Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Staga on September 05, 2005, 09:24:03 AM
-
See Rule #5
-
737 safety record is droping as fast as my k/d in MA.
-
Can't blame Boeing for these low-cost carriers using old planes that prolly are not perfectly maintained.
-
See Rule #5
====
what a worthless thing to say.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Can't blame Boeing for these low-cost carriers using old planes that prolly are not perfectly maintained.
Ditto.
-
"If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going" :rolleyes:
Anyways, it was just an another 737-200 down...
A load of those have been made and many of those have gone down.
However still no NG's, which is pretty good - surprisingly not even to human errors/interfere.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
"If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going" :rolleyes:
Damn straight. If I'm gonna risk my bellybutton commiting aviation, would prefer to do it in something made in america.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
737 safety record is droping as fast as my k/d in MA.
:lol :rofl :aok
-
2nd in a couple of months. Wierd, since they almost never go down. But yes probably due to poor maintiance(SP).
-
Slight hijack here, but there are just some things that wouldn't happen to a 737.
Friend of mine who works for Iberia as a new A320 pilot (just converted from the MD83 fleet) told me about this incident in Barcelona airport, funny stuff.
It was back when the first fully computerized Airbuses were flying for Iberia, and apparently the "laws" of the plane sometimes kicked in when you least expected it, aborting landings and stuff.
The conversation goes like this:
TWR: Iberia XXX, cleared to land RWY 25, winds calm
IB: cleared to land [..]
Just before touchdown, the engines rev up and go full power, climbing again
TWR: Uhh Iberia XXX, I understand you're aborting?
IB: Not me, the plane is
TWR: Err copy, Iberia. What are your intentions?
IB: I think it wants to go to the alternate, but I'll tell you for sure in a couple of minutes
:D
-
ROFL :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
LOL :D
-
Ah yes, the A300 thrust lever right next to the AP lever, same design. Throw the wrong lever, and the AP decides to GO AROUND. China Air flight into Nagoya tried to recover from the mistake and prosecute the landing. AP didn't let go so easily. RIP
-
Originally posted by Dinger
Throw the wrong lever, and the AP decides to GO AROUND.
push the stick forward and the AP "decides" to go nose down ?
to quote Chuck Yeager, it's the man not the machine .
pilots fly the planes, AP's have no mind of their own !
the lever is there because it's more ergonomic than panel controls, of course the PILOT has to learn his cockpit layout first, it's called proper training.
blaming the plane because it was not built in Seattle ? don't let your flag cover your eyes people!
-
I ain't. I'd just rather be buried an american casket than a european one.
call me old fashioned.
-
Um, those were the findings of the Accident Investigation, not mine: The lever being the same shape and design of the thrust lever was a matter of confusion, and had resulted in numerous incidents beforehand.
Yes, this was pilot error. He had hit the wrong lever and tried to continue. Perhaps the pressure of the severe flight crew hierarchy gradient had something to do with it. (before the incident , you even get nice little bits like):
CAP: IGS IS VERY IMPORTANT.
THE OTHER DAY, (NAME OF PERSON) FLEW VERY WELL.
F/O: IGS, OH.
CAP: I DIDN'T TAKE OVER ON BOTH CASES, HE LANDED BY HIMSELF.
HE LANDED SO WELL, EVEN CAPTAIN CAN NOT DO BETTER.
F/O: IS THAT SO?
Anyway, so the poor guy throws the wrong lever, puts it in GO. He realizes that's bad, so he moves it back, and tries to continue to land.
The A/P isn't designed that way, and continues the Go Around, applying thrust and elevator.
The FO decided to prosecute. At that point, the fact China Air hadn't implemented a "Recommended" service bulletin from Airbus (not mandatory):
B A300-22-6021 issued by Airbus Industrie dated June 24, 1993 with compliance "Recommended" specified, concerned a modification to the AFS, which disengages the AP when a force in excess of 15kgf is applied to the control wheel in pitch axis during a flight in the GO AROUND mode above radio altitude 400 ft
So the FO applies (at Captain's orders) down elevator and disengages the autothrottle. Without the SB fixes, the A/P doesn't disengage in this mode, and isn't getting the climb it needs, so it trims up, and the AOA climbs. The Captain sees the FO is in trouble and takes over. Finally the A/p is disengaged, and the Captain is flying a slow Airbus with a high nose-up, low throttle and full up elevator trim. The AOA hits the "Alpha Floor", an Airbus limiter on AOA, and as an emergency measure, the Aircraft autonomously selects full power. Full power and full up trim increases the AOA to something like 52 degrees, and the thing hits tailfirst into the runway, killing all but seven of the 271 souls on board.
sources:
Investigation report (http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/Nagoya/nagoyarep/nag-3.html) (analysis section, you can jump to the other parts)
Summary (http://www.aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19940426-0)
CVR (http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/Nagoya/Nagoyappend/CI140Cvr.htm?)
So no, push the stick forward, and the AP decides to override you. Man and machine depend a lot on each other. Airbus design philosophy is that the machine should "know better" in most cases.
All aircraft have their design quirks and ergonomic niceties. One of the reasons modern A/C need Weight on Wheels to deploy the spoilers (and hence, some additional problems with aquaplaning) is an accident in canada in the late 60s with a DC-8 where the FO accidentally deployed the spoilers at 100 feet AGL. The aircraft hit hard, pranged an engine, and they went around, only to explode.
-
Dinger,
A300 and A320's are completely different planes mechanically.
Once autopilot decides to rev up for a go-around, it is never wise to try take it down, no matter what plane.
Few years ago over here, in Finland, a tunisian MD83 did the same thing, among few other mistakes that shouldn't been done.
During approach, at 120ft, autopilot kicked in go-around mode, but the captain overrided it and landed the plane.
Luckily it only veered off the runway - sideways, due to captain using rudder to steer it right, to avoid colliding with the approach lights (not like it would've done much more than crapped the lights and required more fixing on the plane)
-
never said otherwise; I was just a little sloppy with "same design" -- it was modifying "lever", not "A300".
sorrt yfor the non-sequitur; it is true that when I saw Cyrano's story, I thought the nagoya crash was an A320. I looked it up before I posted, which gave the obscure connection between the A300's unintentional AP Go Arounds and the (no doubt, completely unrelated) A320's unintentional AP Go Arounds.
But the design philosophy of Airbus has always been more on the "aircraft knows better" side of the equation than boeing.
That said, studies show that the aircraft usually does know better, and I suspect Boeing's designs have been "airbus-ized"
-
Originally posted by Dinger
That said, studies show that the aircraft usually does know better, and I suspect Boeing's designs have been "airbus-ized"
Yeah, pretty much.
Both ones newer planes after departure could be almost flown down to the runway with just autopilot.
Someone just needs to toggle between different AP modes and follow the ATC instructions.