A380 Delayed Another 10 Months

[Gorilla]

Gorila ... after they laid the aa new york crash on the pilots I will bash them all i want... they refuse to be held responsible for anything.

One more arrogance nail in what I hope is their corporate coffin. They may be correct with the Queens accident; then again, they may be wrong. But their starting position is always "But Monsieur, eet cannot be our fault... we are AIRBUS! We are zee best."

Deleted - unnecessary 'bus insult :0

 

[JP4user]

I'll bash Airbus, and not be ashamed to do so. I've flown with Airbus fleet managers, and guys who worked intimately with the boys in Toulouse, and to a man they say the 'bus arrogance is overwhelming. It's never their fault, ever. Always pilot error. Manufacturing issues; it's their suppliers. Etc, etc, ad nauseum.

Reminds me of how they blamed their chief test pilot and Air France Captain when the A-320 went into the forrest at the Paris Air Show some time back.

 

[A350]

For you non-airbus flyers....and specifically JP4....they placed the blame squarely where it belonged in that A320 accident...the facts below.

The A320 has low speed protection....that is if any attempt is made by the pilot to fly at a speed lower than stall....there is an alpha-protection mode called "alpha floor". This commands full thrust regardless of autothrust mode, engagement status, or throttle position. This makes the aircraft in effect "stall proof". However, there is one wrinkle.

When the aircraft breaks 50' AGL (forgive me if the exact number is wrong), it assumes the pilot is landing the aircraft. You can imagine if while trying to land the jet the airplane entered alpha floor protection and added full thrust. The Captain of that flight briefed doing the slow flyby at an altitude of 150' AGL. He was flying the aircraft and pulled the thrust to the idle position and leveled out @ 30' AGL instead. He was showing the "alpha" protection mode....except that once he broke the 50' plane, this protection is no longer available. By the time he realized his mistake and added full thrust, the aircraft was way behing the power curve and with full thrust was only able to maintain level flight and perhaps if the trees at the end of the runway were lower or he had more time to accelerate, they might have gotten out of it.

However, the statement they blamed someone who was blameless is outright wrong. The pilot did make a mistake.

A350

 

[SennaP1]

I'm surprised at the A(irbus) v. B(oeing) arguments with pilots. I'd just be happy my airline would be getting any airplanes. A or B, now I prefer A just for the comfort, but not for some sad nationalistic reason.

I always laugh at the "if it ain't Boeing, I ain't going stickers" , even saw it on a current Dash8 drivers'. I always envision these were the same guys smashing Hondas and Toyotas with a sledge hammer in the 80s at football games. And now they are driving their fuel-efficient "made in America" Accords to the store.

Better yet, driving their "American-made" F150s to Wal-Mart.

We are pilots, how about worrying about flying the airplane (or letting it fly you ) and not about the business end of making them.

That A330 sure is shiny....

 

[Gorilla]

Maybe we like Boeing aircraft better because Boeing assumes we know how to fly, and gives less authority to an onboard silicon chip than airbus.

Maybe we dislike France, too. It makes for a nice combination.

 

[ableone]

For you non-airbus flyers....and specifically JP4....they placed the blame squarely where it belonged in that A320 accident...the facts below.

The A320 has low speed protection....that is if any attempt is made by the pilot to fly at a speed lower than stall....there is an alpha-protection mode called "alpha floor". This commands full thrust regardless of autothrust mode, engagement status, or throttle position. This makes the aircraft in effect "stall proof". However, there is one wrinkle.

When the aircraft breaks 50' AGL (forgive me if the exact number is wrong), it assumes the pilot is landing the aircraft. You can imagine if while trying to land the jet the airplane entered alpha floor protection and added full thrust. The Captain of that flight briefed doing the slow flyby at an altitude of 150' AGL. He was flying the aircraft and pulled the thrust to the idle position and leveled out @ 30' AGL instead. He was showing the "alpha" protection mode....except that once he broke the 50' plane, this protection is no longer available. By the time he realized his mistake and added full thrust, the aircraft was way behing the power curve and with full thrust was only able to maintain level flight and perhaps if the trees at the end of the runway were lower or he had more time to accelerate, they might have gotten out of it.

However, the statement they blamed someone who was blameless is outright wrong. The pilot did make a mistake.

A350

Actually you are not quite correct. I fly the bus as well and think it is a great plane but read the original accident report. The high speed flight idle that is selected with slat extension is a result of that accident. There were engineering issues that contributed to that accident.

On the other hand Boeing will always blame a pilot over a design flaw as well. No manufacturer has ever fallen on the grenade when there is a dead pilot who will do the job nicely.

 

[SennaP1]

Maybe we like Boeing aircraft better because Boeing assumes we know how to fly, and gives less authority to an onboard silicon chip than airbus.

Maybe we dislike France, too. It makes for a nice combination.

Yeah, I like Boeing too. Looking forward to seeing the 787 in the skies. Luckily Boeing isn't making them in Texas or Northern Florida (ah screw it, all of Florida).

 

[A350]

There may have been changes to the flight control software...but had the pilot made the pass at 150', the accident wouldn't have occurred. I am not debating the Boeing vs. Airbus thing as I think they both make fine airplanes and my personal preference has nothing to do with the thread at hand......

Pilots make mistakes....the manufacturers are tasked with designing airplanes that are easy to fly and hard to wreck.

A350

 

[typhoonpilot]

There may have been changes to the flight control software...but had the pilot made the pass at 150', the accident wouldn't have occurred. I am not debating the Boeing vs. Airbus thing as I think they both make fine airplanes and my personal preference has nothing to do with the thread at hand......

Pilots make mistakes....the manufacturers are tasked with designing airplanes that are easy to fly and hard to wreck.

A350

The most important point here is that if they had made the low pass in a Boeing the accident would not have happened. Boeing lets the pilots control the aircraft at all times, not this stupuid engineer deciding that an aircraft below 50 feet must be landing nonsense.


TP

 

[SkiFishFly]

Maybe we like Boeing aircraft better because Boeing assumes we know how to fly, and gives less authority to an onboard silicon chip than airbus.

Maybe we dislike France, too. It makes for a nice combination.

I'm with him. Go Boeing!!!

 

[YourPilotFriend]

AP is saying the CEO of airbus resigned stating Airbus is 10 years behind Boeing.

 

[ableone]

The most important point here is that if they had made the low pass in a Boeing the accident would not have happened. Boeing lets the pilots control the aircraft at all times, not this stupuid engineer deciding that an aircraft below 50 feet must be landing nonsense.


TP

Actually you are incorrect. A pilot flying a Boeing aircraft would probably have not attempted the maneuver. Had the lowspeed flyby been accomplished in a Boeing with the engines similarly unspooled the results would have been similiar. The only difference is that the Boeing could have stalled and suffered a wing drop and roll during the crash.

The airbus controll system did the best job possible to compensate for the pilot's mistakes. The software ensured that the aircraft did not stall and that it crashed in a wings level attitude. This probably allowed the high survival rate in this crash.

 

[Gorilla]

The software ensured that the aircraft did not stall and that it crashed...

GREAT SOFTWARE! I want some of that.

So you're claiming this clown did an intentional flyby at less than 50 feet and well below Vref in an attempt to show off airbus electronics, or what? Configured, and near Vref, any Boeing (or airbus for that matter) wouldn't have the slightest problem roaring away at 4000 fpm or better with a spool-up that's plenty responsive and effective.

Was he that close to stall that he couldn't fly out of it? I don't know all the details, but if he let it get that slow, that low, he's irresponsible, to put it mildly.

 

[ableone]

any Boeing (or airbus for that matter) wouldn't have the slightest problem roaring away at 4000 fpm or better with a spool-up that's plenty responsive and effective.

OOOkay, I am confused. You are saying that he should have been able to spool the engines up faster?

The next time you are in a sim push the thrust levers from idle to the stops and hit the timer. (At ground idle in the Boeing, flight idle clean in a bus) Let me know how much time elapses before the thrust matches the command.

 

[Gorilla]

any Boeing (or airbus for that matter) wouldn't have the slightest problem roaring away at 4000 fpm or better with a spool-up that's plenty responsive and effective.

OOOkay, I am confused. You are saying that he should have been able to spool the engines up faster?

The next time you are in a sim push the thrust levers from idle to the stops and hit the timer. (At ground idle in the Boeing, flight idle clean in a bus) Let me know how much time elapses before the thrust matches the command.

As I mentioned, I am not familiar with the accident. If he allowed the airspeed to decay to an exceptionally low state, yes, he might have had trouble flying out of it. Obviously he was unable.

Engine spool-up varies with configuration and the operation of the particular engine's FADEC. Ground idle? Why should I time ground idle when I'm not on the ground? At a normal flaps 30 or 40 landing in a 737-800, when you firewall the throttles, the airplane does indeed respond very quickly, and at a typical weight VVI will easily exceed 3000 fpm.

So what's the deal? I maintain if he was at Vref, and he asked for (and recieved) MCT or TOGA thrust, the airplane would have happily flown away without the slightest problem. Either his airspeed was grossly low, or the airplane's "protective" software screwed up.

 

[pilot141]

Listen, we can create specific scenarios all day long and that will prove nothing. Everyone can agree that Airbus flight-control logic is more "pro-active" than Boeing.

The original thread was about the A380 and another 10-month delay.

Everyone has heard that Emirates is rumbling about canceling their order. I heard (on a crew bus no less!) that if one other order (even one as small as Virgin's 5 A/C) cancels then Airbus will not be able to make money on the A380.

Two questions: if Emirates cancels their order will it have a domino effect on the industry? Will Virgin, Singapore, UPS and FedEx follow?

Second question: if the A380 never shows up at certain carriers (I'm thinking UPS and FedEx here), who ends up paying for the already enormous sunk infrstructure costs? Runways and taxiways have already been strengthened/widened, and more construction is underway now. If hangars sit unused for a year, will Airbus eat those dollars?

 

[Marko Ramius]

So what's the deal? I maintain if he was at Vref, and he asked for (and recieved) MCT or TOGA thrust, the airplane would have happily flown away without the slightest problem. Either his airspeed was grossly low, or the airplane's "protective" software screwed up.

He was doing a demo at airspeeds below ref. Airbus fbw airplanes don't have a stickshaker or pusher like other planes. The speed region where such devices would typically activate is marked on the speed tape by an orange black tigertail region. Entering that speed region in normal law will activate 'alpha-prot'. This will inhibit further nose up stab trim(similar to the idea behind the speed trim in later model 737's). Additionally, the speed brakes retract, and maximum back stick will result in a speed stabilizing at the top of the tigertail by using pitch only. This is why you'll sometimes hear bus drivers talking about how easy the windshear recovery is in the airplane-you just push the power to toga and hold full back stick to get maximum performance you don't have to play the intermittent stick shaker game. Alpha-floor is another protection that is available anytime autothrust is available(not necessarily engaged). This protection basically sense an actual or impending low-energy situation and applies toga thrust. While some people say it engages at the bottom of the tigertail on the speed tape, it isn't displayed anywhere and it's activation is derived from the rate of speed decay and a few other sensor inputs. Theoretically, it could engage well above alpha-prot depending on how bad of a day you're having out there. The two protections are completely independant of each other, ie if you are smooth enough on the controls, you can fly around just above the stall in alpha-prot and not have alpha-floor and toga power engage. The plane will still crash just fine, it's just won't be stalled when it does it much like the plane in the video. When the airplane is below 50RA, it's in direct law(direct stick to surface relationship) and those protections are disabled for obvious reasons.

All of that is a mouthfull the first time you hear/see it, but it's pretty simple in operation. Get too slow, you won't get a shaker but you'll stay at L/D max just out of the stall, get further out of whack without adding power well then it's coming up to toga. This wouldn't have happened in other planes because you wouldn't have this type of protection system, so you wouldn't be tooling around near stall trying to demo it. Who would want to be that low anyway for a demo? If the plane leaves normal law the only protection is a stall warning aural and your ability to recover in the altitude you have left. I know we all do it to ATP standards but I wouldn't even want to be at 150' trying that!