|
Originally Posted by Unhooked
I recall hearing about an incident with a A340 out of MRU where the AOA vane was damaged in the stand and went unnoticed or unreported. After take-off the aircraft was receiving erroneous AOA info and the more the PF attempted to increase pitch the more progressively the flight computers lowered the nose as the false AOA data was being received. I think the fast thinking commander switched off some of the PRIM's & SEC's (primary and secondary flight computers) and managed to return in direct law.
A single damaged AoA probe is not supposed to do that ... ? In the meantime it is true that a single dysfunctional ADIRU did the mess it did on QF72 ! |
B737 rolling over? Is this in reference to the crash near Pittsburgh or Colorado Springs? If Pittsburgh I seem to recall that the flying pilot did not dis-connect the auto-pilot but left it in CWS.
|
Read here for some informations regarding the B737 rudder rollovers: The Rudder Story
|
Time to give credit, I think. It is DARK at 0200 in the morning, just north of Khartoum at Fl360, Comms are not easy with either KRT or CAI. These guys were in the middle of a 3 day rotation in the middle of the circadiam low. I know , I've been there. I think this crew handled this in a cool and collected manner without loosing control , resolving the problem and making great decisions. Clearly not such a catastrophic event as some above would say or they would have ended up in Cairo not Beirut! I am sure appropriate guidance will follow. Well Done Guys.
|
Originally Posted by PTH
regarding the 737 rollover...at least there is a procedure for dealing with it in a mechanical fashion.
one can also use assymetric thrust to deal with it...relatively easy so, is the airbus procedure, start writing NEW CODE and enter it into the computer? I don't care for the 737, but I flew it. I hate the Airbus and didn't fly it, even though I would have earned more money. what a POS! Why 'hate' an aeroplane you've never flown? That's a rhetorical question by the way as I know the answer!!!! You Are An Idiot:rolleyes: |
Maybe all of us don't want to experience the bad results others have experienced first hand. My friend had an out of control A300 trying to land at MIA with uncommanded rudder movements. He knew they were going to crash but not exactly sure where. Then the AA587 crash in New York in 01 that got blamed on the FO using too agressive rudder movements for some strange reason. Airbus probably had a lot of input in that investigation. Recently the A380 and A321 with the massive electrical faults. No, I elected for the smaller paycheck to fly an airplane I trusted. If you trust the Airbus, go for it. I chose not to. I never felt like an idiot for what I did with no personal experience. I learned from other people's experiences rather than verifying it for myself.
|
Airbus gremlins.
Wonder how many have noticed that a certain aircraft type name is an almost perfect anagram of HUBRIS. Nearer perfect if you consider "H" is English pronounced "Aitch". The gods on Olympus will be laughing again.
|
Airbus gremlins.
Wonder how many have noticed that a certain aircraft type name is an almost perfect anagram of HUBRIS. Nearer perfect if you consider "H" is English pronounced "Aitch". The gods on Olympus will be laughing again.
|
Perspective?
Once upon a time, a USN F-4 experienced an electrical fire in the rear cockpit behind the C/B panels. The resulting arcing and sparking caused the AFCS (Stability Augmentation Portion) to experience intermittent electric power. The GIF (Guy in Front) experienced continuous transient control inputs as power was applied and removed from the AFCS. These inputs (and probably the smoke too) panicked him to such an extent that he promptly ejected out of an otherwise good flying machine without first addressing the electrical aspects of the rear cockpit fire. The GIB was also forced to eject since he had no controls in that cockpit.
Now this was an aircraft with essentially direct mechanical connection to the flight control hydraulic cylinders (The stab aug had limited control authority.) Now forward to the 21st century. An AB aircraft experiences intermittent electrical power from a generator and that situation so confuses the electrical system that essential equipment is not continuously supplied with electrical power. The warning system itself (ECAM) has intermittant power and is continually being reset thus it doesn't settle down to display a clear warning message. Fortunately a clear warning message finally drifts across the screen and the crew responds and shuts down the left generator which begins the resolution of their problems. But suppose the ECAM never settled down? How would this crew have addressed the problem then? Perhaps some memory item procedures are needed. If essential electrical systems are not continuously powered, does this still meet certification guidelines? Suppose a similar problem cropped up at rotation or on final. And before all the B guys get too smug, ask yourselves what would happen in your machine if critical displays and systems continually were shuttled between busses by an intermittent electrical problem? |
Machinbird - And before all the B guys get too smug, ask yourselves what would happen in your machine if critical displays and systems continually were shuttled between busses by an intermittent electrical problem? |
White Knight...of course those tragedies happened and that is why we now train how to handle them. I am not an idiot...except for picking an airline that picked airbus...that I will admit.
DC ATE...thanks pal. Anyone who has every flown a douglas understands the sheer simplicity, and therefore elegance of systems. One of the great designers there had the word KISS on his wall...keep it simple, stupid! Let's face it, the wizardry of the airbus helps for fuel efficency and a lighter structure. Give me a heavier plane that doesn't break so badly if properly maintained. I feel sorry for the airbus button pushers...they may levitate, but they ain't flying. |
As I've said a few times on here: I'm just glad I'm out of this racket and don't have to worry 'bout it any more. I don't even fly any more !! Trains, boats, autos are good enough for me.
Good luck to all that have to put up with all this "automation". |
I didn't get in the crazy automation era but still felt it coming. Guess we were lucky to get out when we did. I didn't have to put up with the Airbus mentality of flying. Computers are great if they are right. Not so great if they are wrong. Maybe I am just old fashioned. My first airplane didn't have a battery in it. My biggest aviation problem was finding somebody to prop me.
|
History
And before all the B guys get too smug, ask yourselves what would happen in your machine if critical displays and systems continually were shuttled between busses by an intermittent electrical problem? Well designed systems will accommodate intermittents that would cause cumulative errors in less robustly designed systems. A/B will figure it out and fix it, retrofitting the robustness should have been there in the beginning. GB |
Blanking screens has happened before on the A320 in the 90's. That was due to an over zealous pilot inserting too many possible alternates and overloading the computer memory. It didn't happen to the rest of us because we were aware that it was a possibility and didn't push our luck.
It is also important to use common sense, even on an Airbus. The manual doesn't cover all fault scenarios as has already been mentioned. I remember an A320 having a wing tip brake come on where the ECAM assumed an assymetric flap condition. In fact the flap had locked at flap full but the ECAM instructed to put the flap switch to flap 3. This resulted in overcontrolling by the pilot and a difficult landing. I had the same fault at my next simulator check. The flap on the controls page showed it was in full but amber. I landed normally with the switch at full and wondered what the problem was supposed to be. Only then was I told that what I was given was what had happened for real, but the crew had pedantically followed the ECAM message. Even my F/O in the simulator was trying to point out my incorrect procedure because I wasn't following the ECAM message. It would seem that some would just follow the 'correct procedure' without using common sense even if there is no correct procedure for the actual condition present at the time or they have misdiagnosed the condition. |
It's not the first time Airbus electrics have thrown a tantrum. AAIB reports on G -EUOB and G-EZAC incidents are IMHO compulsory reading material for any aspiring or current bus driver.
Basics of all three incidents are simple: E in EFIS & ECAM stands for electronic and electronics needs proper electricity to work. If a bunch of screens go crazy your problem is a) electric b) likely to affect ECAM, don't expect it to work as advertized or at all. So how do we solve problem of ECAM-junkies at the time of ECAM going on vacation? We can introduce memory item like : LOOK UP! Yes, as A320 pilot one is free to look at overhead panel even if ECAM doesn't direct him to do so. Chances are there will be some or other Pb glowing amber and pushing it might solve a problem. Wait a sec here! Don't just push it mindlessly, take a look, read what's written on it, recall what it does and what will be the consequences. Simple, really. Or not, if you learnt the systems by rote to pass the exam. Then it's really tough times ahead for you bro. Regarding the Magic Bus and today's pilots: that Airbus is crash-proof and can cope with less skilled pilot than standard is misperception, promulgation of which is the fault of Airbus propaganda department, not the fellows who designed the Airbi. Woe to the airline whose training department takes this sales pitch to be true. Compared with a couple of decades ago, modern pilot has replaced: pilot, flight engineer, radio operator and navigator. Creating better and easier to operate systems was meant to decrease workload. It succeeded yet the intention was not to make life in cockpit easier: it was to reduce workforce as much as possible. It is all fine and well as long our electronic little helpers do their work. When they pack up, you have two people doing the job that was historically split between 4 to 6. |
before all the B guys get too smug, ask yourselves what would happen in your machine if critical displays and systems continually were shuttled between busses by an intermittent electrical problem? Anyway a two week old example arrived here with the following defects. Galley power repeatedly switched itself off Lighting system flickering, cabin and cockpit. Flight Recorder OFF light intermittent ON. EFIS and FMC dumped all info and L Nav and A/Thrott disconnected, Track disappeared from EFIS Pressurisation problem felt but no warnings Then nbr 1 eng gen bus off light on, and all back to normal. BA soldiered on with the VSCF for many years, but finally gave up and converted to IDGs. |
Whilst we're praising Douglas, I suppose we won't mention about Cargo Doors blowing out or flipping on their backs on landing every so often.:hmm:
No aeroplane is perfect.....4500 A32X family aircraft later, they're certainly no POS - and if you're asking 'what's it goi ng to do next' - I suggest you don't understand the machine. |
A job well done. Dark, IMC, light turb, poor comms, unappealing diversion options - they earned their crust that night. Let's wait for the report.
|
Originally Posted by clandestino
Regarding the Magic Bus and today's pilots: that Airbus is crash-proof and can cope with less skilled pilot than standard is misperception, promulgation of which is the fault of Airbus propaganda department, not the fellows who designed the Airbi.
|
I find it interesting that Boeing's prized aircraft had a severe fire and meltdown the other day and all seems quite the norm....Don't worry Boeing will take care of that!!!!!
meanwhile an incident on a A320 and now we are lead to believe that Airbus is crap and the ill result of the overly teched modern era..... Enough is Enough....if we want to compare apples to oranges, more Boeing's have hit the dirt than Airbuses...but that's not the point...... Point is who cares... I have no preference for either aircraft, but I will say for those who are afraid of modern technology, I don't leave messages on my Dads cell phone because he doesn't know how to retrieve them.......:) |
AD mod status :confused:
Does anyone know the MSN of the subject aircraft ? |
razoray
there is a difference...the 787 is in its test program and is not taking paying passengers aloft. the A320 series has been taking people for a ride now for quite awhile. too bad they are now part of the new test program. |
Will the 787 ever take a paying customer??
All I'm saying is Boeing and Airbus both make good aircraft.....but as shown not perfect....just sick of the battle..... we all have no choice but to fly one or the other...... |
the great divide
right well good job this post has gone form talking about an Airbus incident, to an A vs B argument and then to attack the 787, waiting for somebody to come after the A350 and we'll have all the hacks out. I for one am very happy with my American made aircraft but i would not be arrogant enough to either say that either Airbus ( an airplane that i have been an engineer on in a previous life) or my preferred maker of airplanes has the right idea, all us that sit on the business end of the craft must remember one simple rule it's only a Computer. A lot of the incidents of recent times have come from lack of knowledge of what the system is doing. Much of what Airbus tried to eliminate in the making of the A320 has been taken care of in the major developments of teaching of the modern elements of CRM. Leaving it to the computer may not be ideal. We have now come around to a state that pilot skills have been so degraded that even the whizz kids at Airbus are having a rethink about the control the cockpit can exercise. (In my limited knowledge direct and ultimate is the only answer.) Whichever side of the Atlantic your ideology sides TRAINING of the Aircraft systems and an integrated knowledge may save the day. Short Jar 25 courses are not the answer.
Well thats my 2 and 6 pence awaiting the bashing |
B737 rolling over? Is this in reference to the crash near Pittsburgh or Colorado Springs? If Pittsburgh I seem to recall that the flying pilot did not dis-connect the auto-pilot but left it in CWS. |
I feel sorry for the airbus button pushers...they may levitate, but they ain't flying. Wonder why Boeing fell into the trap of FBW and all the magic? And let's forget the triple7 that went a bit funny a few years ago with its FBW. The bashing and bias are what make a lot of us drop out of these discussions. BTW, what ARE you FLYING these days? |
Airbus funny incident
Back in 1995 I heard of an MAS A330 stranded in ADL with an unusual problem. The flight was AOG because of a flap assymmetry problem.
The inbound flight crew had departed KUL with an MEL deferred item pertaining to wing tip breakers which allowed despatch with the proviso the deferred item be fixed within a fixed number of days ( I can't remember the details ). However when the outbound crew started their preflight, the wing tip breaker system locked out permanently and the station engineer was unable to make head or tail of what caused it despite the direct communication with MAS maintenance base in KUL. Even the Airbus techies stationed in KUL was not of much help. The outbound flight crew returned to their hotel only to meet up with the inbound flight crew who was also puzzled as they had been assured in KUL that the WTB lock out system has been overridden and despatchable for a number of days. Then the inbound captain asked if anybody had messed around with the flight deck clock system. The outbound f/o sheepishly admitted fumbling whilst setting the clock and had reset the f/o side clock after letting the date/month run past sveral months! Apparently the aircraft computers' time base is linked with the flight deck clocks. Only when they advised the engineering of this that the Airbus techies in KUL realise what the problem was. I don't know how true this incident was but it was brought up in one of the technical meetings pilots had with the engineering boys. Just a little story.............................. |
I wont kick Airbus as its bad manners to do so when someone is down..but just how many undiscovered fault scenarios are still out there.The story of the commander taking out the PRIM/SEC so that he could control the aircraft correctly in pitch is worrying as it requires quick lateral thinking which some may not have.So are the incidents of radar alt controlling laws and the pilots ability to land(recent incident plus a qantas 330 incident a while back)..I believethe airbus peole were well-intentioned and produced a landmark machine but the over-confidence was sickening..you cannot have a computer run things in something like flying with so many variables.The man is still better..let the computer warn him by all means but not control him.Boeing and others are imperfect but you as the pilot do control your own destiny.I like it this way.Monitor me,warn me but give me control.always.
|
As is the norm these days on PPRUNE the "usual suspects" have hijacked a thread to spout their hate of Airbus. Truly unbelievable especially as they have admitted to never flying them.
The "urban legends" have also come out of the woodwork in a further attempt to decry Airbus. You really are SAD people and as for the A330 story in ADL it just goes to prove what a few of the sensible posters here have been saying, some "pilots" do NOT know their aircraft! |
Hi,
Ah yes .. urban legends Note that this is not an urban legend: Ziegler said to the press in a interview: This aircraft (Airbus) can be controlled by my concierge Methink Ziegler can't be suspected to hate Airbus :) |
It really is time to analyse what it is that is causing this problem.
Point 1: The AB 319 onwards are clever and sophisticated aircraft. The technology is extremely advanced. I view it as a significant step along the aviation path. It generally makes life (and eating crew meals) a lot easier. Personally I dislike the side-stick concept from a monitoring p.o.v. but otherwise the a/c has a lot of plusses. Point 2: The 'POS' that PTH talks about is not primarily the aircraft nor the technology. It sits at the desks of all those managers, accountants and airline training departments who have swallowed the AB hype - starting with Bernard's. Point 3: If all is working well, the a/c will NOT readily let you kill yourself or your passengers. Point 4: If all is NOT working well, it will. It has the ability to remove its defences and either not let the pilots know or confuse them with its functions. To summarise: If all the above 'POS's' would realise this, that there are obvious faults in the software as with ANY aircraft that uses computers, the world will be a safer place. Teach pilots NOT to trust implicitly. Teach them to be wary of the machine. Teach them to retain basic airmanship and flying skills. In other words, to watch out for themselves. Had the PGF crew done this, even given the altitude was hopelessly wrong, they would most probably have survived and snagged the AoA sensors on landing. As with the latest electrical shenanigans, crews need to be aware of all the wrinkles and what to do when ECAM fails. It is not what it is hyped to be. Acceptance of this by some would go a long long way to sorting out a lot of the problems. Remember the infallible 'system' did not protect the AB CTP out of TLS. I think that is a significant lesson for all. Time to end this boring battle here and accept that FBW is here to stay and will get more capable. Let's make sure we all keep up with it. |
for the A330 story in ADL it just goes to prove what a few of the sensible posters here have been saying, some "pilots" do NOT know their aircraft! please tell us what's wrong with that "story". Thx Everybody else may have a look @ 8. on page 2/6 :ok: http://www.kwauk.com/Files/A330%20Manual.pdf |
iceman50 - As is the norm these days on PPRuNe the "usual suspects" have hijacked a thread to spout their hate of Airbus. EDIT: P.S. This applies to the new Boeing products as well. |
Very odd that rudder out of trim not noticed for several minutes and late notification led to loss of flight data.
|
There are two threads topping the forum at the moment. Once concerns a potentially dangerous uncontained engine failure. The other concerns a potentially dangerous software failure.
It is curious to see the difference in attitude. The hardware failure is a taken as cause for concern - but the emphasis seems to be "find the root cause, design a fix, and move on. After all, these things are bound to happen from time to time in such complex machinery." However, when the problem is software - even if the occurence is comparably rare - the attitude seems to be that this is completely unnacceptable. Furthermore it is used as some kind of proof that the underlying philosophy of the aircraft is flawed. Why the difference I wonder? |
Dont Hang Up - Why the difference I wonder? |
ould be that pilots [real pilots, not the newer computer pilots] like to have a feeling of being in control rather than have some computer telling them what to do all the time.
As an Airbus pilot could you explain the above? |
Maybe I should have said having a computer "limit" what they can and can't do. As an Airbus pilot, perhaps YOU can explain.
|
I think he already said that judging by your location and age,it would be a waste of time
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:48. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.