Co-pilot error caused AA 587 crash

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.

Sylvia Else wrote in message . au...
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.

it depends on the situation the have two police forces, both
differently funded neither like each other. judges can play a
different role in the french legal system.

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

Pooh Bear wrote in
:

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.



Fjuckwit

bertie

"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