Air buss loss at Paris Airshow?

Mxsmanic,

Airbus aircraft don't allow pilots to override the
computers,


Once again, you haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert writes:

Once again, you haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about.

I'm going by what Airbus says about their own aircraft.

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

Mxsmanic,

I'm going by what Airbus says about their own aircraft.


And the quote is where in Airbus literature? Point me to it. It's the
fifth or so time I ask you to back a statement up with facts. Come on,
surprise me.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Greg Farris schrieb:

accident was classic pilot error, no fault was found with the FBW system...

The computer was not only not at fault, but it even prevented a catastrophe.

The automatic wing leveller kept the wings levelled, even at full stall.
It did this so perfectly that when the airplane descended into the
trees, both wings were ripped off simultaneously, and the fuselage
"landed" straight ahead and perfectly aligned. From the 120 or so
passengers, *no* one was killed or even severely injured at the impact!
This is a plain miracle.

The three deaths of that accident were not killed at impact, but very
tragically later: There were two passengers in wheelchairs who couldn't
leave the airplane by themselves after the impact. One flight attendant
got aware of this after she had left the plane and returned back into
the plane to help the two to get out. Tragically, at that moment, the
developing fire reached the fuselage and the three were trapped and burnt.

Stefan

Stefan wrote:
From the 120 or so passengers, *no* one was killed or even severely injured at the impact!


There were pax aboard that flight? I thought it was a mfr test hop?

Kingfish schrieb:

There were pax aboard that flight? I thought it was a mfr test hop?

It was a demonstration flight on an airshow. This was the last such
flight in Europe with passengers aboard.

Stefan

"Stefan" wrote in message
. ..
Kingfish schrieb:

There were pax aboard that flight? I thought it was a mfr test hop?

It was a demonstration flight on an airshow. This was the last such
flight in Europe with passengers aboard.

Stefan

It used to be fairly common for an airline with a nearby base to have one of
their aircraft make a low pass over the runway at an airshow--sometimes slow
and dirty (as this was planned to be), other times clean and fast, and
occasionally one of each. It was a way to showcase their presence, and also
provided an interesting contrast of sizes and characteristics...

Peter

Anyone remember the details???

The video of this crash (from a "Front Line" PBS special) really lit up
our aviation video site, with comments and conflicting opinions coming
in from pilots literally all over the world. My site's technical
advisor (a retired RAF officer) was kept busy with this one!

See it he
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photoga...s320_trees.mpg

Also, you can read some of the comments he
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/autoland_crash.htm

and he
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/autoland_crash2.htm

See all 300+ aviation videos he
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/aviation_videos.htm
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

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.

There's an interesting comment on the topic of "landing mode" in the
following article about Boeing vs Airbus control philosophy. The
supposed quote from John Lauber, who was vice president of safety and
technical affairs for Airbus, specifically mentions it. The relevant
section is at the end.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/boe202.shtml

Cheers, Kev

In article . com,
says...



The relevant
section is at the end.



The "relevant section" is not in this article - or in much of anything
published by this Seattle-based newspaper aviation authority.

I wouldn't question his objectivity, even though he is the author of this
article :
Aggressive sales style helps Boeing soar past Airbus in new orders
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...ecovery13.html

in 1995 - the third consecutive year in which Airbus sales surpassed Boeing,
and notwithstanding the fact that a Google serach on his name reveals a litany
of strident Airbus-bashing...

And I wouldn't question his knowledge of the subject - I' sure it is simply
time and space constraints which prevent him from revealing any of the vast
technical references he surely holds which would support his claims...

Things get a little stickier though when he claims that that version of A320
had a "landing mode" which completely precluded the pilot from making a
recovery - when newspaper reporters publish demonstrably false statements it
just takes some of the shine off - for me anyway...

Planes equipped for CATIIIc approaches have a "land" mode, which when engaged
is 'expected' to terminate in an autoland prodecure. Aside the fact that this
was not the case (or anything close to it) for the Airbus in question, does
anyone here really believe that Airbus or Boeing would make a plane that
"decides" to land and "cannot" be over-ridden by pilot action?
Kev, please be clear - is this what you're asking us to believe?

In sum - the reality is clear.
The thing has NSA written all over it!
It's clear the plane was being controlled from OUTSIDE (possibly from as far
away as Washington) and was deliberately crashed to discredit Airbus. The only
failure was that the pilot was not expected to survive - since he did, they
had to get to work fast on the flight recorders so they could diecredit him
as well.