Has the visual message "stall" on the PFD been added after AF447? Cause I believe I remembered that this was one of the critiques that in an high noise environment like the thunderstorm they flew in the stall warning might not be heard and is not visualized... although I still cannot understand how it was possible to ignore it so many times.
@@DaveChimny That is actually not correct. It is true that the inital cause for the AP disengagement and downgrade to Alternate Law was caused by iced pitot tubes. But 30 seconds after that event the one at the captain's side was clear againg. Ironically at exactly that moment the PF at the right side switched completly to the ones on the FO side. But even that was clear 65 seconds after it was frozen. Overall the Stall Warning was uttered 75 times until impact. What however has been confusing to the pilots was the fact that the stall waring disappeared when the applied aft stick pressure and came back when they lowered the nose. That was due to the fact that they went so slow at certain times the aircraft did not take the actual airpseed as vaild and therefore did not utter a stall warning. The really sad thing beside all the other mistakes that were made is the following: If they would ve just made nothing for 30 seconds they would've been totaly fine. They could ve just brought the plane back to normal law and reengaged the AP again. The plane was trimmed fine and the enginges at an appropriate power setting and that does not change upon AP and A/THR disconnect. They just would ve needed to give the pitot auto-heat the couple of seconds it needs to de-ice the probes and everything would've been good.
@@SirKober actually I don’t think autopilot and normal law would have been recoverable. Once 2x ADR’s have been rejected the aircraft has no way of knowing if the third ADR is reliable so it prevented normal law in case it’s erroneous and therefore no autopilot. Modern Airbus are different in that they compare the airspeed with the backup speed (reversible push button can be seen on right side) so if the speeds match they are designated to be reliable again
@@DaveChimny the pitot probes aren’t connected to the AOA sensor. Loss of airspeed does not mean loss of airspeed unless it was an ADR failure. On modern Airbus the AOA is connected to both AOA and IRS and is compared to the load factor being exerted to detect for frozen or malfunctioning sensors
@@tomstravels520 Once Airbus goes into abnormal law, it stays there. Normal law is not recovered and protections are lost, so pilots can override any aircraft inputs except G-load.
Few years later this video will have millions of views... Airbus fans will watch to know how to recover from upset and, Boeing boys will watch to say Airbus pilots are not real pilots 🌚🌝
well, yes, that' what the instructor or who ever that guy is says "we're past the green dot speed now, pull it up" But there is natural latency from when someone gives you an instruction to when you react especially when you're learning. When you don't know how to do something and you look for a tutorial on here then you too will lag behind the tutorial. Sure, in the case of this video one expects that it had been discussed and briefed before hand but still. When starting out there's a load of new information to take in and it's super easy to get task saturated by the most simple things.
@@lumb48 because you and the other commenters here don’t understand UPRT and don’t understand what happened on AF447. You’ve been very poorly informed.
@@FlyingProbe 100 knots in cruise sure. But 82 knots is not anywhere near slow for a 172. I haven’t flown a 172 in years but I know the approach speed typically flown is well below that. Which already gives a buffer for Vso.
Reasonable, but sure as shit not "perfect". Easy to lose situational awareness in a situation like that and pitching nose down to -60 degrees with a VS of -24,500ft/min, AND "pull fully aft"!?!?!? Nope!
![[UNCUT]“ฅนตื่นธรรม”ปะทะ“หมอปลา-ปู่มหามุนี-อั๋นโอกิ”สะเทือนกระทรวงเวทมนตร์ Iคนดังนั่งเคลียร์I10 ตค.67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/peMD_SAkwNc/mqdefault.jpg)
remember me this video will get recommended for everyone in some years/months and it will have thousands of views... just remember me
I will remember your words
@@klausbuhler7478 I'm with him😂
yes
same man, good video man.
recommended!
Has the visual message "stall" on the PFD been added after AF447? Cause I believe I remembered that this was one of the critiques that in an high noise environment like the thunderstorm they flew in the stall warning might not be heard and is not visualized... although I still cannot understand how it was possible to ignore it so many times.
AF447 couldn't be detected as stall, because of the faulty probes.
@@DaveChimny That is actually not correct. It is true that the inital cause for the AP disengagement and downgrade to Alternate Law was caused by iced pitot tubes. But 30 seconds after that event the one at the captain's side was clear againg. Ironically at exactly that moment the PF at the right side switched completly to the ones on the FO side. But even that was clear 65 seconds after it was frozen. Overall the Stall Warning was uttered 75 times until impact. What however has been confusing to the pilots was the fact that the stall waring disappeared when the applied aft stick pressure and came back when they lowered the nose. That was due to the fact that they went so slow at certain times the aircraft did not take the actual airpseed as vaild and therefore did not utter a stall warning.
The really sad thing beside all the other mistakes that were made is the following: If they would ve just made nothing for 30 seconds they would've been totaly fine. They could ve just brought the plane back to normal law and reengaged the AP again. The plane was trimmed fine and the enginges at an appropriate power setting and that does not change upon AP and A/THR disconnect. They just would ve needed to give the pitot auto-heat the couple of seconds it needs to de-ice the probes and everything would've been good.
@@SirKober actually I don’t think autopilot and normal law would have been recoverable. Once 2x ADR’s have been rejected the aircraft has no way of knowing if the third ADR is reliable so it prevented normal law in case it’s erroneous and therefore no autopilot. Modern Airbus are different in that they compare the airspeed with the backup speed (reversible push button can be seen on right side) so if the speeds match they are designated to be reliable again
@@DaveChimny the pitot probes aren’t connected to the AOA sensor. Loss of airspeed does not mean loss of airspeed unless it was an ADR failure. On modern Airbus the AOA is connected to both AOA and IRS and is compared to the load factor being exerted to detect for frozen or malfunctioning sensors
@@tomstravels520 Once Airbus goes into abnormal law, it stays there. Normal law is not recovered and protections are lost, so pilots can override any aircraft inputs except G-load.
Airbus: STALL!
Pilot: Exactly
Thanks for the tutorial
Few years later this video will have millions of views... Airbus fans will watch to know how to recover from upset and, Boeing boys will watch to say Airbus pilots are not real pilots 🌚🌝
Airbus control logic would have prevented Atlas 3591
What Air France pilot were supposed to do:
Good vid
leaving my presence here
why is he holding for the speed set by you on the AP!, hold for 140 is all you need!
Could have leveled off way earlier at around FL120
Agreeable 💬
@@gettothepoint2707 it would be designed around PAX safety and comfort
Pulling as many G's as in a fighter lmaoo
well, yes, that' what the instructor or who ever that guy is says "we're past the green dot speed now, pull it up" But there is natural latency from when someone gives you an instruction to when you react especially when you're learning.
When you don't know how to do something and you look for a tutorial on here then you too will lag behind the tutorial. Sure, in the case of this video one expects that it had been discussed and briefed before hand but still. When starting out there's a load of new information to take in and it's super easy to get task saturated by the most simple things.
yeah and fold his wings due to forces acting on them.
Nice video!
Might be helpful to define fully what the acronym in the title stands for. 😉
UPRT upset prevention recovery technique
remind me when this video gets millions of views ok
Yeah keep teaching airbus pilots to use full control inputs all the time...
So easy, not even the Air France 447 crew could do it
AF447 FO logic:
Stall warning + reaching absolute ceiling -> pull stick
Unfortunately,.....yes!
@@THYB737 If he was piloting the space shuttle on reentry he would have done a fantastic job. Belly through the atmosphere like a champ.
@@THYB737 how they can be airline pilot if they dont know basic logical thing even GTA pilots know this but real pilots dont? thats sad
@@lumb48 because you and the other commenters here don’t understand UPRT and don’t understand what happened on AF447. You’ve been very poorly informed.
Poor recovery technique. “Green dot then pull fully aft? Er.... no.
I hope it’s not irl
82 kts with an Airbus?! Even for a Skyhawk it's slow af
Lol no that’s fast for a 172.
82 kts with a cessna is s p e e d
People, what kind of 172's do you fly? For me flying begins not below 100 kias
@@FlyingProbe man did you slap a jet engine in the place of your propeller or what
@@FlyingProbe 100 knots in cruise sure. But 82 knots is not anywhere near slow for a 172. I haven’t flown a 172 in years but I know the approach speed typically flown is well below that. Which already gives a buffer for Vso.
Turn yo pitch and trim of boi* sorry
Avión avión
Second comment on this video pog
noice
Reasonable, but sure as shit not "perfect". Easy to lose situational awareness in a situation like that and pitching nose down to -60 degrees with a VS of -24,500ft/min, AND "pull fully aft"!?!?!? Nope!
I agree with first point, I think they weren't manual trimming as instructed on the FMA, but why not pull fully aft? The FBW will protect g-limits.
@@holobolo1661 but at 2.5G your stall speed increases by 50% so you risk a secondary stall.
@@peteconrad2077 They were doing ~250 knots though, surely stall speed+50% wouldn't be more than 200kts?
@@epicscout9826 I think you're right, it doesn't. The nose still came up pretty slowly though.
@@holobolo1661 why not? The VSW was up at 270 at one point. Also, it could have been over 2.5 as the poster above says.
U don’t know why I have 2 likes:)
Hey.. I had a dream that I won one of your challenges so day 11 of liking,commenting and asking to be invited..love you
If it was real you wouldn’t see anything because the camera would be cracked and you would just hear the insane headwind