S

Eurofigher Too Dangerous?

Started by Swamphen, May 25, 2004, 06:33:24 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

nev

*sigh*

Just think, if it wasn't for that German government we'd have had them all delivered and in service by now  :angry:  
Between almost-true and completely-crazy, there is a rainbow of nice shades - Tophe


Sales of Airfix kits plummeted in the 1980s, and GCSEs had to be made easier as a result - James May

Mairfrog

I've a feeling they may have borrowed the control technology from Airbus. The Airbus fly-by-wire system is so user-hostile and counter intuitive it's a wonder any of them fly at all. It doesn't surprise me that the copmuters don't work, the French don't give a rat's donkey about that sort of thing, certainly they didn't when that Airbus crashed at the Paris Salon. Don't get me started already!

I'm sure the Hoons in the MoD will wait until they've spent ¬£millions of our money on fixing it before they cancel them all. :angry:  

Ollie

That crash was caused by the guys inside the cockpit, not the plane.

When you're in a A-330 full of people, don't cut an engine and disable all the systems on the pull up just to check the other guy out.

Better, never do that unless you're in a sim.  That's for every plane out there.

:angry:  

elmayerle

Y'know, a lot of that sounds real similar to what Lockheed was getting pilloried for a year ago on the F-22; of course, that bird is just now starting IOT&E, not going into full service yet.
"Reality is the leading cause of stress amongst those in touch with it."
--Jane Wagner and Lily Tomlin

Captain Canada

That Rafale must really piss you guys off........

What's that ? It's carrier qual'd already ?

:o  :D  
CANADA KICKS arse !!!!

Long Live the Commonwealth !!!
Vive les Canadiens !
Where's my beer ?

lancer

Ok, I read this report in the Sun paper. Not the most accurate when it come to reporting, especially on military subjects, and just happens to be a Tony Bliar mouth piece. So, I'm tending to take this report with a rather large pinch of salt.  
If you love, love without reservation; If you fight, fight without fear - THAT is the way of the warrior

If you go into battle knowing you will die, then you will live. If you go into battle hoping to live, then you will die

elmayerle

I've seen essentially the same report appearing in some online technical news sources.
"Reality is the leading cause of stress amongst those in touch with it."
--Jane Wagner and Lily Tomlin

Mairfrog

Ollie, that Airbus crash was caused by a badly set up control program that contradicted every logical instinct of flight and autonomously chose the wrong flight regime. Airbus have a long and sorry history of it matched only by France's long history of fixing air accident investigations.

When Airbus introduced the composite fin and they started falling off the French blamed US pilots for overstressing the airframe. This was true, but they'd only done that because the Airbus rudder pedals, get this, were more sensitive in flight than on the ground. In flight half the pedal movement gave full rudder deflection yet there was NO force feedback indication for the crew, not even a pedal stop. Not only counter-intuitive but down right bloody dangerous. The current fly by wire systems are so discombobulatingly illogical that Airbus pilots are now selected by their ability to operate computers, not fly aeroplanes.

Imagine driving a car with no force feedback on the steering. None whatsoever, just a spring to centre the wheel when you let go. Now imagine that the steering has unmpteen different 'driving regime modes' that are slected automatically. Full lock might give a tight turn when parking, but at speed it will give a slight drift to the left. At medium speed it might give a different turn radius but with a delayed reaction. Now add in gear selection, throttle etc that are operated via a tiny display on the radio. This is pretty much what Airbus fly by wire is like.

Rather fly in a Boeing any day.

nev

Yeah, as I remember, that crash was caused by the flight software insisting on flying straight and level when the crew wanted to really pull up.
Between almost-true and completely-crazy, there is a rainbow of nice shades - Tophe


Sales of Airfix kits plummeted in the 1980s, and GCSEs had to be made easier as a result - James May

Ollie

Oh, you mean the A-320 flying into the woods???

Well that's pilot error all the way my friends!!!

The pilot said, before initiating the manoeuvre, that he was going to give the spectators a the thing I'm not allowed to say.

Aircraft has nothing do to with a stupid pilot.

I was talking about the A-330 crash.

B)  

Mairfrog

#11
I meant the controlled flight into the woods. It's a measure of Airbus' record that when you say 'that Paris air salon crash' people have to ask 'Which one?'.  :P

Seriously, there is a definite pattern to French air accident investigation. If a French aeroplane belonging to a US airline crashes in France it's pilot error. If a US aeroplane belonging to a French airline crashes anywhere its the aeroplane's fault.
The US return the compliment when investigating accidents over there.

US aeroplane + foreign airline = pilot error.
Foreign aeroplane + US pilot = faulty aeroplane.

However, there is a special case:
French aeroplane + French pilot in France = pilot error especially if the pilot doesn't survive.

The one exception was Concorde. Air France were desperate to get rid of it so that was Concorde's fault. It WAS NOT the fault of careless maintenance by Air France who DID NOT forget to replace a vital undercarriage component that DID NOT disappear when the BAe team wanted to inspect it. Air France also DID NOT overload the aeroplane. The industry never makes mistakes, ok?  <_<

Both countries have politicised AAI branches that apportion blame. Doesn't take a genius to work out their findings does it? From Concordski to the Airbus to the Seargent Spitfire to Concorde the French investigations have been rigged tighter than soviet elections.

In the UK we don't have a civil aeroplane industry so our own AAIB gets to deal in truth (unless it's a Chinook full of Northern Ireland intelligence staff).

Ollie

Yes, I see your point.

But Concorde was pilot error, he shut down two perfectly good engines.  But The problem was the crappy clapped out Continental DC-10 who lost parts on the take-off roll just before!!

Airbuses are good planes though, I have a couple of friends who fly them and they are quite happy with it!!


Captain Canada

Simon, I need more info on that Concorde crash !

As far as I know, it was some jackass who didn't secure a panel, just like Ollie said !

:wacko:

And is that what happened ? The pilot shut down the two engines in front of the fire ? That would really suck.......

:(

It pisses me off whenever I think about it......God Bless the families, but Long Live the Concorde !

:wub:  
CANADA KICKS arse !!!!

Long Live the Commonwealth !!!
Vive les Canadiens !
Where's my beer ?

nev

There was also the fact that the Concordes tyres were about as durable as the Lightnings (which were good for 6 landings).  Thin tyres used on big planes with high landing speeds don't last very long.  Especially tyres that were designed in the 50s.  They could have put on new tyres made with the latest materials, but then they would have had to re-certify them, and it was considered cheaper and easier to leave them as they were........
Between almost-true and completely-crazy, there is a rainbow of nice shades - Tophe


Sales of Airfix kits plummeted in the 1980s, and GCSEs had to be made easier as a result - James May