Jump to content

First U.S. Flight of Fancy New Airbus A350 Jet Ends in Disaster


mactanfamily

Recommended Posts

cvgtpc1

 

 

It also gave the airline the chance to one-up Delta on its home turf

 

What's to one-up....US carriers are pulling out of the middle east market because they can't compete economically with the govt subsidized middle east carriers.  Delta and United are already cancelling their Dubai runs in the next month or so.

 

 

http://www.openandfairskies.com/

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • colemanlee

    13

  • CaptRonn

    11

  • miles-high

    4

  • rizla

    4

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Typical media, I'd hardly call that a disaster.

It’s an Airbus for you…   On any Boeing airplanes, the computer(s) will warn you if the runway is not long enough, airplane overweight, not enough fuel, not configured for takeoff, and many other a

Thats always interesting to old pilots...why anyone would design an aircraft that would override the pilot is a mystery to me, you might as well be flying in a drone....or perhaps we should look at th

Posted Images

WoW cool we have an expert....most folks when they talk about that take that stuff for granted...seems you cant grasp that...just wondering how much time you have in a KC130 you seem to have a lot more experience than anyone here...

 

How much time do you have in Airbus? or Boeing?   

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
colemanlee

How much time do you have in Airbus? or Boeing?   

zero...never was a bus driver

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yellowfever

The U.S. Could really use a plane that won't let pilots fly it into a building.

Link to post
Share on other sites
colemanlee

The U.S. Could really use a plane that won't let pilots fly it into a building.

Or cockpits that cant be taken over with a box cutter

Link to post
Share on other sites
miles-high

Piss poor journalism. "The high tech jet’s computer system aborted it’s own takeoff — because it deemed the runway too short."

I don't know anything about A350... but here's another story from a different news source [emphasis mine], so if you have any A350 tech information to negate their claim let us know... :)

 

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/watch-airbus-a350-over-100-mph-0-mph-222035841.html

 

Watch an Airbus A350 go from over 100 mph to 0 mph in under 15 seconds

 

Chris Smith

BGR News

December 15, 2015

 

Some travel journalists this week got to witness some cutting-edge aviation technology in action, although they probably would have preferred that they hadn’t. During the start of the first Qatar Airways flight from New York on a new Airbus A350, the airplane’s software determined that the runway was too short to take off and decided to put on the brakes, bringing the plane from more than 100 mph to 0 mph in less than 15 seconds.

 

The 36 journalists aboard the plane, who were supposed to enjoy business-class accommodation, recorded their somewhat scary experience on video.

 

As The Telegraph reports, Qatar Airways will deploy 80 Airbus A350s in the future. The plane “features extra wide cabin, high ceilings and panoramic windows” that have electromechanical shades for switching between transparent and opaque modes.

 

Rivaling the Boeing 787 Dreamliner in size, the A350 is made of lightweight carbon fiber that’s supposed to save on jet costs.

 

“As you can see in the video [below], about 18 seconds after we began rolling down JFK’s runway 22R, the aircraft self-aborted, bringing us from more than 100 mph to a loud, screeching halt in roughly 15 seconds,” Zach Honig wrote for The Points Guy.

 

“For a plane of this size and weight, stopping that quickly required a lot of force. To give you another idea of how abruptly we stopped, as you can see in the picture below, nearly all of the 200+ pillows and blankets landed on the floor, having previously been neatly arranged on each seat in economy,” he said.

 

“Fortunately, nobody was hurt, but some passengers (including myself) were quite shaken.”

 

The plane took off from a different runway some two hours later, making a safe trip to Doha. The aborted take-off video follows below.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just going by knowledge of the Airbus systems architecture, and also my contacts at Toulouse.    

 

BTW, which Boeings are you typed on?

Link to post
Share on other sites
colemanlee

Just thinking...at least Airbus has sexy lighting....

Link to post
Share on other sites
mactanfamily

So the pilots stopped the plane....themselves....and then took 2 more hours to take off again. 

 

Anyone remember the airbus that flew itself into the ground after thinking it was landing during a flyby? The computer TOOK OVER.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

To my mind the importance is safety when flying, so which would I rather travel on?

 

A plane that demonstrates that the built in safety features work and can save lives (Airbus)

A plane than has multiple fires caused by batteries and that put all passengers at risk (Boeing)

 

I know my choice, what's yours?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So the pilots stopped the plane....themselves....and then took 2 more hours to take off again. 

 

Anyone remember the airbus that flew itself into the ground after thinking it was landing during a flyby? The computer TOOK OVER.

 

 

The 2 hours?  Part of that was for brake cooling, the rest was troubleshooting the ECAM message.

 

 On your other point about Air France Flight 296:

 

The official report from BEA concluded that the probable cause of the accident was a combination of the following:

  • Very low flyover height, lower than surrounding obstacles;
  • Speed very slow and reducing to reach maximum possible angle of attack;
  • Engines speed at flight idle; and
  • Late application of go-around power.

Furthermore, the bureau concluded that if the descent below 100 feet was not deliberate, it may have resulted from a failure by the crew to take proper account of the visual and aural information available to them regarding the elevation "above ground level" (AGL) of the aircraft.

The investigators found the aircraft to have been airworthy, that its weight and center-of-gravity had been within limits, and that there was no evidence of mechanical or electronic systems failure.

With the CFM56-5 engines, four seconds are required to go from 29% N1 (flight idle) to 67%. It then takes one second more to go from 67 to 83% N1. From the engine parameters recorded on the DFDR and spectral analysis of the engine sounds on the CVR, it was determined that five seconds after TOGA power was applied, the N1 speed of Nº1 engine was 83% while that of Nº2 engine was 84%. Spectral analysis of the engine sounds indicated that 0.6 seconds later, both engines had reached 91% (by this stage, they were starting to ingest vegetation). This response of the engines complied with their certification data.

 This accident was pilot error.  The Captain had attempted to fly by at a low altitude/low airspeed with the engines at idle. The airplane went into Alpha Prot and the speed was too slow and low altitude, plus spool up time of the engines.  

 

 In summary, the Captain flew this plaane into a position it shouldn't have been in, and in his complacency he allowed it to crash. 

Edited by CaptRonn
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
colemanlee

To my mind the importance is safety when flying, so which would I rather travel on?

 

A plane that demonstrates that the built in safety features work and can save lives (Airbus)

A plane than has multiple fires caused by batteries and that put all passengers at risk (Boeing)

 

I know my choice, what's yours?

for me, anything Boeing...rather have a pilot...not a computer...in the upstairs post..listen carefully to the first part...from Rio to Paris..four minutes of flying..the rest is computer...did the computer or the pilots lack of understanding the computer contribute to the crash...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yep, another pilot error accident.

 

I've flown that same scenario in the simulator and when the event happened, continued flying the airplane and troubleshot the malfunctions.  In fact, most crews that were given the same situation flew right out of it.

 

 The AF447 crew took a bad situation and made it worse, much worse.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

for me, anything Boeing...rather have a pilot...not a computer...in the upstairs post..listen carefully to the first part...from Rio to Paris..four minutes of flying..the rest is computer...did the computer or the pilots lack of understanding the computer contribute to the crash...

 

Hate to disappoint you, but if you fly on a Boeing 777, or a 787, you are flying on a Fly By Wire airplane, just like the Airbus.

 

If you decide to fly on a Boeing 737/747/757/767 you are flying on an airplane highly automated, the difference is hydraulic controls versus fly by wire.  Oh, and the 747/757/767 are pure hydraulic, no back up cables.

Or cockpits that cant be taken over with a box cutter

 

 All transport category jets have hardened cockpit doors installed (after 9/11)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Guidelines. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..

Capture.JPG

I Understand...