It happened. A good friend of mine who works for the FAA sent me those pictures years ago when it happened, and from what he told me, it happened just like the scenario that Karl posted, ie. they were doing an engine run for an accpetance flight of the brand new airplane, and someone pulled the ground sensor CB, and voilla...no brakes!
I have never liked Airbus products, their design philosophy is that their airplane is 'smarter' than the pilots and it won't let you do things if it doesn't agree to what you are trying to do.
If you really want to see some scary sh!t, go watch some You Tube videos titled "Scary Crosswind Landings", you will notice that most of those 'scary landings' are in Airbus products...
What does that tell you?
We have a saying in professional aviation:
If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going.
I will leave you with this other Airbus incident. It was the unveiling of the (then) new Airbus A320, at the (huge) Paris Air Show, it is being flown by the Number One Airbus A320 Demo pilot. Not an average schmuck, but one of the guys who HELPED DESIGN IT! If he can't fly it, what chance does an average schmuck have?
He was doing a 'low pass' demo for the crowd of prospective buyers, with about 20 prospective buyers on board the airplane as well. At the end of the low pass, when he tried to pull up to go around the pattern and come back to land, the 'smart' airplane said, "Nope, we are going to land now..." And it did...in the trees, off the far end of the runway. Unbelieveably, only 3 were killed.
You Tube is loaded with other Airbus crash videos. They are much cheaper than a similar Boeing, but you get what you pay for.
Part of the problem is, they sell to the third world, and their pilot don't get as much -hands on- training as we do over here in the USA. They don't train their copilots very much at all, and they are taught to just push the buttons, and let the (Smart) Airplane do everything, complete to the auto-landings. They are not allowed to land the airplane at a lot of Asian carriers. Every landing is an auto land.
Thats all good, until the Autopilot drops out...then what? You've got a couple pilots up front who have not made a manual landing in years.
Didn't Boeing have some similar episodes with the automatic landing system and a faulty sensor fooling the aircraft to think "we are now on the ground, time to cut all power" while doing the final approach..
I distrust electronics/software deeeply and want a human pilot to fly the plane. Same when looking for cars. I want as much mechanical and as little electronic/software as possible. I have probably been working too long with software, computers and control systems..
Not the same type incident Rolf. In the Airbus incident I posted, the Pilot was trying to go around, the airplane wouldn't let him. With the Turkish airline incident, the (idiot) pilots were not paying attention to their airspeed and allowed the airplane to get too slow.
The Airbus would not allow the Pilot to over-ride the thrust levers and flight controls, and basically flew itself into the ground.
In the Boeing 737 incident, if the pilots had simply pushed the thrust levers up, they never would have gotten too slow in the first place. There was a faulty radio altimiter indication which fooled the airplane into thinking it was near to the ground, but the PILOTS should have seen this immediately and corrected it.
This is exaclty what I was talking about earlier, about the piss poor training of pilots in the third world. They do auto lands all the time, and when something goes wrong, they are not skilled enough to see it, and make a simple correction, that would have easily saved the airplane.
We have a saying that is drilled into us starting with our primary flying lessons, ie. on lesson number 1.
Airspeed is Life!
Altitude is Life Insurance.
You never want to run out of both, at the same time. How the Turkish pilots couldn't see they were getting too slow is beyond me, but I was trained in the USA, and we hand fly all our approaches, all the time. We only do auto landings when the weather (Sever fog, nearly zero visability) requires it, and even then, we monitor the autopilot very closely, to be sure it's doing things correctly. And if it so much as burps, we disconnect it and hand fly it, or go around and go to a holding pattern somewhere, at a safe altitude, and sort it out.
Nor am I, but Boeing does a very good job of using technology to -help- the pilots, vs. Airbus, who tries very hard to use technology to -replace- the pilots.
In a Boeing, with one button push, you can turn it all off and you are once again in control.
With Airbus, you first have to discuss it, with 3 computers, they have a board meeting, and then they get back to you...you may -or may not- like the 'solution' they come up with!
But the bottom line is, it comes down to training. All the US Major Airlines spend a lot more time, and money, training their pilots than any of the 'third world' carriers.
so how did the thing not just go straight through the barrier and explode? No brakes, full thrust... and it more or less bounces over the barrier? Clearly someone figured out something or they would have been doing over 200kn into the barrier, right? and that is no 200kn crash in the pics.
And BTW, doesn't this demonstrate that the plane is indeed smarter than some pilots? If you make a product flown by inferior pilots, wouldn't you want more automation? No offense, but you seem like a guy who would have complained 60 years ago about seat belts!!!!
My point is that computers make better errors. The limitations of the software architects and programmers are inherent in the system they build. One small thing that is unanticipated happens and the whole thing can spin out of control. A human are able to do analysis and invention to overcome an issue on a far better scale. I have made enough mistakes in software myself to know this
I want a human with real intelligence to supervise and monitor the situation and to take over with override on all automatic systems. I dont want these human pilots to have to be software and instrument experts to be able to interpret the situation. I dont want the pilots to become complacent and rely too heavily on the computers either. Air France flight 447 comes to mind as en example of human - computer interaction problems.
The one common ellement in all airplane crashes; human error.
You cannot get away from it. Humans design the airplanes, humans build the airplanes, humans design the software, and humans install the systems, and then humans try to operate it.
Boeing is not perfect, look at the 3 years of delays on their new 787's, and they still don't have all the bugs worked out.
So...how do you overcome human error?
You train for it. ie. you have the attitude that everything you know could be wrong, so don't trust anything, or anyone, ever. The most dangerous guys I fly with are the few who think they know everything, about everything.
Nobody knows everything.
You know how you tell a new guy on the 777 from an experienced guy?
The new guys say, "What's it doing now?"
but the experienced guys say,
"Oh, it's doing that again."
Flying is still safer than driving to the airport, the worst part of my day is driving home through Orlando traffic at rush hour.
Rolf, here's some info on Turkish Airlines quality control, specifically about the accident you mentioned above where the 737 got slow on final. What surprised me was how many known issues there are at Turkish air lines.
I want to be the sadistic Flight Simulator controller who gets to make everything blow up in the **** and giggle as the pilots crap their pants trying to land the thing... backwards...in a snowstorm...uphill...with no hydraulics...and an engine fire...
Yeah, what we really need are ejection seats and parachutes, like the Military Pilots have!
In Air Force pilot training, here's what our instructors told us during the preflight briefing:
"...and if things go to sh!t, don't try to be a hero, just give it back to the tax payers!"
There's a you tube video (several actually) with lots of ejection footage, but I'm on a company compter in Detroit right now, going to Shanghai in a few hours, and I can't copy the link.
I think it's called 'broken wings' or such, maybe you can find it Jay.
Certainly the best landings on commercial liners seem to be on average when on auto, the best manual landing I have had recently was a trip back from Guernsey when the Bombardier Q300 had its landing wheels nearly stuffed full length up the rams, a real goodie and so predictable when you heard the engine note go up full level just before hitting the deck, talk about the pilot being behind the game.
Electronics do have there uses though and when used in the right manner can far surpass human senses, take gliding flight computers which compute final glides when the landing field is over the horizon or the modern Nav stuff such as GPS.
Wayne, how do you know, "...the best landings on commercial liners seem to be on average when on auto."
Did the pilots make a Public Address and say, "Have no fear, we are going to do an auto-land." or words to that effect? I know for a fact, that in the USA, on all USA Air Carriers, we almost never do autolandings, only when the weather requires it, or the system needs to be tested. To maintain it's Category 3 Autoland status, the airplane must do one every 30 days.
We will sometimes get a note on our flight plan that says, "Autolanding required prior to..." with a date on it, and if we are not near that date, we don't do it. The poor sod who gets the plane on the last day has to do it.
The weather I'm talking about is not rain or gusty winds, it is fog. Once fog (or snow) obscures visibility down to below half a mile, we are required to make auto landings. Now, in England and Ireland, I know they get a lot more foggy days, so there may be quite a bit more auto-lands required, I don't know what their national carriers (Air Lingus, BA, Virgin, etc.) tell their pilots to do on a sunny day. Maybe like the Asians, they are required to auto land every time.
The autopilots will do a pretty good job and give you a consistent -ok- landing, but if want a real grease job, it will be done by a human, but...if you had a really bad landing, that was also done by a human! Also, the auto landing system has a lower crosswind limit. On the 777 the max autoland crosswind is 25knts, where as the non autoland limit is 38knts.
So if the cross winds are over 25, you can't autoland it anyway, you must hand fly it, but with that much wind, there is never a visability problem, ie. it's always a mile or two vis. with that much wind, where fog gets the thickest, lowest vis. is with calm winds.
Mmmm fair comment, how do we work out whether it was an auto land or not. Always assumed the really effortless, no motor up or down, speed constant, no sudden elevator movements, to be Auto.
Came in on a A380 to Heathrow on Saturday, really really like a glider in that he powered off at 40000 feet and glide into Heathrow about as effortless as you could have got, powering on in the last 1 minute, just a tad, landing about as soft as you could have got, impressed on how almost surreal it was.
That smooth, uninterupted approach was due more to lack of trafic in front of you than anything else. We have to do what ever ATC tells us to, speed and altitude wise, when being sequenced into the line up for landing. The autopilot was on, but humans have to tell it what to do, and some are better at it than others.
Now, the last 1000 feet and the touchdown may have been autopilot on, or off. Was it Quatas? They hand fly alot, and they are good at it. If it was Singapore it may have been an autoland, as that's what the Asians do.
In my experience, the 'smoothest' approach/landing is done by humans who have lots of experience, wether they are doing it with the autopilot on, or off, is the question.
The autopilot can be just as rough as any human. It's just a computer. It's still being programmed by a human and constantly being updated with new speed/fix/altitude crossing restrictions. You know the saying; Sh!t in, Sh!t out. So if the programer (pilot) doesn't stay ahead of it, you will get a lot of throttle bursts every time you level off.
Even when the plane is on autopilot, as it is 95% of the time, it's still being 'flown' by a human, who is constantly inputting new info into the FMS (Flight Management System). If he's new to the airplane, he will be a little behind in anticipating what's about to happen next, and getting the FMS set up for the next event.
Just because the autopilot is on, doesn't mean the pilots are asleep! The pilots have to be good at "Running the Box" (FMS) to make it all work out, without a lot of throttle jockying and abrupt level offs going on.
Now, on touchdown, the autopilot is always going to put it down, on target, right where the glideslope intercept is. It will not float, or hold it off just a bit to get a smoother touchdown, as we humans do, but it also won't hold it off just a little too long, and too high, and drop the last 3 feet! That's why if it was exceptionally smooth, or rough, it was most likely a human doing it, not the A/P.
Next time you get a really good (or bad) landing, go ask the pilots if it was an autoland.
Here's a better one when it comes to what is actually going on in the **** on arrival. This is a Lufthansa flight, coming into Seattle, on an Airbus A330, on autopilot, up until 9:15 in the vid. but they are manipulating the autopilot with the knobs/buttons on the glareshield, as they are being vectored into their arrival sequence.
If any of you guys speak German, you will get a chuckle out of their comments about the female controller's voice! "Smooth".
You will hear ATC giving them lower altitudes, headings, slow down, go down, turn around, etc. all the way in. They even had to do one turn in a holding pattern (see red flight path). At 9:15 the Capt. turns off the Autopilot to hand fly the last 2 minutes to the (smooth) landing.
This is an Airbus A330, but it works pretty much the same on a Boeing, except, the Boeings use a yoke (steering wheel) infront of the pilots, where the Airbus uses a side-stick controller.
Watch the little window of the Capt., see his left hand moving all around over there as they are about to touch down? That's him 'hand flying' the airplane.
And if you listen very closely, you will hear the Airbus calling them "Retards" as they flare and touchdown!
That's another reason most of us don't like Airbus airplanes, they call you a Retard every time you land!
We now, 11 years after 9-11, have FINALLY put in place, a "Crew Only" screening process, where flight crew, in uniform, with two propper ID's, can -not- get groped!
BUT...it only exists in about 10 airports around the country, not ATL or MCO, the two I use the most, of course!
And what would we do without the TSA??
I had thought that stood for "Thousands Standing Around" but after watching South Park, I think I finally know what it is...watch this!
About 5 seconds after you start paying for that service.
With unmanned drones flying over Pakistan, controlled by operators in the basement of the Pentagon the technology looks like it is there. At about that time I will buy myself my own private airplane (Long-EZ anybody) if I have to fly somewhere
So when do you think they will outsource your job to a kid in China living and a cardboard box using an xbox controller?
Believe me Ding, it's being discussed right now. The technology is there. The military has said they have already built their last manned fighter jet.
The 'first step' is going to be in the cargo industry. Fed Ex and UPS are already looking at it.
You see, boxes don't care if there's no human pilots up front, and if things do go wrong, and the plane crashes, nobody dies, except the unfortunate ones in the neighborhood where it comes down! The ONLY reason the pax industry hasn't looked too closely at it...YET...is they don't think anyone would buy tickets on unmanned jets, but I believe as soon as the cargo industry "Proves" the technology is safe, the airlines will be next.
Luckily (for me) I'll be retired by then...I hope!
I would not want to be 19 years old, trying to become an Airline Pilot today.
But relax, your job is next.
The kids in China can do everything we Americans (and Europeans) can do, faster, better, and for 10 cents on the dollar, or less. I've been flying a lot of Shanghai lately, it is stunning how far, and how quickly, they have come in terms of manufacturing and technology.
But at least they out number us about 10 to 1, so we've got that supply and demand thing going for us...
I've been running from the outsourcing axe for the last 12 years, I'm the master of being the hero and being invisible.
I've been trying to outsource my job since 04'......
I say bring on the chinese kids with remotes. I can tell you one thing, I am never getting onto a commercial liner if they take humans outta the loop. The only thing dumber than a person, is a god damn machine.
Oh, and we're just taking another step towards SkyNet taking control.
Then again, I'd maybe give commercial flying a try if I could do it like this:
The FAA is looking to ban FPV RC stuff.... I better spend some money quick, because I want one of these badly.
That was pretty neet, Pete. And here's something completely off topic, a 'new idea' on using wind for power, and since that's really what sailing is, I thought some of you might find this interesting:
