sba55
En-Route
He's not the only one, Greg. We need a 'ignore thread" function. Or maybe it exists already?Nick with all due respect, you don't know what you are talking about.
He's not the only one, Greg. We need a 'ignore thread" function. Or maybe it exists already?Nick with all due respect, you don't know what you are talking about.
He's not the only one, Greg. We need a 'ignore thread" function. Or maybe it exists already?
My point is not that it was on Autopilot, but rather that the computer was ignoring the throttle inputs.So can the airbus. And show me where it was on auto pilot when the accident happened. Fact is, it WASN'T on autopilot because the autopilot cannot do what the captain wanted to demonstrate.
They could have added power at any time. There was nothing preventing them from doing that.
Nick with all due respect, you don't know what you are talking about.
He's not the only one, Greg. We need a 'ignore thread" function. Or maybe it exists already?
I am curious to know more Greg. If you do not mind, could you explain how go arounds in modern airliners occur, how they are different than what us bug smashers drive and possiblly how advanced cockpits in Boeing and Airbus do it differently. You have the unique qualifications to speak to both GA bug smashing and advanced heavy metal techniques. A perspective that is in a minority even among pilots.Nick with all due respect, you don't know what you are talking about.
My point is not that it was on Autopilot, but rather that the computer was ignoring the throttle inputs.
Maybe I'm wrong. If the TOGA button is not pressed, will going full throttle work?
If yes, then why would a pilot intentionally fly an airplane into trees?
edit: What's funny is just about 2 months ago, we were on the exact opposite sides of a similar argument, in which you said you felt that most airline pilots would make the right choices in flight and the minority wouldn't, and I disagreed with you. Now you're saying that "It can't be Airbusses fault, the pilot must have intentionally flown the plane into the trees."
I am curious to know more Greg. If you do not mind, could you explain how go arounds in modern airliners occur, how they are different than what us bug smashers drive and possiblly how advanced cockpits in Boeing and Airbus do it differently. You have the unique qualifications to speak to both GA bug smashing and advanced heavy metal techniques. A perspective that is in a minority even among pilots.
All I have is a technical bulletin given out by Airbus themselves that says:Got a reference for that?
Airbus said:OEB 19/1: Engine Acceleration Deficiency at Low Altitude
This OEB noted that the engines may not respond to throttle input at low altitude.
Do you really think that anyone would INTENTIONALLY fly a plane into the trees? He was waiting for the plane to automatically do something he THOUGHT it was going to do. But the plane was below the AGL altidude where it would automatically do that, therefore it didn't. Pilot misunderstanding, pilot error. Plane had nothing to do with that.
Was a low blow. My apologies.Come on, Nick. I won't even bother with a response to that.
I could be misreading that, but it jives with the pilot's story....
I haven't read that anywhere. I have read that the pilot said he went full throttle, and the plane did not respond, and I read that the pilot did not go full throttle, but nothing about him assuming the plane would fly itself out of the trees.
Was a low blow. My apologies.
The investigation was interesting though..including the controversy around the flight data recorders -- which it sounds like were either messed with or swapped out.Keep in mind that this pilot was the Chief Pilot at Air France. AND the A-320 was a new plane at the time. ALSO keep in mind that the pilot may have been in full CYA mode. IOW, due to the fact that the plane was new and people may not have fully understood how the airplane actually works, he would naturally want to blame the plane when it was actually his misunderstanding or lack of adequate training that was actually at fault.
The investigation was interesting though..including the controversy around the flight data recorders -- which it sounds like were either messed with or swapped out.
http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml
Starting at "The Black Boxes"
From that article:So who had control during those 10 days?
Instead the black boxes have been illegitimately in possession of the DGAC (Direction Génerale de l'Aviation Civile) from June 26 (the day of the accident) to July 6, when Germain Sengelin, investigating magistrate at Mulhouse, had ordered their confiscation.
The Institute of Police Forensic Evidence and Criminology (Institut de Police Scientifique et Criminologique, IPSC) based at Lausanne/Switzerland has analyzed photographs from the site of the accident showing a man carrying the Black Boxes. The Black Boxes are equipped with white stripes so that they can more easily be detected under water.
The IPSC has determined that the DFDR from the aircraft has straight stripes on its side (perpendicular to the edges), whereas the DFDR presented at the trial has angled lines.
From that article:
[/SIZE][/FONT]
Ok. That was confusing.
Just who are the DGAC? Seems like they could be protecting Airbus, or Air France, or both.
That is a disputed analysis. Even Wiki lists it as such. There are allegations and evidence that indicates that the data had been tampered with.
http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml is one such report.
It at first does sound tin foil hatish but then as you read there is actually something really there.The investigation was interesting though..including the controversy around the flight data recorders -- which it sounds like were either messed with or swapped out.
http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml
Starting at "The Black Boxes"
I think for the most part small single and a lot of older twins are probably having a far less sophisticated AP than anything that has turbines on it. I would expect that most bug smashers are landing and doing low approaches under full human control.As far as me being uniquely qualified to compare Airline Vs GA, I can't really tell you about autopilot on GA for two reasons. One is that different autopilots do things differently. Two is that I have very little experience with GA Autopilots.
Ok. That was confusing.
Just who are the DGAC? Seems like they could be protecting Airbus, or Air France, or both.
Do you really think that anyone would INTENTIONALLY fly a plane into the trees? He was waiting for the plane to automatically do something he THOUGHT it was going to do. But the plane was below the AGL altidude where it would automatically do that, therefore it didn't. Pilot misunderstanding, pilot error. Plane had nothing to do with that.
You mean as in "follow the money?" Yeah, there is certainly a lot of incentive for them to get the blame squarely off of the airplane. It's also possible that the airplane truly is blameless! No way do I know, though!And that's why I'm reluctant to give the plane a pass on this one. Had it come out that the plane was even partially at fault, it would have been a HUGE blow to Airbus and the government of France, and that's why I don't quite trust 'em on this one.
ALSO keep in mind that the pilot may have been in full CYA mode.
IOW, due to the fact that the plane was new and people may not have fully understood how the airplane actually works, he would naturally want to blame the plane when it was actually his misunderstanding or lack of adequate training that was actually at fault.
Kent, I have been over this accident extensively on this and other boards till I am blue in the face (or is that fingertips?).
I am really tired of all the crap people are heaping on Airbus because of the fly by wire crap. Boeing is doing the same thing, albeit in a different fashion. If you don't want to ride in a fly by wire plane, either drive, or fly in ANCIENT airplanes, because FBW is here to stay.
There are two buttons, one on each throttle, called TOGA, which stands for Take Off, Go Around. All the pilots have to do is push ONE of those buttons. Then the airplane will add power and command a Go Around pitch.
By the time the crew figured out the airplane wasn't doing what they thought it was going to do, pushing the TOGA switch was a little too late. It takes several seconds for those engines to spool up from a relatively low power setting. By then it was too late for the Air France crew.
I caught that, too. Remember to factor in the distance between the plane and the camera. It takes some time for the sound to get there....You can hear the engines spool up on the video, but they are well into the trees before that happens.
The picture evidence shows that the black boxes were not even the ones from the plane....sounds conspiracy theorish, but it really does appear that they may have hung the pilot out to dry for something.
In an airliner when you do a go around, is it as simple as full throttle, stop the descent, climb, flaps/slats change, gear up?
Or is there more to do to let the plane know what it is you want it to do, e.g. push buttons for a go around, start the go around sub routine, etc?
And that's why I'm reluctant to give the plane a pass on this one. Had it come out that the plane was even partially at fault, it would have been a HUGE blow to Airbus and the government of France, and that's why I don't quite trust 'em on this one.
You mean as in "follow the money?"
Surely - But Air France, Airbus, and the French government had a lot more to lose than this pilot did and they were surely in full CYA mode as well.
Some things should be the same on every single airplane: When I push the throttles forward the plane should respond, and the stick should function the same in any airplane.
IMHO, I as a pilot should be able to jump into the cockpit of any airplane and at least have a fighting chance of landing the sucker safely without having to be trained on how the plane will decide to respond to my inputs.
But, I'm curious - On the 777, does it have the various normal law/alternate law modes,
or does it simply respond the way a regular airplane would?
I got into an Airbus A-320 sim and was able to take off, fly around, and land without much coaching. Except for the side stick which took about 5 minutes to get used to it felt almost like flying the CE-680. They also showed me a bunch of cool things that I'll bet you wouldn't like though. The airplane will not let you bank past a certain angle or get too fast or slow. They also showed me autoland and auto go-around which are two things which I have never done. In the airplanes I've flown the go-around is always hand flown. You push the TOGA button and the flight director shows you what to pitch for but you need to do it yourself. I've also never flown anything with autothrottles so you obviously need to add power too.IMHO, I as a pilot should be able to jump into the cockpit of any airplane and at least have a fighting chance of landing the sucker safely without having to be trained on how the plane will decide to respond to my inputs.
Just like the BAC Comet and the Lockheed Electra, we're going to have to lose a few more before the market speaks. It won't be pretty.Exactly.
I think flying something that is highly automated is a different skill than hand flying by the seat of your pants. I think that you need to be able to do both but you also need to know when it's appropriate to do one or the other. On one side are the people who are reluctant to use the automation because they have been so used to hand flying. That was me a few years ago. Then there are the other people who become so dependent on the automation that they lose their touch for hand flying if they ever had it at all. There is some happy medium.
How, exactly, did the automation *save* lives???
Obviously, this is a disputed accident - But I can't see any human flight crew with the airplane obeying their commands deliberately flying a plane into the trees! All of the data I can find online about that flight currently is pretty much way biased toward one side or the other.
However, I remember quite a while ago hearing what seemed to be an unbiased account that talked about how the airplane, upon hitting a certain combination of altitude (<50 AGL?), configuration, etc. decided that it was going to land, and did not respond when the pilots tried to make it go around. Even if the flight crew "screwed up" by getting to 50 AGL to cause the airplane to think that way, in my book that still means the AIRPLANE caused the accident.
Greg, any enlightenment you can provide would be most appreciated.
My point is not that it was on Autopilot, but rather that the computer was ignoring the throttle inputs.
Maybe I'm wrong. If the TOGA button is not pressed, will going full throttle work? If yes, then why would a pilot intentionally fly an airplane into trees? If no, then yes, the plane is ignoring inputs.
edit: What's funny is just about 2 months ago, we were on the exact opposite sides of a similar argument, in which you said you felt that most airline pilots would make the right choices in flight and the minority wouldn't, and I disagreed with you. Now you're saying that "It can't be Airbusses fault, the pilot must have intentionally flown the plane into the trees."
Well, the plane saved the lives by letting it fly into the trees in a configuration where the human pilots would have stalled it into the trees and killed everyone. Always keep the airplane in controlled flight.
They were only at 30 AGL, I highly doubt a stall would have killed everyone.
With the fireball in the video, I'm surprised that only 3 died!
No doubt about that. The issue is if it is unfair to compare an Airbus as being MORE automated than a like Boeing model. It sounds like Boeing is doing a lot of the same type of automation in their cockpit designs as Air Bus Industries.I think flying something that is highly automated is a different skill than hand flying by the seat of your pants. I think that you need to be able to do both but you also need to know when it's appropriate to do one or the other. On one side are the people who are reluctant to use the automation because they have been so used to hand flying. That was me a few years ago. Then there are the other people who become so dependent on the automation that they lose their touch for hand flying if they ever had it at all. There is some happy medium.
In a "normal" airplane you have cables and other mechanisms between you and the control surfaces too and those things can break or jam.Right on, Mari... Ironically, I'm a gadget freak and normally I'm all about automation. However, I have enough experience with the gadgets that I know they do fail, sometimes spectacularly, and having that sort of thing between me and the control surfaces gives me the willies.
No doubt about that. The issue is if it is unfair to compare an Airbus as being MORE automated than a like Boeing model. It sounds like Boeing is doing a lot of the same type of automation in their cockpit designs as Air Bus Industries.
In a "normal" airplane you have cables and other mechanisms between you and the control surfaces too and those things can break or jam.
It can cause pretty significant accidents too.Anything can fail, jam, or stick, even on the simplest of designs.
The reason being: in the last few hundred feed of the approach, the first officer decided to disengage the auto pilot and hand fly the approach.
When he shut off the auto pilot, he forgot to shut off the auto throttle.
When they passed the FMS's runway waypoint, it cycled to the next waypoint in the list - the missed approach fix. The altitude prealerter was set for the missed approach altitude, too. So for all the automation knew, it was going someplace 10 miles ahead and a few thousand feet up, and it comanded the engines to do so.
The FO had numbers 2-4 in his hand, so they couldn't do anything, but #1 obeyed and went to TOGA power.
The airplane did exactly what it was supposed to do (and was set up correctly - you want it to want to go around),
it was simply that the pilots made a small mistake and weren't expecting it to do what it did.
Boeing has their issues too (or should I say, Boeing pilots have their issues, too). Airbus only looks more automated because they have fewer switches on the panel (I think) and they use the side stick instead of the yoke that we're all more accustomed to. Even my Bombardier is fly-by-wire (except for the ailerons). Airbus isn't that far ahead of everyone in technology or that far behind in safety, they're just in the news more recently.