Airbus technology defects
Join Date: May 2005
Location: middle of nowhere
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
J.O.
No, I am not awfully sure of myself, one reason I don't feel comfortable in a Airbus. Some other testpilot once felt too sure of himself and his product, that should be a lesson to all of us.
No, I wouldn't want to try a low energy stunt, knowing quite well that in any aircraft you're in trouble. Aerodynamics can't be fooled.
Thanks for entiteling me to a opinion, but what exactly do you mean by "my own facts"??
No, I am not awfully sure of myself, one reason I don't feel comfortable in a Airbus. Some other testpilot once felt too sure of himself and his product, that should be a lesson to all of us.
No, I wouldn't want to try a low energy stunt, knowing quite well that in any aircraft you're in trouble. Aerodynamics can't be fooled.
Thanks for entiteling me to a opinion, but what exactly do you mean by "my own facts"??
So approaching the matter obliquely didn't help. I only got accused of being profesorial. Oh, well...
Your opinion: aircraft that does not lift it's nose when the pilots pulls, that does not deliver thrust when the pilot slams the throttles IS a screw up. Well sir, since I have to be blunt, this level of ignorance about aerodynamics and powerplants can not be and is not tolerated at PPL level, let alone ATPL. What do you make out of A320 with 14° ANU and slowly descending? Probably nothing ,so I'll tell you: the poor thing has almost stalled. Any further pitch-up would lead to stall, and certainly not to climb away, as engines were at idle. By overriding capt's MA's control inputs, A320's FBW alpha protection actually saved a lot of pax that day. Sadly, alpha-floor protection 'thought' that airplane was landing, as it was at 30 ft RA, so didn't intervene by automatically hitting TOGA. And no, even A320 doesn't override control inputs, while flying far from the edge of envelope. If you pull stick, it will pitch-up, if you have some AoA to spare.
As for slamming the throttles and expecting the instant power - every engine used to power the aircraft, from rotax to klimov to GE90 has spool-up time. Granted, some have it so short that it's often mispercieved as instantenious. But turbofans definitively have perceptible lag and do require some forward thinking. It's the nature of these high-powered beasts, nothing can be done about it. And forget about 'A320 weerd thrust leevers' that don't let the pilot have control. They worked as designed, expected, required - in short they gave TOGA when set to TOGA. Only not instantly, but you won't find instant power in anything, except perhaps JATO packs.
So your opinion puts about every aeroplane ever built in screwed-up category.
Still too profesorial for you? Don't worry, translation comes: you're a faker. If I believed you were pro, I'd be seriously worried about trainning and checking standards at your airline. Still I have to admit that you've made a good point, once:
Your opinion: aircraft that does not lift it's nose when the pilots pulls, that does not deliver thrust when the pilot slams the throttles IS a screw up. Well sir, since I have to be blunt, this level of ignorance about aerodynamics and powerplants can not be and is not tolerated at PPL level, let alone ATPL. What do you make out of A320 with 14° ANU and slowly descending? Probably nothing ,so I'll tell you: the poor thing has almost stalled. Any further pitch-up would lead to stall, and certainly not to climb away, as engines were at idle. By overriding capt's MA's control inputs, A320's FBW alpha protection actually saved a lot of pax that day. Sadly, alpha-floor protection 'thought' that airplane was landing, as it was at 30 ft RA, so didn't intervene by automatically hitting TOGA. And no, even A320 doesn't override control inputs, while flying far from the edge of envelope. If you pull stick, it will pitch-up, if you have some AoA to spare.
As for slamming the throttles and expecting the instant power - every engine used to power the aircraft, from rotax to klimov to GE90 has spool-up time. Granted, some have it so short that it's often mispercieved as instantenious. But turbofans definitively have perceptible lag and do require some forward thinking. It's the nature of these high-powered beasts, nothing can be done about it. And forget about 'A320 weerd thrust leevers' that don't let the pilot have control. They worked as designed, expected, required - in short they gave TOGA when set to TOGA. Only not instantly, but you won't find instant power in anything, except perhaps JATO packs.
So your opinion puts about every aeroplane ever built in screwed-up category.
Still too profesorial for you? Don't worry, translation comes: you're a faker. If I believed you were pro, I'd be seriously worried about trainning and checking standards at your airline. Still I have to admit that you've made a good point, once:
Originally Posted by Gretchenfrage
I insist on my point of view that a true airline pilot has to deal with the shortcomings of his aircraft or stop operating it. He cannot screw up and use such glitches as excuse
J.O.
No, I am not awfully sure of myself, one reason I don't feel comfortable in a Airbus. Some other testpilot once felt too sure of himself and his product, that should be a lesson to all of us.
No, I wouldn't want to try a low energy stunt, knowing quite well that in any aircraft you're in trouble. Aerodynamics can't be fooled.
Thanks for entiteling me to a opinion, but what exactly do you mean by "my own facts"??
No, I am not awfully sure of myself, one reason I don't feel comfortable in a Airbus. Some other testpilot once felt too sure of himself and his product, that should be a lesson to all of us.
No, I wouldn't want to try a low energy stunt, knowing quite well that in any aircraft you're in trouble. Aerodynamics can't be fooled.
Thanks for entiteling me to a opinion, but what exactly do you mean by "my own facts"??
Join Date: May 2005
Location: middle of nowhere
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the faker:
I start liking that slagging match … you are so predictable with your values and numbers. I suppose one of the beloved TRI’s in the sim and lonely drinkers on layovers. By the way, i was awaiting a answer on what "my own facts" were... But let it rest. Allthough you are right to cite me on this:
I insist on my point of view that a true airline pilot has to deal with the shortcomings of his aircraft or stop operating it. He cannot screw up and use such glitches as excuse.
That’s exactly why I am working on getting away from AB. Because to me (and please take this me for ME) there are too many unpredictabilities and open questions, not to say glitches.
As you stated: Everyone is entitled to his own opinion and that’s what this thread is about after all, isn’t it.
Merry X-mas and bye bye for now
GF
I start liking that slagging match … you are so predictable with your values and numbers. I suppose one of the beloved TRI’s in the sim and lonely drinkers on layovers. By the way, i was awaiting a answer on what "my own facts" were... But let it rest. Allthough you are right to cite me on this:
I insist on my point of view that a true airline pilot has to deal with the shortcomings of his aircraft or stop operating it. He cannot screw up and use such glitches as excuse.
That’s exactly why I am working on getting away from AB. Because to me (and please take this me for ME) there are too many unpredictabilities and open questions, not to say glitches.
As you stated: Everyone is entitled to his own opinion and that’s what this thread is about after all, isn’t it.
Merry X-mas and bye bye for now
GF
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: France/Africa
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those who uphold Airbus confine themselves to generalities with no link to specific facts. They do not bring any serious answers to pointed out realities and to commonsense questions which have been asked.
When they talk about technical points, they make mistakes and fall into discredit:
It’s absolutely wrong. The AoA protection is independent of the autothrust and remain active even with the autothrust disconnected.
We can also read on this topic insults and wrong accusations without any proof against Norbert Jacquet to try to ruin his reputation:
May we ask a question to Lemurian about this? A new book was recently published in France in which we find the whole first chapter on Norbert Jacquet. His story is mentioned on the back cover of this book : “As regards to those who decide to break the law of silence, their life is destroyed, just like this Air France pilot who became a tramp after he had revealed facts on the Airbus crashes”. Here: http://jacno.com/am3830.htm (we can also see that a documentary is coming soon).
He recently had a few articles in newspapers and his business has been evoked on several TV programs. For example, an article: http://jacno.com/am5200.htm
So, can we also talk about psychiatry or polonium for those people?
It would be a good idea to avoid personal attacks against Norbert. But it’s well known that when someone is scared by somebody’s arguments, he refuses the debate and he tries to discredit this person. Please, stop insulting Norbert Jacquet.
When they talk about technical points, they make mistakes and fall into discredit:
We can also read on this topic insults and wrong accusations without any proof against Norbert Jacquet to try to ruin his reputation:
...I apologise for my previous post, very provocative because I thought norbert Jacquet was hiding under some of the pseudos.
I still believe he is, as he is well-known to do that, especially on a French forum that has been completely polluted by this argument.
So, from these apologists of a conspiration, why not post EXACTLY how NJ lost his job, as it involves AF, the DGCA medical council, the police/gendarmerie,some psychiatrists ....list is by no means ended. What is missing, though is the use of polonium !
I still believe he is, as he is well-known to do that, especially on a French forum that has been completely polluted by this argument.
So, from these apologists of a conspiration, why not post EXACTLY how NJ lost his job, as it involves AF, the DGCA medical council, the police/gendarmerie,some psychiatrists ....list is by no means ended. What is missing, though is the use of polonium !
He recently had a few articles in newspapers and his business has been evoked on several TV programs. For example, an article: http://jacno.com/am5200.htm
So, can we also talk about psychiatry or polonium for those people?
It would be a good idea to avoid personal attacks against Norbert. But it’s well known that when someone is scared by somebody’s arguments, he refuses the debate and he tries to discredit this person. Please, stop insulting Norbert Jacquet.
Sun worshipper
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The shrimp said :
"It’s absolutely wrong. The AoA protection is independent of the autothrust and remain active even with the autothrust disconnected."
Sorry, mister, Your knowledge of the airbus ATHR system is in error : "If you keep the ATHR disconnect button for more than 15 seconds,the A/THR is lost for the remaindre of the flight, and consequently so is ALPHA FLOOR"
I just typed too quickly and did not want to get into technicalities, but if you insist, the AoA protection remained available -in particular Alpha Prot - and that's the reason why,with so low a total energy, the pilot was prevented from getting a further pitch-up, therefore a stall (that's for Gretchenfrage ) and kept wings level throughout the descent into the trees. My humble opinion is that any other aircraft of the time would have stalled, very probably unsymmetrically, flipped a wing and gone crashing with far more severe results .
As for books and TV programs, you now have hundreds on different levels of conspiracy for the events of Sepember 11,2001. Do I believe them ? Hell,no !
"It’s absolutely wrong. The AoA protection is independent of the autothrust and remain active even with the autothrust disconnected."
Sorry, mister, Your knowledge of the airbus ATHR system is in error : "If you keep the ATHR disconnect button for more than 15 seconds,the A/THR is lost for the remaindre of the flight, and consequently so is ALPHA FLOOR"
I just typed too quickly and did not want to get into technicalities, but if you insist, the AoA protection remained available -in particular Alpha Prot - and that's the reason why,with so low a total energy, the pilot was prevented from getting a further pitch-up, therefore a stall (that's for Gretchenfrage ) and kept wings level throughout the descent into the trees. My humble opinion is that any other aircraft of the time would have stalled, very probably unsymmetrically, flipped a wing and gone crashing with far more severe results .
As for books and TV programs, you now have hundreds on different levels of conspiracy for the events of Sepember 11,2001. Do I believe them ? Hell,no !
Last edited by Lemurian; 17th Dec 2006 at 22:38. Reason: Spelling
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: France/Africa
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is better. You are in progress. But you speak now about alpha floor and not alpha prot. That is different. It does not seem very clear for you.
And did Cpt Asseline press more than 15 seconds?
And what about AoA protections under 100ft?
Sure. And it's not the first time!
And now, what about alpha prot, alpho floor and alpha max?
Can you say the values of the AoA during the Habsheim flight?
Was the speed increasing or decreasing at the end of the flight?
Was the thrust higher or lower than TO thrust at this time?
If it is too technical for you, I have easier. But you wanted to speak technical.
And did Cpt Asseline press more than 15 seconds?
And what about AoA protections under 100ft?
Sure. And it's not the first time!
And now, what about alpha prot, alpho floor and alpha max?
Can you say the values of the AoA during the Habsheim flight?
Was the speed increasing or decreasing at the end of the flight?
Was the thrust higher or lower than TO thrust at this time?
If it is too technical for you, I have easier. But you wanted to speak technical.
Last edited by the shrimp; 18th Dec 2006 at 09:11. Reason: english mistake
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's fair enough.
It 's a real quality to know when apology, and not every body is able to do it.
Now, I really don't see why you jump on the answer given to your statement:
... the reply was very much valid:
... and I don't see where "His knowledge of the airbus ATHR system is in error" in what he replied ?
Recognize you are a bit hard to follow:
After pretending AOA protection was lost, you change your mind in the next post: "AoA protection remained available"
I don't feel at ease with many comments from people sticking to the "too low too slow too late" version not to mention the unavoidable associated PNF comment:
So, FCOM ignores the pretty basic stuff:
"When A/THR is active, FMGS commands the thrust according to the vertical mode logic, but uses a thrust not greater than the thrust commanded by the position of the thrust lever. For example, when the thrust levers are set at the CL (climb) detent, the A/THR system can command thrust between idle and max climb"
He has probably never read your story, but obviously you have never read his book either as you would know that Asseline shut his mouth, confident in the investigation, and it's only when he realized he was fooled he decided to write the book.
Now, would he have chosen to unite with Norbert Jacquet, early and with consistency, either he would be a tramp too (which he's not and he hasn't been eaten either ...), either together they would have had a much better chance to make them heard.
That airplane, as clever as it could be, didn't have to think or not to think to automatically switch to TOGA, as pilot had done it already even if it was only by a mere 5 sec as stipulated by official report.
And even if ALPHA FLOOR protection was available at that kind of altitude, tell me at what kind of AOA the A/THR would have triggered TOGA ?
It 's a real quality to know when apology, and not every body is able to do it.
Now, I really don't see why you jump on the answer given to your statement:
Originally Posted by the shrimp
It’s absolutely wrong. The AoA protection is independent of the autothrust and remain active even with the autothrust disconnected
Recognize you are a bit hard to follow:
After pretending AOA protection was lost, you change your mind in the next post: "AoA protection remained available"
I don't feel at ease with many comments from people sticking to the "too low too slow too late" version not to mention the unavoidable associated PNF comment:
Originally Posted by Zeke
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
If it takes the MCT N1/EPR to accelerate and/or climb whilst in CLB, autothrust can command it. Pretty basic stuff
"When A/THR is active, FMGS commands the thrust according to the vertical mode logic, but uses a thrust not greater than the thrust commanded by the position of the thrust lever. For example, when the thrust levers are set at the CL (climb) detent, the A/THR system can command thrust between idle and max climb"
Originally Posted by Clandestino
capt. Asseline has never heard of it. Othervise he would have been familiar with moral3 and would never, ever sit down and write his book
Now, would he have chosen to unite with Norbert Jacquet, early and with consistency, either he would be a tramp too (which he's not and he hasn't been eaten either ...), either together they would have had a much better chance to make them heard.
Originally Posted by Clandestino
Sadly, alpha-floor protection 'thought' that airplane was landing, as it was at 30 ft RA, so didn't intervene by automatically hitting TOGA
And even if ALPHA FLOOR protection was available at that kind of altitude, tell me at what kind of AOA the A/THR would have triggered TOGA ?
Sun worshipper
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are on semantics here.
As seen in my previous post, i talked about the A/THR system and how its deconnection in this case meant the loss of an Aoa protection feature. Had it not been done by the pilot,the Alpha floor mode would have been triggered and the spectators at Habsheim would have had a wonderful memory to tell their grandchildren. Not a ball of fire rising from the trees, but the glorious acceleration/climb of a beautiful airplane.
Though I admire your sense of friendship in defending the indefensible (that goes to the original NJ, too, by the way...), the bottom line is that your friend acted recklessly on an aircraft -and I give you this - that no one really knew at that time, not even he.Whether there is, as you claim, foul play by all the authorities in France and in Europe is left to fora like this one to discuss, generally in vain. In my opinion, I'll go back to the original comment of the Captain I referred to :" For someone who should bear the deaths of a few people on his conscience, he is really very arrogant."
As seen in my previous post, i talked about the A/THR system and how its deconnection in this case meant the loss of an Aoa protection feature. Had it not been done by the pilot,the Alpha floor mode would have been triggered and the spectators at Habsheim would have had a wonderful memory to tell their grandchildren. Not a ball of fire rising from the trees, but the glorious acceleration/climb of a beautiful airplane.
Though I admire your sense of friendship in defending the indefensible (that goes to the original NJ, too, by the way...), the bottom line is that your friend acted recklessly on an aircraft -and I give you this - that no one really knew at that time, not even he.Whether there is, as you claim, foul play by all the authorities in France and in Europe is left to fora like this one to discuss, generally in vain. In my opinion, I'll go back to the original comment of the Captain I referred to :" For someone who should bear the deaths of a few people on his conscience, he is really very arrogant."
Command is not for the faint of heart. When in command of an aircraft, you are responsible for all that happens, particularly when you break the rules that you have previously set for a particular flight profile. Acceptance of said responsibility and contrition with respect to the errors made is a sign of a good commander, even when there are contributing factors which may have been outside your immediate perview at the time. Asseline has never accepted this responsibility or made any attempts to be contrite, and this makes it difficult to be sympathetic to him. His defenders are wasting their time because of this, IMHO.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As seen in my previous post, i talked about the A/THR system and how its deconnection in this case meant the loss of an Aoa protection feature. Had it not been done by the pilot,the Alpha floor mode would have been triggered and the spectators at Habsheim would have had a wonderful memory to tell their grandchildren
What about at least opening an FCOM before posting such comments ?
FCOM 1.22.30 ... ALPHA FLOOR protection is available from lift off to 100 feet RA in approach
Once again, your post shows an obvious lack of knowledge
1- on the aircraft
2- on the Habsheim case
If that: Lemurian is true, I would hide it ASAP !
Before posting next time, why not taking the time to read and to study to be able to build your OWN judgment on that controversial subject.
Looking at the number of Views on this thread, you would not be the only one.
Before I've heard of Norbert Jacquet, I had a similar judgment that you have on the Habsheim case.
Don't be afraid to read him, and if that guy suffers from mental instability, I would not mind suffering from the same instability.
And do not restrain your reading to him, there are other guys around as well. You may even like to have a look on the official report ... if you can find it !?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: France/Africa
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lemurian and J.O. Still generalities with no link to specific facts. Wash your hands before eating. Don't put your fingers in your nose. Say hello to the lady...
Lemurian, be kind enought to answer my technical questions in my last post. And to the previous questions (about the lawsuits against Norbert Jacquet and their issues, about the false pilot licenses, etc).
Topic is "Airbus technology defects". We don't mind about Asseline. He is a real arrogant and unbearable man, he played the fool in Habsheim, but this does not change anything about what we are talking about on this topic.
What might we think about what Norbert Jacquet tells? Why are the authorities still on his track?
May we ask this question: is Airbus a banana republic aircraft?
Lemurian, be kind enought to answer my technical questions in my last post. And to the previous questions (about the lawsuits against Norbert Jacquet and their issues, about the false pilot licenses, etc).
What might we think about what Norbert Jacquet tells? Why are the authorities still on his track?
May we ask this question: is Airbus a banana republic aircraft?
Sun worshipper
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Confiture ,
As usual, attacks are better than defense, aren't they ?
The book I have, page 12.22.68.05, paragraph 5 states in italics (verbatim translation ):
"ATTENTION :
If a disconnect button is pressed for more than 15 seconds, the A/THR system is disconnected for the remainder of the flight ; all the A/THR functions, including ALPHA FLOOR are lost. They can only be retrieved after the next FMGC power-up."
As you can see, my dear friend, maybe you could read all of the book you cite, or cite all the relevant articles. I suspect that you don't fly the 'Bus, as I do, otherwise you wouldn't have trusted NJ, but I suspect you won't change your mind.
Staying on the same point, they did not on that flight initially have the "under 100 ft" condition, because of the terrain. Read again the transcript and find out that the rad alt kept on giving varying heights.
By the way, this particular item is one of the main points that are discussed on the requal syllabus. I should know.
I advise you to get some more infos from the University of Bielefeld site, they had published some pretty pertinent remarks on that accident and they are not part of the French conspiracy . Until you come back with infos that are not from Asseline's or Jacquet's books, this discussion is moot. Might as well talk about angels' sex life.
Regards.
As usual, attacks are better than defense, aren't they ?
The book I have, page 12.22.68.05, paragraph 5 states in italics (verbatim translation ):
"ATTENTION :
If a disconnect button is pressed for more than 15 seconds, the A/THR system is disconnected for the remainder of the flight ; all the A/THR functions, including ALPHA FLOOR are lost. They can only be retrieved after the next FMGC power-up."
As you can see, my dear friend, maybe you could read all of the book you cite, or cite all the relevant articles. I suspect that you don't fly the 'Bus, as I do, otherwise you wouldn't have trusted NJ, but I suspect you won't change your mind.
Staying on the same point, they did not on that flight initially have the "under 100 ft" condition, because of the terrain. Read again the transcript and find out that the rad alt kept on giving varying heights.
By the way, this particular item is one of the main points that are discussed on the requal syllabus. I should know.
I advise you to get some more infos from the University of Bielefeld site, they had published some pretty pertinent remarks on that accident and they are not part of the French conspiracy . Until you come back with infos that are not from Asseline's or Jacquet's books, this discussion is moot. Might as well talk about angels' sex life.
Regards.
Last edited by Lemurian; 19th Dec 2006 at 11:56. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... but did CAPT Asseline or anyone in the flight deck at that time press more than 15 seconds one of these disconnect buttons ?
I'm not the only one to ask that question.
And I did ask that question to Zeke 10 days ago ... but still no answer !?
But you're also welcome to quote it.
Having said that, even if someone had done it, it would not have changed anything as:
1- Airplane never reached an AOA to trigger such a protection
2- Airplane was below 100 feet RA
As you seem to have all the relevant information on the subject and on top of that it's part of your recurrent, please, or I should say PLEASE, quote for me these radar altimeter values, lets say for the last 20 seconds or so, of this flight.
Even better if you want to quote them from the official report ...
That's a bit scary ... but I still believe you can do a good job without knowing everything on the type you fly.
No, my concern is more in this attitude, this lack of openness, this way to stick to a version as "official" it could be without questioning a single minute.
I know I'm bored, but please, keep posting, you make my day every time you do.
Ut Sementem Feeceris
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/9.86.html#subj2.1
This link has CVR transcript and timeline for engine N1.
Just scroll down for Habsheim. There is also some narrative from a Flight article following the transcript.
A4
This link has CVR transcript and timeline for engine N1.
Just scroll down for Habsheim. There is also some narrative from a Flight article following the transcript.
A4
Sun worshipper
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Confiture,
the exact word is "I'm boring ", not "I'm bored".
Yes, you are boring, and you should research on your own. Bielefeld ,any research engine will find it for you, they specialise in both CRM and human/computer relationships. Unfortunately, they don't elaborate on conspiracies.That would do you some good.
I am going to talk about the angels' sex life with a bunch of buddies with some beer, it's a lot more fun than your blinkered obsessions.
We really have nothing in common. I like living where I live. don't need to keep looking over my shoulder for baddies to get me and I trust my country's institutions... Funny, hey ?
As you don't, our conversation will just be a slugfest, and it's boring too. Willy-waving is for kids and, personally, I'm past that stage.
Have a nice day !
the exact word is "I'm boring ", not "I'm bored".
Yes, you are boring, and you should research on your own. Bielefeld ,any research engine will find it for you, they specialise in both CRM and human/computer relationships. Unfortunately, they don't elaborate on conspiracies.That would do you some good.
I am going to talk about the angels' sex life with a bunch of buddies with some beer, it's a lot more fun than your blinkered obsessions.
We really have nothing in common. I like living where I live. don't need to keep looking over my shoulder for baddies to get me and I trust my country's institutions... Funny, hey ?
As you don't, our conversation will just be a slugfest, and it's boring too. Willy-waving is for kids and, personally, I'm past that stage.
Have a nice day !
Sun worshipper
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again, I apologize : I fell in the trap made by confiture and friends : letting myself get involved in a silly argument.
I realised that other forum members would be interested in the link -the University of Bielefeld- I alluded to.
This document is very interesting because the researchers come out with a sieve to filter the facts that appear in an accident investigation. They call it the WBA, acronym for "Why-Because Analysis".
At the bottom of these 17 pages, the pruner will find more links to other doctoral research.
Here it is :
Lewis WBA
There is more but the site is well made, it's up to you to find out.
Regards to all
I realised that other forum members would be interested in the link -the University of Bielefeld- I alluded to.
This document is very interesting because the researchers come out with a sieve to filter the facts that appear in an accident investigation. They call it the WBA, acronym for "Why-Because Analysis".
At the bottom of these 17 pages, the pruner will find more links to other doctoral research.
Here it is :
Lewis WBA
There is more but the site is well made, it's up to you to find out.
Regards to all
Last edited by Lemurian; 20th Dec 2006 at 02:43. Reason: faulty url
Thanks for the link Lemurian. That report succinctly states that the only real issue in dispute between Asseline's conclusions and those of the investigators is the validity of the engine performance. The facts of the case show that they did perform as expected (in fact better than the certification requirements). Instead of attacking Airbus, those who would demand better engine performance in such situations should be asking the certifying authorities (DGAC / FAA) to amend the performance requirements. The same applies to Jorbert's attacks on the flight envelope protections and how they affected the accident. Given that their only evidence to make such a demand is an accident which resulted from a significantly botched attempt at a low fly-past, we all know the response that would come from the authorities. Time to move on folks.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing like a beer to get back on track ...
Welcome back Lemurian, and thank you for the link.
I have to go, but it's printed, I will read that on my way, for sure I will !
And don't worry, you're not the only one not to answer the questions:
Zeke thought it was nicer sending a private message, but my question was to anyone interested in the thread, so I believe the answer has to be public as well:
They disconnected autothrust for 15 sec on descent.
I am not going to contribue to the thread as it is obvious to me that you have not availed yourself to the report, nor do you understand airbus systems.
So I concede there are people much more qualified than me on the Airbus systems, and also on the report.
But, regarding the airplane, you still have to produce an factual reply to that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeke:
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
And originally Answered by myself:
So, FCOM ignores the pretty basic stuff:
"When A/THR is active, FMGS commands the thrust according to the vertical mode logic, but uses a thrust not greater than the thrust commanded by the position of the thrust lever. For example, when the thrust levers are set at the CL (climb) detent, the A/THR system can command thrust between idle and max climb"
And regarding the report, if you just consult the link posted by A4, you may notice that, according to official report, pilot disconnects A/THR at second 26 and tape ends at second 41.
... Could it be the 15 seconds you're talking about !?
... The silent crowd will appreciate.
Time to ask questions folks.
Welcome back Lemurian, and thank you for the link.
I have to go, but it's printed, I will read that on my way, for sure I will !
And don't worry, you're not the only one not to answer the questions:
Zeke thought it was nicer sending a private message, but my question was to anyone interested in the thread, so I believe the answer has to be public as well:
Originally Posted by Zeke
... but did CAPT Asseline or anyone in the flight deck at that time press more than 15 seconds one of these disconnect buttons ?
I'm not the only one to ask that question.
And I did ask that question to Zeke 10 days ago ... but still no answer !?
I'm not the only one to ask that question.
And I did ask that question to Zeke 10 days ago ... but still no answer !?
I am not going to contribue to the thread as it is obvious to me that you have not availed yourself to the report, nor do you understand airbus systems.
But, regarding the airplane, you still have to produce an factual reply to that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeke:
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
And originally Answered by myself:
So, FCOM ignores the pretty basic stuff:
"When A/THR is active, FMGS commands the thrust according to the vertical mode logic, but uses a thrust not greater than the thrust commanded by the position of the thrust lever. For example, when the thrust levers are set at the CL (climb) detent, the A/THR system can command thrust between idle and max climb"
And regarding the report, if you just consult the link posted by A4, you may notice that, according to official report, pilot disconnects A/THR at second 26 and tape ends at second 41.
... Could it be the 15 seconds you're talking about !?
... The silent crowd will appreciate.
Originally Posted by J.O.
Time to move on folks
Thank you Lemurian, besides defusing myths surrounding Habsheim and Warsaw accidents, the link provided gives good clue why we do accident analysys at all. Basing its conclusion on facts and logical deduction, it sure supports BEA's point of view that airplane worked as expected and fault lies with seriously flawed execution of flypast.
But let me introduce radically different point of view, put forward in report by Christian Roger, advisor in the defence of capt. Michel Asseline, flight capt. Air France (ret.), former leader of Patrouille de France. president of SNPL Air France 1986-1990. According to it, DFDR and CVR recordings used in accident analysys and legal proceedings were completely forged and didn't come from accident aircraft. Videos taken on the day of accident were all forged too. DGAC, Airbus, BEA, French goverment and French judicial system conspired together to hide the real cause of the accident. With real black boxes gone for good, the only reliable pieces of information, upon which he based his conlusions, were: capt. Aseline's words as he left burning aircraft "the engines didn't pick up correctly" and fact that slash marks on trees were asymetrical. Even the trees were misteriously offed three days later by the by conspirators but it was too late, because capt. Roger has already seen enough broken tree tops and made up his mind regarding the probable cause. Determining that there was asymetrical spooling up of the engines, probably caused by faulty FADEC electronics, was his tour de force.
Chalk one up for paranoia and delusion. With friends like these, capt. Asseline was not quite in the need of enemies. Back to my fable, moral #2.
And the question time it is. You have the guy that claims that:
- the minimum flying speed of A320 is fixed by the builders as "Alpha max". Higher useable speeds may be mentioned, but they can only be recommendations.
-there cannot be traces of fire extinguishing products on the recorders boxes without traces of fire itself
-only one single speed can correspond to a particular angle of incidence in aviation (page 30 - guy is totally ignorant of the existence of ground effect)
-they never said why the radar was not accurate enough (for a plane flying below 50ft, that is)
...and many others. So how is it possible that this guy retires after distinguished career in mil and civ aviation and no one ever notices that something is wrong with him? Since he's heavilly copy/pasting from Roger's report and pushing Roger's agenda as if it were his own, I hereby pronounce CONFiture the most suitable person to answer this question.
But let me introduce radically different point of view, put forward in report by Christian Roger, advisor in the defence of capt. Michel Asseline, flight capt. Air France (ret.), former leader of Patrouille de France. president of SNPL Air France 1986-1990. According to it, DFDR and CVR recordings used in accident analysys and legal proceedings were completely forged and didn't come from accident aircraft. Videos taken on the day of accident were all forged too. DGAC, Airbus, BEA, French goverment and French judicial system conspired together to hide the real cause of the accident. With real black boxes gone for good, the only reliable pieces of information, upon which he based his conlusions, were: capt. Aseline's words as he left burning aircraft "the engines didn't pick up correctly" and fact that slash marks on trees were asymetrical. Even the trees were misteriously offed three days later by the by conspirators but it was too late, because capt. Roger has already seen enough broken tree tops and made up his mind regarding the probable cause. Determining that there was asymetrical spooling up of the engines, probably caused by faulty FADEC electronics, was his tour de force.
Chalk one up for paranoia and delusion. With friends like these, capt. Asseline was not quite in the need of enemies. Back to my fable, moral #2.
And the question time it is. You have the guy that claims that:
- the minimum flying speed of A320 is fixed by the builders as "Alpha max". Higher useable speeds may be mentioned, but they can only be recommendations.
-there cannot be traces of fire extinguishing products on the recorders boxes without traces of fire itself
-only one single speed can correspond to a particular angle of incidence in aviation (page 30 - guy is totally ignorant of the existence of ground effect)
-they never said why the radar was not accurate enough (for a plane flying below 50ft, that is)
...and many others. So how is it possible that this guy retires after distinguished career in mil and civ aviation and no one ever notices that something is wrong with him? Since he's heavilly copy/pasting from Roger's report and pushing Roger's agenda as if it were his own, I hereby pronounce CONFiture the most suitable person to answer this question.