Airbus crash/training flight
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: uk
Age: 50
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Romanian pilot battling with an A320 was not a pre fbw A300 or A 310 it took place at the paris airshow i believe (could be wrong on location) the video clearly shows the aircraft wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy out of control and the Romanian pilot fighting to stabilize the aircraft which thanks to his skill he eventually did,but with a few spots on his underwear presumably, i will dig the video out and post it on you tube,
however it clearly demonstrates a stubborn overly engineered aircraft refusing to submit to the pilots wishes,perhaps the pilot had the wrong mode thingy switched on or off......Perhaps he did not recieve the correct training.........
actually i remember that in the same video david learmonth from flight global or flight safety had mentioned he thought that it was almost "CRIMINAL" the way new Airbus pilots were trained.
hence a BIG FU*KOFF PUSH BUTTON would surely have worked a treat that day
someone mentioned that with the recent 320 accident the pilot was in direct law.......
obviously wasn't that direct if the aircraft would not respond to pilot inputs
btw...i have no preference over Airbus or Boeing they're both fine aircraft
Dont get me wrong i think technology is a good thing when used to ease pilot's workload not increase it in an emergency situation as seemed to have happened all too commonly in recent incidents and accidents.......
however it clearly demonstrates a stubborn overly engineered aircraft refusing to submit to the pilots wishes,perhaps the pilot had the wrong mode thingy switched on or off......Perhaps he did not recieve the correct training.........
actually i remember that in the same video david learmonth from flight global or flight safety had mentioned he thought that it was almost "CRIMINAL" the way new Airbus pilots were trained.
hence a BIG FU*KOFF PUSH BUTTON would surely have worked a treat that day
someone mentioned that with the recent 320 accident the pilot was in direct law.......
obviously wasn't that direct if the aircraft would not respond to pilot inputs
btw...i have no preference over Airbus or Boeing they're both fine aircraft
Dont get me wrong i think technology is a good thing when used to ease pilot's workload not increase it in an emergency situation as seemed to have happened all too commonly in recent incidents and accidents.......
Lemurian
If there is a purpose to this post you are going to have to spell it out.
Your post doesn't reference any preceeding posting. although I was the one who first drew the parallel with this accident.
I can't figure out where the application of the words humility and arrogance apply.
There were several people in the cockpit at the time and one very experienced pilot in this maneuver was calmly attempting to teach the less experience pilot how to conduct this stall test. The others in the cockpit were just along for the ride.
The fundamental problem was conducting the test in low visibility trying to keep out of icing and while concentrating on how far into a real stall they were failed to recognize their attitude and the unwinding altimeter.
The lesson learned for me was that if you intend to conduct flight tests you need margin. (low altitude and low visibility aren't enough)
Rings a bell ?
And maybe worth a bit of hard thinking about humility and arrogance
And maybe worth a bit of hard thinking about humility and arrogance
Your post doesn't reference any preceeding posting. although I was the one who first drew the parallel with this accident.
I can't figure out where the application of the words humility and arrogance apply.
There were several people in the cockpit at the time and one very experienced pilot in this maneuver was calmly attempting to teach the less experience pilot how to conduct this stall test. The others in the cockpit were just along for the ride.
The fundamental problem was conducting the test in low visibility trying to keep out of icing and while concentrating on how far into a real stall they were failed to recognize their attitude and the unwinding altimeter.
The lesson learned for me was that if you intend to conduct flight tests you need margin. (low altitude and low visibility aren't enough)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We need to upgrade the human... the current version just doesn't cut it. Problem is, the aircraft functions just fine most of the time. But human beings learn skills by constant practice. When you do something often enough, that knowledge enters your reactive memory. That knowledge can then be used quickly and effectively with very little cognitive overhead, i.e. you don't have to think about it. When the aircraft behaves "properly" 99.99% of the time, that's the knowledge you have in reactive memory, because that's what you practice all the time. When an abnormal situation occurs, you have to reach into declarative memory, the knowledge that you learned with occasional sim runs and recurrent training or maybe just a briefing or video or from studying all of the ins and outs and peculiarities of the complex systems. That requires much more mental effort and time on the part of the pilot. Unfortunately, usually when that abnormal situation occurs, time to think is exactly what you don't have. In those situations where time is short and decision-making is critical, human beings are hard-wired to fall back on reactive memory... the reflexes that are trained to respond to all of those "normal" situations encountered most of the time. And those reflexes can sometimes be the wrong ones. Thus, the whole system is set up to make pilots fail at precisely the time when they have to perform. A good reference for this subject is "The Limits of Expertise: Rethinking Pilot Error and the Causes of Airline Accidents", Ashgate publishing.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Alabama
Age: 58
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who says we have to have such LARGE aircraft?!
And you are not able to cope with it, better find another job. That the rule of the market. Market dictates the size and anyone involved in the industry shall be able to adapt to it. This applies to any industrial sector.
SFLS
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@paweas
What are you talking about?
captplaystation referred to a Tarom A310 incident/accident, not 320......
The Romanian pilot battling with an A320 was not a pre fbw A300 or A 310 it took place at the paris airshow i believe (could be wrong on location) the video clearly shows the aircraft wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy out of control and the Romanian pilot fighting to stabilize the aircraft which thanks to his skill he eventually did,but with a few spots on his underwear presumably, i will dig the video out and post it on you tube,
captplaystation referred to a Tarom A310 incident/accident, not 320......
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FrequentSLF -
The market demand.
And you are not able to cope with it, better find another job.
The market demand.
And you are not able to cope with it, better find another job.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Alabama
Age: 58
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DC-8
Good for you!
Which does not mean that your younger colleagues shall be out of work because your predicate policies not compatibles with the market demand. A bit selfish?
Well, being retired and with still a little bit o' money left, guess I don't have to find another job.....yet!
Which does not mean that your younger colleagues shall be out of work because your predicate policies not compatibles with the market demand. A bit selfish?
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FrequentSLF -
Good for you!
Which does not mean that your younger colleagues shall be out of work because your predicate policies not compatibles with the market demand. A bit selfish?
Good for you!
Which does not mean that your younger colleagues shall be out of work because your predicate policies not compatibles with the market demand. A bit selfish?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Alabama
Age: 58
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Au contrair, monsieur (did I say/spell that right?). The fact that I'm against larger airplanes should be in their favor. Meaning; we'd need MORE airplanes, not fewer! Wake up, please.
Your retrograde attitude is speaking for yourself, and saying to me "wake up" does just add to it.
Let's all fly the Wright brothers plane, one pilot and no SLFs...best ratio between pilots and SLFs!...infinite!
FSLF
Modern aircraft are simply more demanding of high quality pilots and training excellence.
Whilst there is a global recession, airlines should take the opportunity to select only the very best. Those who are intelligent enough to understand the complexity and demands of modern aeroplanes - and who aren't so blinkered in their thinking that they don't understand that even something as prehistoric as a DC-8 had computers. OK, they were analogue and full of barometric capsules, cogs and springs, but computers they were all the same.
In the DC-8, you did not control jet engine thrust with a simple 'fuel valve' connected by bits of wire to your ego, you moved a throttle lever which made an input demand to a fuel flow regulator. It then worked out how much fuel to supply to the combustion chambers.
Neither did you 'measure' or even 'calculate' height. Or did the ancient old DC-8 have a pitot pressure indicator and a static pressure indicator - and the heroes of the day subtracted one from the other, then did some sums on the cockpit abacus to work out altitude, then applied a pressure datum to establish height? Somehow I doubt it....
There is so much nonsense in this thread from dinosaurs, play station kids, 172 heroes and others ignorant of the situation; sorting intelligent contribution from garbage is becoming frankly tedious.
Whilst there is a global recession, airlines should take the opportunity to select only the very best. Those who are intelligent enough to understand the complexity and demands of modern aeroplanes - and who aren't so blinkered in their thinking that they don't understand that even something as prehistoric as a DC-8 had computers. OK, they were analogue and full of barometric capsules, cogs and springs, but computers they were all the same.
In the DC-8, you did not control jet engine thrust with a simple 'fuel valve' connected by bits of wire to your ego, you moved a throttle lever which made an input demand to a fuel flow regulator. It then worked out how much fuel to supply to the combustion chambers.
Neither did you 'measure' or even 'calculate' height. Or did the ancient old DC-8 have a pitot pressure indicator and a static pressure indicator - and the heroes of the day subtracted one from the other, then did some sums on the cockpit abacus to work out altitude, then applied a pressure datum to establish height? Somehow I doubt it....
There is so much nonsense in this thread from dinosaurs, play station kids, 172 heroes and others ignorant of the situation; sorting intelligent contribution from garbage is becoming frankly tedious.
Sun worshipper
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iomapaseo
It has to do with people who think that an era with that sort of planes flown by real pilots was great , but they fail to remind us that they could also end up in an unmanageable situation, electronics or not, cables or not. As a matter of fact, and examples abound, if the set-up was that simple, they just proved that they could fail in a much simpler situation and the safety attached to simpler airplanes is a myth.
Hence my remark about humility and arrogance.
BTW, I could also have posted the reference of - yet another DC-8 in January 1996 -which overran the runway after failing to arm the spoilers and losing reversers 2 and 4 (No automatics, they say, the pilot is always in control...NOT !!!)
As for reference to any preceding post, sorry I can’t remember all the details of this thread amidst all the garbage some have heaped on its pages.
That’s your assumption, with which I certainly do not agree… I do not think for one second (see the exchange between the XL pilot and the ANZ jumpseater) that they intended to fly outside the low speed test they had – very quickly – planned.
If there is a purpose to this post you are going to have to spell it out.
Your post doesn't reference any preceeding posting. although I was the one who first drew the parallel with this accident.
I can't figure out where the application of the words humility and arrogance apply.
Your post doesn't reference any preceeding posting. although I was the one who first drew the parallel with this accident.
I can't figure out where the application of the words humility and arrogance apply.
Hence my remark about humility and arrogance.
BTW, I could also have posted the reference of - yet another DC-8 in January 1996 -which overran the runway after failing to arm the spoilers and losing reversers 2 and 4 (No automatics, they say, the pilot is always in control...NOT !!!)
As for reference to any preceding post, sorry I can’t remember all the details of this thread amidst all the garbage some have heaped on its pages.
The fundamental problem was conducting the test in low visibility trying to keep out of icing and while concentrating on how far into a real stall they were failed to recognize their attitude and the unwinding altimeter.
Lemurain
OK, now I understand your post.
but just for payback
My comment in my quote was referring to the DC8 flight testing not the Airbus
OK, now I understand your post.
but just for payback
Quote:
The fundamental problem was conducting the test in low visibility trying to keep out of icing and while concentrating on how far into a real stall they were failed to recognize their attitude and the unwinding altimeter.
That’s your assumption, with which I certainly do not agree… I do not think for one second (see the exchange between the XL pilot and the ANZ jumpseater) that they intended to fly outside the low speed test they had – very quickly – planned.
The fundamental problem was conducting the test in low visibility trying to keep out of icing and while concentrating on how far into a real stall they were failed to recognize their attitude and the unwinding altimeter.
That’s your assumption, with which I certainly do not agree… I do not think for one second (see the exchange between the XL pilot and the ANZ jumpseater) that they intended to fly outside the low speed test they had – very quickly – planned.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Belgium
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Money Law
Originally Posted by BEagle
Modern aircraft are simply more demanding of high quality pilots and training excellence.
Whilst there is a global recession, airlines should take the opportunity to select only the very best.
Whilst there is a global recession, airlines should take the opportunity to select only the very best.
Doorman pilots, doorman salaries ... that is the purpose, from day one.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Not here
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the data from the preliminary report here is a compilation of AOA, Longitudinal Gx force, and Normal Gy force (plane's reference coordinates).
It starts at the stall warning and ends with the last FDR data recording, which lasts 60 secs.
I found interesting the final Normal G load near and found it to be approx 1.5 G. Lower than what I expected.
Immediately after the stall warning, the throttles were moved full forward and this can be seen in the graph of the longitudinal G where it increases to almost 0.5 from almost 0 G.
Ignore the data during excessive rolls.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3344/3336212773_746b93fb6b_o.png
.
It starts at the stall warning and ends with the last FDR data recording, which lasts 60 secs.
I found interesting the final Normal G load near and found it to be approx 1.5 G. Lower than what I expected.
Immediately after the stall warning, the throttles were moved full forward and this can be seen in the graph of the longitudinal G where it increases to almost 0.5 from almost 0 G.
Ignore the data during excessive rolls.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3344/3336212773_746b93fb6b_o.png
.
Last edited by alph2z; 8th Mar 2009 at 03:42.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Belgium
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by frwsch
Bis47 ....Doorman pilots.....
What do you suggest ?
What do you suggest ?
An aircraft so easy, so "error-proof", that you no longer need pilots with real flying skills and real airmanship ... hence : cheaper pilots ...
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alph2z,
Thanks a lot for the effort.
How excatly did you derive and plot the data?
I think you neglected to add the 1G earth gravitation to your values. Airframe load factors are based on total load, so unaccelerated level flight has a normal G-load of 1. Not 0. (Beginning of Stall should also be 1, not 0, otherwise they would have been weightless ...).
So towards the end, total load factor was 2.5G, which is consistent with trying to pull up as hard as possible.
Bernd
Thanks a lot for the effort.
How excatly did you derive and plot the data?
I think you neglected to add the 1G earth gravitation to your values. Airframe load factors are based on total load, so unaccelerated level flight has a normal G-load of 1. Not 0. (Beginning of Stall should also be 1, not 0, otherwise they would have been weightless ...).
So towards the end, total load factor was 2.5G, which is consistent with trying to pull up as hard as possible.
Bernd