Co-pilot error caused AA 587 crash

"nobody" wrote in message
...
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)

Does one button take precedence over the other ie:Pilot vs Co-pilot? What
happens if both are banging on the button simoultanously?

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.

Translation: Many potential "If's" without answers.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:08:56 +0200, Stefan wrote:

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.


Why oh why did you have to tell them?

Stefan wrote in message ...
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.

Stefan

No, the A300 isn't FBW .........

Copied from Airbus.com (link is below text.)

Airbus' first aircraft, the A300B, was launched at the 1969 Paris air
show. It was the first widebody twinjet and could carry 226 passengers
in a comfortable two-class lay-out. A stretched 250 seat version, the
A300B2, requested by launch customer Air France, went into full scale
production.

By 1974, the A300 had been certified on budget and ahead of schedule –
a major first for European companies at the time. By the end of 1975,
Airbus had 10 per cent of the market and a total of 55 aircraft on
order. The company then went through a dark period, during which it
failed to secure any new orders. Finally, US airline Eastern Airlines
decided to lease four A300B4s.

This was a turning point, and from then on, Airbus never looked back.
Within two years, Airbus had 133 firm orders and market share had
risen to 26 per cent by value. By the end of 1979, Airbus had 256
orders from 32 customers and 81 aircraft in service with 14 operators.

The A320, launched in 1984, was the first all-new design in its
category in 30 years. Incorporating new technologies, the aircraft
provided better operating efficiency, better performance and - above
all - greater passenger comfort thanks to a wider fuselage
cross-section. It was the first commercial aircraft to feature
‘fly-by-wire' controls and side sticks. It set the standard for all
subsequent Airbus cockpits and indeed for the industry as a whole.

http://www.airbus.com/about/history.asp

1aircraftQAguy wrote:

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

No, the A300 isn't FBW .........

It's a well known fact that readers will detect irony much more seldom
than writers like to use it.

Stefan

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 at 10:08:56 in message
, Stefan wrote:

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


Not an A 300, which is _not_ FBW but an A320 which _is_.

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!

The crew had only inhibited one function - the alpha floor limit which
automatically applies power at alpha floor. Everything else was working.
--
David CL Francis

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



mm yes, so it would seem.

idiot.

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 at 18:12:20 in message
TBCfd.18911$SW3.16862@fed1read01, Jay Beckman
wrote:

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

Many people say Paris - it wasn't Paris it was Mulhouse, in the upper
Rhine Valley near the junction of the Swiss and German borders.

It was only a local air show and the aircraft was an almost new A320 (it
had been in service for 2 days). The Airport (if you could call it that)
has one main paved runway only 1000m long plus some grass strips for
gliders. Air France were invited to display an A320. It could not land
there.

Not only that but it was a charter flight with 130 passengers aboard -
how often does that happen at the Paris Air Show I wonder?

The crew were probably given an inadequate briefing on the airport. The
idea was to do a low slow pass in landing configuration at about 100ft.
(Often done in France although the air show regulations said 170 ft.)
They intended to reach the maximum allowable angle of attack in the low
pass. They meant they would inhibit the 'alpha floor' limit which would
automatically increase power at that point. The co-pilot was supposed to
control the power.

When they identified the airport they were close but they saw that the
crowd seemed to be along a grass strip and not along the chosen paved
runway 02. They realigned and at 100 ft deactivated the alpha floor
function. They sank to only 30 ft above the strip. They then suddenly
realised there were trees ahead at the same height or higher than the
aircraft. They then called for TO power but it was too late. Speed had
reduced to 122k and the engines now at flight idle responded as they
should. There was then nothing anyone or the aircraft could do. 4.5
seconds after power started increasing it began hitting the trees.

That is a very much abbreviated version but I believe substantially
correct.

IIRC, the pilot commanded a flight attitude in the landing config that the
software wouldn't allow and that led to the aircraft settling into the
trees.

Sorry that is wrong. And it did not settle into the trees; it flew
horizontally into them at an altitude of 24 ft and then sank!

This accident is very often badly reported. Although the system would
not permit main flight restrictions to be exceeded the performance at
those low limits was as limited as any conventional aircraft would have
been. It could not climb at flight idle at 122 knots and 15 degrees nose
up. That is not a surprise.

This case is a bad example but often used.

Ref: Air Disaster Volume 3 by Macarthur Job. Roughly 13 pages
--
David CL Francis

David CL Francis wrote:

That is a very much abbreviated version but I believe substantially
correct.

My memory has blurred during all those years, but yes, now I rememberm,
this is exactly how it was found in the report. Thanks for refreshing my
memory.

Summary: You can fly any airplane into the trees if you deliberately
wish to do so.

Stefan

Stefan wrote in message ...
David CL Francis wrote:

That is a very much abbreviated version but I believe substantially
correct.

My memory has blurred during all those years, but yes, now I rememberm,
this is exactly how it was found in the report. Thanks for refreshing my
memory.

Summary: You can fly any airplane into the trees if you deliberately
wish to do so.

Stefan


no stefan you memory has been blurred by years of alchohol or drug
abuse.

Quote.
Summary: You can fly any airplane into the trees if you deliberately
wish to do so.
Endquote

so you are saying that Michael Asseline deliberately flew the airbus
into the trees ? and every other PIC/SIC of CFIT incidents ?

****ing moronic ****. **** off and die you waste of space.

"running with scissors" wrote in
message om...
Stefan wrote in message
...
David CL Francis wrote:

That is a very much abbreviated version but I believe substantially
correct.

My memory has blurred during all those years, but yes, now I rememberm,
this is exactly how it was found in the report. Thanks for refreshing my
memory.

Summary: You can fly any airplane into the trees if you deliberately
wish to do so.

Stefan


no stefan you memory has been blurred by years of alchohol or drug
abuse.

Quote.
Summary: You can fly any airplane into the trees if you deliberately
wish to do so.
Endquote

so you are saying that Michael Asseline deliberately flew the airbus
into the trees ? and every other PIC/SIC of CFIT incidents ?

****ing moronic ****. **** off and die you waste of space.

Suggestion: Go back to your school and ask then to give you back the tuition
fees you paid them as the education you got there didn't do you much good.
They did not even manage to teach you how to read.

****ing moronic idiot - how perfectly this description fits yourself.

Nik