Co-pilot error caused AA 587 crash

Jay Beckman wrote:

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
u...


nobody wrote:


Pete wrote:


I thought that was one of the main advantages of fly-by-wire systems,
to eliminate truly stupid actions of pilots. Sounds like Airbus shares
a lot of blame for the crash.


The A300-600 is not fly by wire. It is a 1970s plane updated to some
extent
in the 1980s.

And I have been told that because rudders are so rarely used in flight
that
Airbus didn't actually make it "smart" with software to restrict movement
depending on airplane's speed etc on its FBW planes.

The first FBW passenger airliner, the A320, has some residual non FBW
capability to allow the aircraft to be flown (though not landed, I think)
with the FBW system inoperative, the idea being that the problem might be
fixable in the air. I have a feeling (don't quote me) that the rudder is
part of that residual ability.

This design philosophy may or may not have been continued.

Sylvia.



Is that due to the crash at the Paris Airshow several years back?

Not being able to land in that configuration? No - simply that it would
be so difficult (or maybe just physically impossible) to pull off a
successful landing that in practice no one would achieve it.


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.

I think that pilot was just asking the aircraft to do something that was
beyond its capabilities. I seem to remember he claimed that the engines
didn't spin up when commanded, but that was disputed. I never read the
report, though.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else wrote:
Jay Beckman wrote:
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.


I think that pilot was just asking the aircraft to do something that was
beyond its capabilities. I seem to remember he claimed that the engines
didn't spin up when commanded, but that was disputed. I never read the
report, though.

Funny that you don't let your ignorance keep you from pontificating,
though...

Sylvia Else wrote:
I think that pilot was just asking the aircraft to do something that was
beyond its capabilities. I seem to remember he claimed that the engines
didn't spin up when commanded, but that was disputed. I never read the
report, though.

That accident actually has a lot of commonality with the Air Canada flying
skidoo accident at Fredericton.

Plane put at low altutude with engines at low speed. In both cases, pilots
decide to rev up engines to regain altutude (for the airbus, pilot was just
showing off, for the skidoos, the pilot aborted landing). In both cases,
engines took some time to spin up and produce necessary thrust (nature of
turbine engines).

In the case of the flying skidoo, because of no FBW, the pilot stalled the
aircraft as he tried to climb above trees, and it fell in the snow and
traveled in the forest until it hit a tree. In the case of the 320, the
computer didn't allow the pilot to raise the nose, avoiding a deadly stall.
But the computer didn't know trees were ahead, so plane traveled into the trees.

Had the pilot increased thrust earlier, the plane might have regained
suffiencty speed to be able to start climbing without stalling and nobody
would have noticed anything.

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:12:20 -0700, Jay Beckman wrote:


Is that due to the crash at the Paris Airshow several years back?

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.

Only crash at a Paris airshow that I know of was of a Tu144. No Airbus
ever crashed in Paris.

devil wrote:

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:12:20 -0700, Jay Beckman wrote:



Is that due to the crash at the Paris Airshow several years back?

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.


Only crash at a Paris airshow that I know of was of a Tu144. No Airbus
ever crashed in Paris.



I remember the incident though. An A320 full of passengers doing
something it shouldn't have at an air show, and ending up descending
into trees at the end of the runway.

Aircraft destroyed, but incredibly, only one fatality.

Sylvia.

Jay Beckman wrote:

Is that due to the crash at the Paris Airshow several years back?

The A300 is FBW, an Airbus crash in Paris... so much for the educated
infos in this group.

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!

Stefan

Stefan wrote:
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!

No, this was a demo of its computer systems capabilities, they woudln't have
shut it down.

Secondly, the big red button isn't to override the computer, it is the
"override the other pilot" button. (eg: to decide who is controlling the plane
when both pilots are wanking their joystick at the same time)

On airbus planes, because they have a joystick with no feedback, one pilot
really deson't feel what the other pilot is trying to do. And one can override
the other by pressing the button, at which point his joystick takes control.

When it launched its 777, it was Boeing that bragged about its pilots being
able to break the flight enveloppe by pulling really hard on the yoke, and
that was marketed as a big advantage over Airbus cockpits where pilots
couldn't break the limits.

Pulling Gs isn't really the issue, it is preventing a stall. And that is where
the computer is far more accurate than a human and this is where engine thrust
does not follow immediatly a pilot's command (it takes time for engines to
increase or reduce thrust). You can't start to climb as soon as you raise
engine thrust is your speed is so low that you are borderline stall at level flight.

Had this been a Boeing plane, the pilot would have heard an alarm and felt his
yoke vibrate indicating he was about to stall the aircraft, and he then could
either have continued to try to climb and stall (falling down on trees), or
tried to level and pickup speed before climbing, giving the same result as the Airbus.

What is not known about that particular indcident is whether then then current
software of the A320 would have warned the pilot that his command to climb
could not be executed due to stall conditions, or whether the pilot was lost
wondering why the plane didn't respond to his command to climb.

The above would make a big difference if the pilot had not yet applied more
thrust to engines. The stall warning might have triggered an automatic reflex
by the human pilot to increase thrust. On the other hand, the pilot should
have known that at current very slow airspeed, he could not climb out and
would need to increase thrust.

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:08:56 +0200, Stefan wrote:

Jay Beckman wrote:

Is that due to the crash at the Paris Airshow several years back?

The A300 is FBW, an Airbus crash in Paris... so much for the educated
infos in this group.

The crash you mention occured at an airshow in Habsheim, near Mulhouse,
which is more than 200 nm from Paris.


Why oh why did you have to tell them?

Stefan wrote in message ...
Jay Beckman wrote:

Is that due to the crash at the Paris Airshow several years back?

The A300 is FBW, an Airbus crash in Paris... so much for the educated
infos in this group.

Stefan

No, the A300 isn't FBW .........

Copied from Airbus.com (link is below text.)

Airbus' first aircraft, the A300B, was launched at the 1969 Paris air
show. It was the first widebody twinjet and could carry 226 passengers
in a comfortable two-class lay-out. A stretched 250 seat version, the
A300B2, requested by launch customer Air France, went into full scale
production.

By 1974, the A300 had been certified on budget and ahead of schedule –
a major first for European companies at the time. By the end of 1975,
Airbus had 10 per cent of the market and a total of 55 aircraft on
order. The company then went through a dark period, during which it
failed to secure any new orders. Finally, US airline Eastern Airlines
decided to lease four A300B4s.

This was a turning point, and from then on, Airbus never looked back.
Within two years, Airbus had 133 firm orders and market share had
risen to 26 per cent by value. By the end of 1979, Airbus had 256
orders from 32 customers and 81 aircraft in service with 14 operators.

The A320, launched in 1984, was the first all-new design in its
category in 30 years. Incorporating new technologies, the aircraft
provided better operating efficiency, better performance and - above
all - greater passenger comfort thanks to a wider fuselage
cross-section. It was the first commercial aircraft to feature
‘fly-by-wire' controls and side sticks. It set the standard for all
subsequent Airbus cockpits and indeed for the industry as a whole.

http://www.airbus.com/about/history.asp

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