Airbus technology defects
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A330 Flight Test Crash
It's been a long time since I read about that one in Aviation Leak (week), but wasn't stall protection disabled in Flight Level Change mode, or whatever it was called? What kind of a design problem was that? How deep into the software was that hidden?
As you all must know better than me, the A-320 Air Inter was a failure called modality: the same knob selected glide path angle in degrees and tenths, or rate of descent in thousands and hundreds. Did a real pilot design these things?
Like an old 727 driver told me, "Sometimes I WANT to hurt that airplane, if that will save it."
GB
As you all must know better than me, the A-320 Air Inter was a failure called modality: the same knob selected glide path angle in degrees and tenths, or rate of descent in thousands and hundreds. Did a real pilot design these things?
Like an old 727 driver told me, "Sometimes I WANT to hurt that airplane, if that will save it."
GB
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You be the judge, but the 707 was a known quantity with regard to rudder hardovers...for quite a long time.
And, the result was, shall we say, not good.
And, the result was, shall we say, not good.
08/28/1973 21:50
LOCATION: Thirty-five miles west of Los Angeles, California
CARRIER: Trans World Airlines FLIGHT:
AIRCRAFT: Boeing B-707-331B
REGISTRY: N8705T S/N: 18916/455
ABOARD: 152 FATAL: 1 GROUND:
DETAILS: The plane porpoised while descending to LAX. The
aircraft was subjected to 2 minutes of peak acceleration forces of 2.4
g A combination of design tolerances in the aircraft's longitudinal
control system which, under certain conditions, produced a critical
relationship between control forces and aircraft response.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: France/Africa
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On Norbert Jacquet’s website, we can find a page pointing out that the Airbus 320 would be much more dangerous than the Boeing 737 NG (-600 to -900).
Here : http://jacno.com/am5300.htm (May, 5th 2006).
Extracts :
On this same Norbert Jacquet’s page, there is a link towards a page confirming that Bernard Ziegler, father of the “Airbus technology”, in 1961 cut a teleferic cable with his plane ( http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...872735,00.html ).
Was Bernard Ziegler the right man to conceive the Airbus cockpits?
What can we think about the differences on the crashes’ rates for the A 320 and the B 737 NG? (the B 737 NG fleet is 40% inferior to the A 320’s one)?
Here : http://jacno.com/am5300.htm (May, 5th 2006).
Extracts :
… Referring to the ICAO standards to define the terms of an accidents :
- Airbus 320 : fourteen accidents (including two on the ground, out of operation, that we have to deduce),
- Boeing 737 -600/700/800/900 : none or one accident (There is a debate on the December, 8th 2005 Chicago 737-700 crash, in which we deplore no wounded or dead people in the aircraft. The plane, lightly damaged, will fly again, if not already done).
…
- Airbus 320 : fourteen accidents (including two on the ground, out of operation, that we have to deduce),
- Boeing 737 -600/700/800/900 : none or one accident (There is a debate on the December, 8th 2005 Chicago 737-700 crash, in which we deplore no wounded or dead people in the aircraft. The plane, lightly damaged, will fly again, if not already done).
…
Was Bernard Ziegler the right man to conceive the Airbus cockpits?
What can we think about the differences on the crashes’ rates for the A 320 and the B 737 NG? (the B 737 NG fleet is 40% inferior to the A 320’s one)?
Last edited by the shrimp; 15th Dec 2006 at 09:27. Reason: Time's URL changed
Ladies and gentlemen, before we return this thread on its tracks, I'd like to give my comments on some accidents mentioned here.
Regarding the Roselawn ATR-72 crash: there were two accident reports, one by NTSB and another by its French counterpart, BEA. They were pretty much the same in their factual information and analysis sections, but they differed wildly when it came to probable causes. NTSB blamed the airplane designers and inadeqate regulatory oversight during ATR certification. BEA accused the flightcrew of being negligent for continuing the flight in icing conditions when there were escape routes available. So who got it right? No one - both were seriously wrong.
NTSB claimed that ATR knew that their airplanes' ailerons are prone to hinge moment reversal, especially with ice contamination, and should have been redesigned. Problem is that aileron moment reversal on uncontaminated wing occurs at 26° AoA - deep into stall so it was considered to be a non-issue. Another problem is that atypical icing over Roselawn was caused by supercooled large droplets (SLD). At the time of crash, they were largely unknown fenomenon outside some narrow meteorological circles and even worse, they cannot be created by water spray tankers during icing certification. So ATR and DGAC sprayed and sprayed and sprayed ATRs from tankers and never had problems with ailerons. Also SLD tend not to create large ice deposits on leading edges, they flow chordwise and then freeze. Lack of ice on leading edges can lead one to conclude he's flying through light icing, while ice builds up out of sight.
However, it's absolutely wrong to blame our deceased coleagues for improper operation of their ATR. Sad fact is that they were faced with unknown phenomenon and so became test pilots without ever realizing it. While their actions preceeding loss of control were somewhat unusual, they were far from unreasonable. They did turn on de-icing level 3 (i.e. boots) but were never concerned about icing because there was not much ice on the airplane. Also there was argument that 'since it brought down the airplane, icing was severe'. Well gents, if ATR had powered ailerons, or if they were better designed, if there were brazilia or SF 340 instead of ATR, pax and crew would land happily at KORD and SLDs would be still be unheard of. Biggger de-icing boots, ice evidence probe, increased speeds for tkof/ldg, stick shaker that fires earlier with anti-ice turned on and whole bunch of procedures for dealing with icing are all legacy of Roselawn. It's very improper to chastize the crew for not adhering to procedures that were developed as result of their mishap.
Back to airbus. Halbsheim flypast. Airplane was too low. Then it was too slow. On the top of it, idle thrust comes into equation (comanded, not as result of failure). I apologise for not having the nerve to explain why flying low and slow can be health damaging with any airplane.
Strasbourg crash was caused by misseting 3300 fpm instead of 3.3 degree flight path on FCU (that's autopilot control panel in airbusspeak). FCU has been redesigned since to prevent similar occurences, and i don't know whether it was designed by real pilot, but by my definition, real pilot always check if the autopilot does what it's commanded. With the speed they had, they shouldn't have descended with more than 1000 fpm and they hit 3300. Also PFD have shown unusal nose down attitude, yet they missed all the clues and there was no GPWS to save them.
Belle Harbor crash wasn't caused by excessive rudder deflection. Yes, rudder has some design issues but what tore off the tail was rapid rudder reversals. For the time being, they seem to be commanded and not caused by control unit failure. For those unimformed: you never, ever cycle any of your flight controls rapidly during flight - dangers involved are: PIO, control failure or even airframe failure. So this crash wasn't really type specific.
Toulouse A330 crah is here: I'd just like to add that there are claims that crew went out flying after long day in the office, so fatigue could also be the issue.
Regarding the Gibson dive: crew was blamed for trying to fly with flaps extended and slats retracred, to improve cruise performance. Couple of years later test flight in this configuration was atttempted to prove the theory but it only disproved it, as so rigged 727 was unable to climb to high twenties, let alone cruise above FL300. This claim comes from Stanley Stewart, and while I couldn't verify it, I wouldn't mark mr. Stewart as unreliable source.
To sum it up: FBW or no FBW it's still subject to aerodinamic forces and gravity like any other airplane. I'll just repeat what wileydog3 said: "do the same thing with the 'bus as with any other airplane.. play to the strengths, respect the weaknesses".
Regarding the Roselawn ATR-72 crash: there were two accident reports, one by NTSB and another by its French counterpart, BEA. They were pretty much the same in their factual information and analysis sections, but they differed wildly when it came to probable causes. NTSB blamed the airplane designers and inadeqate regulatory oversight during ATR certification. BEA accused the flightcrew of being negligent for continuing the flight in icing conditions when there were escape routes available. So who got it right? No one - both were seriously wrong.
NTSB claimed that ATR knew that their airplanes' ailerons are prone to hinge moment reversal, especially with ice contamination, and should have been redesigned. Problem is that aileron moment reversal on uncontaminated wing occurs at 26° AoA - deep into stall so it was considered to be a non-issue. Another problem is that atypical icing over Roselawn was caused by supercooled large droplets (SLD). At the time of crash, they were largely unknown fenomenon outside some narrow meteorological circles and even worse, they cannot be created by water spray tankers during icing certification. So ATR and DGAC sprayed and sprayed and sprayed ATRs from tankers and never had problems with ailerons. Also SLD tend not to create large ice deposits on leading edges, they flow chordwise and then freeze. Lack of ice on leading edges can lead one to conclude he's flying through light icing, while ice builds up out of sight.
However, it's absolutely wrong to blame our deceased coleagues for improper operation of their ATR. Sad fact is that they were faced with unknown phenomenon and so became test pilots without ever realizing it. While their actions preceeding loss of control were somewhat unusual, they were far from unreasonable. They did turn on de-icing level 3 (i.e. boots) but were never concerned about icing because there was not much ice on the airplane. Also there was argument that 'since it brought down the airplane, icing was severe'. Well gents, if ATR had powered ailerons, or if they were better designed, if there were brazilia or SF 340 instead of ATR, pax and crew would land happily at KORD and SLDs would be still be unheard of. Biggger de-icing boots, ice evidence probe, increased speeds for tkof/ldg, stick shaker that fires earlier with anti-ice turned on and whole bunch of procedures for dealing with icing are all legacy of Roselawn. It's very improper to chastize the crew for not adhering to procedures that were developed as result of their mishap.
Back to airbus. Halbsheim flypast. Airplane was too low. Then it was too slow. On the top of it, idle thrust comes into equation (comanded, not as result of failure). I apologise for not having the nerve to explain why flying low and slow can be health damaging with any airplane.
Strasbourg crash was caused by misseting 3300 fpm instead of 3.3 degree flight path on FCU (that's autopilot control panel in airbusspeak). FCU has been redesigned since to prevent similar occurences, and i don't know whether it was designed by real pilot, but by my definition, real pilot always check if the autopilot does what it's commanded. With the speed they had, they shouldn't have descended with more than 1000 fpm and they hit 3300. Also PFD have shown unusal nose down attitude, yet they missed all the clues and there was no GPWS to save them.
Belle Harbor crash wasn't caused by excessive rudder deflection. Yes, rudder has some design issues but what tore off the tail was rapid rudder reversals. For the time being, they seem to be commanded and not caused by control unit failure. For those unimformed: you never, ever cycle any of your flight controls rapidly during flight - dangers involved are: PIO, control failure or even airframe failure. So this crash wasn't really type specific.
Toulouse A330 crah is here: I'd just like to add that there are claims that crew went out flying after long day in the office, so fatigue could also be the issue.
Regarding the Gibson dive: crew was blamed for trying to fly with flaps extended and slats retracred, to improve cruise performance. Couple of years later test flight in this configuration was atttempted to prove the theory but it only disproved it, as so rigged 727 was unable to climb to high twenties, let alone cruise above FL300. This claim comes from Stanley Stewart, and while I couldn't verify it, I wouldn't mark mr. Stewart as unreliable source.
To sum it up: FBW or no FBW it's still subject to aerodinamic forces and gravity like any other airplane. I'll just repeat what wileydog3 said: "do the same thing with the 'bus as with any other airplane.. play to the strengths, respect the weaknesses".
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strasbourg crash was caused by misseting 3300 fpm instead of 3.3 degree flight path on FCU (that's autopilot control panel in airbusspeak). FCU has been redesigned since to prevent similar occurences, and i don't know whether it was designed by real pilot, but by my definition, real pilot always check if the autopilot does what it's commanded.
I was an aviation nut long before I became a computer geek though, and in those terms I think that the introduction of the A320 and its brethren were similar to the Comet in the way that they were guinea pigs for a new level of aviation technology. Boeing admitted in the '50s that were it not for the Comet, it's likely that the 707 would have suffered similar problems. This is why I think a lot of the AvB argument is pointless. As a software guy, I can understand the frustration of having a layer of abstraction between the nuts and bolts and their human controller, and I can understand the worry that some pilots had of being rendered superfluous by the new technology. But it was and remains an unfounded fear, because there are no fewer flight deck crew on an A320/30/40 than on a modern Boeing.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,904
Received 2,834 Likes
on
1,210 Posts
I did hear a strong rumour the probs with the A380 is the horizontal stab test strain gauges are off the clock and they have tried to beef up the stab, but that has thrown the weight and balance out.......... anyone else heard this?, curiously someone else has mentioned there are 380's parked outside at Tolouse minus the backends? again anyone heard this or seen them?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Far and Height
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On Norbert Jacquet’s website, we can find a page pointing out that the Airbus 320 would be much more dangerous than the Boeing 737 NG (-600 to -900).
Here : http://jacno.com/am5300.htm (May, 5th 2006).
Extracts :
On this same Norbert Jacquet’s page, there is a link towards a page confirming that Bernard Ziegler, father of the “Airbus technology”, in 1961 cut a teleferic cable with his plane ( http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/maga...872735,00.html ).
Was Bernard Ziegler the right man to conceive the Airbus cockpits?
What can we think about the differences on the crashes’ rates for the A 320 and the B 737 NG? (the B 737 NG fleet is 40% inferior to the A 320’s one)?
Here : http://jacno.com/am5300.htm (May, 5th 2006).
Extracts :
On this same Norbert Jacquet’s page, there is a link towards a page confirming that Bernard Ziegler, father of the “Airbus technology”, in 1961 cut a teleferic cable with his plane ( http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/maga...872735,00.html ).
Was Bernard Ziegler the right man to conceive the Airbus cockpits?
What can we think about the differences on the crashes’ rates for the A 320 and the B 737 NG? (the B 737 NG fleet is 40% inferior to the A 320’s one)?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: OZ
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
319 Beer Ad
Back to the general thread I hope.
Most of us have probably seen the bouncing 319 beer ad so there is no need to post it.
Whilst we could debate it's credibility, I'd suggest and have read it's caused by a dual radalt fault which results in a 'normal' out of range signal comming from the radalts antennas caused by possible water ingress.
Accepting this is possible, then the normal pitch law does not transition to flare law at 100 feet and reverse & spoilers are locked out until either sufficient ground speed or main gear time on ground is achieved. Likewise if the speed decays to Alpha floor, before the aircraft knows its on the ground, then Alpha Lock is activated and TOGA is commanded unless the Autothrust instinctive disconnect is held for 15 seconds prior to this occuring.
As an operator my company SoP's call "RadAlt Alive" at 2500, is this standard with other companies and is it generally recognized that should the Radalt indication not appear then it's a lot more significant than such a failure on the other Brand of A/C.
This could probably be in Technical but seems to follow this thread?
Recall an old story of an Ansett 320 doing "Auto" go-arounds possibly due to Alpha floor activation and we had a Foreign A330 Radalt incident about 5 years ago in Melbourne. Does anyone know of other instances?
Most of us have probably seen the bouncing 319 beer ad so there is no need to post it.
Whilst we could debate it's credibility, I'd suggest and have read it's caused by a dual radalt fault which results in a 'normal' out of range signal comming from the radalts antennas caused by possible water ingress.
Accepting this is possible, then the normal pitch law does not transition to flare law at 100 feet and reverse & spoilers are locked out until either sufficient ground speed or main gear time on ground is achieved. Likewise if the speed decays to Alpha floor, before the aircraft knows its on the ground, then Alpha Lock is activated and TOGA is commanded unless the Autothrust instinctive disconnect is held for 15 seconds prior to this occuring.
As an operator my company SoP's call "RadAlt Alive" at 2500, is this standard with other companies and is it generally recognized that should the Radalt indication not appear then it's a lot more significant than such a failure on the other Brand of A/C.
This could probably be in Technical but seems to follow this thread?
Recall an old story of an Ansett 320 doing "Auto" go-arounds possibly due to Alpha floor activation and we had a Foreign A330 Radalt incident about 5 years ago in Melbourne. Does anyone know of other instances?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Heineken beer advertisement featured a model aircraft, nothing about that advertisement comes close to reality. Are you this gullible to other advertisements produced by beer companies ?
Rad alt failure on a 777 will not do wonders for an autoland either. No aircraft I am aware of that is currently in production can do an autoland or low visibility approach to a DH without a rad alt.
My but aren't we a little condescending. The "Rad Alt Alive" call is for more than just low visibility operations. It is a situational awareness call, as a reminder to the crew that they are approaching the ground. Anyone worth their salt should be verifying that the call is coming at the expected time and place, and not at a point where it is unexpected, thus being a possible indicator that they are much closer to terra firma than they think.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: OZ
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Load of bollocks???
Sorry Zeke,
I should have known not try and be tech on this forum..... but now I've started.
Yes, Dual Radalt Failure gives Direct Law on gear down, autopilot disco... no argument.
There are known cases though where water ingestion at the radalt antenna has resulted in a no return signal. ie the A/C doesn't know the RadAlt has failed and so will not recognize the Dual RadAlt fault.
Along a similar line I've had a Radalt ramp up whilst cruising at FL330 and RA1(Amber) took over both sides indicating -5 feet and a host of ECAMS.... it's just a machine and will always find new ways to break.
If you believe that fine, I hope you never find yourself in such a situation.
Anyone with something constructive to add it would be appreciated.
Flamers move on thanks.
Sorry should have said FLARE MODE at 100' not law.... pedantics count?
I should have known not try and be tech on this forum..... but now I've started.
Yes, Dual Radalt Failure gives Direct Law on gear down, autopilot disco... no argument.
There are known cases though where water ingestion at the radalt antenna has resulted in a no return signal. ie the A/C doesn't know the RadAlt has failed and so will not recognize the Dual RadAlt fault.
Along a similar line I've had a Radalt ramp up whilst cruising at FL330 and RA1(Amber) took over both sides indicating -5 feet and a host of ECAMS.... it's just a machine and will always find new ways to break.
The Heineken beer advertisement featured a model aircraft
Anyone with something constructive to add it would be appreciated.
Flamers move on thanks.
Sorry should have said FLARE MODE at 100' not law.... pedantics count?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As they say on that other site it is "AIRBUS A319 BUMPY LANDING - (TELEVISION COMMERCIAL FOR HEINIKEN) - TRICK AVIATION VIDEOGRAPHY"
The first part of the advertisement shows a real aircraft, just after the "cabin crew prepare for landing" it cuts to the fake video.
If you were to review the landing you would notice that none of the gear struts compress, no thrust reversers or spoilers, no strobes or landing lights.
Just after passing the control tower in the background and saying "captain speaking" you will see where they morph the model back to a shot of a real aircraft. You will notice after the morph the spoilers are deployed.
I would like to nominate you for the most gullible ppruner of the year.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: OZ
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK Zeke, what ever, I was looking for discussion not abuse.
Has anyone else had any experiences with passive Radalt failures or anything constructive to add?
I'm on the A330, suspect laws are similar but I don't know!
Is wheel speed (>72kts) an OR logic question and what constitutes an on ground LGCIU signal for the engines (FADEC) on the 319?
Has anyone else had any experiences with passive Radalt failures or anything constructive to add?
I'm on the A330, suspect laws are similar but I don't know!
Is wheel speed (>72kts) an OR logic question and what constitutes an on ground LGCIU signal for the engines (FADEC) on the 319?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radalt Failures
The radio altimteter was designed as a landing aid, and has been adapted for uses beyond, such as GPWS. The signal bounced from the ground gets weaker with the square of the distance, so funny things can happen. Other aircraft, and even heavy rain clouds can reflect the signal, giving a false lockon with a perfectly operating system. Ice without a wet surface is nearly invisible to it, however. Since you are using a computer, you are conversant with speeds/frequencies. The radalt sends and receives on 4.35 GHz, +/- 100 MHz, Frequency Modulated, Continuous Wave.
Most radalt installation failures are due to such simple things as corrosion between the antennas and the fuselage, and coaxial connector fittings at the back of the transceiver mounting tray. Symptoms are almost always a lock onto a false signal at altitude, where the ground return signal is weak, and therefore the transceiver reception is at full volume. Back below 300', most quirks disappear, making them difficult for Sparky to confirm.
I spent a month one week in Auk chasing authrottle retards as 250' on a fleet of 747-200. The pilots were concerned, of course... Lack of electrical bonding between the radalt antennas and the flame sprayed belly panels, and a signal switching inside the radalt at 250' conspired to cause one radalt to go to near 0 feet briefly, triggering A/T retard.
Every radalt anomaly should be reported to maintenance, before it gets worse. Since it is a vital part of a Cat IIIb Autoland system, any altitude indication higher than correct should be reported to authorities.
For dual autoland, of course, at least two radalts must be operating and indicating near identical altitude. Glideslope signal is washed out of the autoland equation by 50', as the radalt indication has been brought in. Below about 40', in widebodies at least, the approach is ballistic.
GB
Most radalt installation failures are due to such simple things as corrosion between the antennas and the fuselage, and coaxial connector fittings at the back of the transceiver mounting tray. Symptoms are almost always a lock onto a false signal at altitude, where the ground return signal is weak, and therefore the transceiver reception is at full volume. Back below 300', most quirks disappear, making them difficult for Sparky to confirm.
I spent a month one week in Auk chasing authrottle retards as 250' on a fleet of 747-200. The pilots were concerned, of course... Lack of electrical bonding between the radalt antennas and the flame sprayed belly panels, and a signal switching inside the radalt at 250' conspired to cause one radalt to go to near 0 feet briefly, triggering A/T retard.
Every radalt anomaly should be reported to maintenance, before it gets worse. Since it is a vital part of a Cat IIIb Autoland system, any altitude indication higher than correct should be reported to authorities.
For dual autoland, of course, at least two radalts must be operating and indicating near identical altitude. Glideslope signal is washed out of the autoland equation by 50', as the radalt indication has been brought in. Below about 40', in widebodies at least, the approach is ballistic.
GB
AustralianMade
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Out in the weather!
Age: 54
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WAGM
Hi WAGM,
I see that you're a new prooner so you may not know, posters here tend to say exactly what they think ...
Mate regarding the Heineken Beer ad, all I have ever heard on any forums worldwide, is that it is a fake (it certainly looks like a fake and Zeke's breakdown of it fits perfectly) so, I wonder ...
a) are you giving us the wind-up?
or
b) has somebody been giving you the wind-up? (You know, your captain flaming the new guy a little?)
Don't know, only guessing.
In any case I wish you a long and happy association with proone.
Cheers,
ABX
I see that you're a new prooner so you may not know, posters here tend to say exactly what they think ...
Mate regarding the Heineken Beer ad, all I have ever heard on any forums worldwide, is that it is a fake (it certainly looks like a fake and Zeke's breakdown of it fits perfectly) so, I wonder ...
a) are you giving us the wind-up?
or
b) has somebody been giving you the wind-up? (You know, your captain flaming the new guy a little?)
Don't know, only guessing.
In any case I wish you a long and happy association with proone.
Cheers,
ABX
Last edited by ABX; 14th Dec 2006 at 22:20. Reason: Spleling
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: OZ
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greybeard, ABX,
Thank you for a reasonable reply.
No, this is not a wind up and I don't believe I've been wound either.
This link;
Aviation Safety Investigation Report - Final Airbus A330-341, PK-GPC
or this link;
www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2001/AAIR/aair200104399.aspx
report and my own experience with radalt failure got me interested in the area and made me wonder if just perhaps at least some of that video was based on fact. I believe it would be lazy or stupid just to dismiss it as a fake because that's what was the view of someone else with no specific credentials.
Perhaps there is a PPruner who was involved if the original footage or alternatly the construction of a the fake?
Thank you for a reasonable reply.
No, this is not a wind up and I don't believe I've been wound either.
This link;
Aviation Safety Investigation Report - Final Airbus A330-341, PK-GPC
or this link;
www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2001/AAIR/aair200104399.aspx
report and my own experience with radalt failure got me interested in the area and made me wonder if just perhaps at least some of that video was based on fact. I believe it would be lazy or stupid just to dismiss it as a fake because that's what was the view of someone else with no specific credentials.
Perhaps there is a PPruner who was involved if the original footage or alternatly the construction of a the fake?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: No. Cal, USA
Age: 72
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The radio altimteter was designed as a landing aid, and has been adapted for uses beyond, such as GPWS. The signal bounced from the ground gets weaker with the square of the distance, so funny things can happen.
Which, of course, makes your comment all the more relevent.
AustralianMade
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Out in the weather!
Age: 54
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WAGM & Zeke
I ask as someone who has little knowledge of this a/c.
Does the A319 (I assume it is a A319 in the Heineken ad?) have brakes on the nose wheel?
I ask because in the beer ad the FLG brakes lock and the wheels smoke, yet the mains do not.
Maybe someone can tell me?
Cheers,
ABX
Ps. I remain to be convinced that the ad is real and tend to believe Zeke's description earlier.
Does the A319 (I assume it is a A319 in the Heineken ad?) have brakes on the nose wheel?
I ask because in the beer ad the FLG brakes lock and the wheels smoke, yet the mains do not.
Maybe someone can tell me?
Cheers,
ABX
Ps. I remain to be convinced that the ad is real and tend to believe Zeke's description earlier.
Last edited by ABX; 2nd Dec 2006 at 02:07. Reason: To remove a redundant word.