X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 18:26:31 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao02.cox.net ([68.230.241.37] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0c3) with ESMTP id 745107 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 02 Oct 2005 14:13:22 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.37; envelope-from=WarbirdAeroPress@cox.net Received: from DELL ([24.251.75.43]) by fed1rmmtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with SMTP id <20051002181231.MDPR29216.fed1rmmtao02.cox.net@DELL> for ; Sun, 2 Oct 2005 14:12:31 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <003001c5c77c$dc1d7f80$6501a8c0@DELL> From: "Scotty G" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Non-Certified Aircraft X-Original-Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 11:12:32 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002D_01C5C742.2F490250" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C5C742.2F490250 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dominic wrote about the Airbus: Whatever spin was put on the A320 accident in France ( don't believe it = was at the Paris airshow itself), it was most likely a combination of = technology and the pilots not understanding what they were doing with = it. The number of times I have seen pilots ask, and wondered myself, "what = the hell is it doing THAT for", is innumerable when it came to the early = introduction of the A320. It was built by computer whizzes, and chucked at pilots saying - "go fly = - you can't crash it". You choose interesting words, but I'm not sure I totally agree. = Technology, in itself, isn't bad and it does not lead to an accident. = Again, it comes to the person operating the technology improperly. Maybe = I'm just tired of the A320 getting a bad rap... It shouldn't...! When the Bus went into the trees at the airshow, this is an easy = explanation to it... And in reality, the Airbus isn't different at all = in theory to any other airlpane. What happened with this particular = accident was purely pilot error. A320 technology and systems did not = contribute to the airplane turning into a tree eater. The airshow pass was briefed at some higher altitude that the one that = was actually made below 100 feet. I don't know the exact altitude, but = it was supposed to be higher than 100 feet. Anyway, the pilot made the = pass below 100 feet with the landning gear down and the flaps at either = 3 or 4. This is the landing condition for the airplane. When the pass was coming to an end, the pilot PULLED BACK ON THE STICK = TO GO AROUND. That is *all* he did. Ok, real airplane pilots... What is wrong with this picture? That's right... Why didn't he add power? The Airbus test pilot = improperly thought the airplane would go into TOGA lock and go to full = thrust. Nope. Alpha floor activated and the airplane maintained the = maximum angle of attack without stalling. BECAUSE of the the airplane's = technology and protections, it hit the trees and ground at the slowest = possible airspeed at the maximum angle of attack. Because of this, the = accident was survivable. The airplane hit the ground in the best = possible condition. Now, if Super Pilot had simply added MCT or TOGA, the airplane would = have flown away like any other airplane in the world. If this accident = had occurred in a Boeing, McD airplane, it would have stalled and hit = the ground uncontrolled and nobody, likely, would have survived. As for your "what the hell did it do that for? comment... That's an old = Airbus joke. New Airbus pilots say "What's it doing now?" Seasoned = Airbus pilots say "It's doing it again!" While there might be truth to = the comments, it still comes down to understanding the flight management = automation. The A320 series, and the A330, A340 and upcoming A350 and = A380 are no different. The automation in the current 737, 747, 757, 767 = and other current jets is not that different, either. These jets aren't = magic. They are designed by the same structural, aerodynamic and systems = engineers... Simply being conversant in computer integration in aircraft = design doesn't mean you can actually design an airplane. And you can always crash any airplane... We've never been told otherwise = with the A320, and the America West accident tally supports this. Sigh... Rant over... I'm gonna go fly my Lancair tomorrow! ;>) Scotty G www.UnleashedAirRacing.com www.SeptemberPops.com www.WarbirdAeroPress.com All mail is scanned for viruses. ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C5C742.2F490250 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dominic wrote about the Airbus:
 

Whatever spin was put on the A320 = accident=20 in France ( don=92t believe it was at the = Paris airshow itself), it was most likely a combination = of=20 technology and the pilots not understanding what they were doing with=20 it.

The number of times I have seen = pilots ask,=20 and wondered myself, =93what the hell is it doing THAT for=94, is = innumerable when=20 it came to the early introduction of the A320.

It was built by computer whizzes, = and=20 chucked at pilots saying =96 =93go fly =96 you can=92t crash=20 it=94.


You choose interesting words, but I'm not sure I totally agree. = Technology, in itself, isn't bad and it does not lead to an accident. = Again, it=20 comes to the person operating the technology improperly. Maybe I'm just = tired of=20 the A320 getting a bad rap... It shouldn't...!
 
When the Bus went into the trees at the airshow, this is an easy=20 explanation to it... And in reality, the Airbus isn't different at all = in theory=20 to any other airlpane. What happened with this particular accident was = purely=20 pilot error. A320 technology and systems did not contribute to the = airplane=20 turning into a tree eater.
 
The airshow pass was briefed at some higher altitude that the one = that was=20 actually made below 100 feet. I don't know the exact altitude, but it = was=20 supposed to be higher than 100 feet. Anyway, the pilot made the pass = below 100=20 feet with the landning gear down and the flaps at either 3 or 4. This is = the=20 landing condition for the airplane.
 
When the pass was coming to an end, the pilot PULLED BACK ON THE = STICK TO=20 GO AROUND. That is *all* he did.
 
Ok, real airplane pilots... What is wrong with this picture?
 
That's right... Why didn't he add power? The Airbus test pilot = improperly=20 thought the airplane would go into TOGA lock and go to full thrust. = Nope. Alpha=20 floor activated and the airplane maintained the maximum angle of attack = without=20 stalling. BECAUSE of the the airplane's technology and protections, it = hit the=20 trees and ground at the slowest possible airspeed at the maximum angle = of=20 attack. Because of this, the accident was survivable. The airplane hit = the=20 ground in the best possible condition.
 
Now, if Super Pilot had simply added MCT or TOGA, the airplane = would have=20 flown away like any other airplane in the world. If this accident had = occurred=20 in a Boeing, McD airplane, it would have stalled and hit the ground = uncontrolled=20 and nobody, likely, would have survived.
 
As for your "what the hell did it do that for? comment... That's an = old=20 Airbus joke. New Airbus pilots say "What's it doing now?" Seasoned = Airbus pilots=20 say "It's doing it again!" While there might be truth to the comments, = it still=20 comes down to understanding the flight management automation. The A320 = series,=20 and the A330, A340 and upcoming A350 and A380 are no different. The = automation=20 in the current 737, 747, 757, 767 and other current jets is not that = different,=20 either. These jets aren't magic. They are designed by the same = structural,=20 aerodynamic and systems engineers... Simply being conversant in computer = integration in aircraft design doesn't mean you can actually design an=20 airplane.
 
And you can always crash any airplane... We've never been told = otherwise=20 with the A320, and the America West accident tally supports this.
 
Sigh... Rant over... I'm gonna go fly my Lancair tomorrow! =20 ;>)
 
 
Scotty G
www.UnleashedAirRacing.com=
www.SeptemberPops.com
www.WarbirdAeroPress.com
 
All mail is scanned for viruses.
------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C5C742.2F490250--