Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Air Canada 190 - A319 Autopilot Failure?  
User currently offlineGospelle From Canada, joined Jan 2008, 36 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 10787 times:

Air Canada flight 190 on Thursday had a dramatic incident mid flight which sent several people to hospital and required an emergency landing in Calgary. At first glance it sounds like a severe turbulance incident, but as interviews with the passengers came in, the more this looks like something more puzzling.

First of all, when the plane was brought under control, the pilot announced to the passengers that "the autopilot had malfunctioned and that they had to take control of the plane manually". The pilot also announced that a computer was "knocked out" and that they weren't sure if it was knocked out before or after the incident.

From various interviews seen on local tv (I live in Calgary) and on the net, it appears during level flight at 35,000 ft. the plane suddenly and dramatically tilted to the left, bringing the wings near perpendicular to the ground and dropped fast enough to send passengers and items up to the ceiling. Many passengers said it felt as though the plane was about to "flip" over. Then the plane tilted to the right and then back to left at least 3 times. This kept up for about 10-15 seconds.

Total altitude lost during incident was about 4000 ft.

Eye witness accounts said that even buckled passengers were slammed into the side of the plane or armrests. In one case a passenger said she saw people hanging onto their armests to hold themselves in their seat and the armrests bent about 30 degres from the strain.

Clearly Air Canada, TSB and NTSB will investigate and until then we'll likely not know the exact cause, but I was hoping some of the pilots and airline techs on the forum might like to speculate what would cause such a failure.

The sudden tilt of the plane and loss of control sound similar to the freak rudder hydraulic issue that crashed some 737's and nearly crashed another. (UA 595 March 1991, USAir 427 Sept. 1994 for example). In one of the 737 cases where the plane recovered and landed, there is mention of the autopilot as well (Continental April 11, 1994 in Honduras). I wonder if this issue with Air Canada is a similar issue.

Your thoughts?

62 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMark5388916 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 377 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 10788 times:

Well that would be really bad! I presume they can look back at the CVR to see what the piltos said when it happend. Also can you tell by looking at the auto pilot when it broke?

Mark



I Love ONT and SNA, the good So Cal Airports! URL Removed as required by mod
User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3702 posts, RR: 34
Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 10784 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

What is the point of speculating? A complete waste of time when the facts are unknown, any professional worth his/her salt would not guess at the cause. Especially if the only eyewitnesses are passengers when it has been proved in the past they are prone to exaggeration

User currently offlineAvioniker From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1109 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 10801 times:

The DFDR will have the flight control inputs and movements recorded along with the attitude and Nav inputs of the aircraft at the time of the incident. They've come a long way from the 6 parameter days with foil tape.
If it was a flight control malfunction it'll be fairly obvious if the ailerons and rudder displaced abruptly with the plane in straight and level flight and no commanded inputs.

 Smile



One may educate the ignorance from the unknowing but stupid is forever. Boswell; ca: 1533
User currently offlineMiles_mechanic From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 10796 times:

Hi everyone. I know that Turbulence has been bad the past while between Calgary and Vancouver, I flew out to Vancouver and back on Tuesday before this flight, and we had some pretty good turbulence that was tossing our E190 around. Also the barometric pressure was lower then I have ever seen it, on the monday the ATIS was saying that the baro was 28.91. the controllers were making special care to make sure the pilots knew it was 28 and not 29. so with such low pressure, it allows intense weather conditions to exist. So this is my take on things from Calgary. It could possibly be a mechanical failure, but I know the weather conditions are unusual for sure.

Regards

Miles.


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 5, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 10756 times:



Quoting Gospelle (Thread starter):

Total altitude lost during incident was about 4000 ft.

Air Canada originally said 65'. Where did the 4000 figure come from? Passengers tend to *vastly* overestimate the true magnitude of altitude changes. 4000 feet for this event would be a 16000-24000 ft/minute descent.

Quoting Gospelle (Thread starter):
Eye witness accounts said that even buckled passengers were slammed into the side of the plane or armrests. In one case a passenger said she saw people hanging onto their armests to hold themselves in their seat and the armrests bent about 30 degres from the strain.

Armrests are hinged upward...how you use them to hold yourself down?

Quoting Gospelle (Thread starter):
The sudden tilt of the plane and loss of control sound similar to the freak rudder hydraulic issue that crashed some 737's and nearly crashed another.

Except a rudder hardover doesn't oscillate, it goes one way and stays there. That's the opposite of what happened here.

Quoting Gospelle (Thread starter):
In one of the 737 cases where the plane recovered and landed, there is mention of the autopilot as well (Continental April 11, 1994 in Honduras). I wonder if this issue with Air Canada is a similar issue.

The autopilots are very different. Although the symptoms could be the same, I'm not sure the underlying causes could be.

Tom.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9153 posts, RR: 76
Reply 6, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 10608 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 5):

Air Canada originally said 65'. Where did the 4000 figure come from? Passengers tend to *vastly* overestimate the true magnitude of altitude changes. 4000 feet for this event would be a 16000-24000 ft/minute descent.

TC are saying bank angle to the right was 35 degrees, left 50 degrees, and altitude change of 900' which disconnected the autopilot, likely severe turbulence occurrence caused by an atmospheric bore.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineGofly From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2004, 1727 posts, RR: 38
Reply 7, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 10599 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting VC-10 (Reply 2):
What is the point of speculating? A complete waste of time when the facts are unknown, any professional worth his/her salt would not guess at the cause. Especially if the only eyewitnesses are passengers when it has been proved in the past they are prone to exaggeration

Exactly.

The only factual report I could come across was this one:

Occurrence Type: Accident
Occurrence Date: 2008/01/10
Occurrence Time: 1500 Z
Day Or Night: day-time
Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 6

Canadian Aerodrome ID: CYYC Aerodrome Name: Calgary Intl
Occurrence Location: Vicinity Calgary Intl (CYYC) Province: Alberta
Country: CANADA World Area: North America

Reported By: NAV CANADA AOR Number: 89221-V1

Flight #: ACA 190
Aircraft Category: Aeroplane Country of Registration: CANADA
Make: AIRBUS Model: A319 114
Year Built: 1998
Amateur Built: No
Engine Make: CFM INTERNATIONAL
Engine Model: CFM56-5A5
Engine Type: Turbo fan
Gear Type: Land
Phase of Flight: Cruise
Damage: No Damage
Owner: AIR CANADA
Operator: AIR CANADA (5262)
Operator Type: Commercial

ACA 190, an A319 with 88 people on board, was en route from Victoria to Toronto when the crew advised ATC of an aircraft upset that resulted in the aircraft doing a roll. The flight was in the vicinity of ONSET intersection (Washington state) about 65 NM southwest of Cranbrook when the crew informed Seattle Center that they were having difficulty controlling the aircraft. It is not known at this point if there was a flight management system problem or whether this event was related to turbulence. Vancouver ACC accepted control of the aircraft at 1450z. The crew declared an emergency, requested diversion to Calgary International Airport and requested medical assistance upon arrival. ACA 190 landed about 30 minutes later at 1529z and stopped on Runway 34 for visual inspection of the aircraft by airport emergency response personnel. The crew then taxied off the runway at 1533z. It was reported that there are some passengers with serious injuries. Medical assistance was on standby upon arrival. TSB Edmonton has sent two investigators to YYC.


-Gofly



Living the high life on my ex-Airliners.net Moderator pension...
User currently offlineGospelle From Canada, joined Jan 2008, 36 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10494 times:



Quoting VC-10 (Reply 2):
What is the point of speculating? A complete waste of time when the facts are unknown, any professional worth his/her salt would not guess at the cause. Especially if the only eyewitnesses are passengers when it has been proved in the past they are prone to exaggeration

I am not a professional, so I have no "salt". I WANT to speculate. That's the whole point of my thread. Of course passengers exagerate, but based on several reports, a "theme" can be seen. one of which is that the plane had a severe and sustained "roll". that is obviously NOT turbulence. So if we all concede that, then let's speculate a bit. What WOULD cause a severe and sustained roll?

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 5):
Air Canada originally said 65'. Where did the 4000 figure come from?

As I said in my OP, I gathered my data from local news reports and the internet. For this specific number I used a report from CTV: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...ce_080111/20080111?hub=CTVNewsAt11

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 5):
Armrests are hinged upward...how you use them to hold yourself down?

The plane had rolled. So the armrests were being bent SIDEWAYS. For example Just imagine being buckled into a seat that is suddenly tipped onto it's side. You would be hanging onto the armrest to hold yourself UP, not down. BTW, this account was from a CNN news interview with a passenger on TV so I do not have a link for it.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 5):
Except a rudder hardover doesn't oscillate, it goes one way and stays there. That's the opposite of what happened here.

Fair point. So what would cause this?


User currently offlineGospelle From Canada, joined Jan 2008, 36 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10486 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 5):
Except a rudder hardover doesn't oscillate, it goes one way and stays there. That's the opposite of what happened here.

I've had a few minutes to research this since my last post and while you're correct that it doesn't oscillate, there are confirmed reports from 737 events of the locked PCU "letting go" followed shortly after by another lock up. Of course in the case of the 737's, the pilots would have been standing on the opposite rudder so that when it "let go" the plane would temporarily roll the other way. A further "lock up" event immediately after would certainly cause the effect to resemble occilation. Besides, the main "theme" of the passenger accounts in this case seem to be of the plane recurring to flip "left", not "occilation".

In a fly by wire A319 would the pilots be "fighting" with controls which would cause a sudden opposite roll if a locked PCU "let go"? I personally have no idea? Any airbus pilots here know?


User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10468 times:



Quoting Gospelle (Reply 8):
a severe and sustained "roll". that is obviously NOT turbulence.

Obviously not turbulence? What makes it obviously not turbulence? What constitutes severe and sustained?



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineGreasespot From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 3085 posts, RR: 20
Reply 11, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10456 times:



Quoting VC-10 (Reply 2):
What is the point of speculating?

Speculating gives people something to talk about. Are we supposed to just ignore a major event until the report comes out in a few years... I am/was a professional and we did it all the time at work...It is part of the human condition..It is called curiosity.

GS



Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
User currently offlineKensukeAida From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 217 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10454 times:

Quoting Gospelle (Thread starter):
From various interviews seen on local tv (I live in Calgary) and on the net, it appears during level flight at 35,000 ft. the plane suddenly and dramatically tilted to the left, bringing the wings near perpendicular to the ground and dropped fast enough to send passengers and items up to the ceiling. Many passengers said it felt as though the plane was about to "flip" over. Then the plane tilted to the right and then back to left at least 3 times. This kept up for about 10-15 seconds.

It *should* be impossible to do this in controlled flight on an A319 (maximum 33 degree bank angle). Either it was a really bad computer failure (not just the autopilot), or it was *very* severe turbulence. A rudder handover seems less likely given the behavior exhibited.

- John

[Edited 2008-01-13 12:54:20]

User currently offlineGospelle From Canada, joined Jan 2008, 36 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10452 times:



Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 10):
Obviously not turbulence? What makes it obviously not turbulence?

I guess I'm relying on my own turbulence experience (lots) and the fact that the pilot came on the intercom afterwards and said they had an autopilot malfunction, computer out and had to fly manually. If there are any pilots reading who can tell me if a purely air effect could cause 3 repeated "Left" rolls of 50 degrees, kill a computer and autopilot, then I'll stand corrected.


User currently offlineAvioniker From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1109 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 10432 times:

Okay so now we're speculating

The SEC could easily cause a problem like this as could the ELAC. Either unit having a major internal fault will render the Autopilots inoperative.

Considering the reported 30+ degree rolls I'd hesitate to look at the rudder channels as a "starter" of the problem but they could easily contribute.

We're talking about a fully integrated flight control system on this aircraft. The autopilot is a subfunction of the flight control system rather than a fully independant box installed separately like the DC-10 or Classic Boeings.
The sidestick inputs are sent to the F/CTL computers that then cause the appropriate flight control movements. In autopilot operation the inputs are to the F/CTL computers from the FMS or whatever is coupled for navigation and steering and they're handled very much the same as the sidestick inputs.

When an upset is experienced, logic dictates that the aircrew not use any system that might possibly cause the upset to repeat. Thus, no autopilot until it can be tested and determined safe for continued service or repaired as appropriate. That's done on the ground by licensed mechanics where it's safe.

In the 90's there were a number of 320 uncommanded roll problems, some more severe than others, which resulted in more than one service bulletin on the Flight Control Computers and ELAC's.
Speculate all you want but once the FDR and FCC components are put across a bench with a good tech, I have every confidence that the story will come out.

Now as to my "two cents worth" on the armrests; They're part of the 9G restraint system requirement of, in the US, FAR part 21/25. I find it highly difficult to believe that a passenger's body or any part of a body bent one laterally without major injury.

 Smile



One may educate the ignorance from the unknowing but stupid is forever. Boswell; ca: 1533
User currently onlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4597 posts, RR: 77
Reply 15, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 10434 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Gospelle (Reply 13):
I guess I'm relying on my own turbulence experience (lots)

Where ? as what ? on what ?

Quoting Gospelle (Reply 13):
and the fact that the pilot came on the intercom afterwards and said they had an autopilot malfunction, computer out and had to fly manually.

I also read that the pilot said that the A/P was "knocked out" and that they had "to fly manually"

Quoting Gospelle (Reply 13):
If there are any pilots reading who can tell me if a purely air effect could cause 3 repeated "Left" rolls of 50 degrees, kill a computer and autopilot, then I'll stand corrected.

The poor souls who went into a roll behind a big jet and crashed could have told you that *purely air effects* can do that, too.
From the 320 family AOM :
..." In normal law, with all protections available, the A/P will disengage if

  • High speed protection is active
  • AoA protection is active ( alpha prot + 1° is reached )
  • Pitch attitude exceeds 25° up or 13° down
  • Bank angle exceeds 45°...


Could that explain the wording of a *knocked-out* A/P ?
I wonder....  Confused



Contrail designer
User currently offlineGospelle From Canada, joined Jan 2008, 36 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 10388 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 15):
Bank angle exceeds 45°...

Could that explain the wording of a *knocked-out* A/P ?

If the reports of 50 degree bank is correct then I guess it could explain the A/P "knocking out" but as for a cause of the bank in the first place, does it sound reasonable for this to be caused by turbulence? 50 degrees of bank? at 35,000 ft.? 3 times?

Hey, I'm just a frequent flyer, not a pilot, but to me that sounds like something other than turbulance.

If the experts here lean towards turbulance, than I'm satisfied. Let's hear from you folks. what do you think?

[Edited 2008-01-13 15:17:04]

User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 42
Reply 17, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 10367 times:



Quoting Gospelle (Reply 16):
to me that sounds like something other than turbulance.

Or something other than the turbulence you've experienced. Even though it might seem severe, most travellers never experience anything more than what the pros would call "moderate" - I certainly haven't. Severe turbulence has certainly downed a few aircraft in the past and damaged many more. Off-hand, I can think of a BOAC 707 that met such a fate:

http://www.aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19660305-1


User currently offlineAvioniker From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1109 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 10365 times:

And there was the Southbound L1011 that flew through the wake of an Eastbound 757 West of Sacramento in Dec'93. They had a number of injuries after the plane did some impressive aerobatics and lost 1300 feet.
I'm not sure if it did a roll or not.
 Smile



One may educate the ignorance from the unknowing but stupid is forever. Boswell; ca: 1533
User currently offlineAcabgd From Serbia, joined Jul 2005, 666 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 10352 times:



Quoting VC-10 (Reply 2):
What is the point of speculating? A complete waste of time

First of all, this is a discussion forum and not an NTSB hearing.

Quoting VC-10 (Reply 2):
any professional worth his/her salt would not guess at the cause.

Last time I checked this site was open to non-professionals as well and I try to respect them as well.

Furthermore, it's only normal to speculate when an incident/accident happens. It happens all the time here at a.net, so I really don't see why such a reaction from your part? Take it easy man, we're just talking...



CSud,D9,MD8x,D10,Trid,BAC1,A30,31,319,320,321,33,346,B71,72,73,74,75,76,77,L10,S20,A42,A72,T13,T15,F50,F70,F100,B146
User currently offlineGospelle From Canada, joined Jan 2008, 36 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 10353 times:



Quoting David L (Reply 17):
Or something other than the turbulence you've experienced.

I understand this of course, but by the same token you have no idea what my experiences are. I really don't want to get off topic too much and drag this into a discussion about what people think vs. what is. instead, I'd really just like to know what would cause these symptoms. I think it's worth repeating. "Sudden, 50 degree Left roll, then right 35, repeated 3 times. then nothing.

It sounds mechanical. sorry it just does.

If it were turbulance, wouldn't the pilots have known it for what it was? Instead their statements to passengers seems to point in the other direction.


User currently offlineCptSpeaking From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 639 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 10329 times:



Quoting Gospelle (Reply 20):

Could be mechanical...but I think the more likely cause was CAT. Clear Air Turbulence is known to be very severe, and a roll of the airplane 50 degrees would kick the autopilot off. I know that when I'm talking to passengers, I dumb things down a lot. The majority of the flying public doesn't understand, much less care, what the autopilot's reaction to a sudden roll is. Telling the passengers "the autopilot had malfunctioned and we had to take control of the plane manually" seems to me a dumbed down version of "the severe turbulence we just encountered (and couldn't predict) caused a sudden roll past the 45 degree roll limit of the autopilot, causing it to shut off, so we had to start manually flying the airplane.

Also, I tend to not believe half of what passengers say, for exactly the same reason that we pilots dumb down our explanations of aviation-related happenings: the majority don't know what the heck they're talking about. When something like this happens, a 50-degree bank can easily seem inverted to a passenger.

Yes, air can do this. I've experienced it first-hand in the cockpit. I've also experienced extreme exaggeration by passengers, which can be even more exaggerated by the media looking for a dramatic story.

Your CptSpeaking



...and don't call me Shirley!!
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25638 posts, RR: 22
Reply 22, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 10305 times:



Quoting Gofly (Reply 7):
Quoting VC-10 (Reply 2):
What is the point of speculating? A complete waste of time when the facts are unknown, any professional worth his/her salt would not guess at the cause. Especially if the only eyewitnesses are passengers when it has been proved in the past they are prone to exaggeration

Exactly.

The only factual report I could come across was this one:

Please advise the website link for that report. I know where to find similar FAA and NTSB accident/incident summaries but have never been successful in finding a similar link for incidents in Canada (other than TSB accident reports when they are finally issued). Thanks for any info.


User currently offlineKensukeAida From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 217 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 10303 times:



Quoting Acabgd (Reply 19):
First of all, this is a discussion forum and not an NTSB hearing.

Thank you.

This is the sanest thing I've read all day.  Smile

- John


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9153 posts, RR: 76
Reply 24, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 10206 times:



Quoting Gospelle (Reply 13):
I guess I'm relying on my own turbulence experience (lots) and the fact that the pilot came on the intercom afterwards and said they had an autopilot malfunction, computer out and had to fly manually. If there are any pilots reading who can tell me if a purely air effect could cause 3 repeated "Left" rolls of 50 degrees, kill a computer and autopilot, then I'll stand corrected.

Severe turbulence can do that, just ask any pilot to fly you through a developed thunderstorm at high level, they will all tell you where to go. Moderate/severe/extreme turbulence is not something pilots like to go near because you can loose effective control of the aircraft.

Moderate turbulence can be enough to disconnect an autopilot.

Quoting Gospelle (Reply 16):
If the reports of 50 degree bank is correct then I guess it could explain the A/P "knocking out" but as for a cause of the bank in the first place, does it sound reasonable for this to be caused by turbulence? 50 degrees of bank? at 35,000 ft.? 3 times?

The weather phenomena that is being suspected behind this event is called an atmospheric bore a wave like sharp change in pressure/temperature over shortish distances. Mountain wave activity was also in the area. The upper limit for this type of weather conditions is the tropopause, which varies with latitude, seasons, and pressure systems.

You cannot see this happening, for the pilots and passengers it would be like traveling down a nice smooth dirt road at night in a car with the lights off at high speed, then going over various deep wide pot holes for 15 seconds. The pot holes would cause the car to violently jump around side to side, and any steering wheel movements would feel like you are out of control, as you are, the force of hitting pot hole would be greater than what you could control via a steering wheel.

To give you an idea, this is the reporting criteria for severe and extreme turbulence:

Severe: Turbulence that causes large, abrupt changes in altitude and/or attitude. It usually causes large variations in indicated airspeed. Aircraft may be momentarily out of control. Report as Severe Turbulence. Occupants are forced violently against seat belts or shoulder straps. Unsecured objects are tossed about. Food Service and walking are impossible.

Extreme Turbulence in which the aircraft is violently tossed about and is practically impossible to control. It may cause structural damage. Report as Extreme Turbulence.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
25 Starlionblue : Let me start by saying that this may well be a mechanical or electronic problem. But nothing that I have seen at this point excludes turbulence as the
26 Pihero : This is what I wrote before the thread " Injured Passenger on Air Canada Flight " went dormant : "A few comments, if I may, as I think we're going a b
27 HAWK21M : Any Regulatory Body report published yet? Also how is the A/P on the A319 like.how many A/Ps are there installed totally? regds MEL.
28 Gospelle : To the person who asked: From the definitions presented for severe and extreme turbulance I would say I have been in severe turbulance at least 3 time
29 Starlionblue : I wouldn't say that. Given the lack of information, the most likely even is turbulence. This doesn't rule out an aircraft problem. Passengers, even t
30 PhilSquares : While you might think it was severe turbulence, I rather doubt it. Moderate maybe but severe??? I think you're taking this too personally! People in
31 Post contains images David L : Nobody's saying it definitely was turbulence, just that it's likely. The disagreement is over your apparent assertion that it could not have been tur
32 Post contains images CptSpeaking : It's not that they're stupid or ignorant, but stupid and ignorant. Just kidding... ....sort of.... In all seriousness, passengers generally have no e
33 Post contains images Starlionblue : There's nothing quite like the person with juuuust enough knowledge and information to be dangerous. Kind of like my mother used to be with computers
34 Arrow : That's funny. I have an altimeter watch I use for back country hiking and skiing. And yes, I enjoy watching it wind up and wind down when I'm flying
35 Post contains images Avioniker : That's how the pressurization system is supposed to work, in a Douglas at least. For instance, on a DC-10, the outflow valves close and the cabin is
36 Tdscanuck : On an A319 (and any FBW Airbus) the A/P isn't a separate function, it's just a feature riding on top of the FBW system. So I'm not sure that an Airbu
37 Gospelle : Which is all completely irrelevant because you don't have to be a plane expert to know that when a person flys up and hits the ceiling that it actual
38 CptSpeaking : The plane flipping to one side sure sounds EXACTLY like the situation I described...passengers reporting the plane on its side when it actually isn't
39 Starlionblue : < rant > I will expand on what others said. I think you might want to consider chilling out a bit. Your reactions are way out of proportion to the re
40 TrijetsRMissed : I have been on a flight (UA 752) that hit severe turbulence, went into a brief twisting dive, and eventually regained control before landing. There we
41 Zeke : No one is calling you a liar, bit if people who have flown A320 series aircraft take the time out to share some of our experience with you (like Phil
42 Post contains links and images Pihero : Gospelle :... "I read the descriptions and those matched my experiences. If you're lucky enough to have gone your whole life without a major turbulenc
43 Starlionblue : Off topic but do they actually still use telex?
44 Zeke : We still have heaps of them floating about at work, they are still widely used in the industry. The Operator Information Telex (OIT), All Operators T
45 PhilSquares : Since your post was deleted that accused everyone of calling you a liar I will attempt to redress your concerns. There are several professional, know
46 Tdscanuck : That was a direct response to this: You don't need to hold yourself up in the seat (that's what your rear end is for) and you don't need to hold your
47 LongHauler : I have to agree. From the initial reports it "sounds" like turbulence. Attitudes exceeded enough to knock off the autopilot, allowing the pilots to b
48 Starlionblue : If I may take this into the purely hypothetical for one moment, could we focus on this a bit? I am struggling with how exactly it helps pilots beyond
49 Abnormal : Yes it would. If you have prior knowledge of a spurious malfunction or equipment anomaly then then when it does actually happen you don't have to tro
50 Don81603 : Shouldn't these extremes activate the autopilot to bring the aircraft under "control"? Seems to me these kinds of angles are outside the normal param
51 LongHauler : If on the initial findings the flight control system were to be found suspect, the aircraft type would simply be grounded. Period. But as you are awa
52 Starlionblue : Thank you abnormal and Longhauler for your answers. Note that I am not a pilot (I'm not even an autopilot) so the following is my layman's perspective
53 HAWK21M : Has Airbus come out with a statement on this as yet? regds MEL.
54 Abnormal : They haven't and they might never. The investigation is ongoing. Transport Canada have finished their physical inspection and released the aircraft b
55 TrijetsRMissed : Yes, I was just paraphrasing what I have read as well. In any event, you are right. The black boxes will uncover what was said and what systems were
56 CptSpeaking : Yes, it would help...remember the Eagle E135 that almost geared-up in BOS last year? IIRC they had 3 green lights indicating a down and locked condit
57 Gospelle : This is now the 2nd time someone has said this on this thread. The first post was deleted along with my reply. I'll try and keep this reply more civi
58 Post contains images Pihero : Man, I don't want you on my aircraft : You're jinxed ! Seriously, I am glad that the rest of the posters have now considered that we've talked this s
59 CptSpeaking : Starlion didn't say it was impossible that you encountered severe turbulence, just doubtful. Again, this goes back to the fact that you, as a passeng
60 Gospelle : You have a calm, methodical way about you CptSpeaking. I like that. I agree about the control part. I have no idea if there was a momentary loss of c
61 TrijetsRMissed : That's true. My understanding of the rudder jam problem is that the commands produced the opposite of what the pilot attempted to do. Just think, iff
62 Tdscanuck : Pretty much. The problem was if you moved the rudder just right, the PCU would reverse. Pushing harder on the pedal (the natural instinct) would keep
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Air Canada 190 - A319 Autopilot Failure?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Question About Air Canada Flight (AC864) posted Thu Apr 12 2007 21:40:59 by MarkChief
Air Canada Jazz At DTW posted Sun Mar 13 2005 04:10:29 by Masonaries
Air Canada's DC-8s: What Were The Interiors Like? posted Mon Dec 6 2004 22:53:01 by Happy-flier
Air Canada New Colors - VFR Hazard? posted Tue Oct 26 2004 05:57:15 by CX777
Air Canada Flight 621: Reasons For The Go-around? posted Wed Aug 18 2004 22:26:11 by Happy-flier
Dispatch: Air Canada posted Wed Aug 29 2001 09:40:28 by RioSul
Air Canada/ Air Nova Bae Jets posted Wed Aug 8 2001 04:41:02 by Mirrodie
Air France A319 Without Winglets posted Sun Jun 10 2007 00:04:26 by WetleaseWill
Passenger Danger From Uncontained Engine Failure posted Wed Dec 19 2007 21:37:34 by HangarRat
ABA Air And Space Law Forum posted Sun Dec 9 2007 13:06:12 by MIA
Air Canada New Colors - VFR Hazard? posted Tue Oct 26 2004 05:57:15 by CX777
Air Canada Flight 621: Reasons For The Go-around? posted Wed Aug 18 2004 22:26:11 by Happy-flier
Dispatch: Air Canada posted Wed Aug 29 2001 09:40:28 by RioSul

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format