SAA skids off runway
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: In the hold
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Valley
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nicely noted oompilot, it's amazing how most other people praised the pilots (for going off the runway) in the News24 article. An A330 is a state-of-the art airliner and there shouldn't be any excuse to mess up a landing with it.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: South Africa
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I once again found myself browsing the net in utter boredom and came across another interesting incident. If one where to be consistent it would suffice to say that not only SAA are stocked with outstanding pilots. Take a look at another exhibition of skill.
OPERATION: ISP FLIGHT No.: TU 635 FROM: Monastir TO: Djerba VIA: -
OCCUPANTS:
PAX: 67 CREW: 8
FATALITIES:
PAX: 0 CREW: 0 OTHER: 0
INJURIES:
PAX: 0 CREW: 0 OTHER: 0
DAMAGE TO AIRCRAFT: minor / substantial
On landing runway 09 in darkness and in stormy conditions with gusts peaking at 43 knots, the aircraft veered off the side of the runway where it came to a stop on soft soil. All on board left the A320 unhurt. Damage to the aircraft is believed to be repairable. Djerba Airport was closed for all traffic until weather conditions had improved and the A320 was removed by a towing vehicle.
METAR Djerba: DTTJ 092330Z 35033G43KT 5000 -RA SCT016 BKN023 12/11 Q1004 NOSIG / DTTJ 092230Z 36031G41KT 5000 -RA SCT016 BKN023 12/11 Q1005 NOSIG
(Photo: A. Ouali via Twitpic/AeroTunisie)
OCCUPANTS:
PAX: 67 CREW: 8
FATALITIES:
PAX: 0 CREW: 0 OTHER: 0
INJURIES:
PAX: 0 CREW: 0 OTHER: 0
DAMAGE TO AIRCRAFT: minor / substantial
On landing runway 09 in darkness and in stormy conditions with gusts peaking at 43 knots, the aircraft veered off the side of the runway where it came to a stop on soft soil. All on board left the A320 unhurt. Damage to the aircraft is believed to be repairable. Djerba Airport was closed for all traffic until weather conditions had improved and the A320 was removed by a towing vehicle.
METAR Djerba: DTTJ 092330Z 35033G43KT 5000 -RA SCT016 BKN023 12/11 Q1004 NOSIG / DTTJ 092230Z 36031G41KT 5000 -RA SCT016 BKN023 12/11 Q1005 NOSIG
(Photo: A. Ouali via Twitpic/AeroTunisie)
Está servira para distraerle.
But it is common knowledge that one of the central planks of Airbus philosophy has always been to build an aircraft that fills the niche in markets where training opportunities might be less than average or ideal. (This excludes SAA where the cockpit crew training at least has always been of the highest calibre.) It is for this reason that Airbus machines, unlike Boeings, are designed to be operated rather than flown and all Airbus system logic law derives from the autopilot and consequent artificial feel factors. Is any Airbus designed to be flown by man in such hostile conditions. If the crew were flying the machine then a good job must have been done. In the more unlikely event that the autoland was in operation then it seems remotely possible that Airbus has lived up to its original design standards.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Behind 1480mm RHA equivalent
Posts: 687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Landing 09, with wind given as 350/33G43 and 360/31G41? It doesn't matter what you fly, that's pretty much going to be out of limits in general, and most definitely out of limits for any kind of autoland, Airbus, Boeing, it doesn't matter. So again, A or B, stick inside the limits and SOP's and there you are. If you're within those, and still make a bugger up, well then I guess you're human after all 
Frankly, Airbus or Boeing doesn't really seem to matter I reckon, but then I've only flown Boeings so I can't really tell.
Frankly, Airbus or Boeing doesn't really seem to matter I reckon, but then I've only flown Boeings so I can't really tell.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Holding somewhere.....
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the Airbus 320 FCOM the maximum demonstrated crosswind is 38kts(gust included)
"Airbus recommends that operators should not intentionally operate in crosswinds that exceed this value"
Looks like the 320 guys pushed the boundaries just a little!
Dash431, I pulled this off Avherald.com:
SBGR COR 241900Z 31012G24KT 0900 R27R/0900D R09L/1000D R09R/130 0D R27L/1500D +TSRA SCT010 BKN020CB 21/21 Q1014 WS ALL RWY
"Airbus recommends that operators should not intentionally operate in crosswinds that exceed this value"
Looks like the 320 guys pushed the boundaries just a little!
Dash431, I pulled this off Avherald.com:
SBGR COR 241900Z 31012G24KT 0900 R27R/0900D R09L/1000D R09R/130 0D R27L/1500D +TSRA SCT010 BKN020CB 21/21 Q1014 WS ALL RWY
Last edited by beechbum; 13th Mar 2012 at 10:11.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Valley
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ASN Aircraft accident 24-FEB-2012 Airbus A330-200 ZS-SXY
I don't see why someone needs to be a test pilot or in the jump seat to have a picture of what happened there devinehover...
I don't see why someone needs to be a test pilot or in the jump seat to have a picture of what happened there devinehover...
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somewhere South,Usually North
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dasher 8,the Boss was actually doing the landing as it was a monitored approach. So don't blame the poor FO who is actually quite an experienced fellow himself!
And wrt to Airbus only allowing one stick authority,this is true but an instructor is able to take over by disconnecting the F/o sidestick by depressing the A/P disconnect for a specified time period.
And wrt to Airbus only allowing one stick authority,this is true but an instructor is able to take over by disconnecting the F/o sidestick by depressing the A/P disconnect for a specified time period.
Last edited by Alternative; 14th Mar 2012 at 18:01.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: South Africa
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the advent of cadet schemes fast tracking buffoons not fit for command on a common garden lawnmower one would hope most flights are completed with that Affirmative Pilot, or "AP", button in regular use.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada
Age: 54
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"an instructor is able to take over by disconnecting the F/o sidestick by depressing the A/P disconnect for a specified time period."
Often all that is required at a critical moment is some relatively small input from the instructor and this oppertunity could be lost while waiting for the "specified time period". I guess this will remain a challenge with the increase of low time pilots under training in these modern aircraft.
Often all that is required at a critical moment is some relatively small input from the instructor and this oppertunity could be lost while waiting for the "specified time period". I guess this will remain a challenge with the increase of low time pilots under training in these modern aircraft.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Age: 45
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great statement Dasher 8. Sometimes all it takes is a fraction of a second before the situation gets from worse to 
. Any pilot should be able to assume control by merely reaching for the stick and there you have it. Airbus has to STOP designing pilots out of the cockpit. That only leads to deteriorating stick and rudder skills.
. Any pilot should be able to assume control by merely reaching for the stick and there you have it. Airbus has to STOP designing pilots out of the cockpit. That only leads to deteriorating stick and rudder skills.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Behind 1480mm RHA equivalent
Posts: 687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Er, I think Airbus might have thought of this before. I'm not rated, but as far as I know the stick's can do something like this:
LH pilot flying.
RH pilot wants to take over, presses the override button and immediately gets control.
LH pilot can then do the same, once only. If he takes it back, no more swapping is allowed.
Something like that. The mention of Airbus seems to get everybody all excited about 'designing pilots out', but from what I gather speaking to my international friends, it all boils down to A and B doing something along similar lines anyway nowdays.
LH pilot flying.
RH pilot wants to take over, presses the override button and immediately gets control.
LH pilot can then do the same, once only. If he takes it back, no more swapping is allowed.
Something like that. The mention of Airbus seems to get everybody all excited about 'designing pilots out', but from what I gather speaking to my international friends, it all boils down to A and B doing something along similar lines anyway nowdays.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: RSA
Age: 48
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I disagree with some of you, Shrike200 is in fact 100% correct. On the subject of Airbus, there are two types of pilots: There are pilots who hate Airbus and then there are pilots who understand Airbus.
Boeing and Airbus aircraft are both fantastic and very well designed. Each one has strong and weak points, and it is an enlightening process to debate them. Sao Paulo is a challenging place to fly in and out of (ATC, terrain, weather) and it is a famous place for runway excursions. If you knew the capability, attitude and professionalism of the PIC on that flight as well as the typical conditions at GRU, you'd rather be wondering how an event like that could happen to yourself one day.
In terms of Airbus's fly-by-wire controls:
Firstly, below 100 feet radar altitude the flight control law is "flare mode" which is 99% the same as a conventional aeroplane. The 1% that is not the same is a slight application of forward pitch, forcing the pilot to pitch nose up as he would in a conventional aeroplane. All other control inputs are direct stick-to-control surface movement with no auto-trim. Therefore, it is likely that this incident had nothing to do with the trim feel being removed or the so-called (incorrectly termed) "artificial feel" being there. The aeroplane was behaving, at that phase of operation, as a similar sized, shaped and weighted Boeing or MD would.
Secondly, if the other pilot wishes to make input he just moves his side stick and a voice callout sounds "dual input" in the cockpit. The primary fly-by-wire computes the dual input mathematically. When the input is the same then the output is doubled (up to the max) and when the inputs are opposite and equal to each other then the output is neutral. In addition to this, either pilot may immediately override the other side stick by pushing and holding in the AP disconnect button, without any delay period. This neutralises (disables) the other side-stick instantly.
Here it is from the A330 FCOM:
"Sidestick Priority Logic
When only one pilot operates the sidestick, his demand is sent to the computers. When the other pilot operates his sidestick, in the same or opposite direction, both pilots inputs are algebraically-added. The addition is limited to single-stick maximum deflection.
A pilot can deactivate the other sidestick, and take full control by pressing and keeping pressed his takeover pushbutton. For latching the priority condition, it is recommended that the takeover pushbutton be pressed for more than 40 s. The takeover pushbutton can then be released without losing priority.
However a deactivated sidestick can be reactivated at any time, by momentarily pressing either takeover pushbutton on either stick. If both pilots press their takeover pushbuttons, the last pilot to press their pushbutton will have priority. If an autopilot is engaged, any action on a takeover pushbutton will disengage it.
In a Priority Situation
A red light will come on, in front of the pilot whose stick is deactivated. A green light will come on, in front of the pilot who has taken control, if the other sidestick is not in the neutral position (to indicate a potential and unwanted control demand). If one stick is deactivated on ground, at takeoff thrust application, the takeoff 'CONFIG' warning is triggered."
Boeing and Airbus aircraft are both fantastic and very well designed. Each one has strong and weak points, and it is an enlightening process to debate them. Sao Paulo is a challenging place to fly in and out of (ATC, terrain, weather) and it is a famous place for runway excursions. If you knew the capability, attitude and professionalism of the PIC on that flight as well as the typical conditions at GRU, you'd rather be wondering how an event like that could happen to yourself one day.
In terms of Airbus's fly-by-wire controls:
Firstly, below 100 feet radar altitude the flight control law is "flare mode" which is 99% the same as a conventional aeroplane. The 1% that is not the same is a slight application of forward pitch, forcing the pilot to pitch nose up as he would in a conventional aeroplane. All other control inputs are direct stick-to-control surface movement with no auto-trim. Therefore, it is likely that this incident had nothing to do with the trim feel being removed or the so-called (incorrectly termed) "artificial feel" being there. The aeroplane was behaving, at that phase of operation, as a similar sized, shaped and weighted Boeing or MD would.
Secondly, if the other pilot wishes to make input he just moves his side stick and a voice callout sounds "dual input" in the cockpit. The primary fly-by-wire computes the dual input mathematically. When the input is the same then the output is doubled (up to the max) and when the inputs are opposite and equal to each other then the output is neutral. In addition to this, either pilot may immediately override the other side stick by pushing and holding in the AP disconnect button, without any delay period. This neutralises (disables) the other side-stick instantly.
Here it is from the A330 FCOM:
"Sidestick Priority Logic
When only one pilot operates the sidestick, his demand is sent to the computers. When the other pilot operates his sidestick, in the same or opposite direction, both pilots inputs are algebraically-added. The addition is limited to single-stick maximum deflection.
A pilot can deactivate the other sidestick, and take full control by pressing and keeping pressed his takeover pushbutton. For latching the priority condition, it is recommended that the takeover pushbutton be pressed for more than 40 s. The takeover pushbutton can then be released without losing priority.
However a deactivated sidestick can be reactivated at any time, by momentarily pressing either takeover pushbutton on either stick. If both pilots press their takeover pushbuttons, the last pilot to press their pushbutton will have priority. If an autopilot is engaged, any action on a takeover pushbutton will disengage it.
In a Priority Situation
A red light will come on, in front of the pilot whose stick is deactivated. A green light will come on, in front of the pilot who has taken control, if the other sidestick is not in the neutral position (to indicate a potential and unwanted control demand). If one stick is deactivated on ground, at takeoff thrust application, the takeoff 'CONFIG' warning is triggered."
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Front right seat
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You would swear Airbus's were falling out the sky on a daily bases the way some of you are carrying on.
As for the pearls of wisdom about the side stick and instruction. Both the Capt and F/O have thousands (probably 12 000-15 000 between them) of hours on Airbus aircraft. When you are busy with a A330 CCQ no one is trying to teach you how to land. You figured that out about 10 000hrs ago. Don't confuse C172 instruction with a wide body CCQ. The only teaching going on would have been about the management of a twin long range operation vs a quad long range operation. So I think everyone can calm down regarding the side stick issue. It isn't an issue and hasn't been for 20 yrs.
As for the pearls of wisdom about the side stick and instruction. Both the Capt and F/O have thousands (probably 12 000-15 000 between them) of hours on Airbus aircraft. When you are busy with a A330 CCQ no one is trying to teach you how to land. You figured that out about 10 000hrs ago. Don't confuse C172 instruction with a wide body CCQ. The only teaching going on would have been about the management of a twin long range operation vs a quad long range operation. So I think everyone can calm down regarding the side stick issue. It isn't an issue and hasn't been for 20 yrs.