Mailing List lml@lancaironline.net Message #32221
From: Scotty G <WarbirdAeroPress@cox.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Non-Certified Aircraft
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 18:26:31 -0400
To: <lml@lancaironline.net>
Dominic wrote about the Airbus:
 

Whatever spin was put on the A320 accident in France ( don’t believe it was at the Paris airshow itself), it was most likely a combination of technology and the pilots not understanding what they were doing with it.

The number of times I have seen pilots ask, and wondered myself, “what the hell is it doing THAT for”, is innumerable when it came to the early introduction of the A320.

It was built by computer whizzes, and chucked at pilots saying – “go fly – you can’t crash it”.


You choose interesting words, but I'm not sure I totally agree. Technology, in itself, isn't bad and it does not lead to an accident. Again, it comes to the person operating the technology improperly. Maybe I'm just tired of the A320 getting a bad rap... It shouldn't...!
 
When the Bus went into the trees at the airshow, this is an easy explanation to it... And in reality, the Airbus isn't different at all in theory to any other airlpane. What happened with this particular accident was purely pilot error. A320 technology and systems did not contribute to the airplane turning into a tree eater.
 
The airshow pass was briefed at some higher altitude that the one that was actually made below 100 feet. I don't know the exact altitude, but it was supposed to be higher than 100 feet. Anyway, the pilot made the pass below 100 feet with the landning gear down and the flaps at either 3 or 4. This is the landing condition for the airplane.
 
When the pass was coming to an end, the pilot PULLED BACK ON THE STICK TO GO AROUND. That is *all* he did.
 
Ok, real airplane pilots... What is wrong with this picture?
 
That's right... Why didn't he add power? The Airbus test pilot improperly thought the airplane would go into TOGA lock and go to full thrust. Nope. Alpha floor activated and the airplane maintained the maximum angle of attack without stalling. BECAUSE of the the airplane's technology and protections, it hit the trees and ground at the slowest possible airspeed at the maximum angle of attack. Because of this, the accident was survivable. The airplane hit the ground in the best possible condition.
 
Now, if Super Pilot had simply added MCT or TOGA, the airplane would have flown away like any other airplane in the world. If this accident had occurred in a Boeing, McD airplane, it would have stalled and hit the ground uncontrolled and nobody, likely, would have survived.
 
As for your "what the hell did it do that for? comment... That's an old Airbus joke. New Airbus pilots say "What's it doing now?" Seasoned Airbus pilots say "It's doing it again!" While there might be truth to the comments, it still comes down to understanding the flight management automation. The A320 series, and the A330, A340 and upcoming A350 and A380 are no different. The automation in the current 737, 747, 757, 767 and other current jets is not that different, either. These jets aren't magic. They are designed by the same structural, aerodynamic and systems engineers... Simply being conversant in computer integration in aircraft design doesn't mean you can actually design an airplane.
 
And you can always crash any airplane... We've never been told otherwise with the A320, and the America West accident tally supports this.
 
Sigh... Rant over... I'm gonna go fly my Lancair tomorrow!  ;>)
 
 
 
All mail is scanned for viruses.
Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster