Comments on: Another Airbus loss of control incident http://brokenwing.tv/airbus-loss-control-incident/ Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:44:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Chip http://brokenwing.tv/airbus-loss-control-incident/comment-page-1/#comment-1523 Chip Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:44:09 +0000 http://project7alpha.com/?p=1333#comment-1523 Simon; I think that the fly-by-wire system maintaining a level attitude is part of the problem in pilot recognition of an extremis situation. When I was in flight test I remember a near miss over the hill at Edwards. A C-17 was on a flight test when they radioed to the control room a total loss of lateral control and a rate of decent they could not stop with maximum power. All the engineers monitoring and the crew could not figure out a fix; they could not find a system problem. A T-38 from the USAF Test Pilot School was vectored over to give a visual inspection and see if the crew could identify any damage. After swooping by they radioed: "Dump the nose you are in a full stall." Rumor has it a few descriptive nouns were included. It sounds ridiculous; a room full of Engineers monitoring every parameter, not to mention an augmented crew of Test Pilots on board. And yet they missed the very basics; the number one priority: keep the wing flying. Look at the Air France crash on the equator; eerily similar. Basic airmanship has become a casualty of automation. "Fly the damned airplane!" seems obvious; however some of the new systems simply won't allow it. Often when flying the line, a runway change or some other situation, over tasks the crew in close. Click, click; auto pilot-auto throttles off, is normally the best solution. When I was flying old F-4 Phantoms as an Adversary against the Fleet, we had a saying: "We can't beat the airplane, but we can defeat the computer." Simon;
I think that the fly-by-wire system maintaining a level attitude is part of the problem in pilot recognition of an extremis situation. When I was in flight test I remember a near miss over the hill at Edwards. A C-17 was on a flight test when they radioed to the control room a total loss of lateral control and a rate of decent they could not stop with maximum power. All the engineers monitoring and the crew could not figure out a fix; they could not find a system problem. A T-38 from the USAF Test Pilot School was vectored over to give a visual inspection and see if the crew could identify any damage. After swooping by they radioed: “Dump the nose you are in a full stall.” Rumor has it a few descriptive nouns were included.

It sounds ridiculous; a room full of Engineers monitoring every parameter, not to mention an augmented crew of Test Pilots on board. And yet they missed the very basics; the number one priority: keep the wing flying. Look at the Air France crash on the equator; eerily similar.

Basic airmanship has become a casualty of automation. “Fly the damned airplane!” seems obvious; however some of the new systems simply won’t allow it. Often when flying the line, a runway change or some other situation, over tasks the crew in close. Click, click; auto pilot-auto throttles off, is normally the best solution.

When I was flying old F-4 Phantoms as an Adversary against the Fleet, we had a saying: “We can’t beat the airplane, but we can defeat the computer.”

]]> By: Simon http://brokenwing.tv/airbus-loss-control-incident/comment-page-1/#comment-1518 Simon Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:25:47 +0000 http://project7alpha.com/?p=1333#comment-1518 I kind of agree with you Chip, there are so many instances where errors in system designs have caused fatal results but we are in an evolving industry and there are I am sure countless unpublicised areas where automated soulutions have over-ridden inorrect pilot decisions. I remember vividly the Mulhouse A320 crash in which the causes have been disputed but what was notable was that the aircraft maintained a controlled attitude into the terrain that resulted in just 3 of the 130 passengers and crew surviving. If the pilot had been able to override the flight control system the aircraft would have stalled and probably resulted in the complete loss of all life. We have to accept that design errors will occur and the challenge for us all in the industry is to work as hard as we can to mitigate these during the development process. I kind of agree with you Chip, there are so many instances where errors in system designs have caused fatal results but we are in an evolving industry and there are I am sure countless unpublicised areas where automated soulutions have over-ridden inorrect pilot decisions.

I remember vividly the Mulhouse A320 crash in which the causes have been disputed but what was notable was that the aircraft maintained a controlled attitude into the terrain that resulted in just 3 of the 130 passengers and crew surviving. If the pilot had been able to override the flight control system the aircraft would have stalled and probably resulted in the complete loss of all life.

We have to accept that design errors will occur and the challenge for us all in the industry is to work as hard as we can to mitigate these during the development process.

]]> By: Rick http://brokenwing.tv/airbus-loss-control-incident/comment-page-1/#comment-445 Rick Wed, 12 May 2010 13:31:05 +0000 http://project7alpha.com/?p=1333#comment-445 12 May 10 Another A330 down in Tripoli, and apparently in reasonably clear weather! Aaargh! It will interesting to see initial reports out of there. 12 May 10 Another A330 down in Tripoli, and apparently in reasonably clear weather! Aaargh! It will interesting to see initial reports out of there.

]]>