yet another airbus plunged from the sky

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
Too early to tell.

Pilot error, mechanical problems, terrorism, suicide by pilot, ...etc....?


+1. Nothing can be ruled out, its all speculation at this point, nothing more.
 
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
http://www.euronews.com/2015/03/24/airbu...rd-authorities/

when will they backpedal all that automation?


Oh come on!
Plenty of Boeings have plunged form the sky over the past four decades as well.
I may prefer Boeing aircraft, but we've also flown on plenty of Airbus equipment over the years and have no problem with doing so.
In terms of market share and safety record, Boeing and Aribus are neck and neck.
If you understood the Airbus envelope protection philosophy in their implementation of fly-by-wire, you'd be less inclined to fault the plane or its maker.
The Boeing 777 and 787 are also fly by wire airplanes, although Boeing has a different philosophy in that Boeing is less inclined to try to protect the crew from its own actions.
Boeing figures that anyone sitting in the front of an airline transport already knows that he should avoid stalling it.
Anyway, it's hard to see how this accident was in any way related to fly-by-wire control or envelope protection, since the aircraft apparently did what it was commanded to do and never came close to a stall.
The aircraft descended at a moderately high rate for some minutes until it ran into the side of a mountain.
We'll know fairly soon what happened in this accident.
The wreckage was quickly found and the FDR has already been recovered.
What's learned here will prevent anything similar form happening again.
 
So many things are automated that when everything is working the crew is bored and distracted. When something wakes them up it may be difficult to go back to flying mode and outguess the computers to get to the real problem. Often the crew is so busy trouble shooting the problem(s) that they neglect to fly the airplane. This leads to a judgement of "pilot error". There needs to be a new category called "airplane error" so that airplanes and pilots can be made more proficient. Automation may be good most of the time but when it goes bad it kills people.
 
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
GE jet engines reliable compared to RR and PW ?

I thought Airbus mainly used RR engines...


GE engines are as reliable as anything else out there, although I believe that a certain RR engine holds the time on wing title.
Engines are an airline choice where an option is offered.
Every Boeing 737 from the -300 through the -900 flies with some dash model of the same engines powering this A320. There is no option beyond the CFM56 for these 737 models.
The alternative engine available on the single aisle Airbus, made by IAE, has not proven nearly as popular a choice with customers. Pratt engines are used on the A318 that almost nobody bought.
There are other Airbus types flying with Pratt and RR engines as well, just not the A319, A320 or A321.
 
If this plane were a car it would be a beater.
It had nearly 47,000 flights on it.
I think thats why it ended up in a second class cut rate airline.
I wonder if you can check how many hours and flights are on the next plane you fly on?
 
There are sites that will give you information on delivery dates and operators over the years and based upon typical airline operations for a given type, hours and cycles are pretty easy to infer.
This aircraft was a beater in the same way that a '91 911 given careful maintenance over the years is a beater.
Airlines like Lufthansa that keep their aircraft in service for their entire lives rather than dumping them after a dozen or so years can do so because they do their own heavy maintenance rather than contracting it to some third world operation that will claim to do work of similar quality on the cheap.
Lufthansa also learns from its operating and maintenance experience with those aircraft it keeps in service for many years and uses that knowledge to offer its highly regarded maintenance services to other carriers, many of whom have been burned by cut-rate maintenance operators, from which it reaps healthy profits.
Any Lufthansa operation, as this one was, is far from either second class or cut-rate.
I would guess that Germanwings is probably a cut above most American domestic flying on any airline you'd care to name.
 
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
So many things are automated that when everything is working the crew is bored and distracted. When something wakes them up it may be difficult to go back to flying mode and outguess the computers to get to the real problem. Often the crew is so busy trouble shooting the problem(s) that they neglect to fly the airplane. This leads to a judgement of "pilot error". There needs to be a new category called "airplane error" so that airplanes and pilots can be made more proficient. Automation may be good most of the time but when it goes bad it kills people.

Posts like this are why I, as an airline pilot, spend very little time in the Aviation section of BITOG.
The crew is "bored and distracted?" By what, exactly, and how do you know?
"When something wakes them up it may be difficult to go back to flying mode..." Have you observed this phenomenon?
"...and outguess the computers to get to the real problem." Do you have any idea how pilots interface with "the computers"? Any idea how that information is presented? Any idea how to move from one level of automation to the next? Any idea how much or how little time that takes? No? Then why try to write as an authority when you clearly don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about?

Do we train on automation? Yes. Do we train on communication, Cockpit Resource Management, situational awareness, checklist discipline? Yes. Do we know if any of this had anything to do with the crash in the Alps today? Nope. Will we know at some point. Sure. Maybe it all had something to do with it. Maybe the pilots were dealing with something completely out of the realm of anyone's experience.

My hat's off to Astro14, Fdcg27, Cujet and several others as they patiently wade through the nonsense to try to educate others here. I've lost most of my tolerance for a flying public that seems to relish the 24 hour news cycle of complete nonsense that passes for "expert aviation testimony", and I do not apologize for having done so.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
http://www.euronews.com/2015/03/24/airbu...rd-authorities/

when will they backpedal all that automation?


Nice title...

Since Airbus owns nearly 50% of the commercial airliner market, this title is a lot like saying, "Yet another Japanese car crashed"...as if somehow, because they're involved in so many crashes, the Japanese cars are inferior...

The Airbus 320 automation is very useful in a variety of circumstances. I wouldn't want it rolled back. I've landed an A-320 in some truly awful weather, in demanding circumstances, in challenging terrain. It's a good airplane and I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the design, and the reliability of the machine.

There is no indication that automation was involved in this accident.

There is no indication of anything, yet.

Originally Posted By: marine65
If this plane were a car it would be a beater.
It had nearly 47,000 flights on it.
I think thats why it ended up in a second class cut rate airline.
I wonder if you can check how many hours and flights are on the next plane you fly on?


Yeah, ummm...no...

Not even close. This is a young airliner. They're not maintained like cars. So, in the airliner world, this would qualify as an off-lease, 4 year old car.

Not a beater by any stretch...

So, I wouldn't want someone so clueless about airplanes, "checking up" on their age, when age means nothing, and maintenance means everything.

Of course, because of its age, you probably think my Packard is a "beater"....

Sorry, fellas...but you can tell that I've lost my patience on this thread already...I'll comment on the findings when there is something worth discussing, instead of pointless speculation...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: fdcg27

Oh come on!
[...]
If you understood the Airbus envelope protection philosophy in their implementation of fly-by-wire, you'd be less inclined to fault the plane or its maker.
[...]
What's learned here will prevent anything similar form happening again.


well, the problem is, similar has happened before, it just wasn't fatal enough to fix it. if the sensor info is garbage, your envelope protection is the problem that can crash the plane.

Quote:
During climb, 12 NM NW of Pamplona, at approximately Flight Level 310, the aircraft unexpectedly decreased the pitch autonomous and started to descend. The aircraft reached a rate of descent of up to 4,000 ft/min. The crew was able to stop the descent at Flight Level 270. The flight was continued and the aircraft landed safely at its destination Munich Airport.

Following this occurrence EASA released Emergency AD 2014-0266-E_1 to introduce a new flight crew procedure. The EAD described this incident as follows: An occurrence was reported where an Airbus A321 aeroplane encountered a blockage of two Angle Of Attack (AOA) probes during climb, leading to activation of the Alpha Protection (Alpha Prot) while the Mach number increased. The flight crew managed to regain full control and the flight landed uneventfully.


http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=171411
 
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Originally Posted By: fdcg27

Oh come on!
[...]
If you understood the Airbus envelope protection philosophy in their implementation of fly-by-wire, you'd be less inclined to fault the plane or its maker.
[...]
What's learned here will prevent anything similar form happening again.


well, the problem is, similar has happened before, it just wasn't fatal enough to fix it. if the sensor info is garbage, your envelope protection is the problem that can crash the plane.

Quote:
During climb, 12 NM NW of Pamplona, at approximately Flight Level 310, the aircraft unexpectedly decreased the pitch autonomous and started to descend. The aircraft reached a rate of descent of up to 4,000 ft/min. The crew was able to stop the descent at Flight Level 270. The flight was continued and the aircraft landed safely at its destination Munich Airport.

Following this occurrence EASA released Emergency AD 2014-0266-E_1 to introduce a new flight crew procedure. The EAD described this incident as follows: An occurrence was reported where an Airbus A321 aeroplane encountered a blockage of two Angle Of Attack (AOA) probes during climb, leading to activation of the Alpha Protection (Alpha Prot) while the Mach number increased. The flight crew managed to regain full control and the flight landed uneventfully.


http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=171411


Your conveniently ignoring this point: The flight crew managed to regain full control and the flight landed uneventfully.

Stuff happens in airplanes all the time.

How about this one: http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19951220-1

Another Boeing crashes! It's the automation that killed them! They hit a mountain, when the computer turned them into it! They didn't even know!

Similar has happened before! The computers were at fault!

When will we fix these airplanes!

There you go...sensational enough for you? Did I misrepresent the findings on one incident enough to condemn an entire company? Did I sufficiently impugn the entire type/model/series of airplane?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top