John Redmond From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (14 years 8 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 571 times:
You guys...give me a break! Notoriously underpowered Airbus aircraft still have trouble going around and the FAA didn't ground them. I agree, though, it's high time for an explanation and remediation of the 737 rudder "mystery" before more loss of life. Will the FAA have the guts is the real question.
Dash8 From New Zealand, joined Aug 2005, 1 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (14 years 8 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 573 times:
You guys should know better. You know very well how tough the FAA has been on the 737. Do you realize how many 737 are flying aroud today? How many TIMES more than the 737. The FAA is doing everything right by revising ALL 737's in the US and grounding older 747's until they were properly inspected.
In fact I think it's Airbus who's laughing their as**s off because the JAA never dared try to ground the fly-by-wire airbusses after all their suspiciuos problems. And there are many. So while the FAA is trying to make the skies safer, and hurting the Boeing name while doing so, everyone is now thinkin AIRBUS !!! because they managed to keep things hush hush......
Hmmmm From Sweden, joined May 2007, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (14 years 8 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 573 times:
I couldn't disagree more. The FAA orginally balked at retrofitting the 737s as recommended by the NTSB. The FAA balks at every NTSB recommendation if it cost the industry real money. No crash of a A320 was ever attributed to the fly-by-wire system.
Cool Cat IIIc From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (14 years 8 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 571 times:
Well said Hmmmm. Unfortunately this is once again turning into an Airbus vs Boeing shooting match. However, John Redmons, you don't know what your are talking about. The only Airbus that is really underpowered is the A-340. The A-330 and A-300/310 are all very powerfull and the A-320 series have adequate power, especially at low level (where go-arounds tend to take place) there is more than enough power available. If you are refering to the go-around problems they have had in Asia then I suggest you look at crew error more then anything. Please, give us a break...
Dash8 From New Zealand, joined Aug 2005, 1 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (14 years 8 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 572 times:
You know I've seen videos where crews were fighting the A320 in the approach segment. You can SEE the plane violently turning left and right pitch up and down until they manage to pull her out at not more that 2000 feet. This was a video about aviation safety by a recognised institution. In fact I KNOW of an A320 pilot for a major US airline that vowed never to fly an A320 again in his life after what happened to him.
And to the ones critisizing my post the following website:
http://yi.com/home/BomannsAlfred/habsheim.htm ( PLEASE READ COMPLETELY)
Now can anyone tell me that Europe and Airbus Indusrty are more fair than FAA that eventually DID ground 747's AND inspected ALL US 737's ?
Give ME a break.......
Now I love all aircraft, but to dis one side of the ocean and then asks to be given a "break" just makes me mad.
All aiplanes have problems. DC10-cargo door, L-1011-centre engine, 737-Rudder, MD-11-Software(that I know of), but also Airbus and it's A320's.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29514 posts, RR: 59 Reply 10, posted (14 years 8 months 4 weeks ago) and read 571 times:
The Air-Inter crash was caused directly by the aircrafts flight control system and the ambiguous controls for altiude on the airplanes glareshield controls.
This crash also illistrates why you don't what to give the NTSB reglatory authority. They would be much more prone to write things off because they would be under intense pressure from the politicians and the manufactuers. The French government owns part of Airbus so they wrote this crash off to pilot error by not reading the controls properly. If the NTSB had investigated they would have addressed the deficencies with the airplanes FMGS controls and the autopilot panel in the glareshield. The Roselawn ATR crash is another good example. The French authories also wanted to write that crash off a pilot error. but the NTSB went ahead and fully investigated and found the weaknesses in that aircrafts systems. Is the French governments poisition purely conicidental with the fact they own ATR too? I don't think so.
The NTSB is very good at finding crash causes. If they had power to make the rules they would subject themselves to much more intense pressure from both the manufactures and polital forces then they have not. This would degrade their primary mission. Don't fix something that isn't broken.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Cool Cat IIIc From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (14 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 571 times:
Yes, some indications on the autopilot panel were ambigious. This did influence the Air Inter crash, but this was only the initiator. If the flight crew had done their job and would have crosschecked what was going on and would have used all available data they would have quickly discovered that their rate of descent was WAY too big for this particular approach. I don't know what they were doing but they might as well have been asleep. Normally you cross check your altitude in conjunction with DME distance. This they can not have done, otherwise they would have caught their error immediately. Also, they must have not even been looking at their VSI because this too was way off.
Dash8 From New Zealand, joined Aug 2005, 1 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (14 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 571 times:
Cool Cat IIc's right that it wasn't only the FMGS that caused the accident, but a chain of events. Correct me if I'm wrong but I thinks they crashed my matter on one decimal point (-3.3 i.s.o. -33).
But remember if you're ever flying at night, fast over mountanous terain and only 5000 feet high, a pilot should be able to to trust the FMGS to clearly indicate what the AP is doing. And remember although the crew was also to blame, they crashed about less that a minute after this FMGS selection !!!
My opnion is that the fully automated FMGS of the A320 has desensitized the crew enough that they let the computers do everything it wanted, and eventually, they let one fatal mistake slip by.
Beleive me, I think Airbusses are very beautiful and economic planes, but the
Autoflight System they use scare me.
Hmmmm From Sweden, joined May 2007, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (14 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 571 times:
L-188, I don't quite get your argument. You acknowledge that the NTSB goes about its job without politics tainting them, then you suggest that it is good that we keep the FAA as the NTSB's boss because the FAA is tainted by politics. The NTSB addresses the tough issues becaue that is the NTSB's mandate. The FAA skirts the tough issues because their mandate is to promote, not just regulate, aviation. And it's hard to promote aviation if you have to enforce fines, bans, and retrofits. Perhaps if the NTSB had regulatory power over the FAA in these areas, areas which directly affect public safety, then we wouldn't have to wait for the bodies to pile up before the FAA relunctantly agrees to come to the conclusion that the NTSB already arrived at long ago.
Dash8 From New Zealand, joined Aug 2005, 1 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (14 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 571 times:
hmmmmmmm I was just curious if you read the website I wrote down.
If you did then the FAA/NTSB affair pales in comparison to what was done by the Europeans.
I agree with you that the FAA/NTSB relationship sucks, but nomatter how you change it, there are always going to be problems.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29514 posts, RR: 59 Reply 15, posted (14 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 571 times:
Actually you have backed up my point.
The FAA is somewhat confused about it's job. I don't think that removing promoting aviation from their mandate is a good idea but there are areas where they don't seem to know what is going on. Take the $5000 Delta had to shell out because the brew light on one of their coffee makers in the galley burned out. Wasn't on the MEL??? The enforcement problem is with the FAA having people who either don't care about what they are doing or that incopetient. The inspector that wrote up the private pilot for bent prop tips is another example. Even though he was flying McCauley "Q"-Tip props.
The NTSB has one mandate to investigate accidents, Aviation, Rail, Highway, Marine, Pipeline. Why muck up their job by having them take on new unfamiliar missions.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Hmmmm From Sweden, joined May 2007, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (14 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 571 times:
Again, L-1888, I am lost as to how your argument applies to my argument. My only point is the point I made in my first post in this thread which is this: The FAA is not vigilant enough in their duties for reasons aforementioned. As to Europe, Airbus, the A320, I have no opinion on their planes, their system, or the politics which may influence them. I am speaking only of the FAA-Boeing-airlines-NTSB relationship. If you believe that the FAA has been vigilant enough in their investigation of the 737 rudder problem, then we just agree to disagree.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29514 posts, RR: 59 Reply 17, posted (14 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 571 times:
I don't think we do have to disagree.
When an agency makes the rules it has to weight public opinion. Right now the FAA gets the lions share of that burden. Since the NTSB doesn't write the rules it misses a good share of the flack put up by surviors groups, the airlines, the unions, politicians, manufactures, ect, ect, ect. This allows it to do it's job which is to investigate accidents and look at them mainly from a purely what happened where point of view. I feel that all of that pressure and lobbying that the FAA takes is the real reason why you don't see rules passed. It isn't malaise at Oklahoma City. I feel that if you shift rulemaking power to the NTSB you also shift a lot of the before mentioned influences into crash investigation. The result is incunclusive and dumbed down reports like you see coming from the French government (The Air-Inter A-320 and the Roselawn ATR crash in particular) or the Dutch governments work of fiction on the Teneriffe crash. This will have a much worse effect on safety then people realise.
I don't think a lot of people out there give enough appreciation for the amount of bull that the FAA puts up with when it writes a rule. It is the one that is tasked with takeing a purely scientific report from the NTSB weighing it against economic and political concerns. Either way it is stuck with the S--- job of trying to please everybody and of course they end up with the goat.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Cool Cat IIIc From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (14 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 571 times:
Dash8, I do understand where you're coming from. I have to agree that it's very easy to become complacent with these modern flight decks. I do not think that that is a problem exclusively of Airbus though. I think with any modern flight deck it's easy to fall in that trap although, perhaps, with Airbus it's even slightly easier than with any other manufacturer. So I think I can say that we both agree that modern flightdecks aren't the answer to everything and that they have created new problems in themsleves. So, ultimately it's crew awareness and attitude, if not company policy, that determines how crews deal safely with the modern flightdeck and all it's gadgetery.
p.s. We should also remember that this Air Inter flight happened fairly early on in the full EFIS era. So people weren't neccesairily as much aware of the pitfalls of the EFIS aircraft and the constant need to still be 'in the loop' as a crew.