Quicksearch
Disclaimer
The individual owning this blog works for Oracle in Germany. The opinions expressed here are his own, are not necessarily reviewed in advance by anyone but the individual author, and neither Oracle nor any other party necessarily agrees with them.
The stormy landing approach in Hamburg last year.
Saturday, July 25. 2009
Just heard on N24, that the Luftfahrtbundesamt found the reason for the go-around with touching the ground in the last year in Hamburg. The Spiegel (a german magazine) will report it: They call it a computer problem. Well ... iīm not so sure of that, and iīm sure that the Luftfahrtbundesamt said something different in their report. Why do i think different? Well ... i remember the last crash with fatalities of the Lufthansa on 14. September 1993 in Warsaw. At that time the Lufthansa Airbus A320 crashed into a small "hill" at the end of the run-way. The reason: The computer of the Airbus didnīt think that the Airbus is on ground and thus it didnīt brake.
At this time the computer programm for the brakes was modified and the activation of the brakes was coupled to an pressure of 2t instead of 12 tons on the landing gears and the airbrakes and the reverse thrust isnīt coupled to the landing gears at all and iīm sure that many landing were more secure of this decision.
When i look at the video of this attempt to land it looks like that both gears touched the ground and thus the Airbus switched in the ground mode. Looks as "works as designed". That isnīt a computer problem. This circumstances was just out of the specification. But as usual ... iīm waiting for the final report.
But i find something strange about this: When even a computer guy like me know about this situation, why does a pilot know about it, as the Hamburger Abendblatt reports it. Okay, iīve read a lot about it to explain in meetings and seminars about the fact that the ability to specify requirements is finite. There will be always unspecified circumstances.
But well ... the Hamburger Abendblatt wrote, that the Spiegel will report about this. And the Spiegel is pretty well known for being overly negative in regard of Airbus. I remember they have declared the death of Airbus when Boeing announced the 787
They have even the old story about the Airbus being a computer controlled plane, but i assume you canīt talk with a journalist about direct law, alternate law and normal law.
At this time the computer programm for the brakes was modified and the activation of the brakes was coupled to an pressure of 2t instead of 12 tons on the landing gears and the airbrakes and the reverse thrust isnīt coupled to the landing gears at all and iīm sure that many landing were more secure of this decision.
When i look at the video of this attempt to land it looks like that both gears touched the ground and thus the Airbus switched in the ground mode. Looks as "works as designed". That isnīt a computer problem. This circumstances was just out of the specification. But as usual ... iīm waiting for the final report.
But i find something strange about this: When even a computer guy like me know about this situation, why does a pilot know about it, as the Hamburger Abendblatt reports it. Okay, iīve read a lot about it to explain in meetings and seminars about the fact that the ability to specify requirements is finite. There will be always unspecified circumstances.
But well ... the Hamburger Abendblatt wrote, that the Spiegel will report about this. And the Spiegel is pretty well known for being overly negative in regard of Airbus. I remember they have declared the death of Airbus when Boeing announced the 787
They have even the old story about the Airbus being a computer controlled plane, but i assume you canīt talk with a journalist about direct law, alternate law and normal law.
Posted by Joerg Moellenkamp
in Aviation, English
at
16:06
| Comments (4)
| Trackbacks (0)
View as PDF: This entry | This month | Full blog
View as PDF: This entry | This month | Full blog
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Ich hoffe, Du nimmst mir diese Kleinlichkeit nicht übel, aber das tut mir jedesmal weh: zum verneinten simple past gehört der Infinitiv: "The computer of the Airbus didnīt think that the Airbus is on ground and thus didnīt brake. "
Keineswegs ... ich weiss das mein Englisch lausig ist ...
I think the fact that you cannot specify all conditions properly is a good argument about putting too much intelligence into a control system. (I am not actually sure what ground vs. flightmode does to the pilot in your scenario, but if it leads to a crash it is surely a restriction a pilot has not to suffer from).
Gruss
Bernd
Gruss
Bernd
On the ground you have to be cautious about the rudder thus the computer reduce the the sensitivity of the rudder and the maximum deflection to make it easier for the pilot to control the aircraft on the ground. At least it was explained this way on some locations.
And you have to take into consideration that the computer helps the pilot in many situations (all the protections in normal law, the support of pilots to keep them free for managing the flight and observing the surrounding airspace).
Technology is always a tradoff, it gives you advantages like a shorter way to break. The automatic braking system of an A380 is for example capable to warn the pilot if the computer calculates that the aircraft canīt break on the remaining runway thus the pilot can go into TOGA early. And perhaps you may have recognized that an Airbus approach is much smoother than a Boeing approch, smoother isnīt just more comfortable, itīs more secure too.
And you have to take into consideration that the computer helps the pilot in many situations (all the protections in normal law, the support of pilots to keep them free for managing the flight and observing the surrounding airspace).
Technology is always a tradoff, it gives you advantages like a shorter way to break. The automatic braking system of an A380 is for example capable to warn the pilot if the computer calculates that the aircraft canīt break on the remaining runway thus the pilot can go into TOGA early. And perhaps you may have recognized that an Airbus approach is much smoother than a Boeing approch, smoother isnīt just more comfortable, itīs more secure too.
+1
The LKSF book
The book with the consolidated Less known Solaris Tutorials is available for download here
Web 2.0
Contact
Networking
xing.com
LinkedIn
Facebook
My photos
- mail: joerg@c0t0d0s0.org
- icq: 144000169
- Me, myself and I
- openBC
- My del.icio.us
- c0t0d0s0@twitter
- c0t0d0s0@last.fm
- wiki@c0t0d0s0
- Amazon Wishlist
Networking
xing.com
My photos
Buttons
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Germany License
Blog Administration
Donate
Okay, okay ... as several people have asked for it ... but you know my opinion.