Good A-380 Engine Failure Article: Systems Failures Galore

Re: Good A-380 Engine Failure Article: Systems Failures Galo

crazyjaydawg said:
I still think that it's BS that the A380 was certified with reverse thursters only on the inboard engines. I mean being able to stop the airplane with only 150m left after just an engine failure? C'mon!
Click to expand...

Reverse thrust isnt even taken into account on the math for stopping distance. Its just a nice thing to have.
 
Re: Good A-380 Engine Failure Article: Systems Failures Galo

jtrain609 said:
Are you serious?
Click to expand...

I am serious and don't call me shirley.

I understand that it's not part of the calculated landing distance, but it is expected that the flaps are working properly (including slats), it is also expected that maximum braking with working antiskid is working properly as well as the ability to dump fuel so that you're not so damn heavy when you're trying to land the thing in the first place.

I say if they can't make an airplane that can barely stay together with just the essentials then they should probably buck up and and a few more redundancies. JMHO
 
Re: Good A-380 Engine Failure Article: Systems Failures Galo

crazyjaydawg said:
I still think that it's BS that the A380 was certified with reverse thursters only on the inboard engines. I mean being able to stop the airplane with only 150m left after just an engine failure? C'mon!
Click to expand...

Not to defend the pointy-heads in Toulouse (far from it most of the time, actually), but that's 150m remaining with:
* Slats up ("add such and such knots to Vref Conf 3")
* unknown CG
* Engine inoperative ("For landing, use conf 3, add such and such knots to Vref Conf 3")
* Inboard T/R consequently inoperative
* Brake/steering control unit fault/antiskid faults
* Unknown weight (I'm willing to wager that the aircraft was overweight)
* Aircraft structural condition unknown
* One hydraulic system inoperative ("...for landing use Conf 3 and add such and such knots...")
* Reduced aileron and spoiler effectiveness (I'd carry a few extra knots...)

That said, I don't like the decision to delete the outboard T/Rs to make weight, but I can understand the technical reasoning behind it. The pilot side of my personality disagrees with the engineering/technical half.

This, though, I'll buy:
I say if they can't make an airplane that can barely stay together with just the essentials then they should probably buck up and and a few more redundancies. JMHO
Click to expand...
Retrofit outboard T/Rs... :)
 
Re: Good A-380 Engine Failure Article: Systems Failures Galo

crazyjaydawg said:
I say if they can't make an airplane that can barely stay together with just the essentials then they should probably buck up and and a few more redundancies. JMHO
Click to expand...

It's not going to do a whole lot of good how you route your redundant system lines as long as the possibility exists that the engine can throw turbine blade shrapnel thousands of feet and sever them. Just like engine cowlings must contain a fan blade failure, I think manufacturers must consider the need to contain turbine section failures in the future (which carry significantly higher kinetic energy). It would likely require a huge concession in useful load, but it kind of seems like dumb luck that the flying shrapnel from the turbine blades didn't result in fatalities in the cabin given how much other damage was done.
 
Re: Good A-380 Engine Failure Article: Systems Failures Galo

inigo88 said:
I think manufacturers must consider the need to contain turbine section failures in the future (which carry significantly higher kinetic energy).
Click to expand...

Do they? I would think it's the opposite.
 
Re: Good A-380 Engine Failure Article: Systems Failures Galo

jtrain609 said:
You're looking past the issue here.

In any aircraft, you do what you'd normally do first and if that doesn't work, you do something else.

The issue isn't airmanship, because the captain obviously flew the aircraft fine and didn't crash. The issue is cascading failures and what you need to do when that happens.

Any Boeing or EMB would be in the same situation with that many failures. The buckets on the EMB-145 are powered by the hydraulic system so if that goes, then buckets aren't going anywhere. I have no idea how Boeing actuates their buckets, but when multiple systems start failing, you start to see crap go away that you wouldn't expect.

So this isn't an Airbus v. Boeing issue, it's a cascading failures issue.
Click to expand...

Not in my mind. Airbus ain't no Boeing. From my limited knowledge of how the two manufactures, I'd rather be on a Boeing. Boeing doesn't take the pilot out of the loop so to speak, like Air bus does. If I want or need to put an airplane in a 60 degree bank, I want it to do just that. Now I know that this is a totally off the wall scenario, but do you remember FedEx 705? Or, say that you are flying into Toncontin and you overshoot, roll in your limited bank angle allowed by the Airbus computer and it's not enough to miss the mountain range. I just think the logic behind the Airbus is flawed. I understand why they did it, I just don't think it was a good idea.

Cascading failures or not, Auto throttles should not be effected by the failure of one engine, and if it is effected by it, it should be known by the guy in the left seat to expect that. It sounds as if it wasn't known by him. Thats the point I was getting at, in a round-about kind of way. Airbus has been known to have situations like this before. Although disputed I remember an Airbus doing a flybuy and flying right into some trees. The guy that spoke up about it was terminated, and the guy in the right seat had to sign a agreement that he wouldn't ever speak about it. They just take the pilot out of the loop too much IMO.
 
Re: Good A-380 Engine Failure Article: Systems Failures Galo

I think you're in for a high level of disappointment once you hit any aircraft with a high level of automation, be it Boeing, Embraer or Airbus.
 
Re: Good A-380 Engine Failure Article: Systems Failures Galo

mshunter said:
Not in my mind. Airbus ain't no Boeing. From my limited knowledge of how the two manufactures, I'd rather be on a Boeing. Boeing doesn't take the pilot out of the loop so to speak, like Air bus does. If I want or need to put an airplane in a 60 degree bank, I want it to do just that. Now I know that this is a totally off the wall scenario, but do you remember FedEx 705? Or, say that you are flying into Toncontin and you overshoot, roll in your limited bank angle allowed by the Airbus computer and it's not enough to miss the mountain range. I just think the logic behind the Airbus is flawed. I understand why they did it, I just don't think it was a good idea.

Cascading failures or not, Auto throttles should not be effected by the failure of one engine, and if it is effected by it, it should be known by the guy in the left seat to expect that. It sounds as if it wasn't known by him. Thats the point I was getting at, in a round-about kind of way. Airbus has been known to have situations like this before. Although disputed I remember an Airbus doing a flybuy and flying right into some trees. The guy that spoke up about it was terminated, and the guy in the right seat had to sign a agreement that he wouldn't ever speak about it. They just take the pilot out of the loop too much IMO.
Click to expand...

No offense to you, but you seem to have a lot of strong opinions about an aircraft type you don't have any experience in. I've got a total of zero training in Airbus equipment, which is why I'm not really speaking up against it. What I will say, however, is that Boeing has a lot of automation as well, more than I think a lot of people realize. For example, Boeing also has Alpha limit protection, much like that A320 did that crashed in France. That crash was caused by the pilot flying being slow to add thrust and not considering the slow spool up time, which of course could happen to any aircraft type.
 
Re: Good A-380 Engine Failure Article: Systems Failures Galo

mshunter said:
Not in my mind. Airbus ain't no Boeing. From my limited knowledge of how the two manufactures, I'd rather be on a Boeing. Boeing doesn't take the pilot out of the loop so to speak, like Air bus does. If I want or need to put an airplane in a 60 degree bank, I want it to do just that. Now I know that this is a totally off the wall scenario, but do you remember FedEx 705? Or, say that you are flying into Toncontin and you overshoot, roll in your limited bank angle allowed by the Airbus computer and it's not enough to miss the mountain range. I just think the logic behind the Airbus is flawed. I understand why they did it, I just don't think it was a good idea.

Cascading failures or not, Auto throttles should not be effected by the failure of one engine, and if it is effected by it, it should be known by the guy in the left seat to expect that. It sounds as if it wasn't known by him. Thats the point I was getting at, in a round-about kind of way. Airbus has been known to have situations like this before. Although disputed I remember an Airbus doing a flybuy and flying right into some trees. The guy that spoke up about it was terminated, and the guy in the right seat had to sign a agreement that he wouldn't ever speak about it. They just take the pilot out of the loop too much IMO.
Click to expand...

You realize that the yoke in a 777 or 787 is just connected to a spring and a box of computers right? There is still fly-by-wire and all sorts of computer logic programmed into the simple act of moving a rudder. Same with the Embraer 170/190 series with the exception of the ailerons. Even the nosewheel steering tiller is fly-by-wire in this stuff.

I used to have the same questions about the Airbus flight control laws that you do. Although I don't have a type in the thing, I did the computer training course at Northwest, attended the portion of groundschool where they went over this stuff specifically, and got to try it out in the sim. There is nothing about it that removes the pilot from the loop to the point of anything being unsafe.

I understand what you mean about wanting the ability to do a 60 degree bank. I just can't think of a situation where that is needed. Truly one in a million. Yes, FDX705 was rolled inverted but that scenario is so totally off-the-wall that I'm not sure it's even worth discussing. Plus, do we know for sure that the inverted DC-10 trick is what disabled Auburn Calloway?

My aircraft's books specifically say not to use unusual maneuvers to attempt to control a people problem and it is easy to see why. You're taking a situation that is already not normal, and sending it further out of the comfort zone in some desperate hope that it might help. An emergency is all about getting back to normal, or as close as you can to normal.

What is actually quite cool is using the technology to your advantage. EGWPS telling you that a bad vector has put you face-to-face with a mountain? Yank back on the sidestick and hold it there -- the plane will NOT stall and you've got a bunch of computers giving you the EXACT best angle of climb. No stick shaker, no stick pusher -- just raw performance maxed out.

There are pros and cons to this technology but I do not understand what you are saying about the autothrust. As Jtrain has said, it's the same as it would have been on any other plane with autothrottles, I'd imagine.

I know nothing more about this accident than what this article says, and I skimmed through the expanded ATSB report that is online, but if I had to take a guess, I'd say this is nothing to do with the design of the systems and nearly everything to do with quite a nasty uncontained engine failure that did more than just kill the #2 engine as it went.
 
Re: Good A-380 Engine Failure Article: Systems Failures Galo

This is more evidence that passengers should be carried around in 1900's. No God damn automation at all, and when it all goes to hell the PT6A-67D will bring you home. Worthless God damn jets.

On a side note, you all should be ashamed of yourself. You're wasting valuable drinking time.

28960-16143.jpg
 
Re: Good A-380 Engine Failure Article: Systems Failures Galo

This is just from memory, so take it for what it's worth. I remember reading that the lack of outboard thrust reverser's is limited by airport design. Because of the wingspan, the outboard engines hang over grass/rocks/peasants..... So they don't have em, so they don't engest a crap load of FOD. Now back to drinking.

Mshunter, believe it our not, for the most part automation is your friend. When you learn to use it properly, it can do wonderful things. You might want to try, to not have such strong opinions on stuff you admit, you know little about...... Ok I'm reallly going back to drinking now. :)
 
Re: Good A-380 Engine Failure Article: Systems Failures Galo

mshunter said:
I understand that John. But sometime you have to revert to good old fashioned airmanship. With the level of automation found in the Airbus, I'd imagine it could be difficult. I'd be willing to bet had it be a 74 series airplane, the reverse thrust would have worked in all of the remaining engines because there is less automation in a Boeing. Boeings just do what their told and don't ask questions, like a dog. Airbi do what they want, like a cat, and I hate cats. I know I'm probablly going to start a race war (Airbi vs Boeing), but it's just my opnion.
Click to expand...

Opinion and informed opinion. There is a difference.
 
Re: Good A-380 Engine Failure Article: Systems Failures Galo

I would like to say that the long body A340, I believe its the 400, is a beautiful aircraft... But AIRBUS still blows. GO BOEING
 
Re: Good A-380 Engine Failure Article: Systems Failures Galo

Autothrust Blue said:
Not to defend the pointy-heads in Toulouse (far from it most of the time, actually), but that's 150m remaining with:
* Slats up ("add such and such knots to Vref Conf 3")
* unknown CG
* Engine inoperative ("For landing, use conf 3, add such and such knots to Vref Conf 3")
* Inboard T/R consequently inoperative
* Brake/steering control unit fault/antiskid faults
* Unknown weight (I'm willing to wager that the aircraft was overweight)
* Aircraft structural condition unknown
* One hydraulic system inoperative ("...for landing use Conf 3 and add such and such knots...")
* Reduced aileron and spoiler effectiveness (I'd carry a few extra knots...)

That said, I don't like the decision to delete the outboard T/Rs to make weight, but I can understand the technical reasoning behind it. The pilot side of my personality disagrees with the engineering/technical half.

This, though, I'll buy:

Retrofit outboard T/Rs... :)
Click to expand...

FWIW, the outboard engines may / often overhang areas that are not paved runway. FOD ingestion becomes a real concern when you move as much air as those engines do.. esp. if you are deploying them over grass/sand/dirt etc. While I would like to have them, I assume under normal operations, companies would ban the use... so Airbus prob. saw no need for them.

I'll also add, the Q400 also has 3 Hydraulic systems... and we're not even a JET! ( not counting the alternate gear extension system, only the systems which have quantity/pressure indications on the MFD... and counting the parking brake as part of the #2 system)
 
Re: Good A-380 Engine Failure Article: Systems Failures Galo

jtrain609 said:
Did you know that if one of the AOA vanes is moved by jet blast or the gate or something while you're on the ground, the stall test will fail on the EMB-145?

Somebody got asked that during their oral the other day, and I had no idea.
Click to expand...

Same on an MD-88.
 
Re: Good A-380 Engine Failure Article: Systems Failures Galo

Nick said:
I'd say this is nothing to do with the design of the systems and nearly everything to do with quite a nasty uncontained engine failure that did more than just kill the #2 engine as it went.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it seems I remember an accident, oh, somewhere in Iowa, that had a similar cause and much worse outcome in a non-FBW airplane. You can complain about them dang electric jets all you want, but most passenger planes just aren't designed to take a load of shrapnel to the wing area and keep flying no problem, with the notable exception of the...

jynxyjoe said:
1900's. No God damn automation at all, and when it all goes to hell the PT6A-67D will bring you home. Worthless God damn jets.

On a side note, you all should be ashamed of yourself. You're wasting valuable drinking time.

28960-16143.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Re: Good A-380 Engine Failure Article: Systems Failures Galo

Ah Roger Roger, you ever get down to Memphis I got your first round and first 1/2 rack of ribs at Fat Larry's.
 
Re: Good A-380 Engine Failure Article: Systems Failures Galo

Roger said:
Yeah, it seems I remember an accident, oh, somewhere in Iowa, that had a similar cause and much worse outcome in a non-FBW airplane. You can complain about them dang electric jets all you want, but most passenger planes just aren't designed to take a load of shrapnel to the wing area and keep flying no problem, with the notable exception of the...
Click to expand...
Or one on the runway in Pensacola in the Mighty Maddog that resulted in a loud bang and at least one fatality. (at least one, only because I don't have the report here)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top