Co-pilot error caused AA 587 crash

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
u...


nobody wrote:

Pete wrote:

I thought that was one of the main advantages of fly-by-wire systems,
to eliminate truly stupid actions of pilots. Sounds like Airbus shares
a lot of blame for the crash.


The A300-600 is not fly by wire. It is a 1970s plane updated to some
extent
in the 1980s.

And I have been told that because rudders are so rarely used in flight
that
Airbus didn't actually make it "smart" with software to restrict movement
depending on airplane's speed etc on its FBW planes.

The first FBW passenger airliner, the A320, has some residual non FBW
capability to allow the aircraft to be flown (though not landed, I think)
with the FBW system inoperative, the idea being that the problem might be
fixable in the air. I have a feeling (don't quote me) that the rudder is
part of that residual ability.

This design philosophy may or may not have been continued.

Sylvia.


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

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.

Jay Beckman
Chandler, AZ
PP-ASEL

Jay Beckman wrote:

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
u...


nobody wrote:


Pete wrote:


I thought that was one of the main advantages of fly-by-wire systems,
to eliminate truly stupid actions of pilots. Sounds like Airbus shares
a lot of blame for the crash.


The A300-600 is not fly by wire. It is a 1970s plane updated to some
extent
in the 1980s.

And I have been told that because rudders are so rarely used in flight
that
Airbus didn't actually make it "smart" with software to restrict movement
depending on airplane's speed etc on its FBW planes.

The first FBW passenger airliner, the A320, has some residual non FBW
capability to allow the aircraft to be flown (though not landed, I think)
with the FBW system inoperative, the idea being that the problem might be
fixable in the air. I have a feeling (don't quote me) that the rudder is
part of that residual ability.

This design philosophy may or may not have been continued.

Sylvia.



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

Not being able to land in that configuration? No - simply that it would
be so difficult (or maybe just physically impossible) to pull off a
successful landing that in practice no one would achieve it.


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.

I think that pilot was just asking the aircraft to do something that was
beyond its capabilities. I seem to remember he claimed that the engines
didn't spin up when commanded, but that was disputed. I never read the
report, though.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else wrote:
Jay Beckman wrote:
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.


I think that pilot was just asking the aircraft to do something that was
beyond its capabilities. I seem to remember he claimed that the engines
didn't spin up when commanded, but that was disputed. I never read the
report, though.

Funny that you don't let your ignorance keep you from pontificating,
though...

Sylvia Else wrote:
I think that pilot was just asking the aircraft to do something that was
beyond its capabilities. I seem to remember he claimed that the engines
didn't spin up when commanded, but that was disputed. I never read the
report, though.

That accident actually has a lot of commonality with the Air Canada flying
skidoo accident at Fredericton.

Plane put at low altutude with engines at low speed. In both cases, pilots
decide to rev up engines to regain altutude (for the airbus, pilot was just
showing off, for the skidoos, the pilot aborted landing). In both cases,
engines took some time to spin up and produce necessary thrust (nature of
turbine engines).

In the case of the flying skidoo, because of no FBW, the pilot stalled the
aircraft as he tried to climb above trees, and it fell in the snow and
traveled in the forest until it hit a tree. In the case of the 320, the
computer didn't allow the pilot to raise the nose, avoiding a deadly stall.
But the computer didn't know trees were ahead, so plane traveled into the trees.

Had the pilot increased thrust earlier, the plane might have regained
suffiencty speed to be able to start climbing without stalling and nobody
would have noticed anything.

Ummmmm...actually ... no....

In the Fredericton crash, the landing was not really
"aborted" . Although the abort inputs were probably commanded, the A/C
"landed"....

Coming out of a very low (legal) ceiling, the rny was not
directly under the a/c, and the crew tried to correct laterally and
doing so, the decent rate increased. They started the go around to
late, the AC slammed down on the rny hard, the nose gear ripping the
control functions as it rammed vertically up through the floor
above.

The throttles were stuck at high power, directional control
was lost, and everybody was along for the ride into the trees WAY off
to the right of rny 15 way past the intersection. One engine was
STILL producing substantial power as the equipment arrived.

The A/C was ON THE SURFACE, engines pushing it along for the
entire trip, impact point to the pucker brush. (the damage from the
nose gear severed the the throttle controls so the crew were unable
to retard the thrust). It DID NOT "stall into the trees"...and it
did not "travel through the forest". - It was stopped cold by the 1st
tree (a rather large and very strong tree), at the edge of the
cleared area, the tree still standing in the middle of the fwd cabin
where the (severe) injuries occurred.


Hence the "skidoo " story, - the track of the A/C was
continuous along the snow...

Add to this some really bonehead PR work by Air Canada..

Oh... thats another story... sorry...

Dave


On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:46:30 -0400, nobody wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:


That accident actually has a lot of commonality with the Air Canada flying
skidoo accident at Fredericton.

Plane put at low altutude with engines at low speed. In both cases, pilots
decide to rev up engines to regain altutude (for the airbus, pilot was just
showing off, for the skidoos, the pilot aborted landing). In both cases,
engines took some time to spin up and produce necessary thrust (nature of
turbine engines).

In the case of the flying skidoo, because of no FBW, the pilot stalled the
aircraft as he tried to climb above trees, and it fell in the snow and
traveled in the forest until it hit a tree. In the case of the 320, the
computer didn't allow the pilot to raise the nose, avoiding a deadly stall.
But the computer didn't know trees were ahead, so plane traveled into the trees.

Had the pilot increased thrust earlier, the plane might have regained
suffiencty speed to be able to start climbing without stalling and nobody
would have noticed anything.

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:53:13 +0000, Dave wrote:

Hence the "skidoo " story, - the track of the A/C was
continuous along the snow...

Add to this some really bonehead PR work by Air Canada..

Oh... thats another story... sorry...

Painting their logo?

Reminded me of a crash in Brazil where they did that too.

Yeh...

Painting "OVER" their logo, and the big red letters "Air
Canada" stretching along the length of the fuse...

Like with a roller & house paint! (!)

Obvious and sickening...

Offical press... "It's not our aircraft anymore" (insurance
company owns it...

Yeah... right..

Dave


On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:54:57 GMT, devil wrote:

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:53:13 +0000, Dave wrote:

Hence the "skidoo " story, - the track of the A/C was
continuous along the snow...

Add to this some really bonehead PR work by Air Canada..

Oh... thats another story... sorry...

Painting their logo?

Reminded me of a crash in Brazil where they did that too.

Dave wrote in message . ..
Yeh...

Painting "OVER" their logo, and the big red letters "Air
Canada" stretching along the length of the fuse...

Like with a roller & house paint! (!)


yep aircraft are ofen painted by roller.

Dave, please take a bit more care not to make it look as if I said
something that someone else said.

Dave wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:


That accident actually has a lot of commonality with the Air Canada flying
skidoo accident at Fredericton.

Plane put at low altutude with engines at low speed. In both cases, pilots
decide to rev up engines to regain altutude (for the airbus, pilot was just
showing off, for the skidoos, the pilot aborted landing). In both cases,
engines took some time to spin up and produce necessary thrust (nature of
turbine engines).

In the case of the flying skidoo, because of no FBW, the pilot stalled the
aircraft as he tried to climb above trees, and it fell in the snow and
traveled in the forest until it hit a tree. In the case of the 320, the
computer didn't allow the pilot to raise the nose, avoiding a deadly stall.
But the computer didn't know trees were ahead, so plane traveled into the trees.

Had the pilot increased thrust earlier, the plane might have regained
suffiencty speed to be able to start climbing without stalling and nobody
would have noticed anything.

Sorry Sylvia,

My bad, I apologise, it was not my intent... I quoted the
article pattern incorrectly.

The actual author of the words was "nobody" (as near as I can
determine). My server is missing a couple of posts in this thread, but
I do not offer that as an excuse..

Sorry...

(Dave hangs head and is shuffling feet)

Please reply so I will know you have seen this....

Dave




On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 09:57:21 +1000, Sylvia Else
wrote:

Dave, please take a bit more care not to make it look as if I said
something that someone else said.