Co-pilot error caused AA 587 crash

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 at 00:57:07 in message
, Aardvark
wrote:

Link to video of the A300 into trees
http://www.aviationexplorer.com/movi...intoTREES.mpeg

The link title is wrong should be an A320!!!! A clear video though and
shown all over the world. I have seen it many times.
--
David CL Francis

nobody wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:

I remember the incident though. An A320 full of passengers doing
something it shouldn't have at an air show, and ending up descending
into trees at the end of the runway.


Aircraft was not full of passengers. It was a demo flight with just a few guests.

The aircraft didn't "descend into the trees", it just wasn't able to climb
over the trees due to its initially low speed and low altitude.

I've done a search, but there seem inconsistency over the numbers,
though the figure of 3 deaths seems reliable, rather than the 1 I
stated. There seems general agreement that there were a lot of people on
board.

A video of the accident is available at this site:

http://www.pilotfriend.com/disasters/videos/9-11.htm

Sylvia.

Jay Beckman wrote:

Is that due to the crash at the Paris Airshow several years back?

The A300 is FBW, an Airbus crash in Paris... so much for the educated
infos in this group.

The crash you mention occured at an airshow in Habsheim, near Mulhouse,
which is more than 200 nm from Paris. And the crash wasn't caused by the
FBW system, rather the opposite: The pilot had shut down the computers
surveillance system, because the computer wouldn't have allowed him to
fly his dangerous maneuvre!

Stefan

Stefan wrote:
FBW system, rather the opposite: The pilot had shut down the computers
surveillance system, because the computer wouldn't have allowed him to
fly his dangerous maneuvre!

No, this was a demo of its computer systems capabilities, they woudln't have
shut it down.

Secondly, the big red button isn't to override the computer, it is the
"override the other pilot" button. (eg: to decide who is controlling the plane
when both pilots are wanking their joystick at the same time)

On airbus planes, because they have a joystick with no feedback, one pilot
really deson't feel what the other pilot is trying to do. And one can override
the other by pressing the button, at which point his joystick takes control.

When it launched its 777, it was Boeing that bragged about its pilots being
able to break the flight enveloppe by pulling really hard on the yoke, and
that was marketed as a big advantage over Airbus cockpits where pilots
couldn't break the limits.

Pulling Gs isn't really the issue, it is preventing a stall. And that is where
the computer is far more accurate than a human and this is where engine thrust
does not follow immediatly a pilot's command (it takes time for engines to
increase or reduce thrust). You can't start to climb as soon as you raise
engine thrust is your speed is so low that you are borderline stall at level flight.

Had this been a Boeing plane, the pilot would have heard an alarm and felt his
yoke vibrate indicating he was about to stall the aircraft, and he then could
either have continued to try to climb and stall (falling down on trees), or
tried to level and pickup speed before climbing, giving the same result as the Airbus.

What is not known about that particular indcident is whether then then current
software of the A320 would have warned the pilot that his command to climb
could not be executed due to stall conditions, or whether the pilot was lost
wondering why the plane didn't respond to his command to climb.

The above would make a big difference if the pilot had not yet applied more
thrust to engines. The stall warning might have triggered an automatic reflex
by the human pilot to increase thrust. On the other hand, the pilot should
have known that at current very slow airspeed, he could not climb out and
would need to increase thrust.

nobody wrote:

No, this was a demo of its computer systems capabilities, they woudln't have
shut it down.

No. The pilot wanted to display his new toy low and slow to the public.
To achieve this, he ignored even the most basic safety rules and basic
airmanship.

The fact that there is still so much myth with this case was caused by
the French authorities, who handled the accident as a state affair,
because it concerned Airbus. France and Airbus at that time ... a story
for itself. With this behaviour they prepared the ground for many rumors
and deep misbelief in the eventual results of the investigation.

Secondly, the big red button isn't to ...

Obviously you didn't understand me: I wasn't talking of any real button.
I just pointed out that the computer system can be oversteered by the
pilot at any time.

Stefan

"Stefan" wrote in message
...
nobody wrote:

No, this was a demo of its computer systems capabilities, they woudln't
have
shut it down.

No. The pilot wanted to display his new toy low and slow to the public.
To achieve this, he ignored even the most basic safety rules and basic
airmanship.

The fact that there is still so much myth with this case was caused by
the French authorities, who handled the accident as a state affair,
because it concerned Airbus. France and Airbus at that time ... a story
for itself. With this behaviour they prepared the ground for many rumors
and deep misbelief in the eventual results of the investigation.

Secondly, the big red button isn't to ...

Obviously you didn't understand me: I wasn't talking of any real button.
I just pointed out that the computer system can be oversteered by the
pilot at any time.

Stefan

Wasn't there a criminal prosecution of the crew that was eventually droped
because it came out there was "Political Pressure" involved to place blame
on the crew instead of the gouvernment for allowing the A/C with guests to
be flown during an airshow demonstration combined with questionable computer
programing by Airbus.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

Ralph Nesbitt wrote:

Wasn't there a criminal prosecution of the crew that was eventually droped
....

I don't remember anymore. At some point it became difficult to tell
facts from rumour.

Stefan

Ralph Nesbitt wrote:


Wasn't there a criminal prosecution of the crew that was eventually droped
because it came out there was "Political Pressure" involved to place blame
on the crew instead of the gouvernment for allowing the A/C with guests to
be flown during an airshow demonstration combined with questionable computer
programing by Airbus.

Wouldn't surprise me. The French government does seem have a penchant
for bringing criminal prosecutions against people who've demonstrated
less than superhuman abilities in the face of system failures.

Sylvia.

Stefan wrote in message ...
nobody wrote:

No, this was a demo of its computer systems capabilities, they woudln't have
shut it down.

No. The pilot wanted to display his new toy low and slow to the public.
To achieve this, he ignored even the most basic safety rules and basic
airmanship.

The fact that there is still so much myth with this case was caused by
the French authorities, who handled the accident as a state affair,
because it concerned Airbus. France and Airbus at that time ... a story
for itself. With this behaviour they prepared the ground for many rumors
and deep misbelief in the eventual results of the investigation.

Secondly, the big red button isn't to ...

Obviously you didn't understand me: I wasn't talking of any real button.
I just pointed out that the computer system can be oversteered by the
pilot at any time.

Stefan


stefan you are full of ****ing ****, a liar and a ****ing idiot who is
making false claims concerning an incident you clearly know **** all
about.

1. it wasnt a demo of its fly by wire capabilities. quite the ****ing
reverse it located a flaw in the FADEC.

2. The fly-by was a management decision. was instructed by dispatch.
the pilot was chief pilot for AF.

3. the pilot didnt own the plane, why would he be showing off his new
toy ?

4. the flyby was approved by the aviation authority and not to my
knowledge broke any regulations of airshow display procedures current
for the time.

5. how did he ignore basic safety laws and airmanship?

6. the incident occured due to FADEC issue.

6. no myth, its all known and public knowledge. the FDR was switched
after the accident (finding by Lausanne Institute of Police Forensic
Evidence and Criminology)

7. french law meant the pilot was charged as he was.

8. commercial considerations led to the presentation of pilot error.
computers are never wrong ?

9. the pilot was sentanced to 18 months involentry manslaughter in 97
of which 12 months was suspended.

10 "the computer system can be oversteered by the pilot at any time" ?
enough said.

stefan you are clueless, shut the **** up making statements you
clearly know nothing about.

running with scissors wrote:

Stefan wrote in message ...
nobody wrote:

No, this was a demo of its computer systems capabilities, they woudln't have
shut it down.

No. The pilot wanted to display his new toy low and slow to the public.
To achieve this, he ignored even the most basic safety rules and basic
airmanship.

The fact that there is still so much myth with this case was caused by
the French authorities, who handled the accident as a state affair,
because it concerned Airbus. France and Airbus at that time ... a story
for itself. With this behaviour they prepared the ground for many rumors
and deep misbelief in the eventual results of the investigation.

Secondly, the big red button isn't to ...

Obviously you didn't understand me: I wasn't talking of any real button.
I just pointed out that the computer system can be oversteered by the
pilot at any time.

Stefan

stefan you are full of ****ing ****, a liar and a ****ing idiot who is
making false claims concerning an incident you clearly know **** all
about.

1. it wasnt a demo of its fly by wire capabilities. quite the ****ing
reverse it located a flaw in the FADEC.

Hadn't heard that one.

Care to elaborate ?


2. The fly-by was a management decision. was instructed by dispatch.
the pilot was chief pilot for AF.

3. the pilot didnt own the plane, why would he be showing off his new
toy ?

I think he wanted to emulate the similar tricks he'd seen performed by Airbus Industrie
pilots.


4. the flyby was approved by the aviation authority and not to my
knowledge broke any regulations of airshow display procedures current
for the time.

5. how did he ignore basic safety laws and airmanship?

6. the incident occured due to FADEC issue.

Interested again. I thought it was the poor response of the compressor ( the subject of a
subsequent design change and mod to engines of that design in service ).


6.

7. surely ? etc

no myth, its all known and public knowledge. the FDR was switched
after the accident (finding by Lausanne Institute of Police Forensic
Evidence and Criminology)

After the trial of course !

UK Channel 4 TV ran 2 documentaries on the subject of this accident. I recall a video of
the recorders being recovered. The ones presented at the trial actually looked different (
less beaten-up ) ! There was a 'mystery missing 4 seconds' in the data after the DGAC had
made of with the 'black boxes'. The BEA had to get a warrant to recover them. That's like
the FAA running off with the flight recorders ( opening them up and tinkering too ) and
refusing to hand them over to the NTSB until ordered.


Graham