The Eidelwiess affair…

[3WE]

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/DvSo2X ... tid=qDwCgo

The nose over is kind of ‘remarkable’ for lack of a better term.

My 172 technique) aside from dragging the loop a bit) was generally better than that.

I saw Gabbieee cite stall protection…I dunno, that wasn’t what I’d call a measured nose-down response.

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/DvSo2X ... tid=qDwCgo

https://youtu.be/z6-P3pFhmQI?si=LutLRS20Ps84Eqfy

[Not_Karl]

If only we could ask a smaller, but still HALed 'Bus driver for his knowledge and opinion!

[elaw]

Poor pilot was probably coming from another type that had the ability to climb, and forgot that A340s don't do that.

[Gabriel]

I saw Gabbieee cite stall protection

You are ready for the news outlet. You've got all the misleading quotes skills required.

That was not the only thing I cite. Rather, it was an afterthought question in parenthesis.

I don't know what if anything the crew did wrong (they might be the cause for this incident), but they seem to have done a few things right: Avoid a tail strike, and lower the nose to gain airspeed when the plane was not climbing (or was that an FBW AoA protection?).

For the record, I think the nose-down was pilot-made (for good or for bad). I am wondering if I may be wrong and this may have an FBW prot thing. But that is not what I think it was.

[Gabriel]

If only we could ask a smaller, but still HALed 'Bus driver for his knowledge and opinion!

You can. Only in one specific forum because questions to airline pilots regarding aviation safety belong to the airline pilot forum, not the aviation safety forum. Be sure to follow the type-specific SOP corresponding to AirDisaster 4.0.

[3WE]

I saw Gabbieee cite stall protection

You are ready for the news outlet. You've got all the misleading quotes skills required.

That was not the only thing I cite….

[A, B, C, D…]

It’s called hitting the high points, instead of a comprehensive review of possibilities…

You should try it sometime.

For all the takeoffs we have watched, ridden, YouTubed, and performed on MSFS or light aircraft, that sort of nose over is in the almost-never category, maybe with the exception of an engine failure on a single…

[Gabriel]

I saw Gabbieee cite stall protection

You are ready for the news outlet. You've got all the misleading quotes skills required.

That was not the only thing I cite….

[A, B, C, D…]

It’s called hitting the high points, instead of a comprehensive review of possibilities…

You should try it sometime.

For all the takeoffs we have watched, ridden, YouTubed, and performed on MSFS or light aircraft, that sort of nose over is in the almost-never category, maybe with the exception of an engine failure on a single…

Again, I was the first one to say not only that the pilots lowered the nose, but that it was a good thing they did. I I still hold that opinion.

My subsequent discussion with Evan about the possibility of this being uncommand and a result of FBW was just that, to discuss if it is even possible. Evan expressed some reasons why he thought it was not possible, and I disagreed with those reasons which, even if my disagreement is justified, doesn't mean that it is possible (it may still be impossible for other reasons), and even if it was possible it doesn't mean that that happened. Which, possible or not, I don't think it did.

I know that people are not very used to use logic in their conversations, but I do, or try to. "It is not true that A makes B impossible" doesn't imply that "B is possible". And "B is possible" doesn't imply that "B likely happened".

[flyboy2548m]

If only we could ask a smaller, but still HALed 'Bus driver for his knowledge and opinion!

You can. Only in one specific forum because questions to airline pilots regarding aviation safety belong to the airline pilot forum, not the aviation safety forum. Be sure to follow the type-specific SOP corresponding to AirDisaster 4.0.

Indeed.

[3WE]

Blah blah blah logic blah blah blah.

All I said is that you cited Alpha protection...It was a conversation starter. You used false logic that somehow I had grossly misquoted you because you have to do like Dan Juan and give us the aircraft registration, flight number, date, taxi diagram and a list of possibilities (except for the rare meteor involvement).

I AM being brash and bold (and reckless) so Not_Karl and Eric will support Argentinian popcorn producers...

BUT, there's also a shred of seriousness (as there usually is with me)

Again, I was the first one to say not only that the pilots lowered the nose, but that it was a good thing they did. I I still hold that opinion.

I disconcur...strongly.

Do you remember years ago, when we were telling flyboy (and probably Nav-5) how to deal with stalls?

We were told that swept-wing airliners tended to develop significant sink rates if one lowers the nose much, and that maybe the folks who engineered the plane and the procedures MIGHT know a thing or two.

That discussion changed me. Yes, Gabriel, stalls are bad and AOA reductions are the only thing that stops them...But back then, maybe flyboy misunderstood what 3BS was thinking...An immediate, crisp-BUT MINIMAL nose down input will avert a stall, as long as you haven't blundered in to it with gross over-controlling or gross wind shear, etc. I do side with you that you repeat the little nose-over until the stall stops, BUT IN 172 SCHOOL, IT WAS STATED THAT WHEN ALTITUDE IS CRITICAL, SOME CAREFUL, MEASURED NOSE-DOWN INPUTS WILL USUALLY SOLVE YOUR STALL PROBLEM AND PRESERVE PRECIOUS ALTITUDE (YES, USE COMMON SENSE AND DON'T BLINDLY PULL UP IF THE STALL WARNING CONTINUES).

I do not know what you were thinking, other than wanting to monitor the AOA indicator...were you thinking a huge-ass shove over?

BACK TO THIS INCIDENT: That was a hell of a nose over...again, more than any of us have seen from years of fence perving, and you-tubing...and guess what- the plane developed a decent sink rate (Just Like flyNavboy5 said!) They are a little bit lucky that their desperate pull up at the end didn't result in an accelerated stall, with them falling through and pranging stuff!

So until someone shows me some compelling data from the FDR, that winds or wakes or something abnormal caused it...

That nose-over was BAD/NEAR TOTAL DISASTER. IMHOAHO.

I sure as hell hope that wasn't the pilots doing that significant nose over, but yeah, it's a possiblity.

NOT_"Good", Mr. Tommawkengineer.

By the way, it's not super unusual if airspeed is lost, lift is lost, the nose drops and a pilot might instictively do a measured pull up, thus resulting in an increase in AOA. Not super unusual and one valid "...except..." and yes, indirect.

[Not_Karl]

We were told that swept-wing airliners tended to develop significant sink rates if one lowers the nose much...

Ban ALL swept wings.

...and that maybe the folks who engineered the plane and the procedures MIGHT know a thing or two.

Of course they do! Just look at them using the finest composite materials and designing state-of-the-art, engineering marvels like the 737MAX...

[3WE]

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/iSLDsd ... tid=qDwCgo

[Gabriel]

BACK TO THIS INCIDENT: That was a hell of a nose over

I don't agree. The nosewheel remained higher than main wheels all the time. What could have hapenned? That they touch down before they climb again? Like in the Air Moroco case? Have you seen that video? (that I posted the link I don't remember if here or there)

...again, more than any of us have seen from years of fence perving, and you-tubing...

The same can be said for their inability to climb.

and guess what- the plane developed a decent sink rate (Just Like flyNavboy5 said!)

I don't agree. I mean, I am not familiar with the the sink rate being measured in decency units, but it looked like a landingish descent rate. Maybe not a butter-smooth landing, but not a too-hard landing either.

They are a little bit lucky that their desperate pull up at the end didn't result in an accelerated stall, with them falling through and pranging stuff!

Right, The dreaded 5-ft-AGL-on-a-runway stall. And they didn't pull up that hard. By your own standard. Rememebr when you mentioned that the AoA could have not been that high else they would have had a tail strike? There is truth in that. And the same applies here.

So until someone shows me some compelling data from the FDR, that winds or wakes or something abnormal caused it...

Right. Truth is that we have no clue what caused the nose-down input. We have an airbus pilot over there that says that it was not control inputs being done by either the pilot or the airplane, because the elevator doesn't move down.

That nose-over was BAD/NEAR TOTAL DISASTER. IMHOAHO.

I disagree but in line with the previous point, let's wait for the final report.

By the way, it's not super unusual if airspeed is lost, lift is lost, the nose drops and a pilot might instictively do a measured pull up, thus resulting in an increase in AOA. Not super unusual and one valid "...except..." and yes, indirect.

Trees can increase the AoA, indirectly. The pilot sees a tree directly ahead and pulls up.
But this for me falls in the "AoA increase caused by pulling up" bucket, not in the AoA increase caused by trees" bucket.
There is an almost infinite amount of things that can motivate a pilot to pull up, right or wrong.

[Not_Karl]

Truth is that we have no clue what caused the nose-down input.

Micro-meteorite shower pushing the aeroplanie down?

...let's wait for the final report.

CONCUR.

There is an almost infinite amount of things that can motivate a pilot to pull up, right or wrong.

INDEED. Like stick shaker, stick pusher, audible stall warnings...

[3WE]

Adding comments in red.

BACK TO THIS INCIDENT: That was a hell of a nose over

I don't agree. The nosewheel remained higher than main wheels all the time. What could have hapenned? That they touch down before they climb again? Like in the Air Moroco case? Have you seen that video? (that I posted the link I don't remember if here or there)

Ok, so you have TWO incidents of a nose over. I seem to recall that lift is proportional to AOA, so going from 14 degrees ANU to 7 degrees = a 50% reduction in lift (assuming airspeed and relative wind is the same.) It's pretty damn significant. (I totally pulled those numbers out of my asshat, but bet two beers the attitude reduction was greater than my numbers.)

...again, more than any of us have seen from years of fence perving, and you-tubing...

The same can be said for their inability to climb.

and guess what- the plane developed a decent sink rate (Just Like flyNavboy5 said!)

I don't agree. I mean, I am not familiar with the the sink rate being measured in decency units, but it looked like a landingish descent rate. Maybe not a butter-smooth landing, but not a too-hard landing either.

When they dropped downward AND DID A DESPERATE, ALMOST-TAIL-DRAGGING PULL UP. That's one of several good recipes for stalling a plane during a low-energy, high-weight environment and evidence of decent sink rate. Not that they had much choice, I'm for focused on the nose over.

They are a little bit lucky that their desperate pull up at the end didn't result in an accelerated stall, with them falling through and pranging stuff!

Right, The dreaded 5-ft-AGL-on-a-runway stall. And they didn't pull up that hard. By your own standard. Rememebr when you mentioned that the AoA could have not been that high else they would have had a tail strike? There is truth in that. And the same applies here.

So until someone shows me some compelling data from the FDR, that winds or wakes or something abnormal caused it...

Right. Truth is that we have no clue what caused the nose-down input. We have an airbus pilot over there that says that it was not control inputs being done by either the pilot or the airplane, because the elevator doesn't move down.

Correct [italics neutral]we do not know what caused this, that's not the argument. The argument is that you think it's good IF the pilots did it. I think it's not_good IF the pilots did it (unless there were some VERY unusual circumstances.

That nose-over was BAD/NEAR TOTAL DISASTER. IMHOAHO.

I disagree but in line with the previous point, let's wait for the final report.

We are saying this a bit too often, and disingenuously. In spite of bickering with you, the number of posts on this incident are numerous, and it's not_what we do.

By the way, it's not super unusual if airspeed is lost, lift is lost, the nose drops and a pilot might instictively do a measured pull up, thus resulting in an increase in AOA. Not super unusual and one valid "...except..." and yes, indirect.

Trees can increase the AoA, indirectly. The pilot sees a tree directly ahead and pulls up.
But this for me falls in the "AoA increase caused by pulling up" bucket, not in the AoA increase caused by trees" bucket.
There is an almost infinite amount of things that can motivate a pilot to pull up, right or wrong.

...Except...Warning, context change...if they lost airspeed, but held attitude, and started to "sink", the ALPHA protection might kick in. This is contrary to your absolute statement that airspeed loss does not affect AOA and your question mark for me saying "...except..."

Barrel-aged, corn ethanol to go with the popcorn?

[Gabriel]

I seem to recall that lift is proportional to AOA

That's incorrect, unless you you seat your zero AoA angle at the zero lift, which almost nobody does.

, so going from 14 degrees ANU to 7 degrees = a 50% reduction in lift (assuming airspeed and relative wind is the same.) It's pretty damn significant.

Incorrect again. For the same reason as before plus some. With the airplane at zero pitch the wing still generates a lot of lift because a) the incidence angle of the wing (i.e. the angle between the wing chord and the fuselage) and b) because even with the chord parallel to the wind (which will already put you at negative pitch) a cambered airfoil will still produces lift.

Correct [italics neutral]we do not know what caused this, that's not the argument. The argument is that you think it's good IF the pilots did it. I think it's not_good IF the pilots did it (unless there were some VERY unusual circumstances.

Unusual circumstances as not being able to climb out of ground effect? What is your counter-proposal? Keep dragging at 20 ft AGL until you hit something? Or you agree with the reduction of pitch but just think that it was directionally correct but excessive? (if they did it).

...Except...Warning, context change...if they lost airspeed, but held attitude...

... then you or your silicon doppelganger are pulling up. Planes , with the elevator free-floating or fixed, have positive speed and AoA stability. That means that if speed goes down pitch goes down and both speed and AoA are preserved (+ / - phugoid oscillations in between the initial state and the final state)

[3WE]

…you…think that it was…excessive? (if they did it).

Yes…

And I have to add “bad”.

Yeah, sure, bump the nose down…just not from 14 to 7 degrees in one continuous swoop, unless there’s some really weird winds…

[Gabriel]

Ok, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see:
- A 14 degrees nose up to begin with (you taught me that it would have struck the tail).
- A 7 degrees reduction in pitch (I would say half that).
- A huge sink rate that would have resulted in a too hard touchdown had they not pitched up again.
- A too-hard "recovery" pitch up (again , no tail strike)

In my subjective view, everything was moderate and measured. They did overshoot the recovery pitch up a bit and you see that the nose pitches down a tad after the recovery pull-up. But other than that...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRNmwiB1oiQ

[elaw]

Let's see if I can confuse things some more by throwing my $0.02 in...

I think the motions of the plane seem dramatic not because of the amount of pitch change, but the rate. Initially the takeoff seems to go great... the plane accelerates down the runway, then rotates smoothly to what seems to be a good pitch angle. It sits at that same angle for a bit, then begins to climb. After that, it seems like the pilot rather abruptly shoves the nose down... not far but fast. The plane then starts to sink, and the nose is pulled up equally fast. There are a couple of smaller pitch changes after that, it seems like after the first push, it was at least partly a PIO situation.

What I find puzzling is that all the above would be expected in gusty wind conditions, but toward the end of the video look at the smoke (/ steam) coming from the chimney in the distance... it's rising straight up.

Switching into 110% parlour-talking mode... it seems during most of the event the elevators are deflected upward quite a bit. Could they maybe have had the trim set wrong?

Edit: a suggested video just popped up on YT, claiming the pilots said (I'm paraphrasing) a tailwind appeared around the same time they rotated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o59fyCarow

[3WE]

More red font.

Ok, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see:
- A 14 degrees nose up to begin with (you taught me that it would have struck the tail Go to hell…I think most of us see a “full rotation” where a tail strike was something to think about. That, itself wasn’t necessary bad…727s had tail skids.).

- A 7 degrees reduction in pitch (I would say half that).

I don’t stand behind my exact numbers, but I do have two beers that it’s at least 7 degrees of reduction. Should it be greater than 3.5 degrees, are you willing to buy me two beers? I do have a fair number of MD 80 hours on MSFS, where virtual tail drags happen at less than 15 degrees, and good aggressive climb outs can hit 20.



- A huge sink rate that would have resulted in a too hard touchdown had they not pitched up again.
- A too-hard "recovery" pitch up (again , no tail strike)

I don’t want to beat this to death…they nosed over, sunk, pulled up and I think touched the tires…I’m not_giving them the style points. In fact, it kind of looks like an early flying lesson where the student does something stupid, and the instructor executes a great recovery…maybe making the stall horn sound.

In my subjective view, everything was moderate and measured. They did overshoot the recovery pitch up a bit and you see that the nose pitches down a tad after the recovery pull-up.

Moderate and measured? A bit, a tad? What are you smoking? If your adjectives were accurate, we would not_be waiting for a final report.

But other than that...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRNmwiB1oiQ

[flyboy2548m]

This is an odd one, for sure. I've watched the video several times now in hopes of getting a clearer view not of the aircraft's attitude but of control surface positioning, specifically if the elevators were ever deflected downwards. The video is not very clear but it does NOT appear that elevators ever went past neutral. It also appears that the nose started coming down four seconds after weight off wheels, which means it is likely that the controls were still in ground mode (I believe this is important, more on why in a second). The wheels come off the ground at 0:49 and the nose starts down at 0:53. Now, Airbus manuals state that controls transition to flight mode approximately five seconds after becoming airborne, so it is possible that they were in flight mode already, but...

But this: in my opinion, the only thing that makes sense here is that the stick was let go, either accidentally or, possibly, the pilot thought they were already in flight mode, so the airplane would hold the pitch attitude it was at when the stick was let go.

The "tailwind at rotation" seems an unlikely explanation to me. The conditions do not seem favorable to windshear of any kind. Advertised winds were either VRB04 or 270/6. It is true that the very concept of VRB04 suggests that the winds could have shifted but I don't see them shifting enough to cause this sort of mayhem. Notice also that in the video there is a clearly seen smoke stack from a nearby industrial facility and the smoke is rising straight up, suggesting there was no wind at all.

I suggest we wait until the FINAL REPORT.

[Gabriel]

I do have two beers that it’s at least 7 degrees of reduction.

My 2 beers say no more than 5. Game? (we have a 2-degrees tie zone)

I don’t want to beat this to death…they nosed over, sunk, pulled up and I think touched the tires…I’m not_giving them the style points.

I don't think that the tires touched but if they did I would not care. What's bad with that? Did you see the video of the Air Moroco pitch-down, re-touch down, re-take-off? Have you seen the best aviation speakiest's video of the analysis of that caser?

Moderate and measured? A bit, a tad? What are you smoking? If your adjectives were accurate, we would not_be waiting for a final report.

Ok, we'll have to agree to disagree. I would want to see the final report even if the inputs were (past, not subjunctive) moderate and measured. I am very curious to see what caused the plane not to climb and what caused it to pitch down, more than the moderateness and measureness of the inputs, if they did it.

[Gabriel]

But this: in my opinion, the only thing that makes sense here is that the stick was let go, either accidentally or, possibly, the pilot thought they were already in flight mode, so the airplane would hold the pitch attitude it was at when the stick was let go.

But what about the initial inability to climb? Do you agree that the plane was abnormally struggling to climb?
If yes, and the nose-down motion is independent of that (like it would be in the the mistaken/accidental release of the stick that you mentioned), then you have 2 unlikely situations happening independently, which makes it unlikely squared.

The "tailwind at rotation" seems an unlikely explanation to me. The conditions do not seem favorable to windshear of any kind. Advertised winds were either VRB04 or 270/6. It is true that the very concept of VRB04 suggests that the winds could have shifted but I don't see them shifting enough to cause this sort of mayhem. Notice also that in the video there is a clearly seen smoke stack from a nearby industrial facility and the smoke is rising straight up, suggesting there was no wind at all.

What about wake vortex from a plane landing in the intersecting runway shortly before Edelweiss's take-off? The wake's "gusts" would be up/down and head/tail instead of rolling like when hitting the wake vortex of a leading plane. Like what apparently happened in that Air Morocco take-off.

[3WE]

Do you think you looked like these guys when Bobby gave you wrong Vspeeds?

[flyboy2548m]

But what about the initial inability to climb? Do you agree that the plane was abnormally struggling to climb?

Not really, no. Looks about right for a heavy 343 to me. They were going to Cancun, so probably fairly bulky.

What about wake vortex from a plane landing in the intersecting runway shortly before Edelweiss's take-off? The wake's "gusts" would be up/down and head/tail instead of rolling like when hitting the wake vortex of a leading plane. Like what apparently happened in that Air Morocco take-off.

That's possible, but does not appear terribly likely either. It looks like they rotated AFTER they crossed runway 10, so I doubt landing traffic wake was an issue. Do "we" know if anyone even landed on rwy 10 about that time?

[3WE]

I do have two beers that it’s at least 7 degrees of reduction.

My 2 beers say no more than 5. Game? (we have a 2-degrees tie zone)

NO DEAL. You said half of 7…if you are going to pick on me for ass-hat guesses, you don’t get to move the goal posts.

I don’t want to beat this to death…they nosed over, sunk, pulled up and I think touched the tires…I’m not_giving them the style points.

I don't think that the tires touched but if they did I would not care. What's bad with that?

There isn’t anything wrong with THAT itself , BUT IT INDICATES THAT THE NOSE OVER or the weird ass winds/wake WAS JUST A BIT EXTREME and apparently worthy of some sort of review.

Did you see the video of the Air Moroco pitch-down, re-touch down, re-take-off? Have you seen the best aviation speakiest's video of the analysis of that caser?

Moderate and measured? A bit, a tad? What are you smoking? If your adjectives were accurate, we would not_be waiting for a final report.

Ok, we'll have to agree to disagree. I would want to see the final report even if the inputs were (past, not subjunctive) moderate and measured. I am very curious to see what caused the plane not to climb and what caused it to pitch down, more than the moderateness and measureness of the inputs, if they did it.