Comments for Broken Wing

Comment on Another Airbus loss of control incident by Chip

Chip — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:44:09 +0000

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.”

Comment on Another Airbus loss of control incident by Simon

Simon — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:25:47 +0000

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.

Comment on Poland’s Presidential Crash: who really is at fault? by Chip

Chip — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 16:07:48 +0000

Doc Jim! How is the best and my all time favorite Flight Surgeon doing? I flew by The Midway the other day, Hotel 41 looks unchanged. Where have you dropped anchor?

Comment on Poland’s Presidential Crash: who really is at fault? by Jim Schneider

Jim Schneider — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 22:53:19 +0000

Chip

Could see you arguing with Skipper.
Glad you made the right call

Doc S
CVW-5 flight surgeon

Comment on Another Airbus loss of control incident by Rick

Rick — Wed, 12 May 2010 13:31:05 +0000

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.

Comment on Poland’s Presidential Crash: who really is at fault? by Chip

Chip — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:11:13 +0000

Hi Rick;
I suspect the cockpit voice recorder will also be released. I’ve been real busy working on a project I can’t talk about just yet. But it will be very interesting I promise. Thanks for continuing to read my site. chip

Comment on Poland’s Presidential Crash: who really is at fault? by Rick

Rick — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 23:09:41 +0000

Chip, Great, timely post. I was hoping you would comment on this incident. If Poland is such a great Democracy, the pilot should have had the onions to tell the President to back off. I am betting the Russians will release the ATC tapes.
Very intersting “added value” story as well.
Rick

Comment on Fly by wire; Airbus and now Toyota by Chip

Chip — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 19:08:52 +0000

Rick;
I think the real problem is arrogance. I saw the “father” of fly by wire interviewed on TV once. His selective memory and level of arrogance was staggering. No mention of the thousands that died because of his system. Just the standard engineer anti-pilot rant.

They do NOT fully understand interference amoung components; that is why they have you turn off every thing in the cabin. In flight test the first thing we would do; step one in a test program, was to hang the new device, pod, weapon whatever, and turn everything on. Just to see what would happen, many times systems would be effected. First you had fighters, then airliners and now cars. How do you get an electromagnetically sterile environment driving around any city in the world? You don’t. Cell towers, radio stations, TV, radar, etc, etc.

Thinking back to when I was flying over Bosnia one of the things that caused us head aches way back in the day was the automatic doors at grocery stores. It caused our software to ID an airborne threat.

Comment on Fly by wire; Airbus and now Toyota by Rick

Rick — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 00:24:08 +0000

Chip, Wow….that is a terrific idea! Work out the solution and you could sell it to them! I ran into a lot of problems a few days ago on a cross country with a new Cessna172SP with a G1000 all glass panel. The autopilot really worked against me because it was slaved to the G1000…which can have it’s own problems. I decided it was “inop” in my opinion and never used it again in a 6 hour journey. I worry alot about all these electronics. If I can lose a $500 Blackberry just because it was in the “vicinity” of a shower, there’s too much vulnerability with electronics in our world and in our future. Just my humble opinion. It is one reason I avoid airbus flying.

Comment on Continental CEO will cancel flights before fines by Chip

Chip — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:30:44 +0000

Hi Ruben; how have you been? It is indeed refreshing to see the truth.