Jump to content

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


mactanfamily

Recommended Posts

colemanlee

 

 

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.

You miss the point....its not fly by wire I dont like...its the total integration of computers telling pilots what to do...sorry maybe Im from a different generation..where Pilots made the decisions...and the things we did could not be decided by computers...however...I realize many Pilots now do not have military experience and have come up in a completely different school of thought....

  • Like 1
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

So the reality, from the knowledge shown on this thread, and my research (google) would suggest that both boeing and airbus are pretty much identical, and that any preference by Pilots is usually cosmetic, both have their own plus and minuses.

As a passenger I fly Hong Kong to Dubai in a 380, and Dubai to Birmingham UK in a 777, 4 times a year, my preferred choice is the 380, it's quieter, and feels more comfortable, and it has more areas to walk around in than the 777. 

 

As I said, it is a personal choice, a bit like Mercedes or BMW, both are good both have faults.

  • 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.

 

And they blamed the pilot! :wheel:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Here is one more, a simple stall recovery (in a non computerized aircraft) would have been simple...fly the aircraft...here is another failure of automation

 

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, unless you are suggesting that Pilots NEVER make mistakes.

 

How can you compare military aircraft with commercial aircraft, that is like saying a NASCAR Camaro is the same as a standard car in a normal showroom, that is fanciful. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
colemanlee

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, unless you are suggesting that Pilots NEVER make mistakes.

 

How can you compare military aircraft with commercial aircraft, that is like saying a NASCAR Camaro is the same as a standard car in a normal showroom, that is fanciful. 

 

Actually, military transport aircraft are very similar with commercial aircraft...what I am saying is I do not think commercial pilots without military training, at least in the last few years have the same level of training as those with a military background...and yes you can be a commercial pilot without that training..but are you aware they dont teach spin recovery in many civilian schools...and with today's computerization basic piloting skills are lost. I posted the videos so those here could see that....assuming you took the time to watch the videos...of course everybody has a different opinion and you are certainly entitled to yours...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would certainly agree that military pilots have more training, that's a given. However, much of that training would not be required by commercial pilots.

You pointed out that Boeing can override the computers "All of that can be overridden by the pilot, we also have flight directors, capable of taking the plane off and landing it completely hands off...but still can be overridden by pilot...thats what we are talking about....airbus you cant override it"    But actually that seems to be incorrect.

Boeing have patented a system which locks out the pilot and the plane can be flown from somewhere else. It's called "boeing-honeywell-uninterruptible-autopilot"

 

post-17209-0-34719100-1450168278_thumb.jpg

 

It is in fact, one theory regarding the disappearance of flight MH 370.

 

Interesting stuff, learnt a lot today.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
miles-high

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

Thank you!

 

The questions are therefore:

1) If it is the results of a poor journalism (which more often than not);

2) If A350 has an automatic rejected take off system – The Boeing Co. patented an ARTOS some years ago but never installed it;

3) I do not know whether or not A350 has their own version of ARTOS;

4) If the system did NOT automatically reject the TO, then, whether or not the crew is supposed to reject the TO with whatever the warning they got at the time;

5) If the crew is supposed execute an RTO with that warning, then the system (man-machine interface) worked as it supposed to do and in that case,

6) The media is probably making a big thing out of it – may have been a slow news day…

Link to post
Share on other sites
miles-high

BTW, which Boeings are you typed on?

It is a small world this part of the world is… therefore I am not answering your question directly on any public forum or to a stranger seemingly well-experienced in the industry…

 

Doing so might well reveal my ID or other personal information but yes I am rated on some Boeing 2-engine airplanes (with expired CAT-III qualification), that is to say NOT on 707, 727 or 747, together with several other 2-engine jet planes… :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a small world this part of the world is… therefore I am not answering your question directly on any public forum or to a stranger seemingly well-experienced in the industry…

 

Doing so might well reveal my ID or other personal information but yes I am rated on some Boeing 2-engine airplanes (with expired CAT-III qualification), that is to say NOT on 707, 727 or 747, together with several other 2-engine jet planes… :)

 

 

 

To this "seemingly well experienced in the industry" person, that response tells me everything I suspected.

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Incident: Qatar A359 at New York on Dec 10th 2015, rejected takeoff

By Simon Hradecky, created Friday, Dec 11th 2015 14:39Z, last updated Friday, Dec 11th 2015 14:41Z

 

A Qatar Airways Airbus A350-900, registration A7-ALG performing charter flight QR-7452 from New York JFK,NY (USA) to Doha (Qatar), was accelerating for takeoff from JFK's runway 22R when the crew rejected takeoff, instructed the flight attendants on stations and advised ATC that no assistance was needed but they needed "a second" to figure out what happened. The crew subsequently indicated they were able to vacate the runway. The aircraft taxied down the runway and vacated the runway to the left via taxiway H about 1200 meters down the runway. The crew advised they received a warning for takeoff, they weren't sure they could do another attempt for takeoff from runway 22R. 

The aircraft stopped on taxiway Y short of YA while the crew was working to resolve the issue for about 90 minutes. The aircraft then taxied to JFK's runway 31L and departed two hours after the rejected takeoff.

A passenger reported they were told the aircraft applied auto brakes due to a signal the runway was too short for their takeoff.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 

 

It appears to be an issue with the RAAS:

>>>>In an other company flying a RAAS (Runway Awareness and Advisory System) equipped airplane out of JFK, they have an internal note that instructs the crew on disabling the RAAS specifically on runway 04L/22R because the database does not have the correct (read: full) length available for departure on this runway. <<<<<

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
colemanlee

 

 

It appears to be an issue with the RAAS: >>>>In an other company flying a RAAS (Runway Awareness and Advisory System) equipped airplane out of JFK, they have an internal note that instructs the crew on disabling the RAAS specifically on runway 04L/22R because the database does not have the correct (read: full) length available for departure on this runway. <<<<<  

 

Thanks...Had nothing like that back in the day...Use to fly from Alameda to Barbers Point with a Lance Cpl nav shooting sun and pressure lines, get close enough to the big island and tune in KGU (590) on the ADF and shoot vectors to Barbers...many time upon flaring at Barbers you would get all four low pressure lights....if you were flying a KC130F model cargo frame...I can remember the first AC equipped with Omega, the first palletized INS I ever flew.  During Desert Storm, the Flight Eng, and First Mech.."found" a GPS unit from the grunts, and we wired it into the Nav station...used it and the maps they "found" for refueling F18's over the desert....crude but it worked...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks...Had nothing like that back in the day...Use to fly from Alameda to Barbers Point with a Lance Cpl nav shooting sun and pressure lines, get close enough to the big island and tune in KGU (590) on the ADF and shoot vectors to Barbers...many time upon flaring at Barbers you would get all four low pressure lights....if you were flying a KC130F model cargo frame...I can remember the first AC equipped with Omega, the first palletized INS I ever flew.  During Desert Storm, the Flight Eng, and First Mech.."found" a GPS unit from the grunts, and we wired it into the Nav station...used it and the maps they "found" for refueling F18's over the desert....crude but it worked...

 

Yep, we flew B727's on Oceanic routes (WATRS) with 2 VOR's and 2 DME's (no DME hold) and 2 ADF's, using plotting charts.  As long as we could plot a position once an hour we were good to go.

 

I remember getting the first Omega unit and marveling at the "high tech".

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
woodchopper

those engines on the plane concerned herein sound like Roll Royce if i am not mistaken,,hehe,,qantas dont like them eh

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

From a public relations viewpoint, it's a complete disaster!

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...