kilamite, "Those who remember, when the first Fly-By-Wire Airbus was invented (A320-100) there was a number of big errors and bugs in the computer which caused many of these aircraft to crash. The result from that was you can only test a product enough to make you think it works ok. After that crash, there was what we would call a patch which fixed a few of these bugs.How did Airbus manage to miss these errors? They put lives at risk when they released the A320."Please can you enlighten me as to what Airbus accidents were caused by bugs in the software? As a project engineer for Airbus, i believe you are ill informed. If you are talking about the Paris air crash, this was caused by human error as the accident report concludes.Cheers,Jamie Blethyn, UK

There has been a few documentaries about Fly-By-Wire on TV, which may have exagerated the point, I'm not sure.

Robert:Take your time. Your updating us has been outstanding. That is all I care about. Being left to hang out and dry is what I dislike. Very nicely done plane. As well for everyone thatcomplains about bugs being in a released product, all I have to say that goes for EVERYTHING you buy on this planet. Recalls for vehicles, aircraft, incompatibility in computer components, basically everything that has some extent of complexity to it. The important point is these guys ARE fixing it and in a timely manner I must say. As well the important part is they are keeping us updated very well. Thnak you guys.

>Please can you enlighten me as to what Airbus accidents were>caused by bugs in the software? As a project engineer for>Airbus, i believe you are ill informed. If you are talking>about the Paris air crash, this was caused by human error as>the accident report concludes.>>Cheers,>>Jamie Blethyn, UKHow about that:Aircraft AccidentLufthansa A320-211 accident, Warsaw Poland, 14 Sep 93The following are excerpts taken from the official accident report and serve as evidence to support or refute various automation issues.issue012 : pilots have responsibility but may lack authorityExcerpt: "3. Conclusions ... 3.1 Findings ... B. Aircraft ... 4. {In emergency, the crew is unable to override the lock-out and to operate ground spoilers and engine thrust reversers}" (pages 40) Equipment: automation Strength: +4 issue105 : understanding of automation may be inadequateExcerpt: "3. Conclusions ... 3.1 Findings ... D. Crew ... 6. {The steering technique applied in the course of aircraft landing in the touchdown phase utilized the lateral bank as a countermeasure to balance lateral wind component. It resulted in touchdown on one main undercarriage leg only and in false impression on the part of the crew that touchdown was efficient. In reality the immediate start of operation of braking devices was not possible.}" (pages 42) Equipment: automation Strength: +2 issue012 : pilots have responsibility but may lack authorityExcerpt: "3. Conclusions ... 3.1 Findings ... B. Aircraft ... 4. {In emergency, the crew is unable to override the lock-out and to operate ground spoilers and engine thrust reversers}" ... also on page 44: "3.2 Causes of Accident ... {Actions of the flight crew were also affected by design features of the aircraft which limited the feasibility of applying available braking systems} as well as by insufficient information in the aircraft operations manual (AOM) relating to the increase of the landing distance." (pages 40 (44)) Equipment: flight controls: brakes & spoilers Strength: +5 issue150 : automation may not work well under unusual conditionsExcerpt: "3. Conclusions ... 3.1 Findings ... B. Aircraft ... 3. The aircraft automatics comprises, for basic landing configuration if the aircraft [sic] ..., the programme which subjects actuation of all braking devices to some specific conditions. Ground spoilers, when selected, will extend provided that either shock absorbers are compressed at both main landing gears ..., or wheel speed [sic] are above 72 kts at both main landing gears. Engine reversers, when selected, will deploy provided that shock absorbers are compressed at both main landing gears. ... D. Crew ... 6. {The steering technique applied in the course of aircraft landing in the touchdown phase utilized the lateral bank as a countermeasure to balance lateral wind component. It resulted in touchdown on one main undercarriage leg only and in false impression on the part of the crew that touchdown was efficient. In reality the immediate start of operation of braking devices was not possible.}" (pages 42) Equipment: automation Strength: +2 Author(s): Main Commission Aircraft Accident Investigation - Poland Date: March, 1994 Title: Report on the Accident to Airbus A320-211 Aircraft in Warsaw on 14 September 1993 Publisher: Main Commission Aircraft Accident Investigation Type: Accident Synopsis: "On the 14th of September 1993, the Lufthansa Airlines, Inc. Airbus A320-211 aircraft registered D-AIPN was flying a regularly scheduled flight. Flight DLH 2904 was scheduled to fly from Frankfurt to Barcelona to Frankfurt to Warsaw and back to Frankfurt. The legs from Frankfurt to Barcelona to Frankfurt were performed uneventfully. The accident occurred during the flight from Frankfurt to Warsaw and carried two flight crew, four cabin crew and 64 passengers. DLH 2904 flight from Frankfurt to Warsaw progressed normally until Warsaw Okecie Control Tower warned the crew that windshear existed on the approach to Runway 11. This had been reported to Warsaw Okecie Control Tower by DLH 5764 who had just landed. According to Flight Manual instructions PF used an increased approach speed and with this speed touched down on Runway 11 in Okecie aerodome. A very light touch of the runway surface with the landing gear and it consequential lack of compression of the left landing gear resulted in delayed deployment of spoilers and thrust reversers. Delay was about 9 seconds. Because the braking commenced with delay and there was the condition of heavy rain and a strong tailwind, the aircraft did not stop on the runway. The aircraft rolled over the end of the runway and after traveling another 90 meters its left wing collided with an embankment. When the aircraft collided with the embankment, its fuel tanks were damaged and fuel began to spill on the left side of the fuselage. The fuel was ignited most probably because of contact with hot parts on the damaged left engine. Evacuation of passengers, organized by the four cabin crew, contributed to the rescue of 63 of the 64 passengers on board. The left seat pilot survived but the right seat pilot was killed during the collision with the embankment. Aerodome fire service extinguished the fire on the aircraft." Walter

Here

Hi peopleMy point of view is that all of us who pay for the product MUST give the developers the enough time to work in a patch that solve all the major issues with the plane, involving flight dynamics and operation as well as frame rate which is very important too.The waiting will be rewarded with a more efficient and stable product and the posibility to let the development group to focus in the liveries.Personally I am waiting for the COPA AIRLINES liveries.I have tried the product online and SB generates an error and closes. Any help with this?Hope to meet new friends here too.Ariel Perez.

Hi,are you at this date range 23-26JUL with the bug-fix patch?I had to resize my FS2k2 partition by part.magic 8 and now I guess I have to get a new reg.key or so'um.Thanx a bunch for any update if you will make it next week with the patch.The Trim and Fuel burn inbalance issue are the mains for me...

Ok how do braking/spoiler related incidents on the ground constitute crashes caused by the A320 FBW system bugs?? The only incident I know of that routinely gets blamed on the FBW is the infamous "tree-cutter" airshow flyby crash, and that one was NOT the airplane's fault based on the report I read in the "Air Disaster" book. It was the pilots not taking into account how long it takes the engines to spool up to TOGA thrust...Please show me one actual Airbus crash (an actual plane crash, not a runway overrun/ground incident) that was caused by a FBW malfunction.Ryan

>Ok how do braking/spoiler related incidents on the ground>constitute crashes caused by the A320 FBW system bugs?? The accident obviously was caused by the software-logic (not necessarily the fly-by-wire-system as such). Without this software-logic the accident probably never would have happened (and nobody would have been killed).>The>only incident I know of that routinely gets blamed on the FBW>is the infamous "tree-cutter" airshow flyby crash, and that>one was NOT the airplane's fault based on the report I read in>the "Air Disaster" book. It was the pilots not taking into>account how long it takes the engines to spool up to TOGA>thrust...>>Please show me one actual Airbus crash (an actual plane crash,>not a runway overrun/ground incident) that was caused by a FBW>malfunction.What

Walter, I go back to the original post:"which caused many of these aircraft to crash"I think that considering the amount of Airbus's that have been built, and the complexity of the aircraft, the amount of actual aircraft crashes due to imperfections in the systems has been very low statistically - and has not been "many" like the post describes. You make it sound like there has been loads of crashes, which is not true.CheersJamie Blethyn, UK

>Walter, >>I go back to the original post:>"which caused many of these aircraft to crash">>I think that considering the amount of Airbus's that have been>built, and the complexity of the aircraft, the amount of>actual aircraft crashes due to imperfections in the systems>has been very low statistically - and has not been "many" like>the post describes. You make it sound like there has been>loads of crashes, which is not true.No, no - that was not me! On the contrary - if you read my previous posts I wrote: "Though I think it is rather exaggerated to say that "bugs in the computer caused many of these aircrafts to crash". I only can think of ONE accident which was really caused by the computer (Warsaw-accident)...of course, one accident is one too much..."Inspite of "software-problems" the A320 has a rather good safety-record, that

I agree Walter...i think we should leave this for another forum!!!Cheers, Jamie Blethy, UK

@ Rich :this wasn

@ Walter :"..Only that the autolanding does not really work until this day.."Sorry Walter but you are wrong on this one regarding the DF 737. It works quite well if you follow the procedures. :-)RegardsMatthias

>@ Walter :>>"..Only that the autolanding does not really work until this>day..">>Sorry Walter but you are wrong on this one regarding the DF>737. It works quite well if you follow the procedures. :-)>>Regards>>MatthiasSorry Matthias (:-)), but I have tried out ALL procedures that have ever been suggested on the Dreamfleet - forum (and where the authors claimed that autoland would work using these "procedures") to no avail. I even posted screenshots there stemming from the crashes resulting from following those advices :-(. It simply did not work for me, NEVER!So I always land the DF 737 manually, which is much more fun anyway, but the fact remains, that the DF-737 autoland does not work correctly for all users and does not work at all on some machines for some reason...Apart from that some of the procedures suggested for a successful autoland had NOTHING to do with procedures used to land a real 737 - so even IF they had worked on my system they would have been FAR from realstic...Walter