Hindsight Bias is a wonderful thing
 

To all us arm chair critics. Hindsight Bias is great but when things go wrong in the aircraft sometimes speed and altitude are your best friend.
No aircraft or crew is infallible. Look what happened the the QANTAS A330 near Learmonth. No 1ADIRU played up and the auto voting/switching system failed. If the incident had happened at a lower altitude then the situation could have been much worse. Automation is good to a point but if it fails revert to s submode or take over and fly manually (if you have the time).
Rumour mongering helps no one.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20081127-0

This website reports that the a/c was on it's second test flight of the day which to me suggests that blocked pitot/static sources are very unlikely.

Of course it leaves plenty of room for speculation that maybe it required some fault rectification before making it's second flight.

However I can find no confirmation that it was indeed on it's second flight.

The facts so far: the aeroplane was on post-maintance test flight, it ended up at the bottom of Mediterranean sea and all seven crew perished. Thats it, and for the time being, that's all there is to it.

So far no radar plot, no CVR transcript and no FDR readouts were made public, ergo we have no idea what really happened. It usually takes 2-3 weeks after data reorders are recovered to put bigger part of the puzzle together. If some signiffcant issues are find regarding aircraft's airworthiness, emergency ADs are issued at this stage. Whatever is found, Airbus industrie keeps their customers updated on progress of investigation, even if the relevant accident investigation authority shuns the public.

However, by the time we get the clear picture of the events, the story has lost its entertainment value and findings don't get reported by the general press.

The DFDR has indeed been recovered yesterday evening.
The CVR is said to be severely damaged and will be difficult to read.
The five other victims have not yet been found.

Crash de l'A320: la seconde boîte noire retrouvée - Yahoo! Actualités

ICAO Annex 13 prescribes the investigating body shall issue a preliminary report 30 days after the accident including facts established at that time. CVR and FDR recovered, so data should be available by then.

Thirty days from the accident will be in the middle of the Christmas period,I doubt if we will see an initial report before the first week of January.

From your link Coquelet ...... tone is already set.

Simple answer: You can buy 10 (ten) brand new family cars for one ADIRU. An Airbus has three of it. And it's but ONE computer sub unit, worth 30 cars alone (including 30 brand new servos for steering).

Got the point? Then it's also obvious why we will never see such systems in general aviation anytime soon. You could buy a complete new Cessna / Piper / ... for just one device.

Absolutely.

What I see people missing is the fact that a mechanical system is nowhere near infallible. It can crack, it can jam, it can come loose, it can be misinstalled, it can corrode, it can loose fluid silently .... which an electric system can't, by the way.

Ahh, people correct me - there are other failure types for electronic systems, like loss of electric power? Exactly. And now experts can do the math and come up with stochastics of failures. No system wins, as they are designed to a certain failure rate, not the other way around. But the electronic does have other advantages.

This "I only trust the mechanic system (with the microcracks I can't see)" debate from the "I don't trust my home PC" and "it's not in my cheapo car" folks gets boring over time. Yes, you will never "see" inside an algorithm, but you would have been equally not able to see the microcrack in the compressor disc that brought down a DC-10 in Sioux City. 'nuff said.

there is a difference though...this crash killed everyone on board, the sioux city crash had survivors.

and now the dc10 has a special gadget to keep some hyrdaulic fluid available for flight controls if another disc burst happens.

'nuff said

That old heave-by-cable MD80 of Alaska Airlines that ploughed into the sea off LAX killed everyone on board too. Best not fly on any aircraft with a screwjack drive for the stabilizer.:ugh:

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.

silly silly silly......... I seem to recall many occassions where overspeed and stall warnings have occured at the same time on boeings and DC-9 leading to loss of life and liberty.

It's the ago old argument, and considering loss of control is now one of the biggest killers in aviation AHEAD of CFIT, I can't believe boeing still relies on a stick shaker for windshear recovery.... I cant believe Airbus doesn't allow the throttles to be firewalled (overboosted).....

PS 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.

ELAC, SEC, FAC....... On the A320, if all goes to hell, the second AP is a great place to start, as the Flight envelope protection function on AP2 is driven through FMGS 2 via FAC 2 whose information is provided by ADIRS 2. How to turn the bus into a boeing in one foul swoop...

If that fails, in my misguided opinion (becasue it not written anywhere), both ELACs would be next, because with the AP disengaged the flight envelope protection is send from the FAC's directly to the ELACs..... so get rid of the ELACs. Ok where in ALTN Law, reduced protections, not quite a boeing but getting closer, but the trim is running away because of the static stability of reduced protections ... okokokokokok....... Turn off two ADIRS's to be in ALTN LAW no protections....... fffeeewww

Turning off the FAC might not work because if the computer thinks that the FACs are working fine, even if switched off, the envelope protection still works..... sssiiigggghhhh...... where is that circuit breaker?

its not confusing at all :)........ or maybe I place the aircraft into the emergency elec config..... but do I really want to do that?

no, not confusing at all :}

carnagey matey

nothing is wrong with the plane (md80_ ) that good mx procedures wouldn't fix.

alaska had come up with some really creative ways of saving money, until they lost the plane.

my airline flew this type and never had problems with the stab jack screw...of course we followed the manufacturer's ideas on how to keep the thing maintained.

Quite right, nothing wrong with the good ol' 80, but that crash still killed all on board, just as this one did. Trying to claim that survivability in such a catastrophic incident is somehow related to whether an aircraft has traditional controls or FBW is ludicrous.

Bula:

I don't know who told you that, but they were misinformed. TOGA thrust is always available in an Airbus. Unless of course you are talking about overboosting the engines. If that is the case, then you will find that Airbus is not alone. FADECs are used to control and limit thrust on all modern aircraft, not just Airbuses (or is that Airbi?).

firewalling = overboosting...........

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?

Bula wrote:


No Bula, firewalling (in the sense that throttles are pushed to the stops) does not equal overboosting. In the Boeings I fly, I would have to start switching off things as well to be able to overboost. Simple.

eeerrrrr........... some poepl are pickey arn't they......

Setting a higher thrust setting then TOGA.

you know what I mean... :rolleyes:

Firewalling an Airbus Is NOT the same as firewalling a 717, 747.

Damaged DFDR and CVR ?
 

Would just like to put it out there that I knew the Kiwi pilot on board (the one in the observer seat). He was an immaculate and VERY proffesional guy. RIP Brian...

We know the DFDR and CVR have been recovered in "damaged condition" Could someone that knows more than I tell us all what the implication of this "damage" may or will be on the data recovery that the authorities most desperately want?

Its more of a waiting game, the authorities in this case wont be releasing information anyway for some time. From latest press release

"Meantime, it is important to note that over the coming days there will be limited information that Air New Zealand will be able to release on the search as the formal investigative process is now underway. This will see our ability to communicate developments increasingly constrained under local law.