Air buss loss at Paris Airshow?

Danny Dot wrote:
In about 1990 Airbus did low pass at the Paris airshow and lost the plane.
I recall it had something to do with the throttle software thinking the
pilots were in landing mode and "refused" to go to high power for the
go-around.

Anyone remember the details???

Danny Dot

This really comes down to a simple difference between the way the
autothrottle operates in Boeing airplanes vs. Airbus.

In the Boeing model, if you shove the throttle handles forward, the
engines respond to the throttle setting. If autothrottle is engaged,
it will start to retard the throttles back to the commanded setting and
the pilot will see the throttles moving, realize that autothrottle is
engaged and trying to do something different than what he wants, and he
will grab the throttle handles, shove them back forward and push the
autothrottle disengage button on the side of the throttle handle. This
takes only a second or two to resolve.

In an Airbus model, if you shove the throttle handles foward, the
engines do not respond to the throttle setting (when autothrottle is
engaged), and the throttle handles will just sit there in a position
that differs from what the autothrottle is doing. In the meantime, it
can take a while for the pilot to realize what is going on and the push
the TOGA button to disengage the landing mode and get the computer to
respond to the throttle handle position. This is what happened to the
pilot involved in this accident. By the time he realized what was
going on and pushed the TOGA button, there wasn't time for the engines
to spool up enough to miss the trees.

This is why the difference between a chainsaw and an A320 is 100 trees
a minute.

Dean

In the meantime, it
can take a while for the pilot to realize what is going on and the push
the TOGA button to disengage the landing mode and get the computer to
respond to the throttle handle position.


Two words: type rating. That's what they are for...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:
In the meantime, it
can take a while for the pilot to realize what is going on and the push
the TOGA button to disengage the landing mode and get the computer to
respond to the throttle handle position.


Two words: type rating. That's what they are for...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Two more words: intelligent design. That's what is lacking at Airbus.

In article . com,
says...


Two more words: intelligent design. That's what is lacking at Airbus.



Oh No!
Now we're into religion!
Let me guess - Airbus, in this scenario, represents evil Darwinism,
while Boeing, represents - you guessed it - Intelligent Design!!



Seriously though - do you know anything about Airbus? The company - their
business model - the type of engineers they hire - their training, their
engineering program - where they are located - what their logo looks like- I
mean anything at all? Do you know anything at all about Airbus aircraft?
(rhetorical question)

Can you offer a justification that a thinking person could accept for the
statement that "intelligent design" is lacking at Airbus?


It really cracks me up - I mean I am really getting a laugh at these clowns
at the zenith of their ignorance making blanket statements about a company
like Airbus "not having a clue about real pilots" ot "lacking intelligent
design. . ." It's really really funny!!

Greg Farris writes:

Can you offer a justification that a thinking person could accept for the
statement that "intelligent design" is lacking at Airbus?

Habsheim, and many other incidents since then.

It really cracks me up - I mean I am really getting a laugh at these clowns
at the zenith of their ignorance making blanket statements about a company
like Airbus "not having a clue about real pilots" ot "lacking intelligent
design. . ." It's really really funny!!

Is it funny when people die?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic,

and many other incidents since then.


Ok, enough. Provide us with a comparison of Airbus and Boeing accidents
since (and including) Habsheim. Prove to us with that data that FBW
Airbus types have significantly more accidents than Boeing non-FBW.
Prove that, if you can show the former (you won't be able to, but try),
that the accident types show a connection to FBW design.

If you can't provide this, you are obviously a slanderous liar.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas

This nut thrives, even on abuse, if that is all the attention he can get. That
is what trolls do.

Do us and yourself a favor. Ignore him.

That is what he deserves.
--
Jim in NC

Thomas Borchert writes:

If you can't provide this, you are obviously a slanderous liar.

No, I'm simply not willing and/or able to provide it. That says
nothing about whether or not I'm telling the truth, and it is
unrelated to spoken defamation (slander).

You haven't provided anything to support your point of view, but that
does not make you a liar.

Calling someone a liar without being able to prove it is libel in some
cases, however.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

In article ,
says...


It really cracks me up - I mean I am really getting a laugh at these clowns
at the zenith of their ignorance making blanket statements about a company
like Airbus "not having a clue about real pilots" ot "lacking intelligent
design. . ." It's really really funny!!

Is it funny when people die?


Oh oh - getting serious now!
Has your ignorance already killed people?
Are you admitting something you would be better not in public?

Greg Farris writes:

Oh oh - getting serious now!

I'm already serious.

Has your ignorance already killed people?

No.

Are you admitting something you would be better not in public?

No.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.