Iced AoA sensors send A321 into deep dive
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Exeter
Age: 59
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, two buttons, easily reachable by both pilot seats. Any A320 pilot who can't locate these and isn't familiar with OEB48 shouldn't be flying. This will put you into alternate law which is good compromise of getting rid of protections whilst still having some stabilities. If you have sound reasoning for putting it into direct law then you can do this also. None of these things involve pulling CBs or resetting them in flight.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe it is a problem for the industry and not one manufacturer as a whole. My ramblings may appear anti Boeing but I am not. I just tire of the anti Airbus (mostly Americans) rhetoric who go into a frenzy much like feeding Pirahanas whenever there's a chance to have a go. I am just trying to put things into perspective and bring a little balance to the discussion.
Your post was cogent and spot on until the part of your statement that I bolded above.
Characterizing opinions as pirahanic is quite unnecessary. There are far more defenders of everything Airbus on this site than there are Boeing fanboys. Other sites are far more balanced in this respect.
Both manufacturers produce absolutely wonderful aircraft. Boeing is perhaps a little less sophisticated, and some crews get into trouble because of that. Asiana @ SFO and Turkish @AMS come to mind. Airbus automation has saved countless lives by eliminating the opportunity for some mistakes to become fatal traps.
Both companies need to work harder to eliminate the chance for "minor" lapses becoming major issues. Boeing's autothrust needs work, Airbus needs to work on what AP does with bad data and how the aircraft is handed back to humans when automation runs out of good data to work with.
Picking out and finding flaw with either philosophy does nothing to solve problems, but it does give us a lot to talk about here.
Cheers!
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Au
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Software assumption
It appears sensor input failure was assumed as stall by the software. I wonder who designed that algorithm. I am sure pilots would disagree on such an algorithm. Interestingly aviation is not alone : Toyota brake failure, vw dsg failure, medicines sent out being recalled. Inadequately tested products, lax quality control, what if lives are lost the businessmen and organisations still not culpable or accountable! They offer free replacements of parts (for lives lost) and their lawyers cite disclaimers. When is this going to end? Only when the root person (in this case the software idiot) is singled out and publicly identified, their organisations named and shamed may be.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 67
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ozmd
There is no single person that can be held responsible for the failure of modern products. All modern devices are designed by committee, built by teams, and approved as suitable for sale by a panel of expert testers.
Unfortunately the products are also built using the cheapest materials, for the lowest cost, using the cheapest labour, as quickly as possible, and marketed for the maximum price the market will bear.
The pressure comes from the financiers, who also operate in packs and are answerable only to their investors. Since many investments are made on behalf of pension funds and investment schemes linked to stock market performance, ultimately the pressure comes from members of the public who want to see their savings and pension funds doing well.
So YOU are the root person responsible. But of course you are only one of millions or billions of investors, so it can't possibly be your fault, can it?
99.99% Of savers haven't got a clue how their money is invested after they pay it into a bank or savings scheme. All they care about is how much profit or interest the investment makes and to hell with the consequences.
People need to read the fine print and find out if their savings are being invested ethically, it is all there in the annual reports. If all you care about is maximising your personal return as an individual, then you or others may end up paying for it with their lives.
There is no single person that can be held responsible for the failure of modern products. All modern devices are designed by committee, built by teams, and approved as suitable for sale by a panel of expert testers.
Unfortunately the products are also built using the cheapest materials, for the lowest cost, using the cheapest labour, as quickly as possible, and marketed for the maximum price the market will bear.
The pressure comes from the financiers, who also operate in packs and are answerable only to their investors. Since many investments are made on behalf of pension funds and investment schemes linked to stock market performance, ultimately the pressure comes from members of the public who want to see their savings and pension funds doing well.
So YOU are the root person responsible. But of course you are only one of millions or billions of investors, so it can't possibly be your fault, can it?
99.99% Of savers haven't got a clue how their money is invested after they pay it into a bank or savings scheme. All they care about is how much profit or interest the investment makes and to hell with the consequences.
People need to read the fine print and find out if their savings are being invested ethically, it is all there in the annual reports. If all you care about is maximising your personal return as an individual, then you or others may end up paying for it with their lives.
Last edited by G0ULI; 22nd Mar 2015 at 02:37. Reason: spelling
So did the crew in this incident press the two buttons to put the Aircraft in direct or alternate law then ?
The report said they had to turn off 'two computers' is that what these two buttons do ?
The report said they had to turn off 'two computers' is that what these two buttons do ?
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Washstate
Age: 79
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Push or pull two buttons ?
No, it is two easily accessible push buttons on the overhead panel.
Why are they NOT on the control - sidearm or nearby ?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: oz
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both Boeing and Airbus make very good and clever aeroplanes, that can basically fly themselves all the time. Albeit each with some gotchas. They have to make them clever and highly automated.
Why?
Because there would otherwise not be enough sufficiently experienced and competent pilots to fly the worlds aircraft. Imagine nothing but a fleet of 727 or A300 equivalent technology aircraft flying the globe today. There would be major crashes every week.
OEB 48 is straight forward to action, SAMPUBLIUS makes a good point though. Under stress it can sometimes be hard to find the "non instinctive" push buttons in any modern aircraft. Think about the last time you had to find the evac or cabin oxy switch/button under pressure in the sim. This is a work around fix and was clearly never anticipated by Airbus.
Why?
Because there would otherwise not be enough sufficiently experienced and competent pilots to fly the worlds aircraft. Imagine nothing but a fleet of 727 or A300 equivalent technology aircraft flying the globe today. There would be major crashes every week.
OEB 48 is straight forward to action, SAMPUBLIUS makes a good point though. Under stress it can sometimes be hard to find the "non instinctive" push buttons in any modern aircraft. Think about the last time you had to find the evac or cabin oxy switch/button under pressure in the sim. This is a work around fix and was clearly never anticipated by Airbus.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Au
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Money money money
But you and me also pay the money to people (calling themselves government) who are supposed to keep these businessmen in check. Isn't this how capitalism was construed to be safe?
With regards to the groupism created by the modern corporate system to elude culpability - clever invention we should say. But it is high time legislation is altered to make them culpable. May be we could look at laying charges to the organisations head (CEO or whatever title)?
I know - nothing will change by us talking!
With regards to the groupism created by the modern corporate system to elude culpability - clever invention we should say. But it is high time legislation is altered to make them culpable. May be we could look at laying charges to the organisations head (CEO or whatever title)?
I know - nothing will change by us talking!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anybody have a clue as to why it would take those experienced Lufty A321 pilots (after pressing those easy-to-reach overhead "QEB-48" buttons) 4000 feet of altitude loss to recover? 
'Both Boeing and Airbus make very good and clever aeroplanes, that can basically fly themselves all the time. Albeit each with some gotchas. They have to make them clever and highly automated.
Why?
Because there would otherwise not be enough sufficiently experienced and competent pilots to fly the worlds aircraft. Imagine nothing but a fleet of 727 or A300 equivalent technology aircraft flying the globe today. There would be major crashes every week.'
Be nice if I could figure out how to highlight and quote other peoples post's properly !
Anyway, disagree with the above although I've heard that argument many times.
In the absence of a strong Airline culture that encourages, even mandates a steady diet of manual flying I think that if automation technology had remained fairly basic, especially in the Airbus case then we wouldn't have a generation of pilots so dependent on it and in turn their basic flying skills would be much sharper.
Think of how many accidents have taken place because of pilots not understanding the automation or misusing it in a crisis / flight instrument failure.
Increased automation just turned many pilots into drones unfortunately.
Why?
Because there would otherwise not be enough sufficiently experienced and competent pilots to fly the worlds aircraft. Imagine nothing but a fleet of 727 or A300 equivalent technology aircraft flying the globe today. There would be major crashes every week.'
Be nice if I could figure out how to highlight and quote other peoples post's properly !
Anyway, disagree with the above although I've heard that argument many times.
In the absence of a strong Airline culture that encourages, even mandates a steady diet of manual flying I think that if automation technology had remained fairly basic, especially in the Airbus case then we wouldn't have a generation of pilots so dependent on it and in turn their basic flying skills would be much sharper.
Think of how many accidents have taken place because of pilots not understanding the automation or misusing it in a crisis / flight instrument failure.
Increased automation just turned many pilots into drones unfortunately.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: FR
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two easily accssible buttons ... the merit of course, is figuring out which ones. The AP disconnect was not sufficient. There was no procedure for this failure at the time of the incident. My reading is that this crew was really Good and, sorry, I am not 100% sure anyone would have gotten out of this. Fortunately we'll never know because there IS a procedure now.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Exeter
Age: 59
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The buttons are easy to find. They're directly below the IR switches which are fairly big. Directly above the CPT and easily reachable by the FO. If the issue were to occur you're likely to ne under negative g and happily these buttons are located above.
Last edited by mockingjay; 22nd Mar 2015 at 09:08.
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anybody have a clue as to why it would take those experienced Lufty A321 pilots (after pressing those easy-to-reach overhead "QEB-48" buttons) 4000 feet of altitude loss to recover?
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having recently converted from a Boeing to the Airbus, it ain't that bad. It's not as good as the Airbus lovers rave about, and it isn't as bad as the die-hard Boeing guys think it is.
If the aircraft does this, you switch off 2 of the three ADRs. 2 push buttons. Sounds easy, but I'm sure faced with this in flight you'd might want to quickly consider those actions are indeed the right ones.
If the aircraft does this, you switch off 2 of the three ADRs. 2 push buttons. Sounds easy, but I'm sure faced with this in flight you'd might want to quickly consider those actions are indeed the right ones.
Originally Posted by GlueBall
Anybody have a clue as to why it would take those experienced Lufty A321 pilots (after pressing those easy-to-reach overhead "QEB-48" buttons) 4000 feet of altitude loss to recover?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Krug departure, Merlot transition
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This flight crew had this happen to them when no OB or relevant procedure had been published yet, and yet in only 4,000' they managed to come up with a solution? It's been many years since I last flew a 321, but as I recall there were 7 flight control computers with relevant pushbuttons on the overhead panel, in addition to the ADIRU switches and pushbuttons.
All of a sudden, approaching TOC their airliner pitches down: they are unable to arrest the descent despite pulling all the way back on the sidesticks, and yet they manage to keep sufficiently calm and collected to think laterally and identify and push the correct PBs for the "offending" ADRs (or flight control computers, personally I would have guessed the FACs), all in 4,000'?
Perhaps the Captain had marked previous instances of A-prot activating inappropriately (ie Bilbao IB A320 in 2001) and had kept that little nugget of information in his back pocket for a rainy day... in any case these pilots deserve two statues erected in their honour, one in Toulouse and one in Finkenwerder.
All of a sudden, approaching TOC their airliner pitches down: they are unable to arrest the descent despite pulling all the way back on the sidesticks, and yet they manage to keep sufficiently calm and collected to think laterally and identify and push the correct PBs for the "offending" ADRs (or flight control computers, personally I would have guessed the FACs), all in 4,000'?
Perhaps the Captain had marked previous instances of A-prot activating inappropriately (ie Bilbao IB A320 in 2001) and had kept that little nugget of information in his back pocket for a rainy day... in any case these pilots deserve two statues erected in their honour, one in Toulouse and one in Finkenwerder.
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This flight crew had this happen to them when no OB or relevant procedure had been published yet, and yet in only 4,000' they managed to come up with a solution? It's been many years since I last flew a 321, but as I recall there were 7 flight control computers with relevant pushbuttons on the overhead panel, in addition to the ADIRU switches and pushbuttons.
All of a sudden, approaching TOC their airliner pitches down: they are unable to arrest the descent despite pulling all the way back on the sidesticks, and yet they manage to keep sufficiently calm and collected to think laterally and identify and push the correct PBs for the "offending" ADRs (or flight control computers, personally I would have guessed the FACs), all in 4,000'?
Perhaps the Captain had marked previous instances of A-prot activating inappropriately (ie Bilbao IB A320 in 2001) and had kept that little nugget of information in his back pocket for a rainy day... in any case these pilots deserve two statues erected in their honour, one in Toulouse and one in Finkenwerder.
Perhaps the Captain had marked previous instances of A-prot activating inappropriately (ie Bilbao IB A320 in 2001) and had kept that little nugget of information in his back pocket for a rainy day... in any case these pilots deserve two statues erected in their honour, one in Toulouse and one in Finkenwerder.
Yes. Well said.
I'm sorry to belate the point but why did this happen in the first place ?
If it's not an isolated issue there would seem to an underlying maintenance problem at LH. Those probes are redundant and heated - the issue at hand should actually never happen !
If it's not an isolated issue there would seem to an underlying maintenance problem at LH. Those probes are redundant and heated - the issue at hand should actually never happen !
