USAir 1549 and Alpha Protection

[AC560]

Idle curiosity on how this worked for that flight if any Airbus guys can give a little insight would be appreciated.

 

[grog_sit_reserv]

I don't think it factored in, seemed like controlled flight all the way to the water.

 

[Dizel8]

Alpha floor is inhibited below 100 feet RA, cannot remember if it also requires gear down, however, A. Floor is only an auto thrust function, which will command TOGA power, of course there was no power available.

AoA protection would have been available, but based on the AoA during approach and touchdown, it more than likley did not become active, it would have lowered the nose.

BTW, the A320 crash in Mulhouse was caused by A.floor being inhibited below 100 ft. RA. The pilot in that case was planning on it kicking in, not understanding the system well enough to know that it wouldn't. Moments before it became a tree destroying chain saw, you can hear the engines spooling up, because the TL's were pushed to TOGA.

If you want more info, I'll go dig out the book!

 

[SLUF4]

That Air France crash is very misunderstood and everyone blames it on the computer, but it was really pilot error if I remember correctly. He was also flying way below the altitude they had planned on for the flyby. I think they committed a few other errors, but I can't remember them off the top of my head. I think the Airbus got a bad rep for nothing from that crash.

 

[glasspilot1]

I'm not familiar with the AB. Did the crew have to listen to a Gear horn in the flare or is there a way to inhibit it?

 

[Donsa320]

I'm not familiar with the AB. Did the crew have to listen to a Gear horn in the flare or is there a way to inhibit it?

They had a Ground Prox warning until splash down, as I read it. I am really anxious to see the CVR trans script. So many questions.

 

[ableone]

That Air France crash is very misunderstood and everyone blames it on the computer, but it was really pilot error if I remember correctly. He was also flying way below the altitude they had planned on for the flyby. I think they committed a few other errors, but I can't remember them off the top of my head. I think the Airbus got a bad rep for nothing from that crash.

You should read the actual report before commenting.

Though pilot error was certainly a factor, some of the flight control software and FADEC controls were changed after this incident. Think slats out - approach idle.

 

[SLUF4]

Well, I'm just going off my memory from when we studied it 8 years ago...so my apologies, sir. My point was that if he wasn't flying at 30' (below the tree tops) it wouldn't have happened.

Here's an excerpt from airdisaster.com, though:
The crew started the descent three minutes later and Habsheim was in sight at 450ft agl. The first officer informed the captain that the aircraft was reaching 100ft at 14:45:14. The descent continued to 50ft 8 seconds later and further to 30-35ft. Go-around power was added at 14.45:35. The A320 continued and touched trees at the end of the runway at 14:45:40 with a 14° pitch attitude and an engine speed of 83% N1. The plane sank slowly into the forest and a fire broke out. Failure of the Captain to maintain sufficient altitude and airspeed for recovery after a low approach to a runway with obstacles near the departure end.

I know that there were some automation anomalies that were discovered also. What are your opinions?

 

[Golden Falcon]

Would have been in alternate law..no protections in place, only slow/high speed "stability" features..he would have had to maintain at least 140kts for the RAT to be functioning.

alpha floor does not depend on LG position..in normal law works gear up or down when the RA is above the appropriate threshold..

At Habshiem there were automation "understanding" anomalies..and lack of an "approach idle" feature when TOGA was finally selected, the engines simply didnt spool up in time..and yes they were below the "alpha floor" RA threshold..

smart cockpit.com will clear up all misunderstandings/misconceptions of the 'bus..as a former Boeing pilot, I find the 'bus automation to be rather fantastic..just the plane itself is rather plastic..

 

[Hair-on-Fire]

Would have been in alternate law..no protections in place, only slow/high speed "stability" features..he would have had to maintain at least 140kts for the RAT to be functioning.

alpha floor does not depend on LG position..in normal law works gear up or down when the RA is above the appropriate threshold..

At Habshiem there were automation "understanding" anomalies..and lack of an "approach idle" feature when TOGA was finally selected, the engines simply didnt spool up in time..and yes they were below the "alpha floor" RA threshold..

smart cockpit.com will clear up all misunderstandings/misconceptions of the 'bus..as a former Boeing pilot, I find the 'bus automation to be rather fantastic..just the plane itself is rather plastic..

As has been widely reported, one of the engines was still running at 35%. All buses were powered and the aircraft would of stayed in normal law with all protections.

 

[bluefin]

Didn't the chainsaw bus get way behind the power curve?

 

[Whine Lover]

This is edited and copied from another Forum/Thread. I am not the Author. It does raise an interesting question.

“An opinion about the A320 from one unidentified pilot:

Don't be surprised if the Airbus fly by wire computers didn't put a perfectly good airplane in the water. In an older generation airplane like the 727 or 737 300/400 the throttles are hooked to the fuel controllers on the engine by a steel throttle cable ... On the Airbus nothing in the cockpit is real. Everything is electronic. The throttles, rudder and brake pedals and the side stick are hooked to rheostats who talk to a computer who talks to a electric hydraulic servo valve which in turn hopefully moves something.

In an older generation airplane when you hit birds the engines keep screaming or they blow up but they don't both roll back to idle simultaneously like happened to Flt. 1549. All it would take is for bird guts to plug a pressure sensor or knock the pitot probe off or plug it and the computers would roll the engines back to idle thinking they were over boosting because the computers were getting bad data. The Airbus is a real pile of sh!t... If the computer doesn't like all the airplane and engine parameters you don't get a power increase...A Boeing would still be flying."

 

[Whine Lover]

This Page Intentionally Left Blank - Double Post

 

[Golden Falcon]

As has been widely reported, one of the engines was still running at 35%. All buses were powered and the aircraft would of stayed in normal law with all protections.

or was it recovering from a flame out, and the plane was in elec emerg config still?

 

[321 busdriver]

Just curious how you can make this post about the Airbus and how much safer the Boeing is. You obviously have no perspective whatsoever. I however,along with many, have flown as a captain on both a/c. I liked the 727,737,757, and the 767. I love the A-320 and the A-330. Don't bother responding to this post until you have flown both. Usairways A-320 captain.

 

[Fast43]

Just curious how you can make this post about the Airbus and how much safer the Boeing is. You obviously have no perspective whatsoever. I however,along with many, have flown as a captain on both a/c. I liked the 727,737,757, and the 767. I love the A-320 and the A-330. Don't bother responding to this post until you have flown both. Usairways A-320 captain.

And furthermore, don't bother responding until you have flown these Aircraft for at least a total of 150 years. And then you will still only have enough experience to be called a "Rookie" and only then just barely.

F

 

[Golden Falcon]

only time i had an uncommanded rollback in cruise was on a RR powered 757..the p1 line from ffg to the eec leaked, and the eec sensed an overboost and rolled back the engine in cruise flight..if you disconnect the auto-thrust in the bus, it's not any different than any other FADEC engine on a boeing or otherwise..

 

[Whine Lover]

"Just curious how you can make this post about the Airbus and how much safer the Boeing is."

Hey, Mr. 321...Reading is fundamental. You might try re-reading the beginning of my post:

" This is edited and copied from another Forum/Thread. I am not the Author."

Now, "Mr. Flyer of both types of aircraft" could you make an intelligent statement that responds to the original author's points?

Thank You.

YKWYFDB

P.S. - If you would ever like to enter into a business arrangement with me, I would be more than happy to do so. Don't worry about paperwork. I'll just write up a nice contract that I'm sure you will find quite agreeable.

 

[Whine Lover]

" Usairways A-320 captain. "

Ya' know, about 25 years ago....that might have impressed someone.

Also, it's more impressive ( as you pontificate about all that is aviation ) when you spell your own company's name properly, and capitalize the title like so:

-US Airways A-320 Captain

Looks better, right? Much more impressive I think.

Oh, and I flew an A-320 on my computer last night so I feel it is okay to be responding to your posts now.

Is that okay? Am I qualified?

Okay, I'm off to call my Buddy now....Who is also a "US Airways A-320 Captain ", and who has also "flown both types of a/c", and who has also flown Lockheeds as well, AND who (most importantly) is NOT a D!ck.

Thanks for playing.


YKMKR

 

[starchkr]

It "should" have still been in normal law since one engine was operating...although at a greatly reduced thrust.

Golden Falcon...I don't think they were in alternate law, and the RAT operates down to 100 kts with higher speeds being better, but it still working to 100.

glasspilot1...the gear down CRC should have been going off below 750' AGL RA...

...edit, just read the initial report by the FAA and they say that all systems "were" operational as far as electrical and hydraulic, and that the aircraft "was" in normal law during the entire sequence of events...