Concerning the HUDSON River DITCHING by Captain Sullenberger :

 

Some extract's of the NTSB report:

 

"the captain started the APU, which improved the outcome of the ditching by ensuring that a primary source of electrical power was available to the airplane and that the airplane remained in NORMAL LAW and maintained the flight envelope protections"

 

"the airplane was flown at VLS or slightly less for most of the descent "

"The Airbus simulation indicated that the airplane performed as designed and was in the alpha-protection mode from 150 feet to touchdown"

 

"The captain’s decision to use flaps 2 for the ditching was reasonable"

 

"The captain pulled the sidestick to its aft stop in the last 50 feet"

"The Airbus simulation indicated that the captain’s aft sidestick inputs in the last 50 feet of the flight were ATTENUATED, limiting the ANU response of the airplane even though about 3.5° of margin existed between the airplane’s AOA at touchdown (between 13° and 14°) and the maximum AOA for this airplane weight and configuration (17.5°)"

 

"The flight envelope protections allowed the captain to pull FULL AFT on the sidestick without the risk of stalling the airplane."

 

A quite good video of a Full Flight SImulator reproduction of the Hudson ditching is here:

 

 

Guy

Exactly was I was saying above.

 

On the Hudson incident, Flight Envelope Protection saved many lives (all).

What about Air France Flight 296?

What about Air France Flight 296?

 

Same, like a friend pilot said, had that NOT being an A320, it would have crashed right in front of all the expectators instead of the forest at the end of the field. This was a massive stuff up by Asseline, the captain, poorly planned flyover, was performed on a runway they had not planned for, had no idea of obstacles, they flew lower and slower than originally planned and applied thrust way too late to clear the trees at the end of the runway.

Take a look at this video on YouTube:

 

 

Take a look at this video on YouTube:

 

What the pilot says in this video is TRUE.

Those are WELL known disadvantages of the Airbus Side-stick system vis-à-vis the

Boeing control column system. (there are also advantages)

 

But I don't think those were the reason of the Habsheim crash !

If you want to know the reasons, you have to study the official accident reports.

 

Guy

What about Air France Flight 296?

 

What about it?

 

The Official Report found that on approach to the display, the flight crew disabled the function that controlled thrust and controlled it manually by selecting Flight Idle. The aircraft was flown at a height of 30 ft which was below the level of the trees. The aircraft was very slowly in order to show off a high angle of attack. TOGA power was applied too late and the aircraft struck the trees less than 5 secs later.

What about it?

 

The Official Report found that on approach to the display, the flight crew disabled the function that controlled thrust and controlled it manually by selecting Flight Idle. The aircraft was flown at a height of 30 ft which was below the level of the trees. The aircraft was very slowly in order to show off a high angle of attack. TOGA power was applied too late and the aircraft struck the trees less than 5 secs later.

 

The fact that was most discussed with the Habsheim crash was the SLOW

application of POWER after they set FULL thrust.

This was due to the fact (according the official report) that they descended

lower(30 ft agl) then they had initially planned (100 ft agl) and didn't have

the time any more to STABILIZE their level-off.

So they set TOGA from IDLE thrust and therefore it was NORMAL that the

engines spooled up more SLOWLY.

 

Guy

This is how AF296 should have done it!!

http://www.vc10.net/...t White Waltham

The fact that was most discussed with the Habsheim crash was the SLOW

application of POWER after they set FULL thrust.

This was due to the fact (according the official report) that they descended

lower(30 ft agl) then they had initially planned (100 ft agl) and didn't have

the time any more to STABILIZE their level-off.

So they set TOGA from IDLE thrust and therefore it was NORMAL that the

engines spooled up more SLOWLY.

 

Guy

 

The FDR showed that the engines spooled up as they should have from Flight Idle - to 67% N1 in 4 sec, and to 83% in a further second.

 

This accident had nothing to do with fly-by-wire but human error. The captain and others were tried and convicted of involuntary manslaughter.

Same, like a friend pilot said, had that NOT being an A320, it would have crashed right in front of all the expectators instead of the forest at the end of the field.

 

Exactly.

 

...poorly planned flyover, was performed on a runway they had not planned for, had no idea of obstacles, they flew lower and slower than originally planned...

 

Exactly.

 

F.E.P. cannot override the laws of physics. The A320 in that case, had much lower total (kinetic + potential) energy than it should have had.

 

But as you've said, F.E.P., gave everyone aboard a few dozen seconds into the air, where any other conventional plane would have crashed just amidst the audience.

This is how AF296 should have done it!!

http://www.vc10.net/...t White Waltham

Same, like a friend pilot said, had that NOT being an A320, it would have crashed right in front of all the expectators instead of the forest at the end of the field.

 

 

Not true! The pilot was totally at fault even though he refuses to admit that.

At White Waltham the a/c actually got down to about 10ft agl. The engines were certainly NOT at idle. And, said a/c VC10 has way way more power available than the A320. The pilot of the AF Airbus was at fault. You never ever come in to an airfield on idle. Because as he showed the world it takes months for the engines to spool-up. You always have to be prepared for a go-around even at the last moment. And for that the power must be "available". The VC10 pilot showed airmanship and skill whereas the AF pilot showed distinct lack off.

 

 

Not true! The pilot was totally at fault even though he refuses to admit that.

At White Waltham the a/c actually got down to about 10ft agl. The engines were certainly NOT at idle. And, said a/c VC10 has way way more power available than the A320. The pilot of the AF Airbus was at fault. You never ever come in to an airfield on idle. Because as he showed the world it takes months for the engines to spool-up. You always have to be prepared for a go-around even at the last moment. And for that the power must be "available". The VC10 pilot showed airmanship and skill whereas the AF pilot showed distinct lack off.

 

I think you need to understand what I am trying to say, which you will find is exactly what you have written.

 

Just to add more fuel to the fire....regardless of all the stupid decisions made by the crew and AirFrance prior to the crash.... the one thing that put them into the trees, and that Airbus denied right up until they were forced to test, prove, and admit it.....

 

When they applied go around thrust, the COMPUTERS LOWERED THE NOSE....thats in CAPS for those who need it. The engines were spooling up, but the plane's nose went down even though the pilots were doing all they could, The PIC told them that but Airbus would not admit it, until they took a plane up, flew the same profile, and it lowered the nose for the test team as well...

 

Again, the COMPUTERS put that plane in the ground, end of story. They are durn lucky they only killed 3 people.

Just to add more fuel to the fire....regardless of all the stupid decisions made by the crew and AirFrance prior to the crash.... the one thing that put them into the trees, and that Airbus denied right up until they were forced to test, prove, and admit it.....

 

When they applied go around thrust, the COMPUTERS LOWERED THE NOSE....thats in CAPS for those who need it. The engines were spooling up, but the plane's nose went down even though the pilots were doing all they could, The PIC told them that but Airbus would not admit it, until they took a plane up, flew the same profile, and it lowered the nose for the test team as well...

 

Again, the COMPUTERS put that plane in the ground, end of story. They are durn lucky they only killed 3 people.

 

Do yourself a favour and google "stall". Like I said in my post, had this been any other aircraft, it would have crashed way before. The aircraft was stalling, the command to add power was too late and the aircraft was doomed, the command was to increase speed and the nose lowered to stop the aircraft stalling and increase speed. It was not Alpha Floor's fault that the pilots were so negligent.