daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Airports and Aviation

Airports and Aviation » Airports | Photos and Videos



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old July 15th, 2010, 03:29 PM   #241
archnyer
Architecture Afficionado
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NEW YAWK
Posts: 116
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by KB View Post
And Boeing hasn't have any crashed to date? or do you switch between them every time there is a crash.
No, but I read that at least the pilot can actually fly the plane, and has a yoke for better torso reference and control.

I would prefer to be in a plane where the pilots can take control of the plane at any time.
archnyer no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old July 15th, 2010, 05:34 PM   #242
KB
Moderator
 
KB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 11,840
Likes (Received): 6846

Quote:
Originally Posted by archnyer View Post
No, but I read that at least the pilot can actually fly the plane, and has a yoke for better torso reference and control.
lol, that dude (or dudette) has somehow already come to the conclusion that "computer error" was responsible for the failure even before starting an argument (which isn't present either). He has no explanation or proof of that...heck, he didnt even care to build a theory or give a such a scenario. All he has to say is (and I quote)

Quote:
"While theoretically you have two choices with this incident, Pilot Error or Aircraft/Systems failure, there really is only one choice; that of computer failure for whatever reason.

That is to say, being as how it was an Airbus with computerized everything, some part of the electronic system failed for some reason, and the pilots, no matter how well trained, could not cope with the situation. "
Firstly, you need to establish proof of your claim, even hints which he does not do. He just insists it is some kind of computer problem and even goes on to take it as established truth and is basing his further arguments on it.

Quote:
"This seems to be apparent (computer problem/s) with all of the ACARS messages that were sent. Had the aircraft simply broken up, no messages (or at least not the amount) could have been sent."
sorry, but I fail to see how this is apparent. Again he goes on to say

Quote:
On the other hand, pilot error by flying into an area of severe weather could have put the aircraft in a position the computers simply could not handle. One way or the other, I think all will have to agree, like it or not; the computers played a significant role in this incident.

The question/problem now remains to figure out how to rectify the computer problems that have affected not only this make aircraft, but others as well in the past.
Funny how he already establishes it is a computer problem and goes on to what now remains to be done.

Sorry but air safety has increased because we find the cause of crashes to fix them not because we try to solve things based on our perceptions.

Again, to explore a theory, the established way is to propose one...and trace the sequence of events. i.e assume what you propose is true, does it leads to the chain of events that happened?

Somehow, somewhere something must have happened and thus it is the fault of the computer is not an acceptable cause of failure.

Tell us how, where and what happened and prove that leads to the chain of events before us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by archnyer View Post
I would prefer to be in a plane where the pilots can take control of the plane at any time.
Did you know this (AF447) was the first time the A330 had a fatal incident? And do you know what is, by far I would like to emphasize, the leading cause of aircraft accidents? its not terrorism, its not design problems, not weather, not automated computer controls but ....HUMAN (PILOT) ERROR.


I think the best explanation is the one given by Aircraft investigation- that of a combination of pitot tube failures and pilot error.
KB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2010, 05:47 PM   #243
archnyer
Architecture Afficionado
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NEW YAWK
Posts: 116
Likes (Received): 3

No, its about the pilot being able to fly the damn plane. Using backup analog instruments if need be and flying by instrument.

Frozen up pitot tubes and the consequent problem of computer systems going haywire when the IAS readings go kaput and flying the plane by itself when it can't get the basic flight date doesn't help the pilot fly the plane.

Or maybe it was just the flying through the CB that did it with soccer ball sized ice hitting the plane and deadly wind shear. We may never know. But flying in such conditions with a sidestick would suck. Give me a yoke with torso reference anyday. And there's no yoke to keep you in your seat if the cockpit depressurized.

That's what I'm talking about. That's the difference between flying a plane ie a Boeing and playing a computer game ie "flying" a ScAirbus.
archnyer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2010, 06:38 PM   #244
KB
Moderator
 
KB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 11,840
Likes (Received): 6846

Quote:
Originally Posted by archnyer View Post
No, its about the pilot being able to fly the damn plane. Using backup analog instruments if need be and flying by instrument.

Frozen up pitot tubes and the consequent problem of computer systems going haywire when the IAS readings go kaput and flying the plane by itself when it can't get the basic flight date doesn't help the pilot fly the plane.

Or maybe it was just the flying through the CB that did it with soccer ball sized ice hitting the plane and deadly wind shear. We may never know. But flying in such conditions with a sidestick would suck. Give me a yoke with torso reference anyday. And there's no yoke to keep you in your seat if the cockpit depressurized.

That's what I'm talking about. That's the difference between flying a plane ie a Boeing and playing a computer game ie "flying" a ScAirbus.
So the plane went down because it had a side stick and not a yoke? Never thought I would be reading posts this funny here

I'm an aviation enthusiast and try to learn about aviation...if you come with preconceived notions (and/or hatred) against something, the only thing you can learn is how to twist facts to your satisfaction and feel happy about it. I'm not interested in that.

If you loose airspeed, you loose auto-pilot - be it Boeing or Airbus or any other plane and irrespective of a yoke or a side stick. To maintain lift (i.e. avoid stall) you need to maintain speed (which are based on clearly established procedures - pitch and power) that (again) has nothing to do with stick or yoke. If you fail to do so, its called pilot error.

And while you may like a yoke that doesn't mean everyone likes it.
KB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2010, 03:53 AM   #245
future.architect
Far East London
 
future.architect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 6,800
Likes (Received): 2031

This archnyer is just a typical confirmed boeing fanboy who belives all the crap about 'boeing is safer' ect ect ect.

They are both as safe as each other and both have to comply with the same stringent regulations. You will see that boeing has had its fare share of incidents which involved loss of control and even design flaws (737 rudder issues).

Since over 700 a330's have been built since they where introduced in 1992, I would say that 18 years and 2 fatal incidents is a prety good record, especialy compared to 6 (ive not included 911) the 757 has had in 27 years.

A plane crash is still a very unlikely occurance. You are more likely to die in a car accident that ANY plane!
future.architect no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2010, 10:12 AM   #246
jwenunz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3
Likes (Received): 0

beg god...
jwenunz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2010, 06:12 PM   #247
archnyer
Architecture Afficionado
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NEW YAWK
Posts: 116
Likes (Received): 3

I am not talking strictly about the safety records of ScAirbus vs Boeing, but I am talking about the ability of the pilot to fly the plane.

http://forums.jetphotos.net/showthre...657#post527657 Read this:

Quote:
...Enough for mechanic controls. Then came hydraulics, or better servo-hydraulics.

In servo-hydraulic systems the yoke moves a servo-valve which proportionally controls the displacement in the hydraulic piston that moves the elevator. The problem here is that moving a servo-valve doesn't require any force and any force applied to the elevator doesn't transmit to the servo-valve and hence to the yoke. Bye-bye feedback.

This is very dangerous, because the pilot could for example displace the yoke enough to apply a lot of Gs and realize only when the plane (and the pilot itself) is already under those Gs, or when the plane breaks under those excessive Gs.

This problem is so serious, and the mechanical system gave such a good feedback, that the airplanes manufacturers, all of them (including Airbus in the early models), decided to design something that they called "artificial feel" and that would be the equivalent of the "force feedback" in modern PC joystics and steering-wheels. And they designed the artificial feel so that the forces on the yoke were proportional to the displacement and to the speed squared! Not by chance that's exactly the same than the mechanical controls.

Then came fly-by-wire.

Fly-by-wire means that the control that the pilot manipulates, regardless of what it looks like, sends digital signals to a computer which then send orders to a hydraulic system to move the elevator. The "dictionary" in the flight computer that translates the the pilot's input into commands to move the elevator is called "flight control law", or control law for short. And here is where manufacturers start to diverge.

The Boeing 777 is fly-by-wire. But the control law is simple: The computer will command the elevator to move proportionally to the displacement of the yoke, just like in the mechanical or hydraulic systems. Also like in mechanical and hydraulic systems, the force needed to displace the yoke that much will be proportional to the displacement and the speed squared, of course again with the help of an "artificial feel" system.

Airbus followed a different philosophy. They decided to take advantage of the power of computers and the flexibility of software programs to create some advanced features.

To begin with, they went for a joystick type of control instead of a yoke. In my opinion, that's the most irrelevant difference (unless there are some issues with the range of motion available).

Then, they got rid of the "artificial feel" system. The joystick is simply a spring-loaded self centering joystick.

Now, with a small control that has no mechanical linkage or hydraulic servo-valves and doesn't even has a force feedback system, the whole device got small enough to be placed virtually anywhere. So they put it at the side thus creating the side-stick. That location has several advantages: It gives the pilot an easier access too and egress from his seat, it lets the pilot hold a chart, a laptop or a tray of food on his lap, it lets the non-flying pilot to cross his legs, and it doesn't obstruct the view to any portion of the instrument panel.

Because the spring-loading and lack of artificial feel, now force and displacement of the joystick are always proportional one to the other. That means that force and displacement now feed back the same piece information, instead of three different pieces of information as the other cases (including the fly-by-wire B-777). Now which piece of information would that be will depend on the design of control law.

Airbus decided not to keep the proportionality between the joystick displacement and the elevator displacement, as had been the case up to then. Instead, they decided that the computer will move the elevator as needed to achieve a G load proportional to the joystick displacement. That means that the same joystick displacement will produce different elevator displacements in function of things such as speed, aircraft weight, and bank angle.

So now the Gs are proportional to the joystick displacement and to the force applied to the joystick. So now both joystick force and joystick displacement are two different feedback for Gs. The feedback for angle of attack and the feedback for speed are gone.

So to prevent that the pilot inadvertently stalls or overspeed the plane, they programmed restrictions in the control law. If the pilot pulls up to command a G load that, at the current speed, would make the airplane stall, it will not comply and will command a pull up just before the stall. If the pilot pushed down into a dive or advances the throttles in a way that would cause an overspeed, the computer won't comply and will pull up to reduce speed before an overspeed happens.

Despite being there two different feedback for Gs (joystick displacement and joystick force), perhaps because the range of displacement is small and the control forces are low they added also a restriction to the Gs. The computer won't command a pull up past the design max Gs despite of how hard the pilot pulls up trying to do so.

With the pilot pulling up hard to avoid a mountain, the computer will fly into the mountain rather than letting the plane break-up due to overstress or stall.

That restricts the pilot authority, but in many cases can be good.

For example, if the pilot finds himself flying into a mountain he can simply apply full power and pull up to the stops without worrying about stalling or breaking the plane. The computer will pull up as much as it can be done without that happening. If that doesn't save the day, nothing will. In any of other systems, the pilot has to "fine tune" his pull-up to achieve that optimum performance. If he just scares and pulls-up hard he can stall and crash in a situation where a max performance escape maneuver might have saved the day. It's like the ABS in your car. It won't let you brake so hard to lock the wheels.

Another important advantage of this philosophy is standardization of the handling characteristics: Moving the side-stick one inch back always requires 0.5 pounds of force and always produce a 1.2Gs pull-up regardless of whether the plane is going fast or slow, is heavy or light, has the center of gravity on the forward or aft limit, or it is a small A 319 or a huge A 380. (the numbers there are not real, I just made them up for the example). That simplifies training and transition between types a lot, and hence saves money to the airlines.

Another difference is that the side-stick is out of the field of view, specially the other pilot's sidestick, and the side-stick are not linked one to the other so when one pilot moves his joystick the other joystick just stays still. That removes the visual feedback for the non-flying pilot to know what flight control inputs the flying pilot is commanding.

Finally, another difference between the Boeing philosophy and the airbus philosophy is how the automation (autopilot and autothrust) controls the systems.

In the Boeing philosophy, the autopilot and autothrottles move the yoke and the throttles like the human pilot would, and then the yoke and throttles transmit the commands in the same way as if it was the pilot who had moved them. This gives the pilot the visual feedback of what the autopilot is doing. The human pilot actually sees the yoke move back when the autopilot pulls-up, and the throttles move forward when the autothrottle adds power.

In the Airbus philosophy the autopilot and autothrust actuate directly on the systems bypassing the yoke and throttle levers. The autopilot tells the flight control computer to pull up, the side-stick doesn't move. The autothrust tells the FADEC to increase power, the throttle levers don't move. So here again, a visual feedback is removed.

It is important to note that this difference have nothing to do with intrinsic characteristics of the side-stick or the fly-by-wire concepts.

The Cirrus SR-20 is a general aviation piston single that is flown using a side-stick, but it's not fly-by-wire. That side-stick is mechanically linked to the elevator, so it shares all the feed-back characteristics of the mechanical control systems. The Boeing 777 is fly-by-wire and uses a yoke that emulates a mechanical control system. They could have chosen to use a side-stick and still emulate a mechanical control system.

Most Airbus use a sidestick with no force feedback and that doesn't move when the other pilot or the autopilot make control inputs. They could have kept those concepts and the same control laws with a yoke instead of a side-stick.

So whoever at Boeing wrote that, he was very careful to word the sentence as to be correct: "Existing commercial side sticks offer no visual or tactile cues to the pilot and must have restrictive performance limits." "Existing commercial side sticks" basically means "Airbus side-sticks". And yes, Airbus sidestick, coupled with Airbus flight laws and the other design features mentioned, offer no visual an little tactile cues to the pilot and have restrictive performance limits. Still, a yoke could be like that too, and a side stick doesn't need to be like that. Those are not intrinsic characteristics, but design decisions. And of course, that doesn't mean that "existing sidestick" are worse than "existing yokes". Neither the contrary.
archnyer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2010, 11:15 PM   #248
future.architect
Far East London
 
future.architect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 6,800
Likes (Received): 2031

Quote:
Originally Posted by archnyer View Post
I am not talking strictly about the safety records of ScAirbus vs Boeing, but I am talking about the ability of the pilot to fly the plane.

http://forums.jetphotos.net/showthre...657#post527657 Read this:
The article you have posted is a ballanced appraisal of the two systems and says they both have advantages and dissadvantages, it does not say one is better than the other. Calling airbus scairbus just makes you look infantile and trollish. You can fly an airbus just as well as you can a boeing.

I suggest you grow up.

Last edited by future.architect; July 17th, 2010 at 12:03 AM.
future.architect no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 17th, 2010, 12:53 AM   #249
KB
Moderator
 
KB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 11,840
Likes (Received): 6846

Quote:
Originally Posted by archnyer View Post
I am not talking strictly about the safety records of ScAirbus vs Boeing, but I am talking about the ability of the pilot to fly the plane.

http://forums.jetphotos.net/showthre...657#post527657 Read this:
Till now everything you have done is copy paste opinions of others. Where are your opinions? your understanding? your reasonings?

And if you had read what you quoted, you would have realized it isn't helping your cause.

Quote:
Still, a yoke could be like that too, and a side stick doesn't need to be like that. Those are not intrinsic characteristics, but design decisions. And of course, that doesn't mean that "existing sidestick" are worse than "existing yokes". Neither the contrary.
Both Airbus and Boeing have come a long way in air safety and today a plane is the safest mode of transportation. I am a fan of both airbus and boeing (not that of the older 737s and 747s but certainly of 777 and later models improvements of others too).

The airbus philosophy is not just that they "had to put limits because the side stick doesn't have visual feedbacks (which it does)" but because, as I stated earlier, pilot errors are a leading cause of aircrashes. The computer was designed to prevent some of these errors.

Take AA 965 as an example. The pilot had missed a way-point and entered wrong coordinates while he was preparing for landing in the dark night. That turned him towards a mountain range as he was preparing to land. The aircraft was a Boeing 757-223. The terrain warning system is fitted on all aircrafts to warn pilots if they were too close to the ground without the landing gear down.

As the plane neared the mountain ranges, the terrain warning sounded and the pilot pulled up as hard as they could to climb over it. They couldn't and the flight crashed killing all but 2/3 people. They later discovered that the pilots had deployed speed brakes because they were preparing to land and this had caused their inability to pull up sufficiently to clear the mountain. In a computer controlled system, the sudden and violent attempt to pull up would have retracted the airbrakes allowing sufficient lift to clear the mountains easily.

And that is just one example....there are loads of others. China airlines flight 006 plunged 6 miles because the pilot failed to realize the bank angle allowing the plane to go into a spiral dive. It was a 747. Qantas boeing 767 pilot 'forgot' to lower landing gear till they came to just 700ft of altitude in Nov. 2009. There have been multiple occurrences of pilots 'forgetting' to extend flaps at take-off, etc and these are just a few examples.

Airbus uses these and lots of similar example to convince the necessity of the plane 'protecting itself'. Ofcourse, there are counter arguments, particularly from Boeing saying they don't want to 'confuse the pilot into who exactly is flying the plane'. Current day boeing and airbus planes are both quite safe and it comes down to crew management and pilot training for the most part.
KB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2010, 11:16 PM   #250
archnyer
Architecture Afficionado
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NEW YAWK
Posts: 116
Likes (Received): 3

Speed brakes? Thats a fundamental error. What's next? Gonna blame Boeing because a pilot didnt throttle enough to pull up over the hill?

Well, with respect to the yoke, there are some points you have missed

1. In turbulence, it gives the guys at row zero better control and body to torso reference. A sidestick isn't going to be that easy to use when you are bumping 10 inches out of your seat.

2. In an extreme maneuver where the pilots have lost orientation, it gives them a better chance to control the plane by torso reference, not to mention the east of use of basic flight data instruments on a Boeing

3. In a cockpit depressurization, using a sidestick isnt going to stop you flying out the window, a yoke will however give you a better chance.

4. The Boeing yoke is connected to wires that actually allow the pilot to command the plane ie give the pilot command authority. ie fly the plane. That's something that most passengers would prefer - not a situation where the pilots do not have command authority and rely on "we know best" computers that actually dont know best in many emergency situations, as the article demonstrates.
archnyer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2010, 11:47 PM   #251
future.architect
Far East London
 
future.architect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 6,800
Likes (Received): 2031

Quote:
Originally Posted by archnyer View Post
Speed brakes? Thats a fundamental error. What's next? Gonna blame Boeing because a pilot didnt throttle enough to pull up over the hill?

Well, with respect to the yoke, there are some points you have missed

1. In turbulence, it gives the guys at row zero better control and body to torso reference. A sidestick isn't going to be that easy to use when you are bumping 10 inches out of your seat.

2. In an extreme maneuver where the pilots have lost orientation, it gives them a better chance to control the plane by torso reference, not to mention the east of use of basic flight data instruments on a Boeing

3. In a cockpit depressurization, using a sidestick isnt going to stop you flying out the window, a yoke will however give you a better chance.

4. The Boeing yoke is connected to wires that actually allow the pilot to command the plane ie give the pilot command authority. ie fly the plane. That's something that most passengers would prefer - not a situation where the pilots do not have command authority and rely on "we know best" computers that actually dont know best in many emergency situations, as the article demonstrates.
You realy don't have a clue what you are talking about. The point KB was making was that computers do not make mistakes. They only do what they are told. Humans do make mistakes, and quite often.

If you are realy that concerned about computers flying the plane then I suggest you avoid the 787 and the 777 as well, since they are fully FBW with no full mechanical backup as you seem to think.

Quote:
.
Fly-by-wire explained by an Airbus pilot
Each time an Airbus aircraft is involved in a incident or accident, fingers are pointed to the “fly-by-wire” system. I found the following post on the blog of an Airbus 320 rated pilot. She very kindly accepted to have her post re-published here. Take a look at her blog, there’s a lot to learn about being a young pilot, first officer, instructor, and combining it with a balanced life. But now, fly by wire… Vincent.

As the time I’ve written this we don’t know the fate of Air France flight 447. I pray that the passengers and crew found a miracle and are safe somewhere.

In the usual pattern of 24 hour new networks, I’m spending my morning yelling at the TV while some of their “aviation experts” speculate on the fate of an airplane they know nothing about. I don’t know enough details to speculate myself (turbulence? lightning? electrical failure? There are too many possible causes) but I will give my piece on how a fly-by-wire airplane is controlled, and specifically an Airbus system.

Disclaimer: I hold an A320 type rating. There are differences between A320 systems and A330 systems, and I’m not as knowledgeable about the latter. So if I make an assumption about A330 systems that is incorrect, please forgive me. And feel free to comment/correct.

Fly-By-Wire
Fly-by-wire is a term used to explain how the control surfaces of an airplane are moved (control surfaces mean the ailerons, rudder and elevators, the movable pieces of the airplane that are used to control it).

The first method of moving control surfaces was by cable. When the pilot moves the yoke or stick and the rudder pedals, this directly manipulates cables that displace the control surfaces. This is still used effectively on smaller airplanes such as a Cessna 172.

The bigger an airplane gets, the larger the control surfaces must be, and the more force must be exerted by pilots to move them. So hydraulic controls became popular. The amount of force on the cables is amplified by hydraulic actuators that move the control surfaces. This is the most-utilized method used in airliners today.

Fly-by-wire airplanes operate differently. Any deflection of the yoke/stick/rudder pedals by the pilots is detected by computer sensors. The sensors determine the amount of deflection, or movement, needed in the control surfaces (using data such as airplane altitude and airspeed) and send this information to hydraulic actuators which then move the ailerons, elevators and rudder.

The major difference between cable-controlled airplanes and fly-by-wire airplanes is the use of, and dependence on, computers to control the airplane’s movement.

Now onto the A320…

The A320 has 7 flight control computers:
2 ELACs: Elevator Aileron Computer (normal elevator and horizontal stabilizer control, as well as aileron control)
3 SECs: Spoilers Elevator Computer (spoiler control as well as standby elevator and stabilizer control)
2 FACs: Flight Augmentation Computer (electrical rudder control)


So you see that there are multiple levels of control for most of the control surfaces. If one set of computers was to fail you’d still have some control over the airplane.

I’m going to quickly go over the “levels of control” with the A320. Airbus calls these “laws.” I’m glossing over certain points to keep this entry from becoming a novella.

In normal flight the computers are in “normal law.” In normal law the pilots use the control stick to move the airplane. The airplane’s computers actually prevent the airplane from stalling/overspeeding or undergoing any other maneuvers that may cause excessive stress on the airframe.

If computers start to fail on the airplane, it reverts into “alternate law.” In alternate law you can still have some of the protections (i.e. stall protection) that you had in normal law.

Direct law is the next lowest level of control. I skipped over how the A320 is controlled by load factor demand and bank angle. So I’ll just say that in direct law you control the A320 just like how’d you control any other airplane with a stick. Pull back and the nose will start to rise, move the stick left and the airplane will start to roll left.

Below direct law is “manual backup.” If you were to lose all electrical power in the A320 your only hope of controlling the airplane is mechanical backup. This, I believe, has only happened once outside of testing. You would have to lose both engine generators, the APU (auxiliary power unit, another generator), drain your batteries and be unable to operate the RAT (ram air turbine, which is deployed from the bottom of the airplane and can provide limited power).

Pitch control is only available to the pilots through use of pitch trim, using the horizontal stabilizer of the A320 (it’s called the THS, trimmable horizontal stabilizer).

Lateral control is only possible through use of the rudder pedals, which do have some direct linkage to the rudder.

When undergoing simulator training for the A320 type rating I had to try to fly the airplane using mechanic backup. It is NOT easy. It was nearly impossible to maintain level flight. Mechanical backup’s purpose is to provide the pilots a way to keep the airplane stable while they troubleshoot the failed electrical system and flight control computers. I can’t imagine anyone trying to land the airplane using mechanical backup. You simply don’t have enough fine control.

Once again, this was all referenced from my A320 training and my A320 manuals. I don’t know enough about the A330 to say whether all (or any) of this applies to the A330, but I’m going on the assumption that Airbus wouldn’t have totally redesigned their fly-by-wire system for another airplane.

Read more from the author of this post on her blog: comeletsflyaway.blogspot.com
also take note of us airways flight 1549, the ONLY time someone has ditched an airliner without killing anyone and it was performed in an airbus.

I aslo think it speaks volumes that no one can find any incident were the investigation has concluded that the accident/ incident would not have happend if the plane had a yoke/ was a boeing ect. But there are at least 2 incidents that would have been prevented by airbuses control system.

EgyptAir Flight 990 a suicidal pilot decides to crash his plane into the atlantic killing all 217 on board.
If this had been an airbus flying in normal law, the pilot would not have been able to do this.

China Airlines Flight 006 The pilot 'forgot' to use the rudder after an engine failure casuing the plane to loose control and almost crash into the sea.
If this had been an airbus flying in normal law, the flight envolope protection would have automaticaly prevented the plane going into a dive.

Last edited by future.architect; July 19th, 2010 at 01:09 AM.
future.architect no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 19th, 2010, 12:33 PM   #252
KB
Moderator
 
KB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 11,840
Likes (Received): 6846

Quote:
Originally Posted by archnyer View Post
Speed brakes? Thats a fundamental error. What's next? Gonna blame Boeing because a pilot didnt throttle enough to pull up over the hill?
The point is simple...humans make mistake...lots of mistake...which result in 50% or more of all accidents. A computer guided plane would have corrected the human error and retracted speed brakes.

Also you are demonstrating your lack of knowledge on what airbus FBW system is. The only thing "hard" in it is the hard limits like you cannot do more than 67% bank angle (IIRC), and so on. YOU still fly the plane if you want. You can disengage autopilot and auto-throttle whenever you want.

Quote:
Originally Posted by archnyer View Post
Well, with respect to the yoke, there are some points you have missed

1. In turbulence, it gives the guys at row zero better control and body to torso reference. A sidestick isn't going to be that easy to use when you are bumping 10 inches out of your seat.

2. In an extreme maneuver where the pilots have lost orientation, it gives them a better chance to control the plane by torso reference, not to mention the east of use of basic flight data instruments on a Boeing

3. In a cockpit depressurization, using a sidestick isnt going to stop you flying out the window, a yoke will however give you a better chance.

4. The Boeing yoke is connected to wires that actually allow the pilot to command the plane ie give the pilot command authority. ie fly the plane. That's something that most passengers would prefer - not a situation where the pilots do not have command authority and rely on "we know best" computers that actually dont know best in many emergency situations, as the article demonstrates.
Having a yoke or a side stick is just a matter of personal preference. Lots of pilots consider the yoke to be a nuisance.

Did you know that the yoke or side-stick is used only about 1-5% of the time during an entire flight? Auto-pilot is usually engaged by pilots as low as 200 ft after take-off and manual control usually taken only when the plane is about to land. All the rest of the time, the yoke is sitting there as a nuisance and blocking your view of cockpit instruments as well as hindering your movement. There's a joke in the airline industry that you can tell what a boeing pilot had for lunch/dinner because he/she will have some of it on his/her pants(trouser).

- You do not jump 10 inches off your seat. Thats why there are belts and shoulder straps. A pilot is not sitting on your average passenger seat.

- Excuse me but when you lose orientation, you are required to put absolute trust in your instrumentation which that yoke actually is blocking from your sight.

- WTH? yokes are not there for keeping you in your seat. There is something called seat belts and shoulder straps for that.

- Did you know that boeing itself is getting rid of yokes connected to wires? the latest and safest boeing plane by far is the 777 and it uses fly-by-wire i.e. yoke connected to computer which translates all the commands. So latest boeing pilots also fly a computer which then flies a plane...that's what Airbus did all along. Sorry but even Boeing itself ain't considering the "advantages" you are ascribing to it.

And just to clear all that "in case of disturbances", "in case of extreme maneuvers", etc bullshit...fighter pilots by far do more extreme maneuvers than any Boeing and Airbus. They dive, climb vertical, roll about their axis, perform all sorts of maneuvers...yet they use FBW and use a JOYSTICK.

Deal with that!

Last edited by KB; July 19th, 2010 at 02:50 PM. Reason: spelling error
KB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 26th, 2010, 09:27 AM   #253
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,962
Likes (Received): 18221

Search for Air France crash black box revived

PARIS, Nov 25 (Reuters) - The search for the wreckage and black boxes of an Air France aircraft which crashed into the Atlantic last year killing all 228 people on board will resume in February, the French government said on Thursday.

Flight AF447, an Airbus A330, crashed into the sea between Rio de Janeiro and Paris on June 1, 2009. An initial search found wreckage and bodies but the flight recorders, which could provide clues to what happened, have not been located.

"The fourth search phase should start in February, 2011, in line with the hypotheses that were put forward on Oct. 5 at the last information committee of the families," a statement from the French Transport Ministry said.

Families of the victims, who met with the ministry and the air accident investigation agency, had at the meeting questioned the way the third search was handled.

Search teams looking for the missing black box recorders called off operations in May after failing to locate them.

Finding the black boxes is seen as essential to help crash experts and relatives understand why flight 447 plunged into a remote part of the Atlantic during an equatorial storm.

Speculation about the cause of the crash has focused on possible icing of the aircraft's speed sensors, which appeared to give inconsistent readings seconds before the plane vanished.
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 26th, 2010, 05:13 PM   #254
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,962
Likes (Received): 18221

Air France accuses Airbus of not heeding warnings about speed sensors before 2009 crash
26 November 2010

PARIS (AP) - Air France has submitted a report to French investigators accusing planemaker Airbus of not heeding warnings about speed sensors on its planes before last year's crash of a Brazil-France flight, officials said Friday.

The document, published in France's Liberation newspaper, also accuses Airbus supplier Thales of not responding aggressively enough to Air France's warnings that the sensors, called Pitot tubes, sometimes ice over and become unreliable.

Airbus spokeswoman Anne Galabert would not comment on the Air France document, saying Airbus had not been provided a copy and that it "appears to be more a report by lawyers and not by experts."

All 228 people aboard the Airbus A330 jet were killed when the Rio de Janeiro-Paris flight plunged into the Atlantic Ocean during a thunderstorm June 1, 2009. Automatic messages sent by its computers showed that the aircraft was receiving false air speed readings from Pitot tubes, though investigators have pointed to a series of failures and not the Pitots alone. The cause of the crash remains unclear.

Air France lawyer Fernand Garnault told The Associated Press the document has been submitted to an investigating judge looking into the crash.

The Air France move, while it appears to be an effort by the airline to justify its position, was welcomed by families of victims seeking answers about what happened.

Air France's warnings echo concerns about Pitots that emerged soon after the crash, concerns that prompted U.S. and European authorities to order the replacement of Thales Pitot tubes.

The report says Air France warned Airbus and Thales about problems with Pitots and that the manufacturers knew "the critical nature and danger of these breakdowns." It also says Air France was left "without recommendations or long-term solutions for settling this problem."

Air France lawyer Garnault told AP the airline decided to submit the note to explain its views and "what happened chronologically with the Pitots."

Victims' families were encouraged that Air France came out publicly with its warnings about the Pitots.

"This allows us to hope that tongues will finally loosen up ... and that everyone will speak out," Jean-Baptiste Audousset, head of an association of families, told AP.

Families have long sought access to all documents and data concerning the search, and the inclusion of international experts in the inquiry. On Thursday, the French government announced plans for a fourth search effort for the jet's flight recorders.

The initial search found 50 bodies and hundreds of pieces of the plane, including its torn-off tail. But a euro13 million third effort ended in May and did not find the "black box" voice and data recorders at the crash site, where the ocean is as deep as 4,000 meters (13,120 feet). Those items are critical to determining why the plane crashed.
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 31st, 2010, 09:39 AM   #255
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,962
Likes (Received): 18221

Brazilian judge orders Air France to pay more than $700,000 to crash victims' families
29 December 2010

SAO PAULO (AP) - A Brazilian judge has ordered Air France to pay more than $700,000 in damages to the families of four victims of last year's Flight 447 crash that killed all 228 people aboard.

A statement released Monday night by the Rio de Janeiro state judiciary says Judge Alberto Republicano de Macedo ordered Air France to pay $714,000 in damages to the parents and grandparents of Luciana Clarkson Seba, who died in the crash with her husband Paulo Valle Mesquita Valle and his parents Maria de Fatima and Francisco Eudes Mesquita Valle.

Osmar Maduro, an Air France spokesman in Brazil, told The Associated Press the airline would not comment on the judge's ruling. The airline can appeal the decision.

In March, Brazilian Judge Mauro Nicolau Junior ordered the airline to pay $1.2 million in damages to the family of Marcelle Valpacos Fonseca, a Brazilian state prosecutor who died in the crash of the Rio-to-Paris plane.

Air France Flight 447 crashed in the Atlantic Ocean, 930 miles (1,500 kilometers) off Brazil's northeastern coast on June 1, 2009.

Search teams failed in three efforts to find the plane's "black box" voice and data recorders. Without those, investigators may never learn why the plane crashed.

Automatic messages sent by the plane's computers just before it went down show it was receiving false air speed readings from airplane sensors known as Pitot tubes. Investigators have insisted the crash was likely caused by a series of failures and not just the Pitot tubes.

Last month, the French government announced it would start a fourth search for the black boxes in February. They could lie on a mountainous ocean floor in water as deep as 4,000 meters (13,120 feet).
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 18th, 2011, 12:35 PM   #256
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,962
Likes (Received): 18221

Airbus under investigation over Rio-Paris crash

PARIS, March 17 (Reuters) - European planemaker Airbus was placed under investigation on Thursday over the 2009 crash on a flight between Rio de Janeiro and Paris that killed 228 people, Airbus Chief Executive Thomas Enders said.

A French magistrate informed Enders and the company's lawyers during a meeting at a Paris court. Airbus has said it is too early to apportion blame since investigators have not yet determined what caused the crash of the Airbus 330 plane, operated by Air France , during an equatorial storm.
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 4th, 2011, 06:39 PM   #257
KB
Moderator
 
KB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 11,840
Likes (Received): 6846

AF 447 located


statement by Pierre-Henri Gourgeon

Sunday 3 April 2011

‘Air France has been informed by the BEA, the French Air Accident Investigation Bureau, that the Airbus A330 that crash-landed into the sea en route between Rio and Paris-Charles de Gaulle on 1 June 2009 has been located.

This discovery, coming only days after the Air France and Airbus funded fourth sea search was launched, is good news indeed since it gives hope that information on the causes of the accident, so far unresolved, will be found.

Answers will perhaps therefore be found to the questions that, since 1 June 2009, families of the victims, our airline and the aviation community worldwide have asked as to how this tragic accident occurred.

Speaking on behalf of the airline, I would like to thank not only the French authorities who employed hitherto unheard of means to pursue searches but also the crew of the Alucia and all the teams who are going to take part in, as we all hope, the retrieval of the flight recorders’.

http://corporate.airfrance.com/en/pr...enri-gourgeon/
KB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 4th, 2011, 09:30 PM   #258
Erick Satoh
OnlyEasyDayWasYesterday
 
Erick Satoh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Marília,SP / Nagoya JP
Posts: 101
Likes (Received): 12

Pictures from Brazilian news web site:

GEAR


Wing or Fuselage


Engine

http://noticias.terra.com.br/brasil/...do+voo+AF.html
Erick Satoh no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2011, 02:52 AM   #259
siamu maharaj
樂豪酒店
 
siamu maharaj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,189
Likes (Received): 4979

They better find the flight recorders too.
__________________
ho ho to pa ki ho
siamu maharaj no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2011, 04:26 PM   #260
EK413
Registered User
 
EK413's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,891
Likes (Received): 1895

Quote:
Originally Posted by siamu maharaj View Post
They better find the flight recorders too.
They better not be damaged after 2 years in salt water!
__________________
EK413
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
EK413 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium