Strange, I thought they crashed because they were flying 30' off the
deck, dirty, flaps down, idle thrust, and had such a high deck angle they
couldn't make out the trees. :-) The only complaints from Michele
Asseline, the captain (who, incidentally, was recently convicted of
involuntary manslaughter in regard to this crash) were that (a) the
altimeters were not working correctly and (b) the airplane nosed do
wn when he tried to pull up, to avoid the trees. Neither claim has been
substantiated, if memory serves, although a number of people have attempted
to point to ambiguities in the last seven seconds of the DFDR trace as
possibly substantiating the second claim.
> Just as with the Boeing 727 many years ago, the flight techniques were
> vastly different then for the transition pilots of the 1960s; they are
> still different for many pilots today coming to the Airbus from Boeing,
> Douglas and Lockheed airplanes.
What operational or safety benefit is realized by re-inventing the wheel?
Three of the four A320 crashes have also been energy management crashes,
and two (Strasbourg, Bangalore) apparently derived from mode confusion.
Had the deaths of all those people in the 727's early days counted, perhaps
radically different flight control philosophies would not have been
attempted. Certainly, nothing in the airplane's structure or aerodynamic
design requires it.
>I can say that as an Airbus A320 Captain
>and Check Airman for 3 years, the A320 most assuredly is NOT a killer
>airplane. But it does put a premium on learning those specifics of the
>airplane's design pholosophy and operating characteristics that ARE
>different from previous airplanes I've flown. I found Airbus A320 school
>to be the most difficult I ever undertook, but it was also the most
>professionally satisfying thing I've done in my airline career.
That's what a lot of A320 pilots say. Go through extraordinary efforts
to re-learn how to fly, you'll do great! :-) Again, I fail to see the
justification. There is a safety benefit to be realized from the gradual
evolution of technology. The Airbus approach is "revolution," for the
specific and declared purpose of increasing market share. I'm not
comfortable with this.
> For example, the Airbus A320 has a digital fly-by-wire flight control
> system that utilizes Normal Flight Control Law, Alternate Law with Speed
> Stability, Alternate Law without Speed Stability, Direct Law, Mechanical
> Law, and Unusual Attitude Law.
Impressive names, but they have also been described as kludges to overcome
the lack of integrated and consistent flight handling characteristics. :-)
R.
--
Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation
rdd_at_netcom.com aero-simulation_at_wilbur.pr.erau.edu
ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av