Food for thought (LCC vs Legacy)

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Yes, but that's not relevant to this discussion.

You were saying that the capability is what led to the controllability check I mentioned, and as zippy reinforced in his post, that's not true.

Why are military and civilian operations different in regards of controllability versus just land asap?


Edit: Doesn't the FAA require parachutes for aerobatic flights / maneuvers? That mission exposes one to more risk and it would seem the FAA solution for it, in a sense of loss of all control, is the ability to bail out of the airplane in a worse case scenario. May not work as advertised, but it is a requirement isn't it?

 

[Der rote Baron]

Why are military and civilian operations different in regards of controllability versus just land asap?

Interesting question. I flew with some ex military pilots from eastern europe. I recognized that a lot of them had a "top gun attitude". Try to imagine, you are flying with an ex ukrainian fighter
pilot, the guy is 20 years older then you and you are sitting in the left seat.....

 

[Hacker15e]

Why are military and civilian operations different in regards of controllability versus just land asap?

There are a whole host of situations where military aviation takes a different route than civilian aviation, not just this one. Those differences are sometimes driven by valid differences (e.g. some decisionmaking in military flying is governed by a mission-focus that sacrifices some safety for mission), but in many other situations it has nothing to do with such differences. I tend to think that it has more to do with "not invented here" tribalism more than anything else.

I think that we see pretty often in interactions on this forum that "not invented here" is a pretty powerful motivator to shun ideas that don't conform to the ways in which people were "brought up" to think are correct. Hell, just look at the kneejerk reaction to what I posted...the immediate "not invented here" reaction is to say, "oh, well, that's because you guys have an ejection seat", try to rationalize the difference to equipment differences.

And it isn't just the military world; the 121 airlines are just one sector of the professional aviation industry. There is airmanship, judgment, and patterns of decisionmaking that are completely normal and accepted outside of the 121 world that just beg Seggy to roll in and post why all those other sectors have it wrong, and the 121 customs are The Best because of something quippy like, "the safety record speaks for itself."

All of that bravado doesn't change that these other sectors have good ideas, too. There are many ways to skin the cat, and sometimes other ways are also good, even if they're not part of the sector of the industry you're in.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

There are a whole host of situations where military aviation takes a different route than civilian aviation, not just this one. Those differences are sometimes driven by valid differences (e.g. some decisionmaking in military flying is governed by a mission-focus that sacrifices some safety for mission), but in many other situations it has nothing to do with such differences. I tend to think that it has more to do with "not invented here" tribalism more than anything else.

I think that we see pretty often in interactions on this forum that "not invented here" is a pretty powerful motivator to shun ideas that don't conform to the ways in which people were "brought up" to think are correct. Hell, just look at the kneejerk reaction to what I posted...the immediate "not invented here" reaction is to say, "oh, well, that's because you guys have an ejection seat", try to rationalize the difference to equipment differences.

And it isn't just the military world; the 121 airlines are just one sector of the professional aviation industry. There is airmanship, judgment, and patterns of decisionmaking that are completely normal and accepted outside of the 121 world that just beg Seggy to roll in and post why all those other sectors have it wrong, and the 121 customs are The Best because of something quippy like, "the safety record speaks for itself."

All of that bravado doesn't change that these other sectors have good ideas, too. There are many ways to skin the cat, and sometimes other ways are also good, even if they're not part of the sector of the industry you're in.

Hold on a sec though, Seggy's point about 121 is that just how regimented and standardized it is, and (sadly) how most of almost every SOP is written in blood. That pales in comparison to some (not all) operations out there in which the standards, the discipline, or operating procedures just aren't the same. If I had to choose a flight for operation, between Part 91, 135, or 121, I would take 121 in a heartbeat.

 

[Roger Roger]

That only seems to apply to Minnesotans for the most part, the rest of us call it duck,duck,goose!

You know, as I've lived my life, I've learned that some people are wrong, and of those people there are furthermore some who are hopeless, and I have made my peace with that.

 

[zippy]

Why are military and civilian operations different in regards of controllability versus just land asap?

Purely a guess, but probably the nature of military aviation operations compared to civilian. Airframe overstresses, collisions, and damage from enemy fire historically haven't been uncommon in military flight operations so it's ingrained from early on that when you know youre in a situation where your airframe could be damaged and/ or controllability impaired that you want to examine the current flight characteristics to make sure you aren't going to ball it up on landing because your aircraft isnt fly the same way you expected it to before the incident where the potential damage occurred.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

You know, as I've lived my life, I've learned that some people are wrong, and of those people there are furthermore some who are hopeless, and I have made my peace with that.

I'm working on this one, myself.

 

[Lunchbox]

They lost 1 of the 3 hydraulic systems, similar to American on the same exact day from DFW to TPA, although that wasn't a bus. As far as the flight controls, you do lose a few spoilers, 1 roll and 1 ground on each side but all of the main flight controls are covered by triple redundancy.

 

[Max Power]

Le BOOS can get quite quirky when you don't respect cycle limits, MTBF's and aren't pampered.

Not unlike a European car. The American style of " It's fine, that's just a suggested interval, lifespan,procedure,etc" doesn't work on a VW or BMW, why should it work on an airplane made by all the Old World countries?

 

[propsync]

Not sure if you fly the airbus or not, but it will tell you whether the landing should be made immediately or not.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4a2c0ba9

An Allegiant Airbus A320-200, registration N216NV performing flight G4-1711 from Ogdensburg,NY to Fort Lauderdale,FL (USA) with 160 passengers and 6 crew, was climbing through FL330 out of Ogdensburg when the crew stopped the climb and diverted to Syracuse entering a hold at 10,000 feet.

The crew reported they had a partial flight control failure. The crew checked runway conditions to perform their calculations for landing.

About 10 minutes later the crew advised that they had completed their calculations, they needed to bring down the aircraft below maximum landing weight, which would take about an hour. After about 2 hours in the hold the aircraft commenced their ILS approach runway 28 and landed safely on runway 28 at a rather normal speed about 2:15 hours after departure.


After coming to a stop on the runway the crew requested emergency services to check their aircraft in particular for leaks advising "we did lose all our hydraulics, please circle around to make sure nothing is on fire."

A replacement A320-200 registration N229NV positioned to Syracuse, departed Syracuse about 3 hours after landing of N216NV and reached Fort Lauderdale with a total delay of 5 hours.

The occurrence aircraft remained on the ground for about 71 hours, then positioned to Orlando Sanford,FL. The aircraft resumed service the following morning about 81 hours after landing in Syracuse.

The airline reported the aircraft diverted to Syracuse as a precaution following a mechanical issue.



***********************************************************************************************

It worked out and all, but I would hate to have a partial flight control failure turn into a full outright flight control failure while holding over 2 hrs to get below max landing weight. What is that saying, seeing the forest trees through the fire, the bigger picture, IMO, would be to try and land as soon as possible.

Like autothrust said, if the reason is to fly to see how much plane and capability is left in order to make a landing, then sure by all means. But flying around a plane just to burn fuel for 2+ hrs with flight control issues, and the sole reason for prolonging the flight time is to burn fuel......

 

[propsync]

Thank you. Yeah there is no way in hell I would be cutting circles to burn
15-20k with that issue. Also, how does one fly a bus with no hydraulics or even get into that position in the first place? I can't wait to how how this unfolds.

There is 3 independent hydraulic systems on the Airbus A320.

 

[Box hauler]

There is 3 independent hydraulic systems on the airbus.

Yes I know that, that's why I said how does one get into a position to have all of it fail.

 

[propsync]

Yes I know that, that's why I said how does one get into a position to have all of it fail.

That didn't happen. It's more likely that all the hydraulics from one system were lost, not all three. That would likely be fatal. I'm not sure that has ever happened on any Airbus A320 before but I could be wrong. Have only been flying it for 2 years.

 

[Hacker15e]

It is impossible to have simultaneous failure of all three hydraulic systems on the DC-10, too.

 

[Box hauler]

That didn't happen. It's more likely that all the hydraulics from one system were lost, not all three. That would likely be fatal. I'm not sure that has ever happened on any Airbus A320 before but I could be wrong. Have only been flying it for 2 years.

Yes.... I know that didn't happen. It was sarcasm because they said they lost all hydraulics and I couldn't imagine the possibility of it being true. I fly the bus as well.

 

[Box hauler]

It is impossible to have simultaneous failure of all three hydraulinc systems on the DC-10, too.

Could you imagine being as unlucky as those guys were, holy cow that was some bad luck.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

That didn't happen. It's more likely that all the hydraulics from one system were lost, not all three. That would likely be fatal. I'm not sure that has ever happened on any Airbus A320 before but I could be wrong. Have only been flying it for 2 years.

Losing all 3 hydraulic systems, as in ALL 3 lost and gone, is not going to be a survivable event on the 320. There have been single and dual hydraulic failures, but no crash of an A320 as a result of a true loss of all 3 hydraulic systems. The DC10's fault was all 3 fluid lines ran next to each other in that area and no safety system that would plug for a leak. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression that after UAL 232, there were mandated changes to hydraulics and most modern jetliners have priority valves and a system to cut off if it detects a continuous leak of fluid.

 

[Nark]

Losing all 3 hydraulic systems, as in ALL 3 lost and gone, is not going to be a survivable event on the 320. There have been single and dual hydraulic failures, but no crash of an A320 as a result of a true loss of all 3 hydraulic systems. The DC10's fault was all 3 fluid lines ran next to each other in that area and no safety system that would plug for a leak. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression that after UAL 232, there were mandated changes to hydraulics and most modern jetliners have priority valves and a system to cut off if it detects a continuous leak of fluid.

The Blackhawk has a leak detection system, and logic, but I don't think the Airbus does...

The bus system for low hydraulic is way different than the hawk's, which will "turn off" some pumps/systems, and another on.