Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14?

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:j1f%b.60182$4o.83386@attbi_s52...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

According to the ASN Accident Description, "Go-around power was added
at
14.45:35"

The pilot was past the end of the runway by then and into an unmapped
part
of the A-320's flight control system.

What is "an unmapped part of the A-320's flight control system" supposed
to
mean?!?

Airbus hadn't programmed their A-320 to do what the operator commanded.

Just prior to the pilot adding go-around power, the airplane was in an
aerodynamic regime that had been encountered many times previously --
airspeed
between stall and Vref, with a slight rate of descent (approx 375 fpm,
from last
datapoint), engines at idle. How could it be that the flight control
system was
"unmapped" in that aerodynamic regime?!?

That is a good question.

I am quite certain that the A-320's certification included slow flight and
approaches to stalls, and that its flight control system is well able to
handle
them.

Then you have departed from reality.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

What is "an unmapped part of the A-320's flight control system" supposed
to mean?!?

Airbus hadn't programmed their A-320 to do what the operator commanded.

Hmmm... I suspect that when the pilot added go-around power, he commanded the
airplane to provide maximum lift/minimum sink while the engines spooled up. As
far as we can tell, the flight control system responded properly, providing max
lift without stalling. It is not the job of the flight control system to map
trees, but the trees in the flight path interrupted the plan...


I am quite certain that the A-320's certification included slow flight and
approaches to stalls, and that its flight control system is well able to
handle them.

Then you have departed from reality.

I see... Now you imply that either the A-320 certification did NOT include slow
flight and approaches to stalls, or that it was certified despite its failure to
demonstrate the required controllability in those regimes.

Anyone have the coordinates of reality? I need to punch them into the FMS-CDU
tomorrow...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:j1f%b.60182$4o.83386@attbi_s52...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

According to the ASN Accident Description, "Go-around power was added
at
14.45:35"

The pilot was past the end of the runway by then and into an unmapped
part
of the A-320's flight control system.

What is "an unmapped part of the A-320's flight control system" supposed
to
mean?!?

Airbus hadn't programmed their A-320 to do what the operator commanded.

Just prior to the pilot adding go-around power, the airplane was in an
aerodynamic regime that had been encountered many times previously --
airspeed
between stall and Vref, with a slight rate of descent (approx 375 fpm,
from last
datapoint), engines at idle. How could it be that the flight control
system was
"unmapped" in that aerodynamic regime?!?

That is a good question.

I am quite certain that the A-320's certification included slow flight and
approaches to stalls, and that its flight control system is well able to
handle
them.

Then you have departed from reality.

Jesus Christ John, this is ridiculous...I've read a lot about
this accident and agree with the consensus that the a/c did all
any a/c could have done given the parameters this not too bright
bulb asked it to do.

How in hell could the system have done more than, as JW
explained, hold the AoA at the max lift point just short of stall
while the autothrottle system applied max power and everyone was
waiting with bated breath for the engines to spool up. Would you
have preferred that the pilot have been able to manhandle the AoA
higher almost certainly stalling the wings?.

Maybe if you were a magician like Marron you could have changed
the Angle of Incidence therefore giving the wings 'more lift'?...
snort
--

-Gord.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...


The pilot was past the end of the runway by then and into an unmapped part
of the A-320's flight control system.

bwahahahhahahahhahhahahhhahahhahhahahahahahhahahah ahahahahahahha

every ****ing aircraft goes past the end of a runway. its called takeoff

running with scissors wrote:
every ****ing aircraft goes past the end of a runway. its called takeoff

Heh. The high-performance types often don't cross the far-end threshold
during takeoff. I remember one time 10,000 feet over Sherman field,
looking straight down at the midpoint...

--
John Miller
Email address: domain, n4vu.com; username, jsm

I have ways of making money that you know nothing of.
-John D. Rockefeller

John Miller wrote in message ...
running with scissors wrote:
every ****ing aircraft goes past the end of a runway. its called takeoff

Heh. The high-performance types often don't cross the far-end threshold
during takeoff. I remember one time 10,000 feet over Sherman field,
looking straight down at the midpoint...


ahh but in tarverworld past the end the runway is an unmapped part of
the A-320's flight control system.

"John R Weiss" wrote in message news:S08%b.58709$4o.76896@attbi_s52...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

Since my servers seldom get me all the newsgroup messages and
Google.groups can't seem to find the begining of this thread, please
allow me to ask a question and pose some answers. And I apologize if
any of this has been discussed previously.

From the bits I have read subsequent to John's message above, I assume
we are discussing the A-320 crash at Habshiem. If so, let me present
some information relevant to the discussion, as I have not read
anything as yet that indicates any of the posters knows much if
anything about Airbus flight control systems.

I do believe I am qualified to speak on the subject as I teach A-330
systems, which has a flight control system identical to the A-320.

The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a
fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo
pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet. The aircraft was below
100 feet. This is significant to the incident (and not just because
that is where we find trees). In the Airbus the computers have a group
of flight control protections collectively known as "Laws". In Normal
Law there is a low-speed, high AOA protection known as Alpha-Floor.
Alpha-Floor is reached somewhere below Vls (the lowest speed the
aircraft will fly with autopilot/autothrust on and sidestick in
neutral), and prior to Alpha-Max (maximum AOA). At Alpha-Floor the
autothrust commands TOGA power, and regardless of how much you pull
back on the sidestick, the aircraft will not decelerate below
Alpha-Max. It will just mush along at TOGA power until it runs out of
gas or the pilot lowers the nose to accelerate.

The problem is, Alpha-Floor is not available between 100' and
touchdown - otherwise you could never land! The pilot was expecting
Alpha-Floor, but being too low, it did not happen. By the time he
realized his error, he applied power, but it was too late. You can, in
fact, hear the engines spooling up just prior to his impact with the
trees in the video we show in class.

The aircraft performed as it should have. The pilot simply did not
have an adequate understanding of his aircraft for the manuver he was
doing. He also failed to follow the script. Two things the French
apparently frown upon, expecially when used in combination.

Lesson: if you don't fully understand your aircraft, it can reach out
and bite you someday.

John Alger
A-330 Flight Crew Training Instructor
Former rides: TA-4J, A-7E, EC-130Q and P-3B

"John Alger" wrote in message
m...
"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:S08%b.58709$4o.76896@attbi_s52...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

Since my servers seldom get me all the newsgroup messages and
Google.groups can't seem to find the begining of this thread, please
allow me to ask a question and pose some answers. And I apologize if
any of this has been discussed previously.

From the bits I have read subsequent to John's message above, I assume
we are discussing the A-320 crash at Habshiem. If so, let me present
some information relevant to the discussion, as I have not read
anything as yet that indicates any of the posters knows much if
anything about Airbus flight control systems.

I do believe I am qualified to speak on the subject as I teach A-330
systems, which has a flight control system identical to the A-320.

The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a
fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo
pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet.

The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and came up
with the low slow fly by all on his own.

The aircraft was below
100 feet. This is significant to the incident (and not just because
that is where we find trees). In the Airbus the computers have a group
of flight control protections collectively known as "Laws". In Normal
Law there is a low-speed, high AOA protection known as Alpha-Floor.
Alpha-Floor is reached somewhere below Vls (the lowest speed the
aircraft will fly with autopilot/autothrust on and sidestick in
neutral), and prior to Alpha-Max (maximum AOA). At Alpha-Floor the
autothrust commands TOGA power, and regardless of how much you pull
back on the sidestick, the aircraft will not decelerate below
Alpha-Max. It will just mush along at TOGA power until it runs out of
gas or the pilot lowers the nose to accelerate.

The low fly by was not an A-320 flight mode.

The problem is, Alpha-Floor is not available between 100' and
touchdown - otherwise you could never land! The pilot was expecting
Alpha-Floor, but being too low, it did not happen. By the time he
realized his error, he applied power, but it was too late. You can, in
fact, hear the engines spooling up just prior to his impact with the
trees in the video we show in class.

That is what I have been attempting to communicate to Weiss.

The aircraft performed as it should have. The pilot simply did not
have an adequate understanding of his aircraft for the manuver he was
doing. He also failed to follow the script. Two things the French
apparently frown upon, expecially when used in combination.

Yes.

It is not just the French that believe the POH is part of the Type
Certificate for an airplane.

Lesson: if you don't fully understand your aircraft, it can reach out
and bite you someday.

Weiss is in danger every time he flys then.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"John Alger" wrote in message
m...
"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:S08%b.58709$4o.76896@attbi_s52...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

Since my servers seldom get me all the newsgroup messages and
Google.groups can't seem to find the begining of this thread, please
allow me to ask a question and pose some answers. And I apologize if
any of this has been discussed previously.

From the bits I have read subsequent to John's message above, I assume
we are discussing the A-320 crash at Habshiem. If so, let me present
some information relevant to the discussion, as I have not read
anything as yet that indicates any of the posters knows much if
anything about Airbus flight control systems.

I do believe I am qualified to speak on the subject as I teach A-330
systems, which has a flight control system identical to the A-320.

The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a
fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo
pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet.

The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and came up
with the low slow fly by all on his own.

nope. it was a revenue flight. though the pilot was requested to do
the low fly past by AF.

"John Alger" wrote...

The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a
fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo
pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet. The aircraft was below
100 feet. This is significant to the incident (and not just because
that is where we find trees). In the Airbus the computers have a group
of flight control protections collectively known as "Laws". In Normal
Law there is a low-speed, high AOA protection known as Alpha-Floor.
Alpha-Floor is reached somewhere below Vls (the lowest speed the
aircraft will fly with autopilot/autothrust on and sidestick in
neutral), and prior to Alpha-Max (maximum AOA). At Alpha-Floor the
autothrust commands TOGA power, and regardless of how much you pull
back on the sidestick, the aircraft will not decelerate below
Alpha-Max. It will just mush along at TOGA power until it runs out of
gas or the pilot lowers the nose to accelerate.

The problem is, Alpha-Floor is not available between 100' and
touchdown - otherwise you could never land! The pilot was expecting
Alpha-Floor, but being too low, it did not happen. By the time he
realized his error, he applied power, but it was too late. You can, in
fact, hear the engines spooling up just prior to his impact with the
trees in the video we show in class.

From what you say here, it does not appear autothrottle was engaged (which also
correlates with other descriptions I've read) -- apparently, the pilot manually
moved the throttles from idle to Max. Is this true?

Is Alpha-Max the stall AOA, or something less? Is there any "emergency
override" that will engage the autothrottle when approaching Alpha-Max?