Airbus technology defects

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Wrongstuff

Zeke, Back to the FCOM for you, Alpha Lock lives

I sent you a PM a few days back, just to clear things up, no such thing exists. This can all be checked in FCOM 1.27.50 of any 318/319/320/321/330/340 series aircraft.

An "ALPFA/SPEED LOCK FUNCTION" exists on the 320 series, or "SLATS ALFA/ SPEED LOCK" function on the 330/340 series, however it does not make sense in the post I replied to.

I believe the other person was trying to suggest thrust lock, however they do not understand the disengagement of the same.

The person clearly does not understand the systems of their aircraft to make such comments, what they did post was bollocks.

[WAGM]

Zeke,

You're clearly a 10,000X smarter and better driver than I and I'm humbled in you presence.......

T'wos far too early in the morning clearly.... was referring to an Alpha-Floor condition, yes Thrust Lock is a totally seperate issue.

Back to RadAlts and their connection with aircraft behaivour though.... from the ATSB report as per the link

Inspection of the radio altimeter system antennas subsequent to the occurrence revealed that they had sustained water ingress at the antenna coaxial cables. The water ingress into the radio altimeter antennas resulted in the radio altimeter signals being interpreted as out of range signals, rather than as a failure of the radio altimeters.

and

The loss of valid radio altimeter signals did not result in the automatic switching from flight mode to flare mode when the autopilots disengaged.

There may be a valuable lesson here, maybe not???

Perhaps those responding might like to actually digest the report first?

www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2001/AAIR/aair200104399.aspx

I'd wonderd how often this has occured and if any other PPruners have experienced or heard of similar problems or was this simply an aberration in the big picture of the relatively few things that go wrong with all aircraft?

Thanks to those with something constructive to offer as we're in this season of good will.

[hetfield]

What makes me wonder, no focus on the IBERIA/BILBAO accident yet........

[A4]

Originally Posted by hetfield

What makes me wonder, no focus on the IBERIA/BILBAO accident yet........

Wasn't that the Training flight in cr4p wx into BIO (not unusual ). Dual input resulting in nosegear touchdown and noseleg shear/collapse

Dual inputs in the Bus are a big no no as the inputs are summed. So if one stick is held full left and one full right the result is zero. If both sticks are held half aft the result is FULL aft. The take over pushbutton (big red A/P disco also) should be used but, very close to the ground when reacting instinctively to a rapidly developing situation, it takes a lot of conscious effort to actually think about pushing and holding it as you take control.

The aircraft will shout "DUAL INPUT" at you but by the time this happens you may well have touched down / ballooned.

I'm an Airbus fan, but I have to admit that this is not the best fature of the Bus.

A4

[billy34-kit]

Don't forget A-310 from Transat, aircraft's rudder simply vanished in cruise flight....calm air, no turbulence, no imput...just????

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...sat050306.html

[CONF iture]

Originally Posted by A4

The take over pushbutton (big red A/P disco also) should be used but, very close to the ground when reacting instinctively to a rapidly developing situation, it takes a lot of conscious effort to actually think about pushing and holding it as you take control

That is so true !
And on top of that, you just don't how your partner did or did not already correct, cos his action on his side stick is invisible to you, so you have to go through a complete new assessment on the situation...
Just out of the loop for these so precious seconds...

[the shrimp]

Has anybody got news from QCM? I haven't read any answer from him to the common sense questions which have been asked to him (to recall: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...16#post3000016 ).

Finally, can we say that Norbert Jacquet is really this "funny guy"? Or isn't he just guilty of being right?

A few documents are getting translated on the Airbus defects that caused crashes, pointed out by Norbert Jacquet, and will be presented on this forum later on.

[ACMS]

how could you like an Aircraft that calls you a "RETARD"

[CONF iture]

Originally Posted by Speevy

did you know that the captain was trying to show how smart was the a/c demostrating Alpha Floor but forgot this:
ALPHA-FLOOR PROTECTION

Who could you honestly believe, an airline pilot would simply rely on Automatic Protection to kick in, at 100 feet RA, and with nothing less than a full pax load … ?

For sure these guys were very low, and well below the planed 100 ft RA, but that was not their intention, and they explain how they’ve been mislead, but there’s no way they could be possibly waiting for ALPHA FLOOR to assure the show!?

Early in that very short flight, due to an A/THR malfunction, they were already in Manual THR
15 sec before trees, THR LEVERS were advanced
9 sec before trees, THR LEVERS were at TOGA position
3 sec before trees TOGA FMA was called
But only 1 sec before trees, thrust was produced …

And there are 2 main reasons for that thrust production delay:
1- A/THR malfunction did generate late signals to ENG from any THR LEVER adjustment
2- ENG1 did stall… (Could it be the reason forest was cut in such a rush… ?)

Originally Posted by Speevy

If you comand Toga the A320 will go around!!!

Today I hope so… , but was it really the case for 100% situations in these Very - Early - Days… ?

[Zeke]

CONF iture,
None of what you said is true, the planned height for the flight by AF was 400ft, the hard deck for such a flight stipulated by the DGAC is higher still.
As for your timings
12.45:14 Co-pilot OK, you're at 100ft there, watch, watch
12.45:13 Radio altimeter [One hundred]
12.45:19.1 Radio altimeter [Forty]
12.45:23.6 Radio altimeter [Fifty]
12.45:26 Captain OK ,I'm OK there, disconnect autothrottle
12.45:27.5 Radio altimeter [Forty]
12.45:32 Co-pilot Watch out for those pylons ahaead, eh. See them?
12.45:33 Co-pilot Yeah, yeah, don't worry.
12.45:34.5 [Clack! Clack! Clack!] - power lever dentents
12.45:35.3 Radio altimeter [Thirty]
12.45:36.2 Radio altimeter TOGA/SRS
12.45:38.3 Radio altimeter [Thirty]
12.45:39 Captain Go around track
12.45:39.9 Captain Sh...!
Nothing was wrong with the autothrust, the pilots disconnected it.
Habsheim was not a technology problem, it was a pilot problem, too low, too slow, no energy. You put ANY jet airliner in the same situation, you will get the same result.

[Speevy]

Again, I agree with Zeke!!
It was a pilot mistake......

Why he disconected the A/T so low, the Fcom say you shouldn't do it below 1000ft RA if not for a Goaraound and if he did that the Clack Clack would have happend earlier..
at 12.45.25 he disconected the A/Thr and onlu at 12.45.34 he advanced the thrust lever....

The A/T in the airbus is doing a good job as long as the input are right (wind etc..).
Speevy

[the shrimp]

Questions to Zeke and Speevy.

Are the recordings authentic? There is more than a doubt!

The French Minister MERMAZ, accused in the Alsacian press of having personally intervened by fraudulently manipulating the flight recorders of the Airbus in Habsheim, filed a lawsuit for defamation. Finally... Why did he capitulate?

Read here: http://jacno.com/za-an-moye.htm#rep07 ("In 1992, well before...").

[CONF iture]

Originally Posted by Zeke

None of what you said is true, the planned height for the flight by AF was 400ft, the hard deck for such a flight stipulated by the DGAC is higher still

I’m afraid there was another way to do it at that time
http://www1.airliners.net/open.file/0547430/M/
I don’t say it was either clever or legal... but it was commonly accepted (even by DGAC...) and practised by… Concorde … 747 … or this lovely Mercure.

Originally Posted by Speevy

The A/T in the airbus is doing a good job as long as the input are right

Once again, even if it will never be publicly admitted, the Bus you fly today has learned A LOT from all these early crashes, accidents, incidents.

Originally Posted by Speevy

Fcom say you shouldn't do it below 1000ft RA

Please, would you quote such reference.

Originally Posted by Zeke

As for your timings …

Well… all you do is sticking to the official version…
But did you realise that during 10 days, Flight Recorders have been out of any judicial control.
The Judge Sengelin had to step up and order the immediate seizure of these boxes!!!
… Strangely enough, Judge Sengelin was withdrawn from the case soon after…
Doesn’t it bother you?
Doesn’t it ring a bell to you?
On one side, you have the official version, BTW go and find it on French BEA… It seems they’re not too proud of it.
On the other side, if you’re ready to open your mind, and learn many things, there are 3 books (No luck: All of them in French) but all of them available on the web.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by CONF iture

Well… all you do is sticking to the official version…
But did you realise that during 10 days, Flight Recorders have been out of any judicial control.

The official version is the only version that had access to all the evidence, everyone else has an agenda.

It is true that the recorders were "out of any judicial control", they were with the DGAC, in fact they were taken from the scene by Daniel Tenenbaum, the head of the DGAC, news footage of the day confirms that.

Conspiracy theory people use this line of argument because in France a police like investigation takes place for aircraft accidents, their whole judicial system is different to what many are used to. People who make this claim are either ignorant of the process in France, or playing on others being ignorant of the process in France.

What in fact happened in the head of the DGAC, which is equivalent to the head of the CAA in the UK, or head of the FAA in the USA had possession of the boxes. The court then ordered the DGAC to hand over the boxes to the investigation, and as far as I understand they were then basically handed back to the DGAC for the technical analysis to commence.

It is my understanding that this process is not uncommon in France, as the investigation needs to be set up first before it can start accepting evidence.

Michel Asseline (the Captain) in his own book tries to blame everyone else, he also at the same time confirms much of the report by the Ministry of Planning, Housing, Transport and Maritime Affairs said the in official report.

[Speevy]

Originally Posted by CONF iture

Please, would you quote such reference.

FCOM 3.04.70 P2
Use of A/thr on app:

Use of autothrust in approach

The pilot should use autothrust for approaches. On final approach, it usually gives more accurate speed control, although in turbulent conditions the actual airspeed may vary from the target speed, by as much as five knots. Although the changeover between auto and manual thrust is easy to make with a little practice, the pilot should, when using autothrust for the final approach, keep it engaged until he retards the thrust levers to idle for touchdown. If the pilot is going to make the landing using manual thrust, he should disconnect the A/THR by the time he has reached 1000 feet on the final approach.

If he makes a shallow flare, with A/THR engaged, it will increase thrust to maintain the approach speed until he pulls the thrust levers back to idle. Therefore he should avoid making a shallow flare, or should retard the thrust levers as soon as it is no longer necessary to carry thrust, and if necessary before he receives the "retard" reminder

Here you go Conf inture

Cheers Speevy

[CONF iture]

Speevy, thank you for the quote.

I can see it’s part of the last modification because just before that it was still:
“… it is recommended to disconnect the A/THR by …”
But anyway, the meaning is not that far, and to be honest I didn’t remember reading that, and if I did, I had forgotten !
So … one point for you !

Now, regarding Habsheim, the crew did get, as they were still on the ground, a blinking amber CLB Annunciation in the FMA, which is quite abnormal, and reveals an A/THR malfunction.
Passing 1000 ft the pilot brought back THR LEVERS from FLX MCT to CLB detent, but N1 commands didn’t follow the order (and it’s part of the same page you did quote: If A/THR fails, A/THR will disconnect) so the pilot had to leave the CLB detent position in order to control the speed, therefore, he was in MANUAL THR.
Early in the fly-by, he depressed the instinctive disc button just to make sure he was in MANUAL THR.
Please, read page 103 to 105 in the Asseline's book, it's good information for an Airbus pilot anyway.

At that point I’d like to mention 2 things:

1- The total flight was less than 5 minutes, but the commission report still did elect not to show the DFDR transcript of that early part of the flight !?

2- It’s easy for me, 18 years after, facing my screen, to say that maybe that early A/THR malfunction should have been the signal to CAPT Asseline not to go further in that flight …

For Zeke, I don’t forget your post, I’ll be back soon.

[Speevy]

That close to the gnd would you honesty get involved with an A/Th problem and try to fix it by disconnecting it?
I would say that the best option is to Goaround especially if something doesn't look right but that's another story..
I don't believe the facts as Reported by the Capt. Asseline, and I think post-trauma defense mechanism are involved in what he says (I am not saying he's a liar just that he cannot be the only source of info.)
You sy the FDR has been manipulated, the day you have some proof, ok I will believe you.
Untill that day....
Speevy

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by CONF iture

Passing 1000 ft the pilot brought back THR LEVERS from FLX MCT to CLB detent, but N1 commands didn’t follow the order.

Does N1 always reduce from MCT to CLB when accelerating in a climb ?

Originally Posted by CONF iture

Early in the fly-by, he depressed the instinctive disc button just to make sure he was in MANUAL THR.

Didn’t Michel Asseline deliberately press the autothrust disconnect for over 15 seconds on descent whilst in flight idle turning off autothrust for the remainder of the flight ?

Why does he have to "make sure" later, the TLA was 0 (IDLE) and N1 35%.

You do know that the two pilots involved were both management training captains with AF ?

[CONF iture]

Let me answer that one first.

Originally Posted by Zeke

Does N1 always reduce from MCT to CLB when accelerating in a climb ?

Always !
That's the purpose of the thing.
The airplane accelerates in the climb due to the pitch up reduction and the drag reduction.

Originally Posted by Zeke

Didn’t Michel Asseline deliberately press the autothrust disconnect for over 15 seconds on descent whilst in flight idle turning off autothrust for the remainder of the flight ?

Negative.
If you see that in the official report, please, let me know.
Otherwise, could you specify your source.

Originally Posted by Zeke

Why does he have to "make sure" later, the TLA was 0 (IDLE) and N1 35%

Sorry, I don't know what you mean.
Please, clarify.

Originally Posted by Zeke

You do know that the two pilots involved were both management training captains with AF ?

Absolutely right.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by CONF iture

Always !
That's the purpose of the thing.
The airplane accelerates in the climb due to the pitch up reduction and the drag reduction.

Not always a N1 change from MCT to CLB, only always from TOGA to CLB. CLB can command the same N1 as MCT.

If it takes the MCT N1/EPR to accelerate and/or climb whilst in CLB, autothrust can command it. Pretty basic stuff.

Originally Posted by CONF iture

If you see that in the official report, please, let me know.

On the road for a few days, will try and dig it up when I get back. From memory about page 50-54 of the official report.