Fly Airbus computer controlled planes...

Poor bastards

I did work experience at RAAF Williamtown (one of the bigger fighter bases in aus) when i was at hight school. I was lucky enough to do a engine test in a hornet (from the 2nd OCU, 2 seater hornet) that we had replaced the engines in. They gave me full throttle control during the test. I only had the toe brakes on and had it at 100% for a good few minutes, and the only thing that happened was the nose dipped considerably... didnt budge at all. Mind you, i dunno if this can be compared to an airbusses brakes, and the fact that it was already on the roll.

 

There another assumption was born: some people guess that A-310 computer has switched to take off procedure. What if it disables brakes in that regime and does not allow to cut off engines for "safety"?

 

well we'll all just have to switch back to flying exploding DH Comets...

 

Is it the computer that lands the plane, taxi's it, or takes it off? I thought the pilot did all that (sorry, not up to date on commercial aircraft tech)







(just read in local paper it was hydrolic faliure, any one else read this?)

 

Material to substantiate (Airbus planes have flight director that overrides manual thrust control?!):

"Source: Ministry of Transport Japan, Aircraft Accident Investigation Commission (1996). China Airlines Airbus Industrie A300B4-622R, B1816, Nagoya Airport, April 26, 1994. Report 96-5. Ministry of Transport.

Source Type: Accident

Synopsis: "China Airlines Airbus Industrie A300B4-622R B1816 took off from Taipei International Airport at 0853 UTC (1753 JST) on April 26, 1994 and continued flying according to its flight plan. About 1116 UTC (2016 JST), while approaching Nagoya airport for landing, the aircraft crashed into the landing zone close to E1 taxiway of the airport. ... While the aircraft was making an ILS approach to Runway 34 of Nagoya Airport, under manual control by the F/O, the F/O inadvertently activated the GO lever, which changed the FD (Flight Director) to GO AROUND mode and caused a thrust increase. This made the aircraft deviate above its normal glide path. The APs were subsequently engaged, with GO AROUND mode still engaged. Under these conditions the F/O continued pushing the control wheel in accordance with the CAP's instructions. As a result of this, the THS (Horizontal Stabilizer) moved to its full nose-up position and caused an abnormal out-of-trim situation. The crew continued approach, unaware of the abnormal situation. The AOA increased, the Alpha floor function was activated and the pitch angle increased. It is considered that, at this time, the CAP (who had now taken the controls), judged that landing would be difficult and opted for go-around. The aircraft began to climb steeply with a high pitch angle attitude. The CAP and the F/O did not carry out an effective recovery operation, and the aircraft stalled and crashed. ... On board the aircraft were 271 persons: 256 passengers (including 2 infants) and 15 crew members, of whom 264 persons (249 passengers including 2 infants and 15 crew members) were killed and 7 passengers were seriously injured. The aircraft ignited, and was destroyed." The accident report written in Japanese was translated into English."

 

Finally, I have found the possible source of 124 deaths...

http://www.flightdeckautomation.com/resourceevid.aspx?ID=2

Fucking autopilot

 

Otto civilian pilots. The nightmare

 

What do you mean?

 

i don't know about A300 which is already an old liner btw but i'm sure w/o auto pilot, we would have more accidents, lets w8 the investigations.

 

I don't trust in any kind of autopilot that "cuts" human's possibilities to control the plane.

 

There are these pilots call themselves "Old Ones" or "Old Hands." Or um, some PILOTS call other PILOTS that.
What it means is a pilot that used to fly airplanes WITHOUT all those fancy avionics and The Other Things they stick in aircraft these days....
Used to be, a while back, airline pilots were THOSE KINDS OF GUYS.
Aren't they still?
I mean, well, expert pilots?
So, we take some crew who are very good at what they do and we have sytems onboard that not only second guess them but sub-ordinate them?
Shit.
Maybe the plan is to make it so airliners can be crewed by high school kids paid summer vacation cheapo money, like fast food retaraunt employees and filipino nannies????

[example of this is antilock brakes in automobiles. Many folks haven't driven cars WITHOUT antilock brakes. And some of those people are young or inexperienced and learning to belive the automobiles they drive just plain behave that way NATURALLY. I dunno how reliable those types of braking systems are, but I'll bet there has been big trouble when impetuous youngsters decided to rally race little 1975 Datsuns]

 

Oh, I love that! My brothers owned one Datsun 260 Z

 

I am not sure about latest Boeing ideas, but Airbus were the first to implement "computer overrides pilot" "technology".

 

My first car was Datsun 120Y. Nice car. After fitting Fiat Unos tyres in it, I could
slide it anyway I wanted. (Antilock brakes are for pussies.....Come to think of it, I've never had a car with ABS)

 

Mb Airbus uses FH P38 flight model?

Ok, it was a bad joke....

Usually these modern aircraft have multiple computers..if one gets screwed up,others should be ok...strange this happened. Possibly was pilot's fault? Passengers don't know what happened imo. Need to see "black box" data imo.