Co-pilot error caused AA 587 crash

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.

"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?

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.

Jay Beckman
Chandler, AZ
PP-ASEL

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.

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.

"nobody" wrote in message
...
Morgans wrote:
Seems to me that Airbus is, if not criminally responsible, morally and
legally responsible.

Then Boeing would also be guilty because the NTSB, very early in the
investigation, found that Boeing planes were also liable to lose tailfin
upon
misused of rudder during flight.


Note that I was under the ASSumption that the Airbus was FBW. If that was
the case, programming should have been such that it was impossible to make
the tail fall off.

Has this programming tidbit been taken care of? I hope so.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.782 / Virus Database: 528 - Release Date: 10/22/2004

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...

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?

Jose
--
for Email, make the obvious change in the address

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.............

You're not a friend of John Tarver are you ? He insisted that rudders on big
jets were *purely* yaw dampers.


that Airbus didn't actually make it "smart" with software to restrict movement

depending on airplane's speed etc on its FBW planes.

Note that similar rudder use on Boeing planes would also cause the tail to
break off.

After the accident, I hear that Boeing issued a similary advisory to Airbus
regarding use of rudder.


Graham

"Here to there" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:32:02 -0700, Peter wrote:
Here to there wrote:

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:51:45 GMT, Pete wrote:

But Molin didn't know he was putting more pressure on the tail than
it could bear. Why he didn't -- and who's to blame for that -- is the
subject of a bitter fight between Airbus and American.

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. It's like an auto maker made a car that
sheared off its wheels if the steering wheel was turned too quickly,
and the maker's response was to tell drivers, "Don't do that!"


Ummmmmm... so what exactly do you think will happen to a car if you
turn the wheel rapidly while driving at more than a snail's pace?

If it exceeds the available traction of the tires then I expect the
car to start sliding and possibly spin out. As long as the car
doesn't hit anything then I expect loss of tire rubber to be the
most serious damage. Of course if there is an impact (even with
something like a curb), then there are likely to be much more
severe consequences.


Except that's not the way it frequently happens in real life.
Rapid steering wheel movement at speed is one way that people
manage to flip cars, even when they haven't hit obstacles or
gone off the road. Around here, the tow trucks do a
land office business in the winter when the local students
decide to do donuts in the parking lots, and flip themselves. ;-)

Simply not true. Automobiles will not turn over on flat pavement unless
they hit something. It has been a law for decades.