A321 crash

I seem to remember that all the evidence suggested this was down to pilot error – the go-around was left too late (or started from too low an altitude), and so, despite the fly by wire computer operating pefectly and gaining maximum flight performance as soon as the go-around was instigated, there was simply insufficient distance left in which to spool the engines up sufficiently to allow the ‘plane to gain sufficent speed/altitude before it hit the trees.

So, the FBW system meant that the Airbus was climbing as fast as physically possible (i.e. operating at maximum angle of attack for the airspeed/throttle setting) at the point of first impact, but there was insufficient time/distance to get clear of the trees. The only way to avoid the accident would have been either to initiate go-around earlier in the fly-by, such that the plane had chance to gain height before reaching the trees or to have flown down the runway at a higher altitude so that the plane had to gain less height to clear the trees – the low altitude of the pass and the late action of the captain made the result inevitable, despite FBW.

Had the plane not been a fully automated fly by wire machine the results would probably have been identical, though a non-FBW plane may well have been in a stalled or near-stalled attitude before it even reached the trees due to the crew perhaps having pulled too hard in a desperate attempt to avoid the tree tops….:( .

Moral of the story – FBW will ensure teh ‘plane’s flight envelope cannot be exceeeded, and thus prevented a stall in this case, but it cannot always overcome a case of pilot error.

It’s a bit like relying on ABS (anti-Lock Braking System) on your car to stop an accident – if you leave braking too late, or drive too close behind another car, then ABS will stop the wheels locking as you press on the brake pedal, but if you are too close when you first apply the brakes then you will still hit the car in front, as the simple laws of physics hold true. ABS will ensure the maximum possible braking efficiency has been applied, but if this is insufficient to stop the car then you will still arrive at the point if impact, though impact speed will be lower than arriving with all four wheels locked up and tyres screeching! Something few “tailgaters” seem to fail to appreciate.

Paul F

The Captain’s Version

Captain Asseline flew the aircraft manually. He had been instructed by Air France to overfly the airfield at 100 ft above ground. When he increased throttle to level off at 100 ft, the engines did not respond. So after some seconds he got worried and thought there was something like a short-circuit in the completely computerized throttle control. So he pulled the throttle back all the way and forth again. By that time the aircraft had touched the trees.

After the accident, Captain Asseline was very astonished when he saw on an amateur video tape that the gear was only 30 ft above ground when the aircraft was passing over the runway. He affirms the altimeter of the Airbus A320 indicated 100 ft.

IIRC, the aircraft was full of journalists.

There is a lot of speculation about that incident.

Its said that British officials (involved due to nationality of passengers) were not entirely convince by the finding s of the French investigation.

Also, there is suposedly reasonable evidence to suggest that the Flight Data Recorder and Voice recorder data are out of sync and supposedly do not match the actual profile of the flight and that the last 10 seconds (the critical part!) or so are missing. Which leads one to believe the data was tampered with.
Bear in mind that the recorders were removed from the crash site while still smoldering by an unknown official (this is on camera) and were not handed to the investigation authorities for a full 2 weeks. The data recorders handed in to the investigation also bear different markings to those seen in the hands of the unknown official as he removed them from the wreck. Again, photographic evidence is available.

All rather fishy, IMO.

A copy of the crash report is on AirDisaster.com

The French BEA (air accident investigation) office and Air France headquarters share the same office building, and staff switch sides/change jobs within both organisations…… i will let you draw your own conclusions

In the end didn’t the French authories blame the pilots? Saying it wasn’t a software design issue. The pilots and their union strongly protested.

BTW: They said the same thing with the Airbus tail coming off in NY in 2001…
(they said pilots used too much rudder…not a design issue)
the ATR42 icing crash in Indiana in 95…(The makers and the French said the plane was OK, however the FAA required some changes to the leading edge to make the wing less sensitive to ice buildup)…or
A failrly light piece of metal puncturing the fuel tank of Concorde (not a design issue…blame another airplane for dropping the piece)

Is it just me or is there a trend here?:diablo:

This was the Mulhouse crash/landing which if i remember correctly was carrying a full pax of school kids.

Paul

They were damned lucky – 136 on board and “only” 3 fatalities.

This was the Mulhouse crash/landing which if i remember correctly was carrying a full pax of school kids.

Paul

You can hear just as the A320 is going into the forest, the engines start spooling back up….but they dont tend to work that well when ingesting large amounts of pine tree

There’s a wiki article somewhere on it…

From what I remember, it was a normal commerical flight, but was instructed to make a low pass at an airshow, with no flaps and the gear down.

They used autopilot to do it, and I can’t remember why they crashed but they did. The capitain later said he hit TOGA but there was delayed power.

Also, most suspicous but when the flight recorders were found they had been tampered with…

IIRC, it was something to do with the crew misunderstanding ‘alpha floor’, the aircraft was set up for landing and the crew thought that if they pulled back on the side stick after the fly-by the aircraft would climb, apparently they should have pushed the TOGA buttons to initiate the climb out, its all a bit hazy now but I’m sure someone will find an accurate report.

-Dazza

(It’s an A320 by the way)… As far as I recall it was an early A320 display flight with crew only aboard. The inflight management computer assumed the low flypass was an attempt at landing and ‘instructed’ the plane’s systems to assume a landing configuration, the plane as you can see ‘landed’ in a forest at the end of the runway.

I can’t recall the finer details off the top of my head, but I’m sure it’s well reported on the usual crash report websites…