Re: [MBZ] OT: mystery deepens in Air France crash
On 28/05/2011 8:59 PM, Peter Frederick wrote: I believe the recorders indicated repeated stalls as the plane descended, and ti was slighly nose down on impact. Probably not complete data yet, anyway. The biggest problem, I think, is that these planes fly themselves, the pilots are just along for the ride much of the time, with the result that they are out of practice at the worst possible time. Manual flying burns more fuel, I'd guess, so is discouraged. I'm sure there are some lessons in this event if the people in charge are wise enough to look for them. Peter Bear in mind, that the bean counteres are thinking of a scenario where there will be no pilots, and pushing the design in that direction. Cheaper not to have to pay employees etc. Also, the actuaries have no doubt calculated the risk and are prepared to accept some losses as being unavoidable. Randy ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT: mystery deepens in Air France crash
Yes, it can be flown, but getting it to the correct trim/thrust settings isn't easy when you have severe turbulence, endless alarms, flashing screens, warning horns, etc. I want to know why the AUTOPILOT doesn't engage the "safe flight mode" settings when it disengages rather than just going "oops, you got it!" and going off line. As I said before, the throttle levers will have to be manually reset to work -- they do NOT move in autothrust, they stay wherever they were when last manually moved. Not something I'd recommend, as it's fairly critical to maintaining correct speed and a false position indication ain't gonna help anybody when the world has gone crazy. I believe the weather radar was fooling the pilots, as they were flying through a mild thunderstorm just before encountering the monster (and it was a monster). The supposition by the PBS assembled experts was that the big storm was masked by the smaller one they were in, and there was not time to evade when the local storm backscatter cleared and there was a monster storm in front of them, full of supercooled water mist. Hard to dodge when it's everywhere, and you are actually seconds away from flying into it. I would assume Air France pilots avoid monster thunderstorms and hurricanes, daredevil behavior isn't high on the list of commercial passenger pilots qualifications. Joystick flight controls don't excite me either, there is no body position feedback. I'm curious to see what the flight deck conversation was, especially after the autopilot kicked out. Peter ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT: mystery deepens in Air France crash
Peter Frederick writes: > Personally, I question the design philosophy here -- if the plane > cannot be flown without accurate air speed signal, you'd damned well > better insure that you NEVER lose that data stream. >From what I've been reading, it is the automated control that requires the airspeed data. When the pitot tubes freeze up, or the computer detects conflicting data from different tubes, the auto pilot and auto thrust systems disengage and drop control back to the pilots. The plane can be flown without airspeed data: the procedure is supposed to be setting a specified pitch and thrust to maintain safe airspeed. However flying an Airbus by hand at 35,000 feet is apparently a fairly touchy business. The "joystick" controls give the pilot no tactile feedback. Further, it's not something they are practiced at doing because the computer flies the plane in all normal situations. Also they had flown into a severe storm (why?), at night, bouncing around, possibly not trusting their instrumentation or knowing what conflicting alarms to believe. Speculation is that they pitched up too far, stalled but couldn't recover or perhaps didn't even realize it because on the airbus the STALL alarm self-cancels below a 60-knot indicated airspeed, and simply fell out of the sky. Allan -- 1983 300D ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT: mystery deepens in Air France crash
I saw one on the PBS program, and it's labeled something like 20A 240V -- a little compressor bleed isn't gonna do diddly for keeping one above freezing at 500 mph in temps around -60C. i believe the new design has much more heating power. Peter ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT: mystery deepens in Air France crash
Peter - With as sophisticated as the rest of the airplanes are these days it seems outrageous to me to even have to think about having a large commercial aircraft to be put at risk by an iced up pitot tube. How about having 4 or 5 of the things with maybe two at a time out and available and the others retracted back for safe harbor in the airframe for some "R&R". As an alternative it would seem as simple as directing some nice warm compressor bleed air via a nozzle appropriately aimed at the pitots. Yes I imagine the warm air will introduce some error but it would seem that some error would be better than no data. With the capabilities that exist today and the typical layers of redundancy in other areas it just seems inexcusable to lose a airplane due to things as critical as having clogged pitots or static ports. Barry Personally, I question the design philosophy here -- if the plane cannot be flown without accurate air speed signal, you'd damned well better insure that you NEVER lose that data stream. Peter ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT: mystery deepens in Air France crash
I would think that a back-up sensor of some sort, like a laser doppler velocimeter, might be useful on aircraft. --R On 5/29/2011 11:49 AM, Peter Frederick wrote: All pitot heaters were on, but AirBus was in the process of replacing them with a newer design that did not ice up as easily. Pitot icing is a know problem on that design under icing conditions, and they are blue from running very hot, just like when tempering steel. The suppositions is that they encountered large amounts of supercooled water mist that overwhelmed the heaters ability to keep the pitots open. Supercooled water mist at -60C is a scary idea. Personally, I question the design philosophy here -- if the plane cannot be flown without accurate air speed signal, you'd damned well better insure that you NEVER lose that data stream. Peter ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT: mystery deepens in Air France crash
All pitot heaters were on, but AirBus was in the process of replacing them with a newer design that did not ice up as easily. Pitot icing is a know problem on that design under icing conditions, and they are blue from running very hot, just like when tempering steel. The suppositions is that they encountered large amounts of supercooled water mist that overwhelmed the heaters ability to keep the pitots open. Supercooled water mist at -60C is a scary idea. Personally, I question the design philosophy here -- if the plane cannot be flown without accurate air speed signal, you'd damned well better insure that you NEVER lose that data stream. Peter ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT: mystery deepens in Air France crash
'Don't remember reading anything about pitot heat in the AF accident ('cept
to assume that it must have been OFF). You'd think that with all of that
computer automation, they'd have some quick and easy way to get some pitot
heat on whenever the airplane is anywhere near a cloud and temp. near or
below 0C; at the very least, maybe, a simple ON/OFF toggle or rocker switch
labeled, "PITOT HEAT" or "CHALEUR PITOT," or is that too Boeing-like or
Benzesque for such sophistication francais?
Wilton
- Original Message -
From: "John Reames"
To: "Mercedes Discussion List"
Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2011 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT: mystery deepens in Air France crash
I thought it was:
Boeing--you decide
Airbus--the computer is your friend (trust the computer)
(I think someone has done too much reactor shielding duty-- refer to the
"paranoia" RPG)
--
John W Reames
jream...@verizon.net
Home: +14106646986
Mobile: +14437915905
On May 28, 2011, at 14:56, Rich Thomas
wrote:
It's not clear that the flight control system would allow them to
override what it thinks it needs to do to the airplane. Also unclear
that they had the proper information to determine what exactly they
needed to do, whether the FCS would allow them to do that or not.
Airbus. Boeing. You decide.
--R
On 5/28/2011 2:43 PM, Allan Streib wrote:
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2011/05/blaring-alarms-confused-doomed.html
Apparently with the aircraft in a stall, the pilots (in manual control)
maintained a nose-up attitude and attempted to climb.
___
http://www.okiebenz.com
For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
___
http://www.okiebenz.com
For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
___
http://www.okiebenz.com
For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT: mystery deepens in Air France crash
The Wall St Journal had a pretty good article today, showed the plane was at +16deg pitch up when it hit the water, descending rapidly, wings were rocking back and forth the whole descent, and it appeared to be in positive pitch the whole time. Don't think it was a spin. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576349112775425674.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection --R On 5/28/2011 8:45 PM, Max Dillon wrote: I also wonder if they were in a flat spin and no force on earth could have saved them. -Max ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT: mystery deepens in Air France crash
I believe the recorders indicated repeated stalls as the plane descended, and ti was slighly nose down on impact. Probably not complete data yet, anyway. The biggest problem, I think, is that these planes fly themselves, the pilots are just along for the ride much of the time, with the result that they are out of practice at the worst possible time. Manual flying burns more fuel, I'd guess, so is discouraged. I'm sure there are some lessons in this event if the people in charge are wise enough to look for them. Peter ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT: mystery deepens in Air France crash
I thought it was: Boeing--you decide Airbus--the computer is your friend (trust the computer) (I think someone has done too much reactor shielding duty-- refer to the "paranoia" RPG) -- John W Reames jream...@verizon.net Home: +14106646986 Mobile: +14437915905 On May 28, 2011, at 14:56, Rich Thomas wrote: > It's not clear that the flight control system would allow them to override > what it thinks it needs to do to the airplane. Also unclear that they had > the proper information to determine what exactly they needed to do, whether > the FCS would allow them to do that or not. > > Airbus. Boeing. You decide. > > --R > > On 5/28/2011 2:43 PM, Allan Streib wrote: >> http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2011/05/blaring-alarms-confused-doomed.html >> >> Apparently with the aircraft in a stall, the pilots (in manual control) >> maintained a nose-up attitude and attempted to climb. >> >> > > ___ > http://www.okiebenz.com > For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT: mystery deepens in Air France crash
"Protection from overstress" also appears to have contributed to the AriBus crash shortly after 9/11 when a pilot managed to tear the tail off correcting for jet wash. Pretty dubious design if over-vigorous rudder pedal application can cause the tail to fail at low speeds Peter ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT: mystery deepens in Air France crash
I think that the sad truth is that the quality of the pilots is decreasing (starting salaries of 30K or so, I believe, for all airlines) and so much more sophisticated air planes are required to prevent pilot error. All of you are assuming these pilots are perfect and the aircraft is the problem. What we are not reading about are all the instances of pilot error which the Airbus systems prevent from turning into a crash. I remember a near-crash in the 80's, was a DC-9 or DC-10, at high altitude, exceeded the flight envelope in terms of altitude vs. speed, and the wings simply lost lift. It was an asian airliner, Korean or Japanese I think. Plane began to plunge. Someone in the cockpit dropped the landing gear, which stabilized the plane, and allowed the pilots to regain control. I wonder if dropping the landing gear would have helped this Air France flight (if the computers would have allowed it). I also wonder if they were in a flat spin and no force on earth could have saved them. -Max -Original Message- From: mercedes-boun...@okiebenz.com [mailto:mercedes-boun...@okiebenz.com] On Behalf Of Allan Streib Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2011 7:21 PM To: Mercedes Discussion List Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT: mystery deepens in Air France crash Peter Frederick writes: > I'm not sure how much more "out of the flight envelope" you can be > flying a full sized jetliner out of a cloud going almost straight down > with the never exceed speed warning blasting! This happened to both > Boeing 707s and Douglas DC8's at least once in the 60's, and both > survived -- the 707 pilot firewalled the throttles (nose comes up > because the engines are so far below centerline and the speed of sound > is higher the lower you are), the DC8 pilots put all four engines in > full reverse thrust at Mach .98. Bent both planes into junk. but they > landed safely with all the passengers and crew essentially un-injured. Of concern, then is some of the motivation for FBW aircraft (quoting Wikipedia): "Since these systems can also protect the aircraft from overstress situations, the designers can therefore reduce over-engineered components, further reducing weight." So here you have a philosophy that because the plane "cannot" exceed its design parameters, we don't have to engineer for the worst case that it actually does. Allan -- 1983 300D ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT: mystery deepens in Air France crash
Peter Frederick writes: > I'm not sure how much more "out of the flight envelope" you can be > flying a full sized jetliner out of a cloud going almost straight down > with the never exceed speed warning blasting! This happened to both > Boeing 707s and Douglas DC8's at least once in the 60's, and both > survived -- the 707 pilot firewalled the throttles (nose comes up > because the engines are so far below centerline and the speed of sound > is higher the lower you are), the DC8 pilots put all four engines in > full reverse thrust at Mach .98. Bent both planes into junk. but they > landed safely with all the passengers and crew essentially un-injured. Of concern, then is some of the motivation for FBW aircraft (quoting Wikipedia): "Since these systems can also protect the aircraft from overstress situations, the designers can therefore reduce over-engineered components, further reducing weight." So here you have a philosophy that because the plane "cannot" exceed its design parameters, we don't have to engineer for the worst case that it actually does. Allan -- 1983 300D ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT: mystery deepens in Air France crash
That particular mode of operation has been somewhat controversial since Airbus started using total computer control on the A320 way back when. Sure, the computer can keep the pilots from exceeding the flight envelope, but what in tarnation do you do when the aircraft is OUT of the envelope? The French have always maintained that the aircraft cannot be put out of normal flight envelope except by pilot action, so if you prevent the pilots from making a mistake the plane cannot exceed the flight envelope. Circular logic, again, what the h... does a pilot do when he NEEDS nose down full throttle and the computer "thinks" that's not OK? Severe turbulence in thunderstorms has been known to invert large jets, fling them up or down thousands of feet with zero indicated airspeed, and send them out of the bottom of a downdraft in nearly vertical drives. I'm not sure how much more "out of the flight envelope" you can be flying a full sized jetliner out of a cloud going almost straight down with the never exceed speed warning blasting! This happened to both Boeing 707s and Douglas DC8's at least once in the 60's, and both survived -- the 707 pilot firewalled the throttles (nose comes up because the engines are so far below centerline and the speed of sound is higher the lower you are), the DC8 pilots put all four engines in full reverse thrust at Mach .98. Bent both planes into junk. but they landed safely with all the passengers and crew essentially un-injured. Both lost an engine, and possibly part of a wing, but still flew. It was already known that if you pulled back on the stick and tried to lift the nose with the elevators the tail would come off. There was an interesting program on PBS a while back on the Air France accident, where the producers got a bunch of retired accident investigators together and used the computer transmitted data and weather data to figure out what happened. The conclusion they came to was the the flight crew was surprised by the intensity of the storm because it was masked by a smaller storm in front of it, and when they cleared that they were facing a monster storm too close to avoid. Once things got hairy, they were flying an aircraft with a very complex flight control system in pitch darkness at high altitude, no visual references at all, and no working electronic instruments (just big flashing red fault screens with a cocaphany of horns, alerts, and buzzers going off. As noted, the speed range for safe flying is quite narrow, and while the pilots slowed the plane as is normal for entering a thunderstorm, there are several characteristics of the Airbus avionics that cause serious trouble in sudden upsets similar to what this flight encountered: Wee dinkums manual instrumens that are NOT directly in front of the pilots "Joystick" manual controls with minimal feedback and absolutely no positional reference (just like a PC flight controller -- more built in feedback, I would assume, but nothing like a floor hinged stick). Very large computer displays scrolling messages too fast to read Throttle levers that do NOT move under computer control, giving a totally false sense of engine power (only the digital readout is accurate) The "safe flight mode" for use when the airspieed indicators all fail, involving specific elevator trim, power settings, and flap settings must be manual selected after manually resetting the throttle levers. There have been several dozen incidences of pitot tube failures, and most of them resulted in similar autopilot shutdown. In most of them, the flight crew was very slow to initiate the "safe flight mode" settings, and while there were no accidents, this failure to put the controls in the correct settings very quickly indicates a failure of both flight crew training and computer programming. My personal take is that the autopilot and flight computers should automatically initiate "safe flight mode" immediately when the airspeed detectors fail. It burns a lot of fuel, but that's vastly preferable to being unable to determine the flight status of the aircraft in the middle of twenty eleven horns blowing, computers talking, and red flashing lights all over the instrument panel! I also think the throttle levers should move all the time so that changes in setting and selected power output are obvious at a glance -- after all, when the pilots need this information they are well bast the "oh sh.t" point. Having to remember to manually reset the throttle levers ain't gonna happen the one time in 5000 flights they need to! And last, manual flight instruments need to be big enough to SEE in the midst of all the chaos -- I'm quite certain the pilots can read a gyro pitch indicator right in front of them, and that alone might have been enough to save them. The pilots also need standard "old fashioned" con
Re: [MBZ] OT: mystery deepens in Air France crash
Been reading some other blogs about this, apparently on the fly-by-wire Airbus even in "Alternate Law" the pilot is not fully in control. Some conjecture that if he pushed the stick forward to try to get the nose down the pitch trim (still under computer control in the Alternate Law mode) could have gone backwards based on the (false) air speed reading. It appears that the Airbus system will only give up control to the pilot as it thinks it should, not based on what the pilot wants. A lot of good technical discussion (which is way over my head and contains a lot of acronyms and domain-specific language, but I enjoy reading it) at this link: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/447730-af447-wreckage-found-30.html#post6477527 Further speculation that FBW pilots are forgetting how to fly; what does 2,000 hours mean if it's all under computer control and you're basically just sitting there watching the pretty screens? -- 1983 300D ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT: mystery deepens in Air France crash
Allan Streib wrote: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2011/05/blaring-alarms-confused-doomed.html Apparently with the aircraft in a stall, the pilots (in manual control) maintained a nose-up attitude and attempted to climb. I like this comment: JB on May 28, 2011 4:00 PM Any Airbus pilot knows the significance of the aircraft pitch-up and then the comment by the pilot of "Alternate Law." It's a chilling implication. In "Normal Law"(which is regular operations), the Airbus has an electronic protective envelope created by the 5 flight control computers where the airplane can't over-bank, pitch up and stall, fly too slow and most importantly in this case, fly too fast. When these two pilots decided to fly into the tops of thunderstorm, they elected to chance the heavy downdrafts that do occur. If the Airbus hit a big downdraft initially, the autopilot would kick off, the autothrust would go idle and when the airspeed got over the Vne (Do Not Exceed Speed), the Airbus, under Normal Law, is programed to PITCH UP automatically (even with the autopilot off), to lower the airspeed back into regular range. At 35,000, the range of airspeed between too slow and too fast is a narrow one...depending on the weight of the airplane, perhaps 10-12 knots. The Airbus could very quickly exceed either of those limitations, unless decisive, corrective action is taken immediately by the pilots using manual pitch and thrust controls. But, can this be accomplished when the pilots have just elected to fly into the tops of a thrunderstorm ? It's possible that right at that moment, with heavy turbulence and lightening all around, the aircraft pitot sensors finally iced over, disabling the airspeed/altimeter instruments and causing the Airbus flight control system to default to "Alternate Law" (no protective envelope)...just at the worst moment. Remember, this all was happening in a blur with heavy turbulence, lightening and alarms in the cockpit...and perhaps the Captain pounding at the locked cockpit door, wanting back in. The Airbus at this moment is at nose high attitude, thrust idle, faulty airspeed readings, multiple fault alarms and automatically into Alternate Law fight control (which a pilot only experiences in the training simulator) and which does NOT provide stall protection like in Normal Law. The "STALL" audio warning is heard on the cockpit tape...that's never heard in Normal Law but deadly serious at 38,000 feet in Alternate Law. The airplane was falling, losing altitude, in a deep stall at this point, nose high, heavy turbulence and the pilots overloaded and task-saturated...unsure what was happening and why. Just five minutes prior, they were eating their dinner, autopilot "on", and in level, normal flight. Now, they were fighting for their lives, looking from screen to screen, trying to make sense of the conflicting indications and a long list of "faults" and alarms in the cockpit, while being tossed from side to side in the core of the thunderstorm. All of this because the pilots thought they could "top" an Atlantic thunderstorm in the dark, instead of going 50 miles around it...like the other airliners on same route. A perfectly good airplane lost with all of its crew and passengers...a pity. ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT: mystery deepens in Air France crash
It's not clear that the flight control system would allow them to override what it thinks it needs to do to the airplane. Also unclear that they had the proper information to determine what exactly they needed to do, whether the FCS would allow them to do that or not. Airbus. Boeing. You decide. --R On 5/28/2011 2:43 PM, Allan Streib wrote: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2011/05/blaring-alarms-confused-doomed.html Apparently with the aircraft in a stall, the pilots (in manual control) maintained a nose-up attitude and attempted to climb. ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
