Vanity Fair Article on AF447

[MD11Pilot]

This is a pretty good article on what "happened" aboard Air France 447 based upon the recovered voice recorder and data recorder. Some personal observations prior to reading and these are MY opinions only and biased.
1. Airbus levels of automation are designed to keep the pilot out of the loop. Example...the side stick controllers do not, for lack of a better term, crossfeed inputs so that one pilot can see and feel what the other is doing. The auto throttles do not move the throttles so you do not have a visual sense that they are doing something other than the instruments.
2. Air France "Babies". Their program of training a pilot from day one and they do not have much experience beyond take off and landing...the majority of their time is en-route on AP. Other airlines do this also. To paraphrase...they don't have that "pull back - houses get smaller - push forward - houses get bigger" experience. No seat of the pants.

Read and place yourself in the cockpit with the understanding that the level of warnings that contradict each other in a case like this can be overwhelming...unless you go back to pitch, power settings appropriate for the weight and altitude...and then stop and ignore the warnings and start working through them one at a time.

http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2014/10/air-france-flight-447-crash

 

[SCCutler]

I still believe that your first observation is the most critical - if the PNF had been presented with a yoke pulled back to his belly, or a stick in full aft deflection, it would have clicked what was going on. Obviously a potential downside to an otherwise well-proven automation scheme.

Several weeks ago, I attended a flying club meeting with Phil Condit, retired Boeing CEO, speaking. He discussed this issue at length, and you can imagine his views on it; his matched mine, which I am certain he found affirming. His background is in flight control engineering, and his position is based upon a wealth of experience and research.

 

[JohnAJohnson]

Good article.

He summarizes with "It seems that we are locked into a spiral in which poor human performance begets automation, which worsens human performance, which begets increasing automation."

This is happening in every facet of life. A car driver doesn't have to know how to correct for a skid because the car has "stability control." The newspaper editor or journalist doesn't have to know how to spell; that's the job of the spell checker. We don't need to know how to add or multiply because we have calculators on our cell phones. Software developers can create without understanding hardware, machine code, or even assembly language because of extremely high level compilers written by extremely high level compilers.

Aviation will not and cannot be exempt but to the larger issue, I wonder, as we become more "dumbed down", will we loose the ability to recognize that we're being dumbed down?

 

[MD11Pilot]

The author, William Langewiesche is the son of Wolfgang. I think he comes across in other articles as a bit arrogant but I digress.

SmoothTalker
I am sure that Phil Condit disagrees with the Airbus method...a lot of us do. They do make a good plane but their levels of automation go overboard in my opinion.

JohnAJohnson said
Aviation will not and cannot be exempt but to the larger issue, I wonder, as we become more "dumbed down", will we loose the ability to recognize that we're being dumbed down?

Your statement about being so dumbed down we don't realize it....welcomes a political comment which I will not make
It also speaks to the pilot becoming a passenger instead of how our instructors told us...a good pilot is always learning.

 

[Bill Watson]

The author, William Langewiesche is the son of Wolfgang. I think he comes across in other articles as a bit arrogant but I digress.

I would suggest that he comes off as anything but arrogant in his writing. I'm a fan and would suggest reading some/all of his other stuff. Ignore the family connection while doing so. One of the best non-fiction writers around right now.

Anyway, we had a pretty spirited exchange here Good Article by Wm Langewische on AF447

 

[RotorAndWing]

I am sure that Phil Condit disagrees with the Airbus method...a lot of us do. They do make a good plane but their levels of automation go overboard in my opinion.

I kinda find that a bit funny coming from a MD-11 pilot.

BTW, which Airbus did you previously fly?

 

[MD11Pilot]

I kinda find that a bit funny coming from a MD-11 pilot.

BTW, which Airbus did you previously fly?

You got me there. But the MD11 is now a Boeing product but kind of like the red headed step child. They will be happy to see the last one at the shredder. It is an airplane that you either love or hate.
I ride on Airbus 300-600 with my company but I do not fly them. I sleep very well when commuting on them because I do not want to hear all the creaking, banging etc. Again...our guys say...if you flew a Boeing you will hate the Airbus. Seriously the only guys I know that really like them never flew a Boeing prior. I spent 16 years in the 747 Classic, 757 and 767. The 757 is like flying a C-172 with lots and lots of power. Just fly it like a small airplane. I only switched to the MD due to the schedules and the bunk.

 

[RotorAndWing]

You got me there. But the MD11 is now a Boeing product but kind of like the red headed step child. They will be happy to see the last one at the shredder. It is an airplane that you either love or hate.
I ride on Airbus 300-600 with my company but I do not fly them. I sleep very well when commuting on them because I do not want to hear all the creaking, banging etc. Again...our guys say...if you flew a Boeing you will hate the Airbus. Seriously the only guys I know that really like them never flew a Boeing prior. I spent 16 years in the 747 Classic, 757 and 767. The 757 is like flying a C-172 with lots and lots of power. Just fly it like a small airplane. I only switched to the MD due to the schedules and the bunk.

Hmmm, I flew the B727, B757 and B767 then the A320. I must be different because I don't hate the Airbus.

Actually in many ways the Airbus is more "user friendly" than the Boeing, and has a far more comfortable cockpit.

As for the MD-11, all I can say is there are lots of MD-11 parts scattered around the globe. Boeing will rejoice the day the last one goes to the scrap heap.

 

[MD11Pilot]

MD11 195 built
Last I heard there was a total of six or eight hull losses.
Most on bounced landings. The geometry of the aircraft is such that the cockpit orientation doesn't change whether you are in a bounce (and the worst thing to do is push the nose over) or in a "normal" landing.
Hey, it is a badly designed compromise airplane...I will be the first to admit that. BUT, when the poop hits the fan...I can fly it. I don't have a computer decided that I don't have the sense to fly. As far as I know there has never been a MD11 fly into the trees during an airshow with a test pilot on board and he couldn't get the power up.
My company got our Airbuses very cheap but the parts are extremely expensive. It does a good job for them. Due to schedules and I don't have enough brain cells for another airplane and the 300-600 is a "normal" cockpit compared to the 320. Ours have yokes and a very tiny tight cockpit. Different worlds.

Hmmm, I flew the B727, B757 and B767 then the A320. I must be different because I don't hate the Airbus.

Actually in many ways the Airbus is more "user friendly" than the Boeing, and has a far more comfortable cockpit.

As for the MD-11, all I can say is there are lots of MD-11 parts scattered around the globe. Boeing will rejoice the day the last one goes to the scrap heap.

 

[RotorAndWing]

MD11 195 built
Last I heard there was a total of six or eight hull losses.

Correct on the total losses (eight), but there have been numerous accidents in the airframe that didn't result in a total.

I'm familiar with the FedEx ones and they have left MD-11 parts scattered around the globe, like you said most are landing accidents.

Glad you like the airplane, I had a chance to get typed on it and said "no thanks".

 

[MD11Pilot]

What is that old saying? Never turn down an upgrade or a new type...but I don't blame you. The DC10 had a 36% larger tail than the MD11 and by all accounts was easier to fly. We have LSAS computers (just like I told the examiner giving my the oral for my type....I don't really understand it but then you don't either...I just make sure that two lights aren't on next to each other - he agreed) that do magic stuff to make it "fly" right. I tell people the MD11 is just like a short coupled tail dragger...you don't quit flying it until it is parked and you can have the best approach set up and in the last ten feet everything goes to pot. We had one that almost was a hull loss due to a push over in a bounce. Caused a lot of damage but they fixed it and I fly it now. Just waiting to get a new contract and hopefully a bump in retirement and then I am hanging it up. Just getting back into little airplanes and it has restored my love of flying.

Correct on the total losses (eight), but there have been numerous accidents in the airframe that didn't result in a total.

I'm familiar with the FedEx ones and they have left MD-11 parts scattered around the globe, like you said most are landing accidents.

Glad you like the airplane, I had a chance to get typed on it and said "no thanks".

 

[RotorAndWing]

What is that old saying? Never turn down an upgrade or a new type...but I don't blame you. The DC10 had a 36% larger tail than the MD11 and by all accounts was easier to fly. We have LSAS computers (just like I told the examiner giving my the oral for my type....I don't really understand it but then you don't either...I just make sure that two lights aren't on next to each other - he agreed) that do magic stuff to make it "fly" right. I tell people the MD11 is just like a short coupled tail dragger...you don't quit flying it until it is parked and you can have the best approach set up and in the last ten feet everything goes to pot. We had one that almost was a hull loss due to a push over in a bounce. Caused a lot of damage but they fixed it and I fly it now. Just waiting to get a new contract and hopefully a bump in retirement and then I am hanging it up. Just getting back into little airplanes and it has restored my love of flying.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

Back to the author......I've always liked him a lot. He wrote a very good article on the world trade building, shortly after it happened. It described what they found. Excellent. His father was famous for his flying publications.