A Reply to the ABC Report on AF447
ABC News correspondents, Lisa Stark and Ben Forer, recently published a news report about the Air France flight 447 crash. You can read the article, titled “Air France Flight 447: Black Boxes Indicate Pilot Error Caused Accident” here. The report tries to make the point that pilot error alone caused the accident, but I have serious questions about the accuracy of this article.
First things first, there is an active investigation being carried out about AF447 by Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses (BEA) and speculating about an aviation accident’s causes, without knowing the facts, is something that I really refrain from doing. This is because no one knows the facts better than the investigators, and specially because the investigators have not publicized any findings or arrived into any conclusions yet. And this raises the first questions about the accuracy of this news article – how can these reporters come to the conclusion “Black Boxes Indicate Pilot Error Caused Accident” without even having access to the black boxes or even before the investigators have announced their findings ?
( Quote, first paragraph:
..the plane’s black boxes, discovered early last month, reveal the pilots’ actions may have ultimately caused the accident.
)
Let’s move further down the article. The writers state that..
“Flight 447 had taken off from Brazil and was bound for Paris when, at 35,000 feet and nearly four hours into the flight, the plane apparently encountered heavy icing.”
What are the foundations that the authors have, to verify that the aircraft encountered “heavy icing” ? Apparently, none. Icing is a natural phenomenon that is usually found at low altitudes – not at 35,oooft. However there could still have been a very rare occurrence of icing at an altitude as high as 35,000ft. But the authors proof to prove that there really was ? Apparently none.
On the day of accident, Air France flight 447, from Rio De Janeiro, GIG to Paris, CDG – flown by Airbus A330-200 F-GZCP – was supposed to take the following flight path.
Departing Rio De Janeiro, GIG, on SID AWAKE, entering airway UZ10, continuing towards waypoint FLIRT, entering airway UN873, continuing via waypoints INTOL, SALPU, ORARO, ISOKA, LIMAL, SAMAR, BAROK, PORTA, entering airway UN741, MOKOR, entering airway UT182, KEPER, reaching CDG via ROMLO.
The aircraft was lost after it left the waypoint INTOL and never reached TASIL, a waypoint prior to SALPU.
As per the research by meteorological expert Tim Vasquez, this should place the aircraft within the following region.
Following a very extensive and interesting research by Mr. Vsquez, the conclusion he arrives is that while there is a possibility for latent heat to be created while crossing atop an updraft, super-cooled water and icing is a very unlikely scenario in the situation the aircraft is presumed to have been in.
Quote:
“..studies of tropical cumulonimbus clouds over the oceans (Zipser et al) indicate that supercooled liquid water at FL350 (and thus icing in general) is highly unlikely. “
This makes the concrete claims by the writers ( paragraph 3, Air France Flight 447: Black Boxes Indicate Pilot Error Caused Accident ),
“The icing caused the speed sensors to malfunction, which meant the on-board computers were receiving faulty and confusing speed readings.”
, unfounded and baseless – unless otherwise proved by the DFDR data, which have not been released yet.
Let’s move to the next paragraph. The authors state
“With the computers unable to process the confusing speed information, the autopilot shut down, leaving the jumbo jet suddenly in the hands of the cockpit crew.”
Calling the A330 as a jumbo jet? Ok, let’s forget that. The authors claim that the flight computers were unable to process the confusing speed information and that this caused the autopilot to shut down. I must make this an opportunity to ask the same question from my two knowledged ABC friends again – proof please?
The disconnection of autopilot cannot be attributed to one simple air-speed sensor malfunction. It is a chain of events that triggered the autopilot ( and subsequently auto-thrust, ISIS and a range of other systems ) to dis-engage. This may be described as due to the shutdown of ADIRU and not directly because the malfunctioning pitot tubes. In fact, one could even argue that it was because there really was a cabin pressure issue, that the autopilot disconnected. Because, none of us know for sure, unless we have access to the flight recorders – which in this case, I suppose the ABC reporters did not.
The next sentence goes on as..
“ABC news has confirmed that when the emergency began, the captain was out of the cockpit on a break.”
Let me ask respectfully, just how ? When the aircraft crashed, most of the enthusiasts and experts in aviation circles quickly came to the conclusion that the Captain must have been out of the cockpit at the time of the incident. What led us to this conclusion?
1. The Captain’s body was among the first to be discovered. This should indicate that he was probably un-belted and might have been resting in the crew rest area behind the cockpit.
2. It is a normal practice on almost all airlines for the crew to take breaks in shifts, while on a long-haul flight. Usually the Captain is present at the controls during take-off and landing – the two most critical parts of the flight – and usually, it is common practice for the Captain to be the first to take a break.
This may be true, but is in no way a ‘confirmation’ and is still only a speculation. I will be very curious to hear from my ABC friends about what were their sources to confirm this.
The next paragraph begins as ( paragraph 7 )
“ABC News has learned the jumbo jet, an Airbus A330 was still flyable, but the pilots apparently failed to do what was necessary to keep the jet in the air. They may have flown too slowly, causing the plane to stall and tumble out of the sky.”
Let’s forget the jumbo jet mention, I would be very glad to hear the reporters’ comments on how they came to the conclusions that
1. The Airbus A330 was still flyable ?
2. The pilots apparently failed to do what was necessary to keep the jet in the air ?
There is no way for us to confirm that the Airbus A330, F-GZCP, was still flyable during the incident. None of us, except the investigators, have had access to the DFDR data to prove that the aircraft was flawless at the time of the incident.
Nor do we have any proof to claim that “the pilots apparently failed to do what was necessary to keep the jet in the air”. It could very well be true that the crew may have gotten distracted with the multiple warnings during a heavy turbulence that they were already coping with – and perhaps more factors that we do not know yet. No pilot likes to let their aircraft crash. And, the three pilots that were on board Air France flight 447 were quite experienced, with 20,000 flight hours between them. Humans make mistakes, and perhaps the crew did too – unwillingly. But there is no proof for us to conclude that the crew made a criminal negligence, as has been suggested by the reporters. Nor is it any fair put the blame on the pilots, who must have tried their very best to save the aircraft, without knowing which actual consequences did they face.
The reporters also suggest that the aircraft could have flown slower than required, thus causing the aircraft to stall and impact the ocean. Sure, it could have been. But one could also argue that the aircraft actually flew too fast.
For example, while the airspeed sensors were providing faulty data, if the reported airspeed was falling, the autothrust may have applied extra power continuously and the aircraft may have indeed flown too fast. So fast so that it may have exceeded its flight envelope and crashed. Because, when the aircraft’s autopilot and autothrust disconnected ( see AUTO FLT AP OFF and AUTO FLT A/THR OFF in ACARS messages transmitted by the aircraft ), it would leave the aircraft’s thrust at the levels set before the disconnection – and in this case at a level higher than needed.
Like this, we all can speculate. But none of us know for real what actually happened – as we do not have access to the flight recorders. And the flight recorders are in the hands of the people who should have them – the investigators.
In this sense, it seems that this article is factually inaccurate and is written irresponsibly to draw a different picture in the readers’ minds – probably misleading them. Such speculation would only hurt the investigation, the industry and hearts of those involved. Hence, I would like to kindly request from the ABC reporters, to check the facts before publishing an article and to avoid exaggerating an incident for a sensationalist outcome, specially when none of us know what actually happened.
I would be glad to hear the reporters’ views on my comments and I must make it clear that I have absolutely no hatred or personal agenda against the ABC News and/or the reporters involved. I have no affiliation with Airbus, Air France or any company involved in this incident either. I would like to ask the reporters and ABC News to please take no offense on this article, as none is intended.
I am not a pilot or a flight instructor and I could be wrong, but I just thought that I should share with the world my knowledge, when factually knowledge news about this incident was increasingly gaining publicity.
Thank you.
“In this sense, it seems that this article is factually inaccurate and is written irresponsibly to draw a different picture in the readers’ minds – probably misleading them. Such speculation would only hurt the investigation, the industry and hearts of those involved”
So sooo sooo true !
It seems like ABC News “journalists” have the same work order than Le Figaro “journalists” have here in France…
There Wasn’t A Legitimate Reason For The Passengers on Air France Flight 447 To Die
For the last ten years there hasn’t been a technical reason why the digital flight recorder data isn’t securely sent in real-time to the ground for storage (see the BBC/Equinox video “The BOX”, 4/2000, A look at the shortcomings found in black box flight recorders). During this ten year interval both the US and Europe have had the capability of implementing remote aircraft flight recording if only they had the will to do so. Using a remote aircraft flight recorder, within a couple of seconds, you have the planes position/location, its attitude, velocity, etc. safely stored on the ground and used for flight safety, aviation security and cost reduction. The data used in real-time could have also prevented 9/11 (see http://www.safelander.com).
On June 4, 2009 the Los Angeles Times put following information that I wrote into their LETTERS section: “There is no technical reason why digital flight recorder data are not sent in real-time to the ground. We have the technology to do this. Then, within a couple of seconds, we would have a plane’s position, altitude and velocity safely stored on the ground. This information could be used for flight safety, aviation security and cost reduction. We don’t know what went wrong on Air France Flight 447, but we would sure know where the plane went down, why it went down and possibly could have saved lives.” Getting to the crash site early may save lives, getting the DFDR can prevent recurring fatal crashes. It’s not just position that’s needed, it’s all of the data sent to the recorder that is critical to ascertaining the root cause of a crash and should be available to prevent some of the crashes from occurring.
The real-time use of the data recorders will save a substantial amount of lives, make our country safer and reduce the cost of flying. Telemetering the already digitized flight data to the ground in real-time would assure that we have the data. In some crashes the flight data isn’t recovered (e.g. 9/11, et al) or has errors in it since no one is looking at it, or using it in real-time to find malfunctions. Yet, this valuable digital flight recorder data (DFDR) data has been essentially left to the autopsy mode for post mortem simulations and not utilized proactively in real-time to save lives on cargo and carrier aircraft. We got the astronauts back from the moon by ground personnel monitoring the data in real-time. It was the ground personnel that found the problem and relayed back to the capsule the safe solution that saved the astronauts lives. It is now time to utilize this proven methodology for the good of the public.
A year prior to 9/11 at the International Aviation Safety Association meeting in New York, methods for preventing crashes like golfer Payne Stewart’s decompression crash were proposed. None of these methods were implemented by the aviation industry and we got 9/11 (hijacking is about ten percent of aviation fatalities) and the 2005, 100 fatality, Helios decompression crash. When a plane deviates from its approved flight plan, we now have the ability to securely take remote control of it and land it safely at a designated airfield. We presently have remote pilot vehicles (RPVs) flying over Afghanistan that are controlled/piloted from continental United States (CONUS). Currently we are utilizing secure high bandwidth communication networks (for our RPVs, submarines, AWACS planes, etc.) and there isn’t a logical reason for not making that technology available for cargo and carrier aircraft. The cost of 9/11 alone is ten times the cost of putting in a safe system and yet nothing has intentionally been done.
When a plane decompresses there is a good possibility that if we remotely bring it down in altitude to a point where there is sufficient oxygen and fly it remotely for 15 minutes, the pilot and passengers may regain consciousness. At that time the control of the aircraft could be returned to the pilot or remotely landing it to save the lives of the people who are onboard. This would have saved the lives of those aboard Helios.
Billions of dollars are wasted on unnecessary airport runway expansion and insufficient data programs to reduce fatal ground incursions. The lack of data has caused excessive verbal communication between the pilots and the controllers that is prone to errors. These ground incursions wouldn’t even occur if the flight data was shared so pilots and air traffic control had better visibility. But because the digital data isn’t shared automatically the pilot sees only a fraction of the information necessary to prevent a crash and the same holds true for the air traffic controllers (ATCs). Crashes such as Tenerife (583 fatalities), Comair (49 fatalities), etc. are directly caused by the lack of visibility due to not sharing the DFDR, ATC and airport runway data in real-time. Too many crashes are listed as pilot error when they are a direct result of a lack of visibility brought on by not sharing the digital flight data/Black Box in real-time to provide the necessary situation awareness. Many of the fatal in-air crashes fall into the same category. For example there was a crash where a plane ran out of fuel over JFK. The controller thought the pilot had more fuel left and the pilot who said his fuel was low didn’t use the correct emergency verbiage. Since the fuel supply is another black box input there is no reason why a red light, similar to the one on everyone’s car, doesn’t light up on the ATC display. The red low fuel light would reduce the controller’s work load and increase his situation awareness so that the people aboard a flight similar to the one that crashed would now live. Using the Black Box data decreases the work load of the pilot the air traffic controller as well as increases their situation awareness. By the lack of sharing the already digitized data in real-time we have egregiously curtailed the use of automation and expert systems technology for the prevention of crashes, increased the cost of flying and jeopardized our national security. The real-time use and sharing of the DFDR data to prevent crashes is more important then its present post mortem autopsy mode of operation.
The already digitized data used in real-time allows the use of “Automated Expert Systems” to check many of an aircraft’s sensors prior to, and during, a flight to assure that everything is functioning correctly without having a person in the loop. When a malfunction is detected it can automatically inform the pilot and ATC as to the best way to work a round a malfunction. Using cross checks and correlation most of the sensors can be checked and work a round’s provided to the flight deck crew for safe transportation. It will also automatically notify the ground operational center of expected malfunctions and the safest work a round’s using a history file that should be followed. By so doing, the pilot’s work load will be reduced and his performance enhanced. The whole process of recognizing an aircraft problem and telemetering the best solution to the flight crew for a safe flight can be done with-in seconds. If action isn’t taken it is even possible to take control of the aircraft to assure the safety of the passengers. In the case of Flight 447 it is highly likely that if the pilots were given the benefit of an Expert System the plane and its passengers would have survived the pitot tube problem that occurred. Expert Systems provide the pilot, with-in seconds, the best way to handle a life threatening problem. Without an Expert System automatically providing alerts and advisories, the pilot has to thumb through a flight manual while in the midst of the problem.
While pinpointing specific causes of a crash via the autopsy mode has merit it doesn’t address the broad generic systemic cause of most crashes namely not sharing the already digitized Black Box data in real-time for crash prevention. Piloting errors and mechanical failures will always occur but that is not a sufficient reason for the passengers to die. The fundamental reason for too many of the crashes is because the Black Box data has been denied from being utilized in real-time by the aviation industry out of fear for liability. We have operated commercial aviation in a dark age’s methodology. The aviation industry even fought against Black Boxes for many years. The Black Box technology came out of Australia and it was years later when it was embraced by the US aviation industry. Even when the US aviation industry embraced Black Box technology they severely limited the number of points that were allowed to be monitored. The net result we had recurring crashes such as the horrific USAIR, Flight 427, Aliquippa PA crash that was solved by using British QAR (Quick Access Recorder) data. QARs weren’t utilized by US carrier aircraft. We must eliminate this liability fear and enter into a new age of aviation enlightenment by utilizing the black box data in real-time to prevent crashes. The Black Box data should not be suppressed under the cover of industry private and parsed out begrudgingly. The Black Box data belongs to the public since it is necessary for their safety.
The Air France flight 447 crash is just the latest example of horrific crashes that possibly could have been prevented or saved lives. Using the Black Box data safely stored on the ground we surely would be able to minimize the anguish of the passenger’s families and recurring crashes. Ground storage eliminates the cost, time and risks associated with recorder recovery. The flight data used in real-time: reduces the cost of flying; prevents recurring fatal crashes; prevents a host of fatal crashes that aren’t directly related to Air France Flight 447, and keeps nations safe and secure. For the good of nation and its citizens, not only the flying public, we must utilize the Black Box data in real time.
Sy Levine
sylevine1@sbcglobal.net
(310) 559-2965