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.

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 at 00:57:07 in message
, Aardvark
wrote:

Link to video of the A300 into trees
http://www.aviationexplorer.com/movi...intoTREES.mpeg

The link title is wrong should be an A320!!!! A clear video though and
shown all over the world. I have seen it many times.
--
David CL Francis

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

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

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 at 15:59:23 in message
, Sylvia Else
wrote:
The aircraft suffered severe damage, but landed OK. Unfortunately, I
cannot remember the airline, aircraft type nor location, which makes it
a bit hard to find.

You probably mean TWA Flight 841 on 4 April 1979. The was a Boeing
727-100 N840TW. It allegedly exceeded mach 1.0 briefly on the way down.

Is that enough for you to find it? Flight was planned JFK to
Minneapolis/St Paul. The landing was made at Detroit on Runway 03L after
one abortive go-around the pilot then approached at 205k where he could
maintain some control. When they attempted to tow the aircraft away the
right main gear started to separate; when they jacked it up to look at
it the right main gear fell off!

You could also mean China Airways Flight 006 from Taipei to Los Angeles
on the 18th February 1985. That was a Boeing 747SP.
--
David CL Francis

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 at 01:02:58 in message
, nobody wrote:

The A300 crash is a perfect example of why FBW is a good thing. had there been
FBW on that system, the pilot could have commanded the rudder to the max, and
the computer would have ensured that it only moved as far as was safe,
allowing pilot to concentrate on flying the aircraft instead of guessing what
the limits would be in that flight regime.

Surely maximum deflection is not the issue? It is reversing from the
maximum one way to the other and perhaps back again that is the issue.
On the other hand maybe FBW may not have touched the rudder? Many
aircraft have had the maximum deflection automatically reduced after the
speed passes a certain point. Did the A300 have this? I think it did but
I am not sure of my recollection.
--
David CL Francis

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 at 08:50:15 in message
, Sylvia Else
wrote:
I'm amazed that the crew apparently thought it reasonable to resume
normal operation after a descent like that. They should surely have
realised that an immediate landing was indicated.

They didn't. Their destination was Los Angeles and they diverted to the
nearest they could which was San Francisco. The incident took place
nearly 300nm off shore when they were NW of San Francisco. Their route
would have taken them over San Francisco on the way to Los Angeles
(according to my globe anyway!)
--
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

"Bertie the Bunyip" XZXZ@XZXZ.,XZXZX wrote in message
. 74.13...
Well Fjukwit?

Godot will arrive with your pizza order before that happens.

JL Grasso wrote:

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 05:37:34 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:


Jose wrote:

An A320 full of passengers doing something it shouldn't have at an air show

What was an A320 doing full of passengers at an airshow?

Air France said it was OK.

There was no DGAC rule forbidding it at the time, Mr. 'fjuckwit'.

Which is why Air France said it was OK no doubt.

I'm less certain that Air France's 'company minima' for a 100ft flyby conformed to
regs though.


Graham