Airbus - A310 Crash

[sba55]

Nick with all due respect, you don't know what you are talking about.

He's not the only one, Greg. We need a 'ignore thread" function. Or maybe it exists already?

 

[tonycondon]

He's not the only one, Greg. We need a 'ignore thread" function. Or maybe it exists already?

its on jesse's list

 

[SkyHog]

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.

My point is not that it was on Autopilot, but rather that the computer was ignoring the throttle inputs.

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



Nick with all due respect, you don't know what you are talking about.

Maybe I'm wrong. If the TOGA button is not pressed, will going full throttle work? If yes, then why would a pilot intentionally fly an airplane into trees? If no, then yes, the plane is ignoring inputs.

edit: What's funny is just about 2 months ago, we were on the exact opposite sides of a similar argument, in which you said you felt that most airline pilots would make the right choices in flight and the minority wouldn't, and I disagreed with you. Now you're saying that "It can't be Airbusses fault, the pilot must have intentionally flown the plane into the trees."

 

[SkyHog]

He's not the only one, Greg. We need a 'ignore thread" function. Or maybe it exists already?

Or you could just ignore me.

I forgot, when did you start flying for the airlines again? About the same time you owned that twin?

 

[ScottM]

Nick with all due respect, you don't know what you are talking about.

I am curious to know more Greg. If you do not mind, could you explain how go arounds in modern airliners occur, how they are different than what us bug smashers drive and possiblly how advanced cockpits in Boeing and Airbus do it differently. You have the unique qualifications to speak to both GA bug smashing and advanced heavy metal techniques. A perspective that is in a minority even among pilots.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

My point is not that it was on Autopilot, but rather that the computer was ignoring the throttle inputs.

Got a reference for that?

Maybe I'm wrong. If the TOGA button is not pressed, will going full throttle work?

Yes

If yes, then why would a pilot intentionally fly an airplane into trees?

Do you really think that anyone would INTENTIONALLY fly a plane into the trees? He was waiting for the plane to automatically do something he THOUGHT it was going to do. But the plane was below the AGL altidude where it would automatically do that, therefore it didn't. Pilot misunderstanding, pilot error. Plane had nothing to do with that.

edit: What's funny is just about 2 months ago, we were on the exact opposite sides of a similar argument, in which you said you felt that most airline pilots would make the right choices in flight and the minority wouldn't, and I disagreed with you. Now you're saying that "It can't be Airbusses fault, the pilot must have intentionally flown the plane into the trees."

Come on, Nick. I won't even bother with a response to that.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I am curious to know more Greg. If you do not mind, could you explain how go arounds in modern airliners occur, how they are different than what us bug smashers drive and possiblly how advanced cockpits in Boeing and Airbus do it differently. You have the unique qualifications to speak to both GA bug smashing and advanced heavy metal techniques. A perspective that is in a minority even among pilots.

On the Boeings, if you are on autothrottle and autopilot, if a TOGA is initiated, then the autothrottle will automatically go to TOGA thrust and the autopilot will command a pitch up attitude to climb away from the airport.

Either or both the autothrottles and autopilot can be turned off and the maneuver can be done manually.

It has been too long since I have flown the Airbus. But as far as Autopilot and autothrottes are concerned, when both are engaged, the TOGA go around is pretty much identical. And it IS possible to turn off the auto throttles and autopilot and do it manually, just like the Boeing. So in that regard, the maneuvers are pretty much identical. The execution is slightly different, depending on whether it is automatic or manual.

The only real difference between the Boeing and Airbus as far as autothrottles go, the Airbus throttles are set in a detent and do not move whereas the Boeing throttles do move.

As far as me being uniquely qualified to compare Airline Vs GA, I can't really tell you about autopilot on GA for two reasons. One is that different autopilots do things differently. Two is that I have very little experience with GA Autopilots.

 

[SkyHog]

Got a reference for that?

All I have is a technical bulletin given out by Airbus themselves that says:

OEB 19/1: Engine Acceleration Deficiency at Low Altitude
This OEB noted that the engines may not respond to throttle input at low altitude.

I could be misreading that, but it jives with the pilot's story....

Do you really think that anyone would INTENTIONALLY fly a plane into the trees? He was waiting for the plane to automatically do something he THOUGHT it was going to do. But the plane was below the AGL altidude where it would automatically do that, therefore it didn't. Pilot misunderstanding, pilot error. Plane had nothing to do with that.

I haven't read that anywhere. I have read that the pilot said he went full throttle, and the plane did not respond, and I read that the pilot did not go full throttle, but nothing about him assuming the plane would fly itself out of the trees.

Come on, Nick. I won't even bother with a response to that.

Was a low blow. My apologies.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I could be misreading that, but it jives with the pilot's story....

Well, what does that exactly mean? Does that mean that there is an acceleration lag from the time the throttles are pushed up and the engine actually responds? That is a true statement with all jet engines. Some are more pronounced than others. The engines on the Airbus are ones that take a bit longer to accelerate.

Does that mean the engines won't respond at all? I don't know. I have never heard that one. There isn't enough there for me to offer an opinion.

I haven't read that anywhere. I have read that the pilot said he went full throttle, and the plane did not respond, and I read that the pilot did not go full throttle, but nothing about him assuming the plane would fly itself out of the trees.

Keep in mind that this pilot was the Chief Pilot at Air France. AND the A-320 was a new plane at the time. ALSO keep in mind that the pilot may have been in full CYA mode. IOW, due to the fact that the plane was new and people may not have fully understood how the airplane actually works, he would naturally want to blame the plane when it was actually his misunderstanding or lack of adequate training that was actually at fault.

Bottom line, I believe what Airbus has to say rather than what the pilot had to say. I have been trained on the plane AFTER that incident and it was thoroughly explained to my satisfaction.

Was a low blow. My apologies.

Fair enough.

 

[jesse]

Keep in mind that this pilot was the Chief Pilot at Air France. AND the A-320 was a new plane at the time. ALSO keep in mind that the pilot may have been in full CYA mode. IOW, due to the fact that the plane was new and people may not have fully understood how the airplane actually works, he would naturally want to blame the plane when it was actually his misunderstanding or lack of adequate training that was actually at fault.

The investigation was interesting though..including the controversy around the flight data recorders -- which it sounds like were either messed with or swapped out.
http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml
Starting at "The Black Boxes"

 

[Greg Bockelman]

The investigation was interesting though..including the controversy around the flight data recorders -- which it sounds like were either messed with or swapped out.
http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml
Starting at "The Black Boxes"

So who had control during those 10 days?

 

[jesse]

So who had control during those 10 days?

From that article:

Instead the black boxes have been illegitimately in possession of the DGAC (Direction Génerale de l'Aviation Civile) from June 26 (the day of the accident) to July 6, when Germain Sengelin, investigating magistrate at Mulhouse, had ordered their confiscation.

The Institute of Police Forensic Evidence and Criminology (Institut de Police Scientifique et Criminologique, IPSC) based at Lausanne/Switzerland has analyzed photographs from the site of the accident showing a man carrying the Black Boxes. The Black Boxes are equipped with white stripes so that they can more easily be detected under water.

The IPSC has determined that the DFDR from the aircraft has straight stripes on its side (perpendicular to the edges), whereas the DFDR presented at the trial has angled lines.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

From that article:


[/SIZE][/FONT]

Ok. That was confusing.

Just who are the DGAC? Seems like they could be protecting Airbus, or Air France, or both.

 

[SkyHog]

Ok. That was confusing.

Just who are the DGAC? Seems like they could be protecting Airbus, or Air France, or both.

That's the part that's got me. The picture evidence shows that the black boxes were not even the ones from the plane....sounds conspiracy theorish, but it really does appear that they may have hung the pilot out to dry for something.

Or maybe the pilot was attempting to hang Airbus out to dry and failed. Its hard to say.

 

[ScottM]

That is a disputed analysis. Even Wiki lists it as such. There are allegations and evidence that indicates that the data had been tampered with.

http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml is one such report.

The investigation was interesting though..including the controversy around the flight data recorders -- which it sounds like were either messed with or swapped out.
http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml
Starting at "The Black Boxes"

It at first does sound tin foil hatish but then as you read there is actually something really there.

 

[ScottM]

As far as me being uniquely qualified to compare Airline Vs GA, I can't really tell you about autopilot on GA for two reasons. One is that different autopilots do things differently. Two is that I have very little experience with GA Autopilots.

I think for the most part small single and a lot of older twins are probably having a far less sophisticated AP than anything that has turbines on it. I would expect that most bug smashers are landing and doing low approaches under full human control.

In an airliner when you do a go around, is it as simple as full throttle, stop the descent, climb, flaps/slats change, gear up? Or is there more to do to let the plane know what it is you want it to do, e.g. push buttons for a go around, start the go around sub routine, etc?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Ok. That was confusing.

Just who are the DGAC? Seems like they could be protecting Airbus, or Air France, or both.

And that's why I'm reluctant to give the plane a pass on this one. Had it come out that the plane was even partially at fault, it would have been a HUGE blow to Airbus and the government of France, and that's why I don't quite trust 'em on this one.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Do you really think that anyone would INTENTIONALLY fly a plane into the trees? He was waiting for the plane to automatically do something he THOUGHT it was going to do. But the plane was below the AGL altidude where it would automatically do that, therefore it didn't. Pilot misunderstanding, pilot error. Plane had nothing to do with that.

Okay, that would lead me to put a little more blame on the pilot - BUT, I'd still blame the airplane design somewhat, because IMHO *no* airplane should be designed to "just automatically do something" without input at that low level. What I mean is that if the pilot was forced to "do something" that he'd have done it. I don't like the behavior change that happens automatically.

 

[gprellwitz]

And that's why I'm reluctant to give the plane a pass on this one. Had it come out that the plane was even partially at fault, it would have been a HUGE blow to Airbus and the government of France, and that's why I don't quite trust 'em on this one.

You mean as in "follow the money?" Yeah, there is certainly a lot of incentive for them to get the blame squarely off of the airplane. It's also possible that the airplane truly is blameless! No way do I know, though!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

ALSO keep in mind that the pilot may have been in full CYA mode.

Surely - But Air France, Airbus, and the French government had a lot more to lose than this pilot did and they were surely in full CYA mode as well.

IOW, due to the fact that the plane was new and people may not have fully understood how the airplane actually works, he would naturally want to blame the plane when it was actually his misunderstanding or lack of adequate training that was actually at fault.

I still don't like the design philosophy. Some things should be the same on every single airplane: When I push the throttles forward the plane should respond, and the stick should function the same in any airplane. IMHO, I as a pilot should be able to jump into the cockpit of any airplane and at least have a fighting chance of landing the sucker safely without having to be trained on how the plane will decide to respond to my inputs.

Greg, I have no problem with FBW - I know Boeing's using it too. But, I'm curious - On the 777, does it have the various normal law/alternate law modes, or does it simply respond the way a regular airplane would? I think that people tend to confuse "fly by wire" with the operating logic in the Airbus system, when in reality they're two separate things... Kinda like someone saying "Intel sucks" when their USB cable doesn't work.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Kent, I have been over this accident extensively on this and other boards till I am blue in the face (or is that fingertips?).

Sorry to make you bluer in the face.

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.

Again, I see it as two separate things: Fly By Wire, which allows the manufacturers to save a LOT of weight by not having to run hydraulic systems the full length of the airplane, and the control logic that Airbus uses. (What does Boeing do? )

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.

Late-model DA40 (XL and XLS) Diamond Stars with the G1000/GFC700 setup actually have a TOGA button on the throttle, too. You push it while adding power, and the plane automagically pitches to the correct pitch and the G1000 sequences to the missed approach. Pretty slick!

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 had read that they pushed the throttles in and nothing happened... You can hear the engines spool up on the video, but they are well into the trees before that happens.

 

[Skip Miller]

You can hear the engines spool up on the video, but they are well into the trees before that happens.

I caught that, too. Remember to factor in the distance between the plane and the camera. It takes some time for the sound to get there....

-Skip

 

[Greg Bockelman]

The picture evidence shows that the black boxes were not even the ones from the plane....sounds conspiracy theorish, but it really does appear that they may have hung the pilot out to dry for something.

Well, I haven't seen any of that. It brings to mind a saying that I heard from my dad. "Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see."

 

[Greg Bockelman]

In an airliner when you do a go around, is it as simple as full throttle, stop the descent, climb, flaps/slats change, gear up?

If one is hand flying, with no autopilot and no autothrottles, it is pretty much that simple. It still takes a push of TOGA for the flight director to provide meaningful guidance, however.

Or is there more to do to let the plane know what it is you want it to do, e.g. push buttons for a go around, start the go around sub routine, etc?

Well, if all the automation is turned on, Boeing or Airbus, pushing TOGA does all the above automatically.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

And that's why I'm reluctant to give the plane a pass on this one. Had it come out that the plane was even partially at fault, it would have been a HUGE blow to Airbus and the government of France, and that's why I don't quite trust 'em on this one.

I can understand that.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

You mean as in "follow the money?"

Exactly.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Surely - But Air France, Airbus, and the French government had a lot more to lose than this pilot did and they were surely in full CYA mode as well.

Well, I suppose there is no argument to that. It may be possible that is true too.

Some things should be the same on every single airplane: When I push the throttles forward the plane should respond, and the stick should function the same in any airplane.

Turn off the autopilots and autothrottles and that is exactly what happens.

IMHO, I as a pilot should be able to jump into the cockpit of any airplane and at least have a fighting chance of landing the sucker safely without having to be trained on how the plane will decide to respond to my inputs.

And for the most part they do.

But, I'm curious - On the 777, does it have the various normal law/alternate law modes,

They are called other things, but yes they pretty much do. Actually the Airbus has one more level than the Boeing, which you would and probably have objected to, but in the real world, it just does not matter.

or does it simply respond the way a regular airplane would?

Well, I would argue that both Boeing and Airbus do. You just have issues with how they go about it.

 

[Everskyward]

IMHO, I as a pilot should be able to jump into the cockpit of any airplane and at least have a fighting chance of landing the sucker safely without having to be trained on how the plane will decide to respond to my inputs.

I got into an Airbus A-320 sim and was able to take off, fly around, and land without much coaching. Except for the side stick which took about 5 minutes to get used to it felt almost like flying the CE-680. They also showed me a bunch of cool things that I'll bet you wouldn't like though. The airplane will not let you bank past a certain angle or get too fast or slow. They also showed me autoland and auto go-around which are two things which I have never done. In the airplanes I've flown the go-around is always hand flown. You push the TOGA button and the flight director shows you what to pitch for but you need to do it yourself. I've also never flown anything with autothrottles so you obviously need to add power too.

I think flying something that is highly automated is a different skill than hand flying by the seat of your pants. I think that you need to be able to do both but you also need to know when it's appropriate to do one or the other. On one side are the people who are reluctant to use the automation because they have been so used to hand flying. That was me a few years ago. Then there are the other people who become so dependent on the automation that they lose their touch for hand flying if they ever had it at all. There is some happy medium.

 

[bbchien]

Exactly.

Just like the BAC Comet and the Lockheed Electra, we're going to have to lose a few more before the market speaks. It won't be pretty.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I think flying something that is highly automated is a different skill than hand flying by the seat of your pants. I think that you need to be able to do both but you also need to know when it's appropriate to do one or the other. On one side are the people who are reluctant to use the automation because they have been so used to hand flying. That was me a few years ago. Then there are the other people who become so dependent on the automation that they lose their touch for hand flying if they ever had it at all. There is some happy medium.

Right on, Mari... Ironically, I'm a gadget freak and normally I'm all about automation. However, I have enough experience with the gadgets that I know they do fail, sometimes spectacularly, and having that sort of thing between me and the control surfaces gives me the willies.

 

[Henning]

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

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! 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.

Well, the plane saved the lives by letting it fly into the trees in a configuration where the human pilots would have stalled it into the trees and killed everyone. Always keep the airplane in controlled flight.

 

[Henning]

My point is not that it was on Autopilot, but rather that the computer was ignoring the throttle inputs.



Maybe I'm wrong. If the TOGA button is not pressed, will going full throttle work? If yes, then why would a pilot intentionally fly an airplane into trees? If no, then yes, the plane is ignoring inputs.

edit: What's funny is just about 2 months ago, we were on the exact opposite sides of a similar argument, in which you said you felt that most airline pilots would make the right choices in flight and the minority wouldn't, and I disagreed with you. Now you're saying that "It can't be Airbusses fault, the pilot must have intentionally flown the plane into the trees."

The computer didn't ignore a throttle input, the engines take time to spool up. Figure thrust is a function like horsepower, which is calculated by torque*time(RPM in the instance of these engines). If you have a 10,000hp recip engine, it's turning a few hundred RPM, but each stroke has massive torque. Turbine engines are the opposite. They spin great RPMs but have little torque, and until you get to about 75% power and greater, much of the torque value is a required value to run the compressors to push more air through so you get very little excess power to drive the bypass fan blades. There for, while with a recip engine, you get a virtually instant throttle response from even idle RPMs, a turbine you don't, it takes time to "spool up" into a realm where you have excess horsepower to climb/accelerate with. They let the power get too low and the kinetic energy of the airplane get to low, and their potential energy (altitude) to disappear as well, so when they said "Ooops, we need more energy" there was none immediately available. It makes no difference if the computer advances the throttles via the TOGA button or the pilot shoves the throttles to the stops. The fuel controller will feed it fuel at the rate prescribed to keep the mixture at an efficient level and the temps within spec. Same as with any turbine. The engines just didn't spool up before the small bit of excess energy they had was used up by drag. If the plane had pitched up any more, it would have stalled, not climbed.

This was a pilot error in energy management. If I was going to make a silly comment, it would be about the attitude of French pilots rather than French engineers.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Well, the plane saved the lives by letting it fly into the trees in a configuration where the human pilots would have stalled it into the trees and killed everyone. Always keep the airplane in controlled flight.

They were only at 30 AGL, I highly doubt a stall would have killed everyone.

With the fireball in the video, I'm surprised that only 3 died!

 

[Henning]

They were only at 30 AGL, I highly doubt a stall would have killed everyone.

With the fireball in the video, I'm surprised that only 3 died!

Stall, nose drops, energy is absorbed linearly, accordion style as the airframe lawn darts into the ground. Plane flys into the trees in a pitch up attitude, the energy is dispersed along the entire length of the airframe and most of it is absorbed by the trees it's knocking over. That same sheering entry is why the fuel was left behind and many more people didn't die in that flameball. The reason they didn't is because the flame ball was behind them as the wings came off and the fuselage continued to penetrate. If they had stalled and impacted nose first, the flame ball would have been right there with them. Stalling is never the answer to crashing.

 

[ScottM]

I think flying something that is highly automated is a different skill than hand flying by the seat of your pants. I think that you need to be able to do both but you also need to know when it's appropriate to do one or the other. On one side are the people who are reluctant to use the automation because they have been so used to hand flying. That was me a few years ago. Then there are the other people who become so dependent on the automation that they lose their touch for hand flying if they ever had it at all. There is some happy medium.

No doubt about that. The issue is if it is unfair to compare an Airbus as being MORE automated than a like Boeing model. It sounds like Boeing is doing a lot of the same type of automation in their cockpit designs as Air Bus Industries.

I would not know for sure. The last Boeing cockpit I spent any time in was in the front end of a military, RC-135V. That cockpit was not shall we say, automated at all. The new revision has more automation in it. But besides a very nice autopilot w/o auto throttles and inertial nav system it was not all that different than manual bug smashers. Well except the systems were more complicated.

 

[Everskyward]

Right on, Mari... Ironically, I'm a gadget freak and normally I'm all about automation. However, I have enough experience with the gadgets that I know they do fail, sometimes spectacularly, and having that sort of thing between me and the control surfaces gives me the willies.

In a "normal" airplane you have cables and other mechanisms between you and the control surfaces too and those things can break or jam.

 

[Teller1900]

No doubt about that. The issue is if it is unfair to compare an Airbus as being MORE automated than a like Boeing model. It sounds like Boeing is doing a lot of the same type of automation in their cockpit designs as Air Bus Industries.

A month or so ago I was sitting next to a very senior powerplant engineer from Boeing when I was deadheading somewhere (honest to God, I don't remember where I was going). He has been the lead engineer on the powerplant integration for the 744, 748, 772, and now the 787.

At the time, I was reading a book on human factors in general aviation (thanks Andrew S), so we got to talking about how human factors play into what he does. And then he told me some of the problems they had.

Shortly after the unidentified foreign carrier took delivery of their first 748, they had their first runway excursion with it. The reason being: in the last few hundred feed of the approach, the first officer decided to disengage the auto pilot and hand fly the approach. After touch down, he reached forward and grabbed the reverser handles, but only managed to get three of them. He pulled engines 2-4 into full reverse, but not #1. Normally this wouldn't have been bad except...

When he shut off the auto pilot, he forgot to shut off the auto throttle. When they passed the FMS's runway waypoint, it cycled to the next waypoint in the list - the missed approach fix. The altitude prealerter was set for the missed approach altitude, too. So for all the automation knew, it was going someplace 10 miles ahead and a few thousand feet up, and it comanded the engines to do so.

The FO had numbers 2-4 in his hand, so they couldn't do anything, but #1 obeyed and went to TOGA power. By the time the pilots realized what was going on and could pull #1 back, they had already scored their first kill on a runway light.

The airplane did exactly what it was supposed to do (and was set up correctly - you want it to want to go around), it was simply that the pilots made a small mistake and weren't expecting it to do what it did.

Boeing has their issues too (or should I say, Boeing pilots have their issues, too). Airbus only looks more automated because they have fewer switches on the panel (I think) and they use the side stick instead of the yoke that we're all more accustomed to. Even my Bombardier is fly-by-wire (except for the ailerons). Airbus isn't that far ahead of everyone in technology or that far behind in safety, they're just in the news more recently.

 

[Teller1900]

In a "normal" airplane you have cables and other mechanisms between you and the control surfaces too and those things can break or jam.

That was a great demo in the sim...jam one pilot's pitch control and the other pilot's roll control. One of you has pitch and power, the other takes roll and rudders. Anything can fail, jam, or stick, even on the simplest of designs. Even the 1900 (which was only slightly more complex than a folded sheet of paper and a few pieces of tape for balance) was prone to having the elevator hinges freeze if we were up high for a long time after flying through cold precip.

 

[Everskyward]

Anything can fail, jam, or stick, even on the simplest of designs.

It can cause pretty significant accidents too.

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2002/AAR0201.htm

Note, this was not an Airbus.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

The reason being: in the last few hundred feed of the approach, the first officer decided to disengage the auto pilot and hand fly the approach.

Normal. I do it all the time.

When he shut off the auto pilot, he forgot to shut off the auto throttle.

Uhh, two separate systems. That shouldn't be an issue. I very seldom turn the autothrottles off.

When they passed the FMS's runway waypoint, it cycled to the next waypoint in the list - the missed approach fix. The altitude prealerter was set for the missed approach altitude, too. So for all the automation knew, it was going someplace 10 miles ahead and a few thousand feet up, and it comanded the engines to do so.

THAT shouldn't happen. Unless TOGA is pushed, the Throttles should maintain the FMS or selected speed until touchdown.

The FO had numbers 2-4 in his hand, so they couldn't do anything, but #1 obeyed and went to TOGA power.

See above

The airplane did exactly what it was supposed to do (and was set up correctly - you want it to want to go around),

Only if you push TOGA. It shouldn't WANT to go around unless you do that.

it was simply that the pilots made a small mistake and weren't expecting it to do what it did.

Methinks there was more to it than that.

Boeing has their issues too (or should I say, Boeing pilots have their issues, too). Airbus only looks more automated because they have fewer switches on the panel (I think) and they use the side stick instead of the yoke that we're all more accustomed to. Even my Bombardier is fly-by-wire (except for the ailerons). Airbus isn't that far ahead of everyone in technology or that far behind in safety, they're just in the news more recently.

For the most part, I agree with this. :smile: