A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Co-pilot error caused AA 587 crash



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 28th 04, 07:09 PM
Ralph Nesbitt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"nobody" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
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 TSB report clearly stated that the pilots initiated a go around

WITHOUT
LANDING, with airspeed that would have required landing before speed was

high
enough to climb again. Upon starting to climb again, the skidoo did regain
some altitude before stalling, after which it fell to the ground where its
recessive skidoo genes became dominant again.

One problem is that the flight director had not been programmed to handle

such
a situation, neither had Bombardier foreseen/simulated situations such as
those. While the FO (PIC) was trying to climb according to normal climb

rates
provided by the flight director, the captain did not realise that the

newbie
co-pilot wasn't aware of the very low airspeed.

FBY is a great concept, but in practice not every conceivable situation/set
of circumstances, with all potential variables/responses can be foreseen &
programmed into the computer. The only "Computer" I know of that even comes
close to dealing with UNK/UNK (unknown/unknown) has 1 mouth, 2 legs, 2 arms,
2 eyes, 2 ears, & when it gets into allows A/C tog get into situations that
can't be recovered from is known to emphasize the impossibility of
recovering from the situation with a emphatic"OH ****".
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type


  #2  
Old October 29th 04, 01:49 AM
nobody
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ralph Nesbitt wrote:
programmed into the computer. The only "Computer" I know of that even comes
close to dealing with UNK/UNK (unknown/unknown) has 1 mouth, 2 legs, 2 arms,
2 eyes, 2 ears, & when it gets into allows A/C tog get into situations that
can't be recovered from is known to emphasize the impossibility of
recovering from the situation with a emphatic"OH ****".


However, the flying skidoo accident at Fredericton was purely pilot induced.
It is in fact one perfect example of FBW's advantages.

Pilot's workload was too much for him to handle, and he didn't have the time
to monitor airspeed as well as climb angle at same time. Stalled the aircraft
as a result.

Had there been FBW, with the computer limiting climb rate until engines were
producing sufficient thrust, would the plane still have been able to climb
sufficiently to avoid trees ? Maybe, maybe not. But the odds would have been better.
  #3  
Old October 29th 04, 11:16 PM
running with scissors
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message m...
"nobody" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
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 TSB report clearly stated that the pilots initiated a go around

WITHOUT
LANDING, with airspeed that would have required landing before speed was

high
enough to climb again. Upon starting to climb again, the skidoo did regain
some altitude before stalling, after which it fell to the ground where its
recessive skidoo genes became dominant again.

One problem is that the flight director had not been programmed to handle

such
a situation, neither had Bombardier foreseen/simulated situations such as
those. While the FO (PIC) was trying to climb according to normal climb

rates
provided by the flight director, the captain did not realise that the

newbie
co-pilot wasn't aware of the very low airspeed.

FBY is a great concept, but in practice not every conceivable situation/set
of circumstances, with all potential variables/responses can be foreseen &
programmed into the computer. The only "Computer" I know of that even comes
close to dealing with UNK/UNK (unknown/unknown) has 1 mouth, 2 legs, 2 arms,
2 eyes, 2 ears, & when it gets into allows A/C tog get into situations that
can't be recovered from is known to emphasize the impossibility of
recovering from the situation with a emphatic"OH ****".
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type



except paul nixon of course
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Aerobatics 28 January 2nd 09 02:26 PM
Military: Pilot confusion led to F-16 crash that killed one pilot Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 September 1st 04 12:30 AM
P-51C crash kills pilot Paul Hirose Military Aviation 0 June 30th 04 05:37 AM
Fatal plane crash kills pilot in Ukiah CA Randy Wentzel Piloting 1 April 5th 04 05:23 PM
AmeriFlight Crash C J Campbell Piloting 5 December 1st 03 02:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.