilight zone physics were involved; and 4) there was apparently nothing anyone could do about it....

[TheSilverBuick]

this seems more like the plane simply fell out of the sky in complete defiance of most of the physical laws we hold most dear.

The laws of physics surprisingly aren't as intuitive as they often seem, and what seems improbable in a lot of cases is usually explained by counter-intuitive physics. I learned plenty of that in a year of physic's, I couldn't believe how often my gut feeling on how something would work or turn out was simply wrong.

Also remember, their flaps weren't down, so their stall speed is pretty dang high, they still had forward momentum, but likely well under their stall speed.

[dieselgeek]

I understand what you're saying, but they would have been falling backwards at 125 mph - you'd think it'd flutter a bit if that were true.... this seems more like the plane simply fell out of the sky in complete defiance of most of the physical laws we hold most dear.

it's widely known in avation circles that it's not a good idea to fly a plane into a storm. Considering there were storms present and dead ahead of them, and knowing what happens when you fly an airliner into a downdraft already, it's probably going to be pretty hard to blame all of this entirely on Evil Computer Control Systems with any credibility.

I'm also not so sure it's a good idea to gripe about computer controls in general, even if it was 100% a software or computer hardware problem, the computer controlled aircraft have moved more passengers safely per mile than the old school manual controls.

Meanwhile, I used to make fun of Airbus and joked about them being crappy until I saw that one of them made a water landing without ripping it's wings off. Other airliners have tried the same and usually end up tearing the wings from the fuselage and rolling dangerously... airbus must not build too bad of a plane if a captain can land one safely (and comfortably) on water.

[SuperBuickGuy]

I'm still standing by the pilots didn't know they were falling or stalled because they didn't believe the instrument readings, rather the instruments were reading right or wrong.







^^^It's still annoying that quote's don't nest more than one layer. My quote of the article is completely missing from Stoneshrink's post.

I concur.... I wish we could more easily nest posts and that we could use emoticons without "go advanced"

[SuperBuickGuy]

The speed is good, but the second part of making lift is making sure you have a decent angle-of-attack with the wings in order to create that lift. If your angle is too steep you don't make lift at all...which backs the theory the nose was extremely high. You can make it with the nose down, but nose high and falling won't do anything for the plane.

I understand what you're saying, but they would have been falling backwards at 125 mph - you'd think it'd flutter a bit if that were true.... this seems more like the plane simply fell out of the sky in complete defiance of most of the physical laws we hold most dear.

[TheSilverBuick]

I'm still standing by the pilots didn't know they were falling or stalled because they didn't believe the instrument readings, rather the instruments were reading right or wrong.







^^^It's still annoying that quote's don't nest more than one layer. My quote of the article is completely missing from Stoneshrink's post.

[BangShift McT]

The speed is good, but the second part of making lift is making sure you have a decent angle-of-attack with the wings in order to create that lift. If your angle is too steep you don't make lift at all...which backs the theory the nose was extremely high. You can make it with the nose down, but nose high and falling won't do anything for the plane.

[SuperBuickGuy]

If I'm not mistaken, once there rate of decent levelled out, even at 120mph vertically, then gravity would resume and feel normal because they were not accelerating. Similar to why you don't feel constantly pushed back in your seat in your car while cruising, only the vector is in a different direction. So they felt a brief sensation of falling, accelerating to 11,000ft/min, then once at terminal velocity at 11,000ft/min vertically gravity takes back over. So short of looking at the altimeter, they wouldn't likely know they were falling, and if they didn't believe the gauge....


***

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_fall

Or in the pilots case, sitting in their seats.

I thought terminal velocity was 16 ft/sec... in any case, terminal velocity means the highest rate you can fall in the atmosphere, and I am relatively sure 11,000 feet a minute is well beyond that rate (that said, maybe I'm not moving the decimal.... where's CTX?)

interesting... I just did the math - terminal velocity is also said to be 125 mph... if you do the math that plane was literally falling at 125.47 mph.... which should have been more than enough to generate lift

[TheSilverBuick]

If I'm not mistaken, once there rate of decent levelled out, even at 120mph vertically, then gravity would resume and feel normal because they were not accelerating. Similar to why you don't feel constantly pushed back in your seat in your car while cruising, only the vector is in a different direction. So they felt a brief sensation of falling, accelerating to 11,000ft/min, then once at terminal velocity at 11,000ft/min vertically gravity takes back over. So short of looking at the altimeter, they wouldn't likely know they were falling, and if they didn't believe the gauge....


***

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_fall

The drag forces in such situations prevent them from producing full weightlessness, and thus a skydiver's "free fall" after reaching terminal velocity produces the sensation of the body's weight being supported on a cushion of air.

Or in the pilots case, sitting in their seats.

[oldsman496]

I'm really torn on this one... I can't see how those pilots weren't pulled up against the seat belts at that descent rate. ummmmm....... ya know you're fallin' when that happens, black sky or not.