Re: [MBZ] Airbus Comments
I agree 100% One of the reasons I rarely fly, is the proliferation of airbus junk into the US fleet. The fly by wire system has caused crash after crash, and the company bears no responsibility. I'd rather fly on an old DC 9 or DC 10 or 40 year old 737s than trust my life to an airbus that nobody has control of. Remember Unsafe at any speed? That is my humble opinion of airbus. At 09:16 PM 2/7/2009, you wrote: From a friend who was a USAF test pilot and is retired Delta pilot. The opinions aren't his but he forwarded si I guess he agrees. The press is having a field day turning Sully Sullenberger into a Lindbergh-like hero. I attended his welcoming home reception in Danville, CA last weekend... me and the estimated 3000 other attendees. All credit is given to him and his crew, but they will be the first to tell you, they just did their jobs. They did them well, but when your job entails holding the lives of hundreds of people in your hands every time you fly, then doing your job well is the minimum acceptable standard. I don't, and I doubt if more than just a handful of other pilots, begrudge Sully his day in the sun. What I am concerned about is how the real cause of this accident is being glossed over and, on the part of Airbus Industries, actually lied about. There are stories circulating now about how the flight computers helped save the aircraft by insuring the ditching was done properly. The stories themselves are absolute nonsense and the contention that the flight computers ensured the proper attitude was maintained for ditching is pure fabrication. So what's wrong with Airbus wanting to steal a little glory for their computerized drones? There is a good chance it was the computers that put the aircraft into the water! I readily admit I heartily dislike Airbus because of their design philosophy, I will never set foot in an A-380 (the superjumbo) as I consider it a really bad accident looking for a place to happen. I am not much happier with the rest of them but especially the A-320 which has killed several folks, while the engineers try to perfect software that can replace a human brain that has a talent for flying... something that I, rather naturally, don't believe possible. It is well known that I love Boeings. I love to fly them. Beyond the sheer joy of just flying the Boeing, I also believe in their design philosophy that the last word has to be with the pilot, not the machine. No pilot, no matter how hard he tries, can turn an A-320 upside down. It just won't do it. Airbus believes it has designed a computer that is smarter than a pilot (the evidence of dead bodies scattered around Mulhouse, France to the contrary) and gives the last word to the computer. If a pilot moves the controls so as to turn the airplane upside down, the computer will refuse. I can turn the B777 upside down. Once I get it upside down, if I let go of the controls, it will turn itself right-side up (smart airplane). I don't believe I will ever be in a situation where I will need to turn the airplane upside down, but I feel good knowing I have the control to do it. That's why I'm not really kidding when I say: if it ain't a Boeing; I ain't going. What follows is an e-mail from a retired US Air Pilot who has flown the Airbus A320 just like the one that ended up in the Hudson. It was written in response to a friend asking him if he knew the pilot who did the ditching. It is most illuminating and worth the read... Dear Chuck, I don't know him. I've seen him in the crew room and around the system but never met him. He was former PSA and I was former Piedmont and we never had the occasion to fly together. The dumb shit press just won't leave this alone. Most airliner ditchings aren't very successful since they take place on the open ocean with wind, rough seas, swells and rescue boats are hours or days away. This one happened in fresh smooth water, landing with the current and the rescue boats were there picking people up while they were still climbing out of the airplane. It also happened on a cold winter day when all the pleasure boats were parked. Had this happened in July it would be pretty hard not to whack a couple of little boats. Sully did a nice job but so would 95% of the other pilots in the industry. You would have done a nice job. 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 just like a TBM or a Comanche. 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 a older generation airplane when you hit birds the engines keep
Re: [MBZ] Airbus Comments
Anthing with more than one engine is Too many small parts flying in close formation. On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Loren Faeth lfa...@leadingchange.comwrote: I agree 100% One of the reasons I rarely fly, is the proliferation of airbus junk into the US fleet. The fly by wire system has caused crash after crash, and the company bears no responsibility. I'd rather fly on an old DC 9 or DC 10 or 40 year old 737s than trust my life to an airbus that nobody has control of. -- OK Don W124 Diesels Ubuntu 8.10 KD5NRO -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://okiebenz.com/pipermail/mercedes_okiebenz.com/attachments/20090208/ce4ee60e/attachment.html ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] Airbus Comments
Scott Ritchey ritche...@nc.rr.com writes: It is well known that I love Boeings. I love to fly them. Beyond the sheer joy of just flying the Boeing, I also believe in their design philosophy that the last word has to be with the pilot, not the machine. No pilot, no matter how hard he tries, can turn an A-320 upside down. It just won't do it. Airbus believes it has designed a computer that is smarter than a pilot (the evidence of dead bodies scattered around Mulhouse, France to the contrary) and gives the last word to the computer. If a pilot moves the controls so as to turn the airplane upside down, the computer will refuse. This is not really unique to the Airbus -- for example we've long had stick shakers that prevent the pilot from putting the aircraft into an unrecoverable stall -- probably other similar devices as well -- the idea of preventing the pilot from doing something stupid is not new to the Airbus. Just a comment really -- I distrust anything completely controlled by software with no manual override capability, and I'm not disagreeing with the claim that the Airbus flight control system gives too much authority to the computer. But the idea of mechanical or software intervention to prevent pilot error is not new to the A320. Final disclaimer, I'm not a pilot of any type just an observer from the peanut gallery. Allan -- 1983 300D ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] Airbus Comments
Systems designed to bring attention to the pilot, or make suggestions in a given situation are one thing, to design a systems to over ride the pilots input and give the final word to the computers, not the pilot, is a bit scary. The old Concorde was also a fly by wire, though I believe it had mechanical redundancies build in. You could still turn that bird on it's back if you wanted. ;-) I read a great book a year or so ago, written by the team leading at Boeing who put the 747 programme together. Can't think of his name now. Really good book for anyone interested in planes, or just about great team leadership! Ed 300E 2009/2/8 Allan Streib str...@cs.indiana.edu Scott Ritchey ritche...@nc.rr.com writes: It is well known that I love Boeings. I love to fly them. Beyond the sheer joy of just flying the Boeing, I also believe in their design philosophy that the last word has to be with the pilot, not the machine. No pilot, no matter how hard he tries, can turn an A-320 upside down. It just won't do it. Airbus believes it has designed a computer that is smarter than a pilot (the evidence of dead bodies scattered around Mulhouse, France to the contrary) and gives the last word to the computer. If a pilot moves the controls so as to turn the airplane upside down, the computer will refuse. This is not really unique to the Airbus -- for example we've long had stick shakers that prevent the pilot from putting the aircraft into an unrecoverable stall -- probably other similar devices as well -- the idea of preventing the pilot from doing something stupid is not new to the Airbus. Just a comment really -- I distrust anything completely controlled by software with no manual override capability, and I'm not disagreeing with the claim that the Airbus flight control system gives too much authority to the computer. But the idea of mechanical or software intervention to prevent pilot error is not new to the A320. Final disclaimer, I'm not a pilot of any type just an observer from the peanut gallery. Allan -- 1983 300D ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://okiebenz.com/pipermail/mercedes_okiebenz.com/attachments/20090208/71fe3406/attachment.html ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] Airbus Comments
An instant after that bird strike, it was NOT a perfectly good airplane; it was a POS glider with VERY short range. Wilton - Original Message - From: Mitch Haley m...@voyager.net To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 10:39 PM Subject: Re: [MBZ] Airbus Comments Scott Ritchey wrote: Don't be surprised if the Airbus fly by wire computers didn't put a perfectly good airplane in the water. I thought it was an Airbus 320 that went in the water. Now somebody's claiming that it was 'a perfectly good airplane'. Well, which is it, an Airbus or a good airplane? Mitch. ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] Airbus Comments
The argument was not that it was a perfectly good airplane. The argument was that it was a crippled airplane that may have been flyable, at least enough to return home and that the software turned off the engines. The FAA's engine investigation will tell all. Thanks, Tom Hargrave www.kegkits.com 256-656-1924 -Original Message- From: mercedes-boun...@okiebenz.com [mailto:mercedes-boun...@okiebenz.com] On Behalf Of Wilton Strickland Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 2:04 PM To: Mercedes Discussion List Subject: Re: [MBZ] Airbus Comments An instant after that bird strike, it was NOT a perfectly good airplane; it was a POS glider with VERY short range. Wilton - Original Message - From: Mitch Haley m...@voyager.net To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 10:39 PM Subject: Re: [MBZ] Airbus Comments Scott Ritchey wrote: Don't be surprised if the Airbus fly by wire computers didn't put a perfectly good airplane in the water. I thought it was an Airbus 320 that went in the water. Now somebody's claiming that it was 'a perfectly good airplane'. Well, which is it, an Airbus or a good airplane? Mitch. ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.19/1939 - Release Date: 2/7/2009 1:39 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.19/1939 - Release Date: 2/7/2009 1:39 PM ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] Airbus Comments
Tom Hargrave tharg...@hiwaay.net writes: The argument was not that it was a perfectly good airplane. The argument was that it was a crippled airplane that may have been flyable, at least enough to return home and that the software turned off the engines. You would think that on climb-out the software would NEVER shut down BOTH engines no matter what the sensors were saying. But what do I know... Allan -- 1983 300D ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] Airbus Comments
Tom Hargrave wrote: The FAA's engine investigation will tell all. I thought the engines were going to stay on the bottom of the Hudson. Mitch. ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] Airbus Comments
It's not the fly by wire that is necessarily bad, but the fact that a computer flys the plane and the controls are only inputs to the box. A simple fly-by-wire system just uses the electronics to replace the cables with no interpretation between controls and surfaces. There is supposed to be a reversion system in the Aribus that converts to simple fly-by-wire, but I suspect it's not what it should be. It's possible that the bird strikes actually did disable the engines - but that's why they were to hot to get the left one out of the river. If instead a bird strike left the engines in operating condition but shut off by the computer, the type certification needs to be revoked. It was only pure luck that the Hudson River was available -- a couple more minutes of flight and I'd bet it would have been really, really ugly. Peter On Feb 8, 2009, at 9:06 AM, Loren Faeth wrote: I agree 100% One of the reasons I rarely fly, is the proliferation of airbus junk into the US fleet. The fly by wire system has caused crash after crash, and the company bears no responsibility. I'd rather fly on an old DC 9 or DC 10 or 40 year old 737s than trust my life to an airbus that nobody has control of. Remember Unsafe at any speed? That is my humble opinion of airbus. At 09:16 PM 2/7/2009, you wrote: From a friend who was a USAF test pilot and is retired Delta pilot. The opinions aren't his but he forwarded si I guess he agrees. The press is having a field day turning Sully Sullenberger into a Lindbergh-like hero. I attended his welcoming home reception in Danville, CA last weekend... me and the estimated 3000 other attendees. All credit is given to him and his crew, but they will be the first to tell you, they just did their jobs. They did them well, but when your job entails holding the lives of hundreds of people in your hands every time you fly, then doing your job well is the minimum acceptable standard. I don't, and I doubt if more than just a handful of other pilots, begrudge Sully his day in the sun. What I am concerned about is how the real cause of this accident is being glossed over and, on the part of Airbus Industries, actually lied about. There are stories circulating now about how the flight computers helped save the aircraft by insuring the ditching was done properly. The stories themselves are absolute nonsense and the contention that the flight computers ensured the proper attitude was maintained for ditching is pure fabrication. So what's wrong with Airbus wanting to steal a little glory for their computerized drones? There is a good chance it was the computers that put the aircraft into the water! I readily admit I heartily dislike Airbus because of their design philosophy, I will never set foot in an A-380 (the superjumbo) as I consider it a really bad accident looking for a place to happen. I am not much happier with the rest of them but especially the A-320 which has killed several folks, while the engineers try to perfect software that can replace a human brain that has a talent for flying... something that I, rather naturally, don't believe possible. It is well known that I love Boeings. I love to fly them. Beyond the sheer joy of just flying the Boeing, I also believe in their design philosophy that the last word has to be with the pilot, not the machine. No pilot, no matter how hard he tries, can turn an A-320 upside down. It just won't do it. Airbus believes it has designed a computer that is smarter than a pilot (the evidence of dead bodies scattered around Mulhouse, France to the contrary) and gives the last word to the computer. If a pilot moves the controls so as to turn the airplane upside down, the computer will refuse. I can turn the B777 upside down. Once I get it upside down, if I let go of the controls, it will turn itself right-side up (smart airplane). I don't believe I will ever be in a situation where I will need to turn the airplane upside down, but I feel good knowing I have the control to do it. That's why I'm not really kidding when I say: if it ain't a Boeing; I ain't going. What follows is an e-mail from a retired US Air Pilot who has flown the Airbus A320 just like the one that ended up in the Hudson. It was written in response to a friend asking him if he knew the pilot who did the ditching. It is most illuminating and worth the read... Dear Chuck, I don't know him. I've seen him in the crew room and around the system but never met him. He was former PSA and I was former Piedmont and we never had the occasion to fly together. The dumb shit press just won't leave this alone. Most airliner ditchings aren't very successful since they take place on the open ocean with wind, rough seas, swells and rescue boats are hours or days away. This one happened in fresh smooth water, landing with the current and the
Re: [MBZ] Airbus Comments
The right one remained attached to the wing; they recovered the detached left one from the river bottom 2 or 3 days later. Wilton - Original Message - From: Mitch Haley m...@voyager.net To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 3:29 PM Subject: Re: [MBZ] Airbus Comments Tom Hargrave wrote: The FAA's engine investigation will tell all. I thought the engines were going to stay on the bottom of the Hudson. Mitch. ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] Airbus Comments
There is a difference between a stick shaker (which can, I believe, be shut off in case of a failure) and an airplane that decides it's time to land, so it shuts off the engines and descends no matter what the pilot does. Happened to Air India when the A320 first entered service, and they parked the entire fleet until Airbus fixed that particular problem. Same incident at the air show, but in the Air India case there just happened to be a golf course at the approach end of the runway and the airframe stayed together without a major fire. Sooner or later one of those things is going to kill a whole plane load of passengers (and may in fact have already done so -- wasn't that suicide crash of an Egypt Air in the Med an Airbus?) and then there is going to be hell to pay. You can't depend on early warnings and near misses forever. Peter On Feb 8, 2009, at 11:39 AM, Allan Streib wrote: Scott Ritchey ritche...@nc.rr.com writes: It is well known that I love Boeings. I love to fly them. Beyond the sheer joy of just flying the Boeing, I also believe in their design philosophy that the last word has to be with the pilot, not the machine. No pilot, no matter how hard he tries, can turn an A-320 upside down. It just won't do it. Airbus believes it has designed a computer that is smarter than a pilot (the evidence of dead bodies scattered around Mulhouse, France to the contrary) and gives the last word to the computer. If a pilot moves the controls so as to turn the airplane upside down, the computer will refuse. This is not really unique to the Airbus -- for example we've long had stick shakers that prevent the pilot from putting the aircraft into an unrecoverable stall -- probably other similar devices as well -- the idea of preventing the pilot from doing something stupid is not new to the Airbus. Just a comment really -- I distrust anything completely controlled by software with no manual override capability, and I'm not disagreeing with the claim that the Airbus flight control system gives too much authority to the computer. But the idea of mechanical or software intervention to prevent pilot error is not new to the A320. Final disclaimer, I'm not a pilot of any type just an observer from the peanut gallery. Allan -- 1983 300D ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] Airbus Comments
The glide ratio isn't so good, or doesn't mean much, if you can dip your toes in the water, eh. hee hee. Ed 300E 2009/2/8 Wilton Strickland wilt...@nc.rr.com An instant after that bird strike, it was NOT a perfectly good airplane; it was a POS glider with VERY short range. Wilton - Original Message - From: Mitch Haley m...@voyager.net To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 10:39 PM Subject: Re: [MBZ] Airbus Comments Scott Ritchey wrote: Don't be surprised if the Airbus fly by wire computers didn't put a perfectly good airplane in the water. I thought it was an Airbus 320 that went in the water. Now somebody's claiming that it was 'a perfectly good airplane'. Well, which is it, an Airbus or a good airplane? Mitch. ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://okiebenz.com/pipermail/mercedes_okiebenz.com/attachments/20090208/b3bc997a/attachment.html ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] Airbus Comments
You had a very heavy aircraft not designed to glide very far which suddenly lost power at 3000 feet, in what was most likely in a nose-up climb attitude. I think the Hudson was a no-brainer, as there was apparently not sufficient altitude / glide ratio to make a suitable runway. What was the time between bird strike and splash, three minutes? That isn't a long time to make decisions. Having lived in New York City (Governors Island), I can't imagine a worse place in the US to suddenly go from powered flight to looking for maximum glide. This is not the first aircraft to put down in the Hudson -- there were several of these, although smaller aircraft, during the years I lived and worked along the river. In fact, it was those that didn't go for the water -- mostly helicopters -- that ended up making the local news, complete with film of the smoking wreckage on top of some Brooklyn building. I have a pretty high confidence factor (based on my Coast Guard experience) that a flock of birds going into the turbine blades will break enough stuff that the engines will stop producing thrust, regardless of what a computer does or does not do. I am somewhat amazed (but happily so) that bits of the turbines didn't do some other damage other than ceasing to produce forward thrust. On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Tom Hargrave tharg...@hiwaay.net wrote: The argument was that it was a crippled airplane that may have been flyable, at least enough to return home and that the software turned off the engines. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://okiebenz.com/pipermail/mercedes_okiebenz.com/attachments/20090208/33967651/attachment.html ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] Airbus Comments
My understanding is that the right one stayed on the wing and they recovered the left one. Thanks, Tom Hargrave www.kegkits.com 256-656-1924 -Original Message- From: mercedes-boun...@okiebenz.com [mailto:mercedes-boun...@okiebenz.com] On Behalf Of Mitch Haley Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 2:29 PM To: Mercedes Discussion List Subject: Re: [MBZ] Airbus Comments Tom Hargrave wrote: The FAA's engine investigation will tell all. I thought the engines were going to stay on the bottom of the Hudson. Mitch. ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.19/1939 - Release Date: 2/7/2009 1:39 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.19/1939 - Release Date: 2/7/2009 1:39 PM ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] Airbus Comments
Scott Ritchey wrote: Don't be surprised if the Airbus fly by wire computers didn't put a perfectly good airplane in the water. I thought it was an Airbus 320 that went in the water. Now somebody's claiming that it was 'a perfectly good airplane'. Well, which is it, an Airbus or a good airplane? Mitch. ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] Airbus Comments
'Zackly what I thought. I like Boeings with cables, too. Wilton - Original Message - From: Scott Ritchey ritche...@nc.rr.com To: Mercedes , Discussion List Mercedes@okiebenz.com Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 10:16 PM Subject: [MBZ] Airbus Comments From a friend who was a USAF test pilot and is retired Delta pilot. The opinions aren't his but he forwarded si I guess he agrees. The press is having a field day turning Sully Sullenberger into a Lindbergh-like hero. I attended his welcoming home reception in Danville, CA last weekend... me and the estimated 3000 other attendees. All credit is given to him and his crew, but they will be the first to tell you, they just did their jobs. They did them well, but when your job entails holding the lives of hundreds of people in your hands every time you fly, then doing your job well is the minimum acceptable standard. I don't, and I doubt if more than just a handful of other pilots, begrudge Sully his day in the sun. What I am concerned about is how the real cause of this accident is being glossed over and, on the part of Airbus Industries, actually lied about. There are stories circulating now about how the flight computers helped save the aircraft by insuring the ditching was done properly. The stories themselves are absolute nonsense and the contention that the flight computers ensured the proper attitude was maintained for ditching is pure fabrication. So what's wrong with Airbus wanting to steal a little glory for their computerized drones? There is a good chance it was the computers that put the aircraft into the water! I readily admit I heartily dislike Airbus because of their design philosophy, I will never set foot in an A-380 (the superjumbo) as I consider it a really bad accident looking for a place to happen. I am not much happier with the rest of them but especially the A-320 which has killed several folks, while the engineers try to perfect software that can replace a human brain that has a talent for flying... something that I, rather naturally, don't believe possible. It is well known that I love Boeings. I love to fly them. Beyond the sheer joy of just flying the Boeing, I also believe in their design philosophy that the last word has to be with the pilot, not the machine. No pilot, no matter how hard he tries, can turn an A-320 upside down. It just won't do it. Airbus believes it has designed a computer that is smarter than a pilot (the evidence of dead bodies scattered around Mulhouse, France to the contrary) and gives the last word to the computer. If a pilot moves the controls so as to turn the airplane upside down, the computer will refuse. I can turn the B777 upside down. Once I get it upside down, if I let go of the controls, it will turn itself right-side up (smart airplane). I don't believe I will ever be in a situation where I will need to turn the airplane upside down, but I feel good knowing I have the control to do it. That's why I'm not really kidding when I say: if it ain't a Boeing; I ain't going. What follows is an e-mail from a retired US Air Pilot who has flown the Airbus A320 just like the one that ended up in the Hudson. It was written in response to a friend asking him if he knew the pilot who did the ditching. It is most illuminating and worth the read... Dear Chuck, I don't know him. I've seen him in the crew room and around the system but never met him. He was former PSA and I was former Piedmont and we never had the occasion to fly together. The dumb shit press just won't leave this alone. Most airliner ditchings aren't very successful since they take place on the open ocean with wind, rough seas, swells and rescue boats are hours or days away. This one happened in fresh smooth water, landing with the current and the rescue boats were there picking people up while they were still climbing out of the airplane. It also happened on a cold winter day when all the pleasure boats were parked. Had this happened in July it would be pretty hard not to whack a couple of little boats. Sully did a nice job but so would 95% of the other pilots in the industry. You would have done a nice job. 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 just like a TBM or a Comanche. 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 a 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
