Airbus is getting rather nasty

Autothrust Blue said:
Sorry, XL Airways. See here.
Click to expand...

This was a maintenance test flight with a maintenance error.

In September 2010, the Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses pour la Sécurité de l'Aviation Civile published their final report into the accident. The primary cause was incorrect maintenance procedures which allowed water to enter the angle of attack (AOA) sensors. The water then froze in flight, rendering the sensors inoperative and thus removing the protection they provided from the aircraft's flight management system. When the crew attempted an improvised test of the AOA warning system (which was not functioning due to the blocked sensors) they reached loss of control. The crew was unaware that the AOA sensors were blocked, but they also disregarded the proper speed limits for the tests they were performing, thus reaching stall. Five safety recommendations were made.[14]


It seems their AOA probes failed, but that they disregarded the proper speed limits for the tests they were doing. The flight test regime is a tough one to operate in. Even the slightest oversight or lack of adhering to standard procedures can result in a fatal accident.


I thought you were going to point out the EVA (?) incident in which the AOA probes malfunction led to a alpha prot activation. There is now an emergency bulletin about it, and at my company, it only affects the 3 newest/latest aircraft. That crew did the right thing, they turned off two ADRs and therefore put the airplane into alternate law. That's what the emergency OEB advises, two ADRs off and put it into alternate law.
 
UAL747400 said:
The only thing I don't like about it is that we don't use tail stands. We center load only here, which makes my fear of putting one on it's ass that much higher. Center loading a heavy load is just :bang:. I wouldn't mind if it were a little bit less sloppy with it's ground handling characteristics either. :)
Click to expand...

You are PIC. Put your foot down and say no to center loading. It really isn't any slower to load by bay.
 
z987k said:
From a pilot standpoint the ergonomics are horrendous and it flies like the biggest turd on the planet. It is the loudest airplane I've ever flown, also has very little ability to control the climate inside. Made me really miss the janitrols. The steering on the ground is a joke. Reverse is a joke, but that's more a downfall of the pt6. The wheels are too small, and the brakes too large, yet they still don't work all that well for the size of the airplane.
Click to expand...

You must have had terrible planes in SLC then. I have seen one of their metros and would say that is the problem.
 
Maurus said:
You are PIC. Put your foot down and say no to center loading. It really isn't any slower to load by bay.
Click to expand...

There aren't any scales. It's mostly just me. I'm used to airplanes that make it obvious that they're about to fall backwards.
 
Roger Roger said:
If a two-ton is anything like its near twin the 206, it falls backwards if you look at it funny.
Click to expand...

I flew 210s and and Barons at Flight Express. Pretty much impossible to tip a 210 over, not that it would really matter if you did. The Baron topped out the nose wheel, at which point, you could stand on the step or push on the tail to test it out. Again, probably not a big deal if that fell over.

The 99 doesn't have any consistency as far as how much it leans backwards, and sometimes the nose strut sticks, so you can't really use that. Though I've found you can get underneath and push up to unstick them. There's one here with a WAY over pressurized nose strut. It looks like it's gonna fall down with 600 pounds in the back. Still, about the only thing useful I've come up with visually is that if the airstair is almost touching the ground, or is, you better get some more crap in the nose.
 
Maurus said:
You are PIC. Put your foot down and say no to center loading. It really isn't any slower to load by bay.
Click to expand...
I've told him this. Personally I wouldn't allow a center load unless it was very light. Didn't trust it.
"But we always do it this way."
"Don't care in the slightest unless you're going to fly this thing."

As far as not having scales, I believe it's company policy to have a scale in the back of all the airplanes.
 
Derg said:
I will fly the 99 or the Airbus, cash dat check and justify it to no one.
Click to expand...

That's what I said to the guy I know who raised his eyebrow at UAL's CRJ-900 rates. My rent doesn't get paid by the number of times I get to say "heavy" on the radio!
 
dasleben said:
That's what I said to the guy I know who raised his eyebrow at UAL's CRJ-900 rates. My rent doesn't get paid by the number of times I get to say "heavy" on the radio!
Click to expand...
This is true to the extent that if I feel overall safety is compromised I won't do it. For example - I will NOT fly a PC-12, at least in the same capacity I fly my twin. Well I would, but essentially have to have some significant hazard pay involved. Something akin to the cost of the missing engine.
 
ComplexHiAv8r said:
Is that Boss in your garage?
Click to expand...

I wish. My first car was a 68 with a 289 FWIW. It was 30 years old at that point. I remember my dad being totally on board telling my mom that if little Genot didn't kill himself in that car within a year he'd be fine for life on the road. Well I'm still alive, its snowing out, and I go to work tomorrow in a 400+ HP Mustang. :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top