B787-9

A300Capt said:
Unless you guys are watching a different video than me it looks like a computer generated animation and not a real video of the 787.:confused:
Click to expand...
Doubt it. Too many small misalignments and adjustments, etc.
 
typhoonpilot said:
He said the "logic" would cause the same thing to happen. I would like to know what he meant by that. In a Boeing you would see/feel the thrust levers coming to idle and know that you had no power. Thus you would be able to intervene by pushing the thrust levers back up in a timely manner.


TP
Click to expand...

The autothrust was off during this crash. I'm curious as to why you need to look at the thrust levers for power settings? Don't you monitor the engine instruments for that?
 
AAPalmTree said:
The autothrust was off during this crash. I'm curious as to why you need to look at the thrust levers for power settings? Don't you monitor the engine instruments for that?
Click to expand...


It's not so much see as it is feel. There is actually another ongoing thread here about just that, keeping ones hands on the thrust levers at lower altitudes in order to feel any unwanted movement. It is part of real airmanship and flying skills. The part that Boeing design philosophy would like pilots to maintain in order to safely practice their profession.


Typhoonpilot
 
typhoonpilot said:
It's not so much see as it is feel. There is actually another ongoing thread here about just that, keeping ones hands on the thrust levers at lower altitudes in order to feel any unwanted movement. It is part of real airmanship and flying skills. The part that Boeing design philosophy would like pilots to maintain in order to safely practice their profession.


Typhoonpilot
Click to expand...

Didn't Asiana prove that to be ineffective in SFO?

Both accidents were pilot error. There is a lot of misunderstanding about AF296 going into the trees. The same thing would have happened in a Boeing. The only difference would have been the Boeing would have stalled before hitting the trees.
 
AAPalmTree said:
Didn't Asiana prove that to be ineffective in SFO?

Both accidents were pilot error. There is a lot of misunderstanding about AF296 going into the trees. The same thing would have happened in a Boeing. The only difference would have been the Boeing would have stalled before hitting the trees.
Click to expand...


One of the major problems with the Asiana crash is the pilot flying was coming off of an Airbus. He had lost the ability to be aware of tactile cues because he was used to the non-moving thrust levers in the Airbus. He clearly lost, or never had, more airmanship skills than that since he did not even scan his airspeed indication properly.

I could not disagree more in the assertion that a Boeing would have been flown into the trees doing a low pass the same way the A320 was.

Here is what they were attempting to do:

"The Captain would slow the aircraft to its minimum flying speed with maximum angle of attack (nose-up attitude), disable the "Alpha Floor" (the function that would otherwise automatically increase engine thrust when the angle of attack reached 15°) and rely on the First Officer to adjust the engine thrust manually to maintain 100 feet."

The Boeing doesn't have "Alpha Floor" protections so you wouldn't have anything to disable. Nor would you try to do a maximum angle of attack pass relying on automation to prevent a stall. It just wouldn't happen in a Boeing. They might do a low pass at low speed, but it would be flown by pilots using much more conservative techniques. Back when that accident happened the Airbus mantra was basically, "you can pull the stick all the way back and it will never stall". That never has been, nor ever will be the mantra in a Boeing.

Airbus's design philosophy, and resultant decrease in piloting skills, has led to many accidents and AF296 was one of the first in that vain.


Typhoonpilot
 
typhoonpilot said:
One of the major problems with the Asiana crash is the pilot flying was coming off of an Airbus. He had lost the ability to be aware of tactile cues because he was used to the non-moving thrust levers in the Airbus. He clearly lost, or never had, more airmanship skills than that since he did not even scan his airspeed indication properly.

I could not disagree more in the assertion that a Boeing would have been flown into the trees doing a low pass the same way the A320 was.

Here is what they were attempting to do:

"The Captain would slow the aircraft to its minimum flying speed with maximum angle of attack (nose-up attitude), disable the "Alpha Floor" (the function that would otherwise automatically increase engine thrust when the angle of attack reached 15°) and rely on the First Officer to adjust the engine thrust manually to maintain 100 feet."

The Boeing doesn't have "Alpha Floor" protections so you wouldn't have anything to disable. Nor would you try to do a maximum angle of attack pass relying on automation to prevent a stall. It just wouldn't happen in a Boeing. They might do a low pass at low speed, but it would be flown by pilots using much more conservative techniques. Back when that accident happened the Airbus mantra was basically, "you can pull the stick all the way back and it will never stall". That never has been, nor ever will be the mantra in a Boeing.

Airbus's design philosophy, and resultant decrease in piloting skills, has led to many accidents and AF296 was one of the first in that vain.


Typhoonpilot
Click to expand...

You're comparing apples to oranges. You have a fundamental (I suspect uneducated) disagreement with airbus philosophy. To say "this wouldn't happen in a Boeing because they would never do it in a Boeing" doesn't cut it. A Boeing would have stalled if at idle power and alpha max with this same recovery. Bad ADM and spool time was the culprit.
 
AAPalmTree said:
You're comparing apples to oranges. You have a fundamental (I suspect uneducated) disagreement with airbus philosophy. To say "this wouldn't happen in a Boeing because they would never do it in a Boeing" doesn't cut it. A Boeing would have stalled if at idle power and alpha max with this same recovery. Bad ADM and spool time was the culprit.
Click to expand...


We can disagree on my experience and understanding of Airbus design philosophy but you do know there is a fundamental philosophical difference in design parameters between the two companies, right?

To say it would not happen in a Boeing in this instance is certainly correct. No Boeing demo pilot would try to do what they were doing in the manner they were doing it. Simple as that.

Another factor not mentioned in the feel of a Boeing in a maneuver similar to this is that in the Boeing one would have to trim as the speed slowed. Trimming for airspeed, hand on the thrust levers, and yoke position all equal far better feel for the aircraft's energy state.


Typhoonpilot
 
Absolutely there is a difference. Grew up in the PACNW. I was a huge Boeing fan as a kid. Learning/Flying the airbus has taught me to appreciate the things where Boeing is lacking and behind the curve. There have been many instances (most kept quiet) where airbus design has prevented pilot error accidents...
SFO would not have happened.

See you are a Boeing guy. Do you find the need for a yoke in front of you for the 12 hours of cruise?
;)
 
AAPalmTree said:
Absolutely there is a difference. Grew up in the PACNW. I was a huge Boeing fan as a kid. Learning/Flying the airbus has taught me to appreciate the things where Boeing is lacking and behind the curve. There have been many instances (most kept quiet) where airbus design has prevented pilot error accidents...
SFO would not have happened.

See you are a Boeing guy. Do you find the need for a yoke in front of you for the 12 hours of cruise?
;)
Click to expand...
Dude I think you're outgunned in this match. He's not a Boeing guy, he literally is Boeing's guy. And before he was Boeing's guy, he was another carriers top expert. I'm just saying pick your battles wisely. Lots of knowledge you're up against.
 
I see that if I was to have gotten into aviation, I'd have to deal with an Airbus/Boeing fanboi contest as bad as anything you get between Android and iOS.

They're airplanes, guys. You fly them from point a to point b and get paid to do it. Sometimes there's people in the back, sometimes there are boxes in the back.

Ain't no reason to get all "oh yeah, well, the airplane manufacturer I'm a fanboi of is better and if you don't agree you're stupid" about it.
 
mrivc211 said:
Dude I think you're outgunned in this match. He's not a Boeing guy, he literally is Boeing's guy. And before he was Boeing's guy, he was another carriers top expert. I'm just saying pick your battles wisely. Lots of knowledge you're up against.
Click to expand...

It's not a issue of being outgunned. This discussion (which I find very interesting) started by debating how the movement of thrust levers could have helped the AF296 pilots. The FO was manually manipulating the thrust. He knew where the thrust levers were. That's where Typhoon pilot was wrong. I also know (although a Boeing would never go there purposefully) if a Boeing was that close to the a-max or critical AOA with no spool on the engines and the pilot pulled back on the yoke... It would stall. That's where I also think TP is wrong. Nothing wrong with debating here. I think it's what keeps things interesting. I have been fortunate to sit down and debate these things with a Boeing fleet chief test pilot (neighbor of friend) in Seattle. He is literally Boeing's guy as well.

Mrivc, not trying for world peace. Just two pilots debating planes.

PS... I plan on bidding the 777 after the Airbus.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top