Flight 587's NTSB data recorder playback

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 15 Jul 2007, 01:02

The can of worms may again be opened, what was previously blamed as pilot error for overly inputting to much rudder is disproved in this NTSB re-enactment of data from the flight recorder. It would appear watching this video shows the captain did not input any rudder until after there was some kind of failure or outside interference.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/683854/am ... 587_crash/

watch the rudder pedal input!

Airmotive · Post by **Airmotive** » 15 Jul 2007, 05:49

I'm not sure I follow your line of thought.
There was outside interference...wake turbulence from the 747 that departed just before them. On the CVR, even the crew says that they've encountered wake turbulence.

The Board concluded that the PF exceeded the vertical stabilizer's design limits by the use of several full rudder inputs, left-right-left-right-left, which lead to the separation of the stabilizer. The video reconstruction supports this conclusion 100%.

It's hard to call this pilot error, since the crew acted within what they believed were the limitations of the airframe. But along with the funny looking hat comes the primary responsibility for the flight.

Incidentally, maneuvering speed (Va) design limitations, do not apply to the vertical stabilizer. Case in point....

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 15 Jul 2007, 12:19

With Airbus' design philosophy (pilot input controls a computer which controls the plane), I am not certain how pilot inputs could overstress the airframe, unless the computer limits were established (or entered) at too low a value, or the failed assembly was less than the design called for. Airbus claims that usiing this design philosophy prevents the pilots form exceeding the design limits, although a A320 prototpe was fatally flown into trees during a flight demonstratin in France 20 years ago.

I'm no structural expert, but this crash still mystifies me.

FLY4HOURS.BE · Post by **FLY4HOURS.BE** » 15 Jul 2007, 14:49

The ex-Air France A320 that was crashed by Airbus while testing an unmanned machine-only system (no pilots on board) was actually a calculation error. The plane approached as it was supposed to and flared a bit too high and too fast intentionally which is why it continued to fly straight into that forest. The idea was to have a go-around but the throttle inputs we're not received by the system due to its too low altitude, the report says. It has nothing to do with design limitations except for the designed machine's ability to recognise exact position and engine perimeters.

Something that bothers me more is the Armavia A320 crash...
The final report said that the crash is due to human factor: while asked to establish a go-around, the pilots had lost situational awareness in the bad weather, forgot to retract the landing gears and made pitch-down inputs while being in the climb which resulted in the aircraft losing altitude and crashing into the sea...
French investigators have refused to accept this report as it is really too hard to believe that an experienced captain would not notice that his aircraft is losing altitude and that his aircraft is pitching towards the ground instead of climbing... And I agree with this theory...
Sometimes ago they said they found something like bullets and bullet holes in the wreckage+that there were high-rank officials on board...
The report denies the latter and states that it was the pilot who claimed that in order to obtain a better weather report from the tower...
This smells like fish....
Certainly if you remember that 2 days later another aircraft was lost in a hangar-fire at SN-techincs...

Airbus330lover · Post by **Airbus330lover** » 15 Jul 2007, 15:26

smokejumper wrote:With Airbus' design philosophy (pilot input controls a computer which controls the plane), I am not certain how pilot inputs could overstress the airframe, unless the computer limits were established (or entered) at too low a value, or the failed assembly was less than the design called for. I'm no structural expert.

The computer control is not for this type of aircraft.

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 15 Jul 2007, 15:30

The crash I was referring to occurred on 26 June, 1988 at Habshein, France.

One report ( http://www.crashdehabsheim.net/CRenglish%20phot.pdf ) indicates that the data recorders were altered.

Other reports indicate that the plane was in landing configuration (wheels and flaps down) and when the pilot advanced to throttles to pull up and go around, the computer over-ruled him and decided to continue with the landing (into the trees!). Thei shows the difference between Aribus' control philosophy (computer rules) and Boeing's (pilot is in command). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296

Airbus330lover · Post by **Airbus330lover** » 15 Jul 2007, 15:52

smokejumper wrote:The crash I was referring to occurred on 26 June, 1988 at Habshein, France.

One report ( http://www.crashdehabsheim.net/CRenglish%20phot.pdf ) indicates that the data recorders were altered.

Other reports indicate that the plane was in landing configuration (wheels and flaps down) and when the pilot advanced to throttles to pull up and go around, the computer over-ruled him and decided to continue with the landing (into the trees!). Thei shows the difference between Aribus' control philosophy (computer rules) and Boeing's (pilot is in command). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296

You'right about Habsheim, but not about the case in the subject

Airbus330lover · Post by **Airbus330lover** » 15 Jul 2007, 15:53

smokejumper wrote:The crash I was referring to occurred on 26 June, 1988 at Habshein, France.

One report ( http://www.crashdehabsheim.net/CRenglish%20phot.pdf ) indicates that the data recorders were altered.

Other reports indicate that the plane was in landing configuration (wheels and flaps down) and when the pilot advanced to throttles to pull up and go around, the computer over-ruled him and decided to continue with the landing (into the trees!). Thei shows the difference between Aribus' control philosophy (computer rules) and Boeing's (pilot is in command). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296

You'right about Habsheim, but not about the case in the subject AA587

teach · Post by **teach** » 15 Jul 2007, 16:46

With Airbus' design philosophy (pilot input controls a computer which controls the plane), I am not certain how pilot inputs could overstress the airframe, unless the computer limits were established (or entered) at too low a value, or the failed assembly was less than the design called for.

This 'design philosophy' only came along with the A320. AA587 was an A300-600R, and older design which doesn't have these systems. No Alpha-floor protection, no computer stopping the pilot from overstressing the airframe.

The ex-Air France A320 that was crashed by Airbus while testing an unmanned machine-only system (no pilots on board) was actually a calculation error.

I'm having a very hard time believing the whole 'it was remote controlled and there was no-one on board' myth is now actually making it onto an aviation board. Airbus has never tested an 'unmanned machine-only system' on board an A320.

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 15 Jul 2007, 17:00

I bleieve that the burned A320 pilot who stumled out of the forest in Habsheim might be surprised to learn that the plane was an unmanned test article!

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 15 Jul 2007, 19:14

smokejumper wrote:I bleieve that the burned A320 pilot who stumled out of the forest in Habsheim might be surprised to learn that the plane was an unmanned test article!

I think the passengers who were on board at the time would also be somewhat concerned at the fact there was nobody on the flight deck!

FLY4HOURS.BE · Post by **FLY4HOURS.BE** » 15 Jul 2007, 19:26

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b1pkKR-Acc

3 pax dead as part of an airshow low-pass fully automated fly-by-wire A320 crash in LFGB. This was the first crash ever of an A320.

I guess we're not talking about the same thing, sorry

Airbus330lover · Post by **Airbus330lover** » 15 Jul 2007, 19:26

bits44 wrote:
smokejumper wrote:I bleieve that the burned A320 pilot who stumled out of the forest in Habsheim might be surprised to learn that the plane was an unmanned test article!

I think the passengers who were on board at the time would also be somewhat concerned at the fact there was nobody on the flight deck!

fftopic:
we are speaking over AA587

teach · Post by **teach** » 15 Jul 2007, 20:00

3 pax dead as part of an airshow low-pass fully automated fly-by-wire A320 crash in LFGB. This was the first crash ever of an A320.

I guess we're not talking about the same thing, sorry

We're certainly talking about the same thing. That's the Habsheim crash. Your explanation of it, and that in the video, is just wrong.

Airbus330lover · Post by **Airbus330lover** » 15 Jul 2007, 20:11

teach wrote: We're certainly talking about the same thing. That's the Habsheim crash. Your explanation of it, and that in the video, is just wrong.

Surely NOT.
AA587 was in NYC not Hasheim.
Please open a new subject if you want about A320 Habsheim, but stay on topic.
The explanation and the video are correct,

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 15 Jul 2007, 21:07

I think some are confused by the statement made in the video that suggests the plane is pilotless, that was not the case!

The term fly by wire and with out pilot in command are a misnomer.

The pilot was in the aircraft! he could not override the computer command, there was no way to turn off the command unit.

The computer thought it was landing and due to a programming error it tried to land no matter what!

As was suggested Boeing has fly by wire and triple redundancy in case of failure! the difference is in a Boeing the Pilot is always in command and can override the FCM or just turn in off!

teach · Post by **teach** » 15 Jul 2007, 21:29

he could not override the computer command, there was no way to turn off the command unit.

That is little more than a common internet myth. Reality is that the pilot was too low, saw the trees too late (he didn't know about them due to poor preparation of the fly-by, and a last-minute change of runway along which to fly) and powered up too late to climb out. Engines need time (a few seconds) to spool up after the input is given. The engines on this plane did that: in fact, you can HEAR them powering up just before the plane hits the trees.

in a Boeing the Pilot is always in command and can override the FCM or just turn in off!

In fact, the Alpha-floor protection in this A320 WAS turned off.

FLY4HOURS.BE · Post by **FLY4HOURS.BE** » 15 Jul 2007, 21:33

Back on track with AA587.

This is the National Geographic point of view:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFsaFVlJCDE&NR=1

fcw · Post by **fcw** » 15 Jul 2007, 21:33

teach wrote:
he could not override the computer command, there was no way to turn off the command unit.
That is little more than a common internet myth. Reality is that the pilot was too low, saw the trees too late (he didn't know about them due to poor preparation of the fly-by, and a last-minute change of runway along which to fly) and powered up too late to climb out. Engines need time (a few seconds) to spool up after the input is given. The engines on this plane did that: in fact, you can HEAR them powering up just before the plane hits the trees.

in a Boeing the Pilot is always in command and can override the FCM or just turn in off!
In fact, the Alpha-floor protection in this A320 WAS turned off.

Agree with the first part that this was a CFIT, but Alpha floor does not protect you against CFIT.

teach · Post by **teach** » 15 Jul 2007, 21:44

but Alpha floor does not protect you against CFIT

Never said it did. I was simply reacting to the statement that on a Boeing, the computer 'protection' system can be turned off, by stating you can do so on an Airbus too.