Airbus Admits Problem on 320!

[RocketRob]

Then its official............ Airbuses really do suck


Boeing keep Going

 

[Buckaroo]

The feds should ground every A320 and get to the bottom of all of the nose gear and flap problems before innocent people are killed.

 

[SKC]

You're comparing a World War TWO Boeing B-17 to a "state of the art" Airbus 300-###

A300....state of the art? Good one.

 

[SuperFLUF]

No surprises here. Airbus also hid the A300 rudder problems for 2+ years until AA 587 crashed and they are still denying any culpability.

They still blame their "HAL 9000" flight control issues on the pilots instead of the programmers as well.

 

[Capn Mike]

The feds should ground every A320 and get to the bottom of all of the nose gear and flap problems before innocent people are killed.

So now there is a FLAP problem? Which news media do you work for???

 

[JB Bus Drvr]

"The feds should ground every A320 and get to the bottom of all of the nose gear and flap problems before innocent people are killed."

Just like they grounded the 737s after the rudder problems.

 

[8vATE]

Park the A320s!!!


Sure..

The A320 has killed a LOT of people due to pure mechanical failure!

Lets see...

Hmmm..

Oh...
The only accidents have been due to human factors....

bummer!!!

 

[Steveair]

Some of these deaths would have been avoided in the "human error" region had Airbus utilized soft limits in there fly-by-wire system. I'm amazed Airbus hasn't changed that design. It seems to have caused more problems than it's worth. Has anyone heard of anything positive happening because of this system?

 

[8vATE]

How many accidents have been caused by HAVING soft limits?
Being able to stall? Over G? Overspeed?


Every system has its limitations...

Believe me... I'm not trying to blow smoke in anyone's a@@.

If you understand the flight control laws... and understand the interface between the human and the automation.... its proven itself very well.

There's the high profile crashing in to the trees...
And several automation accidents (human factors)..

But there are real benefits of being able to pull FULL back stick at anytime and know the airplane will not over g and will give you eventually a max alpha climb out. (EPGWS escape maneuver)

FWIW.....

Boeing chose soft limits and a yoke...
Airbus went joystick and hard limits...

Both work with there own limits and benefits.

 

[Godvek]

Is it me or were the majority of the recent string of crashes 737's? There are a lot of 320's flying around every day too.

 

[castle bravo]

Seems like most of the harpooning of the 320 comes from folks who have NOT actually flown it. Let's hear from a few guys with substantial AB time.

 

[Dizel8]

"Some of these deaths would have been avoided in the "human error" region had Airbus utilized soft limits in there fly-by-wire system".

I am curious, which accidents are you referring to?

 

[SuperFLUF]

I am curious, which accidents are you referring to?

For your reading pleasure:

http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/others/Bilbao.html
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20010207-0
http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetGOjg/260494.htm
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/16.96.html#subj7
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20010320-0
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19940630-0

How many other software flaws are there? Can an engineer sitting at a desk really anticipate every single possible scenario that might occour in flight? Could even the world's best pilot do that? I think not. SOFT limits are necessary for FBW so that glitches may be over ridden.
That's why Airbus switched to soft limits in the 380.

 

[mynameisjim]

I read those reports you posted, and I fail to see how the Airbus control laws contributed to any of those accidents.

Are you implying that if the airplane had let them stall, that somehow the accident would have had a different outcome?

Maybe you could quote a few small bites from those articles that point to the probable cause being "the design of the aircraft's computer control system".
-------

 

[SuperFLUF]

From the very first one:

"However, according to first released findings of the Bilbao accident investigation, the ‘activity’ of this safety feature was a contributing factor in the event: the alpha-protection contradicted the desired pilots action"


"In the light of the accident occurring only four months ago, and the sometimes lengthy ‘normal’ timeframe for implementation of safety revisions after an accident, it appears to be of “amazing speed” how Airbus Industrie, - even in the absence of a final report, has already decided and performed a modification on the alpha- protection control laws. This was done in an approach “to increase the flight crew’s authority”, - as Cpt. Brandt was quoted saying by media. - A step applauded even by staunch Airbus critics among the international pilot community. A revised software version is expected to be validated this month and has already received certification by the French Civil Aviation Authority (DGAC) and the European Joint Aviation Authority (JAA). Airbus plans to implement a “rapid retrofit program” for its entire A319/320 fleet."


Either you didn't really read them or your love for the scarebus blinded you, either way I ask the same question: How many more undiscovered software problems are there? Odds are there are many more. The computer is only as good as the human engineer that does the programming and nobody can think of everything.