Co-pilot error caused AA 587 crash

Well Fjukwit?

Berti e

In article ,
Morgans wrote:

"Peter" wrote

In the absence of those there aren't all that many models of cars
that can be flipped on a flat parking lot. That was one of Nader's
original complaints about the Corvair

pppplease everyone note: That was true for pre 63, only.

The 63 and 64 Corvairs were the primary subject of Nader's _Unsafe At Any
Speed_. The 65 Corvairs added a stabilizer to the suspension. And the
primary complaint about the original suspension was not that it caused the
cars to flip, but that it tended to cause the outside wheel to tuck under
during sharp cornering, leading to a sudden breakaway skid with no warning
creep. It could also lead to a rollover if something as minor as a pothole
tripped that wheel as it entered such a skid, but that wasn't the primary
failure mode.

_Consumers' Reports_ once rated a small Suzuki SUV Not Acceptable because of
its tendency to tip, which they speculated could lead to rollover accidents.
It's the rarity of that phenomenon that made it newsworthy. Virtually all
real-world rollover accidents involve the wheels being tripped by a curb or
other obstruction.

--
Randy Hudson

Randy Hudson wrote:
It's the rarity of that phenomenon that made it newsworthy. Virtually all
real-world rollover accidents involve the wheels being tripped by a curb or
other obstruction.


You've obviously not watched any good documentary on the subject. Police car
chases in Los Angeles almost always involve some spectacular roll over.
British spies are almost always involved in some form of car chase which
involves some roll over. Heck, in a recent documentary about british spies,
the spy was in a fancy sports car (aston martin if I recall correctly) on
smooth ICE in iceland and the car flipped and slid for a while on its roof,
until the spy pressed the "eject passenger seat" button which causes the case
to bounce back into right side up condition, showing just how easy it is for a
car to flip.

It is possible that there might be something special about gravity in the Los
Angeles area that makes it much easier for cars to flip over. I haven't
personally witnessed any such accidents where I live (except in documentaries
at the he movie theatre or TV).

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

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

Berti e

Okay,

I'm sorry I spanked you on the A300 rudder limiter issue.

running with scissors wrote:

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

Those weren't just "passengers". They were invited guests. In those days
a common practice in France (and elsewhere). After that accident, no
more flying guests at an airshow.

Stefan

(1aircraftQAguy) wrote in
om:

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

Berti e

Okay,

I'm sorry I spanked you on the A300 rudder limiter issue.


?? You did?


Bertie

Sylvia Else wrote in
u:



Pooh Bear wrote:

John Mazor wrote:


"OtisWinslow" wrote in message
...

I thought the Captain was in charge of making sure the
aircraft was operated safely. Why the hell didn't he intervene
and stop the excessive movement? He just sat there
and watched knowing that it was the wrong action to
take? Sure points the finger at Airbus and AA's training program.

Perhaps, but it also reflects the prevailing but erroneous impression
among airline pilots that you can't break the airplane with control
inputs below maneuvering speed. This was not limited to Airbus
products.


Which then begs the question why were airline pilots erroneously
under that impression ?

It was a bizarre notion anyway. Fly your airliner below maneuvering
speed. Apply full right aileron, and wait.

I guarantee you'll have a broken plane.


Wot a ******.


Bertie

"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

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
u...


devil wrote:

You may remember an incident (accident actually). But if you remember
it
was in Paris, you are remembering wrong.

Have I said it was in Paris? I think all I've done is recognise a
particular occurence with an A320 that another poster thought occurred
in Paris, and discussed the issues of the occurence rather than
uninteresting details of geography.

I think I was in Paris, though.

Sylvia.

The entire problem appears to be you are attempting to do something you are
not used to doing, thinking, leaveing yourself wide open for criticism from
various kinds from various quarters IMHO.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type