Air France Jet Missing Off Brazil Coast

[Denholm]

I'm not biased in any way.

That's the same as saying, "Nazis have nothing against Israelis!"

[Die Hard]

Not true, the only time a pilot has full authority would be in direct law, this is far beyond "pilot choice"....

There is no pilot option to select direct law in any airbus that I am aware of...

All seven computers can be turned off in flight. You only need to shut down a couple though to get direct law.

Even if ALL the computers fail the pilots still have direct engine control, and hydraulic control of the rudder for lateral control, and also hydraulic control of the stabilizer trim through the trim wheel for vertical control.

[humble]

So why was the FO manipulating them...and why was power not added. This is exactly the point behind the logic driving the airbus. This is clearly a contributory piece of the puzzle. The FO should not have changed the condition lever without calling it out and not without specific orders. If condition lever to max was SOP on gear down then she still should call it out and the PF should respond with the correct power setting. If the FO does not hear/see/verify the change in power settings then she should have been monitoring the aircraft speed and calling it out as a reminder....or am i wrong here.

I dont know if 50% of the guys flying the 330 fully understand its intricacies. I have absolutely no problem saying that both the operation and logic is baffling to me.

What does appear to be pretty clear is that the potential for the avionics to create serious confusion and potentially cause control issues is very real and specific to the airbus family.

[humble]

That's the same as saying, "Nazis have nothing against Israelis!"

Thats an uncalled for comment....

[humble]

I'm not claiming to be a "defacto" anything. I'm simply asking a few questions and making a few observations. To summarize:

1) the 300 has a clear design deficiency specific to control surface authority for the rudder
2) composites do not make a plane inherently safer
3) engineering for accounts is an unacceptable risk
4) if you have to try and engineer stupidity out of the flight deck get better pilots
5) if you want a guy to ride with training wheels dont take them off when he really needs them.


A tremendous amount of this makes no sense (AF crash). No reason for them to be there, multiple planes had no problems transversing the same area. The spanish plane was actually 5 min behind them on the same track at a higher flight level (37,000). The only fact we know for sure is that the AP kicked off and things got ugly quickly. So we have an experienced crew in a state of the art plane and in less then 5 minutes afterward they were apparently dead. At this point all roads appear to lead back to the flight control system.

[Golfer]

I'm glad the NTSB and other investigative agencies don't work like you do.

You're dealing purely with speculation without any hard facts whatsoever.

Your knowledge of the happenings of the Buffalo crash is questionable.

You've done it before.

I'm not continuing a conversation because you're not interested in a discussion based on sharing knowledge or experiences but rather hyperbole and waving a few little factoids you've picked up along the way.  So far we've gone from one unexplained accident for which we have no hard facts (if you're getting your "facts" from the news agencies there's half your problem) to talking about numerous accidents none of which have any obvious correlation with this one.  Thunderstorms in/around the equator are nothing to be trifled with and even the most modern airliner is subject to the limitations of what mother nature can do.  You cannot engineer out all risk in aviation and attempting to cover up an opportunity to type facts to show off what you think you know as an educated discussion is pointless.

[Die Hard]

Yup.

[CAP1]

They can, but not for long and not without incurring damage, and eventual failure. What you feel during take-off and landing is at most 1.5G. 2.5G is actually a lot more than most virtual "pilots" think.

i think(but not sure) way back when, a CFI had me doing 50-55 degree banked turns in a 172. he said that was about 2 to 2.5G. it was awhile ago, so i'm not sure......

[Golfer]

A 60º turn in level flight will put 2G's on the airplane.

[CAP1]

A 60º turn in level flight will put 2G's on the airplane.

got it....it wasn't then. i couldn't remember what he had said......i do remember we didn't go past 55 though.

 i used to have trouble with the steep turns, so he had me do them at that angle.....thus making it easier for me to do them at 45.

[humble]

I'm glad the NTSB and other investigative agencies don't work like you do.

You're dealing purely with speculation without any hard facts whatsoever.

Your knowledge of the happenings of the Buffalo crash is questionable.

You've done it before.

I'm not continuing a conversation because you're not interested in a discussion based on sharing knowledge or experiences but rather hyperbole and waving a few little factoids you've picked up along the way.  So far we've gone from one unexplained accident for which we have no hard facts (if you're getting your "facts" from the news agencies there's half your problem) to talking about numerous accidents none of which have any obvious correlation with this one.  Thunderstorms in/around the equator are nothing to be trifled with and even the most modern airliner is subject to the limitations of what mother nature can do.  You cannot engineer out all risk in aviation and attempting to cover up an opportunity to type facts to show off what you think you know as an educated discussion is pointless.

Pardon me, do you actually read what I posted....and have you read the NTSB report on buffalo? The only reason they were mentioned by mew was to point out the pilot related issues that airbus is trying to address. FYI the FO not the PF moved the condition lever and did not call it out. The PF did not adjust power settings and apparently neither one was scanning so the plane fell out of the sky. The alpha floor in the airbus is specifically designed to deal with this type of issue....or am I wrong here.

The faults are out in the french media for those with interst and a better technical grasp...

[humble]

I certainly do not have any ability to really decode them but found it intriguing that the 1st (or last) fault was rudder related...

Reads from the bottom up, so AP disconnect was the 1st, and last was rudder travel (in the initial burst).

[FTJR]

Humble, how "much" control do you want from the plane in normal law? Normal law gives you 66 degrees of bank and the pitch is available (to what degree, im not sure without looking at the books) where it would be uncomfortable for all. The speed brake is full available. One click of the auto throttles gives you full command of the thrust. As I see it, everything that you could expect is available to you.

The crux of the matter we dont know whether it was the design of the plane that led to the crash, certainly a contributor, but who is to say if it was a 777 that it would not ended the same way?

We're debating variables over facts unknown.

[-tronski-]

We're debating variables over facts unknown.

And thats the key, especially a theory the A330 is an inherently dangerous airplane as a primary fault of this crash seems a tad pointless, especially an aircraft that is over a decade old...as are most "theories" until more real "actual" information is made public

 Tronsky

[WilldCrd]

I heard/read that the wreckage thay was found does NOT belong to the Air France A330.

http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/05/expert-investigators-blind-without-wreckage/

I know its from CNN but im at work and in a hurry so I just posted the quickest link. basically they are saying now that what they have found isnt from the plane, I find it curious however because where did the fuel slick and wreckage come from then?

We may never know what happened the the Air France plane. If she lost control and lawn darted into the atlantic its possible that at those speeds whatever didnt disintegrate upon impact sank very rapidly.