Airbus - A310 Crash

sba55

sba55

En-Route
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
2,552
Location
Marin County, CA
Display Name
Display name:
sba55
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8125664.stm

"A Yemeni airliner with 150 people on board has crashed in the Indian Ocean near the Comoros archipelago."

It doesn't seem as though this one is related to the A330 crash recently, but I'm sure that won't stop the news media.....
 
Last edited:
sba55 said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8125664.stm

"A Yemeni airliner with 150 people on board has crashed in the Indian Ocean near the Comoros archipelago."

It doesn't seem as though this one is related to the A330 crash recently, but I'm sure that won't stop the news media.....
Click to expand...

There are many similarities. Both were planes, both were made by airbus, both had filed flight plans, both had people on board. Coincidence or evidence of a systemic issue?

Seriously though :sad::sad:
 
smigaldi said:
There are many similarities. Both were planes, both were made by airbus, both had filed flight plans, both had people on board. Coincidence or evidence of a systemic issue?

Seriously though :sad::sad:
Click to expand...
Smigaldi, there is a reason you're my favorite poster on here. Your biting sense of sarcasm is pretty much it.

May God/Allah/G-d or whatever one calls their chosen deity watch over these men and women and those they left behind and all who continue to travel in the air, on the land and on the seas.
 
smigaldi said:
There are many similarities. Both were planes, both were made by airbus, both had filed flight plans, both had people on board. Coincidence or evidence of a systemic issue?

Seriously though:sad:
Click to expand...

Don't forget, Scott, neither were secured by the TSA either...ya...think about that.


As Scott said, though :sad:. This has been far too many for one year.
 
smigaldi said:
There are many similarities. Both were planes, both were made by airbus, both had filed flight plans, both had people on board. Coincidence or evidence of a systemic issue?

Seriously though :sad::sad:
Click to expand...

They both have carbon fiber structural components and I believe they were both more than 5 years old?
 
Well, With this being the second Airbus to crash in the month of June If I was the boss man at Airbus I would be thinking real hard about how I designed my aircraft. That and find a really good lawyer!

Just one reason I will never take a commercial flight, and if I had to you can bet it would not be on an airbus!!
 
I don't like Airbuses, but that has to do with how they are generally outfitted. Although I must admit that Lufthansa biz class on the A330 was pretty nice, better than UAL first on the Boeing 747-400.

But Boeing planes crash as well. It is not like they have been without errors. So why is the AirBus so maligned these days?
 
Media currency. If it had been two Boeings in the past two months, they'd be getting the focus.
 
smigaldi said:
Boeing planes crash as well.
Click to expand...


Very True, but just the fact that the computer controls the Pilot, not the Pilot controlling the computer is enough to make me want to never fly in an Airbus.
 
Snaggletooth said:
Very True, but just the fact that the computer controls the Pilot, not the Pilot controlling the computer is enough to make me want to never fly in an Airbus.
Click to expand...
The computer doesn't control the pilot in either plane.

There's no objective reason to think one plane is safer than the other. The media are of course playing this crash as a continuation of the other crash, while in fact there's no reason to suspect any connection.

-Felix
 
Snaggletooth said:
Very True, but just the fact that the computer controls the Pilot, not the Pilot controlling the computer is enough to make me want to never fly in an Airbus.
Click to expand...

Well, if that is how you look at it, you don't want to get into any airplane designed after 1993 or so because they are ALL like that.
 
sba55 said:
The computer doesn't control the pilot in either plane.
Click to expand...
Well, the computer will override the pilot..which a lot of airplanes will do. Although, the pilot could probably override the override by turning the right systems off.
 
jesse said:
Well, the computer will override the pilot..which a lot of airplanes will do. Although, the pilot could probably override the override by turning the right systems off.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Those systems are there to help avoid stresses on the airframe, but I'm sure they can be disabled. I also don't know of any accident where these systems were the primary cause.
 
Well, I don't know much about Airliners. I prefer smallish Singles. Like a Beechcraft Bonanza is my all time fav.
 
It was Yemenia Airlines.:yikes: Case closed.

Sad. Very sad.
 
smigaldi said:
But Boeing planes crash as well. It is not like they have been without errors. So why is the AirBus so maligned these days?
Click to expand...

Because they crash more? :dunno: At least it seems that way. And while Boeings crash, they don't seem to lose parts mid-flight the way Airbussen do.
 
sba55 said:
Exactly. Those systems are there to help avoid stresses on the airframe, but I'm sure they can be disabled. I also don't know of any accident where these systems were the primary cause.
Click to expand...

Air France 296.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5NXpar4Ouw

However, the fly-by-wire discussion is irrelevant in this case, as the A310 was NOT a fly-by-wire airplane. :no:
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
Air France 296.


However, the fly-by-wire discussion is irrelevant in this case, as the A310 was NOT a fly-by-wire airplane. :no:
Click to expand...

Besides, the fault was laid completely on the pilot who did several things wrong.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
I just KNEW that was going to come up. How often do we have to go through this?

THE AUTOMATION ON THAT FLIGHT SAVED OVER 100 LIVES. IT WAS THE FLIGHT CREW THAT SCREWED THAT UP.

sheesh
Click to expand...
And they paid for that screw up too

The accident and resulting fire killed 3 of the 130 passengers. Captain Asseline and First Officer Mazière, two Air France officials and the president of the flying club sponsoring the air show were charged with manslaughter. All 5 were found guilty. Captain Asseline was sentenced to 6 months in prison, plus 12 months' probation; the others were sentenced to probation. In appeal his sentence was increased to 10 months of imprisonment plus 10 months on probation. Asseline walked free from the court and said he would appeal to France's Supreme Court, the Cour de Cassation. According to French law, Asseline was required to submit himself to the prison system before his case could be taken up by the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296
 
I don't know the full details of that flight, but it seems to me that the pilots were relying on faulty information provided by the airplane....how is that not Airbus's fault?
wiki said:
OEB 19/1: Engine Acceleration Deficiency at Low Altitude
This OEB noted that the engines may not respond to throttle input at low altitude.


[edit] OEB 06/2: Baro-Setting Cross Check
This OEB stated that the barometric altitude indication on the A320 did not always function properly.

These malfunctions could have caused both the lack of power when the throttle was increased, and the inability of the crew to recognize the sharp sink rate as the plane passed 100 feet into the trees.
Click to expand...
 
SkyHog said:
Well that's interesting....Airbus is a French company, right?
Click to expand...
Sorta of. It is a consortium, or at least it started that way. It involves France, UK, and Germany in its engineering and development. But it is HQ'ed in France and tends to have a lot of French management.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
I just KNEW that was going to come up. How often do we have to go through this?

THE AUTOMATION ON THAT FLIGHT SAVED OVER 100 LIVES. IT WAS THE FLIGHT CREW THAT SCREWED THAT UP.
Click to expand...

How, exactly, did the automation *save* lives??? :dunno:

Obviously, this is a disputed accident - But I can't see any human flight crew with the airplane obeying their commands deliberately flying a plane into the trees! :dunno: All of the data I can find online about that flight currently is pretty much way biased toward one side or the other.

However, I remember quite a while ago hearing what seemed to be an unbiased account that talked about how the airplane, upon hitting a certain combination of altitude (<50 AGL?), configuration, etc. decided that it was going to land, and did not respond when the pilots tried to make it go around. Even if the flight crew "screwed up" by getting to 50 AGL to cause the airplane to think that way, in my book that still means the AIRPLANE caused the accident.

Greg, any enlightenment you can provide would be most appreciated. :yes:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Greg, any enlightenment you can provide would be most appreciated. :yes:
Click to expand...

Kent, I have been over this accident extensively on this and other boards till I am blue in the face (or is that fingertips?). Do a search. If you can't find anything, then let me know.

The airplane did EXACTLY what it was designed to do. It was the Pilot's misunderstanding of exactly what THEY were doing that caused the accident.

Some say that since the airplane would not allow the pilots to pitch up more, thereby allowing them to clear the trees, that is partially what caused the accident. But it has been proven that just ONE MORE DEGREE of pitch would have caused the plane to stall, thereby probably causing MANY MORE FATALITIES.

I am really tired of all the crap people are heaping on Airbus because of the fly by wire crap. Boeing is doing the same thing, albeit in a different fashion. If you don't want to ride in a fly by wire plane, either drive, or fly in ANCIENT airplanes, because FBW is here to stay.
 
There are two buttons, one on each throttle, called TOGA, which stands for Take Off, Go Around. All the pilots have to do is push ONE of those buttons. Then the airplane will add power and command a Go Around pitch. By the time the crew figured out the airplane wasn't doing what they thought it was going to do, pushing the TOGA switch was a little too late. It takes several seconds for those engines to spool up from a relatively low power setting. By then it was too late for the Air France crew.
 
I wonder why the flying club president was convicted of manslaughter. How in the world could he be held culpable? That's like holding the ticket agent at the airport responsible for your injuries in a crash on the flight s/he handed you a ticket for.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
There are two buttons, one on each throttle, called TOGA, which stands for Take Off, Go Around. All the pilots have to do is push ONE of those buttons. Then the airplane will add power and command a Go Around pitch. By the time the crew figured out the airplane wasn't doing what they thought it was going to do, pushing the TOGA switch was a little too late. It takes several seconds for those engines to spool up from a relatively low power setting. By then it was too late for the Air France crew.
Click to expand...

The question, Greg, is why would they design a plane that ignores pilot inputs unless a button is pressed? Hell, most autopilots can be overridden without disabling them in case of an emergency.

The way its described, its like you can sit back and say "Neener neener, should have read the manual," when in reality, had the plane acted the way any other plane would have, they might have been able to add power.

Bad design.
 
SkyHog said:
The question, Greg, is why would they design a plane that ignores pilot inputs unless a button is pressed?
Click to expand...

What inputs exactly did it ignore?

Hell, most autopilots can be overridden without disabling them in case of an emergency.
Click to expand...

So can the airbus. And show me where it was on auto pilot when the accident happened. Fact is, it WASN'T on autopilot because the autopilot cannot do what the captain wanted to demonstrate.

The way its described, its like you can sit back and say "Neener neener, should have read the manual,"
Click to expand...

Described by who? Me?

when in reality, had the plane acted the way any other plane would have, they might have been able to add power.
Click to expand...

They could have added power at any time. There was nothing preventing them from doing that.

Bad design.
Click to expand...

Nick with all due respect, you don't know what you are talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top