LH A320 reportedly within 0.5m of crashing at FRA !!
 

As reported in Flight International today a Lufthansa A320 almost crashed at FRA on 20 March because of faulty reverse wiring on the captain's sidestick!!

The aircraft hit turbulence shortly after lift-off resulting in a left wing-down. The captain responded with a slight right input but the plane banked further left. A further right input resulted in a 21 deg wing-down at which point the wing dipped to within 0.5m of the ground!

At this point the first officer, realising what was happening, switched his sidestick to priority and recovered the aircraft, preventing an almost certain crash.

I'm glad I wasn't a passenger on that flight!!!

I wonder if LH do control checks on the ground? This should have shown up this fault. Airbus also recommend it and say that you should hold each stick position for 3 seconds as it takes that long to generate the fault message. They also recommend checking your screen to check that left stick really is left stick.
Interesting.

This seems almost implausible. The control check SOP requires the non-handler to monitor the inputs of the other guy on the flying control ECAM page. He then repeats the process himself with his sidestick. This is normally done during the taxy out.

Even if both guys do this with their eyes shut then an ECAM warning is generated to the effect that the spoilers or ailerons are not responding as expected to the pilot input.

The logic for this warning was changed after the Excalibur incident where due to a maintenance error the aircraft became airborne with several pairs of spoilers hydraulicly isolated and therefore not responding.

It was believed the crew missed it on that occasion because the trigger time was too long. This was corrected to a much shorter time for detection of lack of control response to pilot input.

FI don't usually get it wrong ???

The article does mention that on previous maintenance action two pairs of pins inside the connector of the captain's controls had accidentally been crossed. This resulted in a change of polarity of the sidestick. Apparently this bypasses the control unit which senses the error and triggers a warning.

This, of course, does not mean that they shouldn't have caught it on the flight control page of the ECAM during the flight control checks. The article does suggest that most pilots tend to look for a deflection indication rather than checking the direction is correct as well. In a rushed environment, or with a distraction, I don't think that is implausible.

And of course it was also signed off and fully checked by the best DLR tested engineers in the world, or was this done just to DLR test the pilots?

------------------
We will do the drill according to the amendments to the amendments I er think?

Full marks to the F/O for quick thinking therby avoiding what would have been a tragic accident. That particular F/O has certainly earned a lifetimes worth of salary - well done!


Regards
Exeng

AirBus technology at its best. And, with a first class operator. Woe-be-tide the third world airlines who are stuck with this equipment.

Good grief...411a has an opinion on almost everything in aviation!! What a guy..or is that S.O.G.? See Fragrant harbour!

411A,

'AirBus technology at its best.' Perhaps 'Airbus technology at it's worst' might have been a more appropriate coment.

Clever though the Airbus is, the 'system' allowed both engineers and pilots to depart with an aeroplane that was cross controlled in roll. (Albeit on one side only).

That is worrying.

Again, full marks to the F/O who saved the day.


Regards
Exeng

P.S. I'm currently on an A320 course and after reading 'Flight' this morning haven't got any fingernails left!!

If the signal was capable of being reversed-why wouldn't the plug itself prevent it? The one round hole and one square hole idea.

Oldag84
If the pins in the plug are crossed (and they are all identical) then it will defeat the indexed plug, which they undoubtably are. The real problem is the after defect check out by engineers ( plus of course any preflight checks.

411A - is that the type of Cessna you fly ?

One wonders, if this had ended in tradgedy, where would that have left Airbus and it's much-vaunted technology? What would the public think? And I'm fully aware that this can happen to conventional control systems, as well ( I remember a C-130 and an F-4 having reversed controls, from my RAF days).

Worrying.

Piper Aircraft lost two flight test pilots in a Navajo that way, back in the seventies....

...and Roy Chadwick in the Tudor.

GotTheTshirt---
Indexed plugs, wrong wiring, a bad combination. Wonder if the investigation will be swept under the rug. Sure hope not.
The F/O sure was on the ball.
'Tis a very good reason WHY the F/O should have plenty of sectors. Wonder if the CX guys are listening?
CE411A is the personal aircraft, L1011 the professional type.

[This message has been edited by 411A (edited 22 May 2001).]

Hypothetical here - despite the magnificent efforts of the F/O, should the whole thing have gone pear-shaped with the unfortunate crash of the aircraft, would there have been enough evidence to have shown that crossed pins was a cause rather than erroneous banking associated with turbulence?

.......or the flight control check not allegedly being carried out properly.

Also 411A does have a valid point about a first class operator, what happens a few years down the line

I hope that the Lufty pilot's make full use of this incident in pursuing their pay rise.

It would be interesting to see how the "Management" tried to tell the travelling public that this FO was not worth a rise.

Right there, the two LH pilots earned the payrise that VC is demanding. Manyfold!! Good job guys!


Oh sorry Bigpants, I just mirrored your post :)

[This message has been edited by Hung start (edited 22 May 2001).]

Have any of you guys that continually slate Airbus technology, stopped to consider what would have happened, if it had have been a conventionally controlled aircraft that had its controls rigged the wrong way round?

They wouldn't have stood a chance, even if the F/O was as quick as lightning, at least on an Airbus you can isolate the opposite control stick.

So I would say that on this occasion it was BECAUSE of Airbus technology that a major incident was avoided!!!!!!!!!!