If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A question on Airbus landings
I've heard that in FBW Airbuses, if your sink rate on finals is low for
whatever reason, the computers might not consider it to be a landing at all, and might actually prevent reverser deployment and even inhibit brake application on the landing roll? Thanks in advance, Ramapriya |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
A question on Airbus landings
Google the term "Radar Altimeter"
wrote: I've heard that in FBW Airbuses, if your sink rate on finals is low for whatever reason, the computers might not consider it to be a landing at all, and might actually prevent reverser deployment and even inhibit brake application on the landing roll? Thanks in advance, Ramapriya |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
A question on Airbus landings
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
A question on Airbus landings
I've heard that in FBW Airbuses, if your sink rate on finals is low for
whatever reason, the computers might not consider it to be a landing at all, and might actually prevent reverser deployment and even inhibit brake application on the landing roll? You may be referring to the accident in Warsaw some years back. It was the gear switches that didn't report landing, IIRC. It makes absolutely no sense to connect landing detection to sink rate on final. As for the incident in Russia yesterday, the A310 is not FBW. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
A question on Airbus landings
And I hope this isn't what happened yesterday at Irkutsk.
Repeat after me: Not all Airbusses are FBW. Not all Airbusses are FBW... Besides that, no, your scenario is not a valid one. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
A question on Airbus landings
In article ,
"karl gruber" wrote: No transport certifed jet made requires thrust reverse to stop in the distance calculated by the crew for every landing. That's incorrect. http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2006/A06_16.pdf "The FAA allows the reverse thrust credit to be used in calculating en route operational landing distances for some transport-category airplanes, such as the accident airplane, a 737-700." The 737-700 that ran off the runway in Chicago this past winter absolutely used thrust reverse in its landing distance calculation. They calculated 560 feet of runway remaining after that landing *with* the Thrust Reversers used. Between the inability to activate the TRs right away, and the braking action being much poorer than reported to the crew, it (obviously) wasn't enough runway. As a result of that accident, I wouldn't be surprised to see the factoring of the TRs into the data removed or reduced. (The 737-300, for example, doesn't include the TRs in its landing data.) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
A question on Airbus landings
karl gruber wrote: No transport certifed jet made requires thrust reverse to stop in the distance calculated by the crew for every landing. Never say never. Those days are gone. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
A question on Airbus landings
I guess I've been retired too long for all that new stuff!
"Beavis" wrote in message ... In article , "karl gruber" wrote: No transport certifed jet made requires thrust reverse to stop in the distance calculated by the crew for every landing. That's incorrect. http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2006/A06_16.pdf "The FAA allows the reverse thrust credit to be used in calculating en route operational landing distances for some transport-category airplanes, such as the accident airplane, a 737-700." The 737-700 that ran off the runway in Chicago this past winter absolutely used thrust reverse in its landing distance calculation. They calculated 560 feet of runway remaining after that landing *with* the Thrust Reversers used. Between the inability to activate the TRs right away, and the braking action being much poorer than reported to the crew, it (obviously) wasn't enough runway. As a result of that accident, I wouldn't be surprised to see the factoring of the TRs into the data removed or reduced. (The 737-300, for example, doesn't include the TRs in its landing data.) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
A question on Airbus landings
In article om,
wrote: I assume that I didn't convey myself adequately because I wasn't asking about what the aircraft use in detecting terrain. My question was if in a low sink rate situation - possibly a flatter profile during finals (a no-flaps situation) or you came in slower and touched down gently at the initial section of the touchdown roll, does FBW technology prevent reverser deployment until too late? When I first read about it, it struck me as the exact opposite of a safety feature (if at all it's that) because these are the situations when you'd need reversers the most. I also similary wondered about brakes too, and whether onboard computers can (or do) inhibit application in some circumstances. I think you are referring to an A320 accident that happened awhile back. http://www.savive.com.au/casestudy/warsawa320.html and http://sunnyday.mit.edu/accidents/warsaw-report.html have the details. Basically, it landed fast, and with a tailwind, didn't get weight on the wheels, and the runway was wet so the wheels didn't spin up, but hydroplaned instead. Weight on wheels is needed for thrust reversers to be enabled, and wheel spin is needed for brakes. This accident, and many many similar ones, are pilot training issues more then aircraft systems issues. John -- John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/ |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
A question on Airbus landings
Karl, I think you are talking about the landing calculations for a
destination or alternate, prior to takeoff, and are correct. Beavis is correct for a "prior to landing calculation". Al G "karl gruber" wrote in message ... I guess I've been retired too long for all that new stuff! "Beavis" wrote in message ... In article , "karl gruber" wrote: No transport certifed jet made requires thrust reverse to stop in the distance calculated by the crew for every landing. That's incorrect. http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2006/A06_16.pdf "The FAA allows the reverse thrust credit to be used in calculating en route operational landing distances for some transport-category airplanes, such as the accident airplane, a 737-700." The 737-700 that ran off the runway in Chicago this past winter absolutely used thrust reverse in its landing distance calculation. They calculated 560 feet of runway remaining after that landing *with* the Thrust Reversers used. Between the inability to activate the TRs right away, and the braking action being much poorer than reported to the crew, it (obviously) wasn't enough runway. As a result of that accident, I wouldn't be surprised to see the factoring of the TRs into the data removed or reduced. (The 737-300, for example, doesn't include the TRs in its landing data.) |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I want to ask you the most important question of your life. | Douglas Olson | Owning | 1 | May 22nd 05 05:15 AM |
182RG question | Paul Anton | Owning | 11 | May 16th 05 09:45 PM |
Good morning or good evening depending upon your location. I want to ask you the most important question of your life. Your joy or sorrow for all eternity depends upon your answer. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good | Excelsior | Home Built | 0 | April 22nd 05 01:11 AM |
Information on A310 that lost it's rudder enroute to Canada from Cuba | Corky Scott | Piloting | 3 | March 27th 05 03:49 PM |
Boeing Boondoggle | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 77 | September 15th 04 02:39 AM |