Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Airbus crash/training flight

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Airbus crash/training flight

Old 29th Nov 2008, 00:46
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Valencia
Age: 44
Posts: 37
I also agree with that.

We are not going to have usefull info from the recorders.

Maybe this time the pilot also did something strange with the throttles or didnt follow or know a recovery procedure.

Airbus still have to give a lot of answers. This is only plane that 10,000 hours pilots one day forgot how to fly, always with disastrous consequences.
Strongresolve is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2008, 00:53
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: AKL
Age: 29
Posts: 182
I think that Air New Zealand should use next weeks bio flight as a tribute to the staff on board and do a low pass over Auckland City and Airport to give a tribute to them.
cavemanzk is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2008, 00:55
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 214
"The DFDR and CVRs should tell us quite soon (if the French are honest about it - there are hundreds of thousandsof jobs depending on these aircraft!). Would it be a surprise to discover that the recorders were damaged and could give no useful information."

Isn't this exactly the type of thing that we've been warned about talking about? I'm not sure personally but it sounds pretty dangerous saying stuff like that with journalists ready to quote word for word posts on this thread.

I'm only reading at the moment that the CVR and the DFDR have been located and not in fact recovered yet , probably due to the weather still, any confirmations/corrections?

Terrible accident.
GeorgEGNT is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2008, 02:02
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: AKL
Age: 29
Posts: 182
Air New Zealand A320 Accident Update 29 November 2008, 1.28pm

This is the latest undated on NZ's website
Air New Zealand A320 Accident Update

29 November 2008, 1.28pm
French search and rescue teams are working in deteriorating weather conditions to try and retrieve the two flight recorders from the A320 on lease to Germany's XL Airways that was lost in the Mediterranean yesterday.

Air New Zealand Group General Manager International Airline Ed Sims has today been in direct contact with the head of the search and rescue operation in Perpignan.

Mr Sims said the operation had continued during the night with up to 75 personnel actively involved, with a focus on recovering bodies, locating the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder, and recovering debris that may be useful for the investigation.

Signals had been located for the two flight recorders but they had not yet been recovered. The search and rescue team had a real urgency to retrieving these today as weather conditions were forecast to worsen overnight, Mr Sims said.

Mr Sims said that flags at Air New Zealand locations were flying at half-mast as a mark of respect following news from the French authorities that there was no realistic change of survivors.

"The airline will be immeasurably poorer for the loss of our colleagues, and we again express our deepest condolences to the family and friends of those who have been lost."

Condolence books will also be made available to Air New Zealanders from this afternoon, to allow staff to express their feelings for their colleagues Captain Brian Horrell, Michael Gyles, Noel Marsh and Murray White, who were onboard.

Mr Sims this morning briefed Transport Minister Stephen Joyce who has undertaken to keep Prime Minister John Key informed.

Air New Zealand Rob Fyfe, who is en-route to Perpignan, has also been kept abreast of developments while travelling. Air New Zealand has team of London-based staff in Perpignan to provide on the ground support to the operation.

Due to the difference in time zones, with Europe now entering late evening, Air New Zealand does not expect to provide further updates until 8pm tonight.

ENDS

Issued by Air New Zealand Public Affairs
cavemanzk is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2008, 05:34
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: middle of nowhere
Posts: 348
The DFDR and CVRs should tell us quite soon (if the French are honest about it - there are hundreds of thousandsof jobs depending on these aircraft!). Would it be a surprise to discover that the recorders were damaged and could give no useful information
followed by

Isn't this exactly the type of thing that we've been warned about talking about?


To summarize:
Some don't trust the journos and others don't trust the AB guys. Where does that leave us? Should we shut up until the official reports are out? Should we trust them? Should we stop reading newspapers, as all they publish is trash? Are only the self proclaimed AB specialists allowed to voice their opinion here? Shall we disregard the achievment of free speech in our society just because we might not be the rocket scientist others pretend to be?

Get a grip. Speculation is part of the function of our superior brain. Apparently it has evolved and learned to speak by beeing able to extrapolate from itself and reason about others non present. To impede speculation is to shut someone up, present in many dictatures and archaic religions, but not in modern society. Everything gets abused, just as is demonstrated here. But the choice would be to shut down such forums or to let them run more or less as society runs, with certain rules, but mostly free. The pretense to allow only a chosen few to speak, even if they are (or claim to be) more competent is to the very least arrogant if not preposterous.

It is absolutely legitimate to voice concerns about a technology. If concerns are categorically classified as speculation, it points more to censorship than joining a healthy debate. The contribution of SIDSTAR in this respect seems apropriate.
Gretchenfrage is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2008, 05:56
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: London Sydney
Posts: 8
Anyone care to speculate on this report in the Sydney Morning Herald

Airbus was investigating the technical issue thought to have caused the crash and was communicating with Qantas, Mr Joyce said.
[Alan Joyce is the new CEO of Qantas]
lhr_syd is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2008, 07:10
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Downunder
Posts: 290
I get sick of the dreamers who lecture us about speculation, there's nothing wrong with informed speculation.
However, one thing I've noticed is after there's an accident like the BA glide approach we have all kinds of 'experts' come out of the woodwork with 1 or 2 posts, talking generally a lot of codswallop.
Like cavemanzk.
It is after all the 'rumour network'.
skol is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2008, 08:09
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Daghdaghistan
Posts: 431
Radio calls before plane hit water... but 'not a single mayday'
NZ Herald
Radio calls before plane hit water... but 'not a single mayday' - 28 Nov 2008 - Air NZ plane crash in France - NZ Herald

10:00AM Friday Nov 28, 2008

An aviation enthusiast in France who monitored radio traffic at the time the Air New Zealand Airbus crash killed seven people said shortly afterwards on a website that the incident sent shivers up his spine.

The plane - registered in New Zealand as ZK-OJL, but flying for Germany's XL Airways as D-AXLA - contacted air traffic control at 4.45pm and was directed to descend to "flight level 120" (12,000 feet or 3650m altitude) while a Ryanair plane was on the standard terminal approach.

The listener - listed as Phillippe/AIB1017 on an aviation enthusiasts' website, PPRuNe.org, which promotes itself as a bulletin board for professional pilots to exchange information - said a woman air controller cleared the Airbus 360 to descend to 4000 feet to a circuit east of the airport and extending several kilometres out to sea. The air pressure at sea level was given as 1016 millibars.

"The pilot read (it) back and this is the last time we heard the pilot," Phillippe said, according to a translation of his comments. "Not a single mayday, nothing."

Then the pilot of a nearby PA28 Piper Warrior shouted over the radio: "an aircraft crashing, an aircraft crashing".

That plane, with the callsign Ulysses 34, began turning to the crash scene as a security helicopter took off from Perpignan, nearly 10km away.

At the scene, the helicopter pilot announced: "no visual on the aircraft, large white patch in the water". He said there was debris over more than 1km.

"I hope that there will be survivors, but given the cold and the water temperature ...." Phillippe wrote.

A copy of the posting was made on crash-aerien.com.

I think the thermomiester failed resulting in a alpha foot protection... you can quote me on that one.....
Cypher is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2008, 10:19
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: U K
Posts: 469
I hink you wil find the DGAC's priority wil be to protect Airbus. If they find it was the crews fault they will blame the crew. If thy find it was an engineers fault, they will blame engineering. if they find it's Airbus's fault, they will blame the crew. then fix the problem through the back door! Only in my opinion of course!

Last edited by BALLSOUT; 29th Nov 2008 at 23:16.
BALLSOUT is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2008, 10:22
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 119
Wasn't that flight flown at night though, with this one in the day with light if there was a instrument failure due to the pitot tubes being covered, at least you could have some idea of your attitude and height.
drivez is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2008, 10:56
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Down Under
Age: 40
Posts: 4
Unknown defect?

There are similarities with the A330 QF72 flight incident
QF72 incident may lead to the grounding of Airbus A330-300 models - Airbus
only if it is confirmed if the adirus are of the effected P/N type and subsequent AD applicability. http://rgl.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GU...2008-17-12.pdf

The mistake it seems they made in QF72 was not to switch off the IR 1 and corresponding ADR 1 when NAV IR 1 was annuciated on the ECAM. This still caused pitching down on 2 occasions of the a/c with the autopilot disengaged under manual control due to the incorrect flight data values sensed by one of the adirus translated to the fcc - which remains in ultimate control. See emergency operational AD http://www.casa.gov.au/airworth/airw...0/A330-095.pdf
http://rgl.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GU...2008-17-12.pdf

SUMMARY:
The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD), which applies to
certain Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes equipped with certain Litton air data inertial reference units (ADIRUs). That AD currently requires modifying the shelf (floor panel) above ADIRU 3, modifying the polycarbonate guard that covers the ADIRUs for certain airplanes and modifying the ladder located in the avionics compartment for certain airplanes. This new AD requires those modifications on additional airplanes.

This new AD also requires replacing all three ADIRUs with improved ADIRUs. This new AD also adds Model A318 series airplanes to the
applicability. This AD results from reports that ''NAV IR FAULT'' messages have occurred during takeoff due to failure of an ADIRU and subsequent analysis showing that the shelf modification has not sufficiently addressed failure of an ADIRU.

We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of an ADIRU during flight, which could result in loss of one source of critical attitude and airspeed data and reduce the ability of the flightcrew to control the airplane.

TechnicalSupport is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2008, 11:25
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,347
No doubt this post will result in me being accused (again) of being Anti-French or a luddite but I still believe that Airbus (and now Boeing) FBW will continue to throw up surprises for decades to come, possibly even more so as the hardware gets older and falls into less experienced hands.
It has to be faced that since it's introduction many Airbus
accidents/incidents have resulted in accusations of slightly "clandenstine" conclusions / investigations. Having said that the Concorde accident could be accused of the same lack of emphasis on certain factors,draw your own conclusions from that.
Boeing are not immune to this either, I believe the 737 rudder problems were probably known about but down-played as long as possible. Finally, money has a habit of influencing dissemination of safety information whether it is Dollars or Euros.
Does anyone know how closely they were following the other ( Ryanair) aircraft ? I have had some fairly dramatic wake turbulence encounters following similar aircraft types, not of the magnitude perhaps to lose control & plunge into the sea, but certainly alarming in their intensity. Unlikely I know, but this accident is going to throw up some rather left-field cause in any case I think. As previous posters have alluded to, I hope we will be allowed to know the cause & fix, rather than it just being serruptitiously inserted into a software update sometime in the future.
captplaystation is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2008, 12:30
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,960
Captplaystation -

Was it a FBW failure? Why did you then comment on B737? You you mean that either electrical or hydro-mechanical flight is unsafe?
Litebulbs is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2008, 12:47
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,347
Of course it is unsafe. . why do you think they pay us all this money ?
Not implying it is FBW failure, but loss of control on a FBW aircraft is normally prevented ( or facilitated ? ) by FBW, unlike a 737 where you either foul up , or ARE fouled up by ( for example) maximum rudder deflection at an innoportune moment. But anyhow, I am still a non-believer as far as Airbus/FBW/(B777) is concerned. Perhaps one day I will be dragged kicking & screaming into the 21st century, but for the moment at least I prefer stone-age connections to the bits that keep me the right way up ( shame about all those electric connections to the thrust levers though ) Yes, unashamed luddite sums it up fairly in that respect I guess.
captplaystation is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2008, 12:50
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,078
captplaystation

No doubt this post will result in me being accused (again) of being Anti-French or a luddite but I still believe that Airbus (and now Boeing) FBW will continue to throw up surprises for decades to come, possibly even more so as the hardware gets older and falls into less experienced hands.
It has to be faced that since it's introduction many Airbus
accidents/incidents have resulted in accusations of slightly "clandenstine" conclusions / investigations. Having said that the Concorde accident could be accused of the same lack of emphasis on certain factors,draw your own conclusions
Time to face reality. Of course there will be surprises. The intent is that they will be relatively few over the lifetime of the product.

And as for "clandenstine" conclusions, one should not lose sight of the fact that most accident investigations are contributed to by a party system representing what some may call competing commercial interests albeit with well qualified technical expertise in establishing facts.

It is the analysis of the facts afterwards that the casual arm-chair orbserver typically tries to second guess.

At this point in the investigation we are trying to read among this hash for bonafide facts not Nostradamas predictions
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2008, 13:26
  #96 (permalink)  

Do a Hover - it avoids G
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 86
Posts: 2,206
Some reports have suggested that the lack of any R/T call following the last routine message is an indication of a very short time interval between what went wrong and impact.

While this is obviously possible, in my experience there is another possible reason for the silence - the crew were too busy trying to sort things out and had not given up on recovering from whatever had gone wrong.

Whenever I have lost control due to a mistake on my part or an issue with the aeroplane I have always got on with doing everything I could to recover the situation first before climbing on the R/T.

Off-hand I can only remember one example of a crew saying they were going to crash ("We are falling") and that was when their tail had detached in the cruise at height. Not much you can do about that hence the R/T call.
John Farley is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2008, 13:36
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,319
Originally Posted by drivez
... with this one in [daylight] if there was a instrument failure due to the pitot tubes being covered, at least you could have some idea of your attitude and height.
They'd already been flying for at least an hour, so it's unlikely they wouldn't have noticed that.

Originally Posted by captplaystation
...but for the moment at least I prefer stone-age connections to the bits that keep me the right way up...
The stone-age solutions were pushrods and cables to directly move the control surfaces, and maybe servotabs. No longer feasible on anything with the size and speed of an A320 or B737, leave alone anything bigger.

I have the impression you're confusing the "connections" (which in practice are as reliable as your rods and cables) with the electrical and electronic 'bits' at either end of those connections.

FBW as such is nothing new. Concorde had it forty years ago and the Vulcan even before that. Concorde had two separate "electrical signalling" (as it was then called) channels and a mechanical 'rods and cables' backup. While it was tested, and trained for, in service reversion to mechanical signalling was essentially unknown.
The difference with present-day FBW was that you still pushed and pulled a control column, turned a yoke, and pushed the pedals, and the control surface deflections were directly related to your control inputs. The autopilots moved exactly the same controls (through relay jacks) giving your direct feedback on what the autopilot was doing.

CJ
ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2008, 14:00
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,347
My misgivings were always related to the concept that you make a demand, and rather than being electrically/mechanically transmitted directly to the control surface, it instead passed through microprocessors which then interpreted what you wanted and moved the surface accordingly( my somewhat simplistic thinking being that if the computer can stop you doing the wrong thing/or too much, it can also prevent you doing the right thing or do more/less than you wished / intended. . as I said luddite thinking on my behalf.) So, I guess my misgivings are through passing by an interpreter rather than mechanically OR electrically moving the bit I want as much or as little as I want. Obviously the advantage of not being able to do so is that you can't whack the fin off a la the A300 with the heavy footed guys a few years back, the disadvantages ? ? well, time will tell but the recent Qantas "upset" comes to mind, and who knows what has befallen this aircraft. Could of course have been some purely mechanical failure that would have been equally applicable to a B732(Jurassic) but my gut feeling thinks not. Finally, I know as much or as little as the rest of you , and I guess this accident is no stranger than the 737's that rolled over on their backs and ploughed in due uncommanded rudder hardovers . . . so far.
Edited to say, having flown the DC9 I fully understand the meaning of "DC" and it's limitations to bigger ships, even if that one handled like a dream.
captplaystation is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2008, 14:14
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,319
Originally Posted by John Farley
Some reports have suggested that the lack of any R/T call following the last routine message is an indication of a very short time interval between what went wrong and impact.
Most likely.
The aircraft was doing, say, 150kts, i.e., 250ft/sec, and was at something like 1000ft when starting the turn and then the "wing-over", impacting quite steeply. That corresponds to about 10 to 20 seconds between "something wrong" and impact. No time to communicate.

CJ

Last edited by ChristiaanJ; 29th Nov 2008 at 14:16. Reason: Minor text correction
ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2008, 14:14
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: France
Posts: 610
Time to do things

John Farley:

I agree 100% with your comments, I know from my own experiences, that is the case.


Tmb
Tmbstory is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.