Reliability Gulf - Dassault ?

[bigD]

Yes, it's designed that way. Now EVERYONE knows we "G-unit" pilots are "packin' large". (cue the '50 Cent' track) TC

Or compensating!

 

[gern_blanston]

I think GV's point was that if the Greek pilot or the Amway pilot had tried to overcome the autopilot on the Gulfstream it would have just disengaged rather than sending the aircraft through violent pitch oscillations.

Where did everybody get the idea that the FCS cause the problem? The autopilot did disengage. The PF was pulling on the thing hard enough to get it to disconnect, and when it let go, he was pulling at the disconnect threshold (30 lbs?) PIO's are what hurt and killed those people (on both airplanes), not anything the autopilot did. Had either pilot just let go of the controls, the problem would have vanished.
Under-trained copilots are bad news on any airplane.
I've never flown a G-anything or a Global, but I do know that the Falcons fly beautifully. Very light and responsive on the controls, and very confidence inspiring at pattern speeds, turbulence or no.
As for the Arthur unit, our Falcon 2000's failed once in the 'low-speed' (sensitive) position right after takeoff, and as we were on a short flight, I hand-flew the remainder of the mission. I could barely tell the difference. there's not much change between max and minumum sensitivity.

 

[Muddauber]

Where did everybody get the idea that the FCS cause the problem? The autopilot did disengage. The PF was pulling on the thing hard enough to get it to disconnect, and when it let go, he was pulling at the disconnect threshold (30 lbs?) PIO's are what hurt and killed those people (on both airplanes), not anything the autopilot did. Had either pilot just let go of the controls, the problem would have vanished.
Under-trained copilots are bad news on any airplane.
I've never flown a G-anything or a Global, but I do know that the Falcons fly beautifully. Very light and responsive on the controls, and very confidence inspiring at pattern speeds, turbulence or no.
As for the Arthur unit, our Falcon 2000's failed once in the 'low-speed' (sensitive) position right after takeoff, and as we were on a short flight, I hand-flew the remainder of the mission. I could barely tell the difference. there's not much change between max and minumum sensitivity.

Uh, maybe they got the idea from the accident report or the trial...


Early in the trial, it became clear that the two pilots–Ioannis Androulakis and Gregory Sinekoglou–would be cleared of the weighty responsibility attributed to them by the findings report of investigators Alexander Fischer and Akrivos Tsolakis. That report had pointed out that the initial and sudden altitude loss from 15,000 ft was “of minor importance and could be handled,” but that the pilots’ actions resulted in a fatal upset at 3,000 ft.

However, Fischer testified at the trial that he “did not detect any error in pilot responses” but that a malfunction of the Arthur-Q unit, in conjunction with“an unfortunate combination of events,” led to the fatal results. Fischer also implicated Bucharest ATC for its delayed response to the pilots’ request for a descent to 5,000 ft. Tsolakis further bolstered the pilots’ case by pointing to the “decisive failure of Dassault to include in the flight manual the speed limitation (260 knots) when the light goes on indicating a malfunction of the pitch feel system. The instruction was included in the manual after the accident. We name and condemn Dassault.”

Olympic Airways, which was operating the airplane for the Greek government, has sued Dassault on the grounds of “disturbing flight safety, manufacturing errors and the existence of errors in the flight instructions.” The airline has also accused two employees of autopilot manufacturer Honeywell of attempted fraud for recording as the autopilot ID number the same ID number of another Falcon 900 that experienced a similar problem in U.S. airspace less than a month after the Greek upset. Olympic’s legal representative also noted that the French DGAC issued a mandatory directive that all Falcon manuals carry an instruction to reduce speed to 260 kt when the pitch feel indicator light comes on.



Muddy

 

[gern_blanston]

Interesting version of the story. That may not be exactly what happened, and it's certainly not an 'accident report.' It's one guy's opinion, and the operator's definitely trying to CYA since there were 7 fatalities.
Here's a version that google found for me as told by 'Aviation Safety Network'.


Falcon 900B SX-ECH was owned by the Greek Air Force and operated by Olympic Airways. A Greek government delegation, a.o. minister in charge of European affairs, Yiannos Kranidiotis, were to visit Bucharest. Their plane departed Athens 18:16 UTC. During climb, after the flaps and slats were retracted, the flight crew noticed, on the warning panel, the "PITCH FEEL" light, was illuminated. The captain disengaged the autopilot, checked the forces on the control column and re-engaged the autopilot. The "PITCH FEEL" warning light, remained continuously ON, during cruise and descent until the slats were extended. The Falcon reached a cruising altitude of FL400 until 47 minutes from take-off, when a normal descent to FL150 was initiated, with the autopilot
engaged in vertical speed (V/S) mode. During descent the Indicated Air Speed (IAS) increased from 240 knots to 332 knots. Approaching FL150, the first officer had a request for a further descent. Just before FL150 the ATC recleared the flight to continue descent to FL50. One second later autopilot disengaged and
thereafter the aircraft was manually flown by the captain. Between FL150 and FL140, for approximately 24 seconds, the aircraft experienced 10 oscillations in pitch axis which exceeded the limit manoeuvring load factor. Maximum recorded values were: +4.7 g and -3:26 g. During the event the thrust power was reduced. At about FL130, after aircraft recovery from the encountered oscillations, the first officer declared an emergency, saying: "We are in emergency sir, request vector to final approach. We have problems with the controls". At the request of the flight crew, radar vectoring was provided by the ATC, and a
visual approach and landing was performed on runway 08R. It appeared that the cabin interior had been completely destroyed, resulting in fatal injuries to seven passengers.

CAUSAL FACTORS:
1. Inadequate risk assessments of the PITCH FEEL malfunctions.
2. Overriding of the A/P on the pitch channel by the crew.
3. Inappropriate inputs on the control column at high speed and with Arthur unit failed in 'low-speed' mode leading to Pilot Induced Oscillations.
4. Seat-belts not fastened during descent flight phase.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19990914-2

Edited to add:
Not saying these airplanes are perfect (and I'm a huge fan) but they can't be expected to be completely pilot-proof, either.

 

[SkyGirl]

Interesting version of the story. That may not be exactly what happened, and it's certainly not an 'accident report.' It's one guy's opinion, and the operator's definitely trying to CYA since there were 7 fatalities.
Here's a version that google found for me as told by 'Aviation Safety Network'.


Falcon 900B SX-ECH was owned by the Greek Air Force and operated by Olympic Airways. A Greek government delegation, a.o. minister in charge of European affairs, Yiannos Kranidiotis, were to visit Bucharest. Their plane departed Athens 18:16 UTC. During climb, after the flaps and slats were retracted, the flight crew noticed, on the warning panel, the "PITCH FEEL" light, was illuminated. The captain disengaged the autopilot, checked the forces on the control column and re-engaged the autopilot. The "PITCH FEEL" warning light, remained continuously ON, during cruise and descent until the slats were extended. The Falcon reached a cruising altitude of FL400 until 47 minutes from take-off, when a normal descent to FL150 was initiated, with the autopilot
engaged in vertical speed (V/S) mode. During descent the Indicated Air Speed (IAS) increased from 240 knots to 332 knots. Approaching FL150, the first officer had a request for a further descent. Just before FL150 the ATC recleared the flight to continue descent to FL50. One second later autopilot disengaged and
thereafter the aircraft was manually flown by the captain. Between FL150 and FL140, for approximately 24 seconds, the aircraft experienced 10 oscillations in pitch axis which exceeded the limit manoeuvring load factor. Maximum recorded values were: +4.7 g and -3:26 g. During the event the thrust power was reduced. At about FL130, after aircraft recovery from the encountered oscillations, the first officer declared an emergency, saying: "We are in emergency sir, request vector to final approach. We have problems with the controls". At the request of the flight crew, radar vectoring was provided by the ATC, and a
visual approach and landing was performed on runway 08R. It appeared that the cabin interior had been completely destroyed, resulting in fatal injuries to seven passengers.

CAUSAL FACTORS:
1. Inadequate risk assessments of the PITCH FEEL malfunctions.
2. Overriding of the A/P on the pitch channel by the crew.
3. Inappropriate inputs on the control column at high speed and with Arthur unit failed in 'low-speed' mode leading to Pilot Induced Oscillations.
4. Seat-belts not fastened during descent flight phase.
...

So, it's like GV said, if these guys had been flying a Gulfstream, the accident couldn't have happened. Right?


_SkyGirl_

 

[gern_blanston]

Some pilots could screw up a steel ball if you put a steering wheel on it.

 

[TIS]

...the Greek accident you talk about. That one, as well, was pilot error as they should have known that putting pressure on the yoke will cause the trim to change. The pilot was trying to "assist" the AP and when he "let go" of the yoke it ended up in a negative G maneuver that tossed the passengers around.

The Arthur had nothing to do with the accident. The pilot, a former Boeing, guy was confused on which airplane he was flying. He was holding down on the pitch sync button while applying forward pressure on the yoke. He though he as disengaging the AP with in reality he was fighting it. When he let go of the yoke the airplane took him and his pax for a ride.

Nothing to do with Aurther.

Both of these posts are just flat wrong. The AQ unit failed in the low speed mode, as has been pointed out already, so saying it had nothing to do with "arthur" is just plain incorrect.

The officlal investigation concluded (in part) that the failure of the Arthur Q unit was the primary reason that the results of pilot control inputs could not be predicted by the pilot flying the plane. No fault was found with flight crew control inputs considering that fact. The investigation further blamed the manufacturer for not including a speed limitation in the AFM in the event that a failure of the Arthur Q unit was indicated.

I've read the pilot technical documentation on the Falcons and it's PI$$ poor. The French believe that they've designed an airplane that needs no explanation as to how it works beyond the checklist. This kind of "pilot-proofing" may irritate me to no end, but it also helped kill 7 people. I have a big problem with that.

TIS

 

[Muddauber]

Interesting version of the story. That may not be exactly what happened, and it's certainly not an 'accident report.' .

No, it's an excerpt from a trial report, just like I said.

Muddy

 

[gern_blanston]

OK. And I'm willing to agree to disagree, since Gulfstream guys and Falcon guys seem to disagree a lot, but there were plenty of witnesses at OJ's trial who said he was innocent.
Trial excerpts aren't really anything definitive.
Did Amway's plane have an Arthur-Q problem? I can't remember, but I didn't think so. I can't find the NTSB report, but I thought it, too was attributed to pilot error.

 

[bigD]

Not saying these airplanes are perfect (and I'm a huge fan) but they can't be expected to be completely pilot-proof, either.

Well hell, there goes my flying career!

 

[2000flyer]

But the Arthur failure on the greek aircraft was, in part, due to the pilot forcing the yoke in an effort to "help" the autopilot level off. This caused a mistrim so when he released the yoke, the aircraft entered a negative G "maneuver" because of the mistrim. This, IMHO, was pilot error, regardless of political findings. If a pilot elects to land with Flaps 2 to "help" with a smoot landing...(just an example here folks...don't get your shorts in a bind)...and runs off the end of the runway, is that a design flaw or pilot error?

to GEX Driver,

I know GV didn't say anything about the G3, thus the reason I specifically stated G3 in my post. So, to make everybody happy, GIV's 4 fatal accidents, Falcon 900EX 1.

2000Flyer

 

[G100driver]

This kind of "pilot-proofing" may irritate me to no end, but it also helped kill 7 people. I have a big problem with that.

TIS

If the pilot had not grabbed ahold of the yoke while the AP was engauged none of this would have happened. If Amway had not landed in a tailwind they would not have departed the end of the runway. Operating the aircraft well outside the limits of its design is what caused these accidents. Not an inherent design flaw that is being suggested here.

 

[GEXDriver]

ot error?

to GEX Driver,

I know GV didn't say anything about the G3, thus the reason I specifically stated G3 in my post. So, to make everybody happy, GIV's 4 fatal accidents, Falcon 900EX 1.

2000Flyer

You're still wrong. There has been ONE G-IV fatality accident and it was at Palwaukee in October 1996.

There was nothing mechanically wrong with this G-IV. The aircraft was being used by two flight departments which had different operating proceedures - Alberto-Culver and AON, . The Pilot Flying was used to flying with rudder steering on, the PNF flew with it off. The switch was in the OFF position when the PF attempted take-off. With a crosswind gusting up to 35 knots (demonstrated X-wind limit 24 kts) he lost directional control of the aircraft, departed the runway and failed to abort the take-off.

 

[GVFlyer]

Did Amway's plane have an Arthur-Q problem? I can't remember, but I didn't think so. I can't find the NTSB report, but I thought it, too was attributed to pilot error.

The mishap I was referencing occurred on 9 October 1999 in an Amway Falcon 900B which went into severe pitch oscillations while on approach to Kent County Airport at Grand Rapids. The flight had originated at Portland and Beverly, their flight attendant, was permanently disabled whe she was thrown about the cabin.

GV

 

[gern_blanston]

The mishap I was referencing occurred on 9 October 1999 in an Amway Falcon 900B which went into severe pitch oscillations while on approach to Kent County Airport at Grand Rapids. The flight had originated at Portland and Beverly, their flight attendant, was permanently disabled whe she was thrown about the cabin.

GV

Yeah, that's the one. What a bum deal. She ended up losing her arm later to complications, I think. It was the same scenario, without the Q-unit failure. The copilot pulled on the yoke until the autopilot kicked off, and PIO's did the rest. Seems like they were coming through 10,000 feet or so. Well-trained pilots are the key to success, no matter what you're flying.

 

[2000flyer]

...There was nothing mechanically wrong with this G-IV...

GEX,
Who the hell said anything about it being mechanically wrong? If you review my post it certainly wasn't me.

For the sake of argument (a major understatement of this thread) only one GIV has had a fatal accident, FINE. So, we have GIV: 1 - DA900EX: 1. This somehow makes Gulfstreams by and large a superior product??? Now there is some logic for you.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised with such a spirited group of aviators amassed here who are loyal to the products they fly. If tomorrow your (or my) company switched aircraft to a Falcon or Gulfstream, I'd bet you a keg of your favorite beer you'd be more than glad to fly it!

Respectfully,
2000Flyer

 

[TIS]

If the pilot had not grabbed ahold of the yoke while the AP was engauged none of this would have happened.

Gee, that's nice. A plane which, if the autopilot is engaged while the pilot tries to prevent it from behaving badly (i.e. trim runaway), develops a problem that may result in fatalities. That's some fine engineering!

That wouldn't happen on a Gulfstream - PERIOD!

But I digress. The AQ unit is there for a reason and it isn't because the engineers thought it would be nice to have along for the flight. It's there to fix something that would prevent certification if not addressed.

It is often stated that Falcons fly really nicely and, not having flown one, I can't really say. However, one of the reasons it flies the way it does is because it has a magic little box that no one seems to understand the construction or function of that prevents pilots from overcontrolling the plane at high speeds. The Greek accident demonstrates that when that little gem goes inop the result is an airplane with unpredictable, or at least masked, control characteristics. Equipment like the AQ unit is there to fix engineering problems pure and simple.

What I know is that though there are countless engineering problems with Gulfstreams (that's what ASCs fix), none of them seem to be potenitally life threatening. So guess what. I prefer the Gulfstream on that basis alone, nevermind the experience of the last ten years of my life.

Zero Compromise. That's what Gulfstream means.

I've seen the advantages of that many, MANY times over the years.

TIS

 

[2000flyer]

Gee, that's nice. A plane which, if the autopilot is engaged while the pilot tries to prevent it from behaving badly (i.e. trim runaway), develops a problem that may result in fatalities. That's some fine engineering!

That wouldn't happen on a Gulfstream - PERIOD!

But I digress. The AQ unit is there for a reason and it isn't because the engineers thought it would be nice to have along for the flight. It's there to fix something that would prevent certification if not addressed.

It is often stated that Falcons fly really nicely and, not having flown one, I can't really say. However, one of the reasons it flies the way it does is because it has a magic little box that no one seems to understand the construction or function of that prevents pilots from overcontrolling the plane at high speeds. The Greek accident demonstrates that when that little gem goes inop the result is an airplane with unpredictable, or at least masked, control characteristics. Equipment like the AQ unit is there to fix engineering problems pure and simple.

What I know is that though there are countless engineering problems with Gulfstreams (that's what ASCs fix), none of them seem to be potenitally life threatening. So guess what. I prefer the Gulfstream on that basis alone, nevermind the experience of the last ten years of my life.

Zero Compromise. That's what Gulfstream means.

I've seen the advantages of that many, MANY times over the years.

TIS

So, the Airbus is a POS, right? B777? Falcon 7X? F16? F22? Each one of these aircraft has systems, subsystems, software, etc., to make them fly better. Just because the boy's in Savannah haven't figured out how to make a truck handle like a Porche is no reason to trash the rest of us.

Pretty bold comments coming from one who admits to never having flown a Falcon.

By the way, that accident wouldn't have happened on the Falcon had the crew followed procedures and disconnected the autopilot rather than force it to something it's not supposed to.

2000Flyer

 

[GEXDriver]

GEX,
If tomorrow your (or my) company switched aircraft to a Falcon or Gulfstream, I'd bet you a keg of your favorite beer you'd be more than glad to fly it!

Respectfully,
2000Flyer

In addition to the Global we have two Falcon 2000 eASY's and a G-IV. By far, I like the G-IV better than the Falcons. I like it's systems, it's redundancy and rugged reliability, plus, it makes the Falcons seem underpowered. Without experience in both types I don't see how you can validly comment on which one is "better".

 

[semperfido]

In addition to the Global we have two Falcon 2000 eASY's and a G-IV. By far, I like the G-IV better than the Falcons. I like it's systems, it's redundancy and rugged reliability, plus, it makes the Falcons seem underpowered. Without experience in both types I don't see how you can validly comment on which one is "better".