TACA aircraft crashed in Honduras
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Strongresolve
http://www.boeing.com/news/techissues/pdf/statsum.pdf
fatal hull loss rate for 731/732 as 0.79
fatal hull loss rate for A320 family 0.23
so your 0.53 is way off, even if you consider the two new accidents in 2007 and the TACA one
http://www.boeing.com/news/techissues/pdf/statsum.pdf
fatal hull loss rate for 731/732 as 0.79
fatal hull loss rate for A320 family 0.23
so your 0.53 is way off, even if you consider the two new accidents in 2007 and the TACA one
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Valencia
Age: 49
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hawk
Please, read again the begining of the line of my post.
It said:
Fatal accidents by 1 million departures, not faltal hull rate
And another thing, you posted hull rate loss, not fatal hull rate loss.
The correct number for fatal hull rate loss for the A320 0,37.
And I picked fatal accidents per million departures, because de B737 fleet is bigger and does more flights than the A320 fleet, so is normal to expect a higher rate in the big numbers.
Faltal accidents per million departures is more objetive.
But again we are trying to compare an almost 40 year old 2º generation aircraft with a 4º generation aircraft. Why you dont compare it with the B737NG or the B717?
And the thing that most worry me about, is that most A320 accidents are due piloting errors or man-machine misunderstood comunications, not technical failures.
Ok, we have to open our minds, as the bus lovers say, we dont know the plane enough and we need to study it more, but this thing have been flying for 20 years, and do you think that it´s normal that we be still here talking about the same problem time after time.
It is a 4º generation high tech plane. We are having the same discursion since 15 years ago, and the problem is still here. Most pilots should get used to the A320, but the thruth is that they dont get used, and they are acussed of lack of knowledge of the plane.
Probably in 10 years we will be talking about the same, if the craft is not made for the man the problem will prevail.
It said:
Fatal accidents by 1 million departures, not faltal hull rate
And another thing, you posted hull rate loss, not fatal hull rate loss.
The correct number for fatal hull rate loss for the A320 0,37.
And I picked fatal accidents per million departures, because de B737 fleet is bigger and does more flights than the A320 fleet, so is normal to expect a higher rate in the big numbers.
Faltal accidents per million departures is more objetive.
But again we are trying to compare an almost 40 year old 2º generation aircraft with a 4º generation aircraft. Why you dont compare it with the B737NG or the B717?
And the thing that most worry me about, is that most A320 accidents are due piloting errors or man-machine misunderstood comunications, not technical failures.
Ok, we have to open our minds, as the bus lovers say, we dont know the plane enough and we need to study it more, but this thing have been flying for 20 years, and do you think that it´s normal that we be still here talking about the same problem time after time.
It is a 4º generation high tech plane. We are having the same discursion since 15 years ago, and the problem is still here. Most pilots should get used to the A320, but the thruth is that they dont get used, and they are acussed of lack of knowledge of the plane.
Probably in 10 years we will be talking about the same, if the craft is not made for the man the problem will prevail.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dream Land
when the aircraft is close to the ground, my focus of attention is simply the trajectory of the aircraft, I am fully following on the rudders for the simple reason that I am fully responsible for the outcome of the landing.
"Before flare height, heading corrections should only be made with roll. As small bank angles are possible and acceptable close to the ground, only small heading changes can be envisaged. Otherwise, a go-around should be initiated.
"Use of rudder, combined with roll inputs, should be avoided, since this may significantly increase the pilot's lateral handling tasks. Rudder use should be limited to the "de-crab" maneuver in case of crosswind, while maintaining the wings level, with the sidestick in the roll axis."
Must admit that that passage gave me a touch of the horrors. I'm being presumptious - I've only flown gliders and singles and the odd twin - but I'm one of those lucky people who got the hang of crossing the controls in crosswind conditions very quickly. Telling me not to use the rudder as WELL as the ailerons on a crosswind approach would have been like telling me not to lean a bicycle over when turning a corner.......so would telling me to 'keep the wings level' instead of dropping one slightly into the crosswind........
So why monitor the rudder pedals? - when the 'book' clearly says that you shouldn't use the rudder at all in a crosswind approach in an Airbus, except at the last moment before touchdown, to 'decrab'?
Because it "..may significantly increase the pilot's lateral handling tasks."
Which I interpret as 'handbook-ese' for "Send you sideways into the deck at high speed."
As appears to have come within literally a few inches of happening at Hamburg?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAl1IJYx0C8
Last edited by RWA; 4th Jun 2008 at 14:38.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Airbus bashers are out in force again.
Strongresolve has already done the AIB work and decided that it is the same cause as the other A320 accidents.
Why can't all the Monday morning quarter backs just shut the **** up until we hear from the AIB.
Bubbers44 - we airbus pilots don't have a delay before selecting the reversers, the call is to confirm they have deployed automatically. If I remember correctly thats what happened on the 757 as well, when they were armed - so they did go through a logic! The call is normally "spoilers - REV green - decel".
As for
Surely with your superior skills, as a pilot, you would know instinctively what input to put in order to control the aircraft, you surely do not need to know what inputs were made before. Plus if the situation was that dire close to the ground a GA is the only option!! Saving "pink bottom" over "pride" any day.
Strongresolve has already done the AIB work and decided that it is the same cause as the other A320 accidents.
Why can't all the Monday morning quarter backs just shut the **** up until we hear from the AIB.
Bubbers44 - we airbus pilots don't have a delay before selecting the reversers, the call is to confirm they have deployed automatically. If I remember correctly thats what happened on the 757 as well, when they were armed - so they did go through a logic! The call is normally "spoilers - REV green - decel".
As for
Taking an aircraft in an attempt to save a disaster is a lot easier if you saw the last input that put that aircraft in that situation and how much input was used. My flight instructor instinct would get me through fixing a Boeing upset, don't know about fixing a situation that up to my taking over have no clue what his last inputs were.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Pink Bottom over Pride
Mr. Iceman- I take it to mean saving "Pink Bottom over Pride" to mean a presence of Ego in your cockpit. If your Head is in to face saving at all, you are fatally (perhaps) Behind the A/C. You cannot always save face and ass concurrently.
You can instantly interpret what input is critical by a snapshot of A/C posture? You are not talking out of your face.
Airfoil
You can instantly interpret what input is critical by a snapshot of A/C posture? You are not talking out of your face.
Airfoil
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Four star, not porn star. My flight attendant wife was also in the jumpseat. My regular FO on that flight was the fellow in the tower who cleared me to land. He has property there and happened to be there on that flight. The video shows how important it is to land in that 700 ft touchdown zone just past the displaced threshold. Clearing the runway you can see the cliff they went off. The 1,000 ft you should never need for stopping is past that taxiway before the last one at the end. Rolling to the end keeps the brakes cooler.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: following the yellow brick road
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again we have arrived at bashing one manufacturer over the other.
It is impossible to compare A320 losses with early B737 losses. For a start we would have to take into account the improvements in all aspects of commercial aviation that have been introduced over a 40 year period.
It would be more correct to compare the B727 to the A320 as the AB was designed to replace the 3 holer but again, we must look at 40 years of improvements before making any judgements/comparisons.
Once the data has been collected and analysed we will know exactly what happened.
I wonder was a GA initiated when they realised they didn't have enough runway as it may explain flap and t/rev position. Judging by the slat position at the crash site it looks like 1+F.
I am not a pilot but an engineer on both types AB/B, don't want to pi$$ on anyones chips
Brgds
SB03
It is impossible to compare A320 losses with early B737 losses. For a start we would have to take into account the improvements in all aspects of commercial aviation that have been introduced over a 40 year period.
It would be more correct to compare the B727 to the A320 as the AB was designed to replace the 3 holer but again, we must look at 40 years of improvements before making any judgements/comparisons.
Once the data has been collected and analysed we will know exactly what happened.
I wonder was a GA initiated when they realised they didn't have enough runway as it may explain flap and t/rev position. Judging by the slat position at the crash site it looks like 1+F.
I am not a pilot but an engineer on both types AB/B, don't want to pi$$ on anyones chips
Brgds
SB03
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Strongresolve
negative, look again plz
fatal hull rate loss for the A320 0.23
hull rate loss for the A320 0.37
fatal hull rate loss for the 731/2 0.79
hull rate loss for the 731/2 1.55
all per 1 million departures of course, so what are you getting at? making a difference between a fatal accident and a fatal hull loss doesn't get us anywhere, I believe (= marginal, if any)
The correct number for fatal hull rate loss for the A320 0,37.
fatal hull rate loss for the A320 0.23
hull rate loss for the A320 0.37
fatal hull rate loss for the 731/2 0.79
hull rate loss for the 731/2 1.55
all per 1 million departures of course, so what are you getting at? making a difference between a fatal accident and a fatal hull loss doesn't get us anywhere, I believe (= marginal, if any)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by scarebus03
Again we have arrived at bashing one manufacturer over the other.
Surely, since all of us are consumers, we are as free to exercise choice as we are in any other service field? Even more so since we are all aviation enthusiasts, and most of us are pilots or ex-pilots of one sort of another?
I don't happen to like the idea of Airbuses - the design differences are too radical for my taste. So far I have managed to avoid them when booking flights, and I advise my (grown-up) sons and daughter to do the same.
Isn't that my (and their, if they choose to accept my advice?) choice as consumers? If only because we're paying a ****load of dollars to fly in the things?
Certainly, in face of two serious landing accidents within a year (and one 'incident,' Hamburg, which came close to being the most serious accident of the lot, namely a 'cartwheel') I'm in no sort of hurry ever to set foot on an A320.
Having a recently laid new asphalt surface (#115) is an aspect which has been in previous accidents / incidents. IIRC events at Bristol, and a BAe146 overrun at Puerto Williams many years ago.
The possibility of an oily film / greasy surface should be considered by operators / airport authorities.
There are links to this subject in previous threads. Also see the technical paper on runway surface texture and risk of hydroplaning.
The possibility of an oily film / greasy surface should be considered by operators / airport authorities.
There are links to this subject in previous threads. Also see the technical paper on runway surface texture and risk of hydroplaning.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Valencia
Age: 49
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry hawk, I not readed well the numbers, but anyway A320 performance in safety is not very brillant for a 4º gen aircraft.
In reference to the runway status.
The controler said in spanish to the pilots of taca flight 390 "The runway is damp (humeda)" not wet (mojada o contaminada.)
Big numbers are important because tells how well an aircraft is performing in safety matters.
I´m not advancing any AIB, but having in mind all last events that have not ended in a hull loss, wing tip strikes, hard landings, overruns, I dont expect any surpise from Airbus. They always find a scapegoat.
The real problem is the essence of the aircraft, it is a money making machine, not a real plane, so it never will perform like a real plane in dificult fields or strong weather conditions.
Others will do it better. (Always working inside plane limitations)
In this situations always is better going around that risk your theeth.
In reference to the runway status.
The controler said in spanish to the pilots of taca flight 390 "The runway is damp (humeda)" not wet (mojada o contaminada.)
Big numbers are important because tells how well an aircraft is performing in safety matters.
I´m not advancing any AIB, but having in mind all last events that have not ended in a hull loss, wing tip strikes, hard landings, overruns, I dont expect any surpise from Airbus. They always find a scapegoat.
The real problem is the essence of the aircraft, it is a money making machine, not a real plane, so it never will perform like a real plane in dificult fields or strong weather conditions.
Others will do it better. (Always working inside plane limitations)
In this situations always is better going around that risk your theeth.
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re
Actually I do use a rudder to de-crab the aircraft in cross wind conditions, a nice increasing pressure during the flare works well, it's the bit that the students have a hard time learning, I believe Airbus says no more than 5 degrees crab at touchdown (could be wrong).
According to a mate of mine by RWA
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: PARIS FRANCE
Age: 77
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sad accident. Very interesting exchanges on the subject, it seems, as often, without thinking of course it is the only cause for the crash, that the pilots underestimated the slipperiness (??? english?) of this runway, recently re-asphalted.
Concerning the A320 which I have flown for a few years, I was never afraid of it, but I certainly found it the most exacting plane to fly in a rather long aviation life:
Although serious and curious, I can tell that I never really understood how it worked.I knew what was in the books, but that was really little, compared to previous generation aircraft. I found that it was very easy to make mistakes, using the automatisms, and that a go-around, for example, with both engines working, a light plane (like the A318) and a level-off at two thousand feet can, will, be a sobering experience. When you have someone in the jumpseat, he is a little surprised! The variometre (climb rate indicator) is a sad joke, and when associated with a T-cas alert, the small needle disappearing you don't know where, aerobatics are in sight...
But all that said, if you are not over-confident and treat it with the respect you show to a depressive pitbull, it serves you well.
And I forgot...it can be fitted with a Head Up Display. We had it for some years before gradually it disappeared (cost versus un demonstrated efficiency: the management only saw the seldom used possibility of taking off with very low RVR, but we saw a wonderful tool for visual approaches).I see that my company has become wise and will have the HUD on the A380. If you have a HUD, as a captain, you will know without any doubt wether the landing is feasible or not...and take the decision.
Concerning the A320 which I have flown for a few years, I was never afraid of it, but I certainly found it the most exacting plane to fly in a rather long aviation life:
Although serious and curious, I can tell that I never really understood how it worked.I knew what was in the books, but that was really little, compared to previous generation aircraft. I found that it was very easy to make mistakes, using the automatisms, and that a go-around, for example, with both engines working, a light plane (like the A318) and a level-off at two thousand feet can, will, be a sobering experience. When you have someone in the jumpseat, he is a little surprised! The variometre (climb rate indicator) is a sad joke, and when associated with a T-cas alert, the small needle disappearing you don't know where, aerobatics are in sight...
But all that said, if you are not over-confident and treat it with the respect you show to a depressive pitbull, it serves you well.
And I forgot...it can be fitted with a Head Up Display. We had it for some years before gradually it disappeared (cost versus un demonstrated efficiency: the management only saw the seldom used possibility of taking off with very low RVR, but we saw a wonderful tool for visual approaches).I see that my company has become wise and will have the HUD on the A380. If you have a HUD, as a captain, you will know without any doubt wether the landing is feasible or not...and take the decision.
Last edited by NARVAL; 4th Jun 2008 at 18:14.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Security camera caught Taca A320
Apparently a security camera caught the Taca A320 on the runway right after touchdown.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIolQOhB0xE
No reversers and no spoilers that I can see.
Deja vue all over again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIolQOhB0xE
No reversers and no spoilers that I can see.
Deja vue all over again.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure how far past the end of the runway the accident site is, but it doesn't look too far from the end of the runway, thus this doesn't appear to be a high speed runoff. The security camera seems fairly close to the touchdown area and thus higher speed might be expected there. Since this runoff might be a lower speed runoff, they might have had some braking during the rollout.
All subject to correction and some more facts of course.
All subject to correction and some more facts of course.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The location of the camera appears to be at a point on the terminal building about half way down the runway. They just recently installed those jet bridges. Guess they won't be needing them any longer.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But speed looks very impressive so late on that wet runway ...