A320 the big flaw of the UNRELIABLE SPEED/ADR CHECK procedure
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: uk
Age: 22
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To MB2002
In regards to your first post about level off...
Standby ALT is what you need to look at...as I think was pointed out...the Static sensor runs straight to it without being "corrupted" by an ADR.
On take off the only reason why this sensor would be blocked would be if maintenance covered it up and it was not picked up on a walk round,...
To TyroPicard
1 which comes to mind was I think Lan Chile with exactly what happened above...the other methinks was an Air India....I will dig around and post if I find specifics..
In regards to your first post about level off...
Standby ALT is what you need to look at...as I think was pointed out...the Static sensor runs straight to it without being "corrupted" by an ADR.
On take off the only reason why this sensor would be blocked would be if maintenance covered it up and it was not picked up on a walk round,...
To TyroPicard
1 which comes to mind was I think Lan Chile with exactly what happened above...the other methinks was an Air India....I will dig around and post if I find specifics..

Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And speaking of A320 flaws, does anyone know why the NDs
default to a useless range of 80nm with a dual FCU fault? I've
never been able to find anything on the subject.
Given that ND info is still relevant at the time of the failures
and can be changed by FMC inputs, why isn't it defaulted to
a useful 40 or even 20nm?
default to a useless range of 80nm with a dual FCU fault? I've
never been able to find anything on the subject.
Given that ND info is still relevant at the time of the failures
and can be changed by FMC inputs, why isn't it defaulted to
a useful 40 or even 20nm?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Floating around the planet
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Code:
On a recent A320 sim-check, we had the following scenario : In T/O just after rotation, we got 2 unreliable ADR`s, that both had the same failure of increasing airspeed, rapidly increasing to above 400 kts. That means, that even though they are faulty, they wote out the remaining good ADR. And what happens on the A320 in an overspeed situation : VMO/MMO + xx kts/0.xx mach, the A/C starts to pitch up, even though you manually try to pitch down ! And even more scary, with A/THR engaged, it reduce to idle due to higher speed than targetspeed. (We are not quite sure if this a "simulator thing" that it reduces to idle, can`t find anything about it in the books. Anyone confirm ??) So with a rapidly increasing pitch and thrust at idle, things start to evolve very very quickly ! (and in this scenario very close to the ground). You have to do the following quickly, not a memory item (we are talking seconds) : Solution : Select 2 ADR`s to off (doesn`t mean anything which two) and then you can apply the pitch/power procedure.
Question:
Once you have 2 ADR`S fault , you will be with :
AP , A/THR OFF
ALTN LAW (Protections Lost)
If the A/THR is off and you have protections lost , how come will the airplane start pitching up until you stall even with you above vmo?
Maybe I`m missing something..

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am in the A330 fleet, the situation discussed here should be similar.
If an overspeed protection happening, no mater it is a true or false one, the protection function will trip off the AP and pull the aircraft up in 1.75 g for recovery and the pitch up command cannot be overriden by pilot's pitch down input. Until the disagree situation happens between ADR(s) and AOA(stall?), then automatic alternate law reversion happens and pilot's pitch down control can be achieved.
The question is if the aircraft went into deep stall before alternate law achieved, the recovery of the undesired aircraft attitude for the pilot could be a disaster. Refer to Airbus FCTM on Unreliable speed part, it mentions for extream case like we discuss here, switch off two ADRs will force the aircraft getting into alternate law right away, this may help to recover the unwanted overspeed and/or deep stall situation better.
If an overspeed protection happening, no mater it is a true or false one, the protection function will trip off the AP and pull the aircraft up in 1.75 g for recovery and the pitch up command cannot be overriden by pilot's pitch down input. Until the disagree situation happens between ADR(s) and AOA(stall?), then automatic alternate law reversion happens and pilot's pitch down control can be achieved.
The question is if the aircraft went into deep stall before alternate law achieved, the recovery of the undesired aircraft attitude for the pilot could be a disaster. Refer to Airbus FCTM on Unreliable speed part, it mentions for extream case like we discuss here, switch off two ADRs will force the aircraft getting into alternate law right away, this may help to recover the unwanted overspeed and/or deep stall situation better.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A3TWANTY
yes you are. The two "rogue" ADRs, which are equally wrong, reject the other one, which is correct. Democracy sometimes is bad
So you still have two "healthy" ADRs. there is no automation disconnection, no alternate law, nothing.... except a very dangerous situation
yes you are. The two "rogue" ADRs, which are equally wrong, reject the other one, which is correct. Democracy sometimes is bad

So you still have two "healthy" ADRs. there is no automation disconnection, no alternate law, nothing.... except a very dangerous situation
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Floating around the planet
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Microburst,
Yes ,you are correct. They are not inop. It`s a disagreement of two which rejects the other one.
Yes ,you are correct. They are not inop. It`s a disagreement of two which rejects the other one.
Last edited by A-3TWENTY; 15th Jun 2011 at 21:10.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Netherlands
Age: 66
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
History
Tyro Picard # 40, the 3 cases mentioned by someone in a previous post.
Birgen Air, a B-757, captains pitot blocked. After take-off, as per SOP (for normal conditions), CTR autopilot was engaged.
CTR A/P uses left ADC, so the A/P reacted to the faulty IAS, pulled the aircraft into a stall and it crashed 10 nm north of POP, the departure airfield.
Aero Peru, static ports taped off, a/c came out of maintenance/washing.
Crew managed reasonably well for some time, then made the fatal mistake to regard "altitude information from ATC" as a reliable source (because it comes from "outside" the aircraft). Well, it isn't, because it is the pressure altitude as reported from your aircraft, using the transponder as transmission medium.
The reliable onboard source, independant from the pitot static system, in casu, the Radio Altimeter, was not believed, because at that stage, the crew did not believe any info from their aircraft anymore.
And number 3, you guessed correctly, will be AF447.
Birgen Air, a B-757, captains pitot blocked. After take-off, as per SOP (for normal conditions), CTR autopilot was engaged.
CTR A/P uses left ADC, so the A/P reacted to the faulty IAS, pulled the aircraft into a stall and it crashed 10 nm north of POP, the departure airfield.
Aero Peru, static ports taped off, a/c came out of maintenance/washing.
Crew managed reasonably well for some time, then made the fatal mistake to regard "altitude information from ATC" as a reliable source (because it comes from "outside" the aircraft). Well, it isn't, because it is the pressure altitude as reported from your aircraft, using the transponder as transmission medium.
The reliable onboard source, independant from the pitot static system, in casu, the Radio Altimeter, was not believed, because at that stage, the crew did not believe any info from their aircraft anymore.
And number 3, you guessed correctly, will be AF447.
When Did They Notice It?
Birgen Air, a B-757, captains pitot blocked.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In fact the F/O's indicator was right all along, as was the standby - unfortunately the Captain assumed that because of the overspeed warning that the F/O's ASI was also incorrect, as it was showing a normal speed range (which in fact was correct). Boeing later retrofitted an Air Data Select switch to resolve the issue with the warnings and the autopilot.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing later retrofitted an Air Data Select switch to resolve the issue with the warnings and the autopilot.
GB
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The documentaries I've seen on the subject show a picture of the switch while stating that "Boeing changed their design to make it easier to select pitot data", or words to that effect.
I could be misinformed, but it's what I understood.