386 replies to this topic
Posted 2009-08-04 14:15:52
 F4UCorsair, on 2009-08-04 12:54:43, said:
There are a number of documented cases of pilots causing accidents as a result of not fully understanding the early Airbus technology
Other than one test aircraft, there are none.
F4UCorsair, on 2009-08-04 12:54:43, said: I'd say just wait and see what the outcome of the investigation is. I recall a Lauda Air Boeing 767 going out of control on climb out of Bangkok, at night, about 15 years ago after one engine went into reverse. There was plenty of time and altitude to recover, and it was recoverable, but the aircraft crashed killing all on board, the first B767 fatal crash after many years service of the type.
They had just 20 seconds between the thrust reverser deploying and the aircraft disintegrating. Had they taken the warning seriously nine minutes before (instead of trying to invent excuses to ignore it) and shut down the engine, 223 people, including the two stupid men in the cockpit would have lived.
Quote Cockpit Voice Recorder transcript from Lauda Flight 004:
23.21:21 - [Warning light indicated]
23.21:21 FO: Shit.
23.21:24 CA: That keeps, that's come on.
23.22:28 FO: So we passed transition altitude one-zero-one-three
23.22:30 CA: OK.
23.23:57 CA: What's it say in there about that, just ah...
23.24:00 FO: (reading from quick reference handbook) Additional system failures may cause in-flight deployment. Expect normal reverse operation after landing.
23.24:11 CA: OK.
23.24:12 CA: Just, ah, let's see.
23.24:36 CA: OK.
23.25:19 FO:
23.25:26 CA: Ah, you can tell 'em it, just it's, it's, it's, just ah, no, ah, it's probably ah wa... ah moisture or something 'cause it's not just, oh, it's coming on and off.
23.25:39 FO: Yeah.
23.25:40 CA: But, ah, you know it's a ... it doesn't really, it's just an advisory thing, I don't ah ...
23.25:55 CA: Could be some moisture in there or somethin'.
23.26:03 FO: Think you need a little bit of rudder trim to the left.
23.26:06 CA: What's that?
23.26:08 FO: You need a little bit of rudder trim to the left.
23.26:10 CA: OK.
23.26:12 CA: OK.
23.26:50 FO: (starts adding up figures in German)
23.30:09 FO: (stops adding figures)
23.30:37 FO: Ah, reverser's deployed.
23.30:39 - [sound of snap]
23.30:41 CA: Jesus Christ!
23.30:44 - [sound of four caution tones]
23.30:47 - [sound of siren warning starts]
23.30:48 - [sound of siren warning stops]
< starts and continues until the recording ends]
23.30:53 CA: Here, wait a minute!
23.30:58 CA: dam_n it!
23.31:05 - [sound of bang]
United Airlines 232, July 1989 - 111 dead
Turkish Airlines 981, March 1974 - 346 Dead
US Air 427, Sept 1994 - 132 dead
Japan Airlines 123, August 1985 - 520 dead
American Airlines 191, May 1979 - 273 dead
Sample of airline accidents due to fly by wire failure:
None in 22 years of airline service and 5700+ aircraft built.
Posted 2009-08-04 15:01:53
Interesting read about this topic ...
http://www.dailymail...Flight-447.html
Posted 2009-08-04 17:24:25
Wrong!
FBW is simply part of the process - if the pilot cannot correct/override the system, where would you apportion blame?!
The reality of the situation is the airline and/or craft manufacturer will always blame the dead pilot for the wreck.
That is reality - simulation is not realty. If the FBW does 90% of the flying, it deserves an equal proportion of the blame.
But, as there is only one PIC - he gets tagged.
It is folly to wrest control from the pilot, then hand it back after the situation has became untenable.
We already know that the pitots are faulty, and have been for a long while - which part is integral to the FBW input process - which part of that do you not understand. One small incorrect parameter can trash an entire system.
To wit, one can never solve logic with silly emotional outbursts, claims, innuendo & challenges.
There is a problem, and it must be solved, or rendered safer.
That is not to say that flying is not safer than walking to the store for cookies.
But when it goes down, it is big. Remember these guys are in it for the money.
Big Bucks is on the side of Big Business. Thats not rocket science.
Monday morning quarterbacking is not science - its a luxury the real world does not participate in.
Once you have lost a loved one, the whole scenario changes - the whinge & whine stops - its not about fear-mongering or innuendo - its about cause & effect - solving problems.
I am currently heavily involved in another new FBW system, and keep all my options open.
I dont even want anyone to get hurt, let alone kill a whole slew of folks.
We keep alluding the the catastrophic sequence of events - here it is - almost the perfect storm.
BR>Jack
BTW _ I wouldnt trust the BEA with anything.
Quote
cdnvic said, Again, I ask those who keep throwing out innuendo and fear mongering to show me a single airline accident proven to have been caused by fly by wire. They can't.
Posted 2009-08-04 18:38:11
Other than one test aircraft, there are none.
cdnvic, that is incorrect. I recall a China Airlines or Air China (not sure which) that crashed as a result of the crew no completely understanding the technology, and it could probably be said that the crew who lost the A320 in the fly by in France didn't understand it either.
That low level fly by crash though was a good example of how the advanced technology saved a lot of lives; when the flying pilot gave it a heap of backstick to clear the trees, the computer said it wouldn't comply and flew the aircraft wings level into the forest. Almost every airline in the world flew that sequence in their simulators as a Crew Resource Management exercise, and almost every crew rolled the aircraft on its back which would have resulted in all on board being killed.
For a trained crew, 20 seconds to realize and react to an abnormal situation is a lifetime. It should have been as simple as a boot full of rudder, shut down the affected engine and recover. After shutdown (perhaps 10 seconds at most), there was no urgency.
The checklilst didn't call for an engine shutdown under the circumstances (when the abnormal situation was evident 9 minutes before) or it would have been done. It merely warned of the possibility of the engine's reverse thrust deploying. Proof of a shutdown not being required was that the checklist noted that reverse would deploy normally on landing. If a crew shut down an engine against the QRH instruction they'd be hung by their spuds in the chief pilot's office.
bkkjames, I agree that aircraft are infinitely safer now than they were 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago. The unsafest part of your journey is the drive to the airport.
I don't think anybody is stirring up hysteria over airbus aircraft. If there had been a recent Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, etc., crash and it was topical for this forum, then it would probably have been mentioned.
I have a copy of a National Geographic from about mid 70's I think which has an article about air safety. The final paragraph states "Flying will never be entirely safe". When we climbed off all fours, life started to become more dangerous.
There's an old crewroom line that says',"When you're up to your butt in alligators, it's difficult to remember the original aim was to drain the swamp," and it's a lot like that up front occasionally, so whilst pilots do contribute to accidents, there are sometimes mitigating circumstances.
Edited by F4UCorsair, 2009-08-04 18:40:37.
Posted 2009-08-04 18:46:23
[quote name='F4UCorsair' date='2009-08-04 21:38:11' post='2919289']
Other than one test aircraft, there are none.
cdnvic, that is incorrect. I recall a China Airlines or Air China (not sure which) that crashed as a result of the crew no completely understanding the technology, and it could probably be said that the crew who lost the A320 in the fly by in France didn't understand it either.
That low level fly by crash though was a good example of how the advanced technology saved a lot of lives; when the flying pilot gave it a heap of backstick to clear the trees, the computer said it wouldn't comply and flew the aircraft wings level into the forest. Almost every airline in the world flew that sequence in their simulators as a Crew Resource Management exercise, and almost every crew rolled the aircraft on its back which would have resulted in all on board being killed.
For a trained crew, 20 seconds to realize and react to an abnormal situation is a lifetime. It should have been as simple as a boot full of rudder, shut down the affected engine and recover. After shutdown (perhaps 10 seconds at most), there was no urgency.
The checklilst didn't call for an engine shutdown under the circumstances (when the abnormal situation was evident 9 minutes before) or it would have been done. It merely warned of the possibility of the engine's reverse thrust deploying. Proof of a shutdown not being required was that the checklist noted that reverse would deploy normally on landing. If a crew shut down an engine against the QRH instruction they'd be hung by their spuds in the chief pilot's office.
bkkjames, I agree that aircraft are infinitely safer now than they were 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago. The unsafest part of your journey is the drive to the airport.
FBW aircraft still have hydraulics, and from what's been written above it may appear otherwise. What FBW aircraft don't have is miles of hydraulic lines between the flight deck and control surfaces. The wires run most of that and activate hydraulic pumps closer to the surfaces. If FBW aircraft didn't have hydraulics, it would be near impossible to fly them for more than half an hour. One notable example of a FBW aircraft being saved after a total hydraulic failure was the DHL A320 in the middle east that was hit by a missile.
I don't think anybody is stirring up hysteria over airbus aircraft. If there had been a recent Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, etc., crash and it was topical for this forum, then it would probably have been mentioned.
I have a copy of a National Geographic from about mid 70's I think which has an article about air safety. The final paragraph states "Flying will never be entirely safe". When we climbed off all fours, life started to become more dangerous.
There's an old crewroom line that says',"When you're up to your butt in alligators, it's difficult to remember the original aim was to drain the swamp," and it's a lot like that up front occasionally, so whilst pilots do contribute to accidents, there are sometimes mitigating circumstances.There's no doubt they save more aircraft than they lose.
Edited by F4UCorsair, 2009-08-04 18:47:16.
Posted 2009-08-04 20:35:07
Thank you - most of the bits & pieces are in situ. Strangely no mention of the Comoros Island wreck.
EADS via BEA has little credibility left with anyone.
Its high time they learned that honesty & integrity go a long way towards endearing them to others.
Ultimately the bad press, the heavies armed with class action suites, will create its own catastrophic sequence of events.
BR>Jack
Meanwhile, the families of those who died on their way from Rio to Paris want answers. ‘The interim report seems very insufficient,’ says Christophe Guillot-Noel, head of the victims’ association, whose brother, Olivier, died in the crash. ‘A lot of us are asking whether the BEA is trying to protect Airbus. They know that if they say there is a fundamental problem, it’s going to be devastating both for the firm and for aviation.’
Posted 2009-08-05 03:07:20
A small side issue - in Europe today, a German group has filed suit against EADS for damages - a paltry $30m - for not admitting to known wiring delays which caused the A380 to be further delayed in production, und then selling off stock secretly - insider trading - despite EADS und Airbus management being quizzed on the delays in various media meetings - which delays were vehemently denied!! These investor folks all lost a pile, EADS/Airbus did not.
If they deem it necessary to lie about technical reasons/delays and furthermore participate in financial flimflam surely they have long overplayed their hand, and deserve the harshest of retribution.
Imagine all the corporate ducking-and-diving now, over their sister, Air France 447 fiasco.
BR>Jack
Posted 2009-08-05 04:45:10
Well it's obvious that money is more important than human lives.
Posted 2009-08-05 05:09:11
And that's the proof Datsun 240Z, if anyone needed it, that some things never change!!
Edited by F4UCorsair, 2009-08-05 05:12:02.
Posted 2009-08-05 08:05:26
F4UCorsair, on 2009-08-04 18:46:23, said: Other than one test aircraft, there are none.
cdnvic, that is incorrect. I recall a China Airlines or Air China (not sure which) that crashed as a result of the crew no completely understanding the technology
Neither airline has ever crashed a fly-by-wire aircraft.
Sorry to keep throwing facts in the way of speculation, but all I seem to get in return is vague rumour and innuendo.
Posted 2009-08-05 10:09:54
Neither airline has ever crashed a fly-by-wire aircraft.
Sorry to keep throwing facts in the way of speculation, but all I seem to get in return is vague rumour and innuendo.
I may have made a mistake on the airline cdnvic, but an Asian airline did crash a FBW aircraft some years back, soon after take off. I'll do some research and ask a few mates if they recall it.
And Airbus in the low, slow fly by?? I thik that qualifies as a lack of knowledge causing the aircrat to crash.
I believe Indian Airlines did also. I was transitting Delhi about 20 years ago, and the entire Indian Airlines A320 fleet was grounded, due to a crash as I recall it.
I'm obviously not the enthusiast you are; I did fly heavy jets for over 30 years, but it was/became just a job, as most jobs do.
You seem to think I have an axe to grind on FBW aircraft. I don't. In fact I mentioned above that the technology saved a lot of lives in the low, slow fly by at an airshow/trade day. I can't even recall what airport it was, that's how much of an enthusiast I am.
Edited by F4UCorsair, 2009-08-05 10:28:25.
Posted 2009-08-05 10:36:44
Indian Airlines did crash an A320 in 1990 on approach to Bangalore; the crew didn't advance the throttles when a high rate of descent was detected, and that was a lack of knowledge of operating systems peculiar to the Airbus technology. Advancing the throttles on an A320, certainly the early models, didn't always result in increased power, and vice versa. There were Mode Control Panel (that's a Boeing term, but may also apply to Airbus) settings that were required to be set appropriately to guarantee that the power was proportionatal to the throttle setting.
An interesing fact reagrding the A320 is that Airbus almost didn't put throttles in it, and it was only as a result of pilot feedback that they did. That's how relevant they are, and it has caused confusion quite a number of times. Pilots need throttles to play with.
cdnvic, you said a couple of pages back Although there is not a single commercial aviation accident attributed to fly by wire failures, there are many that have been due to mechanical failure, and others which could have been avoided by having the computer correct a pilot's oversight.
FBW will not correct pilot oversights. The FBW technology in Airbus aircraft will prevent the aircraft being flown outside its operating envelope, but no more, so if a pilot forgets something, it's forgotten.
And I say again that FBW wire aircraft still have hydraulics. FBW only replaces the long cable and hydraulic runs in conventional aircraft.
Edited by F4UCorsair, 2009-08-05 10:53:24.
Posted 2009-08-05 11:15:51
You can't cite lack of proper training as the fault of the FBW system. Plenty of aircraft crash using cable and hydraulic controls too, and if the pilots don't understand the the mechanism it's not the fault of the controls but the pilots themselves, and their training. The control system did not fail, the pilots did.
Again and again I have challenged you to show me evidence of a single crash caused by a fly-by-wire failure and you cannot, despite having the most extensive source of info in the world at your fingertips. The best you can do is cite a few examples where inexperienced, poorly trained, or irresponsible pilots caused the crash of an aircraft.
By speculating and guessing you do nothing but contribute to the unnecessary fears that already make flying difficult for many.
I'm not shy of pointing out aviation safety issues as I've pointed out many here over the years, but creating worry based on no solid evidence doesn't do a thing for travellers except mislead them.
So if you have evidence then show it already, people have had to read enough uninformed gossip.
Posted 2009-08-05 13:28:36
cdnvic, on 2009-08-05 11:15:51, said: You can't cite lack of proper training as the fault of the FBW system. Plenty of aircraft crash using cable and hydraulic controls too, and if the pilots don't understand the the mechanism it's not the fault of the controls but the pilots themselves, and their training. The control system did not fail, the pilots did.
Again and again I have challenged you to show me evidence of a single crash caused by a fly-by-wire failure and you cannot, despite having the most extensive source of info in the world at your fingertips. The best you can do is cite a few examples where inexperienced, poorly trained, or irresponsible pilots caused the crash of an aircraft.
By speculating and guessing you do nothing but contribute to the unnecessary fears that already make flying difficult for many.
I'm not shy of pointing out aviation safety issues as I've pointed out many here over the years, but creating worry based on no solid evidence doesn't do a thing for travellers except mislead them.
So if you have evidence then show it already, people have had to read enough uninformed gossip.
Airbuts is pretty smart - built in system to ensure that when one of their planes goes down, it never shows up in the little black box as FBW fairlure. Unlike streams of hydro fluid all over the wreckage, it's easier to hide a few x's and o's. 
Posted 2009-08-05 14:12:31
bkkjames, on 2009-08-05 13:28:36, said: cdnvic, on 2009-08-05 11:15:51, said: You can't cite lack of proper training as the fault of the FBW system. Plenty of aircraft crash using cable and hydraulic controls too, and if the pilots don't understand the the mechanism it's not the fault of the controls but the pilots themselves, and their training. The control system did not fail, the pilots did.
Again and again I have challenged you to show me evidence of a single crash caused by a fly-by-wire failure and you cannot, despite having the most extensive source of info in the world at your fingertips. The best you can do is cite a few examples where inexperienced, poorly trained, or irresponsible pilots caused the crash of an aircraft.
By speculating and guessing you do nothing but contribute to the unnecessary fears that already make flying difficult for many.
I'm not shy of pointing out aviation safety issues as I've pointed out many here over the years, but creating worry based on no solid evidence doesn't do a thing for travellers except mislead them.
So if you have evidence then show it already, people have had to read enough uninformed gossip.
Airbuts is pretty smart - built in system to ensure that when one of their planes goes down, it never shows up in the little black box as FBW fairlure. Unlike streams of hydro fluid all over the wreckage, it's easier to hide a few x's and o's.
     
#341
Who, me ?
Posted 2009-08-05 14:16:22
Bkkjames, I really can not imagine any aircraft maker doing such a thing! The gain will be nothing. A crash needs to be investigated, and the cause(s) needs to be found. Airbus or Boeing won't do anything, I believe, that could jeopardize any investigation in case of............And the authorities would not allow such things if they feel that it can be a problem...Or at least I hope they would not..
Posted 2009-08-05 14:27:03
Who, me ?, on 2009-08-05 14:16:22, said: Bkkjames, I really can not imagine any aircraft maker doing such a thing! The gain will be nothing. A crash needs to be investigated, and the cause(s) needs to be found. Airbus or Boeing won't do anything, I believe, that could jeopardize any investigation in case of............And the authorities would not allow such things if they feel that it can be a problem...Or at least I hope they would not..
hmm ok, but from a liability point of view, makes more sense to blame the airline / pilots than the manufacturer if i am the manufacturer.
anyways, all I am saying is if you make the plane so sophisticated, a cause and effect of this will be more pilot error - not less as CDVIC points out.
that being the case don't those who make things overly complicated bear some of the responsibility for going beyond the limits of normal human behavior. 
#343
Who, me ?
Posted 2009-08-05 14:48:01
bkkjames, on 2009-08-05 14:27:03, said: Who, me ?, on 2009-08-05 14:16:22, said: Bkkjames, I really can not imagine any aircraft maker doing such a thing! The gain will be nothing. A crash needs to be investigated, and the cause(s) needs to be found. Airbus or Boeing won't do anything, I believe, that could jeopardize any investigation in case of............And the authorities would not allow such things if they feel that it can be a problem...Or at least I hope they would not..
hmm ok, but from a liability point of view, makes more sense to blame the airline / pilots than the manufacturer if i am the manufacturer.
anyways, all I am saying is if you make the plane so sophisticated, a cause and effect of this will be more pilot error - not less as CDVIC points out.
that being the case don't those who make things overly complicated bear some of the responsibility for going beyond the limits of normal human behavior.
Completely true Bkkjames, but also it is the way things go. Progress relieves human operator from a lot of tasks. About 30 years ago, they were far more crashes than nowadays, and it was not always a pilot error. The load of work in flight deck was quite heavy when compared with now. Technic has improved dramatically, and the safety is much better. It will be even better later with still to come new innovation. Of course it is tempting for a maker to blame the airline or the pilot in case of crash. They did, do, and will do. At the end, investigator will find the real cause, and also discover that most of the time it is a several parameters that brought a plane down, not only one cause.
Posted 2009-08-05 15:47:23
cdnvic, I have to ask, and you may have mentioned it earlier but I haven't read the entire thread.
Are you a pilot, engineer, or associated with an airline?? If so, in what capacity?
I'm not suggesting that if you're not you don't know what you're talking about, but what I pointed out was that the technology in Airbus aircraft was difficult at best, and it wasn't a lack of training that caused a couple of early crashes. The failure rate of pilots transitioning to Airbus is higher than it should be and that's because of difficulties with the technology, not the actual FBW concept itself.
Former pilot colleagues say that in an Airbus they are less aware of what is happening than in a Boeing. They are pilots with tens of thousands of hours experience.
FBW aircraft can also suffer loss of hydraulics as did the DHL aircraft hit by a missile in the middle east. It was only some exceptionally skilful flying that it didn't crash. That wouldn't have been a FBW failure of course, but I do make the point again that FBW aircraft do have hydraulic systems that can fail.
I see no need to desist from telling it how it is, whatever form that takes, even if that causes distress for those who have a fear of flying. That's not my role.
Edited by F4UCorsair, 2009-08-05 15:54:19.
Posted 2009-08-05 15:52:24
As I said, show me evidence. Everytime I ask I get evasive answers and speculation. Do you have any or is this just anonymous internet gossip?
The entire internet at your disposal, and you can't show me evidence a single fly by wire failure leading to an accident?
If you can't back up your guessing, stop the needless scaremongering.
Posted 2009-08-05 16:11:01
Noticed this reply from someone on a different forum that might add? something to the discussion here...
Agreed. Whatever the final cause of the accident, Airbus has avowed, by going ahead and changing the pitots, that there is a problem with them.
But the airplane is controlled by its "brain" (flight computers) like your body is controlled by what is inside your skull. If for instance, your right index finger begins to tell you that it is getting fried on a skillet, a reflex mechanism immediately pulls it away, and your brain then reassesses what went on. In the case of the Airbus, the flight computers asked the plane to "further press on the skillet", when its "fingers" where in the vicinity of it, even though they were receiving conflicting data from other fingers (sensors) as to where they were.
I have seen the tail section of the plane being pulled out of the water in pictures, and it appears to have ripped off in mid-air, this once again pointing to flutter induced breakup. Flutter came from pressing too hard on the skillet...
So yes, the pitots have design issues, but it would seem that so does the software that runs the entire plane. We are entering a Darwinian scenario here. Airbus wants to replace the "fingers" as a way to evolve their plane into a safer one. Mother nature may end up telling us that the real problem is in the "brain" that cannot properly parse data from its external organs.
Posted 2009-08-05 16:12:53
How does this person know the difference between a tail pulled off in mid air and one pulled off upon impacting the water?
Posted 2009-08-05 16:18:08
Not sure about the difference between the FBW and PE thingy here?! Ya mean there is a choice?!
As you board there is a line for PE, and another for FBW?! Maybe its a class thingy inside?!
Who cares - its not about the cart or the horse - as I said previously, which you conveniently ignored - if the FBW does
90% of the heavy lifting, it deserves an equal proportion of the liability. Leave the pilots be - ya dont even know them.
Ya have no idea of their skills, or lack thereof.. Its just another copout. You clearly have no idea or interest in safety.
Quote The control system did not fail, the pilots did.
Thats crass speculation, not even innuendo - thats utter nonsense - shame on you - you dont know that - if so, prove it!!.
What we are saying here is that it is probably a sequence of events. Period. And how to not be number next to die.
The plane went down and killed a whole slew of innocent folks. Statement of Fact.
And now you want the airlines/manufacturers to get off Scotfree?! By blaming the dead pilots. Convenient!
That is what the thread is ultimately about - safety issues and how not to get killed too often.
Seeing as you are on the prove-it stump - why dont you prove to all of us that FBW was not to blame!
Then go a step further and prove the pilots were to blame!
Your whole mantra here is on safety, or so you claim - yet you sound off like some hired gun
Innuendo?! Get real Amigo - Quote people have had to read enough uninformed gossip.
Maybe you have - so dont participate - there is no law to say you must. But dont make wild assumptions.
Quote By speculating and guessing you do nothing but contribute to the unnecessary fears that already make flying difficult for many.
Sir - with all due respect - and a dash of candor - it is you who are doing all the speculating.
We are trying to get to the truth .......... PERIOD
Even in a good ol' Cold Case whodunit, even with no body or smoking gun, they get their man. Motive.
The airline/manufacturer have motive aplenty. Going out of business motive.
Simply follow a couple big bucks, hi profile liability lawsuits and figure how many are settled on the steps, 5 minutes prior to.
You should be glad that there are folks looking out for you - you might need them/us one day.
BR>Jack
Posted 2009-08-05 16:22:40
Jack if get out of your stupor long enough to type in English you might be worth debating with. But for the most part nobody has a clue what you are babbling about at the best of times so thanks for your input, I'll file it away with the other gibberish you post. 
Edited by cdnvic, 2009-08-05 16:25:11.
Posted 2009-08-05 16:31:22
cdnvic, on 2009-08-05 16:12:53, said: How does this person know the difference between a tail pulled off in mid air and one pulled off upon impacting the water?
Never asked him, perhaps he is a NTSB investigator for all I know. 
|
|
0
This topic is locked
