On Air France 447 the crew had experienced complete failure of the pitot static system, which meant they lost their readings on their airspeed indicators, but according to the Mayday / Air Crash Investigations episode the aircraft had detected that the plane was about to enter an aerodynamic stall and the stall warning systems were activated just before the crash.
How did the A330 in question detect that the plane was on the verge of stalling without the airspeed indicators working?
Stalls occur based on a wing's angle of attack rather than the aircraft's airspeed. (In fact, one of the basic facts that all pilots learn in their initial training is that an airplane can stall at any airspeed). The A330 measures angle of attack using vanes mounted on the fuselage:
However, below 60 knots, these vanes become ineffective. During the AF447 accident, the stall warning only engaged intermittently because the computers detected that the airspeed readings from the blocked pitot tubes were invalid, and therefore silenced the stall warning system.
Furthermore, because of the lack of valid airspeed data, AF447 was no longer in normal law (and therefore had no automated angle-of-attack protection), a fact which the pilots may not have been aware of. By the time the deicing equipment had cleared the pitot tubes, the aircraft was at such an extreme pitch that airspeed indications were still considered invalid, and the stall warning system did not activate. The computers only activated the stall warning system when the crew pitched down, which brought valid airspeed data back into the cockpit.
An Airbus press release suggests that this may have contributed to the accident:
We also note that the aircraft, or more specifically the design of the stalling warning system, misled the pilots: each time they reacted appropriately, the alarm triggered inside the cockpit, as though they were reacting wrongly. Conversely, each time the pilots pitched up the plane, the alarm shut off, preventing a proper diagnosis of the situation.
Aircraft can stall at any airspeed, the only real indicator for a stall is an angle of attack indicator. This is because weight, icing, flaps, G-forces being pulled, and speed all effect the aircraft's stall speed.
Most large aircraft, including the A330, have angle of attack indicators that detect the high angle of attack which precedes a stall. Although the other instruments had failed, the angle of attack meter was still functioning, though not very well.
On Air France 447 the crew had experienced complete failure of the pitot static system, which meant they lost their readings on their airspeed indicators, but according to the Mayday / Air Crash Investigations episode the aircraft had detected that the plane was about to enter an aerodynamic stall and the stall warning systems were activated just before the crash. How did the A330 in question detect that the plane was on the verge of stalling without the airspeed indicators working?
The question Are pilots allowed to let passengers fly the plane? is interesting to read, noting that pilots are permitted to allow passengers to fly. I recall an Air Crash Investigation episode where the pilot pretended to allow his son to manipulate the controls of an airliner, without realising the autopilot had been disconnected, resulting in an accident. I'm wondering how commonplace this is? Is this an isolated incident? On the flip-side, I've heard of at least 3 occasions where passengers have successfully landed planes.
When I took delivery of a new Cessna 182T last year, I did a test flight for certification purposes. During the test flight we had to perform a power off stall but that didn't go as planned as it was simply impossible to stall. What happened is this: when the airspeed dropped well below the power off stall speed we simply started to sink slowly with a nose-high attitude at about 35 KIAS. This "mushing" went on for what seemed ages before I eventually applied power and pushed the nose down to gain airspeed again. We tried it again after that and the same thing happened. I had an instructor
Another enthusiast question. I watch a lot of the National Geographic Channel's "Air Crash Investigation", for better or worse, and it seems accident investigators make tremendous use of the Cockpit...) was about Air France 447, the worst disaster in French aviation history. That investigation spent two years and $50 million just locating the CVR and FDR which were ultimately found resting 4 kilometers beneath the mid-Atlantic. Even after the recovery, there were concerns one of the drives had failed. That ACI episode also mentioned that the Airbus A330-203 in that accident came equipped with a system
each other and the plane continued its fall as a result of its stall. The captain was out of the cockpit at the start of the stall. He returned afterwards (I don't recall exactly when), spent some... in the cockpit. Since the cockpit door is locked for security, how can he/she volunteer their services and enter the cockpit to try to help? In these possibly final moments, it's conceivable that someone.... Inherent in this question is the presumption that airline passengers would avail, and they may not, but here's a real-life instantiation. According to the Mayday episode on Air France Flight 447
How do flying wings, like the B-2 Stealth bomber, actually keep themselves from yawing out of control without a vertical stabilizer? For the record, I assume this has to be a simple mechanics... WWII. They didn't have flight control computers back then, and the only control complaints I recall them having is that early versions had a tendency to flip over backwards when approaching stall speeds, well, that and the ground effects were pretty strong. But, no mentions of going into flat spins when going into hard maneuvers (that I recall). So how do they control that Y axis on flying wings
Without getting into the mess of redesigning existing Flight Data Recorders, I have a simple proposal that I think would help in deep water crashes. I propose that several floating cushion sets be distributed around the plane (tail section, along fuselage, etc.). These FDR floaties would be about the size of a seat cushion, but they'd be wrapped in a water soluble cover. When a plane crashes... a better idea of what happened. Wouldn't this be easy to implement without disturbing current FDR use and development? These would be destroyed in a fiery land crash, but that is not their purpose
If I understand correctly, when a plane transitions from takeoff roll to being airborne, it is not something that happens "by itself" when the airspeed is high enough, but is caused by deliberate... lift with unchanged attitude, such as a symmetric aileron movement, or an additional flaps extension? And then after the plane is airborne it is rotated to climbing attitude? The descriptions I can easily Google up point towards 1. However, while that makes perfect sense for tricycle gear I don't see how that would work with taildraggers. Pushing down on the tail would just increase
I've read a lot of NTSB crash reports regarding small, GA aircraft (just trying to figure out what went wrong and what to avoid.) There seem to be a lot of reports that talk about "low altitude high speed stalls" happening on approach. What is a high speed stall, and how is it created? What is the best way to avoid one? As they seem to cause a lot of GA accidents...
Where can I find nice flutter animations/videos (other than YouTube) to add to a presentation without violating Copyright regulations ? It can either be for wings as well as blade arrays. Are you aware of any OpenSource database on this topic ?