Airbus A320

[earl1937]

  Well, good ole "fly by wire" MAY have struck again, as the mystery of the Airbus crash in the Swiss ALps, begins to unfold! First question in my mind is the 8 minutes from 38,000 feet. Even at 2,000 feet per minute decent to 8,000 feet where the crash occurred. The figures don't add up, 2,000 feet per minute would only be a 16,000 foot reduction in altitude, which would be at 22,000 feet, so the aircraft must have been descending at much higher rate of descent, more like 3400 feet per minute. Next question, was the crew conscious? If so, why could they not communicate? Is this a nother "Lithium iron" ran a way battery problem and with no electric system, no radio's! If that was the case, they would not be able to control the aircraft, as the pilots could only tell the computer what to do, then the computer would direct the aircraft. No back up control cables, and as far as I know, no "RAT" which could be deployed for back up electrical systems.
Another fine "engineering" demonstration of "Murphy's Law".
I remember a few years back, seeing a A300 on a test flight and they crashed straight ahead after takeoff because the computer reduced the thrust setting, and the test pilots could not over ride the computer to avoid a crash.
I understand the Boeing aircraft's system can be over rode by the pilots and I don't recall any Boeing crash which the pilots could not control the aircraft.
Maybe in time we will learn of the real reason, and improvements can be made in the interest of safety>

[PR3D4TOR]

Are you sure it wasn't the vertstab being too small again? You must be trolling.

[Zoney]

What's your problem Predator?  You somehow feel the need to disrespect one of the great players we have here that actuall flew more planes then almost anyone else here?  You're the troll sir.  Please exercise some self control and if you cannot be respectful to Earl than just keep your mouth shut.  Even if he doesn't have a problem with it, I do sir.

[Zimme83]

Well Earl, u can be sure that if its found out that a plane can go bananas and the pilots are unable to control it because of a software failure the plane will be grounded instantly. More than 6.000 A320 series aircraft have been built and like the 737 series all the design flaws would have been revealed a long time ago. I can bet a lot on it: This accident is not a result of a software problem in the control system. It looks like more like a cfit on autopilot. Doubt that pilots were conscious.



That is not a sign of loss of control, the decent was very steady and most likley on auto pilot.

[SirNuke]

What's your problem Predator?  You somehow feel the need to disrespect one of the great players we have here that actuall flew more planes then almost anyone else here?  You're the troll sir.  Please exercise some self control and if you cannot be respectful to Earl than just keep your mouth shut.  Even if he doesn't have a problem with it, I do sir.

condescending about a third party that's new I'm sure Earl is a big boy and can claim his respect himself, you can stop acting like the holy police.

Earl's assertion is ridiculous, especially from a plane's man, and I do hope he's trolling considering the amount of daily planes and lives that hang on the fly by wire system...

[Zoney]

Yo're right SirNuke, this place is a cesspool already, anyone wanting civility should just keep their opinion to themselves .

[earl1937]

condescending about a third party that's new I'm sure Earl is a big boy and can claim his respect himself, you can stop acting like the holy police.

Earl's assertion is ridiculous, especially from a plane's man, and I do hope he's trolling considering the amount of daily planes and lives that hang on the fly by wire system...

Guys, all I was doing was considering what may have happened, I don't know, that is why I start this thread with MAY have been a fly by wire contributing factor in this accident.
I to, suspect that the crew may not have been conscious when the aircraft hit the ground, but if that is the case, wouldn't all the passengers already by dead also?
I realize over time, aircraft have gotten bigger and bigger and maybe cable control system is no longer in vogue, but I would point out the Convair B-36 and XC-99 were as big as anything flying now days and they had a cable control system.
I just think that a back up cable control system would be an added safety feature for any airliner.

[Zimme83]

Then u loose the point with fly by wire. It seems like its time for u to move on into the modern world, old fashion aircrafts are a lot less safe then modern airliners.
All fancy sytems on modern airliners saves a lot more lives than they "take"

A hydraulic system weights several tonnes on a big airliner, the point of replacing them with wires is to save weight.

[PR3D4TOR]

Well, good ole "fly by wire" MAY have struck again, as the mystery of the Airbus crash in the Swiss ALps, begins to unfold! First question in my mind is the 8 minutes from 38,000 feet. Even at 2,000 feet per minute decent to 8,000 feet where the crash occurred. The figures don't add up, 2,000 feet per minute would only be a 16,000 foot reduction in altitude, which would be at 22,000 feet, so the aircraft must have been descending at much higher rate of descent, more like 3400 feet per minute. Next question, was the crew conscious? If so, why could they not communicate? Is this a nother "Lithium iron" ran a way battery problem and with no electric system, no radio's! If that was the case, they would not be able to control the aircraft, as the pilots could only tell the computer what to do, then the computer would direct the aircraft. No back up control cables, and as far as I know, no "RAT" which could be deployed for back up electrical systems.
Another fine "engineering" demonstration of "Murphy's Law".
I remember a few years back, seeing a A300 on a test flight and they crashed straight ahead after takeoff because the computer reduced the thrust setting, and the test pilots could not over ride the computer to avoid a crash.
I understand the Boeing aircraft's system can be over rode by the pilots and I don't recall any Boeing crash which the pilots could not control the aircraft.
Maybe in time we will learn of the real reason, and improvements can be made in the interest of safety>

Just about everything in his post is just wrong, speculative or irrelevant. FFS the A300 isn't even fly-by-wire!

[Wmaker]

Well, good ole "fly by wire" MAY have struck again,

...Or maybe not? Why don't we let the accident investigation team do their job before useless speculation, ok?

[Wmaker]

Guys, all I was doing was considering what may have happened, I don't know,

You don't know?  That kind of speculation is very emphatic and very considerate considering the families of the aircrew and the passengers, isn't it?



























No, it isn't.

[mbailey]

Howdy Earl, there is a discussion over in the OClub regarding this, it's under A320 crash. Your welcome to join us if you wish.

[Wmaker]

I to, suspect that the crew may not have been conscious when the aircraft hit the ground,

No need to suspect CVR, tapes have been listened at least 10 hours before you wrote the above. Per Finnish aviation authority, the CVR tapes have already been investigated listened and they tell it very conclusively that the crew had been at least partially incapacitated.

[Mister Fork]

Earl 'qualified' his original comment that is 'may' have been a contributing factor.  And everyone is entitled to an opinion - but not to judge it.  Counter a thought, but don't say 'you can't say that.' cause it appears you're judging which I don't think is the intent.

The lack of ATC comms from the flight may indicate a rapid decompression could have occurred - but that still wouldn't explain why autopilot went off line.  If we examine the Greek airline - it was on autopilot until it ran out of fuel after experiencing a explosive cabin decompression.

And we can also suspect this is a classic 'swiss-cheese' accident. Several safety layers were bypassed - each individual failure that resulted in an aircraft that went from cruising altitude, to a controlled descent into a side of a mountain.  The Swiss Cheese Accident represent slices of swiss cheese - each slice is a safety layer that has holes in it. Other layers can cover those holes but if the layers line up and allows a hole - you can flight right through the safety layers and cause an accident.  Hence the nickname 'swiss cheese failures'.

It's tragic - especially with all the young students on board and two young children.  Really really sucks for parents and families as we have no idea what they're going though. 

And as aviation enthusiasts, we're all curious as to what would cause a really really reliable aircraft to nose dive especially with all the safety systems built into the Airbus. 

[mbailey]

You don't know?  That kind of speculation is very emphatic and very considerate considering the families of the aircrew and the passengers, isn't it?



























No, it isn't.

So now discussing what may have happened is not showing empathy to the family's?  His post has nothing to do with the family's. It bas everything to do with discussing what may have happened to the aircraft. On a humn level its a horrific tragedy that hope no person or family ever has to go thru. I'm quite sure anyone with a soul feels nothing but sorrow for the people on that flight and their loved ones.

Having a discussion as to what may have happened to the aircraft, and possible senarios in no way is or should be taken as an afront to anybody affected by this accident.

It's just that a discussion......