Voyager Plummets (Merged)
If the Voyager build standard had already diverged from baseline A330 by the time of the QF72 incident, is it possible that modifications stemming from that incident might not have been embodied in Voyager? So could it be the same snag?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In QF72 the aircraft did not respond to side stick pitch command for 2 seconds on each of the 2 pitch excursions, so if this turns out to be similar cause it may explain why pilot said to have reported both pilots acting to correct the upset.
In QF72 the aircraft did not respond to side stick pitch command for 2 seconds on each of the 2 pitch excursions, so if this turns out to be similar cause it may explain why pilot said to have reported both pilots acting to correct the upset.
Designed by geeks with barely any pilot input, "Wouldn't eet be nize eef ze compootair could do zis? Or zat? Or zome uzzair stupeed zing which weel frighten ze pilots and pazzengairs?
Airbus ****e, ****e, ****e and more ****e with an extra helping of ****e!
While I can quite rightly be accused of pre judging the outcome, I expect it will eventually turn out to be a software related fault.
Thankfully the F-35 only has 8.5 million lines of code in its software - what could possibly go wrong.....
I once knew a FJ mate who, when being shown over a couple of the latest generation of fast jets, only ever asked the manufactures rep one question, and that was? Whether or not the bang seat sequence was hard wired, purely mechanical and totally independent of any software!
Thankfully the F-35 only has 8.5 million lines of code in its software - what could possibly go wrong.....
I once knew a FJ mate who, when being shown over a couple of the latest generation of fast jets, only ever asked the manufactures rep one question, and that was? Whether or not the bang seat sequence was hard wired, purely mechanical and totally independent of any software!
Tourette's still afflicting you, Mr.B 
I used the term 'inappropriate automation' with AiM once - suggesting that a clever-devil, over-complicated, fully-automated solution wasn't always the best. For example, "Open the pod valves, Hal" is not what you want in a tanker when some Air Refuelling Computer decides it knows better.....
Totally integrated systems aren't necessarily the best. As I once discovered when trying to reset the clock in a Merc I'd been lent. 20 minutes of non-intuitive hunting through menus - whereas in my MG Midget 50 years ago I just pressed and turned the spindle attached to the hands of the excellent Kienzle electro-mechanical car clock I'd fitted.
Engineers need Subject Matter Experts to tell them "No - that's bolleaux!" before spending €/£/$ M on some pointless geekery which is neither essential nor desirable. And which the aircrew probably don't want.
Take Selcal. As we all know, unless you've got a nice SatCom, you check in with Oceanic and ask for a Selcal check. You hear a double pulse of carrier, followed by the Selcal tones, then check that your system has registered them by whatever method is included on the flight deck. After which you advise Oceanic that you've had a positive check, then go on Selcal watch so you don't have to listen to hiss, crackle and pop for hours on end. But A Certain Designer, never having had to use the system himself, cleverly arranged for it to mute the receiver audio whenever Selcal was selected on - making it impossible to check....AR$E!!
As I asked one - "Would you trust a software-controlled fire extinguisher?"
Computer assistance is one thing, computer dominance quite another!
I used the term 'inappropriate automation' with AiM once - suggesting that a clever-devil, over-complicated, fully-automated solution wasn't always the best. For example, "Open the pod valves, Hal" is not what you want in a tanker when some Air Refuelling Computer decides it knows better.....
Totally integrated systems aren't necessarily the best. As I once discovered when trying to reset the clock in a Merc I'd been lent. 20 minutes of non-intuitive hunting through menus - whereas in my MG Midget 50 years ago I just pressed and turned the spindle attached to the hands of the excellent Kienzle electro-mechanical car clock I'd fitted.
Engineers need Subject Matter Experts to tell them "No - that's bolleaux!" before spending €/£/$ M on some pointless geekery which is neither essential nor desirable. And which the aircrew probably don't want.
Take Selcal. As we all know, unless you've got a nice SatCom, you check in with Oceanic and ask for a Selcal check. You hear a double pulse of carrier, followed by the Selcal tones, then check that your system has registered them by whatever method is included on the flight deck. After which you advise Oceanic that you've had a positive check, then go on Selcal watch so you don't have to listen to hiss, crackle and pop for hours on end. But A Certain Designer, never having had to use the system himself, cleverly arranged for it to mute the receiver audio whenever Selcal was selected on - making it impossible to check....AR$E!!
As I asked one - "Would you trust a software-controlled fire extinguisher?"
Computer assistance is one thing, computer dominance quite another!
From my simple standpoint Beags it seems that the history of aviation has been the ever continued distancing of the pilot from direct control of the aeroplane
Muscle control of surfaces by cables, pulleys, cranks and rods , was first broken by PFCU's , invoking artificial "feel", Then such devices as stick shakers and pushers, autothrottling, artificial stabilisation, fly by wire leading to the aircraft computers actually rejecting the pilot' input all are seen as having been desirable along the path of evolution.
This has been accepted.
It was not so long ago that people would not go in a lift without a lift attendant being present. Our reliance upon , and acceptance of, technology eclipsing the human in a lot of tasking will one day I am sure find people happily flying in aircraft without aircrew on board.
But not me
Muscle control of surfaces by cables, pulleys, cranks and rods , was first broken by PFCU's , invoking artificial "feel", Then such devices as stick shakers and pushers, autothrottling, artificial stabilisation, fly by wire leading to the aircraft computers actually rejecting the pilot' input all are seen as having been desirable along the path of evolution.
This has been accepted.
It was not so long ago that people would not go in a lift without a lift attendant being present. Our reliance upon , and acceptance of, technology eclipsing the human in a lot of tasking will one day I am sure find people happily flying in aircraft without aircrew on board.
But not me
Tourette's still afflicting you, Mr.B 
I blame the barely-4 hours of kip after the near-midnight arrival back in the UK, itself after a 11hr 30mins flog from the steaming environs of islands various in the Indian Ocean. Nah ....... actually, it really is the Frogbus nonsense that I blame. 
Engineers need Subject Matter Experts to tell them "No - that's bolleaux!" before spending €/£/$ M on some pointless geekery which is neither essential nor desirable. And which the aircrew probably don't want.
When will Frogbus ever learn that their ****ty little pointless streams of malevolent ones and zeros are not appreciated? Gits.
When will Frogbus ever learn that their ****ty little pointless streams of malevolent ones and zeros are not appreciated? Gits.
My principal reservation about the 'bus is the relative ease with which a lateral PIO can be induced on approach, particularly in turbulent conditions. A colleague once put it most succinctly:
"Landing a 767 in a crosswind is like chucking a sack of spuds on the runway but landing an Airbus in similar conditions is akin to w***king an ungrateful pig in a rowing boat"
Quite apt I felt
YS
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Landing a 767 in a crosswind is like chucking a sack of spuds on the runway but landing an Airbus in similar conditions is akin to w***king an ungrateful pig in a rowing boat"
I'm not sure that's a mental image I can cope with on a Sunday night in my living room . . .
I'm not sure that's a mental image I can cope with on a Sunday night in my living room . . .
I'll put you down as a maybe for the minibus command in 10 yrs time Mr B....
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Age: 63
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus
5000+, selling them faster than we can make them, a european success story which would not have happened without the UK, although dominated by mainland Europe Airbus still does have a very important UK part.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever people get up to with pigs in rowing boats I can state from personal experience that all the fbw airbuses, especially the 330, land very nicely in crosswinds if operated correctly. Even by pprune standards there's a lot of tosh here; I'm hoping this includes the quote attributed to the incident pilot about it taking both pilots to get it level. For the benefit of non airbus chaps here, side-stick inputs are algebraically added so such a comment would betray a fundamental lack of understanding.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
While we have some airbus people on here, please excuse a bit of thread drift, but....in the event of a suicidal pilot deciding to dive the thing into the ground, what can the other pilot do? I know there is a little button which says "I have control", but then the other guy simply pushes his button again. You can't even break his arm, since it's on the opposite side of his body. Just asking, I was a Boeing (among others) man.