Armenian A320 crash whilst attempting to land in bad weather
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Glorious West Sussex
Age: 76
Posts: 1,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centaurus, you are correct; if you point an airliner at the ground it will hit it, especially if you start at a height of "around 920 ft" (Flight magazine reporting the Russian transport ministry). Mind you, I don't recall saying that the A320 is "foolproof" - any fool can crash an aircraft and several fools have proved it in A320's...
A4 ..
"The alpha lock function is only active with the flap lever at position 1".
Not quite.. that would mean that if you move the lever Alpha Lock does not apply! When the fool moves the lever, that's when we need alpha lock...
TP
A4 ..
"The alpha lock function is only active with the flap lever at position 1".
Not quite.. that would mean that if you move the lever Alpha Lock does not apply! When the fool moves the lever, that's when we need alpha lock...
TP
Ut Sementem Feeceris
OK Tyro...semantics. The point I was trying to get across is that once the slats are travelling (from 1 to 0), the Alpha lock function WILL NOT stop them if you pitch up sharply and exceed the AoA parameter. Once the flap lever is at 0 and you are below the trigger parameters, you will not get alpha lock back if you re-exceed those parameters.
A4
A4
Centaurus
Keep barking up that tree!
I've flown the aircraft involved in the crash and I don't believe it was originally kitted out with the Flight Director upgrade that has them automatically reinstated on go around.
Somato gravic illusion, PFD speed tape confusion, an inability to confidently reinstate automatics after taking them out to correct an 'ugly' approach and a nose low TOGA go around due poor IF skills- can be a problem combined and I suspect are, the very reason Airbus modified the FD's in the first.
I have seen it twice. I have also watched the GF crash in QAR style presentation and suspect similar.
Can anybody confirm if the aircraft had the CPIP Flight Director upgrade post-Ansett?
Keep barking up that tree!
I've flown the aircraft involved in the crash and I don't believe it was originally kitted out with the Flight Director upgrade that has them automatically reinstated on go around.
Somato gravic illusion, PFD speed tape confusion, an inability to confidently reinstate automatics after taking them out to correct an 'ugly' approach and a nose low TOGA go around due poor IF skills- can be a problem combined and I suspect are, the very reason Airbus modified the FD's in the first.
I have seen it twice. I have also watched the GF crash in QAR style presentation and suspect similar.
Can anybody confirm if the aircraft had the CPIP Flight Director upgrade post-Ansett?
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 9th May 2006 at 15:34.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Glorious West Sussex
Age: 76
Posts: 1,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“The airbus did not fuel, to be more precise, it fuelled only on paper. As it is usually done, they put it done that they filled in 10 tons, but took less,” representative of the Armenian Community of Sochi Grach Makeyan is quoted as saying by Yerevan Aravot newspaper. According to him, the official version about bad weather conditions is unfounded. “We were standing near the air traffic controller, when he was in touch with the crew, who informed that they were having problems with fuel. The air traffic controller said ‘the crew started landing, its time to prey’.”
Found this on the Russian news agency REGNUM website. Interesting rumour - anyone have an idea why a crew would do that?
TP
Found this on the Russian news agency REGNUM website. Interesting rumour - anyone have an idea why a crew would do that?
TP
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Age: 43
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could the A320 have stalled?
After reading the article in Flight International (on 16-22 May 2006) about the A320 that crashed in to the black Sea at Sochi airport near the Russian-Georgian border, the first thing that came to mind was the tight right hand turn which the aircraft had made after the pilots were told by ATC to abort approach.
Looking at the flightpath you get a view of the normal missed approach procedure as a comparisson to the tight turn which the aircraft made.
Normal approach speed for an A320 is about 180-200 knots and the aircraft probably was within 10 miles of the airport since he was etasblished on the ILS...
Back to the turn, it's more than twice as tight as a normal missed approach procedure turn is, and here's my question, could the aircraft have made a too tight turn and stalled?
It was already flying at a dangerously low speed and a turn slows aircrafts down and stall speed increases with reduced lift, the tighter the turn the less lift the wings produce as the airspeed drops...
What do you think?
Looking at the flightpath you get a view of the normal missed approach procedure as a comparisson to the tight turn which the aircraft made.
Normal approach speed for an A320 is about 180-200 knots and the aircraft probably was within 10 miles of the airport since he was etasblished on the ILS...
Back to the turn, it's more than twice as tight as a normal missed approach procedure turn is, and here's my question, could the aircraft have made a too tight turn and stalled?
It was already flying at a dangerously low speed and a turn slows aircrafts down and stall speed increases with reduced lift, the tighter the turn the less lift the wings produce as the airspeed drops...
What do you think?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: next to sidestick
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In normal law it is physically impossible to stall an a320, even with full back stick applied. However it is still an aeroplane so in certain conditions it may fail to gain height - but that's more the case in an engine out situation.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Age: 43
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ZBMAN
In normal law it is physically impossible to stall an a320, even with full back stick applied. However it is still an aeroplane so in certain conditions it may fail to gain height - but that's more the case in an engine out situation.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Founder
How about the weather conditions, they were reported to be very bad that day, could the aircraft have stalled because of turning into a strong enough tail wind? or by heavy turbulence? Windshear?
E.G. systems running normal.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: SE England
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not going to say your wrong by any means, but if the 'bus encountered windshear close to Vls, then the alpha floor will apply power but this takes a bit of time. It would be possible to stall but the aircraft would then pitch down to get out of it....ie, it will not stall but it may well sink. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick? 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Age: 43
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I'm thinking of is that the aircraft was already at low altitude, (less then 1000 ft) and sinking -300 ft/min in bad weather at low speed, needing to abort an approach and do a hard right turn which looks by the graphics as at least 30° bankangle... this is a tough manouver to do for any pilot...
I'm not that familiar with the A320 but I've done some reading about it and seen a lot of information videos but is the aircraft really so good as to survive a manouver like that? at such a low speed and at such a low altitude in those conditions?
I'm not that familiar with the A320 but I've done some reading about it and seen a lot of information videos but is the aircraft really so good as to survive a manouver like that? at such a low speed and at such a low altitude in those conditions?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Founder
What I'm thinking of is that the aircraft was already at low altitude, (less then 1000 ft) and sinking -300 ft/min in bad weather at low speed, needing to abort an approach and do a hard right turn which looks by the graphics as at least 30° bankangle... this is a tough manouver to do for any pilot...
I'm not that familiar with the A320 but I've done some reading about it and seen a lot of information videos but is the aircraft really so good as to survive a manouver like that? at such a low speed and at such a low altitude in those conditions?
I'm not that familiar with the A320 but I've done some reading about it and seen a lot of information videos but is the aircraft really so good as to survive a manouver like that? at such a low speed and at such a low altitude in those conditions?
Sinking at 300fpm is not enough to be following a glideslope. A turn of 30° bankangle is a normal turn in a commercial airliner and hardly constitutes a 'tough' manoeuvre for ANY airline pilot, even in bad weather. as already pointed out, an A320 would be doing considerably less than 180kts below 1000'.
PP
i offer my sorrows to all personal on board. may they rest in peace. 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FlyUK
I'm not going to say your wrong by any means, but if the 'bus encountered windshear close to Vls, then the alpha floor will apply power but this takes a bit of time. It would be possible to stall but the aircraft would then pitch down to get out of it....ie, it will not stall but it may well sink. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?
It is not possiblle to stall in Normal Law but it is posible to hit the ground
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Founder
What I'm thinking of is that the aircraft was already at low altitude, (less then 1000 ft) and sinking -300 ft/min in bad weather at low speed, needing to abort an approach and do a hard right turn which looks by the graphics as at least 30° bankangle... this is a tough manouver to do for any pilot...?
Im not entirely sure whether im on the right track here, nor do I know what graphics you refer to, but I think you may be slightly confused about this procedure.
A missed approach procedure is published to direct pilots after an approach is aborted for whatever reason. The turns depicted on the plates however have no scale as quite obviously different aircraft travelling at different speeds have a different turn radius. All turns on instrument procedures should be rate 1 (ie 3 degrees a second). On a seneca for example this may be about 20 degrees of bank but on an aircraft travelling much faster this will be increased to maybe 30 degrees which, as said in a previous post, is quite normal for an airliner. I think its safe to say that the angle of bank wasnt the only cause of the trouble encountered.
Chris
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: South East UK
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what do you think happened?
It's going to be tough to work that out with so little evidence, Founder, and I'm not going to pre-empt official findings, particularly given that the flight recorders have yet to be dragged from the depths.
There are presently no conclusions - there is no indication of the technical condition of the aircraft and its engines, there is no solid flight data from the aircraft itself, and only basic information acquired from radar data, communication records, and interviews with air traffic controllers and airport authorities.
But regarding the circumstances of the accident, I'll echo other posters' points regarding the similarity of those circumstances to the Gulf Air accident, also involving an A320, of August 2000.
Both involved the aircraft making a coastal approach, in darkness, and under testing conditions - the Armavia flight owing to the weather and the Gulf Air flight owing to an unstable approach.
Both attempts at landing were aborted with the crews turning the aircraft away from the approach centreline in a direction which took them over a expansive body of water - featureless terrain at the best of times, and in the dark especially difficult to use as a visual reference.
Without a visual reference, the ability to retain situational awareness of the aircraft's attitude, movement and position by ordinary sensory perception is seriously impeded - hence the importance of pilots' closely monitoring and trusting the information relayed by the aircraft's instrument panel.
Nothing above is intended as a conclusion, by any means, but the circumstances provide a timely reminder to a simple fact which has been demonstrated in aviation time and again: if the aircraft isn't doing what you think it's doing, or isn't where you think it is, then sooner or later there's going to be trouble.
Disorientation on go around, will be reinforced if we know as to whether the aircraft had been modified with the upgraded Flight Directors. Minor point- not all ex-AN 320's were equiped with predictive winshear.
I must add, if you have watched the GF crash reproduced with FDR data, you will note the aircraft should have crashed on it's first orbit- I recall it went from 700' to 200'! Below average piloting skills the major factor and not the convenient somato gravic illusion Gulf Air likes to run with!
In my experience, spatial disorientation on G/A in A320 aircraft is exascerbated or a combination of the following factors:
1) Poor raw data & I/F skills which Airbus operations can hide.
2) An inability to confidently reinstate automatics after a 'botched' approach where correction initially involved disengaging them.
3) A nose low TOGA go around. Hesident and under confidence from crews in point 1 above can be prone to this.
4) A combination of somato gravic illusion, speed tape confusion and mode confusion has a further nose over on Go Around. The Airbus now rapidly lights up like a Christmas tree with visual and aural overspeed warnings, distracting crew further. Mode confusion and distraction can lead to a crash - GF for example.
I need to elaborate here. Speed tape confusion on Airbus PFD's is sensory and I have observed it in two ways amongst crews. Demonstration of speed brake to ab initios- VLS physically appears to run up the PFD and the nose is pulled up to 'escape' the illusion ( quickly countered and just a minor stepping stone in a glass upgrade ).
But the problem area is the other way and in it's extremity is a nose low Go Around. As speed rapidly increases, the red barbers pole for the flaps can have the illusion of running down the PFD; a further nose over to escape the illusion will put your PFD well into the barbers pole. Somato gravic illusion may exascerbate the confusion.
So here we now are- nose lowering further, TOGA thrust, distracted by overspeed warnings and GPWS, but the PFD speed tape is confusingly completely red and you have no concept of power plus attitude.
Airbus was probably well aware of the problem. It made sense to upgrade the Flight Directors so the Go Around manoeuvre was simplified. I don't believe Ansett aircraft had been upgraded. So it is likely the Armenian aircraft were without the function.
I must add, if you have watched the GF crash reproduced with FDR data, you will note the aircraft should have crashed on it's first orbit- I recall it went from 700' to 200'! Below average piloting skills the major factor and not the convenient somato gravic illusion Gulf Air likes to run with!
In my experience, spatial disorientation on G/A in A320 aircraft is exascerbated or a combination of the following factors:
1) Poor raw data & I/F skills which Airbus operations can hide.
2) An inability to confidently reinstate automatics after a 'botched' approach where correction initially involved disengaging them.
3) A nose low TOGA go around. Hesident and under confidence from crews in point 1 above can be prone to this.
4) A combination of somato gravic illusion, speed tape confusion and mode confusion has a further nose over on Go Around. The Airbus now rapidly lights up like a Christmas tree with visual and aural overspeed warnings, distracting crew further. Mode confusion and distraction can lead to a crash - GF for example.
I need to elaborate here. Speed tape confusion on Airbus PFD's is sensory and I have observed it in two ways amongst crews. Demonstration of speed brake to ab initios- VLS physically appears to run up the PFD and the nose is pulled up to 'escape' the illusion ( quickly countered and just a minor stepping stone in a glass upgrade ).
But the problem area is the other way and in it's extremity is a nose low Go Around. As speed rapidly increases, the red barbers pole for the flaps can have the illusion of running down the PFD; a further nose over to escape the illusion will put your PFD well into the barbers pole. Somato gravic illusion may exascerbate the confusion.
So here we now are- nose lowering further, TOGA thrust, distracted by overspeed warnings and GPWS, but the PFD speed tape is confusingly completely red and you have no concept of power plus attitude.
Airbus was probably well aware of the problem. It made sense to upgrade the Flight Directors so the Go Around manoeuvre was simplified. I don't believe Ansett aircraft had been upgraded. So it is likely the Armenian aircraft were without the function.
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 17th May 2006 at 03:05.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: You Name It.
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gnadenburg, why must you speculate on the cause of this crash, and why must you point the finger at the crew at this early stage? I am quite sure that if you are ever involved in an accident/incident the last thing you want is a bunch of pseudo experts coming on here and blaming you. The facts are not fully known and its very unprofessional of you and others to behave like you have all the answers. There is a system of accident investigation for all crashes and as a professional you should respect that and wait for it to happen. Anything before that is totally unfair, even on a RUMOUR forum. This goes beyond the bounds of gossiping as people lost their lives. Have the decency to show some patience and stop showing how little you know about the A320.
Originally Posted by jackbauer
There is a system of accident investigation for all crashes and as a professional you should respect that and wait for it to happen.
Mode confusion is the precedent for all 320 crashes. So don't silence the discussion. That would be unprofessional in itself.