Air Canada A320 loss of control in flight: 14/4/09
 

Any more details on the following report from Avherald?

Shades of Qantus ? :=
That old luddite in me is coming out the cupboard again. :hmm:

captplaystation

You wouldn't be suggesting - in the most subtle way - that FBW is, perhaps, not entirely, 100% completely and without question, foolproof, would you?

I think unfortunately, that has been proven several times, be it the "system" or the poor humans inability to sucessfully interface with it, often with loss of life, or in the Qantas case perhaps merely a loss of personal hygeine :rolleyes: :yuk:
IMHO it is a can of worms and everytime something else happens always we end up with the FBW defenders vs the luddites. We have done it to death so often here, purely my opinion, but no I don't trust it any more than I would a politician.

And just why isn't anybody surprised, alarmed or outraged?
We all shrug our shoulders and think: "Nothing we can do about it, at least it didn't happen to me". :ouch:
Brave new world! :(

Captplaystation

Luddite about FBW, eh? That include the 777? Then the 787?

Or are we talking sidesticks versus something between your legs?

As for just shrugging, what else is there to do until we actually know something? At present we know the square root of sweet FA.

When you lose the FBW the Airbus still gives you mechanical flight...does it not?...
That's all I remember...Air Transat A310 maybe..cant remember

Actually, I think it's (2/3 * Sqrt(SFA))

I remember being shown a quite innocuous series of hydraulic and fbw failures in the A320 sim that collectively induced a rapid increase in pitch that had to be countered by smart action on the trim wheel and simultaneous disconnection of the auto thrust.It was not pleasant even when you knew it was coming.Airbus fbw is definetley not for the complacent.

The design is to keep it flying until one/some/all flt ctl computers are back. It's not designed to fly an approach.

Depends on model - stab trim control is common as a backup, but not much use for approach.

...facts and figures...
 

...once again wait to be extracted/downloaded from the very magic DFDR of said aircraft and subsequently being put in perspective for said incident by the real professionals of the Canadian AAIB and Air Canada...

...as an Airbus A320 series pilot myself, desperately waiting for the initial outcome of the probe with valuable hints for our daily ops, however I already fear the deja vue of loads of rubbish statements of all those desperate "hobby" wannabee AAIB posters in this thread...

hetfield;
That applies to the 330/340 but less so to the 320 series - the aircraft can (and has, I have been told by someone who did it, in test flights) be flown to the landing on the stab trim alone. I've done it in the sim and while it's not pretty, it isn't an automatic accident either.

That said, I see the anti-AB, anti-fbw troups are out in force, jawing without having the slightest idea as to what happened, (because they don't yet know) and why, (because they haven't flown the Airbus and know nothing about it), but ready to tell us, without knowledge and understanding, that any Airbus incident is "proof that the Airbus, and fbw are dangerous", which is nonsense.

The issues associated with the 320 series are knowledge and training based, not design based.

The Boeing question has not been answered, nor have any obvious-though-unasked questions regarding military aircraft and fbw. One would be much farther ahead in learning about and discussing the habits of the DC10 and MD11. "The DC10 Case", (Suny press) is well worth reading. No such books are available/written on the Airbus and fbw because the accident rate is not anomalous when compared with similar types/routes etc.

CerealAbuser;
In a word, yes. Providing the aircraft has hydraulics, the rudder and horizontal stab are available. There are no fatal accidents caused through loss of control through failure of fbw. Such failure is far more rare than loss of control through complete loss of hydraulics, which has resulted in fatal accidents.

hetfield;
Quote:
The design is to keep it flying until one/some/all flt ctl computers are back. It's not designed to fly an approach.



What if it takes more time (for the flt ctl comps to come back) than you have fuel?!
Sounds funny, that's all. Not really pro or con as far as the bus is concerned.

@act700

To make it clear. My post wasn't MY opinion!

It's the way I have been trained on A320 with a major Western Carrier.

regards

Having had a look at the TSB Canada website I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a report from them on this one!
The most recent report they have on their website is of a hard landing of a balloon in August 2007!:eek::ugh::eek:
Transportation Safety Board of Canada - AVIATION REPORTS

Hope its not self-inflicted...one of our great men of genius, fancied himself a computer expert and thought that turning off the flight control computers momentarily would correct whatever problem they had.

Iceman49;
The Airbus 320/330/340 QRHs have mandatory reset procedures for troubleshooting all computers on board which may affect the operation. These procedures have been in use for a very long time and will be trained for and should be well understood. One just doesn't launch on a troubleshooting expedition in the 320 or any computerized device with home-grown or internet-researched "solutions". If a crew doesn't go by the book, then that is a training and standards issue, not an airplane issue.

act700;
Well, aside from being a straw-man argument, when serious problems arise, like any professional airman would, you deal with it...obviously. That's what we do. That said, the most serious computer issue to occur thus far, (QANTAS A330), did not present this problem. Not saying it can't happen but your question is quite far into hypothetical vs possible/probable. Such a scenario is not even in any training syllabus I know of - you're simply expected to deal with it.

The A320 is quite flyable on reduced ELAC/SEC/FAC authority, as described. Just as some people still think that "stall" means the engines quit on an airplane, some believe that the 320 stops flying when the computers "quit" - its a much more sophisticated design than that and if we think about it, would have to be to have survived this long without a computer-related accident.

Cheers,
PJ2

Can't believe the mobile phone police haven't piped in yet. :}

With all respect I'd say the answer may be more complex than that. Obviously the designer has to include with the design sufficient operational training materials and tools to enable training of operators and crew, and of course Airbus have done that. But what about the case, for example, when you have a 6000 hr pilot transitioning from another brand of a/c who has to de-learn old ingrained procedures - is that addressed good enough in the training? Is it even possible to retrain someone so well as to guarantee that his old habits don't surface when faced with a "situation"? Just asking...