A380 beats up on smaller guy

Greg Bockelman said:
I just KNEW someone was going to bring that up. It has been proven that that was plain and simple pilot error, not the fault of the airplane. The fact that "only" three (I am pretty sure) people lost their lives is testament to how well the system worked. If the Captain had had his way, he would have stalled the airplane and many more would have died. As it is, the plane mushed into the trees in a controlled fashion, as it was designed to do. (The controlled part. Obviously the crashing part it wasn't designed to do.)
Click to expand...

Careful Greg, the conspiracy theorists will tell you it was because the engines failed to respond. Oh wait, Airbus didn't build the engines so it doesn't matter.:rolleyes2:
 
Dr. O said:
To commit the unforgivable error of posting back on topic:
My gut feeling is the RJ may be toast based on $$... Being driven sideways from near the top of the vertical stabilizer may have exceeded the design limit forces on the spars... At the very least the vertical stab will need to have the rivets drilled out and be completely removed from the aircraft and the spars x-rayed for cracks... Also the fuselage might be twisted and will need careful measurements, and the landing gear took a major sideways load so that will need complete disassembly, etc... Depending in the hours on that airframe, it might be more economical to just strip it for parts and junk the fuselage...

I don't know on the Airbus wing how far down the disassembly and testing will go...

denny-o
Click to expand...

I agree completely. Based on the displacement the CRJ suffered, they're going to have to check every structural component on that aircraft, not just the tail.
 
astanley said:
......a design theory perspective, and it argued that Airbus systems took a primarily "human as decision component" versus "human as final command authority" perspective w/r/t interaction design.
Cheers.
Click to expand...

Now that is a valid reason to prefer one manufacturer over. I can beleive it's an actual difference based on what I've seen. It isn't absolute in implementation though, but it is one reason I prefer some Boeing products over Airbus. I still think Airbus makes a quality product and still haven't seen any evidence or argument otherwise.
 
maddog52 said:
I agree completely. Based on the displacement the CRJ suffered, they're going to have to check every structural component on that aircraft, not just the tail.
Click to expand...

They will do that with measurements. If it's a lease plane though, whomever said that it may not get fixed because of all the ones sitting around that can replace it, that may be an accurate assessment.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
I just KNEW someone was going to bring that up. It has been proven that that was plain and simple pilot error, not the fault of the airplane. The fact that "only" three (I am pretty sure) people lost their lives is testament to how well the system worked. If the Captain had had his way, he would have stalled the airplane and many more would have died. As it is, the plane mushed into the trees in a controlled fashion, as it was designed to do. (The controlled part. Obviously the crashing part it wasn't designed to do.)
Click to expand...


I'm going to elaborate a little more, but it's been a while since I've flown a bus, so forgive me if my terms aren't correct.


That flyby was designed to show off the stall protection features of the A320 series airplane. The long story short version of that is when the aircraft is approach a stall, two things happen: The first is the computer will limit elevator travel to prevent you from stalling. A full back pull on the stick will bring you right up to the critical aoa (g-load limits honored of course). The second thing it will do is apply full rated power from the engines to power out of the stall. It is quite a display as the plane will go from a slow flyby of 120-ish kts to a full power climb at greater than a 30deg deck angle.

Now here's the catch: IT'S INHIBITED DURING LANDING. Think about it, if it wasn't, it would be very difficult to get the plane on the ground with the engines surging to full power. So, at about 100' agl, the alpha floor protection is disabled.

Now, back at the scene of the crime. The pilot of the A320 deviated from their planned flyby altitude and came in lower than 100' agl. So, when he brought the speed back, the plane just slowed and slowed until the crew realized that the alpha floor wasn't going to engage. At that time, they shoved the thrust levers forward and got full power. By that point, however, it was too late and they were in the trees.

Now, if you had done the same thing in, say, the 737... You'd have been in the trees... or stalled/crashed before the treeline.
 
Rex Kramer said:
I'm going to elaborate a little more, but it's been a while since I've flown a bus, so forgive me if my terms aren't correct.


That flyby was designed to show off the stall protection features of the A320 series airplane. The long story short version of that is when the aircraft is approach a stall, two things happen: The first is the computer will limit elevator travel to prevent you from stalling. A full back pull on the stick will bring you right up to the critical aoa (g-load limits honored of course). The second thing it will do is apply full rated power from the engines to power out of the stall. It is quite a display as the plane will go from a slow flyby of 120-ish kts to a full power climb at greater than a 30deg deck angle.

Now here's the catch: IT'S INHIBITED DURING LANDING. Think about it, if it wasn't, it would be very difficult to get the plane on the ground with the engines surging to full power. So, at about 100' agl, the alpha floor protection is disabled.

Now, back at the scene of the crime. The pilot of the A320 deviated from their planned flyby altitude and came in lower than 100' agl. So, when he brought the speed back, the plane just slowed and slowed until the crew realized that the alpha floor wasn't going to engage. At that time, they shoved the thrust levers forward and got full power. By that point, however, it was too late and they were in the trees.

Now, if you had done the same thing in, say, the 737... You'd have been in the trees... or stalled/crashed before the treeline.
Click to expand...

Total B.S. on the 737 part. With all due respect. Don't see many 737's doing this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1FKAIrb0fQ
 
Last edited:
Greg Bockelman said:
dennyleeb said:
I just KNEW someone was going to bring that up. It has been proven that that was plain and simple pilot error, not the fault of the airplane. The fact that "only" three (I am pretty sure) people lost their lives is testament to how well the system worked. If the Captain had had his way, he would have stalled the airplane and many more would have died. As it is, the plane mushed into the trees in a controlled fashion, as it was designed to do. (The controlled part. Obviously the crashing part it wasn't designed to do.)
Click to expand...


Here is a good link you should read.

http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml

another

http://www.crashdehabsheim.net/CRenglish phot.pdf
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
maddog52 said:
Now that is a valid reason to prefer one manufacturer over. I can beleive it's an actual difference based on what I've seen. It isn't absolute in implementation though, but it is one reason I prefer some Boeing products over Airbus. I still think Airbus makes a quality product and still haven't seen any evidence or argument otherwise.
Click to expand...

Wasn't that one of the reasons I listed? Not in the same terms, but the same idea.
 
Henning said:
They will do that with measurements. If it's a lease plane though, whomever said that it may not get fixed because of all the ones sitting around that can replace it, that may be an accurate assessment.
Click to expand...

Yep. It being what looks like a -700 model, it is probaly economicaly repairable. If it had been a 50 seater, it would be doomed cause you can hardly give those things away.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Wasn't that one of the reasons I listed? Not in the same terms, but the same idea.
Click to expand...

But that poster cited a specific and plausible difference. And like I said, it's a valid and specific reason that one might prefer one manufacturer over another. But it still does nothing to convince me that Airbus doesn't build a quality aircraft.
 
maddog52 said:
But that poster cited a specific and plausible difference. And like I said, it's a valid and specific reason that one might prefer one manufacturer over another. But it still does nothing to convince me that Airbus doesn't build a quality aircraft.
Click to expand...

Well, then I have at least one reason that you'd consider correct for preferring one over the other.
 
How about the fact that Boeing is American made and I think we are just better than the Euro's.

There I said it. It is the same reason I drive American vehicles. American companies and jobs come first in my book.
 
Teller1900 said:
I aggree, my first post was in jest. All the pundits keep talking about how it was probably ATC's fault and they shouldn't have let the AF plane down that alley. BS
Click to expand...
It's a complicated issue. The A380 is a Group VI design, but the taxiway separations and hold lines are, I think, Group V standard. JFK has a modification of standards in place to allow Group VI ops on a Group V surface, but it's up to ATC to issue the correct taxi route, as not all taxi routes will work.

Not saying that's what happened here, but you can't call is BS that ATC might get some of the blame.
 
astanley said:
It was mostly from a corporate culture perspective, and a design theory perspective, and it argued that Airbus systems took a primarily "human as decision component" versus "human as final command authority" perspective w/r/t interaction design.
Click to expand...

Would that be like computer-driven program trading on Wall Street vs retail human trading? :confused::dunno:

Ducks & runs...
 
Ken Ibold said:
It's a complicated issue. The A380 is a Group VI design, but the taxiway separations and hold lines are, I think, Group V standard. JFK has a modification of standards in place to allow Group VI ops on a Group V surface, but it's up to ATC to issue the correct taxi route, as not all taxi routes will work.

Not saying that's what happened here, but you can't call is BS that ATC might get some of the blame.
Click to expand...

I suppose I am making the assumption that the taxiway was designed and authorized to handle the Super. But assuming it is, once ATC clears them via that route, it seems like the onus is on the pilots to "see-and-avoid." And, while I understand that they can't see their own wingtips, they should have recognized that the RJ was still over the foul line and either stopped (or at least slowed!) or called for wing-walkers.

What are the odds that the guy in the ATCT could see both planes, with good enough depth perception to recognize the impending danger.

If that taxiway wasn't authorized for the 380 then fine, I can see ATC taking some blame. But if it was...seems like it's on the pilots to not hit stuff while complying with a legal clearance.
 
Henning said:
I think the philosophy issue in general is the pilots aversion to the fact that the aircraft control system can over ride them. As a pilot, I understand the issue. As a passenger who knows pilots and knows that the odds say that it's most likely human factors that cause accidents, I'm not so sure I mind.
Click to expand...
I agree with Henning on this. I think that sometimes the general public and lower time pilots have the idea that pilots who are higher up on the food chain are immune from doing anything stupid or having a bad day. That is not the case and I think some reasonable, computerized protection is a good idea. I'm sure there were pilots who scoffed at some of the more primitive kinds of protection in the past such as stall warnings, shakers, pullers and pushers. But I can think of two fairly recent instances where someone tried to override the pusher with a bad outcome.
 
maddog52 said:
I think they should show the video during the safety demo to illustrate why you should keep your seat belt fastened until stopped at the gate and the seat belt sign is off!
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Some folks just won't pay attention until you beat them over the head with a graphic example of why the requirement is in place.
 
dennyleeb said:
How about the fact that Boeing is American made and I think we are just better than the Euro's.

There I said it. It is the same reason I drive American vehicles. American companies and jobs come first in my book.
Click to expand...

do you have a subaru or a toyota?
 
tonycondon said:
do you have a subaru or a toyota?
Click to expand...

I would not buy a car from Al-Qaeda or Japan

H1 Hummer for me

I live in Ky where the toyota Camry plant is shut down right now because they can't get their parts for their American "made" Camry b/c of a little problem in Japan.
 
Last edited:
DSC01986.JPG

about the same fuel economy though as my plane
 
dennyleeb said:
I would not buy a car from Al-Qaeda or Japan

H1 Hummer for me

I live in Ky where the toyota Camry plant is shut down right now because they can't get their parts for their American "made" Camry b/c of a little problem in Japan.
Click to expand...

It is a bit difficult to buy exclusively Made In The USA. Ford has a problem with paint.

"Due to a pigment shortage stemming from the March 11 earthquake in Japan, Ford has had to stop taking new orders for cars in Tuxedo Black, and is limiting orders of three shades of red. Officials from Ford say they're working on another source for the pigment as you read this, and have enough cars in each color to satisfy demand until production resumes."

Full story at http://www.autoblog.com/2011/03/25/report-ford-feels-japan-quake-effect-with-shortage-of-red-blac/
 
Teller1900 said:
I suppose I am making the assumption that the taxiway was designed and authorized to handle the Super. But assuming it is, once ATC clears them via that route, it seems like the onus is on the pilots to "see-and-avoid." And, while I understand that they can't see their own wingtips, they should have recognized that the RJ was still over the foul line and either stopped (or at least slowed!) or called for wing-walkers.

What are the odds that the guy in the ATCT could see both planes, with good enough depth perception to recognize the impending danger.

If that taxiway wasn't authorized for the 380 then fine, I can see ATC taking some blame. But if it was...seems like it's on the pilots to not hit stuff while complying with a legal clearance.
Click to expand...
No question, it's an odd dynamic when you put an aircraft the size of the A380 on an airfield not designed for it. The Boeing 747-8 will have some of the same problems, but not as severe since it's not as long in the wing. I've already developed plans for a few airports to handle the 747-8 that the FAA has seemed to agree with, but I've not worked the A380 yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top