Airbus crash/training flight
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: i don't know
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
good post by Bula:
Anything can go wrong. Cables, hydraulic actuators or lines, wires and computers. A broken hydraulic line leaves a computer in a bad place trying to actuate whatever surface, just as a jammed jackscrew withstands any physical pulling by its cable or motor. There’s no such thing as an absolutely failsafe system, therefore none seems definitely better than the other.
When you end up in a critical situation close to ground, having very little time to react, the taking manual, pulling up and shoving the levers full forward is the fastest and most instinctive way to get out. It might not be the most elegant, but once safe you regain time and can then sort out how to get back to a more comfortable state. I like the possibility of intervention in this manner.
If the system might not react in such a situation, you have to do the sorting out first and switch off some things, as to be able to get the desired reaction. However, when the surprise is huge, the scare is enormous, I tend to have a slower thinking processor and even with adequate knowledge of the system, I think I am too slow for a precise analysis and switching close to ground.
Having experienced some critical situations in my career, I prefer the earlier solution.
There have been plenty of accidents involving both types: FBW or otherwise. It's useless and completely oblivious to endorse that one system is less falible then another
Its the complication of the Airbus flight control systems which bambuzles people and that why people don't like it.. there is no off button. Just remember that if a protection is playing up, its good to know what computer drives what protection
When you end up in a critical situation close to ground, having very little time to react, the taking manual, pulling up and shoving the levers full forward is the fastest and most instinctive way to get out. It might not be the most elegant, but once safe you regain time and can then sort out how to get back to a more comfortable state. I like the possibility of intervention in this manner.
If the system might not react in such a situation, you have to do the sorting out first and switch off some things, as to be able to get the desired reaction. However, when the surprise is huge, the scare is enormous, I tend to have a slower thinking processor and even with adequate knowledge of the system, I think I am too slow for a precise analysis and switching close to ground.
Having experienced some critical situations in my career, I prefer the earlier solution.
Psychophysiological entity
The FBW issue doesn't end with the failure of control runs, there's also the command authority issue.
People spent years arguing over protocols, but this post of mine says a lot about being able to demand that excursion out of the envelope.
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/14972...ml#post1584468
People spent years arguing over protocols, but this post of mine says a lot about being able to demand that excursion out of the envelope.
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/14972...ml#post1584468
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Mexico
Age: 39
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TripleBravo: The unit cost argument you make leaves a bit to be desired. Those ADIRUs are so expensive in large part because they will be built in quantities over years that Toyota builds a single model in a single plant in a day.
The benefits available via FBW in autos or GA simply haven't justified the disadvantages and economics to this point. FBW made sense very early for large aircraft because of the tremendous advantages it gave designers. You'll note that FADEC is in all recent automobiles, and throttle-by-wire is increasingly popular. Certain luxury cars are nearly 100% brake-by-wire right now, and most cars have ABS and EBD.
Pure mechanical controls will be around in GA long after automobiles shun them, much like antique environmentally indefensible engines burning antique fuel still predominate in GA, despite being outlawed decades ago for new autos in civilized countries.
It is annoying how certain luddites refuse to recognize that good design is good design, and to the end user it really doesn't matter much whether it is mechanical or electronic if someone screwed up and it goes badly. There are many ways in which a simple hydraulic steering boost can go badly, and I've had one lock up on me before. That recently mentioned MD80 accident was all about failing to lubricate a pretty simple, pretty life critical component. Simple doesn't equal safe, and complex doesn't equal dangerous.
I certainly hope the DFDR is healthy enough, and I hope the authorities are successful in swiftly determining what went tragically wrong here.
The benefits available via FBW in autos or GA simply haven't justified the disadvantages and economics to this point. FBW made sense very early for large aircraft because of the tremendous advantages it gave designers. You'll note that FADEC is in all recent automobiles, and throttle-by-wire is increasingly popular. Certain luxury cars are nearly 100% brake-by-wire right now, and most cars have ABS and EBD.
Pure mechanical controls will be around in GA long after automobiles shun them, much like antique environmentally indefensible engines burning antique fuel still predominate in GA, despite being outlawed decades ago for new autos in civilized countries.
It is annoying how certain luddites refuse to recognize that good design is good design, and to the end user it really doesn't matter much whether it is mechanical or electronic if someone screwed up and it goes badly. There are many ways in which a simple hydraulic steering boost can go badly, and I've had one lock up on me before. That recently mentioned MD80 accident was all about failing to lubricate a pretty simple, pretty life critical component. Simple doesn't equal safe, and complex doesn't equal dangerous.
I certainly hope the DFDR is healthy enough, and I hope the authorities are successful in swiftly determining what went tragically wrong here.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: exeter
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
320 was on its way home
The aircraft was not due to land back in france but was heading for Germany then Auckland for an Upgrade. To turn back to france meant it had a problem!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Auckland New Zealand
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry - I dont know how to use the quote function
c130airman
The aircraft was not due to land back in france but was heading for Germany then Auckland for an Upgrade. To turn back to france meant it had a problem!
According to previously published reports the plane was supposed to land at Perpignan after this flight before departing again for FRA and handover ... do you have some new information that contradicts this ?
c130airman
The aircraft was not due to land back in france but was heading for Germany then Auckland for an Upgrade. To turn back to france meant it had a problem!
According to previously published reports the plane was supposed to land at Perpignan after this flight before departing again for FRA and handover ... do you have some new information that contradicts this ?
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: London Sydney
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
c130airman said
And you know that because .....
Apart from an early news item in a NZ newspaper, this has never been repeated. Are you saying that the second flight was bound for FRA? Surely this would have come out earlier as flight plans to that effect would have been filed??
320 was on its way home
The aircraft was not due to land back in france but was heading for Germany then Auckland for an Upgrade. To turn back to france meant it had a problem!
The aircraft was not due to land back in france but was heading for Germany then Auckland for an Upgrade. To turn back to france meant it had a problem!
Apart from an early news item in a NZ newspaper, this has never been repeated. Are you saying that the second flight was bound for FRA? Surely this would have come out earlier as flight plans to that effect would have been filed??
Ut Sementem Feeceris
It is interesting that the DFDR and CVR are reported as "damaged". Well they would be - it crashed - but to what extent are they damaged? The initial reports of the impact site stated wreckage spread over a wide area. This is normally indicative of a shallow(ish) impact angle as opposed to "spearing in" i.e. very steep impact angle.
By inference, the "damage" to the recorders should be less severe with the former scenario and in any case they are designed to withstand huge impacts. With this being a fairly young Bus they would also be the solid state variety so data recovery should be relatively straight forward compared to tape or wire.
If it subsequently turns out that the data was "not recoverable" then there will ineviatabley be accusations of a cover up.
I'm an experienced Bus pilot and I have to say I'm mystified by this accident.
A4
By inference, the "damage" to the recorders should be less severe with the former scenario and in any case they are designed to withstand huge impacts. With this being a fairly young Bus they would also be the solid state variety so data recovery should be relatively straight forward compared to tape or wire.
If it subsequently turns out that the data was "not recoverable" then there will ineviatabley be accusations of a cover up.
I'm an experienced Bus pilot and I have to say I'm mystified by this accident.
A4
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Boring Point
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, having flown the A320 from inception in 1989, like a few others, I don't have any concerns at all about the airplane!
Prangs happen! Fact of life! Probably nothing to do with FBW or any thing else you might like to conspire about!
Prangs happen! Fact of life! Probably nothing to do with FBW or any thing else you might like to conspire about!
A4, You wrote: "The initial reports of the impact site stated wreckage spread over a wide area. This is normally indicative of a shallow(ish) impact angle as opposed to "spearing in" i.e. very steep impact angle."
That is (generally) a "correct" statement for a land impact, but not necessarily so for water. The specifics of wreckage patterns on, and in, water vary of course, based on many factors that are quite different than the factors at play in ground contact scenarios. Having said that, your post also got me thinking about “impact damage” as opposed to “wreckage patterns”.
Actual “impact forces” are based on four (main) criteria regarding the impacting object (aircraft): forward speed, vertical speed, nose angle at impact, bank angle at impact. The fifth main ingredient is the physical nature of the impacted surface. In that regard there is one important aspect of water impact that many people don’t realise, or are possibly just not aware of the physics involved. Without going into unnecessary detail, water is nowhere near as easily displaced as most tend to think, meaning that the impact forces can be quite comparable to a very hard land surface (concrete, for example). One only needs to read this excerpt (for example) from the CTSB report on SwissAir111: “impact forces were in the order of at least 350 g”. (http://tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/1998/a98h0003/01report/01factual/rep1_13_03.asp )
In addition to SW111, there are many other examples of incredibly – almost indescribably – strong impact forces where the CVR and FDR were virtually undamaged or barely damaged. Most “failure to read” scenarios result from fire or heat damage as opposed to impact damage, and there are very few cases of water impact (no matter how severe) wherein the CVR and FDR have been damaged to a point of yielding little or no information. My point (finally . . .) is this: Given the known circumstances of this horrid occurrence, I will be quite surprised (and, I admit, a tad suspicious) if it turns out that either the CVR or the FDR are so damaged as to preclude them providing adequate and accurate information.
Grizz
That is (generally) a "correct" statement for a land impact, but not necessarily so for water. The specifics of wreckage patterns on, and in, water vary of course, based on many factors that are quite different than the factors at play in ground contact scenarios. Having said that, your post also got me thinking about “impact damage” as opposed to “wreckage patterns”.
Actual “impact forces” are based on four (main) criteria regarding the impacting object (aircraft): forward speed, vertical speed, nose angle at impact, bank angle at impact. The fifth main ingredient is the physical nature of the impacted surface. In that regard there is one important aspect of water impact that many people don’t realise, or are possibly just not aware of the physics involved. Without going into unnecessary detail, water is nowhere near as easily displaced as most tend to think, meaning that the impact forces can be quite comparable to a very hard land surface (concrete, for example). One only needs to read this excerpt (for example) from the CTSB report on SwissAir111: “impact forces were in the order of at least 350 g”. (http://tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/1998/a98h0003/01report/01factual/rep1_13_03.asp )
In addition to SW111, there are many other examples of incredibly – almost indescribably – strong impact forces where the CVR and FDR were virtually undamaged or barely damaged. Most “failure to read” scenarios result from fire or heat damage as opposed to impact damage, and there are very few cases of water impact (no matter how severe) wherein the CVR and FDR have been damaged to a point of yielding little or no information. My point (finally . . .) is this: Given the known circumstances of this horrid occurrence, I will be quite surprised (and, I admit, a tad suspicious) if it turns out that either the CVR or the FDR are so damaged as to preclude them providing adequate and accurate information.
Grizz
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A4 :
Not quite : the "boxes" themselves seem to be physically OK, it is the contents ( at least of the CVR ) which is reported to be not "exploitable" as the BEA says.
This might indeed be the case, the problem is that in France,and surely by coincidence , this kind of things seem to arrive a bit too often, especially when involving AI types. Therefore the suspiscion.
To make matter worse for the BEA , the State prosecutor first declared that the CVR was recovered and readable, and 2 days later said the opposite.
It is interesting that the DFDR and CVR are reported as "damaged".
This might indeed be the case, the problem is that in France,and surely by coincidence , this kind of things seem to arrive a bit too often, especially when involving AI types. Therefore the suspiscion.
To make matter worse for the BEA , the State prosecutor first declared that the CVR was recovered and readable, and 2 days later said the opposite.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's the French for déjà vu?
The black box of an Airbus that crashed during an air show in France in 1988 was replaced with another after the accident, a report shows. Pilot Asseline was sentenced to ten months in jail by an appeal's court for manslaughter but he always maintained that the flight data used by investigators and displayed at the trial was a fabrication.
Acting on Mr. Asseline's request, the renowned Institute of Police Forensic Evidence and Criminology (IPSC) of Lausanne (Switzerland) examined documents from the crash and the trials and concluded that the black box of the aircraft had been switched after the accident. Along with its report, the IPSC published photographs of a French Directorate General for Civil Aviation (DGAC) official retrieving the black box from the wreckage of the aircraft. After enlarging, a photograph shows straight white stripes on the side of the black box. The black box presented at Mr. Asseline's trials as the original one had angled white lines on its side.
AirDisaster.Com: Investigations: Air France 296
The black box of an Airbus that crashed during an air show in France in 1988 was replaced with another after the accident, a report shows. Pilot Asseline was sentenced to ten months in jail by an appeal's court for manslaughter but he always maintained that the flight data used by investigators and displayed at the trial was a fabrication.
Acting on Mr. Asseline's request, the renowned Institute of Police Forensic Evidence and Criminology (IPSC) of Lausanne (Switzerland) examined documents from the crash and the trials and concluded that the black box of the aircraft had been switched after the accident. Along with its report, the IPSC published photographs of a French Directorate General for Civil Aviation (DGAC) official retrieving the black box from the wreckage of the aircraft. After enlarging, a photograph shows straight white stripes on the side of the black box. The black box presented at Mr. Asseline's trials as the original one had angled white lines on its side.
AirDisaster.Com: Investigations: Air France 296
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Modern CVR/FDR (black boxes) units are built to withstand 3600g for 6.5 milliseconds, this roughly equates to an impact velocity of 270 kts. In addition to the penetration resistance, static crush, high/low temperature fires, deep sea pressures, sea water immersion and fluid immersion.
FDRs are usually located in the rear of the aircraft, typically in the tail. In this position, the entire front of the aircraft acts as a "crush zone" to reduce the shock that reaches the recorder. Also, modern FDRs are typically double wrapped, in strong corrosion-resistant stainless steel or titanium, with high-temperature insulation inside.
Judging by the impacts down through the years that black boxes have remained "exploitable" after, serious question will have to be answered if the "un-exploitable" report is true.
FDRs are usually located in the rear of the aircraft, typically in the tail. In this position, the entire front of the aircraft acts as a "crush zone" to reduce the shock that reaches the recorder. Also, modern FDRs are typically double wrapped, in strong corrosion-resistant stainless steel or titanium, with high-temperature insulation inside.
Judging by the impacts down through the years that black boxes have remained "exploitable" after, serious question will have to be answered if the "un-exploitable" report is true.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bali, Indonesia
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ADIRU
It was touched on in an earlier post but it wasn't clearly answered. Could the A320 pilots confirm or otherwise that the ADIRU's in the 320 are the same as the 330?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: southwest
Age: 78
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
forget
That article about the Air France A320 crash was written by Chris Kilroy.
His qualifications in the field of accident investigation are summarised below:
"Chris Kilroy is an IFR rated Private Pilot, and has been flying since 1998. He has over 150 hours logged in various types of aircraft. He brings knowledge of aircraft systems, flight rules, and meteorology, along with computer experience..."
His qualifications in the field of accident investigation are summarised below:
"Chris Kilroy is an IFR rated Private Pilot, and has been flying since 1998. He has over 150 hours logged in various types of aircraft. He brings knowledge of aircraft systems, flight rules, and meteorology, along with computer experience..."
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: land
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys, you are getting this all wrong.
AI want to sell aircraft and things are moving a bit slow at the moment, so other measures have to be implemented, if this situation is not exacerbated.
Lets see, there was the TU 144 crash a LBG, the A320 into the trees as previously mentioned and now possibly this.
If the damned thing had to crash, it is a shame it had to be on French soil.
AI want to sell aircraft and things are moving a bit slow at the moment, so other measures have to be implemented, if this situation is not exacerbated.
Lets see, there was the TU 144 crash a LBG, the A320 into the trees as previously mentioned and now possibly this.
If the damned thing had to crash, it is a shame it had to be on French soil.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of being repetitious, there has been no response to my earlier question. My contacts at Qantas feel that this might be relevant.
If you contacts at Qantas are in engineering or involved in the investigations on the A330, they will almost certainly know what was installed on each. If not, it is futile to speculate, as even if they are the same (it is certainly possible), then individual coding, version (if manufactured in a different year), updates etc could mean that the same base computer is operating in a very different way.
I cannot see how this information would be useful other than for uninformed speculation. There is no obligation on anyone to reply to all questions on a bulletin board!
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sand Pit for now.....
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A320 Crash
The Airbus was on a post maintenance test flight. Had been leased, and was about to be delivered back to its owner. Latest news 7POB, none survived.
Any news on the most probable cause??
Cheers.
Any news on the most probable cause??
Cheers.