Co-pilot error caused AA 587 crash

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.

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?

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.

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.

"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.

Jose wrote in message .com...
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.

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

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

Jose wrote in message .com...
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" wrote in
message om...
Jose wrote in message
.com...
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

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

"running with scissors"
wrote in message
om...
Jose wrote in message
.com...
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