Posted on 03/04/2010 9:12:06 AM PST by lowbuck
The 132 passengers aboard Lufthansa Flight LH 044 had experienced the fright of their lives by the time their plane rolled up to the gate at the Hamburg airport in Germany. But they weren't yet aware of just how much danger they'd been exposed to.
snip. . .
The cause of the incident was a quirk in the Airbus A320's flight computer.
(Excerpt) Read more at spiegel.de ...
Not to bash Airbus, but as our aircraft get more and more computerized, sometimes the pilots are really flying on a "wing and a prayer".
BTW, when this happened, as a pilot, I never would have accepted an approach to that runway. My reasoning was that the CW component might be too much for my "human inputs" and it seems now that the "computer inputs" were not up to task. A bunch of lucky folks on that plane.
“The cause of the incident was a quirk in the Airbus A320’s flight computer. On the first near-landing, it switched to ground mode — which, among other things, limits the power of the ailerons and restricts the pilots’ power to move them. They had to look on powerlessly as the flight computer took control and put the plane at the mercy of the storm.”
As someone who generally would rather get a root canal then fly, let me the first to calmly, rationally, and succinctly say: EEEYAHGGGHG!!1!
A-320 “Whew...” ping.
During the final approach, the tower reported winds gusting at up to 47 knots.
Hum... Landing in 47 knot crosswinds and a 24 year old co-pilot at the controls.
What could go wrong? They are lucky to be alive...
Did you read the report about the Air France/Brazilian Airbus crash? “They” have all but nailed Airbus (and air France for slow retrofit) for the design of the pitot telemetry-to-flight-computer software.
Apparently the flight crew on that flight had little or no hope of gaining control of the aircraft after the flight computer gave up. The aircraft appears (according to the report) to have entered a deep stall, departed controlled flight, and pancaked onto the surface of the ocean (5 degree nose up attitude) with an estimated force of 35 Gs.
I don’t have any of those issues in the Champ flying VFR.
Yes, I also questioned the decision of the Captain to let the co-pilot shoot the approach. When the pucker factor is high that's the time for the Captain to earn his BIG BUCKS. Only problem with this is apparently no one was aware of this little flaw in the “computer knows more than the pilots” flaw.
From one of my favorite “squawk/response” (pilot complaint/repair engineer response) stories:
Squawk: “Very rough on auto-land”
Response: “Auto-land not installed on this aircraft.”
The more you think about it, the funnier it gets... (at least to me)
Hello Blueflag,
I posted an article that was in Speigel about the A-330 crash. Is the report you refer to from another source??
If so I would appreciate a link if you have one.
>>As someone who generally would rather get a root canal then fly, <<
I fly 5,000 miles a week. You can get used to anything. But I agree with your exclamation and sentiment. Up until now the worse things I have experienced were really bad turbulence, a lightning strike and a landing runway-overshoot (no harm done, just embarrassing for the pilot). All on different flights, btw.
“Hum... Landing in 47 knot crosswinds and a 24 year old co-pilot at the controls.”
I’ve never piloted an airplane, so I am curious. At what crosswind speed do things get hairy for an average pilot?
According to Capt Lim:
The maximum demonstrated crosswind guidelines for that plane is 33 knots on a dry runway (38 knots with gust). Anything above that, pilots should not attempt the landing.
Lucky is right. Next question is why does the airplane’s computer not give control to the pilot??? Can it not be overridden ( ie put into manual mode). If not I will never fly Airbus again ( though I have to admit avoiding them as much as I can it will be a deal breaker from now on)
Actually that was probably your post I was referring to!
Of course I cold not find it via search.
But definitely I was referring to the Spiegel article, whether it was your post or not.
To me this makes the Toyota software issues really trivial.
The allowable crosswind component varies greatly by aircraft type (and the circumference of the cajones of the pilot divided by the width of the runway).
A steady crosswind is easier to handle than a gusting crosswind.
For example, when we fly our little Aeronca Champ (very lightweight) which is ALSO a tail dragger, crosswinds are very exciting on landing. My father in law has over 3000 hours in type, so he can do landings I would not attempt.
It’s unfortunate, but that’s what happens when you take away the pilot’s authority and give it to flight-control and software engineers.
There is an old joke about the Airbus approach to pilots:
In their ideal plane there would be one seat in the cockpit for the pilot (only one pilot) and room for a dog.
The pilot is there to feed and pet the dog.
The dog is there to bite the pilot if he does anything else!!
I would not say this is the first time Airbus has had a problem with landings...
Air France Flight 296 was a chartered flight of a newly-delivered fly-by-wire Airbus A320-111 operated by Air France. On June 26, 1988, as part of an air show it was scheduled to fly over Mulhouse-Habsheim Airport (ICAO code LFGB) at a low speed with landing gear down at an altitude of 100 feet, but instead slowly descended to 30 feet before crashing into the tops of trees beyond the runway. Three passengers died. The cause of the accident is disputed, as many irregularities were later revealed by the accident investigation. This was the first ever crash involving an Airbus A320.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fX4_Ho992TQ&NR=1
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.