Re: Co-pilot error caused AA 587 crash

[Peter]

Here to there wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:51:45 GMT, Pete > wrote:
>
>>>But Molin didn't know he was putting more pressure on the tail than
>>>it could bear. Why he didn't -- and who's to blame for that -- is the
>>>subject of a bitter fight between Airbus and American.
>>
>>I thought that was one of the main advantages of fly-by-wire systems,
>>to eliminate truly stupid actions of pilots. Sounds like Airbus shares
>>a lot of blame for the crash. It's like an auto maker made a car that
>>sheared off its wheels if the steering wheel was turned too quickly,
>>and the maker's response was to tell drivers, "Don't do that!"
>
>
> Ummmmmm... so what exactly do you think will happen to a car if you
> turn the wheel rapidly while driving at more than a snail's pace?

If it exceeds the available traction of the tires then I expect the
car to start sliding and possibly spin out. As long as the car
doesn't hit anything then I expect loss of tire rubber to be the
most serious damage. Of course if there is an impact (even with
something like a curb), then there are likely to be much more
severe consequences.

> I'll
> give you a hint - you'll get the opportunity to find out either how
> expensive it is to replace your suspension, CV joints, etc, or how
> well your roof supports the weight of the car after it has flipped.
> Probably you'll discover all of those.

BMW had a sales promotion event recently where they had us
try out some of their cars on a large parking lot with a
course laid out with cones. They actively encouraged aggressive
driving and there were frequent incidents where control was lost
resulting in the cars sliding and spinning. As far as I know there
was no serious damage done to any of the vehicles other than loss
of tire rubber (tires were replaced every 2-3 hours during the
event).

> "Don't do that" is a perfectly reasonable approach. You can't
> make everything infinitely strong.

But if there's a clear rule for what 'shouldn't be done' then it
would seem prudent to build it into the firmware for the fly-by-wire
system so that it can't be done.

> From what I've read,
> it wasn't the first officer's fault, really - he did exactly
> what he was trained to do. Unfortunately, his training was
> wrong.

[Here to there]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:32:02 -0700, Peter > wrote:
> Here to there wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:51:45 GMT, Pete > wrote:
>>
>>>>But Molin didn't know he was putting more pressure on the tail than
>>>>it could bear. Why he didn't -- and who's to blame for that -- is the
>>>>subject of a bitter fight between Airbus and American.
>>>
>>>I thought that was one of the main advantages of fly-by-wire systems,
>>>to eliminate truly stupid actions of pilots. Sounds like Airbus shares
>>>a lot of blame for the crash. It's like an auto maker made a car that
>>>sheared off its wheels if the steering wheel was turned too quickly,
>>>and the maker's response was to tell drivers, "Don't do that!"
>>
>>
>> Ummmmmm... so what exactly do you think will happen to a car if you
>> turn the wheel rapidly while driving at more than a snail's pace?
>
> If it exceeds the available traction of the tires then I expect the
> car to start sliding and possibly spin out. As long as the car
> doesn't hit anything then I expect loss of tire rubber to be the
> most serious damage. Of course if there is an impact (even with
> something like a curb), then there are likely to be much more
> severe consequences.
>

Except that's not the way it frequently happens in real life.
Rapid steering wheel movement at speed is one way that people
manage to flip cars, even when they haven't hit obstacles or
gone off the road. Around here, the tow trucks do a
land office business in the winter when the local students
decide to do donuts in the parking lots, and flip themselves. ;-)


>> I'll
>> give you a hint - you'll get the opportunity to find out either how
>> expensive it is to replace your suspension, CV joints, etc, or how
>> well your roof supports the weight of the car after it has flipped.
>> Probably you'll discover all of those.
>
> BMW had a sales promotion event recently where they had us
> try out some of their cars on a large parking lot with a
> course laid out with cones. They actively encouraged aggressive
> driving and there were frequent incidents where control was lost
> resulting in the cars sliding and spinning. As far as I know there
> was no serious damage done to any of the vehicles other than loss
> of tire rubber (tires were replaced every 2-3 hours during the
> event).
>

Were the drivers turning the wheels rapidly, all the way to
the stops? According to the crash report, that seems to
be essentially what the first officer was doing with the rudder
as he attempted to recover from the turbulence.


>> "Don't do that" is a perfectly reasonable approach. You can't
>> make everything infinitely strong.
>
> But if there's a clear rule for what 'shouldn't be done' then it
> would seem prudent to build it into the firmware for the fly-by-wire
> system so that it can't be done.
>

Well, perhaps, if it was a fly-by-wire system....

- Rich

[Peter]

Here to there wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:32:02 -0700, Peter > wrote:
>
>>Here to there wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:51:45 GMT, Pete > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>But Molin didn't know he was putting more pressure on the tail than
>>>>>it could bear. Why he didn't -- and who's to blame for that -- is the
>>>>>subject of a bitter fight between Airbus and American.
>>>>
>>>>I thought that was one of the main advantages of fly-by-wire systems,
>>>>to eliminate truly stupid actions of pilots. Sounds like Airbus shares
>>>>a lot of blame for the crash. It's like an auto maker made a car that
>>>>sheared off its wheels if the steering wheel was turned too quickly,
>>>>and the maker's response was to tell drivers, "Don't do that!"
>>>
>>>
>>> Ummmmmm... so what exactly do you think will happen to a car if you
>>>turn the wheel rapidly while driving at more than a snail's pace?
>>
>>If it exceeds the available traction of the tires then I expect the
>>car to start sliding and possibly spin out. As long as the car
>>doesn't hit anything then I expect loss of tire rubber to be the
>>most serious damage. Of course if there is an impact (even with
>>something like a curb), then there are likely to be much more
>>severe consequences.
>>
> Except that's not the way it frequently happens in real life.
> Rapid steering wheel movement at speed is one way that people
> manage to flip cars, even when they haven't hit obstacles or
> gone off the road. Around here, the tow trucks do a
> land office business in the winter when the local students
> decide to do donuts in the parking lots, and flip themselves. ;-)

In real life, parking lots unfortunately have many things you can
impact such as curbs, potholes, posts, etc. In the absence of those
there aren't all that many models of cars that can be flipped on a
flat parking lot. That was one of Nader's original complaints
about the Corvair and VW Beetle - due to an unusual rear suspension
design it was possible to flip these. There are also some vehicles
that are relatively narrow with a high center-of-gravity, but most
cars will not flip when driven on a flat surface regardless of the
control inputs.
>
>>>I'll
>>>give you a hint - you'll get the opportunity to find out either how
>>>expensive it is to replace your suspension, CV joints, etc, or how
>>>well your roof supports the weight of the car after it has flipped.
>>>Probably you'll discover all of those.
>>
>>BMW had a sales promotion event recently where they had us
>>try out some of their cars on a large parking lot with a
>>course laid out with cones. They actively encouraged aggressive
>>driving and there were frequent incidents where control was lost
>>resulting in the cars sliding and spinning. As far as I know there
>>was no serious damage done to any of the vehicles other than loss
>>of tire rubber (tires were replaced every 2-3 hours during the
>>event).
>>
>
>
> Were the drivers turning the wheels rapidly, all the way to
> the stops?

Yes, the wheels were turned rapidly and the cars did spin out of
control - but there was no indication that any even came close to
flipping over.

> According to the crash report, that seems to
> be essentially what the first officer was doing with the rudder
> as he attempted to recover from the turbulence.
>
>
>
>>> "Don't do that" is a perfectly reasonable approach. You can't
>>>make everything infinitely strong.
>>
>>But if there's a clear rule for what 'shouldn't be done' then it
>>would seem prudent to build it into the firmware for the fly-by-wire
>>system so that it can't be done.
>>
> Well, perhaps, if it was a fly-by-wire system....

Yes, this accident was on the A300 without FBW - my comment was just
agreeing that this should be an advantage of the FBW systems.

My reading of the reports on the accident is that while the co-pilot's
actions may have been the proximate 'cause' of the tail's failure, the
fault was not the co-pilot's but rather with the training which failed
to indicate that such use of the rudder could cause structural failure.
Whether that's the fault of Airbus or American remains to be determined
- sounds like there's still plenty of finger-pointing going on.

[nobody]

Pete wrote:
> I thought that was one of the main advantages of fly-by-wire systems,
> to eliminate truly stupid actions of pilots. Sounds like Airbus shares
> a lot of blame for the crash.

The A300-600 is not fly by wire. It is a 1970s plane updated to some extent
in the 1980s.

And I have been told that because rudders are so rarely used in flight that
Airbus didn't actually make it "smart" with software to restrict movement
depending on airplane's speed etc on its FBW planes.

Note that similar rudder use on Boeing planes would also cause the tail to
break off.

[Morgans]

"Peter" > wrote

> But if there's a clear rule for what 'shouldn't be done' then it
> would seem prudent to build it into the firmware for the fly-by-wire
> system so that it can't be done.

BINGO

Seems to me that Airbus is, if not criminally responsible, morally and
legally responsible.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.782 / Virus Database: 528 - Release Date: 10/23/2004

[Morgans]

"Peter" > wrote

In the absence of those
> there aren't all that many models of cars that can be flipped on a
> flat parking lot. That was one of Nader's original complaints
> about the Corvair

pppplease everyone note: That was true for pre 63, only.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.782 / Virus Database: 528 - Release Date: 10/23/2004

[devil]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:05:42 -0400, Morgans wrote:

>
> "Peter" > wrote
>
>> But if there's a clear rule for what 'shouldn't be done' then it
>> would seem prudent to build it into the firmware for the fly-by-wire
>> system so that it can't be done.
>
> BINGO
>
> Seems to me that Airbus is, if not criminally responsible, morally and
> legally responsible.


????

From what I hear (1) the US certification standards *do not* require the
rudder to be able to withstand the sort of forces the exercise in question
resulted in, and no plane, whether Boeing or Airbus, builds rudders that
would. This is presumably public knowledge, and presumably open
information available to American Airline; incidentally, the same scenario
would have led to a similar accident with a Boeing plane. (2) apparently,
Airbus had repeatedly warned AA about the flaws in AA's training
procedures, which recommended excessive rudder use, even in situations
that were patently unsafe.

So, it does seem to me that the biggest share of the blame should be with
AA. AA doe claim that the warnings from Airbus were not clear enough or
not strong enough. My problem with that is that AA was recommending the
same procedure with Boeing planes too. So presumably Boeing's warnings
were not strong enough either?

[Morgans]

"devil" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:05:42 -0400, Morgans wrote:
>
> >
> > "Peter" > wrote
> >
> >> But if there's a clear rule for what 'shouldn't be done' then it
> >> would seem prudent to build it into the firmware for the fly-by-wire
> >> system so that it can't be done.
> >
> > BINGO
> >
> > Seems to me that Airbus is, if not criminally responsible, morally and
> > legally responsible.
>
>
> ????
>
> From what I hear (1) the US certification standards *do not* require the
> rudder to be able to withstand the sort of forces the exercise in question
> resulted in, and no plane, whether Boeing or Airbus, builds rudders that
> would. This is presumably public knowledge, and presumably open
> information available to American Airline; incidentally, the same scenario
> would have led to a similar accident with a Boeing plane.
*****************************

My point was that a FBW aircraft that did not have limiting software, is
wrong. I now see that the plane in question was not FBW.

"Nevermind! "<g>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.782 / Virus Database: 528 - Release Date: 10/23/2004

[nobody]

Morgans wrote:
> Seems to me that Airbus is, if not criminally responsible, morally and
> legally responsible.

Then Boeing would also be guilty because the NTSB, very early in the
investigation, found that Boeing planes were also liable to lose tailfin upon
misused of rudder during flight.

Also early on, it had been revealed that AA stood out amongst all other
airlines with regards to rudder usage while in flight (training issue). If
the rest of airlines told pilots not to use Rudder to such an extent, then AA
stands out.

Airbus insists it has sent warnings about misused of rudder while in flight.
The question is whether a maufacturer (Airbus , Boeing etc) needs to approve
an airline's training programme for a specific plane. If so, the Airbus could
be held responsible for not forcing AA to change training to avoid misused of
Rudder. But if Airbus did not need to approve AA's training programme, then
why should it be held responsible ?

[Pete]

> My point was that a FBW aircraft that did not have limiting software,
> is wrong. I now see that the plane in question was not FBW.
> "Nevermind! "<g>

Yeah, me too. I assumed all Airbus aircraft employed FBW. Mea
culpa.

But to start another flame war, maybe AA has a culture problem
of ignoring manufacturers' advice. Remember that it was an AA
DC-10 that lost an engine at ORD, and AA's maintenance practice
of removing engines with a forklift was the culprit, contrary to
McDonnell Douglas' advice.


Pete

[Sylvia Else]

nobody wrote:

> Pete wrote:
>
>>I thought that was one of the main advantages of fly-by-wire systems,
>>to eliminate truly stupid actions of pilots. Sounds like Airbus shares
>>a lot of blame for the crash.
>
>
> The A300-600 is not fly by wire. It is a 1970s plane updated to some extent
> in the 1980s.
>
> And I have been told that because rudders are so rarely used in flight that
> Airbus didn't actually make it "smart" with software to restrict movement
> depending on airplane's speed etc on its FBW planes.

The first FBW passenger airliner, the A320, has some residual non FBW
capability to allow the aircraft to be flown (though not landed, I
think) with the FBW system inoperative, the idea being that the problem
might be fixable in the air. I have a feeling (don't quote me) that the
rudder is part of that residual ability.

This design philosophy may or may not have been continued.

Sylvia.

[Jay Beckman]

"Sylvia Else" > wrote in message
u...
>
>
> nobody wrote:
>
>> Pete wrote:
>>
>>>I thought that was one of the main advantages of fly-by-wire systems,
>>>to eliminate truly stupid actions of pilots. Sounds like Airbus shares
>>>a lot of blame for the crash.
>>
>>
>> The A300-600 is not fly by wire. It is a 1970s plane updated to some
>> extent
>> in the 1980s.
>>
>> And I have been told that because rudders are so rarely used in flight
>> that
>> Airbus didn't actually make it "smart" with software to restrict movement
>> depending on airplane's speed etc on its FBW planes.
>
> The first FBW passenger airliner, the A320, has some residual non FBW
> capability to allow the aircraft to be flown (though not landed, I think)
> with the FBW system inoperative, the idea being that the problem might be
> fixable in the air. I have a feeling (don't quote me) that the rudder is
> part of that residual ability.
>
> This design philosophy may or may not have been continued.
>
> Sylvia.
>

Is that due to the crash at the Paris Airshow several years back?

IIRC, the pilot commanded a flight attitude in the landing config that the
software wouldn't allow and that led to the aircraft settling into the
trees.

Jay Beckman
Chandler, AZ
PP-ASEL

[Sylvia Else]

Jay Beckman wrote:

> "Sylvia Else" > wrote in message
> u...
>
>>
>>nobody wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Pete wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I thought that was one of the main advantages of fly-by-wire systems,
>>>>to eliminate truly stupid actions of pilots. Sounds like Airbus shares
>>>>a lot of blame for the crash.
>>>
>>>
>>>The A300-600 is not fly by wire. It is a 1970s plane updated to some
>>>extent
>>>in the 1980s.
>>>
>>>And I have been told that because rudders are so rarely used in flight
>>>that
>>>Airbus didn't actually make it "smart" with software to restrict movement
>>>depending on airplane's speed etc on its FBW planes.
>>
>>The first FBW passenger airliner, the A320, has some residual non FBW
>>capability to allow the aircraft to be flown (though not landed, I think)
>>with the FBW system inoperative, the idea being that the problem might be
>>fixable in the air. I have a feeling (don't quote me) that the rudder is
>>part of that residual ability.
>>
>>This design philosophy may or may not have been continued.
>>
>>Sylvia.
>>
>
>
> Is that due to the crash at the Paris Airshow several years back?

Not being able to land in that configuration? No - simply that it would
be so difficult (or maybe just physically impossible) to pull off a
successful landing that in practice no one would achieve it.

>
> IIRC, the pilot commanded a flight attitude in the landing config that the
> software wouldn't allow and that led to the aircraft settling into the
> trees.

I think that pilot was just asking the aircraft to do something that was
beyond its capabilities. I seem to remember he claimed that the engines
didn't spin up when commanded, but that was disputed. I never read the
report, though.

Sylvia.

[devil]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:12:20 -0700, Jay Beckman wrote:


> Is that due to the crash at the Paris Airshow several years back?
>
> IIRC, the pilot commanded a flight attitude in the landing config that the
> software wouldn't allow and that led to the aircraft settling into the
> trees.

Only crash at a Paris airshow that I know of was of a Tu144. No Airbus
ever crashed in Paris.

[Sylvia Else]

devil wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:12:20 -0700, Jay Beckman wrote:
>
>
>
>>Is that due to the crash at the Paris Airshow several years back?
>>
>>IIRC, the pilot commanded a flight attitude in the landing config that the
>>software wouldn't allow and that led to the aircraft settling into the
>>trees.
>
>
> Only crash at a Paris airshow that I know of was of a Tu144. No Airbus
> ever crashed in Paris.
>
>

I remember the incident though. An A320 full of passengers doing
something it shouldn't have at an air show, and ending up descending
into trees at the end of the runway.

Aircraft destroyed, but incredibly, only one fatality.

Sylvia.

[Morgans]

"nobody" > wrote in message
...
> Morgans wrote:
> > Seems to me that Airbus is, if not criminally responsible, morally and
> > legally responsible.
>
> Then Boeing would also be guilty because the NTSB, very early in the
> investigation, found that Boeing planes were also liable to lose tailfin
upon
> misused of rudder during flight.
>

Note that I was under the ASSumption that the Airbus was FBW. If that was
the case, programming should have been such that it was impossible to make
the tail fall off.

Has this programming tidbit been taken care of? I hope so.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.782 / Virus Database: 528 - Release Date: 10/22/2004

[Rich Ahrens]

Sylvia Else wrote:
> Jay Beckman wrote:
>> IIRC, the pilot commanded a flight attitude in the landing config that
>> the software wouldn't allow and that led to the aircraft settling into
>> the trees.
>
>
> I think that pilot was just asking the aircraft to do something that was
> beyond its capabilities. I seem to remember he claimed that the engines
> didn't spin up when commanded, but that was disputed. I never read the
> report, though.

Funny that you don't let your ignorance keep you from pontificating,
though...

[Jose]

> An A320 full of passengers doing something it shouldn't have at an air show

What was an A320 doing full of passengers at an airshow?

Jose
--
for Email, make the obvious change in the address

[Pooh Bear]

nobody wrote:

> Pete wrote:
> > I thought that was one of the main advantages of fly-by-wire systems,
> > to eliminate truly stupid actions of pilots. Sounds like Airbus shares
> > a lot of blame for the crash.
>
> The A300-600 is not fly by wire. It is a 1970s plane updated to some extent
> in the 1980s.
>
> And I have been told that because rudders are so rarely used in
> flight.............

You're not a friend of John Tarver are you ? He insisted that rudders on big
jets were *purely* yaw dampers.


> that Airbus didn't actually make it "smart" with software to restrict movement
>
> depending on airplane's speed etc on its FBW planes.
>
> Note that similar rudder use on Boeing planes would also cause the tail to
> break off.

After the accident, I hear that Boeing issued a similary advisory to Airbus
regarding use of rudder.


Graham

[Dave Stadt]

"Here to there" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:32:02 -0700, Peter > wrote:
> > Here to there wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:51:45 GMT, Pete > wrote:
> >>
> >>>>But Molin didn't know he was putting more pressure on the tail than
> >>>>it could bear. Why he didn't -- and who's to blame for that -- is the
> >>>>subject of a bitter fight between Airbus and American.
> >>>
> >>>I thought that was one of the main advantages of fly-by-wire systems,
> >>>to eliminate truly stupid actions of pilots. Sounds like Airbus shares
> >>>a lot of blame for the crash. It's like an auto maker made a car that
> >>>sheared off its wheels if the steering wheel was turned too quickly,
> >>>and the maker's response was to tell drivers, "Don't do that!"
> >>
> >>
> >> Ummmmmm... so what exactly do you think will happen to a car if you
> >> turn the wheel rapidly while driving at more than a snail's pace?
> >
> > If it exceeds the available traction of the tires then I expect the
> > car to start sliding and possibly spin out. As long as the car
> > doesn't hit anything then I expect loss of tire rubber to be the
> > most serious damage. Of course if there is an impact (even with
> > something like a curb), then there are likely to be much more
> > severe consequences.
> >
>
> Except that's not the way it frequently happens in real life.
> Rapid steering wheel movement at speed is one way that people
> manage to flip cars, even when they haven't hit obstacles or
> gone off the road. Around here, the tow trucks do a
> land office business in the winter when the local students
> decide to do donuts in the parking lots, and flip themselves. ;-)

Simply not true. Automobiles will not turn over on flat pavement unless
they hit something. It has been a law for decades.

[devil]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:38:58 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:

>
>
> devil wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:12:20 -0700, Jay Beckman wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Is that due to the crash at the Paris Airshow several years back?
>>>
>>>IIRC, the pilot commanded a flight attitude in the landing config that the
>>>software wouldn't allow and that led to the aircraft settling into the
>>>trees.
>>
>>
>> Only crash at a Paris airshow that I know of was of a Tu144. No Airbus
>> ever crashed in Paris.
>>
>>
>
> I remember the incident though. An A320 full of passengers doing
> something it shouldn't have at an air show, and ending up descending
> into trees at the end of the runway.
>
> Aircraft destroyed, but incredibly, only one fatality.

You may remember an incident (accident actually). But if you remember it
was in Paris, you are remembering wrong.

[Pooh Bear]

Jose wrote:

> > An A320 full of passengers doing something it shouldn't have at an air show
>
> What was an A320 doing full of passengers at an airshow?

Air France said it was OK.


Graham

[nobody]

Sylvia Else wrote:
> I think that pilot was just asking the aircraft to do something that was
> beyond its capabilities. I seem to remember he claimed that the engines
> didn't spin up when commanded, but that was disputed. I never read the
> report, though.

That accident actually has a lot of commonality with the Air Canada flying
skidoo accident at Fredericton.

Plane put at low altutude with engines at low speed. In both cases, pilots
decide to rev up engines to regain altutude (for the airbus, pilot was just
showing off, for the skidoos, the pilot aborted landing). In both cases,
engines took some time to spin up and produce necessary thrust (nature of
turbine engines).

In the case of the flying skidoo, because of no FBW, the pilot stalled the
aircraft as he tried to climb above trees, and it fell in the snow and
traveled in the forest until it hit a tree. In the case of the 320, the
computer didn't allow the pilot to raise the nose, avoiding a deadly stall.
But the computer didn't know trees were ahead, so plane traveled into the trees.

Had the pilot increased thrust earlier, the plane might have regained
suffiencty speed to be able to start climbing without stalling and nobody
would have noticed anything.

[nobody]

Sylvia Else wrote:
> I remember the incident though. An A320 full of passengers doing
> something it shouldn't have at an air show, and ending up descending
> into trees at the end of the runway.

Aircraft was not full of passengers. It was a demo flight with just a few guests.

The aircraft didn't "descend into the trees", it just wasn't able to climb
over the trees due to its initially low speed and low altitude.

[Aardvark]

nobody wrote:

> Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>>I remember the incident though. An A320 full of passengers doing
>>something it shouldn't have at an air show, and ending up descending
>>into trees at the end of the runway.
>
>
> Aircraft was not full of passengers. It was a demo flight with just a few guests.
>
> The aircraft didn't "descend into the trees", it just wasn't able to climb
> over the trees due to its initially low speed and low altitude.

Link to video of the A300 into trees
http://www.aviationexplorer.com/movies/A300intoTREES.mpeg

[Jay Beckman]

"devil" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:38:58 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> devil wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:12:20 -0700, Jay Beckman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Is that due to the crash at the Paris Airshow several years back?
>>>>
>>>>IIRC, the pilot commanded a flight attitude in the landing config that
>>>>the
>>>>software wouldn't allow and that led to the aircraft settling into the
>>>>trees.
>>>
>>>
>>> Only crash at a Paris airshow that I know of was of a Tu144. No Airbus
>>> ever crashed in Paris.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I remember the incident though. An A320 full of passengers doing
>> something it shouldn't have at an air show, and ending up descending
>> into trees at the end of the runway.
>>
>> Aircraft destroyed, but incredibly, only one fatality.
>
> You may remember an incident (accident actually). But if you remember it
> was in Paris, you are remembering wrong.
>

devil,

Googled this regarding an A320 accident in France in 1998.

http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~szewczyk/cs294-8/hw1.html

Each of the "Issues" has an article or two regarding this accident.

Some refer to the Paris Airshow, while some just refer to an airshow in
eastern France.

Jay Beckman
Chandler, AZ
PP-ASEL

[Sylvia Else]

devil wrote:

> You may remember an incident (accident actually). But if you remember it
> was in Paris, you are remembering wrong.

Have I said it was in Paris? I think all I've done is recognise a
particular occurence with an A320 that another poster thought occurred
in Paris, and discussed the issues of the occurence rather than
uninteresting details of geography.

I think I was in Paris, though.

Sylvia.

[nobody]

Sylvia Else wrote:
> There have been incidents where airliners have been stressed well
> beyound their design limits to recover from extreme upsets, and the
> passengers and crew have survived to fly another day,

"design limits" is the real keyword here. And it applies to bridges as well as buildings.

The empire state building was built with tons of extra strength into it
because at the time, the knowledge of structural aspects of materials was not
very good. So you end up with a big fat heavy building that is very strong.
More recent buildings are built with much better knowledge of materials and
thus are built with more exact strength, much lighter materials and much
thinner structure.

Similarly, modern aircraft are built with much better knowledge of material
properties as well as aerodynamics. So the difference between the stated
limits and the actual physical limits are far less than planes built in the
1960s. So breaking the "limits" today may in fact be far more dangerous than
breaking the much less well known limits of the 1960s.



The A300 crash is a perfect example of why FBW is a good thing. had there been
FBW on that system, the pilot could have commanded the rudder to the max, and
the computer would have ensured that it only moved as far as was safe,
allowing pilot to concentrate on flying the aircraft instead of guessing what
the limits would be in that flight regime.

From what I have been told, the 320 330 and 340s do not have computer
authority on the rudder, one reason being that the rudder is so rarely used in
flight. (AA being the odd airline out).

However, I suspect that the 380 and 350 will have computer authority on the rudder.

[nobody]

Pooh Bear wrote:
>> You're not a friend of John Tarver are you ? He insisted that rudders on big
> jets were *purely* yaw dampers.

Isn't he the one who was certain planes have slaps, a combination of slats and
flaps ?

:-) :-)

[nobody]

Dave Stadt wrote:
> Simply not true. Automobiles will not turn over on flat pavement unless
> they hit something. It has been a law for decades.


Which is one reason the car manufacturers lobbyed so hard to have SUVs
considered as truck and not cars. As a result of their classification, they
are not only exempt from the safety regulations applicable to cars, but also
from pollution emissions restrictions applicable only to cars.

[Sylvia Else]

nobody wrote:

> Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>>I remember the incident though. An A320 full of passengers doing
>>something it shouldn't have at an air show, and ending up descending
>>into trees at the end of the runway.
>
>
> Aircraft was not full of passengers. It was a demo flight with just a few guests.
>
> The aircraft didn't "descend into the trees", it just wasn't able to climb
> over the trees due to its initially low speed and low altitude.

I've done a search, but there seem inconsistency over the numbers,
though the figure of 3 deaths seems reliable, rather than the 1 I
stated. There seems general agreement that there were a lot of people on
board.

A video of the accident is available at this site:

http://www.pilotfriend.com/disasters/videos/9-11.htm

Sylvia.

[nobody]

> > Maybe you just need a big red "GO-FOR-BROKE" button for those cases
> > where flying according to the book is guaranteed to result in a
> > premature meeting with the ground.

In cases where extremely rapid reaction is necessary (such as waking up and
realising you are about to hit a mountain), the best thing to do is to put all
controls to their maximum and let the computer decide exacvtly how much can be
done and dyunamically change that as the plane starts to respond to those
requests for maximum change.

"Going for broke" will only yield a stall if you try to command maximum climb
when your speed just doesn't allow it. And in an emergency situation, does the
pilot actually have the time to think about just how much of a climb angle he
can achieve before stalling at current speed ?

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
> Here to there wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:51:45 GMT, Pete > wrote:
> >
> >>>But Molin didn't know he was putting more pressure on the tail than
> >>>it could bear. Why he didn't -- and who's to blame for that -- is the
> >>>subject of a bitter fight between Airbus and American.
> >>
> >>I thought that was one of the main advantages of fly-by-wire systems,
> >>to eliminate truly stupid actions of pilots. Sounds like Airbus shares
> >>a lot of blame for the crash. It's like an auto maker made a car that
> >>sheared off its wheels if the steering wheel was turned too quickly,
> >>and the maker's response was to tell drivers, "Don't do that!"
> >
Why the FACS failed to limit flight control inputs & why the rudder limiter
failed to limit rudder travel in this incident are two questions that have
not been addressed.
Ralph Nesbitt Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
> Here to there wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:32:02 -0700, Peter > wrote:
> >
> >>Here to there wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:51:45 GMT, Pete > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>But Molin didn't know he was putting more pressure on the tail than
> >>>>>it could bear. Why he didn't -- and who's to blame for that -- is the
> >>>>>subject of a bitter fight between Airbus and American.
> >>>>
> >>>>I thought that was one of the main advantages of fly-by-wire systems,
> >>>>to eliminate truly stupid actions of pilots. Sounds like Airbus
shares
> >>>>a lot of blame for the crash. It's like an auto maker made a car that
> >>>>sheared off its wheels if the steering wheel was turned too quickly,
> >>>>and the maker's response was to tell drivers, "Don't do that!"
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Ummmmmm... so what exactly do you think will happen to a car if you
> >>>turn the wheel rapidly while driving at more than a snail's pace?
> >>
> >>If it exceeds the available traction of the tires then I expect the
> >>car to start sliding and possibly spin out. As long as the car
> >>doesn't hit anything then I expect loss of tire rubber to be the
> >>most serious damage. Of course if there is an impact (even with
> >>something like a curb), then there are likely to be much more
> >>severe consequences.
> >>
> > Except that's not the way it frequently happens in real life.
> > Rapid steering wheel movement at speed is one way that people
> > manage to flip cars, even when they haven't hit obstacles or
> > gone off the road. Around here, the tow trucks do a
> > land office business in the winter when the local students
> > decide to do donuts in the parking lots, and flip themselves. ;-)
>
> In real life, parking lots unfortunately have many things you can
> impact such as curbs, potholes, posts, etc. In the absence of those
> there aren't all that many models of cars that can be flipped on a
> flat parking lot. That was one of Nader's original complaints
> about the Corvair and VW Beetle - due to an unusual rear suspension
> design it was possible to flip these. There are also some vehicles
> that are relatively narrow with a high center-of-gravity, but most
> cars will not flip when driven on a flat surface regardless of the
> control inputs.
> >
> >>>I'll
> >>>give you a hint - you'll get the opportunity to find out either how
> >>>expensive it is to replace your suspension, CV joints, etc, or how
> >>>well your roof supports the weight of the car after it has flipped.
> >>>Probably you'll discover all of those.
> >>
> >>BMW had a sales promotion event recently where they had us
> >>try out some of their cars on a large parking lot with a
> >>course laid out with cones. They actively encouraged aggressive
> >>driving and there were frequent incidents where control was lost
> >>resulting in the cars sliding and spinning. As far as I know there
> >>was no serious damage done to any of the vehicles other than loss
> >>of tire rubber (tires were replaced every 2-3 hours during the
> >>event).
> >>
> >
> >
> > Were the drivers turning the wheels rapidly, all the way to
> > the stops?
>
> Yes, the wheels were turned rapidly and the cars did spin out of
> control - but there was no indication that any even came close to
> flipping over.
>
> > According to the crash report, that seems to
> > be essentially what the first officer was doing with the rudder
> > as he attempted to recover from the turbulence.
> >
> >
> >
> >>> "Don't do that" is a perfectly reasonable approach. You can't
> >>>make everything infinitely strong.
> >>
> >>But if there's a clear rule for what 'shouldn't be done' then it
> >>would seem prudent to build it into the firmware for the fly-by-wire
> >>system so that it can't be done.
> >>
> > Well, perhaps, if it was a fly-by-wire system....
>
> Yes, this accident was on the A300 without FBW - my comment was just
> agreeing that this should be an advantage of the FBW systems.
>
> My reading of the reports on the accident is that while the co-pilot's
> actions may have been the proximate 'cause' of the tail's failure, the
> fault was not the co-pilot's but rather with the training which failed
> to indicate that such use of the rudder could cause structural failure.
> Whether that's the fault of Airbus or American remains to be determined
> - sounds like there's still plenty of finger-pointing going on.
>
1:The FACS should have prevented flight control inputs aggressive enough to
damage the A/C.
2: The Rudder limiter should not have allowed the rudder to go stop to stop
several times.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Chris W]

Peter wrote:

> In real life, parking lots unfortunately have many things you can
> impact such as curbs, potholes, posts, etc. In the absence of those
> there aren't all that many models of cars that can be flipped on a
> flat parking lot. That was one of Nader's original complaints
> about the Corvair and VW Beetle - due to an unusual rear suspension
> design it was possible to flip these. There are also some vehicles
> that are relatively narrow with a high center-of-gravity, but most
> cars will not flip when driven on a flat surface regardless of the
> control inputs.

That is especially true if the road surface is wet or snow covered.

> Yes, the wheels were turned rapidly and the cars did spin out of
> control - but there was no indication that any even came close to
> flipping over.
>
Just because a car is spinning, doesn't mean it is out of control. Is
your plane out of control if you spin it? If so how do you stop the
spin with out hitting the ground?


--
Chris W

Not getting the gifts you want? The Wish Zone can help.
http://thewishzone.com

"They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania

[Chris W]

Dave Stadt wrote:

>Simply not true. Automobiles will not turn over on flat pavement unless
>they hit something. It has been a law for decades.
>
>

Is that a law of physics or congress?

Sorry couldn't resist :)

--
Chris W

Not getting the gifts you want? The Wish Zone can help.
http://thewishzone.com

"They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania

[Sylvia Else]

nobody wrote:

>>>Maybe you just need a big red "GO-FOR-BROKE" button for those cases
>>>where flying according to the book is guaranteed to result in a
>>>premature meeting with the ground.
>
>
> In cases where extremely rapid reaction is necessary (such as waking up and
> realising you are about to hit a mountain), the best thing to do is to put all
> controls to their maximum and let the computer decide exacvtly how much can be
> done and dyunamically change that as the plane starts to respond to those
> requests for maximum change.
>
> "Going for broke" will only yield a stall if you try to command maximum climb
> when your speed just doesn't allow it. And in an emergency situation, does the
> pilot actually have the time to think about just how much of a climb angle he
> can achieve before stalling at current speed ?

That wasn't quite the scenario I had in mind, and I'd hope that any
pilot (commercial or otherwise) would realise that just pulling the
stick back as far as it will go is not likely to achieve the desired result.

The was an incident some years back where a crew lost control of an
airliner in turbulence, and pulled forces way outside the design
envelope inorder to prevent a dive into the ground. Also lowered landing
gear above gear down speed, etc.

The aircraft suffered severe damage, but landed OK. Unfortunately, I
cannot remember the airline, aircraft type nor location, which makes it
a bit hard to find.

Sylvia.

[Chris W]

Pete wrote:

>Remember that it was an AA
>DC-10 that lost an engine at ORD, and AA's maintenance practice
>of removing engines with a forklift was the culprit, contrary to
>McDonnell Douglas' advice.
>
>

That sounds interesting. How was it that removing them with the
forklift caused a problem, and how were they supposed to do it? Just
curious.

--
Chris W

Not getting the gifts you want? The Wish Zone can help.
http://thewishzone.com

"They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania

[Peter Joosten]

Jay Beckman wrote:

> Some refer to the Paris Airshow, while some just refer to an airshow in
> eastern France.

I believe you are referring to the following accident:
http://aviation-safety.net/database/1988/880626-0.htm

According that link the accident happened at the Mulhouse-Habsheim airport,
indeed in the east of France, on the Swiss border. The aircraft had taken
off and was supposed to land at the Mulhouse/Basel airport.

With best regards, Peter

[Eric Fletcher S.O.C.]

On 10/26/04 1:35 PM, in article ,
"Here to there" > wrote:

> Except that's not the way it frequently happens in real life.
> Rapid steering wheel movement at speed is one way that people
> manage to flip cars, even when they haven't hit obstacles or
> gone off the road. Around here, the tow trucks do a
> land office business in the winter when the local students
> decide to do donuts in the parking lots, and flip themselves. ;-)


Ummmm NO.

I used to teach for a few racing schools that included Skip Barber Racing
School.

Your answer is wrong, very wrong. The way you flip is to hit a curb while
traveling sideways, NOT Rapid steering wheel movement.

Nice try though, but your wrong.

Eric Fletcher

[Sylvia Else]

Chris W wrote:

> Pete wrote:
>
>> Remember that it was an AA
>> DC-10 that lost an engine at ORD, and AA's maintenance practice
>> of removing engines with a forklift was the culprit, contrary to
>> McDonnell Douglas' advice.
>>
>>
>
> That sounds interesting. How was it that removing them with the
> forklift caused a problem, and how were they supposed to do it? Just
> curious.
>

They were taking the pylon off with the engine, rather than removing the
engine from the pylon. Reattaching them involved impacts that the pylon
wasn't designed to cope with, and caused cracking.

AA weren't the only culprits, and were not the only ones fined for doing
that.

Sylvia.

[Jay Beckman]

"Peter Joosten" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Beckman wrote:
>
>> Some refer to the Paris Airshow, while some just refer to an airshow in
>> eastern France.
>
> I believe you are referring to the following accident:
> http://aviation-safety.net/database/1988/880626-0.htm
>
> According that link the accident happened at the Mulhouse-Habsheim
> airport,
> indeed in the east of France, on the Swiss border. The aircraft had taken
> off and was supposed to land at the Mulhouse/Basel airport.
>
> With best regards, Peter
>

Peter,

Yes, that's the one I was originally thinking about.

I stand corrected that it was NOT the Paris Airshow...but it was in France.

Jay

[Peter]

Chris W wrote:

> Peter wrote:

>> Yes, the wheels were turned rapidly and the cars did spin out of
>> control - but there was no indication that any even came close to
>> flipping over.
>>
> Just because a car is spinning, doesn't mean it is out of control.

And I neither wrote nor implied anything to the contrary. But in
the case I was describing the cars were both spinning and out of
control.

[nobody]

Ralph Nesbitt wrote:
> Why the FACS failed to limit flight control inputs & why the rudder limiter
> failed to limit rudder travel in this incident are two questions that have
> not been addressed.

First question: A300-600 is not FBW and there is no computer interpreting
pilot commands.

Second question: The rudder performed as commanded and did not exceed its own
travel limitations. Under normal circumstances, it would not have broken the
tail. However, it was a combination of rapid complete rudder movement with
side slipping of aircraft which put way too much lateral force on the tail fin
which snapped off.

You need a lot of rudder authority in flight if, for instance, you lose an
engine and need to correct for asymetric thrust. But that doesn't give you
carte blanche to play with the rudder with full left to full right rapid
movements while plane in side slipping and buffeted by turbulence.

[nobody]

RVerDon wrote:
> It seems to me that any airplane that will lose it's tail simply by using
> the rudder pedals is unsafe and shouldn't be allowed to fly.

The only way to do this is to put computer interpretation/authority over pilot
commands so that the computer will move the rudder at safe speeds for current airspeed.

Problem is that pilots outside AA had always been trained to refrain from
using rudder for normal flying. They were never instructed to use the rudder
in flight as a teenager uses a nintendo game paddle. So this was never an
issue before.


So the big question is wether trhe A380 and 7E7 (planes that were launched
after that AA accident) will have computer controlled rudders.

[nobody]

AJC wrote:
> And for what it's worth there is a very scary documentary of yet
> another AA crash, an MD8X/9X I think, landing during a storm. Again
> the culture prevailing at American Airlines was heavily criticized.

However, when another airline had one of its jets decide to leave the airport
and stop the plane at a Burbank petrol station (blocking traffic in a large
boulevard), some pilot who used to post here mentioned that that particular
airline was renowend for having a very cowboy pilot attitude and that this
accident was a perfect example.

So it is interesting that airlines would have "personalities/cultures" which
make their pilots significantly different. One would have expected airline
pilots to be trained more or less all the same way when flying the same planes.

The midair collision over Switzerland is another example: one pilot is from an
airline whose culture says "listen to TCAS", whereas the other pilots had a
culture of "listen to air traffic controller" and those two litterally clashed.

[Stefan]

Jay Beckman wrote:

> Is that due to the crash at the Paris Airshow several years back?

The A300 is FBW, an Airbus crash in Paris... so much for the educated
infos in this group.

The crash you mention occured at an airshow in Habsheim, near Mulhouse,
which is more than 200 nm from Paris. And the crash wasn't caused by the
FBW system, rather the opposite: The pilot had shut down the computers
surveillance system, because the computer wouldn't have allowed him to
fly his dangerous maneuvre!

Stefan

[nobody]

Stefan wrote:
> FBW system, rather the opposite: The pilot had shut down the computers
> surveillance system, because the computer wouldn't have allowed him to
> fly his dangerous maneuvre!

No, this was a demo of its computer systems capabilities, they woudln't have
shut it down.

Secondly, the big red button isn't to override the computer, it is the
"override the other pilot" button. (eg: to decide who is controlling the plane
when both pilots are wanking their joystick at the same time)

On airbus planes, because they have a joystick with no feedback, one pilot
really deson't feel what the other pilot is trying to do. And one can override
the other by pressing the button, at which point his joystick takes control.

When it launched its 777, it was Boeing that bragged about its pilots being
able to break the flight enveloppe by pulling really hard on the yoke, and
that was marketed as a big advantage over Airbus cockpits where pilots
couldn't break the limits.

Pulling Gs isn't really the issue, it is preventing a stall. And that is where
the computer is far more accurate than a human and this is where engine thrust
does not follow immediatly a pilot's command (it takes time for engines to
increase or reduce thrust). You can't start to climb as soon as you raise
engine thrust is your speed is so low that you are borderline stall at level flight.

Had this been a Boeing plane, the pilot would have heard an alarm and felt his
yoke vibrate indicating he was about to stall the aircraft, and he then could
either have continued to try to climb and stall (falling down on trees), or
tried to level and pickup speed before climbing, giving the same result as the Airbus.

What is not known about that particular indcident is whether then then current
software of the A320 would have warned the pilot that his command to climb
could not be executed due to stall conditions, or whether the pilot was lost
wondering why the plane didn't respond to his command to climb.

The above would make a big difference if the pilot had not yet applied more
thrust to engines. The stall warning might have triggered an automatic reflex
by the human pilot to increase thrust. On the other hand, the pilot should
have known that at current very slow airspeed, he could not climb out and
would need to increase thrust.

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article >, nobody > wrote:
>Pooh Bear wrote:
>>> You're not a friend of John Tarver are you ? He insisted that rudders on big
>> jets were *purely* yaw dampers.
>
>Isn't he the one who was certain planes have slaps, a combination of slats and
>flaps ?

"splaps"... and the P1T0Tube that has nothing to do with measuring dynamic air
pressure...

Just an ID ten T problem...
>
>:-) :-)

yours,
Michael
--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/wwap/

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 03:47:24 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote:

>Simply not true. Automobiles will not turn over on flat pavement unless
>they hit something. It has been a law for decades.

I've seen filmed demonstrations of cars flipping simply by turning.
It was an expose on Jeeps. Seems dealerships were outfitting the
CJ5's with oversize tires and sending them out into the world. People
were flipping them doing what almost amounts to normal driving,
without hitting anything or skidding.

The team doing the expose outfitted one of these Jeeps with sidebars
to prevent the vehical from completely rolling over, then did a series
of J turns in a parking lot. At the terminex of each J turn, the Jeep
dramatically lifted up and would have tipped over were it not for the
sidebars.

Yes, the Jeeps had a high center of gravity due to the oversize tires,
and a narrow track. Otherwise it would have been much more difficult
to get it to tip over. But it DID tip many times simply by turning
sharply, and at a not so fast speed.

Most normal streetcars are built too low to the ground, and have tires
that do not develop enough traction to flip simply by turning or
spinning. They require the additional assistance of hitting a curb or
boulder or dropping a tire into a small ditch while sideways.

SUV's are more vulnerable than run of the mill street cars due to
their higher center of gravity because they are "off road vehicals"
and have extra clearance for off roading, although of course they are
almost never actually used as such.

Corky Scott

[Pete]

> They were taking the pylon off with the engine, rather than removing
> the engine from the pylon. Reattaching them involved impacts that
> the pylon wasn't designed to cope with, and caused cracking.
>
> AA weren't the only culprits, and were not the only ones fined for
> doing that.

AA, Continental, and Braniff, I think. But American developed the
practice, which Continental later adopted.


Pete

[Gunter Herrmann]

Hi!

Morgans wrote:
> "Peter" > wrote
>
> In the absence of those
>
>>there aren't all that many models of cars that can be flipped on a
>>flat parking lot. That was one of Nader's original complaints
>>about the Corvair
>
>
> pppplease everyone note: That was true for pre 63, only.

Have you ever heard about the "Moose Test"?
MB A class failed that test and had to get electronic stability
control to pass that test.

brgds

--
Gunter Herrmann
Naples, Florida, USA

[devil]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:08:56 +0200, Stefan wrote:

> Jay Beckman wrote:
>
>> Is that due to the crash at the Paris Airshow several years back?
>
> The A300 is FBW, an Airbus crash in Paris... so much for the educated
> infos in this group.
>
> The crash you mention occured at an airshow in Habsheim, near Mulhouse,
> which is more than 200 nm from Paris.


Why oh why did you have to tell them?

[devil]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:59:57 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:

>
>
> devil wrote:
>
>> You may remember an incident (accident actually). But if you remember it
>> was in Paris, you are remembering wrong.
>
> Have I said it was in Paris? I think all I've done is recognise a
> particular occurence with an A320 that another poster thought occurred
> in Paris, and discussed the issues of the occurence rather than
> uninteresting details of geography.

No, the article you quoted did.
>
> I think I was in Paris, though.

No it was not. Only crash at an airshow in Paris was the infamous T144
one.

[devil]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:57:07 -0400, Aardvark wrote:

>
> Link to video of the A300 into trees
> http://www.aviationexplorer.com/movies/A300intoTREES.mpeg


A300? I don't think so.

[devil]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:56:43 +0000, Pete wrote:


> But to start another flame war, maybe AA has a culture problem
> of ignoring manufacturers' advice. Remember that it was an AA
> DC-10 that lost an engine at ORD, and AA's maintenance practice
> of removing engines with a forklift was the culprit, contrary to
> McDonnell Douglas' advice.


Correct. Still was a poor design though.

[Al Gerharter]

>
> The was an incident some years back where a crew lost control of an
> airliner in turbulence, and pulled forces way outside the design envelope
> inorder to prevent a dive into the ground. Also lowered landing gear above
> gear down speed, etc.
>
> The aircraft suffered severe damage, but landed OK. Unfortunately, I
> cannot remember the airline, aircraft type nor location, which makes it a
> bit hard to find.





I believe it was a China Airlines 747, at SFO. I saw the aircraft the next
day. Hard to believe it came back.
The horizontal stabilizers and elevators were clipped off at about half
span. The gear doors came by after the gear was extended. The left aileron
had a two foot hole in it where a part came off of the leading edge, and
went through the obviously very extended aileron. There were wrinkles
everywhere. A commercial pilot in the cabin estimated 6 g's.


See: February 19, 1985, China Airlines Flight 006,
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/ChinaAir/AAR8603.html)

[Jeff Hacker]

"Pete" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>> They were taking the pylon off with the engine, rather than removing
>> the engine from the pylon. Reattaching them involved impacts that
>> the pylon wasn't designed to cope with, and caused cracking.
>>
>> AA weren't the only culprits, and were not the only ones fined for
>> doing that.
>
> AA, Continental, and Braniff, I think. But American developed the
> practice, which Continental later adopted.
\
Braniff never flew DC10's, and their 747 maintenance was largely contracted
out (up til about 1980, they only had 1)
>
>
> Pete
>
>

[Ron Natalie]

Jeff Hacker wrote:
> "Pete" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>>They were taking the pylon off with the engine, rather than removing
>>>the engine from the pylon. Reattaching them involved impacts that
>>>the pylon wasn't designed to cope with, and caused cracking.
>>>
>>>AA weren't the only culprits, and were not the only ones fined for
>>>doing that.
>>
>>AA, Continental, and Braniff, I think. But American developed the
>>practice, which Continental later adopted.
>
> \
> Braniff never flew DC10's, and their 747 maintenance was largely contracted
> out (up til about 1980, they only had 1)
>
It was AA, Continental, and United. I believe United used an overhead
crane rather than a forklift which lessened the chance that the pylon could
rotate.

[Sylvia Else]

devil wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:59:57 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>
>>
>>devil wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You may remember an incident (accident actually). But if you remember it
>>>was in Paris, you are remembering wrong.
>>
>>Have I said it was in Paris? I think all I've done is recognise a
>>particular occurence with an A320 that another poster thought occurred
>>in Paris, and discussed the issues of the occurence rather than
>>uninteresting details of geography.
>
>
> No, the article you quoted did.
>
>>I think I was in Paris, though.
>
>
> No it was not. Only crash at an airshow in Paris was the infamous T144
> one.

Now here this: _I_ was in paris.

Sylvia.
>

[Pete]

>>> AA weren't the only culprits, and were not the only ones fined for
>>> doing that.
>>
>> AA, Continental, and Braniff, I think. But American developed the
>> practice, which Continental later adopted.
> \
> Braniff never flew DC10's, and their 747 maintenance was largely
> contracted out (up til about 1980, they only had 1)

I tried to find the facts via surfing but I could only find mention of
AA and Continental. However, at the time it was announced that
three airlines were fined as a result of the ORD accident. I was
working in the airline business at the time, and the three separate
fines were big news to us.


Pete

[Stefan]

nobody wrote:

> No, this was a demo of its computer systems capabilities, they woudln't have
> shut it down.

No. The pilot wanted to display his new toy low and slow to the public.
To achieve this, he ignored even the most basic safety rules and basic
airmanship.

The fact that there is still so much myth with this case was caused by
the French authorities, who handled the accident as a state affair,
because it concerned Airbus. France and Airbus at that time ... a story
for itself. With this behaviour they prepared the ground for many rumors
and deep misbelief in the eventual results of the investigation.

> Secondly, the big red button isn't to ...

Obviously you didn't understand me: I wasn't talking of any real button.
I just pointed out that the computer system can be oversteered by the
pilot at any time.

Stefan

[Sylvia Else]

Al Gerharter wrote:

>>The was an incident some years back where a crew lost control of an
>>airliner in turbulence, and pulled forces way outside the design envelope
>>inorder to prevent a dive into the ground. Also lowered landing gear above
>>gear down speed, etc.
>>
>>The aircraft suffered severe damage, but landed OK. Unfortunately, I
>>cannot remember the airline, aircraft type nor location, which makes it a
>>bit hard to find.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I believe it was a China Airlines 747, at SFO. I saw the aircraft the next
> day. Hard to believe it came back.
> The horizontal stabilizers and elevators were clipped off at about half
> span. The gear doors came by after the gear was extended. The left aileron
> had a two foot hole in it where a part came off of the leading edge, and
> went through the obviously very extended aileron. There were wrinkles
> everywhere. A commercial pilot in the cabin estimated 6 g's.
>
>
> See: February 19, 1985, China Airlines Flight 006,
> http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/ChinaAir/AAR8603.html)
>
>
>
Yes, that looks like the one.

Although I cited this as an example where the ability to fly outside the
design envelope allowed recovery of an otherwise disasterous
situation, it looks to me, on a cursory reading, as if the damaging
accelerations occurred during a period when the captain was not trying
to recover control because he couldn't tell what the aifcraft was doing
anyway.

Oh well.

I'm amazed that the crew apparently thought it reasonable to resume
normal operation after a descent like that. They should surely have
realised that an immediate landing was indicated.

Sylvia.

[Al Gerharter]

I think this was their first opportunity to land. The aircraft was well
outside the envelope when a recovery ensued. I don't know what would have
happened to an airbus. This thing had shoe prints on the instrument panel.
Al


"Sylvia Else" > wrote in message
u...
>
>
> Al Gerharter wrote:
>
>>>The was an incident some years back where a crew lost control of an
>>>airliner in turbulence, and pulled forces way outside the design envelope
>>>inorder to prevent a dive into the ground. Also lowered landing gear
>>>above gear down speed, etc.
>>>
>>>The aircraft suffered severe damage, but landed OK. Unfortunately, I
>>>cannot remember the airline, aircraft type nor location, which makes it a
>>>bit hard to find.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I believe it was a China Airlines 747, at SFO. I saw the aircraft the
>> next day. Hard to believe it came back.
>> The horizontal stabilizers and elevators were clipped off at about half
>> span. The gear doors came by after the gear was extended. The left
>> aileron had a two foot hole in it where a part came off of the leading
>> edge, and went through the obviously very extended aileron. There were
>> wrinkles everywhere. A commercial pilot in the cabin estimated 6 g's.
>>
>>
>> See: February 19, 1985, China Airlines Flight 006,
>> http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/ChinaAir/AAR8603.html)
>>
>>
>>
> Yes, that looks like the one.
>
> Although I cited this as an example where the ability to fly outside the
> design envelope allowed recovery of an otherwise disasterous situation, it
> looks to me, on a cursory reading, as if the damaging accelerations
> occurred during a period when the captain was not trying to recover
> control because he couldn't tell what the aifcraft was doing anyway.
>
> Oh well.
>
> I'm amazed that the crew apparently thought it reasonable to resume normal
> operation after a descent like that. They should surely have realised that
> an immediate landing was indicated.
>
> Sylvia.
>

[Sylvia Else]

Al Gerharter wrote:

> I think this was their first opportunity to land. The aircraft was well
> outside the envelope when a recovery ensued. I don't know what would have
> happened to an airbus. This thing had shoe prints on the instrument panel.
> Al

On the landing question, I was struck by this section, on page 5.

"At 1018:42, Flight 006 requested clearance to climb. Oakland ARTCC
initially cleared it to climb to FL 200, and, at 1019:17, Flight 006
told the ARTCC that "we can control the aircraft." Oakland ARTCC asked
the flight if it wanted to divert to San Francisco, and, at 1019:49,
Flight 006 answered "Condition normal now," and that it would continue
to Los Angeles."

In respect of the evelope issue, my memory said that the upset was
caused by turbulence. In this case, it appears to have been crew
mishandling. In the circumstances, I have to wonder whether an FBW
aircraft would have got into the position of needing an outside the
envelope recovery in the first place.

Sylvia.

[Stefan]

Al Gerharter wrote:

> I think this was their first opportunity to land. The aircraft was well
> outside the envelope when a recovery ensued. I don't know what would have
> happened to an airbus.

All modern airplanes, no matter from which manufactorer, are designed to
match the legal certification minimas and nothing more. Every little bit
of extra strengh is a waste of payload. An engineer who builds too
strongly will be fired like one who builds too weakly.

Stefan

[Al Gerharter]

"Sylvia Else" > wrote in message
u...
>
>
> Al Gerharter wrote:
>
>> I think this was their first opportunity to land. The aircraft was well
>> outside the envelope when a recovery ensued. I don't know what would have
>> happened to an airbus. This thing had shoe prints on the instrument
>> panel. Al
>
> On the landing question, I was struck by this section, on page 5.
>
> "At 1018:42, Flight 006 requested clearance to climb. Oakland ARTCC
> initially cleared it to climb to FL 200, and, at 1019:17, Flight 006 told
> the ARTCC that "we can control the aircraft." Oakland ARTCC asked the
> flight if it wanted to divert to San Francisco, and, at 1019:49, Flight
> 006 answered "Condition normal now," and that it would continue to Los
> Angeles."


Wow, I hadn't read that. They did indeed declare an emergency, and land in
SFO. At least that's where I was when I was looking at it. Yea, big place on
the water of the bay, big gold bridge in the background, yep that's it. The
guys in the tower said that each time he pitched up a little on final, they
got a big roll out of it as well.


>
> In respect of the evelope issue, my memory said that the upset was caused
> by turbulence. In this case, it appears to have been crew mishandling. In
> the circumstances, I have to wonder whether an FBW aircraft would have got
> into the position of needing an outside the envelope recovery in the first
> place.
>
> Sylvia.
>
Then there was the Air Transat from Canada to Spain, that developed a
fuel leak, and the "automatic" system sent all of the fuel
into the leaking tank trying to balance the aircraft. They flamed out, and
landed in the Azores dead stick. Al

[Stefan]

Al Gerharter wrote:

> Then there was the Air Transat from Canada to Spain, that developed a
> fuel leak, and the "automatic" system sent all of the fuel
> into the leaking tank trying to balance the aircraft. They flamed out, and
> landed in the Azores dead stick.

Actually, it was the pilots who didn't follow the checklist but rather
cross fed the fuel to the leak manually. Legends never die. Eager top
hear your next one.

Stefan

[Dave]

Ummmmm...actually ... no....

In the Fredericton crash, the landing was not really
"aborted" . Although the abort inputs were probably commanded, the A/C
"landed"....

Coming out of a very low (legal) ceiling, the rny was not
directly under the a/c, and the crew tried to correct laterally and
doing so, the decent rate increased. They started the go around to
late, the AC slammed down on the rny hard, the nose gear ripping the
control functions as it rammed vertically up through the floor
above.

The throttles were stuck at high power, directional control
was lost, and everybody was along for the ride into the trees WAY off
to the right of rny 15 way past the intersection. One engine was
STILL producing substantial power as the equipment arrived.

The A/C was ON THE SURFACE, engines pushing it along for the
entire trip, impact point to the pucker brush. (the damage from the
nose gear severed the the throttle controls so the crew were unable
to retard the thrust). It DID NOT "stall into the trees"...and it
did not "travel through the forest". - It was stopped cold by the 1st
tree (a rather large and very strong tree), at the edge of the
cleared area, the tree still standing in the middle of the fwd cabin
where the (severe) injuries occurred.


Hence the "skidoo " story, - the track of the A/C was
continuous along the snow...

Add to this some really bonehead PR work by Air Canada..

Oh... thats another story... sorry...

Dave


On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:46:30 -0400, nobody > wrote:

>Sylvia Else wrote:

>
>That accident actually has a lot of commonality with the Air Canada flying
>skidoo accident at Fredericton.
>
>Plane put at low altutude with engines at low speed. In both cases, pilots
>decide to rev up engines to regain altutude (for the airbus, pilot was just
>showing off, for the skidoos, the pilot aborted landing). In both cases,
>engines took some time to spin up and produce necessary thrust (nature of
>turbine engines).
>
>In the case of the flying skidoo, because of no FBW, the pilot stalled the
>aircraft as he tried to climb above trees, and it fell in the snow and
>traveled in the forest until it hit a tree. In the case of the 320, the
>computer didn't allow the pilot to raise the nose, avoiding a deadly stall.
>But the computer didn't know trees were ahead, so plane traveled into the trees.
>
>Had the pilot increased thrust earlier, the plane might have regained
>suffiencty speed to be able to start climbing without stalling and nobody
>would have noticed anything.

[devil]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:53:13 +0000, Dave wrote:

> Hence the "skidoo " story, - the track of the A/C was
> continuous along the snow...
>
> Add to this some really bonehead PR work by Air Canada..
>
> Oh... thats another story... sorry...

Painting their logo?

Reminded me of a crash in Brazil where they did that too.

[Sylvia Else]

Dave, please take a bit more care not to make it look as if I said
something that someone else said.

Dave wrote:

>>Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>
>>That accident actually has a lot of commonality with the Air Canada flying
>>skidoo accident at Fredericton.
>>
>>Plane put at low altutude with engines at low speed. In both cases, pilots
>>decide to rev up engines to regain altutude (for the airbus, pilot was just
>>showing off, for the skidoos, the pilot aborted landing). In both cases,
>>engines took some time to spin up and produce necessary thrust (nature of
>>turbine engines).
>>
>>In the case of the flying skidoo, because of no FBW, the pilot stalled the
>>aircraft as he tried to climb above trees, and it fell in the snow and
>>traveled in the forest until it hit a tree. In the case of the 320, the
>>computer didn't allow the pilot to raise the nose, avoiding a deadly stall.
>>But the computer didn't know trees were ahead, so plane traveled into the trees.
>>
>>Had the pilot increased thrust earlier, the plane might have regained
>>suffiencty speed to be able to start climbing without stalling and nobody
>>would have noticed anything.
>
>

[Rich Ahrens]

Al Gerharter wrote:
> "Sylvia Else" > wrote in message
> u...
>
>>
>>Al Gerharter wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I think this was their first opportunity to land. The aircraft was well
>>>outside the envelope when a recovery ensued. I don't know what would have
>>>happened to an airbus. This thing had shoe prints on the instrument
>>>panel. Al
>>
>>On the landing question, I was struck by this section, on page 5.
>>
>>"At 1018:42, Flight 006 requested clearance to climb. Oakland ARTCC
>>initially cleared it to climb to FL 200, and, at 1019:17, Flight 006 told
>>the ARTCC that "we can control the aircraft." Oakland ARTCC asked the
>>flight if it wanted to divert to San Francisco, and, at 1019:49, Flight
>>006 answered "Condition normal now," and that it would continue to Los
>>Angeles."
>
>
>
> Wow, I hadn't read that. They did indeed declare an emergency, and land in
> SFO. At least that's where I was when I was looking at it. Yea, big place on
> the water of the bay, big gold bridge in the background, yep that's it. The
> guys in the tower said that each time he pitched up a little on final, they
> got a big roll out of it as well.
>
>
>
>>In respect of the evelope issue, my memory said that the upset was caused
>>by turbulence. In this case, it appears to have been crew mishandling. In
>>the circumstances, I have to wonder whether an FBW aircraft would have got
>>into the position of needing an outside the envelope recovery in the first
>>place.
>>
>>Sylvia.
>>
>
> Then there was the Air Transat from Canada to Spain, that developed a
> fuel leak, and the "automatic" system sent all of the fuel
> into the leaking tank trying to balance the aircraft. They flamed out, and
> landed in the Azores dead stick. Al

Do you two just pull this stuff out of your asses or what?

[nobody]

Al Gerharter wrote:
> Then there was the Air Transat from Canada to Spain, that developed a
> fuel leak, and the "automatic" system sent all of the fuel
> into the leaking tank trying to balance the aircraft.

It wasn't the automatic system. The pilots made the conscious decision to
transfer fuel from the left tank to the right tank, despite transport canada
regulation that on etops aircraft, preserving fuel in the wing with the
functioning engine was paramount.

[nobody]

Dave wrote:
> Coming out of a very low (legal) ceiling, the rny was not
> directly under the a/c, and the crew tried to correct laterally and
> doing so, the decent rate increased. They started the go around to
> late, the AC slammed down on the rny hard, the nose gear ripping the
> control functions as it rammed vertically up through the floor
> above.

The TSB report clearly stated that the pilots initiated a go around WITHOUT
LANDING, with airspeed that would have required landing before speed was high
enough to climb again. Upon starting to climb again, the skidoo did regain
some altitude before stalling, after which it fell to the ground where its
recessive skidoo genes became dominant again.

One problem is that the flight director had not been programmed to handle such
a situation, neither had Bombardier foreseen/simulated situations such as
those. While the FO (PIC) was trying to climb according to normal climb rates
provided by the flight director, the captain did not realise that the newbie
co-pilot wasn't aware of the very low airspeed.







>
> The throttles were stuck at high power, directional control
> was lost, and everybody was along for the ride into the trees WAY off
> to the right of rny 15 way past the intersection. One engine was
> STILL producing substantial power as the equipment arrived.
>
> The A/C was ON THE SURFACE, engines pushing it along for the
> entire trip, impact point to the pucker brush. (the damage from the
> nose gear severed the the throttle controls so the crew were unable
> to retard the thrust). It DID NOT "stall into the trees"...and it
> did not "travel through the forest". - It was stopped cold by the 1st
> tree (a rather large and very strong tree), at the edge of the
> cleared area, the tree still standing in the middle of the fwd cabin
> where the (severe) injuries occurred.
>
> Hence the "skidoo " story, - the track of the A/C was
> continuous along the snow...
>
> Add to this some really bonehead PR work by Air Canada..
>
> Oh... thats another story... sorry...
>
> Dave
>
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:46:30 -0400, nobody > wrote:
>
> >Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> >
> >That accident actually has a lot of commonality with the Air Canada flying
> >skidoo accident at Fredericton.
> >
> >Plane put at low altutude with engines at low speed. In both cases, pilots
> >decide to rev up engines to regain altutude (for the airbus, pilot was just
> >showing off, for the skidoos, the pilot aborted landing). In both cases,
> >engines took some time to spin up and produce necessary thrust (nature of
> >turbine engines).
> >
> >In the case of the flying skidoo, because of no FBW, the pilot stalled the
> >aircraft as he tried to climb above trees, and it fell in the snow and
> >traveled in the forest until it hit a tree. In the case of the 320, the
> >computer didn't allow the pilot to raise the nose, avoiding a deadly stall.
> >But the computer didn't know trees were ahead, so plane traveled into the trees.
> >
> >Had the pilot increased thrust earlier, the plane might have regained
> >suffiencty speed to be able to start climbing without stalling and nobody
> >would have noticed anything.

[John Mazor]

"nobody" > wrote in message
...
> AJC wrote:
> > And for what it's worth there is a very scary documentary of yet
> > another AA crash, an MD8X/9X I think, landing during a storm. Again
> > the culture prevailing at American Airlines was heavily criticized.
>
> However, when another airline had one of its jets decide to leave the
airport
> and stop the plane at a Burbank petrol station (blocking traffic in a
large
> boulevard), some pilot who used to post here mentioned that that
particular
> airline was renowend for having a very cowboy pilot attitude and that this
> accident was a perfect example.
>
> So it is interesting that airlines would have "personalities/cultures"
which
> make their pilots significantly different. One would have expected airline
> pilots to be trained more or less all the same way when flying the same
planes.

One might expect so, but airlines build their training to suit their methods
and the FAA approves them despite the differences. And even under approved
training and procedures, there's a vast gray area called "technique" that
gives pilots discretion to operate their aircraft.

> The midair collision over Switzerland is another example: one pilot is
from an
> airline whose culture says "listen to TCAS", whereas the other pilots had
a
> culture of "listen to air traffic controller" and those two litterally
clashed.

Then there was the pilot from some airline south of the border who flew into
the ground after ignoring the GPWS squawks, his words to the effect of "Shut
up, Yanqui bitch!" immortalized near the end of the CVR.

[running with scissors]

Jose > wrote in message >...
> > An A320 full of passengers doing something it shouldn't have at an air show
>
> What was an A320 doing full of passengers at an airshow?
>
> Jose

al flyby.

Paris / Air France.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Pooh Bear > wrote in
:

> AJC wrote:
>
>> And for what it's worth there is a very scary documentary of yet
>> another AA crash, an MD8X/9X I think, landing during a storm. Again
>> the culture prevailing at American Airlines was heavily criticized.
>
> Is that the one where the flight crew talk about the 'bowling alley' ?

what's it to you, planespotter?


shouldn't you be siting at some crap Brit airport eatig chips at the cafe
and scratching reggies into your little notepad?

Bertie

[devil]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:03:21 -0700, running with scissors wrote:

> Jose > wrote in message >...
>> > An A320 full of passengers doing something it shouldn't have at an air show
>>
>> What was an A320 doing full of passengers at an airshow?
>>
>> Jose
>
> al flyby.
>
> Paris / Air France.

No such a thing in Paris.

[khobar]

"running with scissors" > wrote in
message om...
> Jose > wrote in message
>...
> > > An A320 full of passengers doing something it shouldn't have at an air
show
> >
> > What was an A320 doing full of passengers at an airshow?
> >
> > Jose
>
> al flyby.
>
> Paris / Air France.

Is Paris a continent too? Or are you just being stupid for fun?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Paul Nixon

[Bertie the Bunyip]

"khobar" > wrote in
news:E00gd.82589$kz3.38453@fed1read02:

> "running with scissors" >
> wrote in message
> om...
>> Jose > wrote in message
> >...
>> > > An A320 full of passengers doing something it shouldn't have at
>> > > an air
> show
>> >
>> > What was an A320 doing full of passengers at an airshow?
>> >
>> > Jose
>>
>> al flyby.
>>
>> Paris / Air France.
>
> Is Paris a continent too? Or are you just being stupid for fun?

Bwahwhahwh!

if you only knew, fjukwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Well Fjukwit?

Berti e

[Randy Hudson]

In article >,
Morgans > wrote:
>
> "Peter" > wrote
>
>> In the absence of those there aren't all that many models of cars
>> that can be flipped on a flat parking lot. That was one of Nader's
>> original complaints about the Corvair
>
> pppplease everyone note: That was true for pre 63, only.

The 63 and 64 Corvairs were the primary subject of Nader's _Unsafe At Any
Speed_. The 65 Corvairs added a stabilizer to the suspension. And the
primary complaint about the original suspension was not that it caused the
cars to flip, but that it tended to cause the outside wheel to tuck under
during sharp cornering, leading to a sudden breakaway skid with no warning
creep. It could also lead to a rollover if something as minor as a pothole
tripped that wheel as it entered such a skid, but that wasn't the primary
failure mode.

_Consumers' Reports_ once rated a small Suzuki SUV Not Acceptable because of
its tendency to tip, which they speculated could lead to rollover accidents.
It's the rarity of that phenomenon that made it newsworthy. Virtually all
real-world rollover accidents involve the wheels being tripped by a curb or
other obstruction.

--
Randy Hudson

[nobody]

Randy Hudson wrote:
> It's the rarity of that phenomenon that made it newsworthy. Virtually all
> real-world rollover accidents involve the wheels being tripped by a curb or
> other obstruction.


You've obviously not watched any good documentary on the subject. Police car
chases in Los Angeles almost always involve some spectacular roll over.
British spies are almost always involved in some form of car chase which
involves some roll over. Heck, in a recent documentary about british spies,
the spy was in a fancy sports car (aston martin if I recall correctly) on
smooth ICE in iceland and the car flipped and slid for a while on its roof,
until the spy pressed the "eject passenger seat" button which causes the case
to bounce back into right side up condition, showing just how easy it is for a
car to flip.

It is possible that there might be something special about gravity in the Los
Angeles area that makes it much easier for cars to flip over. I haven't
personally witnessed any such accidents where I live (except in documentaries
at the he movie theatre or TV).

[1aircraftQAguy]

Stefan > wrote in message >...
> Jay Beckman wrote:
>
> > Is that due to the crash at the Paris Airshow several years back?
>
> The A300 is FBW, an Airbus crash in Paris... so much for the educated
> infos in this group.
>
> Stefan

No, the A300 isn't FBW .........

Copied from Airbus.com (link is below text.)

Airbus' first aircraft, the A300B, was launched at the 1969 Paris air
show. It was the first widebody twinjet and could carry 226 passengers
in a comfortable two-class lay-out. A stretched 250 seat version, the
A300B2, requested by launch customer Air France, went into full scale
production.

By 1974, the A300 had been certified on budget and ahead of schedule –
a major first for European companies at the time. By the end of 1975,
Airbus had 10 per cent of the market and a total of 55 aircraft on
order. The company then went through a dark period, during which it
failed to secure any new orders. Finally, US airline Eastern Airlines
decided to lease four A300B4s.

This was a turning point, and from then on, Airbus never looked back.
Within two years, Airbus had 133 firm orders and market share had
risen to 26 per cent by value. By the end of 1979, Airbus had 256
orders from 32 customers and 81 aircraft in service with 14 operators.

The A320, launched in 1984, was the first all-new design in its
category in 30 years. Incorporating new technologies, the aircraft
provided better operating efficiency, better performance and - above
all - greater passenger comfort thanks to a wider fuselage
cross-section. It was the first commercial aircraft to feature
‘fly-by-wire' controls and side sticks. It set the standard for all
subsequent Airbus cockpits and indeed for the industry as a whole.

http://www.airbus.com/about/history.asp

[1aircraftQAguy]

Bertie the Bunyip <XZXZ@XZXZ.,XZXZX> wrote in message >...
> Well Fjukwit?
>
> Berti e

Okay,

I'm sorry I spanked you on the A300 rudder limiter issue.

[Stefan]

running with scissors wrote:

>>What was an A320 doing full of passengers at an airshow?

Those weren't just "passengers". They were invited guests. In those days
a common practice in France (and elsewhere). After that accident, no
more flying guests at an airshow.

Stefan

[Bertie the Bunyip]

(1aircraftQAguy) wrote in
om:

> Bertie the Bunyip <XZXZ@XZXZ.,XZXZX> wrote in message
> >...
>> Well Fjukwit?
>>
>> Berti e
>
> Okay,
>
> I'm sorry I spanked you on the A300 rudder limiter issue.


?? You did?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Sylvia Else > wrote in
u:

>
>
> Pooh Bear wrote:
>
>> John Mazor wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"OtisWinslow" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>I thought the Captain was in charge of making sure the
>>>>aircraft was operated safely. Why the hell didn't he intervene
>>>>and stop the excessive movement? He just sat there
>>>>and watched knowing that it was the wrong action to
>>>>take? Sure points the finger at Airbus and AA's training program.
>>>
>>>Perhaps, but it also reflects the prevailing but erroneous impression
>>>among airline pilots that you can't break the airplane with control
>>>inputs below maneuvering speed. This was not limited to Airbus
>>>products.
>>
>>
>> Which then begs the question why were airline pilots erroneously
>> under that impression ?
>
> It was a bizarre notion anyway. Fly your airliner below maneuvering
> speed. Apply full right aileron, and wait.
>
> I guarantee you'll have a broken plane.
>

Wot a ******.


Bertie

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"nobody" > wrote in message
...
> Dave wrote:
> > Coming out of a very low (legal) ceiling, the rny was not
> > directly under the a/c, and the crew tried to correct laterally and
> > doing so, the decent rate increased. They started the go around to
> > late, the AC slammed down on the rny hard, the nose gear ripping the
> > control functions as it rammed vertically up through the floor
> > above.
>
> The TSB report clearly stated that the pilots initiated a go around
WITHOUT
> LANDING, with airspeed that would have required landing before speed was
high
> enough to climb again. Upon starting to climb again, the skidoo did regain
> some altitude before stalling, after which it fell to the ground where its
> recessive skidoo genes became dominant again.
>
> One problem is that the flight director had not been programmed to handle
such
> a situation, neither had Bombardier foreseen/simulated situations such as
> those. While the FO (PIC) was trying to climb according to normal climb
rates
> provided by the flight director, the captain did not realise that the
newbie
> co-pilot wasn't aware of the very low airspeed.
>
FBY is a great concept, but in practice not every conceivable situation/set
of circumstances, with all potential variables/responses can be foreseen &
programmed into the computer. The only "Computer" I know of that even comes
close to dealing with UNK/UNK (unknown/unknown) has 1 mouth, 2 legs, 2 arms,
2 eyes, 2 ears, & when it gets into allows A/C tog get into situations that
can't be recovered from is known to emphasize the impossibility of
recovering from the situation with a emphatic"OH ****".
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Sylvia Else" > wrote in message
u...
>
>
> devil wrote:
>
> > You may remember an incident (accident actually). But if you remember
it
> > was in Paris, you are remembering wrong.
>
> Have I said it was in Paris? I think all I've done is recognise a
> particular occurence with an A320 that another poster thought occurred
> in Paris, and discussed the issues of the occurence rather than
> uninteresting details of geography.
>
> I think I was in Paris, though.
>
> Sylvia.
>
The entire problem appears to be you are attempting to do something you are
not used to doing, thinking, leaveing yourself wide open for criticism from
various kinds from various quarters IMHO.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"nobody" > wrote in message
...
> Stefan wrote:
> > FBW system, rather the opposite: The pilot had shut down the computers
> > surveillance system, because the computer wouldn't have allowed him to
> > fly his dangerous maneuvre!
>
> No, this was a demo of its computer systems capabilities, they woudln't
have
> shut it down.
>
> Secondly, the big red button isn't to override the computer, it is the
> "override the other pilot" button. (eg: to decide who is controlling the
plane
> when both pilots are wanking their joystick at the same time)
>
Does one button take precedence over the other ie:Pilot vs Co-pilot? What
happens if both are banging on the button simoultanously?
>
> On airbus planes, because they have a joystick with no feedback, one pilot
> really deson't feel what the other pilot is trying to do. And one can
override
> the other by pressing the button, at which point his joystick takes
control.
>
> When it launched its 777, it was Boeing that bragged about its pilots
being
> able to break the flight enveloppe by pulling really hard on the yoke, and
> that was marketed as a big advantage over Airbus cockpits where pilots
> couldn't break the limits.
>
> Pulling Gs isn't really the issue, it is preventing a stall. And that is
where
> the computer is far more accurate than a human and this is where engine
thrust
> does not follow immediatly a pilot's command (it takes time for engines to
> increase or reduce thrust). You can't start to climb as soon as you raise
> engine thrust is your speed is so low that you are borderline stall at
level flight.
>
> Had this been a Boeing plane, the pilot would have heard an alarm and felt
his
> yoke vibrate indicating he was about to stall the aircraft, and he then
could
> either have continued to try to climb and stall (falling down on trees),
or
> tried to level and pickup speed before climbing, giving the same result as
the Airbus.
>
> What is not known about that particular indcident is whether then then
current
> software of the A320 would have warned the pilot that his command to climb
> could not be executed due to stall conditions, or whether the pilot was
lost
> wondering why the plane didn't respond to his command to climb.
>
> The above would make a big difference if the pilot had not yet applied
more
> thrust to engines. The stall warning might have triggered an automatic
reflex
> by the human pilot to increase thrust. On the other hand, the pilot should
> have known that at current very slow airspeed, he could not climb out and
> would need to increase thrust.
>
Translation: Many potential "If's" without answers.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> nobody wrote:
>
> > No, this was a demo of its computer systems capabilities, they woudln't
have
> > shut it down.
>
> No. The pilot wanted to display his new toy low and slow to the public.
> To achieve this, he ignored even the most basic safety rules and basic
> airmanship.
>
> The fact that there is still so much myth with this case was caused by
> the French authorities, who handled the accident as a state affair,
> because it concerned Airbus. France and Airbus at that time ... a story
> for itself. With this behaviour they prepared the ground for many rumors
> and deep misbelief in the eventual results of the investigation.
>
> > Secondly, the big red button isn't to ...
>
> Obviously you didn't understand me: I wasn't talking of any real button.
> I just pointed out that the computer system can be oversteered by the
> pilot at any time.
>
> Stefan
>
Wasn't there a criminal prosecution of the crew that was eventually droped
because it came out there was "Political Pressure" involved to place blame
on the crew instead of the gouvernment for allowing the A/C with guests to
be flown during an airshow demonstration combined with questionable computer
programing by Airbus.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"nobody" > wrote in message
...
> Morgans wrote:
> > Seems to me that Airbus is, if not criminally responsible, morally and
> > legally responsible.
>
> Then Boeing would also be guilty because the NTSB, very early in the
> investigation, found that Boeing planes were also liable to lose tailfin
upon
> misused of rudder during flight.
>
> Also early on, it had been revealed that AA stood out amongst all other
> airlines with regards to rudder usage while in flight (training issue).
If
> the rest of airlines told pilots not to use Rudder to such an extent, then
AA
> stands out.
>
> Airbus insists it has sent warnings about misused of rudder while in
flight.
> The question is whether a maufacturer (Airbus , Boeing etc) needs to
approve
> an airline's training programme for a specific plane. If so, the Airbus
could
> be held responsible for not forcing AA to change training to avoid misused
of
> Rudder. But if Airbus did not need to approve AA's training programme,
then
> why should it be held responsible ?
>
Seems to me if Airbus or any other manufacturer was aware AA was training
it's pilots to fly/operate its products in a manner it was not engineered to
be operated the manufacturer would be responsible for saying so "LOUD &
CLEAR" in a manner that could not be construed as ambiguous.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Ace Pilot]

(1aircraftQAguy) wrote in message >...
> Bertie the Bunyip <XZXZ@XZXZ.,XZXZX> wrote in message >...
> > Well Fjukwit?
> >
> > Berti e
>
> Okay,
>
> I'm sorry I spanked you on the A300 rudder limiter issue.

What a BURN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Stefan]

1aircraftQAguy wrote:

>> The A300 is FBW, an Airbus crash in Paris... so much for the educated
>> infos in this group.

> No, the A300 isn't FBW .........

It's a well known fact that readers will detect irony much more seldom
than writers like to use it.

Stefan

[Stefan]

Ralph Nesbitt wrote:

> Wasn't there a criminal prosecution of the crew that was eventually droped
....

I don't remember anymore. At some point it became difficult to tell
facts from rumour.

Stefan

[Dave]

Yeh...

Painting "OVER" their logo, and the big red letters "Air
Canada" stretching along the length of the fuse...

Like with a roller & house paint! (!)

Obvious and sickening...

Offical press... "It's not our aircraft anymore" (insurance
company owns it...

Yeah... right..

Dave


On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:54:57 GMT, devil > wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:53:13 +0000, Dave wrote:
>
>> Hence the "skidoo " story, - the track of the A/C was
>> continuous along the snow...
>>
>> Add to this some really bonehead PR work by Air Canada..
>>
>> Oh... thats another story... sorry...
>
>Painting their logo?
>
>Reminded me of a crash in Brazil where they did that too.

[Dave]

Sorry Sylvia,

My bad, I apologise, it was not my intent... I quoted the
article pattern incorrectly.

The actual author of the words was "nobody" (as near as I can
determine). My server is missing a couple of posts in this thread, but
I do not offer that as an excuse..

Sorry...

(Dave hangs head and is shuffling feet)

Please reply so I will know you have seen this....

Dave




On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 09:57:21 +1000, Sylvia Else
> wrote:

>Dave, please take a bit more care not to make it look as if I said
>something that someone else said.

[Dave]

OK...

So according to the TSB report, did the stall occour before
the 1st impact (on the rny and the nose gear failing) or before the
2nd impact after climbing again?

The Emergency crews indicated the next day, and it was still
visible) , the skidoo track was continuous from the rny to the
trees... although the engine thrust could have made the track as
well, it was not as well defined the following day, in daylight....

Although I can stand corrected, as my info is from the guys
on the response crew (known to me) the following day, I have not seen
the whole report...

(Fredericton is my home base airport)

Thanks!


Dave


On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 21:00:13 -0400, nobody > wrote:

>Dave wrote:
>> Coming out of a very low (legal) ceiling, the rny was not
>> directly under the a/c, and the crew tried to correct laterally and
>> doing so, the decent rate increased. They started the go around to
>> late, the AC slammed down on the rny hard, the nose gear ripping the
>> control functions as it rammed vertically up through the floor
>> above.
>
>The TSB report clearly stated that the pilots initiated a go around WITHOUT
>LANDING, with airspeed that would have required landing before speed was high
>enough to climb again. Upon starting to climb again, the skidoo did regain
>some altitude before stalling, after which it fell to the ground where its
>recessive skidoo genes became dominant again.
>
>One problem is that the flight director had not been programmed to handle such
>a situation, neither had Bombardier foreseen/simulated situations such as
>those. While the FO (PIC) was trying to climb according to normal climb rates
>provided by the flight director, the captain did not realise that the newbie
>co-pilot wasn't aware of the very low airspeed.
>
>
>

[Sylvia Else]

Dave wrote:

> Sorry Sylvia,
>
> My bad, I apologise, it was not my intent... I quoted the
> article pattern incorrectly.
>
> The actual author of the words was "nobody" (as near as I can
> determine). My server is missing a couple of posts in this thread, but
> I do not offer that as an excuse..
>
> Sorry...
>
> (Dave hangs head and is shuffling feet)

No worries.

I've done it myself too, to my shame.

Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

Ralph Nesbitt wrote:


> Wasn't there a criminal prosecution of the crew that was eventually droped
> because it came out there was "Political Pressure" involved to place blame
> on the crew instead of the gouvernment for allowing the A/C with guests to
> be flown during an airshow demonstration combined with questionable computer
> programing by Airbus.

Wouldn't surprise me. The French government does seem have a penchant
for bringing criminal prosecutions against people who've demonstrated
less than superhuman abilities in the face of system failures.

Sylvia.

[David CL Francis]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 at 00:57:07 in message
>, Aardvark
> wrote:

>Link to video of the A300 into trees
>http://www.aviationexplorer.com/movies/A300intoTREES.mpeg

The link title is wrong should be an A320!!!! A clear video though and
shown all over the world. I have seen it many times.
--
David CL Francis

[David CL Francis]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 at 10:08:56 in message
>, Stefan > wrote:

>The A300 is FBW, an Airbus crash in Paris... so much for the educated
>infos in this group.
>

Not an A 300, which is _not_ FBW but an A320 which _is_.

>The crash you mention occured at an airshow in Habsheim, near Mulhouse,
>which is more than 200 nm from Paris. And the crash wasn't caused by
>the FBW system, rather the opposite: The pilot had shut down the
>computers surveillance system, because the computer wouldn't have
>allowed him to fly his dangerous maneuvre!

The crew had only inhibited one function - the alpha floor limit which
automatically applies power at alpha floor. Everything else was working.
--
David CL Francis

[David CL Francis]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 at 18:12:20 in message
<TBCfd.18911$SW3.16862@fed1read01>, Jay Beckman >
wrote:

>Is that due to the crash at the Paris Airshow several years back?
>
Many people say Paris - it wasn't Paris it was Mulhouse, in the upper
Rhine Valley near the junction of the Swiss and German borders.

It was only a local air show and the aircraft was an almost new A320 (it
had been in service for 2 days). The Airport (if you could call it that)
has one main paved runway only 1000m long plus some grass strips for
gliders. Air France were invited to display an A320. It could not land
there.

Not only that but it was a charter flight with 130 passengers aboard -
how often does that happen at the Paris Air Show I wonder?

The crew were probably given an inadequate briefing on the airport. The
idea was to do a low slow pass in landing configuration at about 100ft.
(Often done in France although the air show regulations said 170 ft.)
They intended to reach the maximum allowable angle of attack in the low
pass. They meant they would inhibit the 'alpha floor' limit which would
automatically increase power at that point. The co-pilot was supposed to
control the power.

When they identified the airport they were close but they saw that the
crowd seemed to be along a grass strip and not along the chosen paved
runway 02. They realigned and at 100 ft deactivated the alpha floor
function. They sank to only 30 ft above the strip. They then suddenly
realised there were trees ahead at the same height or higher than the
aircraft. They then called for TO power but it was too late. Speed had
reduced to 122k and the engines now at flight idle responded as they
should. There was then nothing anyone or the aircraft could do. 4.5
seconds after power started increasing it began hitting the trees.

That is a very much abbreviated version but I believe substantially
correct.

>IIRC, the pilot commanded a flight attitude in the landing config that the
>software wouldn't allow and that led to the aircraft settling into the
>trees.

Sorry that is wrong. And it did not settle into the trees; it flew
horizontally into them at an altitude of 24 ft and then sank!

This accident is very often badly reported. Although the system would
not permit main flight restrictions to be exceeded the performance at
those low limits was as limited as any conventional aircraft would have
been. It could not climb at flight idle at 122 knots and 15 degrees nose
up. That is not a surprise.

This case is a bad example but often used.

Ref: Air Disaster Volume 3 by Macarthur Job. Roughly 13 pages
--
David CL Francis

[David CL Francis]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 at 15:59:23 in message
>, Sylvia Else
> wrote:
>The aircraft suffered severe damage, but landed OK. Unfortunately, I
>cannot remember the airline, aircraft type nor location, which makes it
>a bit hard to find.

You probably mean TWA Flight 841 on 4 April 1979. The was a Boeing
727-100 N840TW. It allegedly exceeded mach 1.0 briefly on the way down.

Is that enough for you to find it? Flight was planned JFK to
Minneapolis/St Paul. The landing was made at Detroit on Runway 03L after
one abortive go-around the pilot then approached at 205k where he could
maintain some control. When they attempted to tow the aircraft away the
right main gear started to separate; when they jacked it up to look at
it the right main gear fell off!

You could also mean China Airways Flight 006 from Taipei to Los Angeles
on the 18th February 1985. That was a Boeing 747SP.
--
David CL Francis

[David CL Francis]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 at 01:02:58 in message
>, nobody > wrote:

>The A300 crash is a perfect example of why FBW is a good thing. had there been
>FBW on that system, the pilot could have commanded the rudder to the max, and
>the computer would have ensured that it only moved as far as was safe,
>allowing pilot to concentrate on flying the aircraft instead of guessing what
>the limits would be in that flight regime.

Surely maximum deflection is not the issue? It is reversing from the
maximum one way to the other and perhaps back again that is the issue.
On the other hand maybe FBW may not have touched the rudder? Many
aircraft have had the maximum deflection automatically reduced after the
speed passes a certain point. Did the A300 have this? I think it did but
I am not sure of my recollection.
--
David CL Francis

[David CL Francis]

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 at 08:50:15 in message
>, Sylvia Else
> wrote:
>I'm amazed that the crew apparently thought it reasonable to resume
>normal operation after a descent like that. They should surely have
>realised that an immediate landing was indicated.

They didn't. Their destination was Los Angeles and they diverted to the
nearest they could which was San Francisco. The incident took place
nearly 300nm off shore when they were NW of San Francisco. Their route
would have taken them over San Francisco on the way to Los Angeles
(according to my globe anyway!)
--
David CL Francis

[Stefan]

David CL Francis wrote:

> That is a very much abbreviated version but I believe substantially
> correct.

My memory has blurred during all those years, but yes, now I rememberm,
this is exactly how it was found in the report. Thanks for refreshing my
memory.

Summary: You can fly any airplane into the trees if you deliberately
wish to do so.

Stefan

[John Mazor]

"Bertie the Bunyip" <XZXZ@XZXZ.,XZXZX> wrote in message
. 74.13...
> Well Fjukwit?

Godot will arrive with your pizza order before that happens.

[Pooh Bear]

JL Grasso wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 05:37:34 +0100, Pooh Bear
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >Jose wrote:
> >
> >> > An A320 full of passengers doing something it shouldn't have at an air show
> >>
> >> What was an A320 doing full of passengers at an airshow?
> >
> >Air France said it was OK.
>
> There was no DGAC rule forbidding it at the time, Mr. 'fjuckwit'.

Which is why Air France said it was OK no doubt.

I'm less certain that Air France's 'company minima' for a 100ft flyby conformed to
regs though.


Graham

[Sylvia Else]

David CL Francis wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 at 08:50:15 in message
> >, Sylvia Else
> > wrote:
>
>> I'm amazed that the crew apparently thought it reasonable to resume
>> normal operation after a descent like that. They should surely have
>> realised that an immediate landing was indicated.
>
>
> They didn't. Their destination was Los Angeles and they diverted to the
> nearest they could which was San Francisco. The incident took place
> nearly 300nm off shore when they were NW of San Francisco. Their route
> would have taken them over San Francisco on the way to Los Angeles
> (according to my globe anyway!)

Look at my response to Al on this. Yes, they landed at SF, but only
after they'd initially stated their intention to proceed to LA. Their
decision to divert to SF was due events subsequent to the recovery.

Sylvia.

[PS2727]

Pilots have been taught for years that maneuvering speed means that you can put
in full control and not overstress the airplane. Never have I read that there
were exceptions or qualifications to that definition, that is until now.
Funny thing about this, apparantly Airbus recommended that in a procedure to
lower the landing gear using the backup system they suggested yawing the
airplane back and forth to help latch the gear down. Unless there is a way to
do this without pushing the rudder back and forth doesn't this seem to invite a
Va problem? Where were the Va experts when this procedure was written?

[nobody]

Ralph Nesbitt wrote:
> programmed into the computer. The only "Computer" I know of that even comes
> close to dealing with UNK/UNK (unknown/unknown) has 1 mouth, 2 legs, 2 arms,
> 2 eyes, 2 ears, & when it gets into allows A/C tog get into situations that
> can't be recovered from is known to emphasize the impossibility of
> recovering from the situation with a emphatic"OH ****".

However, the flying skidoo accident at Fredericton was purely pilot induced.
It is in fact one perfect example of FBW's advantages.

Pilot's workload was too much for him to handle, and he didn't have the time
to monitor airspeed as well as climb angle at same time. Stalled the aircraft
as a result.

Had there been FBW, with the computer limiting climb rate until engines were
producing sufficient thrust, would the plane still have been able to climb
sufficiently to avoid trees ? Maybe, maybe not. But the odds would have been better.

[nobody]

Ralph Nesbitt wrote:
> Seems to me if Airbus or any other manufacturer was aware AA was training
> it's pilots to fly/operate its products in a manner it was not engineered to
> be operated the manufacturer would be responsible for saying so "LOUD &
> CLEAR" in a manner that could not be construed as ambiguous.


In principle, probably correct. But legally, wouldn't it be the FAA that would
be in charge of ensuring that AA's training adheres to both its own as well as
manufacturer's standards ?

Airbus says it sent letters of concern to AA. Perhaps it should have sent
those letters with a CC to the FAA and let the FAA ensure AA fixes the
problem. Not sure Airbus has any authority on ist customers, but FAA has
authority over US airlines.

[nobody]

Dave wrote:
> So according to the TSB report, did the stall occour before
> the 1st impact (on the rny and the nose gear failing) or before the
> 2nd impact after climbing again?

The aircraft did not touch gound before stall. The pilots decided to go around
prior to touching ground, but were already going too slow to start climbing
right away, but they started to climb right away and stalled. Once plane
touched ground, its energy dropped below sustainable flight. It may have
bounced during its snow excursion.Don't remainer that detail. But the TSB
specifically stated that the plane had begun to climb and gained a tiny bit of
altitude before stalling after which, that was it.

[Rich Ahrens]

nobody wrote:
> Ralph Nesbitt wrote:
>
>>Seems to me if Airbus or any other manufacturer was aware AA was training
>>it's pilots to fly/operate its products in a manner it was not engineered to
>>be operated the manufacturer would be responsible for saying so "LOUD &
>>CLEAR" in a manner that could not be construed as ambiguous.
>
> In principle, probably correct. But legally, wouldn't it be the FAA that would
> be in charge of ensuring that AA's training adheres to both its own as well as
> manufacturer's standards ?
>
> Airbus says it sent letters of concern to AA. Perhaps it should have sent
> those letters with a CC to the FAA and let the FAA ensure AA fixes the
> problem. Not sure Airbus has any authority on ist customers, but FAA has
> authority over US airlines.

In the time-honored tradition of Usenet, you two are essentially jerking
each other off speculating about this when you could very simply go read
the primary sources. The letter from Airbus and Boeing to American
Airlines, together with AA's chief pilot's rather arrogant response, are
both in the public record of the investigation and can be read right here:

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA587/exhibits/239998.pdf

Among other things, you'll see that the letter was signed not only by
representatives of both airlines but by an FAA employee, who also was
addressed in AA's reply. Clearly the FAA was aware of the training issues.

[Pooh Bear]

David CL Francis wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 at 18:12:20 in message
> <TBCfd.18911$SW3.16862@fed1read01>, Jay Beckman >
> wrote:
>
> >Is that due to the crash at the Paris Airshow several years back?
> >
> Many people say Paris - it wasn't Paris it was Mulhouse, in the upper
> Rhine Valley near the junction of the Swiss and German borders.
>
> It was only a local air show and the aircraft was an almost new A320 (it
> had been in service for 2 days). The Airport (if you could call it that)
> has one main paved runway only 1000m long plus some grass strips for
> gliders. Air France were invited to display an A320. It could not land
> there.
>
> Not only that but it was a charter flight with 130 passengers aboard -
> how often does that happen at the Paris Air Show I wonder?
>
> The crew were probably given an inadequate briefing on the airport.

Indeed they were.



> The
> idea was to do a low slow pass in landing configuration at about 100ft.
> (Often done in France although the air show regulations said 170 ft.)
> They intended to reach the maximum allowable angle of attack in the low
> pass. They meant they would inhibit the 'alpha floor' limit which would
> automatically increase power at that point. The co-pilot was supposed to
> control the power.
>
> When they identified the airport they were close but they saw that the
> crowd seemed to be along a grass strip and not along the chosen paved
> runway 02. They realigned and at 100 ft deactivated the alpha floor
> function. They sank to only 30 ft above the strip.

Nope - they were using the analogue readout barometric altimeter not the more
accurate digital readout radalt ( for reasons of being easier to read whilst
rapidly changing in this instance ).

During the take off phase the radalt and baro altimeter somehow got
'misaligned' by 70 odd feet.

Hence they thought they were flying at 100ft when it was actually 30 ft.


> They then suddenly
> realised there were trees ahead at the same height or higher than the
> aircraft. They then called for TO power but it was too late. Speed had
> reduced to 122k and the engines now at flight idle responded as they
> should. There was then nothing anyone or the aircraft could do. 4.5
> seconds after power started increasing it began hitting the trees.

Actually, increased power was called for as planned. They were indeed unaware
of the trees due to the poor briefing material.

Exactly how and why the engines responded as they did has been a matter of
considerable debate.

That version of the CFM 56 ? was subsequently altered and units in service
'upgraded' following a compressor stall incident on another early A320 at
Geneva ? IIRC.


> That is a very much abbreviated version but I believe substantially
> correct.
>
> >IIRC, the pilot commanded a flight attitude in the landing config that the
> >software wouldn't allow and that led to the aircraft settling into the
> >trees.
>
> Sorry that is wrong. And it did not settle into the trees; it flew
> horizontally into them at an altitude of 24 ft and then sank!
>
> This accident is very often badly reported. Although the system would
> not permit main flight restrictions to be exceeded the performance at
> those low limits was as limited as any conventional aircraft would have
> been. It could not climb at flight idle at 122 knots and 15 degrees nose
> up. That is not a surprise.

The response of the engines was a surprise to the pilots.


Graham

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"nobody" > wrote in message
...
> Sylvia Else wrote:
> > There have been incidents where airliners have been stressed well
> > beyound their design limits to recover from extreme upsets, and the
> > passengers and crew have survived to fly another day,
>
> "design limits" is the real keyword here. And it applies to bridges as
well as buildings.
>
> The empire state building was built with tons of extra strength into it
> because at the time, the knowledge of structural aspects of materials was
not
> very good. So you end up with a big fat heavy building that is very
strong.
> More recent buildings are built with much better knowledge of materials
and
> thus are built with more exact strength, much lighter materials and much
> thinner structure.
>
> Similarly, modern aircraft are built with much better knowledge of
material
> properties as well as aerodynamics. So the difference between the stated
> limits and the actual physical limits are far less than planes built in
the
> 1960s. So breaking the "limits" today may in fact be far more dangerous
than
> breaking the much less well known limits of the 1960s.
>
Johnson's flight demonstration of a early 707 being a prime example. Modern
day commercial A/C would never probably not survive, but if it did to the
scrap heap it would go.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"nobody" > wrote in message
...
> Ralph Nesbitt wrote:
> > Why the FACS failed to limit flight control inputs & why the rudder
limiter
> > failed to limit rudder travel in this incident are two questions that
have
> > not been addressed.
>
> First question: A300-600 is not FBW and there is no computer interpreting
> pilot commands.
>
> Second question: The rudder performed as commanded and did not exceed its
own
> travel limitations. Under normal circumstances, it would not have broken
the
> tail. However, it was a combination of rapid complete rudder movement with
> side slipping of aircraft which put way too much lateral force on the tail
fin
> which snapped off.
>
> You need a lot of rudder authority in flight if, for instance, you lose an
> engine and need to correct for asymetric thrust. But that doesn't give
you
> carte blanche to play with the rudder with full left to full right rapid
> movements while plane in side slipping and buffeted by turbulence.
>
The issue with the incident in question was the complete vertical stabilizer
breaking off, not just the rudder fin.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 03:47:24 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
> wrote:
>
> >Simply not true. Automobiles will not turn over on flat pavement unless
> >they hit something. It has been a law for decades.
>
> I've seen filmed demonstrations of cars flipping simply by turning.
> It was an expose on Jeeps. Seems dealerships were outfitting the
> CJ5's with oversize tires and sending them out into the world. People
> were flipping them doing what almost amounts to normal driving,
> without hitting anything or skidding.
>
> The team doing the expose outfitted one of these Jeeps with sidebars
> to prevent the vehical from completely rolling over, then did a series
> of J turns in a parking lot. At the terminex of each J turn, the Jeep
> dramatically lifted up and would have tipped over were it not for the
> sidebars.
>
> Yes, the Jeeps had a high center of gravity due to the oversize tires,
> and a narrow track. Otherwise it would have been much more difficult
> to get it to tip over. But it DID tip many times simply by turning
> sharply, and at a not so fast speed.
>
> Most normal streetcars are built too low to the ground, and have tires
> that do not develop enough traction to flip simply by turning or
> spinning. They require the additional assistance of hitting a curb or
> boulder or dropping a tire into a small ditch while sideways.
>
> SUV's are more vulnerable than run of the mill street cars due to
> their higher center of gravity because they are "off road vehicals"
> and have extra clearance for off roading, although of course they are
> almost never actually used as such.
>
> Corky Scott
>
Since when did the average "Soccer Mom SUV" become an "Off Road Vehicle"?
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Pooh Bear]

Ralph Nesbitt wrote:

> The issue with the incident in question was the complete vertical stabilizer
> breaking off, not just the rudder fin.

The vert stab broke off on account of the forces created on it by the
multiple
reversals of rudder.

The link posted by Rich Ahrens
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA587/exhibits/239998.pdf

states unequivocally that structural failure can result from such
action. See
somewhere like page 3 of the text.


Graham


As has been said many times before - why was this not more widely
realised ? I
note that the message in the link above was sent to *management*. Nuff
said ?

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"nobody" > wrote in message
...
> Randy Hudson wrote:
> > It's the rarity of that phenomenon that made it newsworthy. Virtually
all
> > real-world rollover accidents involve the wheels being tripped by a curb
or
> > other obstruction.
>
>
> You've obviously not watched any good documentary on the subject. Police
car
> chases in Los Angeles almost always involve some spectacular roll over.
> British spies are almost always involved in some form of car chase which
> involves some roll over. Heck, in a recent documentary about british
spies,
> the spy was in a fancy sports car (aston martin if I recall correctly) on
> smooth ICE in iceland and the car flipped and slid for a while on its
roof,
> until the spy pressed the "eject passenger seat" button which causes the
case
> to bounce back into right side up condition, showing just how easy it is
for a
> car to flip.
>
> It is possible that there might be something special about gravity in the
Los
> Angeles area that makes it much easier for cars to flip over. I haven't
> personally witnessed any such accidents where I live (except in
documentaries
> at the he movie theatre or TV).
>
No doubt you have purchased an option of some future "Ocean Front Property"
from AC to park your "Flying Donkeys".
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"JL Grasso" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 21:00:03 -0400, nobody > wrote:
>
> >Ralph Nesbitt wrote:
> >> Seems to me if Airbus or any other manufacturer was aware AA was
training
> >> it's pilots to fly/operate its products in a manner it was not
engineered to
> >> be operated the manufacturer would be responsible for saying so "LOUD &
> >> CLEAR" in a manner that could not be construed as ambiguous.
> >
> >
> >In principle, probably correct. But legally, wouldn't it be the FAA that
would
> >be in charge of ensuring that AA's training adheres to both its own as
well as
> >manufacturer's standards ?
> >
> >Airbus says it sent letters of concern to AA. Perhaps it should have sent
> >those letters with a CC to the FAA and let the FAA ensure AA fixes the
> >problem. Not sure Airbus has any authority on ist customers, but FAA has
> >authority over US airlines.
>
> All Airbus would have had to do was to put the statement/information in
> the AFM, AOM, QRH, ops bulletins, etc for it to be mandated. Sending
> letters to cheif pilots, cas mgrs, training departments, etc doesn't mean
> much, although it would probably be compelling evidence to a court.
>
> The FAA also has some authority(leverage) over manufacturers of
> US-registered aircraft, and they frown on "training by memo". Generally
> speaking, if it's worth writing in a letter, it needs to be in the
> appropriate ops or maintenance manual. One exception would be a case where
> urgency dictated the need for immediate notification, followed by a manual
> revision asap.
>
> Jerry
>
Well said. If it isn't in the proper/appropriate Manuel it is nothing more
than a matter of opinions. Re: Opinions. They are like anus's, they all have
an odor of some kind.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
> Sorry Sylvia,
>
> My bad, I apologise, it was not my intent... I quoted the
> article pattern incorrectly.
>
> The actual author of the words was "nobody" (as near as I can
> determine). My server is missing a couple of posts in this thread, but
> I do not offer that as an excuse..
>
> Sorry...
>
> (Dave hangs head and is shuffling feet)
>
> Please reply so I will know you have seen this....
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 09:57:21 +1000, Sylvia Else
> > wrote:
>
> >Dave, please take a bit more care not to make it look as if I said
> >something that someone else said.
>
Following the normally accepted practice of bottom posting will limit the
chances of such confusion.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Stefan]

Pooh Bear wrote:

....
> Hence they thought they were flying at 100ft when it was actually 30 ft.
....
> They were indeed unaware
> of the trees due to the poor briefing material.
....

Being a hard core "look out the window and fly by horizon and feel"
pilot, I have some difficulties to understand this. I'm aware that you
can't fly an airliner by merely looking out the window, but still....

Besides, the briefing material itself wasn't poor. The VAC clearly shows
the forest:

http://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/aip/enligne/METROPOLE/AIP/VAC/M/VAC%20AD%202.LFGB.pdf

The "problem" was that the pilot expected to do his show-off over the
runway 20, which has no trees at the far end. When he recognized that
the public was lined up along the glider strip 16, he changed his plans
accordingly and overlooked that this runway was significantly shorter
(i.e. 765 instead of 1120 ft) and there was forest at both ends of the
strip. Which, as I said, I don't understand.

Stefan

[Stefan]

Stefan wrote:

> accordingly and overlooked that this runway was significantly shorter
> (i.e. 765 instead of 1120 ft) and there was forest at both ends of the

Ooops, this should be meters, of course!

Stefan

[Pooh Bear]

Stefan wrote:

> Pooh Bear wrote:
> ...
> > Hence they thought they were flying at 100ft when it was actually 30 ft.
> ...
> > They were indeed unaware
> > of the trees due to the poor briefing material.
> ...
>
> Being a hard core "look out the window and fly by horizon and feel"
> pilot, I have some difficulties to understand this. I'm aware that you
> can't fly an airliner by merely looking out the window, but still....
>

I hear what you're saying here. It was claimed by the flight crew that since they were used to
flying in and out of large airports, the visual references of a small airfield gave them a false
impression.

>
> Besides, the briefing material itself wasn't poor. The VAC clearly shows
> the forest:
>
> http://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/aip/enligne/METROPOLE/AIP/VAC/M/VAC%20AD%202.LFGB.pdf

I hear that they received only a faxed ( hence black and white ) copy of the relevant map.


> The "problem" was that the pilot expected to do his show-off over the
> runway 20, which has no trees at the far end. When he recognized that
> the public was lined up along the glider strip 16, he changed his plans
> accordingly and overlooked that this runway was significantly shorter
> (i.e. 765 instead of 1120 ft) and there was forest at both ends of the
> strip.

That too. There is literally one factor after another that contributed to this accident.


> Which, as I said, I don't understand.

Sorry, which bit don't you understand ? Overlooking the shorter runway length ?


Graham

[Corky Scott]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 04:19:36 GMT, "Ralph Nesbitt"
> wrote:

>Since when did the average "Soccer Mom SUV" become an "Off Road Vehicle"?
>Ralph Nesbitt
>Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

Since they were first introduced back in the 70's. It's the loophole
that allows them to qualify as "light trucks" instead of normal
vehicals which means they do not have to conform to the exhaust
emissions regulations all normal cars are held to.

Since they *MUST* have four wheel drive in order to keep their light
truck status, commercials continually hype the usefulness of their
off-road capability, despite the fact that many of them are sold in
states where no snow or ice normally falls.

Since they are literally (perhaps this has changed recently) built on
truck chassis, people who buy them because they think they are safer
than ordinary cars are mistaken. They, at least until recently, did
not have the crash engineering designed into them that ordinary cars
had. Also, SUV's, because of their higher than normal weight and
higher than normal height, end up being more prone to loss of control
in marginal traction conditions than ordinary automobiles. Or at
least, that is what some experts have attempted to point out for
years.

Oh yes, almost forgot, SUV's due to their "light truck" status, do not
have to conform to the fuel economy regulations regular cars must
adhere to either. As a result they are collectively known as gas
gusslers and are targeted by green activists for "tickets" against the
environment and some occasional vandalism.

The light truck loophole was created originally to give hard working
farmers a break.

Corky Scott

[Allen]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 04:19:36 GMT, "Ralph Nesbitt"
> > wrote:
>
> >Since when did the average "Soccer Mom SUV" become an "Off Road Vehicle"?
> >Ralph Nesbitt
> >Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
>
> Since they were first introduced back in the 70's. It's the loophole
> that allows them to qualify as "light trucks" instead of normal
> vehicals which means they do not have to conform to the exhaust
> emissions regulations all normal cars are held to.
>
> Since they *MUST* have four wheel drive in order to keep their light
> truck status, commercials continually hype the usefulness of their
> off-road capability, despite the fact that many of them are sold in
> states where no snow or ice normally falls.

This is simply wrong! If you do a check the majority of "SUV" type vehicles
are not four wheel drive, although SOME of them are available as four wheel
drive.

Allen.

[Stefan]

Pooh Bear wrote:

> I hear what you're saying here. It was claimed by the flight crew that since they were used to
> flying in and out of large airports, the visual references of a small airfield gave them a false
> impression.

I must admit that this makes some sense.

> Sorry, which bit don't you understand ? Overlooking the shorter runway length ?

No, the forest, of course. I think a pilot should be able to recognize a
forest when seeing it, even if it should happen not to be on the VAC...
Can't remember why I even mentioned runway length.

Stefan

[Chris W]

Corky Scott wrote:

>Since they *MUST* have four wheel drive in order to keep their light
>truck status, commercials continually hype the usefulness of their
>off-road capability, despite the fact that many of them are sold in
>states where no snow or ice normally falls.
>
>
>
Do you seriously think that snow and ice are the only reason to have
4WD? You need to get out of the city more. On steep mountain roads a
little rain can make 4WD helpful. Drive down a dirt road after some bad
rain often enough and you will wish eventually wish you had 4WD

--
Chris W

Not getting the gifts you want? The Wish Zone can help.
http://thewishzone.com

"They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania

[running with scissors]

devil > wrote in message >...
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:03:21 -0700, running with scissors wrote:
>
> > Jose > wrote in message >...
> >> > An A320 full of passengers doing something it shouldn't have at an air show
> >>
> >> What was an A320 doing full of passengers at an airshow?
> >>
> >> Jose
> >
> > al flyby.
> >
> > Paris / Air France.
>
> No such a thing in Paris.

****

[running with scissors]

"khobar" > wrote in message news:<E00gd.82589$kz3.38453@fed1read02>...
> "running with scissors" > wrote in
> message om...
> > Jose > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > An A320 full of passengers doing something it shouldn't have at an air
> show
> > >
> > > What was an A320 doing full of passengers at an airshow?
> > >
> > > Jose
> >
> > al flyby.
> >
> > Paris / Air France.
>
> Is Paris a continent too? Or are you just being stupid for fun?
>
> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Paul Nixon


the question posed was "What was an A320 doing full of passengers at
an airshow?"

the response "a flyby. paris / air france"

if you cant work out that an air france a320 with pax on board was
doing a fly-by at an airshow in paris, from that you should stop
wasting oxygen and ****ing kill yourself. where do i state paris
being a continent? or even france being a continent.

jesus! nixon i retract anything i have referred to you as before.
congratulations. you earn yourself the title as the new ADA resident
"Stupid ****"

you ****ing ignorant prick.

[running with scissors]

devil > wrote in message >...
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:03:21 -0700, running with scissors wrote:
>
> > Jose > wrote in message >...
> >> > An A320 full of passengers doing something it shouldn't have at an air show
> >>
> >> What was an A320 doing full of passengers at an airshow?
> >>
> >> Jose
> >
> > al flyby.
> >
> > Paris / Air France.
>
> No such a thing in Paris.

yeah? look up paris airshow 1988. an airfrance 320 undertook a flyby
which didnt go according to plan.

prick

[running with scissors]

Stefan > wrote in message >...
> running with scissors wrote:
>
> >>What was an A320 doing full of passengers at an airshow?
>
> Those weren't just "passengers". They were invited guests. In those days
> a common practice in France (and elsewhere). After that accident, no
> more flying guests at an airshow.
>
> Stefan


whatever. if they were not on duty flight crew or cabin crew, and
have a pulse, they are passengers.

[running with scissors]

Stefan > wrote in message >...
> running with scissors wrote:
>
> >>What was an A320 doing full of passengers at an airshow?
>
> Those weren't just "passengers". They were invited guests. In those days
> a common practice in France (and elsewhere). After that accident, no
> more flying guests at an airshow.
>
> Stefan

oh and by the way stefan... next time you snip, get the right ****ing
quote to the poster.

idiot.

[running with scissors]

"Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message >...
> "nobody" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Dave wrote:
> > > Coming out of a very low (legal) ceiling, the rny was not
> > > directly under the a/c, and the crew tried to correct laterally and
> > > doing so, the decent rate increased. They started the go around to
> > > late, the AC slammed down on the rny hard, the nose gear ripping the
> > > control functions as it rammed vertically up through the floor
> > > above.
> >
> > The TSB report clearly stated that the pilots initiated a go around
> WITHOUT
> > LANDING, with airspeed that would have required landing before speed was
> high
> > enough to climb again. Upon starting to climb again, the skidoo did regain
> > some altitude before stalling, after which it fell to the ground where its
> > recessive skidoo genes became dominant again.
> >
> > One problem is that the flight director had not been programmed to handle
> such
> > a situation, neither had Bombardier foreseen/simulated situations such as
> > those. While the FO (PIC) was trying to climb according to normal climb
> rates
> > provided by the flight director, the captain did not realise that the
> newbie
> > co-pilot wasn't aware of the very low airspeed.
> >
> FBY is a great concept, but in practice not every conceivable situation/set
> of circumstances, with all potential variables/responses can be foreseen &
> programmed into the computer. The only "Computer" I know of that even comes
> close to dealing with UNK/UNK (unknown/unknown) has 1 mouth, 2 legs, 2 arms,
> 2 eyes, 2 ears, & when it gets into allows A/C tog get into situations that
> can't be recovered from is known to emphasize the impossibility of
> recovering from the situation with a emphatic"OH ****".
> Ralph Nesbitt
> Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type


except paul nixon of course

[Stefan]

running with scissors wrote:

> oh and by the way stefan... next time you snip, get the right ****ing
> quote to the poster.

I get what? I'm afraid I don't understand your language level.

Stefan

[running with scissors]

Stefan > wrote in message >...
> nobody wrote:
>
> > No, this was a demo of its computer systems capabilities, they woudln't have
> > shut it down.
>
> No. The pilot wanted to display his new toy low and slow to the public.
> To achieve this, he ignored even the most basic safety rules and basic
> airmanship.
>
> The fact that there is still so much myth with this case was caused by
> the French authorities, who handled the accident as a state affair,
> because it concerned Airbus. France and Airbus at that time ... a story
> for itself. With this behaviour they prepared the ground for many rumors
> and deep misbelief in the eventual results of the investigation.
>
> > Secondly, the big red button isn't to ...
>
> Obviously you didn't understand me: I wasn't talking of any real button.
> I just pointed out that the computer system can be oversteered by the
> pilot at any time.
>
> Stefan


stefan you are full of ****ing ****, a liar and a ****ing idiot who is
making false claims concerning an incident you clearly know **** all
about.

1. it wasnt a demo of its fly by wire capabilities. quite the ****ing
reverse it located a flaw in the FADEC.

2. The fly-by was a management decision. was instructed by dispatch.
the pilot was chief pilot for AF.

3. the pilot didnt own the plane, why would he be showing off his new
toy ?

4. the flyby was approved by the aviation authority and not to my
knowledge broke any regulations of airshow display procedures current
for the time.

5. how did he ignore basic safety laws and airmanship?

6. the incident occured due to FADEC issue.

6. no myth, its all known and public knowledge. the FDR was switched
after the accident (finding by Lausanne Institute of Police Forensic
Evidence and Criminology)

7. french law meant the pilot was charged as he was.

8. commercial considerations led to the presentation of pilot error.
computers are never wrong ?

9. the pilot was sentanced to 18 months involentry manslaughter in 97
of which 12 months was suspended.

10 "the computer system can be oversteered by the pilot at any time" ?
enough said.

stefan you are clueless, shut the **** up making statements you
clearly know nothing about.

[running with scissors]

Dave > wrote in message >...
> Yeh...
>
> Painting "OVER" their logo, and the big red letters "Air
> Canada" stretching along the length of the fuse...
>
> Like with a roller & house paint! (!)
>

yep aircraft are ofen painted by roller.

[running with scissors]

Sylvia Else > wrote in message >...
> Ralph Nesbitt wrote:
>
>
> > Wasn't there a criminal prosecution of the crew that was eventually droped
> > because it came out there was "Political Pressure" involved to place blame
> > on the crew instead of the gouvernment for allowing the A/C with guests to
> > be flown during an airshow demonstration combined with questionable computer
> > programing by Airbus.
>
> Wouldn't surprise me. The French government does seem have a penchant
> for bringing criminal prosecutions against people who've demonstrated
> less than superhuman abilities in the face of system failures.
>
> Sylvia.

it depends on the situation the have two police forces, both
differently funded neither like each other. judges can play a
different role in the french legal system.

[running with scissors]

>
> >The A300 is FBW, an Airbus crash in Paris... so much for the educated
> >infos in this group.
> >


mm yes, so it would seem.

idiot.

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 04:19:36 GMT, "Ralph Nesbitt"
> > wrote:
>
> >Since when did the average "Soccer Mom SUV" become an "Off Road Vehicle"?
> >Ralph Nesbitt
> >Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
>
> Since they were first introduced back in the 70's. It's the loophole
> that allows them to qualify as "light trucks" instead of normal
> vehicals which means they do not have to conform to the exhaust
> emissions regulations all normal cars are held to.
>
> Since they *MUST* have four wheel drive in order to keep their light
> truck status, commercials continually hype the usefulness of their
> off-road capability, despite the fact that many of them are sold in
> states where no snow or ice normally falls.
>
Where is the reg stateing this? SUV's are the favorites of those that need a
vehicle capable of seating as many as 9, or seating for as many as 6 with
room for their luggage.
>
> Since they are literally (perhaps this has changed recently) built on
> truck chassis, people who buy them because they think they are safer
> than ordinary cars are mistaken. They, at least until recently, did
> not have the crash engineering designed into them that ordinary cars
> had. Also, SUV's, because of their higher than normal weight and
> higher than normal height, end up being more prone to loss of control
> in marginal traction conditions than ordinary automobiles. Or at
> least, that is what some experts have attempted to point out for
> years.
>
Built on a light truck chasis yes, The rest is a bit to much fertilizer
IMHO.
>
> Oh yes, almost forgot, SUV's due to their "light truck" status, do not
> have to conform to the fuel economy regulations regular cars must
> adhere to either. As a result they are collectively known as gas
> gusslers and are targeted by green activists for "tickets" against the
> environment and some occasional vandalism.
>
Agree on the fuel economy regs. Gas guzzlers, no more than any other vehicle
in their towing class. Don't know any "Green Activists"
>
> The light truck loophole was created originally to give hard working
> farmers a break.
>
SUV's were originally designed as light closed vehicles for small buisnesses
such as florists, plumbers, carpenters, electricians, etc that were dressed
up/decked out & marketed to families needing a vehicle larger than a sedan.
> Corky Scott
>
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[running with scissors]

Stefan > wrote in message >...
> David CL Francis wrote:
>
> > That is a very much abbreviated version but I believe substantially
> > correct.
>
> My memory has blurred during all those years, but yes, now I rememberm,
> this is exactly how it was found in the report. Thanks for refreshing my
> memory.
>
> Summary: You can fly any airplane into the trees if you deliberately
> wish to do so.
>
> Stefan


no stefan you memory has been blurred by years of alchohol or drug
abuse.

Quote.
Summary: You can fly any airplane into the trees if you deliberately
wish to do so.
Endquote

so you are saying that Michael Asseline deliberately flew the airbus
into the trees ? and every other PIC/SIC of CFIT incidents ?

****ing moronic ****. **** off and die you waste of space.

[Scott M. Kozel]

"Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote:
>
> "Corky Scott" > wrote:
>
> > The light truck loophole was created originally to give hard working
> > farmers a break.
>
> SUV's were originally designed as light closed vehicles for small buisnesses
> such as florists, plumbers, carpenters, electricians, etc that were dressed
> up/decked out & marketed to families needing a vehicle larger than a sedan.

That is true. I first saw Chevrolet Blazers on highway construction
projects in the mid-1970s, and that was one of the first SUV-like
vehicles, a light truck closed vehicle with 4-wheel drive.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

[devil]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 15:01:17 -0700, running with scissors wrote:

> devil > wrote in message >...
>> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:03:21 -0700, running with scissors wrote:
>>
>> > Jose > wrote in message >...
>> >> > An A320 full of passengers doing something it shouldn't have at an air show
>> >>
>> >> What was an A320 doing full of passengers at an airshow?
>> >>
>> >> Jose
>> >
>> > al flyby.
>> >
>> > Paris / Air France.
>>
>> No such a thing in Paris.
>
> yeah? look up paris airshow 1988. an airfrance 320 undertook a flyby
> which didnt go according to plan.
>
> prick

No such a thing in Paris. One large plane that crashed at an airshow *in
Paris* was a TU144.

[devil]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:52:43 -0700, running with scissors wrote:

> devil > wrote in message >...
>> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:03:21 -0700, running with scissors wrote:
>>
>> > Jose > wrote in message >...
>> >> > An A320 full of passengers doing something it shouldn't have at an air show
>> >>
>> >> What was an A320 doing full of passengers at an airshow?
>> >>
>> >> Jose
>> >
>> > al flyby.
>> >
>> > Paris / Air France.
>>
>> No such a thing in Paris.
>
> ****

No such a thing in Paris.

If you really insist in making a fool of yourself, be my guest.

[khobar]

"running with scissors" > wrote in
message om...
> "khobar" > wrote in message
news:<E00gd.82589$kz3.38453@fed1read02>...
> > "running with scissors" > wrote
in
> > message om...
> > > Jose > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > > An A320 full of passengers doing something it shouldn't have at an
air
> > show
> > > >
> > > > What was an A320 doing full of passengers at an airshow?
> > > >
> > > > Jose
> > >
> > > al flyby.
> > >
> > > Paris / Air France.
> >
> > Is Paris a continent too? Or are you just being stupid for fun?
> >
> > Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > Paul Nixon
>
>
> the question posed was "What was an A320 doing full of passengers at
> an airshow?"
>
> the response "a flyby. paris / air france"
>
> if you cant work out that an air france a320 with pax on board was
> doing a fly-by at an airshow in paris, from that you should stop
> wasting oxygen and ****ing kill yourself. where do i state paris
> being a continent? or even france being a continent.
>
> jesus! nixon i retract anything i have referred to you as before.
> congratulations. you earn yourself the title as the new ADA resident
> "Stupid ****"
>
> you ****ing ignorant prick.

Stupid prick - the aircraft wasn't doing a flyby in Paris.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

Paul Nixon

[Newps]

Scott M. Kozel wrote:

>
> That is true. I first saw Chevrolet Blazers on highway construction
> projects in the mid-1970s, and that was one of the first SUV-like
> vehicles, a light truck closed vehicle with 4-wheel drive.
>

SUV's go a lot farther back than that. The Chevy Apache was the
precursor to the Suburban and may have been made in the 50's. The 60's
for sure. I owned a 77 IH Scout when I was in college and IH had been
making them for a while.

[John Mazor]

"running with scissors" > wrote in
message om...
> Dave > wrote in message
>...
> > Yeh...
> >
> > Painting "OVER" their logo, and the big red letters "Air
> > Canada" stretching along the length of the fuse...
> >
> > Like with a roller & house paint! (!)
>
> yep aircraft are ofen painted by roller.

Unfortunately, they also have the paint scraped with sharp-edged implements
despite cautions not to use them. There was a story this week about how
minute score lines are propagating into cracks, with potentially disastrous
results.

[Don Tuite]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:41:16 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>
>>
>> That is true. I first saw Chevrolet Blazers on highway construction
>> projects in the mid-1970s, and that was one of the first SUV-like
>> vehicles, a light truck closed vehicle with 4-wheel drive.
>>
>
>SUV's go a lot farther back than that. The Chevy Apache was the
>precursor to the Suburban and may have been made in the 50's. The 60's
>for sure. I owned a 77 IH Scout when I was in college and IH had been
>making them for a while.

I used to have a '50 Chevy crummy -- a panel truck with side windows
and seats. Crummys were originally used for hauling loggers around
the NW woods. Actually, I understand that the term crummy originally
meant the narrowgauge railroad cars that hauled loggers. Mine was
the basic panel truck of the day, with the in-line "bluefire" six. It
got about the same mileage as today's SUVs. I don't know about
rolling over relative to modern SUVs. I lost the right front wheel on
a '52 Chevy pickup one time at 40 mph on a high-crown two-lane
blacktop and it stayed upright. I had to get a new brake drum from
the junkyard, though.

Don

[Nik]

"running with scissors" > wrote in
message om...
> Stefan > wrote in message
> >...
>> David CL Francis wrote:
>>
>> > That is a very much abbreviated version but I believe substantially
>> > correct.
>>
>> My memory has blurred during all those years, but yes, now I rememberm,
>> this is exactly how it was found in the report. Thanks for refreshing my
>> memory.
>>
>> Summary: You can fly any airplane into the trees if you deliberately
>> wish to do so.
>>
>> Stefan
>
>
> no stefan you memory has been blurred by years of alchohol or drug
> abuse.
>
> Quote.
> Summary: You can fly any airplane into the trees if you deliberately
> wish to do so.
> Endquote
>
> so you are saying that Michael Asseline deliberately flew the airbus
> into the trees ? and every other PIC/SIC of CFIT incidents ?
>
> ****ing moronic ****. **** off and die you waste of space.

Suggestion: Go back to your school and ask then to give you back the tuition
fees you paid them as the education you got there didn't do you much good.
They did not even manage to teach you how to read.

****ing moronic idiot - how perfectly this description fits yourself.

Nik

[Pooh Bear]

Stefan wrote:

> Pooh Bear wrote:
>
> > I hear what you're saying here. It was claimed by the flight crew that since they were used to
> > flying in and out of large airports, the visual references of a small airfield gave them a false
> > impression.
>
> I must admit that this makes some sense.
>
> > Sorry, which bit don't you understand ? Overlooking the shorter runway length ?
>
> No, the forest, of course. I think a pilot should be able to recognize a
> forest when seeing it, even if it should happen not to be on the VAC...
> Can't remember why I even mentioned runway length.

Pre-occupation with the current task might be the reason ? Think about the Tristar that descended into
the Everglades 'cos the flight crew were trying to see if they had a broken indicator lamp for
example.


Graham

[Pooh Bear]

Chris W wrote:

> Corky Scott wrote:
>
> >Since they *MUST* have four wheel drive in order to keep their light
> >truck status, commercials continually hype the usefulness of their
> >off-road capability, despite the fact that many of them are sold in
> >states where no snow or ice normally falls.>
>
> Do you seriously think that snow and ice are the only reason to have
> 4WD? You need to get out of the city more. On steep mountain roads a
> little rain can make 4WD helpful. Drive down a dirt road after some bad
> rain often enough and you will wish eventually wish you had 4WD

I think the point is - not may 4WDs of the SUV variety ever see a dirt road.



Graham

[Pooh Bear]

running with scissors wrote:

> "khobar" > wrote in message news:<E00gd.82589$kz3.38453@fed1read02>...
> > "running with scissors" > wrote in
> > message om...
> > > Jose > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > > An A320 full of passengers doing something it shouldn't have at an air
> > show
> > > >
> > > > What was an A320 doing full of passengers at an airshow?
> > > >
> > > > Jose
> > >
> > > al flyby.
> > >
> > > Paris / Air France.
> >
> > Is Paris a continent too? Or are you just being stupid for fun?
> >
> > Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > Paul Nixon
>
> the question posed was "What was an A320 doing full of passengers at
> an airshow?"
>
> the response "a flyby. paris / air france"

No the response is - "a flyby. Mulhouse-Habsheim / air france"


> if you cant work out that an air france a320 with pax on board was
> doing a fly-by at an airshow in paris,

Errr..... Mulhouse-Habsheim.



Graham

[Pooh Bear]

running with scissors wrote:

> devil > wrote in message >...
> > On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:03:21 -0700, running with scissors wrote:
> >
> > > Jose > wrote in message >...
> > >> > An A320 full of passengers doing something it shouldn't have at an air show
> > >>
> > >> What was an A320 doing full of passengers at an airshow?
> > >>
> > >> Jose
> > >
> > > al flyby.
> > >
> > > Paris / Air France.
> >
> > No such a thing in Paris.
>
> yeah? look up paris airshow 1988. an airfrance 320 undertook a flyby
> which didnt go according to plan.
>
> prick

Google gives one result http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~szewczyk/cs294-8/hw1.html which is factually incorrect.

Try this instead http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=mulhouse+a320&meta=

Graham

[Pooh Bear]

running with scissors wrote:

> Stefan > wrote in message >...
> > nobody wrote:
> >
> > > No, this was a demo of its computer systems capabilities, they woudln't have
> > > shut it down.
> >
> > No. The pilot wanted to display his new toy low and slow to the public.
> > To achieve this, he ignored even the most basic safety rules and basic
> > airmanship.
> >
> > The fact that there is still so much myth with this case was caused by
> > the French authorities, who handled the accident as a state affair,
> > because it concerned Airbus. France and Airbus at that time ... a story
> > for itself. With this behaviour they prepared the ground for many rumors
> > and deep misbelief in the eventual results of the investigation.
> >
> > > Secondly, the big red button isn't to ...
> >
> > Obviously you didn't understand me: I wasn't talking of any real button.
> > I just pointed out that the computer system can be oversteered by the
> > pilot at any time.
> >
> > Stefan
>
> stefan you are full of ****ing ****, a liar and a ****ing idiot who is
> making false claims concerning an incident you clearly know **** all
> about.
>
> 1. it wasnt a demo of its fly by wire capabilities. quite the ****ing
> reverse it located a flaw in the FADEC.

Hadn't heard that one.

Care to elaborate ?


> 2. The fly-by was a management decision. was instructed by dispatch.
> the pilot was chief pilot for AF.
>
> 3. the pilot didnt own the plane, why would he be showing off his new
> toy ?

I think he wanted to emulate the similar tricks he'd seen performed by Airbus Industrie
pilots.


> 4. the flyby was approved by the aviation authority and not to my
> knowledge broke any regulations of airshow display procedures current
> for the time.
>
> 5. how did he ignore basic safety laws and airmanship?
>
> 6. the incident occured due to FADEC issue.

Interested again. I thought it was the poor response of the compressor ( the subject of a
subsequent design change and mod to engines of that design in service ).


> 6.

7. surely ? etc

> no myth, its all known and public knowledge. the FDR was switched
> after the accident (finding by Lausanne Institute of Police Forensic
> Evidence and Criminology)

After the trial of course !

UK Channel 4 TV ran 2 documentaries on the subject of this accident. I recall a video of
the recorders being recovered. The ones presented at the trial actually looked different (
less beaten-up ) ! There was a 'mystery missing 4 seconds' in the data after the DGAC had
made of with the 'black boxes'. The BEA had to get a warrant to recover them. That's like
the FAA running off with the flight recorders ( opening them up and tinkering too ) and
refusing to hand them over to the NTSB until ordered.


Graham

[Pooh Bear]

running with scissors wrote:

> Stefan > wrote in message >...
> > David CL Francis wrote:
> >
> > > That is a very much abbreviated version but I believe substantially
> > > correct.
> >
> > My memory has blurred during all those years, but yes, now I rememberm,
> > this is exactly how it was found in the report. Thanks for refreshing my
> > memory.
> >
> > Summary: You can fly any airplane into the trees if you deliberately
> > wish to do so.
> >
> > Stefan
>
> no stefan you memory has been blurred by years of alchohol or drug
> abuse.
>
> Quote.
> Summary: You can fly any airplane into the trees if you deliberately
> wish to do so.
> Endquote
>
> so you are saying that Michael Asseline deliberately flew the airbus
> into the trees ? and every other PIC/SIC of CFIT incidents ?
>
> ****ing moronic ****. **** off and die you waste of space.

Michael Asseline even wrote a book to explain what he had experienced. I doubt a Capt with
a guilty conscience would write a book about his accident.

Graham

[Pooh Bear]

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

> "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote:
> >
> > "Corky Scott" > wrote:
> >
> > > The light truck loophole was created originally to give hard working
> > > farmers a break.
> >
> > SUV's were originally designed as light closed vehicles for small buisnesses
> > such as florists, plumbers, carpenters, electricians, etc that were dressed
> > up/decked out & marketed to families needing a vehicle larger than a sedan.
>
> That is true. I first saw Chevrolet Blazers on highway construction
> projects in the mid-1970s, and that was one of the first SUV-like
> vehicles, a light truck closed vehicle with 4-wheel drive.

Over here, the range Rover was introduced in 1970. The current model is still
recognisably its successor due to its distinctive styling.

Smaller than a Blazer of course.


Graham

[devil]

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 04:18:58 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote:

>
>
> running with scissors wrote:
>
>> devil > wrote in message >...
>> > On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:03:21 -0700, running with scissors wrote:
>> >
>> > > Jose > wrote in message >...
>> > >> > An A320 full of passengers doing something it shouldn't have at an air show
>> > >>
>> > >> What was an A320 doing full of passengers at an airshow?
>> > >>
>> > >> Jose
>> > >
>> > > al flyby.
>> > >
>> > > Paris / Air France.
>> >
>> > No such a thing in Paris.
>>
>> yeah? look up paris airshow 1988. an airfrance 320 undertook a flyby
>> which didnt go according to plan.
>>
>> prick
>
> Google gives one result http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~szewczyk/cs294-8/hw1.html which is factually incorrect.

Fascinating. So there are more idiots caring so little about their own
credibility even to put that crap on their web page. And, to add insult
to injury, at my very own alma mater. Oh well.


> Try this instead http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=mulhouse+a320&meta=

did you really have to tell our friend? Wasn't it so much funnier when he
insisted in making sure he looked like a fool?

[running with scissors]

devil > wrote in message >...
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 15:01:17 -0700, running with scissors wrote:
>
> > devil > wrote in message >...
> >> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:03:21 -0700, running with scissors wrote:
> >>
> >> > Jose > wrote in message >...
> >> >> > An A320 full of passengers doing something it shouldn't have at an air show
> >> >>
> >> >> What was an A320 doing full of passengers at an airshow?
> >> >>
> >> >> Jose
> >> >
> >> > al flyby.
> >> >
> >> > Paris / Air France.
> >>
> >> No such a thing in Paris.
> >
> > yeah? look up paris airshow 1988. an airfrance 320 undertook a flyby
> > which didnt go according to plan.
> >
> > prick
>
> No such a thing in Paris. One large plane that crashed at an airshow *in
> Paris* was a TU144.

so i am imagining it then? how about michael asseline did he imagine it too ?

[running with scissors]

devil > wrote in message >...
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:52:43 -0700, running with scissors wrote:
>
> > devil > wrote in message >...
> >> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:03:21 -0700, running with scissors wrote:
> >>
> >> > Jose > wrote in message >...
> >> >> > An A320 full of passengers doing something it shouldn't have at an air show
> >> >>
> >> >> What was an A320 doing full of passengers at an airshow?
> >> >>
> >> >> Jose
> >> >
> >> > al flyby.
> >> >
> >> > Paris / Air France.
> >>
> >> No such a thing in Paris.
> >
> > ****
>
> No such a thing in Paris.
>
> If you really insist in making a fool of yourself, be my guest.

uh huh?
so F-GFCK didnt conduct a low approach at Habsheim fail to recover and
impact a wooded area at 2pm. hmmm was my imagination caught on video
too.?

****ing retard.

[Stefan]

Pooh Bear wrote:

> Michael Asseline even wrote a book to explain what he had experienced. I doubt a Capt with
> a guilty conscience would write a book about his accident.

Or he wrote it because he felt guilty. Or he didn't feel guilty while
actually he was, happens quite often, I am told. There are many reasons
to write a book, and then a book tells not always the truth.

Stefan

[Stefan]

running with scissors wrote:

>> No such a thing in Paris.

> uh huh?
> so F-GFCK didnt conduct a low approach at Habsheim

Habsheim is more than 200 nm away from Paris.

Stefan

[running with scissors]

"khobar" > wrote in message news:<spAgd.86549$kz3.55771@fed1read02>...
> "running with scissors" > wrote in
> message om...
> > "khobar" > wrote in message
> news:<E00gd.82589$kz3.38453@fed1read02>...
> > > "running with scissors" > wrote
> in
> > > message om...
> > > > Jose > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > > An A320 full of passengers doing something it shouldn't have at an
> air
> show
> > > > >
> > > > > What was an A320 doing full of passengers at an airshow?
> > > > >
> > > > > Jose
> > > >
> > > > al flyby.
> > > >
> > > > Paris / Air France.
> > >
> > > Is Paris a continent too? Or are you just being stupid for fun?
> > >
> > > Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > >
> > > Paul Nixon
> >
> >
> > the question posed was "What was an A320 doing full of passengers at
> > an airshow?"
> >
> > the response "a flyby. paris / air france"
> >
> > if you cant work out that an air france a320 with pax on board was
> > doing a fly-by at an airshow in paris, from that you should stop
> > wasting oxygen and ****ing kill yourself. where do i state paris
> > being a continent? or even france being a continent.
> >
> > jesus! nixon i retract anything i have referred to you as before.
> > congratulations. you earn yourself the title as the new ADA resident
> > "Stupid ****"
> >
> > you ****ing ignorant prick.
>
> Stupid prick - the aircraft wasn't doing a flyby in Paris.
>
> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!
>
> Paul Nixon

oh sorry for my snipping the circumstances an instead of stating that
air france didnt have capacity to PR the A320 at the paris airshow in
march of 88 they elected to perform the pr event at habsheim in june,
some 230 miles away as an attepmt to do an extension to the paris
industry event they missed as opposed to farnborough the next year or
paris 2 years later.

funny how according to you egypt isnt in africa and suddenly you get
all excited about 230 miles.

you really are a ****ing ****** nixon.

[running with scissors]

"John Mazor" > wrote in message >...
> "running with scissors" > wrote in
> message om...
> > Dave > wrote in message
> >...
> > > Yeh...
> > >
> > > Painting "OVER" their logo, and the big red letters "Air
> > > Canada" stretching along the length of the fuse...
> > >
> > > Like with a roller & house paint! (!)
> >
> > yep aircraft are ofen painted by roller.
>
> Unfortunately, they also have the paint scraped with sharp-edged implements
> despite cautions not to use them. There was a story this week about how
> minute score lines are propagating into cracks, with potentially disastrous
> results.

oh yes. there are AD's pertaining to.

[running with scissors]

"Nik" > wrote in message >...
> "running with scissors" > wrote in
> message om...
> > Stefan > wrote in message
> > >...
> >> David CL Francis wrote:
> >>
> >> > That is a very much abbreviated version but I believe substantially
> >> > correct.
> >>
> >> My memory has blurred during all those years, but yes, now I rememberm,
> >> this is exactly how it was found in the report. Thanks for refreshing my
> >> memory.
> >>
> >> Summary: You can fly any airplane into the trees if you deliberately
> >> wish to do so.
> >>
> >> Stefan
> >
> >
> > no stefan you memory has been blurred by years of alchohol or drug
> > abuse.
> >
> > Quote.
> > Summary: You can fly any airplane into the trees if you deliberately
> > wish to do so.
> > Endquote
> >
> > so you are saying that Michael Asseline deliberately flew the airbus
> > into the trees ? and every other PIC/SIC of CFIT incidents ?
> >
> > ****ing moronic ****. **** off and die you waste of space.
>
> Suggestion: Go back to your school and ask then to give you back the tuition
> fees you paid them as the education you got there didn't do you much good.
> They did not even manage to teach you how to read.
>
> ****ing moronic idiot - how perfectly this description fits yourself.
>
> Nik

quote
Stefan > wrote in message >...
> nobody wrote:
>
> > No, this was a demo of its computer systems capabilities, they woudln't have
> > shut it down.
>
> No. The pilot wanted to display his new toy low and slow to the public.
> To achieve this, he ignored even the most basic safety rules and basic
> airmanship.
>
> The fact that there is still so much myth with this case was caused by
> the French authorities, who handled the accident as a state affair,
> because it concerned Airbus. France and Airbus at that time ... a story
> for itself. With this behaviour they prepared the ground for many rumors
> and deep misbelief in the eventual results of the investigation.
>
> > Secondly, the big red button isn't to ...
>
> Obviously you didn't understand me: I wasn't talking of any real button.
> I just pointed out that the computer system can be oversteered by the
> pilot at any time.
>
> Stefan
Endquote

Quote
> My memory has blurred during all those years, but yes, now I rememberm,
> this is exactly how it was found in the report. Thanks for refreshing my
> memory.
>
> Summary: You can fly any airplane into the trees if you deliberately
> wish to do so.
>
> Stefan
Endquote


go ****yourself Nikky

[Bertie the Bunyip]

(Ace Pilot) wrote in message >...
> (1aircraftQAguy) wrote in message >...
> > Bertie the Bunyip <XZXZ@XZXZ.,XZXZX> wrote in message >...
> > > Well Fjukwit?
> > >
> > > Berti e
> >
> > Okay,
> >
> > I'm sorry I spanked you on the A300 rudder limiter issue.
>
> What a BURN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



I won't be able to sit down for weeeks.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

"John Mazor" > wrote in message >...
> "Bertie the Bunyip" <XZXZ@XZXZ.,XZXZX> wrote in message
> . 74.13...
> > Well Fjukwit?
>
> Godot will arrive with your pizza order before that happens.

Ah, but I know Godot well. bought him a pinta just last week.

Berti e

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Pooh Bear > wrote in message >...
> David CL Francis wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 at 18:12:20 in message
> > <TBCfd.18911$SW3.16862@fed1read01>, Jay Beckman >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Is that due to the crash at the Paris Airshow several years back?
> > >
> > Many people say Paris - it wasn't Paris it was Mulhouse, in the upper
> > Rhine Valley near the junction of the Swiss and German borders.
> >
> > It was only a local air show and the aircraft was an almost new A320 (it
> > had been in service for 2 days). The Airport (if you could call it that)
> > has one main paved runway only 1000m long plus some grass strips for
> > gliders. Air France were invited to display an A320. It could not land
> > there.
> >
> > Not only that but it was a charter flight with 130 passengers aboard -
> > how often does that happen at the Paris Air Show I wonder?
> >
> > The crew were probably given an inadequate briefing on the airport.
>
> Indeed they were.
>
>
>
> > The
> > idea was to do a low slow pass in landing configuration at about 100ft.
> > (Often done in France although the air show regulations said 170 ft.)
> > They intended to reach the maximum allowable angle of attack in the low
> > pass. They meant they would inhibit the 'alpha floor' limit which would
> > automatically increase power at that point. The co-pilot was supposed to
> > control the power.
> >
> > When they identified the airport they were close but they saw that the
> > crowd seemed to be along a grass strip and not along the chosen paved
> > runway 02. They realigned and at 100 ft deactivated the alpha floor
> > function. They sank to only 30 ft above the strip.
>
> Nope - they were using the analogue readout barometric altimeter not the more
> accurate digital readout radalt ( for reasons of being easier to read whilst
> rapidly changing in this instance ).
>
> During the take off phase the radalt and baro altimeter somehow got
> 'misaligned' by 70 odd feet.
>
> Hence they thought they were flying at 100ft when it was actually 30 ft.
>
>
> > They then suddenly
> > realised there were trees ahead at the same height or higher than the
> > aircraft. They then called for TO power but it was too late. Speed had
> > reduced to 122k and the engines now at flight idle responded as they
> > should. There was then nothing anyone or the aircraft could do. 4.5
> > seconds after power started increasing it began hitting the trees.
>
> Actually, increased power was called for as planned. They were indeed unaware
> of the trees due to the poor briefing material.
>
> Exactly how and why the engines responded as they did has been a matter of
> considerable debate.
>
> That version of the CFM 56 ? was subsequently altered and units in service
> 'upgraded' following a compressor stall incident on another early A320 at
> Geneva ? IIRC.
>
>
> > That is a very much abbreviated version but I believe substantially
> > correct.
> >
> > >IIRC, the pilot commanded a flight attitude in the landing config that the
> > >software wouldn't allow and that led to the aircraft settling into the
> > >trees.
> >
> > Sorry that is wrong. And it did not settle into the trees; it flew
> > horizontally into them at an altitude of 24 ft and then sank!
> >
> > This accident is very often badly reported. Although the system would
> > not permit main flight restrictions to be exceeded the performance at
> > those low limits was as limited as any conventional aircraft would have
> > been. It could not climb at flight idle at 122 knots and 15 degrees nose
> > up. That is not a surprise.
>
> The response of the engines was a surprise to the pilots.
>

What afjukwit.

Netkkkoping ******.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in message >...
> nobody wrote:
> > Ralph Nesbitt wrote:
> >
> >>Seems to me if Airbus or any other manufacturer was aware AA was training
> >>it's pilots to fly/operate its products in a manner it was not engineered to
> >>be operated the manufacturer would be responsible for saying so "LOUD &
> >>CLEAR" in a manner that could not be construed as ambiguous.
> >
> > In principle, probably correct. But legally, wouldn't it be the FAA that would
> > be in charge of ensuring that AA's training adheres to both its own as well as
> > manufacturer's standards ?
> >
> > Airbus says it sent letters of concern to AA. Perhaps it should have sent
> > those letters with a CC to the FAA and let the FAA ensure AA fixes the
> > problem. Not sure Airbus has any authority on ist customers, but FAA has
> > authority over US airlines.
>
> In the time-honored tradition of Usenet, you two are essentially jerking
> each other off speculating about this when you could very simply go read
> the primary sources. The letter from Airbus and Boeing to American
> Airlines, together with AA's chief pilot's rather arrogant response, are
> both in the public record of the investigation and can be read right here:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA587/exhibits/239998.pdf
>
> Among other things, you'll see that the letter was signed not only by
> representatives of both airlines but by an FAA employee, who also was
> addressed in AA's reply. Clearly the FAA was aware of the training issues.

spoilsport.

Oh wait, I was thinking that this might slow them down.

Carry on.

Bertie

[Ash Wyllie]

Newps opined

>Scott M. Kozel wrote:

>>
>> That is true. I first saw Chevrolet Blazers on highway construction
>> projects in the mid-1970s, and that was one of the first SUV-like
>> vehicles, a light truck closed vehicle with 4-wheel drive.
>>

>SUV's go a lot farther back than that. The Chevy Apache was the
>precursor to the Suburban and may have been made in the 50's. The 60's
>for sure. I owned a 77 IH Scout when I was in college and IH had been
>making them for a while.

Don't forget Dodge Power Wagons and Jeeps. Both go back a long way.

Actually you won't go far wrong if you think of SUVs as replacements for the
full sized station wagon of the 70s. The ones that CAFE made illegal.


-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

[John Mazor]

"running with scissors" > wrote in
message om...
> "John Mazor" > wrote in message
>...
> > "running with scissors" > wrote
in
> > message om...
> > > Dave > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > Yeh...
> > > >
> > > > Painting "OVER" their logo, and the big red letters "Air
> > > > Canada" stretching along the length of the fuse...
> > > >
> > > > Like with a roller & house paint! (!)
> > >
> > > yep aircraft are ofen painted by roller.
> >
> > Unfortunately, they also have the paint scraped with sharp-edged
implements
> > despite cautions not to use them. There was a story this week about how
> > minute score lines are propagating into cracks, with potentially
disastrous results.
>
> oh yes. there are AD's pertaining to.

Then the problem seems to be that the word doesn't get down to the chippers
(where have we heard that before?), who either prefer the efficiency of
sharp-edged implements or aren't provided proper tools and supervision by
their cheapskate overlords.

[John Mazor]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
om...
> "John Mazor" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Bertie the Bunyip" <XZXZ@XZXZ.,XZXZX> wrote in message
> > . 74.13...
> > > Well Fjukwit?
> >
> > Godot will arrive with your pizza order before that happens.
>
> Ah, but I know Godot well. bought him a pinta just last week.

You paid? Look, some people already are questioning whether you're a real
airline pilot.

[David CL Francis]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 at 04:07:47 in message
>, Pooh Bear
> wrote:
>Nope - they were using the analogue readout barometric altimeter not the more
>accurate digital readout radalt ( for reasons of being easier to read whilst
>rapidly changing in this instance ).
>
>During the take off phase the radalt and baro altimeter somehow got
>'misaligned' by 70 odd feet.
>
>Hence they thought they were flying at 100ft when it was actually 30 ft.
>
The report I quoted from clearly states:

"A fluctuation in the radio altimeter height was evident during this
manoeuvre, corresponding to the aircraft passing over a clump of trees
on the approach path. Before and after this fluctuation there was
perfect agreement between the readings of the radio altimeter and the
barometric altimeter."
>
>> They then suddenly
>> realised there were trees ahead at the same height or higher than the
>> aircraft. They then called for TO power but it was too late. Speed had
>> reduced to 122k and the engines now at flight idle responded as they
>> should. There was then nothing anyone or the aircraft could do. 4.5
>> seconds after power started increasing it began hitting the trees.
>
>Actually, increased power was called for as planned. They were indeed unaware
>of the trees due to the poor briefing material.
>
Here is an extract from the report I used as a basis. I think it answers
both of your points. The trees were not the same hazard on rny 02.

CAPT: There's the airfield! It's there ... you've got it, have you?
COPILOT [Selecting 125.25 on VHF and calling Habsheim Tower]: Habsheim,
hello - we're coming into view of the airfield for the flyover.

(HABSHEIM) TWR: Yes - I can see you. You're cleared - sky is clear.
CAPT: Gear down!
COPILOT [to Habsheim Tower as the captain reduces power to flight idle
and the Airbus continues its descent at about 600fpm]: OK - we're going
in for the low altitude flyover.
TWR: Roger.
CAPT: Flaps 2!
TWR: QNH Habsheim 1012. QFE 984.
CAPT: 984 - put in 984.
COPILOT: 984 - QFE selected!
CAPT: Flaps 3! - That's the airfield, you confirm?
COPILOT: Affirmative!
(With the airfield now clearly in view and the aircraft at a height of
only 450 feet, the captain saw from the alignment of the airshow crowd
that the axis of the flying display was not along Runway 02 as he had
expected, but along a grass airstrip aligned northwest. As the aircraft
neared the airfield therefore, he gently banked it to the right to
re-align its ground track accordingly.)
COPILOT: OK, you're at 100 feet - watch it!
At this stage, the crew deactivated the Alpha Floor function, to prevent
the computerised control system from automatically applying power as the
angle of attack increased.
COPILOT [18 seconds later with the aircraft now only 40 feet above the
grass airstrip and still sinking slowly]: Watch out for the pylons ahead
- see them?(')
CAPT [finally levelling off at about 30 feet above the strip]: Yes -
don't worry.
(But as the aircraft continued over the strip at this height in its
steep noseup attitude, the pilots suddenly realised that the trees in a
forested area beyond the northwestern boundary of the airfield were at
least as high as, if not higher than, the aircraft itself.)
COPILOT [with alarm]: TOGA power! Go around track!
(The crew rapidly applied power, but as the engines began to spool up in
response, and the aircraft passed beyond the airstrip, the hundreds of
spectators watching the extremely low fly past were horrified to see the
underside of the aircraft's tail begin striking the treetops. Slowly the
Air-bus sank from sight into the trees. Moments later, an orange
fireball, engulfed in a column of black oily smoke mushroomed swiftly
above the trees as the aircraft, unseen, exploded in flames.)"

>Exactly how and why the engines responded as they did has been a matter of
>considerable debate.
>
Debate yes, no doubt, but the analysis showed that the engines spooled
up as they should.

>That version of the CFM 56 ? was subsequently altered and units in service
>'upgraded' following a compressor stall incident on another early A320 at
>Geneva ? IIRC.

I have no information about that - I accept what you say.
--
David CL Francis

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
>
> That is true. I first saw Chevrolet Blazers on highway construction
> projects in the mid-1970s, and that was one of the first SUV-like
> vehicles, a light truck closed vehicle with 4-wheel drive.

The earliest one I know of is the Willys Overland wagon. Came out in 1946.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Jeff Hacker]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 04:19:36 GMT, "Ralph Nesbitt"
> > wrote:
>
>>Since when did the average "Soccer Mom SUV" become an "Off Road Vehicle"?
>>Ralph Nesbitt
>>Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
>
> Since they were first introduced back in the 70's. It's the loophole
> that allows them to qualify as "light trucks" instead of normal
> vehicals which means they do not have to conform to the exhaust
> emissions regulations all normal cars are held to.
>
> Since they *MUST* have four wheel drive in order to keep their light
> truck status, commercials continually hype the usefulness of their
> off-road capability, despite the fact that many of them are sold in
> states where no snow or ice normally falls.

A good percentage of SUV's do not have 4WD. You can verify this in many
parts of the country where 2WD is the norm on Explorers, Jeeps,
Trailblazers, and the like. There is no requirement of 4WD to qualify as a
truck.
>
> Since they are literally (perhaps this has changed recently) built on
> truck chassis, people who buy them because they think they are safer
> than ordinary cars are mistaken. They, at least until recently, did
> not have the crash engineering designed into them that ordinary cars
> had. Also, SUV's, because of their higher than normal weight and
> higher than normal height, end up being more prone to loss of control
> in marginal traction conditions than ordinary automobiles. Or at
> least, that is what some experts have attempted to point out for
> years.

As usual, inaccurate. Yes, SOME SUV's have a higher than car center of
gravity, but certainly lot all, or even a majority of them.
>
> Oh yes, almost forgot, SUV's due to their "light truck" status, do not
> have to conform to the fuel economy regulations regular cars must
> adhere to either. As a result they are collectively known as gas
> gusslers and are targeted by green activists for "tickets" against the
> environment and some occasional vandalism.

Trucks have different CAFE standards ("Corporate Averge Fuel Economy").
Some are gas guzzlers, and some are more economical. There are many SUV's
out there that have gas mileage equal to many cars (in the 20MPG range, for
overall average driving).

Some people have a need for a bigger vehicle for whatever reason. That is
there prerogative.
>
> The light truck loophole was created originally to give hard working
> farmers a break.
>
> Corky Scott
>
>

[Pooh Bear]

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

> "Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
> >
> > That is true. I first saw Chevrolet Blazers on highway construction
> > projects in the mid-1970s, and that was one of the first SUV-like
> > vehicles, a light truck closed vehicle with 4-wheel drive.
>
> The earliest one I know of is the Willys Overland wagon. Came out in 1946.

Hardly a *Sports* Utility Vehicle though ?


Graham

[Newps]

> "Corky Scott" > wrote in message
>
>>
>>Since they *MUST* have four wheel drive in order to keep their light
>>truck status,

No, they do not have to have 4WD. You can get Suburbans, Tahoes,
Expeditions, Excursions, Durangoes etc, in 2WD.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Pooh Bear > wrote in message >...
> Stefan wrote:
>
> > Pooh Bear wrote:
> >
> > > I hear what you're saying here. It was claimed by the flight crew that since they were used to
> > > flying in and out of large airports, the visual references of a small airfield gave them a false
> > > impression.
> >
> > I must admit that this makes some sense.
> >
> > > Sorry, which bit don't you understand ? Overlooking the shorter runway length ?
> >
> > No, the forest, of course. I think a pilot should be able to recognize a
> > forest when seeing it, even if it should happen not to be on the VAC...
> > Can't remember why I even mentioned runway length.
>
> Pre-occupation with the current task might be the reason ? Think about the Tristar that descended into
> the Everglades 'cos the flight crew were trying to see if they had a broken indicator lamp for
> example.

what's it to you, wannabe netkkoping ****?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Pooh Bear > wrote in message >...
> JL Grasso wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 05:37:34 +0100, Pooh Bear
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Jose wrote:
> > >
> > >> > An A320 full of passengers doing something it shouldn't have at an air show
> > >>
> > >> What was an A320 doing full of passengers at an airshow?
> > >
> > >Air France said it was OK.
> >
> > There was no DGAC rule forbidding it at the time, Mr. 'fjuckwit'.
>
> Which is why Air France said it was OK no doubt.
>
> I'm less certain that Air France's 'company minima' for a 100ft flyby conformed to
> regs though.
>

What regs, fjukwit?

Netkkoiping til the day you die, eh, asshole?

Bertie

[nobody]

Pooh Bear wrote:
> Hardly a *Sports* Utility Vehicle though ?

SUVs are sons of the minivans. The car manufacturers realised that minivans
had a certain image that prevented market penetration in the younger crowds.
So they rebadged the minivan into "SUV", making it look sportier and marketing
it as something cool that lets you do cool things.

There is little need for "SUV", it is all artifically induced demand though marketing.

You may recall the initial SUVs marketing themselves as accessive off road
vehicles that didn't need a ladder to climb into. This effectively made those
vehicles unusable off road and relinquished them as urban status symbols.

The biggest irony I have seen is the owner of a Subaru Outback being told his
car couldn't make it through an australian outback road because it wasn't a
car capable of traveling outback roads due to it lacking clearance under the
car. Yet, in the USA, that car was marketed exactly as that, making it look
like buyers of that car would automatically become as cool as crocodile dundee
and able to ride across australia's true outback roads.

4wd isn't all that is needed to make a TRUE off road vehicle. You want oil
based air filters, snorkel for carbutaror intake, high clearance, special
gearing, ability to block differential on all wheels etc.

Most of the "SUV" urban vehicles lack those features.

Toyota and Landrover make the real "outback" vehicles. I think Jeep makes
rugged vehicles too but they aren't exported much.

Hummer is a very good example of urban vehicles. They are used by the military
in offroad situations, but prior to their being marketed as a status symbol
for urban environments, they had not made any inroads in the "offroad"
civilian applications.

[Newps]

nobody wrote:
> Pooh Bear wrote:
>
>>Hardly a *Sports* Utility Vehicle though ?
>
>
> SUVs are sons of the minivans.

Neat trick considering minivans were invented in the 1980's and SUV's as
we know them today are mid 70's vehicles. I'd say the SUV is more the
offspring of the station wagon. Same amount of room, better gas
mileage and a little higher off the ground.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Pooh Bear wrote:
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" wrote:
>
> > The earliest one I know of is the Willys Overland wagon. Came out in 1946.
>
> Hardly a *Sports* Utility Vehicle though ?

Define "sports"? We used to have lots of fun in one of them. And they're a lot
smaller than many of the "SUVs" I see on the parkway around here.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Lady Pilot]

"John Mazor" > wrote in message
...
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> om...
>> "John Mazor" > wrote in message
> >...
>> > "Bertie the Bunyip" <XZXZ@XZXZ.,XZXZX> wrote in message
>> > . 74.13...
>> > > Well Fjukwit?
>> >
>> > Godot will arrive with your pizza order before that happens.
>>
>> Ah, but I know Godot well. bought him a pinta just last week.
>
> You paid? Look, some people already are questioning whether you're a real
> airline pilot.

It's the only way he can "get any" these days! ;-)

LP

[devil]

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 01:19:26 -0700, running with scissors wrote:

> devil > wrote in message >...
>> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 15:01:17 -0700, running with scissors wrote:
>>
>> > devil > wrote in message >...
>> >> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:03:21 -0700, running with scissors wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Jose > wrote in message >...
>> >> >> > An A320 full of passengers doing something it shouldn't have at an air show
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What was an A320 doing full of passengers at an airshow?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Jose
>> >> >
>> >> > al flyby.
>> >> >
>> >> > Paris / Air France.
>> >>
>> >> No such a thing in Paris.
>> >
>> > yeah? look up paris airshow 1988. an airfrance 320 undertook a flyby
>> > which didnt go according to plan.
>> >
>> > prick
>>
>> No such a thing in Paris. One large plane that crashed at an airshow *in
>> Paris* was a TU144.
>
> so i am imagining it then? how about michael asseline did he imagine it too ?

I would think at least he knew where he was.

[devil]

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 01:24:52 -0700, running with scissors wrote:

> devil > wrote in message >...
>> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:52:43 -0700, running with scissors wrote:
>>
>> > devil > wrote in message >...
>> >> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:03:21 -0700, running with scissors wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Jose > wrote in message >...
>> >> >> > An A320 full of passengers doing something it shouldn't have at an air show
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What was an A320 doing full of passengers at an airshow?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Jose
>> >> >
>> >> > al flyby.
>> >> >
>> >> > Paris / Air France.
>> >>
>> >> No such a thing in Paris.
>> >
>> > ****
>>
>> No such a thing in Paris.
>>
>> If you really insist in making a fool of yourself, be my guest.
>
> uh huh?
> so F-GFCK didnt conduct a low approach at Habsheim fail to recover and
> impact a wooded area at 2pm. hmmm was my imagination caught on video
> too.?
>
> ****ing retard.

Point was, insults or not, Habsheim is nowhere near Paris.

Your imagination apparently told you it was?

Seems like a good reason for insusts?

Anyway, you really think that sort of inaccuracy does any good to your
credibility?

[Bertie the Bunyip]

"John Mazor" > wrote in message >...
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "John Mazor" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Bertie the Bunyip" <XZXZ@XZXZ.,XZXZX> wrote in message
> > > . 74.13...
> > > > Well Fjukwit?
> > >
> > > Godot will arrive with your pizza order before that happens.
> >
> > Ah, but I know Godot well. bought him a pinta just last week.
>
> You paid? Look, some people already are questioning whether you're a real
> airline pilot.


Mm, I know. I'm reeling under the loss of the FE to buy all my booze... Bertie

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"John Mazor" > wrote in message
...
> "running with scissors" > wrote
in
> message om...
> > "John Mazor" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "running with scissors" >
wrote
> in
> > > message om...
> > > > Dave > wrote in message
> > > >...
> > > > > Yeh...
> > > > >
> > > > > Painting "OVER" their logo, and the big red letters "Air
> > > > > Canada" stretching along the length of the fuse...
> > > > >
> > > > > Like with a roller & house paint! (!)
> > > >
> > > > yep aircraft are ofen painted by roller.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, they also have the paint scraped with sharp-edged
> implements
> > > despite cautions not to use them. There was a story this week about
how
> > > minute score lines are propagating into cracks, with potentially
> disastrous results.
> >
> > oh yes. there are AD's pertaining to.
>
> Then the problem seems to be that the word doesn't get down to the
chippers
> (where have we heard that before?), who either prefer the efficiency of
> sharp-edged implements or aren't provided proper tools and supervision by
> their cheapskate overlords.
>
One of the more effective ways to remove paint from an A/C is to apply a
non-corrosive water soluble stripper followed by use of crushed pecan shells
mixed with water used by devices resembling Sand blasters. This also removes
surface corrosion.

Have seen C-130's, C-141's, & C-5's taken to bare metal in 4, 8, & 24 hours
respectively using 2 crews on C-130's, 4 crews on C-141's, & 10 crews on
C-5's. A crew consisting of 4 people.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
> >
> > That is true. I first saw Chevrolet Blazers on highway construction
> > projects in the mid-1970s, and that was one of the first SUV-like
> > vehicles, a light truck closed vehicle with 4-wheel drive.
>
> The earliest one I know of is the Willys Overland wagon. Came out in 1946.
>
> George Patterson
> If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to
have
> been looking for it.
>
Don't know when they were first built, but the US Military used Dodge Power
Wagons for a number of purposes, particularly ambulances, toward the end of
WWII. We had several 1943 models used as ambulances & general purpose
vehicles at AFP 3 that were used until the mid 70's. The USAF had a large
inventory of "Dodge Power Wagons" into the early 80's.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Corky Scott]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 20:14:42 GMT, "Allen" >
wrote:

>This is simply wrong! If you do a check the majority of "SUV" type vehicles
>are not four wheel drive, although SOME of them are available as four wheel
>drive.
>
>Allen.

But they're still classified as light trucks. I have not seen a
single ad or commercial for a two wheel drive SUV.

Corky Scott

[Corky Scott]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 15:51:29 -0500, Chris W > wrote:

>Do you seriously think that snow and ice are the only reason to have
>4WD? You need to get out of the city more.

Guffaw, I live in rural Vermont in the woods off a mile long uphill
dirt road. My wife and I have had no choice but to use 4WD vehicals
if we really want to get home every day. And we still find some days
when even that doesn't work, days when it's raining on top of slush,
on top of ice. Thankfully, those conditions don't occur often.

>On steep mountain roads a
>little rain can make 4WD helpful. Drive down a dirt road after some bad
>rain often enough and you will wish eventually wish you had 4WD

Can't tell you how many 4WD vehicals go off the road up here in
northern NE because the owners assumed that that feature would keep
them on the road in snow and ice. It doesn't. Whether you're driving
a Toyota Camry or a Humvee, go too fast for the corner in snow or ice
and you'll be off the road. The first snow storm of the season is
always a gotcha for many around here for two reasons: 1. The first
several storms, as well as the last several, are usually really greasy
stuff, far more slippery than the snow we get in mid winter. 2.
People do not slow down for the now marginal conditions, they continue
on as if it were summer and pay the price. Ok, there's a third
reason: not changing from the run down summer tires to new winters.

Most SUV's are luxury family vehicals located in suburbia and are not
driven on the dirt roads you mention.

Corky Scott

[Ron Natalie]

Corky Scott wrote:

>
> But they're still classified as light trucks. I have not seen a
> single ad or commercial for a two wheel drive SUV.

Not necessarily, my Chevy Avalanche (which is bigger than most
SUV's on the market) seems to be licensed as a station wagon.
Go figure.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Corky Scott wrote:
>
> But they're still classified as light trucks. I have not seen a
> single ad or commercial for a two wheel drive SUV.

Perhaps so, but when you go to the dealer to buy one, you will find that 4WD is an
expensive option on many of them. Any like many other things, some manufacturers are
packaging it with other options, which makes it even more unlikely that it will be
purchased.

You don't have to go to a dealer to find this out, though. Most manufacturers have a
"build your own" tool on their web site.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 20:14:42 GMT, "Allen" >
> wrote:
>
> >This is simply wrong! If you do a check the majority of "SUV" type
vehicles
> >are not four wheel drive, although SOME of them are available as four
wheel
> >drive.
> >
> >Allen.
>
> But they're still classified as light trucks. I have not seen a
> single ad or commercial for a two wheel drive SUV.
>
> Corky Scott
>
4 WD SUV's are available in the Texas/Oklahoma area by special order,
otherwise SUV's at Ford, Dodge, Chevrolet, & GMC dealers are 2 WD.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 15:51:29 -0500, Chris W > wrote:
>
> >Do you seriously think that snow and ice are the only reason to have
> >4WD? You need to get out of the city more.
>
> Guffaw, I live in rural Vermont in the woods off a mile long uphill
> dirt road. My wife and I have had no choice but to use 4WD vehicals
> if we really want to get home every day. And we still find some days
> when even that doesn't work, days when it's raining on top of slush,
> on top of ice. Thankfully, those conditions don't occur often.
>
> >On steep mountain roads a
> >little rain can make 4WD helpful. Drive down a dirt road after some bad
> >rain often enough and you will wish eventually wish you had 4WD
>
> Can't tell you how many 4WD vehicals go off the road up here in
> northern NE because the owners assumed that that feature would keep
> them on the road in snow and ice. It doesn't. Whether you're driving
> a Toyota Camry or a Humvee, go too fast for the corner in snow or ice
> and you'll be off the road. The first snow storm of the season is
> always a gotcha for many around here for two reasons: 1. The first
> several storms, as well as the last several, are usually really greasy
> stuff, far more slippery than the snow we get in mid winter. 2.
> People do not slow down for the now marginal conditions, they continue
> on as if it were summer and pay the price. Ok, there's a third
> reason: not changing from the run down summer tires to new winters.
>
> Most SUV's are luxury family vehicals located in suburbia and are not
> driven on the dirt roads you mention.
>
> Corky Scott
>
It is obvious you have never been to the SE, Mid West, Central, or SW parts
of the country.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Corky Scott]

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 05:06:38 GMT, "Ralph Nesbitt"
> wrote:

>It is obvious you have never been to the SE, Mid West, Central, or SW parts
>of the country.
>Ralph Nesbitt

I'm not sure what your point is, but you're mistaken.

Spent four years finishing school in Atlanta. They do get the
occasional snow storm down there and it completely devastates the
drivers. I watched a guy get stuck in four inches of snow in the
middle of a flat road. He thought that if some throttle was good,
nearly full throttle was MUCH better to get him moving. He literally
dug himself into the asphalt about three inches down. I still
remember watching him belatedly finally returning to idle and I
watched the tires lazily spin around in the curf they'd dug while the
driver watched the steam pouring out from them. When I was down there
in the late 60's and early 70's and it snowed, it literally shut the
city down. No one (well, very few) knew how to drive in it.

Corky Scott

[Morgans]

"Corky Scott" > wrote

> Spent four years finishing school in Atlanta. They do get the
> occasional snow storm down there and it completely devastates the
> drivers. I watched a guy get stuck in four inches of snow in the
> middle of a flat road. He thought that if some throttle was good,
> nearly full throttle was MUCH better to get him moving.

Snip

No one (well, very few) knew how to drive in it.
>
> Corky Scott

In defense of Southerners, it is undeniable that the snow down here is
different.

Snowfall, many times, starts with rain changing to freezing rain, to snow.
I doesn't mater what you do, you can't drive on that stuff. I grew up in
Northern Ohio and know how to drive in the white stuff, and I almost got
stuck on a almost flat road, after I had to stop for someone who could not
get going. I did manage to get going, but only after several minutes of
trying.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Sylvia Else > wrote in
u:

>
>
> John Mazor wrote:
>
>> "Sylvia Else" > wrote in message
>> u...
>>
>>>Pooh Bear wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>John Mazor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"OtisWinslow" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I thought the Captain was in charge of making sure the
>>>>>>aircraft was operated safely. Why the hell didn't he intervene
>>>>>>and stop the excessive movement? He just sat there
>>>>>>and watched knowing that it was the wrong action to
>>>>>>take? Sure points the finger at Airbus and AA's training program.
>>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps, but it also reflects the prevailing but erroneous
>>>>>impression
>>
>> among
>>
>>>>>airline pilots that you can't break the airplane with control
>>>>>inputs
>>
>> below
>>
>>>>>maneuvering speed. This was not limited to Airbus products.
>>>>
>>>>Which then begs the question why were airline pilots erroneously
>>>>under
>>
>> that
>>
>>>>impression ?
>>>
>>>It was a bizarre notion anyway. Fly your airliner below maneuvering
>>>speed. Apply full right aileron, and wait.
>>>
>>>I guarantee you'll have a broken plane.
>>
>>
>> Cute - ditto for full forward yoke 100' AGL - but irrelevant.
>>
>> Forget the liability dogfight, the most troublesome aspect of this
>> accident is how long-standing engineers' knowledge that a rudder
>> wig-wag could break the tail on an airplane never got disseminated
>> down to the people who actually fly the damn things.
>>
>
> It's probably not just a problem in aviation. There are things that
> seem so blindingly obvious to engineers that it's difficult for them
> to conceive the notion that a non-engineer might not recognise the
> truth.
>
> So, of all the things that the engineers consider obvious, how are
> they to enumerate those that won't be obvious to non-engineers?
>
> Babbage was reputedly asked whether his calculating engine would give
> the correct answers even if given the wrong input. He's quoted as
> expressing bemusement at the kind of thinking that could lead to such
> a question.
>
> Forums like this one may help -

Good christ, you really are a fjuking half wit


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

"AbsolutelyCertain" > wrote in
:

>
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> ...
>> AbsolutelyCertain wrote:
>>
>> > "Sylvia Else" > wrote in message
>> > u...
>> >
>> >
>> >>Those who sit at the pointy end of the
>> >>aircraft may like to ponder where their self interest lies before
>> >>indulging themselves in this respect.
>> >
>> >
>> > Oh my.
>>
>> Pretty entertaining, isn't she?
>
> In the same way that a roach, just sprayed with Raid and wriggling on the
> floor, is entertaining .........

Yeah, but they die far too quickly.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Sylvia Else > wrote in
u:

>
>
> Rich Ahrens wrote:
>
>> AbsolutelyCertain wrote:
>>
>>> "Sylvia Else" > wrote in message
>>> u...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Those who sit at the pointy end of the
>>>> aircraft may like to ponder where their self interest lies before
>>>> indulging themselves in this respect.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh my.
>>
>>
>> Pretty entertaining, isn't she?
>>
> I try to be of service.
>

obviously.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Sylvia Else > wrote in
u:

>
>
> I wrote:
>
>> It's probably not just a problem in aviation. There are things that
>> seem so blindingly obvious to engineers that it's difficult for them
>> to conceive the notion that a non-engineer might not recognise the
>> truth.
>
> Alaska Airlines Flight 261 might be an example. You have a flight
> control system element that's jammed for no apparent reason.
>
> Therefore you have no idea what it might do if you mess with it, so if
> you can land with it in its current state, then leave the damned thing
> alone, and land.
>

What a fjukwit


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Sylvia Else > wrote in
u:

>
>
> AbsolutelyCertain wrote:
>
>> "Sylvia Else" > wrote in message
>> u...
>>
>>>
>>>I wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It's probably not just a problem in aviation. There are things that
>>>>seem so blindingly obvious to engineers that it's difficult for them
>>>>to conceive the notion that a non-engineer might not recognise the
>>>>truth.
>>>
>>>Alaska Airlines Flight 261 might be an example. You have a flight
>>>control system element that's jammed for no apparent reason.
>>>
>>>Therefore you have no idea what it might do if you mess with it, so
>>>if you can land with it in its current state, then leave the damned
>>>thing alone, and land.
>>>
>>>Sheesh!
>>
>>
>> Do tell us more. You appear to be breaking new ground in
>> aeronautical science here ........... Well, breaking wind, anyway.
>
> It seems to have been obvious the NTSB too. Just not to the crew.
>

Lots of things are obvious to pilots.
Like wannabe ****s who are needy enough to try and get any attention they
can, good , bad or indifferent by amking compleat asses of themselves on
usent.


Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Chris W > wrote in news:E3ygd.83457$cJ3.13329@fed1read06:

> Corky Scott wrote:
>
>>Since they *MUST* have four wheel drive in order to keep their light
>>truck status, commercials continually hype the usefulness of their
>>off-road capability, despite the fact that many of them are sold in
>>states where no snow or ice normally falls.
>>
>>
>>
> Do you seriously think that snow and ice are the only reason to have
> 4WD?


Of course not. there's the school run, posing next to it at the bar, beer
runs, posing next to it in your driveway, shopping runs, posing next to it
at work, driving into the path of oncoming trains when you dose off to help
with the overpopulation problem, posing inside of it while the cut you out
from under the train, The list is almost endless.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Pooh Bear > wrote in
:

>
>
> Ralph Nesbitt wrote:
>
>> The issue with the incident in question was the complete vertical
>> stabilizer breaking off, not just the rudder fin.
>
> The vert stab broke off on account of the forces created on it by the
> multiple
> reversals of rudder.
>
> The link posted by Rich Ahrens
> http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA587/exhibits/239998.pdf
>
> states unequivocally that structural failure can result from such
> action. See
> somewhere like page 3 of the text.
>
>
> Graham
>
>
> As has been said many times before - why was this not more widely
> realised ?

Go fjuk yourself planespotter


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Pooh Bear > wrote in
:

>
>
> Chris W wrote:
>
>> Corky Scott wrote:
>>
>> >Since they *MUST* have four wheel drive in order to keep their light
>> >truck status, commercials continually hype the usefulness of their
>> >off-road capability, despite the fact that many of them are sold in
>> >states where no snow or ice normally falls.>
>>
>> Do you seriously think that snow and ice are the only reason to have
>> 4WD? You need to get out of the city more. On steep mountain roads a
>> little rain can make 4WD helpful. Drive down a dirt road after some
>> bad rain often enough and you will wish eventually wish you had 4WD
>
> I think the point is - not may 4WDs of the SUV variety ever see a dirt
> road.

Of course, then there's planespotting, they're useful for standing on the
roof to get that elusive reggie!

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Corky Scott > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 15:51:29 -0500, Chris W > wrote:
>
>>Do you seriously think that snow and ice are the only reason to have
>>4WD? You need to get out of the city more.
>
> Guffaw, I live in rural Vermont in the woods off a mile long uphill
> dirt road. My wife and I have had no choice but to use 4WD vehicals
> if we really want to get home every day.

you could ****ing walk!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Pooh Bear > wrote in
:

> running with scissors wrote:
>
>> Stefan > wrote in message
>> >...
>> > nobody wrote:
>> >
>> > > No, this was a demo of its computer systems capabilities, they
>> > > woudln't have shut it down.
>> >
>> > No. The pilot wanted to display his new toy low and slow to the
>> > public. To achieve this, he ignored even the most basic safety
>> > rules and basic airmanship.
>> >
>> > The fact that there is still so much myth with this case was caused
>> > by the French authorities, who handled the accident as a state
>> > affair, because it concerned Airbus. France and Airbus at that time
>> > ... a story for itself. With this behaviour they prepared the
>> > ground for many rumors and deep misbelief in the eventual results
>> > of the investigation.
>> >
>> > > Secondly, the big red button isn't to ...
>> >
>> > Obviously you didn't understand me: I wasn't talking of any real
>> > button. I just pointed out that the computer system can be
>> > oversteered by the pilot at any time.
>> >
>> > Stefan
>>
>> stefan you are full of ****ing ****, a liar and a ****ing idiot who
>> is making false claims concerning an incident you clearly know ****
>> all about.
>>
>> 1. it wasnt a demo of its fly by wire capabilities. quite the
>> ****ing reverse it located a flaw in the FADEC.
>
> Hadn't heard that one.
>
> Care to elaborate ?
>
>
>> 2. The fly-by was a management decision. was instructed by dispatch.
>> the pilot was chief pilot for AF.
>>
>> 3. the pilot didnt own the plane, why would he be showing off his new
>> toy ?
>
> I think he wanted to emulate the similar tricks he'd seen performed by
> Airbus Industrie pilots.
>
>
>> 4. the flyby was approved by the aviation authority and not to my
>> knowledge broke any regulations of airshow display procedures current
>> for the time.
>>
>> 5. how did he ignore basic safety laws and airmanship?
>>
>> 6. the incident occured due to FADEC issue.
>
> Interested again. I thought it was the poor response of the compressor
> ( the subject of a subsequent design change and mod to engines of that
> design in service ).
>
>
>> 6.
>
> 7. surely ? etc
>
>> no myth, its all known and public knowledge. the FDR was switched
>> after the accident (finding by Lausanne Institute of Police Forensic
>> Evidence and Criminology)
>
> After the trial of course !
>
> UK Channel 4 TV ran 2 documentaries on the subject of this accident. I
> recall a video of the recorders being recovered. The ones presented at
> the trial actually looked different ( less beaten-up ) ! There was a
> 'mystery missing 4 seconds' in the data after the DGAC had made of
> with the 'black boxes'. The BEA had to get a warrant to recover them.
> That's like the FAA running off with the flight recorders ( opening
> them up and tinkering too ) and refusing to hand them over to the NTSB
> until ordered.
>
>

Fjuckwit

bertie

[Sylvia Else]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Sylvia Else > wrote in
> u:
>
>
>>
>>I wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It's probably not just a problem in aviation. There are things that
>>>seem so blindingly obvious to engineers that it's difficult for them
>>>to conceive the notion that a non-engineer might not recognise the
>>>truth.
>>
>>Alaska Airlines Flight 261 might be an example. You have a flight
>>control system element that's jammed for no apparent reason.
>>
>>Therefore you have no idea what it might do if you mess with it, so if
>>you can land with it in its current state, then leave the damned thing
>>alone, and land.
>>
>
>
> What a fjukwit
>

Please note that Berties disagrees here. He wants the right to meddle.
Perhaps he wants to join those ace Alaska Airlines pilots, wherever they
are now.

Sylvia.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Sylvia Else > wrote in
u:

>
>
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Sylvia Else > wrote in
>> u:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>I wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It's probably not just a problem in aviation. There are things that
>>>>seem so blindingly obvious to engineers that it's difficult for them
>>>>to conceive the notion that a non-engineer might not recognise the
>>>>truth.
>>>
>>>Alaska Airlines Flight 261 might be an example. You have a flight
>>>control system element that's jammed for no apparent reason.
>>>
>>>Therefore you have no idea what it might do if you mess with it, so if
>>>you can land with it in its current state, then leave the damned thing
>>>alone, and land.
>>>
>>
>>
>> What a fjukwit
>>
>
> Please note that Berties disagrees here. He wants the right to meddle.
> Perhaps he wants to join those ace Alaska Airlines pilots, wherever they
> are now.
>

Serious fjukwit.


I'm blessed.

or even better than even I thought.


Bertie