Thursday, 18 June 2009

447 in the sim

It is all still speculation (and very little facts) but this posting is interesting - i think there may one 320 and one 747 captain reading this - any comment?

Interesting post from PPRUNE forum, regarding A330 simulator:The following information that is posted in this reply is something that may interest you all. The scenario was conducted several times and the results at the end of each scenario produced consistent findings.In an A330 simulator at FL 350 with a gross weight of 210 tonnes in ISA+10, with icing selected, the aircraft approaches a thunderstorm with a high intensity of turbulence. Due to the extreme turbulence, the autopilot disengages. Shortly thereafter a malfunction is selected to block both captain's and first officer's pitot tubes to replicate extreme ice formation.The airplane reverts to alternate law with protection lost. There is a speed flag on both the Captain's and FO's PFD. The severe turbulence activates repeated stall warnings. Manual thrust is being used at this time. The speed on the standby altimeter is reading 240kts or thereabouts with MACH .72. From the GPS the ground speed is 350 kts or thereabouts. It is very difficult to read the instruments and ECAM warnings.Updrafts take the aircraft up to FL 370 and produces a negative G of .2. The aircraft then enters severe downdrafts and the rate of descent averages more than 19,000 fpm. The instinctive reaction is to pull on the stick to arrest the rate of descent. The aircraft shakes and buffets violently. The G force on the SD reads +5 but the instructor's panel shows +8. The aircraft breaks up in flight around 20,000 ft.After several attempts at this with all results being equal one could not see AF447 sending out any distress signals if this is what happened to them. Applying an unreliable airspeed memory item would have proven to be very difficult because of the violent shaking and opening a QRH for an ADR check procedure even less likely.

EY

1 comment:

shortfinals said...

One would like to know if structural beak-up is not a given or big probablity even with functional ASI in such conditions as created in this simulation.
So many questions still!