44 people wounded in heavy turbulence

Originally posted by Jeanske_SN
Pilots can land the aircraft manually on instruments only, so when visibility is very ittle?

Sorry Jeanske, don’t understand the question.

you kind of wonder how accurate that site can be when they list the LH incident as a 320-100… The only -100’s that were built went to BA and AF. If you look up the registration of the aircraft involved (D-AIPN) on a.net, you can quite clearly see it’s a -200 series aircraft, as it has winglets. :rolleyes:

Pilots can land the aircraft manually on instruments only, so when visibility is very ittle?

My company SOP’s mandate the use of autoland when the visibility is below Cat 1 minima however there are other types of adverse weather conditions where you would be obliged to do a manual landing. A classic example would be windy conditions. Most commercial aircraft with autoland capability have crosswind/headwind/tailwind limits that are more restrictive than normal operations so in strong wind conditions a manual landing must be made.

Originally posted by Jeanske_SN
Are pilots obligated nowadays to always use autoland? They are at Singapore Airlines.

Not in my company…Pilots need to hand land the aircraft as part of our currency requirements. 1 landing every 35 days.

As Steve said, if the weather is cr@p use the autoland.:cool:

Originally posted by Jeanske_SN
Are pilots obligated nowadays to always use autoland? They are at Singapore Airlines.

I would have thought that it was only obligatory during adverse weather conditions

Are pilots obligated nowadays to always use autoland? They are at Singapore Airlines.

Regarding autolands….the computer will always do a better landing than us pilots.:rolleyes:

Then there was the Spanish A320 that bounced so hard on landing that the computer decided the pilot was attempting a go around configured the plane for climb resulting in a end of runway overshoot because flaps had been retracted etc!!

The aircraft skidded off the end of the runway during landing. The aircraft touched down with sink rate low enough that the onboard flight computers did not consider it to be “landing,” which inhibited thrust reverse and brake application for nine seconds.
Typical a320-100 error.

What surprises me is that some a320 accidents happen by a simple crash into the ground. Why doesn’t the FBW have a setting so that the computers give full thrust if stall is coming close, or if the ground is coming too close? It’s simple?!
http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi_bin/aircraft_detail.cgi?aircraft=Airbus+A320

Did Airbus pay any aircraft back that crashed because of errors in the computers?

The 747-400 will autoland the same way, can’t be that the 747-400’s autoland system is not as good. It’s amazing how good an autpilot can put an aircraft on the ground, even in crosswind conditions.
Does someone know if the APR setting is also used for crosswind conditions?

I remember the story of the A320-100 series (!!!) that landed so softly in warsaw so that the computers didn’t feel it. The thrust reverse activation and spoiler deplyment was delayed by 8 seconds or so and the aircraft overran the runway. It burned out.

Also in defence of the ‘bus I once landed in total rainout with high winds in an A340 and it was the smoothest landing ever. People on the plane were clapping and pilot came up said it was the airbus’s great auto pilot system that did it so cleanly. I don’t know how the Boeing one compares or if it is the same.

Originally posted by Tempest
Thanks for all the input wsiwyg and others.

I must say, as a passenger I still prefer the airbus over the 747. The 747 has noisiest cabin in history and the seating arrangements are a little clumsy. I always manage to sleep a bit on the ‘bus. I must say I don’t think the A340 is that much different in terms turbulance tolerance. But the Boeing can cruise a little higher in the first half of the flight because it has bigger engines I guess.

I can’t agree more. The last time we flew to LAX the way in wa s on a A340 and the way back on a 744. The 744 leg was my most unconfortable seating experience.
I’m a pretty slim person and I had hardtime to fit between the arm rest of the seat.

Thanks for all the input wsiwyg and others.

I must say, as a passenger I still prefer the airbus over the 747. The 747 has noisiest cabin in history and the seating arrangements are a little clumsy. I always manage to sleep a bit on the ‘bus. I must say I don’t think the A340 is that much different in terms turbulance tolerance. But the Boeing can cruise a little higher in the first half of the flight because it has bigger engines I guess.

sorry i am really not good at this but is turbulance only at optimum hieght

Doesn’t the size and weight have a lot to do with how a plane is affected by turbulence
I read somewhere that a 747 is like a bowling ball going down a bowling alley, not much can displace it

Originally posted by wysiwyg
Matthew is talking about something called Load Alleviation which is where an Airbus uses its flight controls to smooth the ride for its passengers. This is yet another technology that Boeing are well behind the pace on.

Interesting point.

A lot of our pax actually prefer the 744 over the A340 because they say it’s a smoother ride, especially in turbulence. When we first got the 340-600 there were a lot of pax and CREW being sick.

Talking with one of our engineers about this he simply said that the Boeings are built much better than the Airbuses, that’s why the buses need all these gizmos. He also said it’s like comparing Ford to a BMW.;)

Matthew is talking about something called Load Alleviation which is where an Airbus uses its flight controls to smooth the ride for its passengers. This is yet another technology that Boeing are well behind the pace on.

I stand corrected 😉

Sorry Ali but I think it was the inboard aileron that he saw. Boeings only use the outboard ailerons when flap/slat is deployed. Once clean they lock out in the neutral position and the inboards are used on their own. At higher speed their reduced distance from the fulcrum of the motion gives a smoother ride. Airbus don’t need the mechanical complexity of a second set of ailerons as they just use the computers in the fly by wire system to reduce the control output according to the speed.

Tempest – In that position you would have been traversing an area known as the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) where massivelt unstable airmasses meet violently and carry severy storm activity up to 40+ thousand feet. The weather avoidance would probably have been required in any commercial aircraft (it doesn’t just pop up in front of Airbus types!) however the A340 would tend to give a more oscillatory ride than an overpowered, overweight brick sh1thouse like a 747. It’s swings and roundabouts…the A340 may have temporarily given a few minutes of mildly bumpier ride than the 747 but at least you would only have put 60-70% of the pollutants into the atmosphere! 🙂

On the subject of brakes…Airbus have always had difficulty with brakes. They may sound and feel a bit juddery but if they were unsafe the CAA wouldn’t allow them to operate.