• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Airbus A380 approach/landing at SFO

jc2ducati said:
Definitely not in this case. All 3 or 4 airspeed sensors froze up instantly (which was not supposed to be possible) which caused the computers to basically abort.
Click to expand...

The pitot tubes froze up over time, not instantly. Their de-icing didn't work, but the pilots (and automation) didn't notice it because it happened over time and there was still correct information coming in until the last tube froze up. Then incorrect information came in and the system tried to correct itself. The pilots tried to correct at the same time. If they would simply have turned off the automation and descended to a warmer layer, things may have been different.
 
2strokeYardSale said:
Wikipedia via Google: "The term Heavy is applied to all radio transmissions with air traffic control from aircraft capable of takeoff weights of 300,000 pounds or more. Aircraft capable of takeoff weights more than 41,000 pounds and less than 300,000 pounds are considered Large."
Click to expand...



The reason 'heavy' is used is to give a heads up to smaller planes in the area. At full takeoff weight, the wake vortices that is coming of the plane's wings is more than enough to flip a smaller plane over. When I was flying my plane, and I heard 'heavy' in my general vicinity, I always made sure that I was well above him. You never want to be below them because the wake vortices actually go down.

[youtube]ONZtOj-QFsA[/youtube]
 
Silly Cone Valley, wasn't she one of those big boob porn stars from the 90's?
 
wannabe said:
The reason 'heavy' is used is to give a heads up to smaller planes in the area. At full takeoff weight, the wake vortices that is coming of the plane's wings is more than enough to flip a smaller plane over. When I was flying my plane, and I heard 'heavy' in my general vicinity, I always made sure that I was well above him. You never want to be below them because the wake vortices actually go down.
[youtube]ONZtOj-QFsA[/youtube]
Click to expand...
very clear on that fact; a F-4 Phantom did a "S-curve" around us at high speed (near miss) over the Sac Valley once (in dads Cessna 210), & when we hit his wake, it flipped us about 150', almost completely upside down. Shorts check!

Can you say whoa! :wow
 
Cool.

The German pilots seemed very much in control and professional.

The Bay Area is a beautiful place no doubt.
 
One of the most impressive sights is seeing a 747 above and a commuter plane below over the Bay Area from the back seat of a helicopter.

Like a boss: having air traffic control give you priority over all other traffic.

Humbling and heady at the same time.
 
For an extremely interesting read on airmanship and the design philosophy behind Airbus aircraft, try QF32 by Richard De Crespigny, the captain of that flight from Singapre to Sydney. I picked this up in Sydney last year the day before flying home (on a UA 747-400, which he flew prior to the A380), but put it back on the shelf, choosing to read it on terra firma. Ahem. :rolleyes

A great read.
 
wannabe said:
The reason 'heavy' is used is to give a heads up to smaller planes in the area. At full takeoff weight, the wake vortices that is coming of the plane's wings is more than enough to flip a smaller plane over. When I was flying my plane, and I heard 'heavy' in my general vicinity, I always made sure that I was well above him.
Click to expand...

Thank you! :thumbup
 
cynner said:
Thank you! :thumbup
Click to expand...



You're welcome.

I just watched the video I posted again. It has one big incorrect statement in it. The text in the video says that the wake vortices are created by the engines. That is incorrect. They are created by the wings themselves. Because of the way the wings are designed, there is a high pressure region below the wings and a high pressure region above the wings. This is how lift is created. The high pressure air below the wings doesn't just go backward. They also blast out sideways creating the wake vortex at the tip of each wing. The vortex actually curls around and goes on the top of the wing reducing the effective wingspan of the plane.

That is the reason why almost all planes these days have winglets at the tips of the wings. They block the vortices and increase the effective wingspan of the plane thereby increasing lift.

Sorry if that was too geeky.
 
wannabe said:
You're welcome.

I just watched the video I posted again. It has one big incorrect statement in it. The text in the video says that the wake vortices are created by the engines. That is incorrect. They are created by the wings themselves. Because of the way the wings are designed, there is a high pressure region below the wings and a high pressure region above the wings. This is how lift is created. The high pressure air below the wings doesn't just go backward. They also blast out sideways creating the wake vortex at the tip of each wing. The vortex actually curls around and goes on the top of the wing reducing the effective wingspan of the plane.

That is the reason why almost all planes these days have winglets at the tips of the wings. They block the vortices and increase the effective wingspan of the plane thereby increasing lift.

Sorry if that was too geeky.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the book recommendation :thumbup

Did you mean to say: "..and a low pressure region above the wings" ?

I read somewhere that the winglets were so effective at reducing the wake vortices, that ATC is able to significantly reduce the spacing of aircraft on approach to land.
 
jc2ducati said:
Sorry guys. I guess it came across as TOO depressing. It must be the dang weather! :twofinger



Definitely not in this case. All 3 or 4 airspeed sensors froze up instantly (which was not supposed to be possible) which caused the computers to basically abort.

It was a combination of contributing factors. Of course, Airbus wants to tell the public it was pilot error and remove blame from its product. The pilots are dead and cant say otherwise, and Airbus wants to keep their $200M jets flying.

Actually, it was a combination of pilot and system avionics errors that was the cause. Imagine a system that is designed to automate all aspects of flying from takeoff to landing when everything is smooth just like in the SFO video. However, when things get difficult and things start to go wrong, the system just says, "I give up. Your turn!" at the worst possible time. The system starts spitting out error messages and even gave the pilots false information.

Since the pilots didnt train for this situation, since it could never happen, i would imagine a lot of other pilots would have failed, too.
Click to expand...

jc2ducati said:
For example, this is one of the many things that just went wrong on that flight. Pilot and co-pilot each have a control stick - basically a joystick. The pilot kept pushing the nose down, but the copilot kept holding the stick back. The system was designed to basically average the inputs, so the net result was holding the stick neutral. There was no override.

Boeings allow the pilot to override the copilot input and take full control.
Click to expand...

Not going to tear this one apart all that much because it isn't really all that incorrect, but there are a few things that are named wrong. When they lost the pitot inputs, the airplane went into "alternate law" which isn't really "abort" mode, but it'll work in "How Airbus Flies foe Dummies" which is what a non-aviation person should read. It basically reverts the airplane to a mode that makes it think it's a real airplane, and does exactly what it's told to do, not what it thinks it should do. The pitot heats failed ("anti-icing" equipment), and even sent a message to maintanence that they had. Stranf how two primary and one backup could have all failed on the same flight. But they did. It started off with two First Officers making incorrect control inputs, one trying to pitch up because the airspeed indicator was reading high, the other trying to pitch down because he may have realized the airplane was stalling, and the airplane giving them a middle finger because the yokes were in two opposite positions. Then, the captain came up and tried to fix it, but it was already to late. It pancaked into the ocean.


Personally, I hate Airbus design philosophy. They take to much control away from the pilot. "The Miracle on the Hudson" was an Airbus. When they hit the birds, the vibration sensors in the engines said "OH SHIT!!! Something is wrong, lets pull back to idle." The engines were running ALL THE WAY TO THE WATER. Had it been a Boeing, they would have continued to run, all be it poorly, and came back to the airport. Just the same, the captain makes a control input, and the first officer has no clue what the other guy is doing. IMO, not a good situation. I want to see what the guy next to me is doing, so I can gauge how well he is flying, and if the shit is about to hit the fan.

When you watch the A380 land, notice the inboard engines are the only ones that hae thrust reversers. It's because the outboard engines are so far out there, they hang out off the runway, and using tr's would put FOD all over the runway. As the airplane sits now, just about every airport it goes into requires the runway to be directly inspected before and after because it doesn't really fit into places it goes. It's just to big.

I guess what I'm saying is, If it ain't Boeing, I ain't goeing!
 
msethhunter said:
When you watch the A380 land, notice the inboard engines are the only ones that hae thrust reversers. It's because the outboard engines are so far out there, they hang out off the runway, and using tr's would put FOD all over the runway.
Click to expand...
Yo' airliner is so fat...
 
Cincinnatus said:
Been there, worked there, '89-95. Best-built planes in the sky. :thumbup
Click to expand...

Well... I'm partial to Bombardier's stuff, but I'll take a Boeing's pay check any day of the week!
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kBLM-6dUGs

Just listened to this, and you can just hear the anxiety and stress in everyone's voices. Pretty sad for all those involved.

These pilots will pretty much never fly again. It's one of the few careers i can think of where after one mistake, you are over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top