Airbus prepares safety warnings following A321 incident
And therein lies the problem with a lot of the fine folks from the good 'ol US of A.
Never left the country, not willing to embrace other cultures, mind not open to other ideas, not willing to expand knowledge. Even if they have left the country they remain protected by the bubble that is their employer. I lived in the States for a year and the ignorance and insularism are quite astounding. No wonder you can elect presidents like Bush the Younger and possibly Sarah Palin! That's why I'm so nice to Yanks I meet outside the States, at least they've decided to take a look around.
Well I got some news for you, the rest of the world is playing and playing good. The only reason you buy a car from the 'States is patriotism, not for fuel efficiency, build quality, power, handling or looks!!! ESP is beginning to be incorporated in US cars, but guess what, it's made by Bosche, zee Germans!
There are certain contributors to this thread that if they were in charge of R&D for the human race would still have us waiting for lightning strikes to light our camp fires 'cos that's the way we've always done it' and are just about thinking that there's a better way of transporting stuff other than carrying it on our backs. Maybe you should go live with the Amish, I think you'd be happy there.
Sorry if this sounds like an anti US rant, it's not, just get out and have a look how it's done elsewhere!
The problem with debating with such closed minds is that you can never win, even with evidence. They just won't see it.
Back in my box.
LD
Never left the country, not willing to embrace other cultures, mind not open to other ideas, not willing to expand knowledge. Even if they have left the country they remain protected by the bubble that is their employer. I lived in the States for a year and the ignorance and insularism are quite astounding. No wonder you can elect presidents like Bush the Younger and possibly Sarah Palin! That's why I'm so nice to Yanks I meet outside the States, at least they've decided to take a look around.
Well I got some news for you, the rest of the world is playing and playing good. The only reason you buy a car from the 'States is patriotism, not for fuel efficiency, build quality, power, handling or looks!!! ESP is beginning to be incorporated in US cars, but guess what, it's made by Bosche, zee Germans!
There are certain contributors to this thread that if they were in charge of R&D for the human race would still have us waiting for lightning strikes to light our camp fires 'cos that's the way we've always done it' and are just about thinking that there's a better way of transporting stuff other than carrying it on our backs. Maybe you should go live with the Amish, I think you'd be happy there.
Sorry if this sounds like an anti US rant, it's not, just get out and have a look how it's done elsewhere!
The problem with debating with such closed minds is that you can never win, even with evidence. They just won't see it.
Back in my box.
LD
Last edited by Locked door; 17th Dec 2010 at 12:44.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Locked door -
And therein lies the problem with a lot of the fine folks from the good 'ol US of A.
Never left the country, not willing to embrace other cultures, mind not open to other ideas, not willing to expand knowledge.
And therein lies the problem with a lot of the fine folks from the good 'ol US of A.
Never left the country, not willing to embrace other cultures, mind not open to other ideas, not willing to expand knowledge.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, but please don't forget that Hamburg came very close!
As far as I know, HAM did not imply any protection ... which one did you see ?
What is the FCOM reference that could correlate with the protection you think about ?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, when they start making cars FBW, I'll quit driving too !
All my recent cars have had electronic throttles. They also have power steering, and without it I doubt I'd be able to turn the wheel unless I was already going quite fast (I don't fancy the idea of driving a 2.5 ton vehicle with failed power steering).
I'm sure older cars without power steering are rigged differently. Modern cars are heavy in comparison (I'm fairly sure it is more than just being used to power steering - I'm no lightweight).
Back on topic: FBW or no FBW - it took PILOTING SKILLS to put that A320 in the drink in almost one piece. FBW merely made moving the flight controls easier, protections or no protections. Would Direct Law have helped? I'm skeptical it would have made any difference at all.
Mech backup however...
Best regards,
ECAM Actions.
Guest
Posts: n/a
In the P-47 Thunderbolt Flight Manual is a chapter on Ditching. It is three sentences long.
Don't Stall.
Don't Ever Stall.
Don't Ever Ever Stall.
The nose will Pitch Pole, and disintegrate. No more Sully, no More Skiles, and probably most the rest. FBW not an issue, whatever. IMO.
Don't Stall.
Don't Ever Stall.
Don't Ever Ever Stall.
The nose will Pitch Pole, and disintegrate. No more Sully, no More Skiles, and probably most the rest. FBW not an issue, whatever. IMO.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
at last we are getting somewhere. following on from bearfoils post lets just shorten the NTSB accident report quote from
to
um looks like a pattern starting to appear.
The NTSB concludes that, despite being unable to complete the Engine Dual Failure checklist, the captain started the APU, which improved the outcome of the ditching by ensuring that a primary source of electrical power was available to the airplane and that the airplane remained in normal law and maintained the flight envelope protections, one of which protects against a stall.
the NTSB concludes that the captain started the APU, which improved the outcome of the ditching by ensuring the airplane remained in normal law and maintained the flight envelope protections, one of which protects against a stall.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QUESTION: Did they ever get to the bottom of the Alpha Prot range? If not, the argument about protections against the stall are mute.
Too much emphasis is put on FBW protections, plain and simple. I suppose having g and roll protections were useful too? Let's not forget Alpha Floor protection.
Without any thrust from the engines, all Alpha Prot would allow you to do is have the highest rate of sink you can get at the lowest speed possible. Who is for about 3000 ft/min rate of descent at 125 kts?
The argument is ridiculous.
ECAM Actions.
Too much emphasis is put on FBW protections, plain and simple. I suppose having g and roll protections were useful too? Let's not forget Alpha Floor protection.
Without any thrust from the engines, all Alpha Prot would allow you to do is have the highest rate of sink you can get at the lowest speed possible. Who is for about 3000 ft/min rate of descent at 125 kts?
The argument is ridiculous.
ECAM Actions.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ECAM_Actions
Would Direct Law have helped? I'm skeptical it would have made any difference at all.
Interesting enough that the NTSB was the first one to underline such characteristic when actually it should have been specified already 20 years ago by the BEA following the Habsheim crash.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems from the videos of his touchdown in the Hudson he did it perfectly. He could have done it equally well in any aircraft he was flying with his talent. Hopefully we all could do equally well. Automation is not designed to ditch an airplane but it seems in his case it didn't hurt the outcome of the event. Probably didn't help either. What worries me is when the new generation of pilots with computer skills take over. They won't have Sully's talent to just fly the airplane. What will they do if both engines quit? There is no button for that.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before I say anymore I want to make it clear that I have the greatest respect for all of the crew involved in the Hudson river episode. It wasn't just flying skills that did industry proud on that day.
However one cannot ignore a few basic facts just because they don't fit conveniently in the nice little picture most of you have painted.
Well come on now you can't have it both ways. Perfect landing with control stick at full pitch up but with normal law limiting the input. NTSB stating that the outcome of the incident was improved because normal law was active.
That is quite clearly english for FBW played a positive role by assisting some superb flying under incredibly difficult circumstances.
The NTSB statement was completely unnecessary if the aircraft manual control inputs had remained within safe limits throughout the ditching. The reality is the system intervened to aid a perfect landing. In fact some have suggested that the FE protections allowed the crew to trade every available knot for a reduction in vertical speed.
That is not taking anything away from the pilot who undoubtedly was still the major factor in a successful outcome. The fact remains however, ego's aside, things may well have concluded differently. This seems to have been confirmed in NTSB tests carried out after the accident in the simulator where all 4 pilots crashed under similar circumstances.
So my point is you can't have one without the other. FBW is a fantastic tool and aids flight safety. It replaces ego with hard and fast software routines that will save your butt.
What it doesn't do is replace the pilot who still needs to be on top of his game.
However one cannot ignore a few basic facts just because they don't fit conveniently in the nice little picture most of you have painted.
Seems from the videos of his touchdown in the Hudson he did it perfectly.
That is quite clearly english for FBW played a positive role by assisting some superb flying under incredibly difficult circumstances.
The NTSB statement was completely unnecessary if the aircraft manual control inputs had remained within safe limits throughout the ditching. The reality is the system intervened to aid a perfect landing. In fact some have suggested that the FE protections allowed the crew to trade every available knot for a reduction in vertical speed.
That is not taking anything away from the pilot who undoubtedly was still the major factor in a successful outcome. The fact remains however, ego's aside, things may well have concluded differently. This seems to have been confirmed in NTSB tests carried out after the accident in the simulator where all 4 pilots crashed under similar circumstances.
So my point is you can't have one without the other. FBW is a fantastic tool and aids flight safety. It replaces ego with hard and fast software routines that will save your butt.
What it doesn't do is replace the pilot who still needs to be on top of his game.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: california
Age: 35
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'ECAM_actions' and all others who are in denial about the merits of the protections afforded by Normal Law....Read Fly By Wire by William Langewiesche. You will find that during the flare over the water at max Alpha, the Stall / High Alpha protection did indeed play a small but significant part in saving the day.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sully did not need alpha protection to make his Hudson landing. Only a pilot that would stall an aircraft before touchdown would need that. Don't most of us pilots approach a landing surface at 1.3 stall speed, flair to stop descent rate and roll it on with a perfect landing most of the time? We can do it power on or power off, on a runway or on the Hudson. Landing in the Hudson requires judgement on optimum flap setting and deck angle on touchdown with almost zero sink rate. You certainly don't want to be stalled or in a high pitch attitude when the tail hits the water first. Read Sully's book. He never said the Airbus automation helped him in any way and I am sure it didn't. Maybe it would help a mediocre pilot but not Sully. If alpha protection intervened on his Hudson landing the tail was probably already in the river so had no affect on the outcome. He would have never stalled into the Hudson. He was too professional.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The NTSB statement was completely unnecessary if the aircraft manual control inputs had remained within safe limits throughout the ditching. The reality is the system intervened to aid a perfect landing. In fact some have suggested that the FE protections allowed the crew to trade every available knot for a reduction in vertical speed.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think so. The NTSB statement is quite specific and has no place in the accident report unless it was related to the accident. It doesn't mention handling it mentions STALL
the NTSB concludes that the captain started the APU, which improved the outcome of the ditching by ensuring the airplane remained in normal law and maintained the flight envelope protections, one of which protects against a stall.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 74
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety Concerns contributed:
Best comment I have seen in years of reading Pprune (me SLF!).
I've seen this in a lot of tech related stuff, the philosophical aspects -why things have been designed in way X, and what can be expected of such a design as a result - are often left out of the training because of time pressure.
However, one can usually find some documentation which explains the design and what to expect from it.
Edmund
Maybe there is an argument for a different approach to FBW training at least.
It is shocking how many posters claiming to be pilots do not understand FE protections.
It is shocking how many posters claiming to be pilots do not understand FE protections.
Best comment I have seen in years of reading Pprune (me SLF!).
I've seen this in a lot of tech related stuff, the philosophical aspects -why things have been designed in way X, and what can be expected of such a design as a result - are often left out of the training because of time pressure.
However, one can usually find some documentation which explains the design and what to expect from it.
Edmund
No one, but you try telling that to a certain section of this forum!!!
I refer you all again to this video, no one will ever need more than this, and the best bit is that you can't hurt the aircraft. As an aside though the memory items include rolling wings level to achieve max rate of climb unless you have a clear visual on the problem terrain. And also stow the speedbrakes (AA didn't a few years ago and lost a perfectly serviceable 757 to CFIT).
YouTube - Airbus A319 - Very Fast Crazy Take Off
LD
I refer you all again to this video, no one will ever need more than this, and the best bit is that you can't hurt the aircraft. As an aside though the memory items include rolling wings level to achieve max rate of climb unless you have a clear visual on the problem terrain. And also stow the speedbrakes (AA didn't a few years ago and lost a perfectly serviceable 757 to CFIT).
YouTube - Airbus A319 - Very Fast Crazy Take Off
LD