Do yourself a favor and do a bit more research, so far you are lacking in facts and long on opinion.

Disregard. WOT.

Do yourself a favor and do a bit more research, so far you are lacking in facts and long on opinion.

 

Mate, so far all your opinions and assumptions have been proven wrong, nothing more than knee jerk reactions towards a product and technology you clearly don't understand and feel rather defensive about because you don't understand it. An open mind is clearly lacking, and participation in a forum without an open mind and misquoting and misunderstanding posts will expose you to having your points of view challenged by facts.

You must be my X wife, since you know so much about me....done wasting time with this, you clearly are clueless.

When they applied go around thrust, the COMPUTERS LOWERED THE NOSE

 

What's the source of that?

Its all in the Angle of Attack.

 

The Mantra: If you want to go up, pull the stick back...if you want to go down, pull the stick back some more!

 

If the Airbus AP was moving the nose down, it could be doing the right thing by reducing the angle of attack... and hence reduce the rate of descend. But when you are so low, the reduction of rate of descend may not help..it may have just delayed the crash by a few seconds.

In one of these fbw/airbus threads, I had noted that on the non-FBW MD-11 (but with LSAS) that the attitude hold function creates problems for me when manually controlling the throttles because it glues the nose to a point in space independent of your power level as if the plane has perfect neutral stability. Since most planes have positive stability, I have some trouble getting used to that. Is this the same on a FBW Airbus--does the Airbus also appear to have neutral stability from the point of view of the pilot?

 

In other words, if I point the nose of an Airbus somewhere, and then manually retard the throttles, the nose will remain there and the plane will begin to fall out from under me with increasing angle of attack, if I'm not careful? But you won't see that on a 777 because it is built to mimic a 'normal' plane, correct?

Its all in the Angle of Attack.

 

If you want to go up, pull the stick back...if you want to go down, pull the stick back some more!

 

If the Airbus AP was moving the nose down, it could be doing the right thing by reducing the angle of attack... and hence reduce the rate of descend.

 

At the time Asseline moved the throttles to TOGA, the aircraft was 30ft above the ground, only 122 knots of airspeed, and he had held the aircraft at 15 degrees nose up. This is what I meant with "another aircraft would have crashed on the runway, not beyond it". The trees in the forest it struck had an average height of 40ft.

 

So rather than the scaremongering from before, just reading the report, Air France was panned for agreeing to perform a maneuvre normally limited to Airbus Test pilots, also, Air France performed the manuevre with PASSENGERS (whereas Test flights are done with minimal crew plus a handful of observers). Asseline had planned to perform the maneuvre along the paved runway 02 which would have given him 1000m (3281ft) unobstructed to fly over....instead, once he arrived, he realised the airshow was aligned over runway 34R which is only 640m (2100ft) long and has power lines as well as a forest right at the end of it (which he was unaware of).

 

So in short, we have a non-test pilot performing a test and demonstration maneuvre with passengers, along a runway he had not prepared for, over surrounds he was unfamiliar with, descending lower than he had planned, he flew slower than he had planned, and reacted far too slow to the obstacle at the end of the runway he was totally unprepared for.

What's the source of that?

 

It was an interview with both the pilots and Airbus reps on either Air Emergency or Air Disasters a month or two back. I was so amazed I watched it numerous times just to be sure of what they were saying. I've tried to find the episode online but no luck so far.

 

There were so many bad decisions and bad judgement involved it's obsurd, this was just the frosting on the cake.

You must be my X wife, since you know so much about me....done wasting time with this, you clearly are clueless.

 

Edit....it is not worth the hassle

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.

 

Agreed. Imagine a conventional aircraft at 30 ft and 122kt with toga just being applied to get out of it - clearly if the nose were raised in the time/distance available before the trees, all that would happen is a nose up plowing into the runway. To escape they would STILL have to manually maintain pitch to gain the speed required for climbout.

 

As also indicated in that Air Disaster or whichever vid it was, the change of runway was the first mistake - the longer, obstacle free first choice would have given them time to recover.

You folks nicely summed up the lack of options that AF296 flight had. Stall or fly low. Since they were already below the trees, the latter didn't prove to deliver a safe path. I think the court ruling is clear on who was in charge. :mellow:

 

Since the pilot's day started with a bad briefing and 'just' an unclear map of an area they didn't know about, but had to perform an airshow display, it once again becomes clear that the chain of events leading to the death of 3 people had a subtle touch at first. I don't know what this proves to you, but, to me, it would warn me about minding the details.

 

Nobody is holding up a large sign at breakfast that this is going to be a disastrous day for you. :unsure:

 

 

KingGhidorah, your question covers the MD-11 LSAS, the Airbus FBW logics in normal law and the 777 in normal mode. So that's a tall order. By this, I guess the rough look of mine into it will create puzzling moments.

 

Well, lets start either way. The Airbus in normal law references the G load for the pitch. In straight and level flight and leaving the stick alone, it will hold 1G. Note. My sentence isn't entirely true since the model does shift from a G load reference to a pitch rate reference at low speeds. Either way, this differs from systems referencing the actual pitch angle or the speed.

 

By this, if you reduce thrust and still leave the stick alone, it should automatically pitch up (holds 1G) until you reach the angle of attack limits triggering the warnings and later protection. It will then automatically command more (means TOGA) thrust and also avoid exceeding the angle of attack limit even if a pilot would command to exceed them. That's the alpha max value. The hard limit.

It will actually pitch up if you reduce the throttles, or do you just mean it will allow the AoA to increase as your speed falls out? Are you sure about that? I guess I was under the impression that an airbus would feel and behave much like with the md-11's Lsas' attitude hold, or perhaps a Boeing flying in CWS mode.

Well, we are looking at the outcome it references. That 1G value. It tries to hold this. From straight and level flight that is. The CWS holds an angle on roll and/or pitch. It doesn't care for the load factor resulting from this.

 

The MD-11's LSAS only works on the pitch and may, for that feature of the pitch attitude hold, come in like CWS P(itch).

So nonetheless, what we have learned here is Airbus is the best. Fly by Wire saves lives. And no other aircraft has the technology of an airbus.