U.S. Air Aborted Takeoff PHL

I heard a completely different story during Airbus school.

?

  • 12:43:44 the aircraft begins its descent (initially at 300 feet per minute) from 2000 feet with 'Flaps 1'.
  • 12:44:14 the engine power is reduced to flight idle. Three seconds later, the undercarriage is extended. A further 10 seconds later, 'Flaps 2' is selected.
  • 12:44:45 'Flaps 3' is selected as the aircraft descends through 500 feet at an airspeed of 177 knots.
  • 12:45:06 the aircraft descends through 200 feet at an airspeed of 155 knots.
  • 12:45:15 the aircraft, now at 90 feet, begins a deviation to the right (maximum bank angle: 30°) to line up with the grass strip 34R.
  • 12:45:23 the aircraft completes the deviation at a height of 46 feet and an airspeed of 141 knots. During this manoeuvre, a fluctuation in the radio altimeter height corresponds to the aircraft passing over a patch of trees. (Before and after this fluctuation, the readings of the radio altimeter and those of the barometric altimeter match perfectly). Three seconds later, the aircraft descends through 40 feet at an airspeed of 132 knots. The Captain begins to flare the aircraft (he lifts the nose 4°) to level its flight. The aircraft levels off at 30 feet.
  • 12:45:30 nose-up attitude increases to 7°.
  • 12:45:35 nose-up attitude is now 15° and speed is 122 knots. TOGA power is applied. Four seconds later, the aircraft begins striking the treetops.[
 
That doesn't specifically correlate to your previous post. Not saying that you're not right, but they're not complimentary.
 
During this manoeuvre, a fluctuation in the radio altimeter height corresponds to the aircraft passing over a patch of trees. (Before and after this fluctuation, the readings of the radio altimeter and those of the barometric altimeter match perfectly)

@Derg you've been Wiki-ed again!

(RadALT and BaroALT rates of change never agree when the aircraft is in ground effect).
 
@Derg you've been Wiki-ed again!

(RadALT and BaroALT rates of change never agree when the aircraft is in ground effect).

Am I battling Wiki again?

I'm going to grab my EncylcoMothaTruckingPedia Britannica and declare net.Fatwa!

hqdefault.jpg
 
That doesn't specifically correlate to your previous post. Not saying that you're not right, but they're not complimentary.

I thought it paints the same picture. The maneuver was not meant to be done that low. Thrust at idle and configured in landing position below 100 AGL with a continuing increase in angle of attack at an airspeed well below VLs isn't going to end well. Had those trees not been there, the aircraft would have climbed out. It was a too little too late kinda thing.
 
No biggie, but we have a couple different angles on how that scenario was taught.

Don't wiki me, bro! :)
 
The Airbus DFDR was removed and it was proven in a French court that the one presented as evidence was not the one taken out of the airplane. Numerous evidence of tapering was also present. AB also issued some significant bulletins regarding the same scenario right after the incident. The whole thing was weird.
 
We were told it was a fly by demonstration. It might have gone into Alpha Floor though.....

I think that was a demonstration of A. FLOOR that didn't go so well. Or something like that.

It was a planned low speed flyby at 100 feet. They had disabled A.FLOOR to prevent that from firing. The flyby was instead conducted as low as 30 feet, and the pilots let the plane get into alpha prot, where a noseover moment is produced when in normal law to prevent entry into a full aerodynamic stall. He selected TOGA too late... the engines spooled just as they were supposed to, but the timing was wrong and they hit the trees.

The noseover moment is what triggered the pilot to say "it wouldn't let me go around."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296

Yet another case of "hold my beer, ya'll watch this!"
 
The bottom line though is he was pulling back on the yoke and the houses still got bigger/stayed the same size. Would not have happened on a Boeing! :)
 
The bottom line though is he was pulling back on the yoke and the houses still got bigger/stayed the same size. Would not have happened on a Boeing! :)

orly? Because no one has designed a stick pusher or anything like that into a yoke, amirite?

(the BOEING 777 has nearly identical protection logic)
 
No they have.

Point is (goes back to @BobDDuck original question) with the Airbus you have to be aware of what segment of the flight the airplane is, which is stupid.

Nope. That is a poor comparison, and not even correct in the first place. A more direct comparison would be that he pulled back when he was entering a stall condition and got the pusher.
 
Nope. That is a poor comparison, and not even correct in the first place. A more direct comparison would be that he pulled back when he was entering a stall condition and got the pusher.

How is it not correct? The way the Airbus operates is VERY dependent on the phase of flight the MCDU is in.
 
How is it not correct? The way the Airbus operates is VERY dependent on the phase of flight the MCDU is in.

Not really... only the managed speed, managed lateral path, and managed vertical path is dependent on the phase of flight.

They were doing an airshow where none of that was being utilized. Totally different thing.
 
Last edited:
Mark....seriously friend, let the fanboi stuff go. I'm very happy for you that you're now in a Boeing product. Really, I am. But holy crap dude, your little vendetta against Airbus is a silly. If it weren't for friends pulling strings, you'd still be flying the Bus too. Let's not forget that little fact.


Oh wait, perhaps you just want the Bus drivers to bow to Boeing's excellence?!? Ok, all hail BoeIng! How many times do I have to say that to make you happy?
 
So back on topic about the actual incident...

More from Airways mechanics...

"Tires not blown or shreaded they appeared to have rolled off on impact."
 
Back
Top