Iced AoA sensors send A321 into deep dive
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NoD.
So apart from the cost, it would be good?
But because of the cost, better not to bother?
So apart from the cost, it would be good?
But because of the cost, better not to bother?
- Make pilots do 3 Sim Checks each month
- Have 4 pilots on every flight
- Only do 1 flight per day (for pilots), and practice the profile first in the sim
- Carry 5T extra fuel
- Not fly if CBs were forecast, or winds were over 20K
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhhh, Nigel. Sounds lovely!
Fair enough, there's a lot of these a/c around, and a retrofit of linked controls would be huge.......
But there's really no excuse for continuing to turn them out this way apart from commonality. If Grumman can link the things on the latest Gulfstream, why can't it be done on an A380?
Really, it's doable these days, and it ought to be done.
Fair enough, there's a lot of these a/c around, and a retrofit of linked controls would be huge.......
But there's really no excuse for continuing to turn them out this way apart from commonality. If Grumman can link the things on the latest Gulfstream, why can't it be done on an A380?
Really, it's doable these days, and it ought to be done.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But then commonality is the big issue with airbus. All their aircraft are pretty similar set up and mixed fleet flying is possible between pretty much every combination of aircraft. Even stronger is the connection between the newest aircraft and the second oldest FBW airbus, both share the same typerating (A330/A350) and can and are flown in a MFF operation with the A320 series.
And yes, it might sound glib, but the numbers seem to prove airbus right. All in all they are not less safe than their boeing counterparts.
Control linkage in all probability would have to be done electronically via force feedback, which includes a lot of stuff, like redundant electronic signaling, servos and so on, it is of course possible, but would change the very fundament of the airbus flightdeck philosophy. So i guess it won't be done.
And yes, it might sound glib, but the numbers seem to prove airbus right. All in all they are not less safe than their boeing counterparts.
Control linkage in all probability would have to be done electronically via force feedback, which includes a lot of stuff, like redundant electronic signaling, servos and so on, it is of course possible, but would change the very fundament of the airbus flightdeck philosophy. So i guess it won't be done.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Control linkage in all probability would have to be done electronically via force feedback,
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: In a Pineapple Under the Sea
Age: 61
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instead of redesigning and re-certifying the aircraft with linked controls - what about a software update to provide an audible warning or alert when there are conflicting inputs? Wouldn't that be a relatively easy software fix?
"Warning - the guy in the other seat is doing something different - one of you needs to stop . . . "
"Warning - the guy in the other seat is doing something different - one of you needs to stop . . . "
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Not so. C-17, 777, 787, 747-8 all have mechanically interlinked controls with FBW. But none have side sticks.
Control linkage in all probability would have to be done electronically via force feedback,
Would be interesting to know if the C17 sticks are mechanically linked or electrically.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would be interesting to know if the C17 sticks are mechanically linked or electrically.
expert says investigators link A320 to A321
When asked what are the potential causes of the A320 accident an aviation expert on Australian TV tonight said investigators will "focus" on the sensors.
He then went on to talk about the A321 accident
He did not talk of any other potential causes.
But surely the A320 pilots, with 8 minutes up their sleeve, could see they were descending and do something to override the computer?
Mickjoebill
He then went on to talk about the A321 accident
He did not talk of any other potential causes.
But surely the A320 pilots, with 8 minutes up their sleeve, could see they were descending and do something to override the computer?
Mickjoebill
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That belongs in the other thread, but yes. Especially as OEB 48 raised the awareness quite a lot about sensor/computer pitfalls.
@vapilot thanks for the information.
@vapilot thanks for the information.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ref the c-17, individuals need to remember that the jet was designed for a non permissive environment, the jet has 14 hydraulic pumps for example! You can maintain some very basic control with just one of those pumps.
The wires don't physically connect to controls, they simply control a shuttle valve in the hydraulic control units.
Great jet to fly though. Went back to non fbw and it's worse than the c-17 reversionary mode!
The wires don't physically connect to controls, they simply control a shuttle valve in the hydraulic control units.
Great jet to fly though. Went back to non fbw and it's worse than the c-17 reversionary mode!
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Miles from where I want to be.
Age: 39
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Give us some credit mate. We do practice it in the sim and a vast majority can fly it just fine in direct law. Remember most failures we practice wil often result in direct law once the gear is down! Pitch power and trim. Just because we fly Airbus doesn't mean we don't know the basics.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Wherever I want to be
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many Bus fvkups due those probes do we need before the probe prob is fixed or the software is fixed to cope (or the pilots are trained to cope with it)?
Check out that OEB on how one can protect oneself from the Low AoA 'Protection', and then tell me BOEING have issued a similar directive and I'll never knock the L'Airbus company again.
Airbus 'protections'? Ha. They will try their best to kill you given the chance.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Phuket
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem
The problem is not with Airbus. If there is a market then someone will make money supplying the market. There is a shortage of highly trained pilots with experience. The bean counters know it it way too expensive to hire them so they move toward a cadet who gets 200 hours in a single with checklist use and CRM thrown in. Sometimes with verbiage geared to a specific airline then thrown into a right seat of a 330. Taught to use autopilot and FMS extensively there he sits for ten years. Moves to left seat and never really mastering the visual aproach from a downwind. He is not below standard. However the standards have lowered and automation enables this to happen. The odds of this pilot EVER getting into a situation that he has never seen in a sim is rather remote. The insurance companies know this, so do the bean counters. He may never really need to fly the thing. Ever. Personally I would not want to pull back on the stick to arrest a nose down attitude and have no affect but hey, the machine is smarter than me.....right?
No sir, the problem is not with Airbus...
No sir, the problem is not with Airbus...
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hampshire physically; Perthshire and Pembrokeshire mentally.
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing:
The Habsheim A320 protected the aircraft too. The system knew better than the pilots then.l So it (the system) landed the aircraft against the pilots wishes !!! Protections ??? Yeh sure.
The aircraft was below 100ft so the A-FLOOR protection was not active and the engines in any case would probably still have taken too long to spool-up and provide the thrust to avoid the trees. The pilot was flying at 30ft instead of the briefed 100ft
What about the A320 that crashed into the Mediterranean with 3 airbus test pilots on board?
They omitted an item on the Air Test Schedule, as I recall, and didn't want to climb back up to the recommended safe altitude to carry it out so they checked the low-speed protections at an unsafe altitude (3000ft) with tragic consequences when they AoA probes froze due to water ingress. Had they been at 14,000ft which is, I believe, the recommended altitude for the check they would probably have recovered from the stall.
The Habsheim A320 protected the aircraft too. The system knew better than the pilots then.l So it (the system) landed the aircraft against the pilots wishes !!! Protections ??? Yeh sure.
The aircraft was below 100ft so the A-FLOOR protection was not active and the engines in any case would probably still have taken too long to spool-up and provide the thrust to avoid the trees. The pilot was flying at 30ft instead of the briefed 100ft
What about the A320 that crashed into the Mediterranean with 3 airbus test pilots on board?
They omitted an item on the Air Test Schedule, as I recall, and didn't want to climb back up to the recommended safe altitude to carry it out so they checked the low-speed protections at an unsafe altitude (3000ft) with tragic consequences when they AoA probes froze due to water ingress. Had they been at 14,000ft which is, I believe, the recommended altitude for the check they would probably have recovered from the stall.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Weston-Super-Mare
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Conjoint controls
If as suggested, the current situation where the joysticks are not linked is not considered to be the safest technical solution, then how was an ALARP argument arrived at?
