Co-pilot error caused AA 587 crash

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

"Nik" wrote in message ...
"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

quote
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
Endquote

Quote
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
Endquote


go ****yourself Nikky

running with scissors wrote:

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.

Michael Asseline even wrote a book to explain what he had experienced. I doubt a Capt with
a guilty conscience would write a book about his accident.

Graham

Pooh Bear wrote:

Michael Asseline even wrote a book to explain what he had experienced. I doubt a Capt with
a guilty conscience would write a book about his accident.

Or he wrote it because he felt guilty. Or he didn't feel guilty while
actually he was, happens quite often, I am told. There are many reasons
to write a book, and then a book tells not always the truth.

Stefan

David CL Francis wrote:

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.

Indeed they were.



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.

Nope - they were using the analogue readout barometric altimeter not the more
accurate digital readout radalt ( for reasons of being easier to read whilst
rapidly changing in this instance ).

During the take off phase the radalt and baro altimeter somehow got
'misaligned' by 70 odd feet.

Hence they thought they were flying at 100ft when it was actually 30 ft.


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.

Actually, increased power was called for as planned. They were indeed unaware
of the trees due to the poor briefing material.

Exactly how and why the engines responded as they did has been a matter of
considerable debate.

That version of the CFM 56 ? was subsequently altered and units in service
'upgraded' following a compressor stall incident on another early A320 at
Geneva ? IIRC.


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.

The response of the engines was a surprise to the pilots.


Graham

Pooh Bear wrote:

....
Hence they thought they were flying at 100ft when it was actually 30 ft.
....
They were indeed unaware
of the trees due to the poor briefing material.
....

Being a hard core "look out the window and fly by horizon and feel"
pilot, I have some difficulties to understand this. I'm aware that you
can't fly an airliner by merely looking out the window, but still....

Besides, the briefing material itself wasn't poor. The VAC clearly shows
the forest:

http://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv....D%202.LFGB.pdf

The "problem" was that the pilot expected to do his show-off over the
runway 20, which has no trees at the far end. When he recognized that
the public was lined up along the glider strip 16, he changed his plans
accordingly and overlooked that this runway was significantly shorter
(i.e. 765 instead of 1120 ft) and there was forest at both ends of the
strip. Which, as I said, I don't understand.

Stefan