Sb: "Airbus on the Spot"
Fm: Robert Roth 73300,3120
To: All
The galleys of the July 11 Time Magazine contain an article entitled,
"Airbus On The Spot," so it will probably appear in the new issue out this
week.
Part of the article states:
"The computers of advanced aircraft like the A320 are also programmed to
prevent pilot error by limiting the plane's response to dangerous commands. But
some pilots believe such safeguards could be a handicap in emergency situations
that require sudden maneuvers, like those necessary to avoid a collision. Says
John Mazor, a spokesman for the Air Line Pilots Association: "A computer can
only react to the possibilities that have been programmed into it." Some
experts speculate that because the Airbus jet's wheels were down as it swooped
over the air show, the computers might have been tricked into thinking the
plane was landing. Airbus officials discount this possibility."
Fm: Mark Horak [HOU] 75716,1233
To: Mac Tichenor (So TX) 71251,647
Mac -
You mention CNN news - yuch. Here is just about a direct quote from
that network after the Cerritos midair:
"What this means is that commercial airliners are controlled virtually
from the moment they leave the ground till the moment they land, while small
planes are free to roam the skies at will. It isn't fair, and it isn't safe.
Jim LeFebre, CNN News."
I avoid that channel now. In any case, this latest on-screen tragedy
must have brought a few smiles to Seattle!...
Mark
Fm: Mark Horak [HOU] 75716,1233
To: Dick Powers 71560,2506 (X)
I'll trust PRAVDA before I'll trust CNN News, but I also heard the 8 second
spool-up on another network. You're right - they're really trying hard to pin
it on the pilots. Meanwhile, are there options on Boeing stock?
Mark
Fm: Scott Dunham [SFO-ish] 71541,1276
To: Mark Horak [HOU] 75716,1233 (X)
I've heard that lag time for acceleration before from other sources. Jets
carry quite a bit of power on approach, and one of the reasons is to reduce the
delay if they need to go around. From idle, it DOES take quite a while to get
back to full power...
Fm: Mack Moore [Chi-ORD] 72257,1607
To: Dick Powers 71560,2506 (X)
Well, if they can pin it on the pilots just imagine the $$$ savings to Airbus
Industrie. I can only assume that the pilots were highly qualified test pilots
given that the flight was for demonstration purposes.
I'm not quite sure we're ready for almost total "fly-by-wire/light" machines. I
know I'm not. Last PC in the 737-300 prior to engine failures and such, I
pulled the rudder trim control breaker on the sneak. Check airman and co-pilot
never noticed that I didn't trim much and that even when I did reach for the
rudder trim control, the position indicator never moved. Just wanted to see
how much effort would be required if an electrical problem developed with the
rudder trim. It was certainly manageable, but made for a real tired leg. Yes,
I had one fail in flight. It's not noticeable until you try trimming and then
wonder why nothing seems to change. Just using small tweaks of the trim
control the position needle movement is almost imperceptible. I kept tweaking
the switch and finally just laid on it. Cycled the breakers and then it worked
just fine. Of course the first input from me after cycling the breakers wasn't
just a tweak. We *knew* it worked then.
Fm: John B. Galipault 76703,402
To: Mack Moore [Chi-ORD] 72257,1607 (X)
Mack...does anyone know if the side stick controls are interlocked like the
normal yoke is? Imagine if they are not!!! You are flying and commanding a down
elevator and I see a head-on and command an up elevator to avoid the other
aircraft. Where would the aircraft decide to go?
John
Fm: Robert Roth 73300,3120
To: Mark Horak [HOU] 75716,1233 (X)
I don't know Jim LeFebre or even his name, but if you're quote is
accurate, such statements have no business being made by a reporter. They are
opinion and not news.
Fm: Mack Moore [Chi-ORD] 72257,1607
To: John B. Galipault 76703,402 (X)
Don't know about interlocked sticks. Think maybe they *electrically*
interlocked them? Wow, wouldn't that be something! From the pictures I saw,
mechanical interlocking would be a chore. But would also seem to be a
necessity.
Fm: John B. Galipault 76703,402
To: Mack Moore [Chi-ORD] 72257,1607 (X)
Think I'll call Tom Foxworth...he should know.
John
Fm: Mark Horak [HOU] 75716,1233
To: Robert Roth 73300,3120 (X)
And the next time I hear something like that on the "news" I'm going to call
the person up and invite him/her for a ride - as in AOPA "fly-a-reporter"...
Mark
Fm: John Deakin 74015,1624
To: Mark Horak [HOU] 75716,1233 (X)
Most jet transports would have a very slow spool-up, if it were not for special
devices. The 747, for example, has a switch that maintains a much higher RPM
than "normal" when the flaps are not up. From that high idle, acceleration is
almost as fast as you can move the thrust levers.
The early 727's (late ones too, for all I know), on the other hand, could take
well over 8 seconds to go from their very low idle to full thrust, and that was
the basic reason behind most of the early accidents. A lot of pilots
transitioned into jets via the 727, and would revert to old habits on approach,
allow an undetected high sink rate, shove the thrust up too late, and watch the
ground come up. Can easily develop 3000-4000 fpm on approach at idle, and
everything looks just peachy. Suddenly realize at 500 feet that you're a
little low and slow, and it's tooooo late. Pull the nose up (instinct), and it
just gets worse, sink rate increases, and the engines spool up slower still.
Pull it up a little more, and you get into a sinking stall (not a deep stall),
and the engines might even start developing compressor stalls, and NEVER spool
up. One of those situations best avoided.
Fm: John Deakin 74015,1624
To: John B. Galipault 76703,402 (X)
They are not mechanically OR electrically interlocked, they are interlocked
digitally, through the flight computer. One HELL of a lot of manpower, testing
and research has been done on how to handle the problem of one stick overruling
the other, and how to get control back to the first if needed, with a wide
variety of ways being tested. Many, many problems in that area, and the last I
heard, they had not solved it yet, about 12 - 18 months ago. Had a very
high-ranking design engineer as pax on my flight one day, and we spent about
six hours beating on each other. He in favor of the proposed system, me
against. I think that problem, the basic idea of turning everything over to
the computer, and the pilot proficiency problem are the three major problems
with that whole airplane and the ideas it represents. Maybe I'm a dinosaur, but
I don't like what I see coming.
Fm: Scott Dunham [SFO-ish] 71541,1276
To: Robert Roth 73300,3120 (X)
He might have mangled the name - I think CNN's SFO reporter is named Greg
LeFevre, and he may have been the one who picked up the story for them. That
sort of reporting is actually fairly common for aviation stories. I have my
personal "brick" rating system; a scale of 0 to 5 bricks, depending on how many
I want to throw at the set after watching the report. Most stories average two
to three.
Fm: John Liebson 76011,1445
To: Mack Moore [Chi-ORD] 72257,1607 (X)
According to the WSJ, flight deck crew was Air France's senior crew, in charge
of the line's A-320 training.
Fm: John Liebson 76011,1445
To: John B. Galipault 76703,402 (X)
John, they are electrically interlocked, not mechanically. Unfortunately, I
can not put my hands on the info. that might tell me just exactly how one
controller may override the other. I do know that a lot of research was done
on this, some of it in the U.S., but just do not remember what Airbus Industrie
chose to do for production.
Fm: Mark Horak [HOU] 75716,1233
To: John Deakin 74015,1624 (X)
It's sounding more like pilot error - I wonder if the flaps were up. Still, it
may say something about te design of the plane if their chief test pilot can
make a mistake like that.
Fm: John B. Galipault 76703,402
To: John Deakin 74015,1624 (X)
Well, Ole Aviator, there is a bunch of us who share your concerns. When we
built machines for three cockpit members, we designed it to be flown by two
people. When we went to two-man crews, we designed it for one pilot. I guess I
share the view that with these complex machines, the 3rd person (a non-person)
that is not very intelligent, can cause problems just like a human can.
We always hear about the wonderful technology advances, but if we were to spend
as much money and time on improving the role of the human as we have on
removing him (or her) from the control loop, we might be able to do better
things. Of course, the operators see that annual salary ( times 'x' number of
crews per airframe) being offset by the purchase of the computer. I sometimes
wonder if they ever figure in the cost of maintaining the computer system
against the cost of keeping the extra man onboard. Like I said, computers can
do almost anything your wife (or girlfriend) can do including screw you!
AMF,
John
Fm: John B. Galipault 76703,402
To: John Liebson 76011,1445 (X)
I half expected that there must be an interlock. Just makes interesting
speculation.
John
Fm: Dick Powers 71560,2506
To: John Deakin 74015,1624 (X)
The remarks about spool up time are mostly correct when related to older jet
engines, particularly the JT8D's which power the B-727, DC-9 and older B-737
aircraft. Having worked in Flight Test at Eastern for some time, I can give
you a bench mark value of 8 sec for idle to 90% N1. That's part of the reason
for emphasis on a stabilized approach on the landing configuration from the
marker (or at least 1,000 feet) to touchdown. The high drag of landing flaps
allows plenty of power to be carried and go around from just above the runway
is possible with no problem.
My experience with the newer generation of aircraft equipped with high bypass
fan engines (L-1011 and B-757/RB211, A-300 and DC-10/CF-6) shows that they have
a couple of things in common and I suspect this extends to the A-320. First,
the engines have a high residual thrust in flight idle, giving throttle
response times approaching those of propeller driven aircraft (although without
the beneficial effect of the propwash over the wing). Additionally, the later
aircraft (A-300 and B-757) have a lower drag landing configuration. This is by
design to save fuel but the net effect is to require less thrust on approach
and less thrust get it going up on a go around.
Now, look at a couple of points: 1) I regularly operate the DC-9 in training at
Dade-Collier airport in the Everglades. It is uncontrolled and therefore, if
no other aircraft are in the pattern, I drag the field at low altitude in the
landing configuration just off the ground (20-50 ft radio altitude). The pull
up at the far end is made smoothly and could be accomplished with substantially
less than max power, even with gear and 50 flaps down. 2) Two engine aircraft
have a high power reserve with all engines operating as they are required to
perform well in the engine failure on takeoff case. 3) Normal landing bug
speed is 1.3 Vs. Considerable performance _in the short term_ is available
below bug speed as shown by Boeing/FAA in their windshear studies.
All this points to less liklihood of pilot error (in my opinion) than we have
seen from the DGAC or the press who are implying that the maneuver flown was
inherently dangerous an very poorly executed by the pilots.
These guys were undoubtedly the cream of the instructor corps for Air France.
It will be interesting to se the FDR data.
Dick
Fm: Jim Wolper [UCA & BAF] 71001,645
To: John B. Galipault 76703,402 (X)
John:
There wsas some stuff in Aviation Week about a year or 18 months ago about
the interlocking of the sidestick controllers. They were, at the time,
considering 3 systems for resolving conflicts. One gave the left seat
priority, one gave the strongest input priority, and one just averaged the
inputs (this is my vague memory). I do not recall which was implemented. As
far as I know, there is no _mechanical_ connection betweemn the sticks, only
electrical.
.Jim Wolper..
Fm: John Liebson 76011,1445
To: John B. Galipault 76703,402 (X)
McDon./Doug had some funny experiences during their experiments a year or so
ago. (Ah ha! Just remembered the word I was trying to recollect last night:
It is a "law" that governs how one of these things works.)
So, McD had one law that allowed the stronger of the two flight officers to
rule. Somehow or another that one got discarded!
John D. is correct when he says the interlock is digital, but that is because
it is a computer link, which is what I should have said in my first message,
rather than "electrically." Was speaking generically, given that computers
still use electricity for the most part.
Fm: John Price [HNL] 75040,10
To: John B. Galipault 76703,402 (X)
INVESTIGATORS SUSPECT PILOT ERROR IN FRENCH AIRBUS CRASH
MULHOUSE, FRANCE (JUNE 29) - The crew of the French Airbus A-320 which crashed
near here Sunday said cockpit instrument readings had indicated they were 100
feet (30 meters) off the ground during an air show fly-by, officials said
Wednesday.
Investigators, however, suspect a pilot error rather than mechanical failure as
the cause of the crash that killed three people and injured 50.
The public prosecutor of Mulhouse, Jean Volff, said Monday that Michel
Hasseline, the pilot of the ill-fated plane, ''had disconnected the automatic
pilot as he made his fly-by and was on manual control.''
He added that an analysis of the flight recorder had ''established with
certitude that the A-320 flew too low'' - 10 meters (30 feet) off the ground
while the norm for a plane carrying passengers is at least 30 meters - and too
slow - 118 knots, or 215 kilometers (134 miles/hour).
According to the prosecutor, Hasseline and co-pilot Pierre Mazieres insisted at
a police hearing that the aircraft's ''engines reacted too late when he
reaccelerated.''
Volff had said earlier the engines' reaction time was five seconds, which was
even shorter than the eight seconds normally counted. The prosecutor confirmed
the data Wednesday after further investigations. An investigating magistrate
has opened manslaughter charges against unknown persons but Volff said the
pilots could not be charged pending the outcome of expert opinions on the cause
of the crash. =END=
Fm: Andy Dulay [MCO] 70645,272
To: John Price [HNL] 75040,10 (X)
Actually a reaction time of 5 seconds would be FASTER than that of 8 seconds.
Andy
Fm: John B. Galipault 76703,402
To: Jim Wolper [UCA & BAF] 71001,645 (X)
Thanks, Jim...BUT none of that makes me feel particularly good about the
options!
You all ought to read Tom Foxworth's novel named PASSENGERS. Tom is a UAL
captain who work about a ficticeous airliner driven by a fly-by-fly system that
malfunctioned.
It was a very interesting and attention-maintaining book.
Thanks,
John
Fm: John B. Galipault 76703,402
To: Jim Wolper [UCA & BAF] 71001,645 (X)
Correction: I should have typed "wrote" instead of "work".
John
Fm: John B. Galipault 76703,402
To: John Liebson 76011,1445 (X)
Stupid question: What happens if the electric bill is not paid or a lightning
strike melts some wire?
Do they "unstow" the y-shaped yokes and plug'em in?
John
Fm: John Liebson 76011,1445
To: John B. Galipault 76703,402 (X)
Not so stupid, John. Answer is that each flight crew is issued two mice just
before leaving. If the system shuts down, the mice are placed on a treadmill
attached to a dynamo.
The FAA is more conerned about this than the French or English, and imposed
more stringent certification requirements on the A-320. The real issue, as I
recall, is the question of electromagnetic interference with the fly-by-wire
systems. Maybe Airbus will put a plane on the EMP trestle at Sandia Labs, the
one where a B-1 is (or perhaps just has been) to be tested for this very thing.
While I do not have the actual figures, I do know that the FAA requirements
call for the airplane to withstand some very high electromagnetic fields
without the computers all going, "Ooh, I can't believe I ate a whole TSJD."
Far as I know, no place to plug in the yokes, the crews' desks are in the way.
Fm: John B. Galipault 76703,402
To: John Liebson 76011,1445 (X)
Thanks, John for that enlightenment and reinforcement of my feelings of
security.
John
Fm: Roy Schaeffer 73310,727
To: Jim Wolper [UCA & BAF] 71001,645 (X)
Jim,
AVERAGED the input? Really? GULP! Think of the possible results: "The
757 landed at a suburban mall, about halfway between it's destination and an
alternate airfield. Informed sources said the pilots don't get along".
On the other hand, Dulay could probably set the damn thing down and park
it in a good sized mall.
R
Fm: Roy Schaeffer 73310,727
To: John Liebson 76011,1445 (X)
John,
Desks? They have desks now? Can secretaries be far behind?
R
Fm: John Liebson 76011,1445
To: John B. Galipault 76703,402 (X)
Gee, John, if that is all it takes, why sure, you are welcome. What else may I
do to reinforce your feelings of safety?
Fm: John Liebson 76011,1445
To: Roy Schaeffer 73310,727 (X)
Sure: You take one person off the flight deck, add one to the cabin crew.
Yes, the A-302 has desks, one per officer--rather nifty looking in the pix.
Fm: John B. Galipault 76703,402
To: John Liebson 76011,1445 (X)
Propellers or JATO bottles, a yoke, maybe an extra GIB, OR maybe a swiss on