msnflier

Worse, if it is true that you're an employee or contractor with NW/DL, it is my opinion that your post earlier in this thread is irresponsible, at best, or an outright lie, at worst. You know full well that the pitot-static system of any aircraft is critical to the safe operation of the aircraft, from an A330 all the way down to a 65 hp Piper Cub made out of wood with canvas stretched over the wings. Perhaps you might consider consulting the Minimum Equipment List (MEL) for every single aircraft that NW/DL flies and tell us which aircraft DOESN'T require an operable pitot-static system as required equipment for every flight?

Unbelievable.

Blank Sheet

e-mail from a pilot friend. What this means is for you to discern. I thought I'd just pass it along.


Jeff H**** writes:

I have had several emails asking my opinion about the Air France crash and before that , the USAirways Hudson Rv.crash.

As most of you know, I have flown the AB330-300 in Intl ops for several thousand hrs as well as, like most of you, multi thousands in Boeings. For the record,my Boeing time is in:707,727 100,200;737-200,300,400;747-100,200,SP;757,767. I also have lots of Douglas (6 types)and Lockheed(2 types),Convair(2 types),Lear(2 types).

With all that, here's what I see through my "caveman" point of view:
Airbus philosophy has left the art of flying and therefore the pilot out of the loop. They train and design the operation so that any low experienced/low skilled person who is good at rote memory(read third world/read and do) pilot can get into this plane, with enough repetition and rehearsal; fly a normal trip.

FATAL FLAW#1-- The engines are FADEC(read computer/electronically) controlled and the flight controls are fly by wire/radio signal.. THERE IS NO DIRECT CONTROL FROM THE PILOT TO THESE CRITICAL SYSTEMS. Following in this spirit/phylosophy, the pilot training strictly emphasizes Always to be in the automated mode-read auto throttles and auto pilot in all operations even including a single engine failure approach and single engine missed approach!-i.e.AUTO FLT;ALL THE TIME.

Nowhere is there any contingency, training or flight manual information data for a pilot to take over manually and fly attitude and power settings for a certain configuration in the event that these auto systems fail. NOR are there any MANUAL ,direct link controls to the engines/flt controls from the cockpit.

FADEC is auto control, all the time. If the Hudson Rv. plane had allowed the pilot to override the autothrottles, could the pilots have produced some thrust? In the Boeings, you can "firewall" the engines til they melt or rip off the wing!
In every other plane I have flown in the past 40 years, there is a section in the flt ops manual that relates to this. Mainly it is a table that gives engine thrust settings and aircraft pitch settings for different speeds/configurations in the event that the pilot's airspeed indication in not reliable.-REF Air France

FATAL FLAW#2-- Airbus has incorporated composite materials into critical structural components in order to "one up" the competition with the "BEAN COUNTERS MISSION" of becoming a lighter plane with less fuel burn. Example 1: The AB 330 has no wing spar from the point where the engine mounts to the wing all the way to the wing tip! Over time, how can a wing NOT snap off?! Example 2: the Airbus 300-600 that AMR crashed @JFK has a honeycomb composite rudder with no spar in it. This failed on this Airbus aircraft.

In summary:

The pendulum of Commercial Aircraft design has swung way past the point of prudent/safe design. The momentum for this swing is found in the fact that "bean counters" and "bottom Liners" backed by political forces(read Green, et.al.) have highjacked the construction and certification process of our commercial fleets to the point of producing unsafe passenger transports.

I predict that each succeeding accident will be blamed on "Pilot Error" like the poor AMR JFK crash;"Act of God/NATURE"-USAir Hudson;"Weather related"-Air France.
I support the premise that these official found causal/contributing factors are but a deflection from the true cause-too much under/flimsy/composite construction and inadequate pilot input and over ride ability to these automated systems.

Respectfully, Jeff H*****, Old School Pilot

3Cforme

Over their useful lives DC-10s had a rate of hull losses roughly 2x that of comparable-generation 747s and L-1011s (whose rates of loss were remarkably similar). Just as various regulatory agencies effectively declared the DC-10 'safe enough' to allow NW to fly it until <36 months ago, the A330 is safe enough. I won't second-guess them on 1/1,000,000th the information.

florin

Well... I don't know what they consider a "serious incident", NoAm has tons of air traffic (compared to many other areas on this planet) and frankly I don't believe anything that's printed in India Times.

As for Blank Sheet quoting a pilot email... it's a short sighted email at best. The Boeing �ber alles argument does not stand. According to Jeff, the "Old School Pilot", the wings on ALL A330s should snap off at some point. The ONE incident with the A300 crashing over Long Island, out of who knows how many commercial A300 flights there have been, Jeff blamed on composite materials. Let's now forget that his beloved Boeing is raising the bar on composite materials with the 787. Let's also keep in mind that the crash was NOT due to composite materials; the NTSB "instead attributed the disaster to the first officer's overuse of rudder controls" (source). Jeff should really keep his unsubstantiated arguments to himself.

While it can be fun to participate in the "Airbus is not safe" frenzy, there have been millions of event-free flights on Airbus planes (NW alone has been flying A330s for a while and A320s even longer). As far as I'm concerned though, please spread the Airbus fear far and wide, and help the loads on my Airbus flights be lite. Thank you!

msnflier

As a private pilot, his post incensed and motivated me to respond because I immediately concluded that no one except a paid shill for NW/DL could possibly post something so clearly ignorant, outrageous and intended to misinform because anyone who understands even the most basic instruments present on a 65 hp Piper Cub to an A330 or C5-M knows that accurate information from the pitot-static system is critical to the safe operation of any aircraft - powered or even unpowered.

He was apparently attempting to quash a thread discussing a critical safety issue raised not only by pilots of the A330/340 but EASA and the FAA through the posting of misinformation stating that (to paraphrase) the failure of the pitot-static system of an aircraft in flight isn't a big deal. It is.

It's an emergency because the pitot-static system gives the pilot (and the autopilot) the most critical information needed to fly an airplane:

1. Airspeed
2. Altitude
3. Vertical speed (ascent or descent per minute)

Airspeed is life. If there's not enough, the plane stalls and doesn't fly. Altitude gives you a chance to recover, but if you don't know how fast you're going (at night or in clouds, especially) it's going to be nearly impossible to stabilize the airplane.

If the pitot-static system is inaccurate it can cause catastrophic problems. That's why pilots of commercial aircraft are mercilessly drilled in emergency procedures in the event of various system failures and have to pass a check ride testing their knowledge and ability to fly the plane every 6 months. These systems are so critical to every aircraft that the FAA requires two separate pitot-static systems on commercial aircraft. If both of those systems fail at the same time, it's very bad.

Now, what I am NOT saying is that the A330 is an unsafe airplane. What I AM saying is that someone who apparently works for NW/DL, and likely knows much better, should be called to account if he posts clearly inaccurate and misleading information on this board.

Bear96

Wow, you are way off base with this one. You appear not to be aware of this (because it is pretty evident you are not a pilot), but a malfunctioning pitot tube gives false airspeed readings, and having the correct airspeed is vital to controlling an aircraft, whether the entity controlling the aircraft is a computer or a human.

So, yes, a malfunctioning pitot tube creates unreliable readings to the computer controlling the aircraft when an aircraft is on autopilot. The autopilot will then respond with (what in hindsight are) "incorrect" inputs affecting the control surfaces.

But if an aircraft is not on autopilot, a malfunctioning pitot tube creates unreliable readings to the pilot controlling the aircraft, which does indeed make the aircraft difficult to fly. The pilot (if s/he has been trained properly) will then respond with (again, what in hindsight are) "incorrect" inputs affecting the control surfaces.

socrates

I'm sorry but I'll have to disagree...if the pilot understands the readings aren't correct then the plane wouldn't be anymore difficult...I understand how it can cause confusion but the settings of the plane wouldn't change (which is why all of the auto functions would release command to the PIC and why the PIC is taught to set the power to 85% of N1)...but again I'm not a pilot nor do I work for an airline so I could be way off base but it does seem logical to me that it shouldnt impact the planes ability to remain in the air

Bear96

(emphasis added)

Of course you are correct, but that is a BIG "if."

When you are in IMC and all tubes are iced up so all A/S indicators are showing false readings (but you don't know that), how do you reckon what your A/S is? Aren't you trained to trust your instruments (all else being equal)?

How do you know the readings aren't correct? And if you suspect they aren't but can't quite verify that, what should you "assume" your A/S is?

RobertS975

The problem is when the three pitot systems disagree with each other! How is the computer or the pilots supposed to know which readings (if any) are correct?

SoCalLen

I personally really like the A330 and I believe that this madness is all sensational hype by the media that focuses on a few isolated incidents just because it's fresher in people's minds and will garner better ratings.

SoCalLen

By the way, could the plane's GPS system be used as an additional emergency backup if all of the pitot tubes ice up and start giving inaccurate readings? After all, it's not like the GPS needs ram air...

RobertS975

GPS can only give you groundspeed, not airspeed. Controlling an aircraft depends on managing its airspeed, and at altitude with a heavy load, there is just a small margin between too slow (a stall) and too fast.