So i accidentally recreated the TWA Flight 841 incident

[William]

Remember how TWA Flight 841 stalled after an accidental Slats deployment?

I was making a video for my youtube channel basically just showing off the 727's features and i decided ''hey lets show the good people the slats and flaps sequance''

Yeah. i took there mistake and ****ed up even worse LOL. I thought it was climbing up because of the Altitude hold.

Nope, Autopilot murdered me, 90 passengers and 7 crew.

 

[Bjoern]

Aaaaaand this month's award for piss poor airmanship goes to...


Honestly, I don't know where to start. Extending the flaps in cruise flight and way beyond their airspeed limits, not listening for the stall warning, pulling stunts with the autopilot on, not knowing your deep stall recovery techniques (use ailerons), too heavy to effectivaly counter 40 degrees of flaps and the list goes on...

Your 727 license is temporarily revoked. Back to the classroom.



(Rest in pieces, N7001U. ;_; )

 

[srgalahad]

Don't blame it on poor Otto! He was doing his best.

Showing off for the camera, "flying" from outside the cockpit, failing to maintain situational awareness...

Tch tch! (and in a museum piece too!)

 

[stansdds]

As long as you can walk away from the landing, it's all good.

 

[fsafranek]

Death by Autopilot. I thought that was an Airbus thing.

TWA Flight 841 survived by the way. The aircraft was structurally beat up but the crew and passengers walked away.

 

[William]

Death by Autopilot. I thought that was an Airbus thing.

TWA Flight 841 survived by the way. The aircraft was structurally beat up but the crew and passengers walked away.

An airbus thing?....

You mean murderous autopilots are a real issue? Im not a real pilot like most of the people here but aren't there a ton of safety systems in place to prevent an Autopilot from ever completely locking the pilot out of the controls?

 

[Dutcheeseblend]

Probably Frank meant the design philosophy difference between Boeing and Airbus. Boeing places the pilot within the control loop, while Airbus has chosen for a completely autonomous control system. In other words, Boeing aircraft need their pilots to 'approve' the automatic control systems at some moment during execution of the loop (am I correct fsafranek?).

By the way William, would you mind to change your 'Location' designation in your avatar? Personally, I find it disruptive and unrespectful. Thank you!

 

[SSI01]

An airbus thing?....

You mean murderous autopilots are a real issue? Im not a real pilot like most of the people here but aren't there a ton of safety systems in place to prevent an Autopilot from ever completely locking the pilot out of the controls?

Don't tell that to the pilot of that A320 that was doing a demo flight at the Habsheim Airshow in June of 1988. He made a long, slow pass in front of the crowd with the bird really dirtied up for landing and was going to suck everything up and go on his way. The autopilot was holding the thing steady all the way down the runway for this pass. The pilot attempted to disengage the autopilot and it immediately argued with him, saying in effect "you've got the airplane with everything down so you are apparently going in to land, and you WILL land." He attempted to disengage the thing but Col Computer had locked the throttles and flight surfaces into a landing configuration and applying throttle and trying to move the flight surfaces didn't work, Computer returned everything to "landing" settings. Aircraft settled into a dense stand of trees at the EOR and crashed. Video does exist of this incident. The pilot survived but three PAX did not. Regardless, I DO know Airbus shamelessly attempted to pin the blame on him and absolve the computer - and the manufacturer. Airbus had over 500 aircraft on order, and the type was in the middle of the certification process in the US, so they had megabucks at stake. They did this by changing out the black box post-crash, and manipulating the data presented by the computer, and basically forging the black box output, so under analysis it supported their position. There is a book written on the subject by the former head of the French Airline Pilots' Union (and former leader of the Patrouille de France) that describes the chicanery of the Airbus firm, and the French govt, in attempting to destroy the reputation of the pilot involved and whitewash this crash. This incident is a black mark against Airbus they are still trying to live down. It's not helped by problems experienced by other Airbus products since this crash.

 

[Bjoern]

Boeing: Semitrained dog on a leash.
Airbus: Trained dog without a leash.

They're almost complete opposites. 737: Awful FMCs, but direct control. A3xx: Great FMCs, awkward, indirect control.

By the way William, would you mind to change your 'Location' designation in your avatar? Personally, I find it disruptive and unrespectful. Thank you!

Joke's on him, I only have a brother.

Don't tell that to the pilot of that A320 that was doing a demo flight at the Habsheim Airshow in June of 1988. He made a long, slow pass in front of the crowd with the bird really dirtied up for landing and was going to suck everything up and go on his way. The autopilot was holding the thing steady all the way down the runway for this pass. The pilot attempted to disengage the autopilot and it immediately argued with him, saying in effect "you've got the airplane with everything down so you are apparently going in to land, and you WILL land." He attempted to disengage the thing but Col Computer had locked the throttles and flight surfaces into a landing configuration and applying throttle and trying to move the flight surfaces didn't work, Computer returned everything to "landing" settings. Aircraft settled into a dense stand of trees at the EOR and crashed. Video does exist of this incident. The pilot survived but three PAX did not. Regardless, I DO know Airbus shamelessly attempted to pin the blame on him and absolve the computer - and the manufacturer. Airbus had over 500 aircraft on order, and the type was in the middle of the certification process in the US, so they had megabucks at stake. They did this by changing out the black box post-crash, and manipulating the data presented by the computer, and basically forging the black box output, so under analysis it supported their position. There is a book written on the subject by the former head of the French Airline Pilots' Union (and former leader of the Patrouille de France) that describes the chicanery of the Airbus firm, and the French govt, in attempting to destroy the reputation of the pilot involved and whitewash this crash. This incident is a black mark against Airbus they are still trying to live down. It's not helped by problems experienced by other Airbus products since this crash.

Ah yes, Airbus and its evil plan to destroy everything.

Take into consideration that:
- the flight plan for the flyover of AF296 was taking unnecessary risks (disabled AoA protection)
- the crew was unfamiliar with the airfield
- there was no time to stabilize the aircraft for the flyover
- previous flight training experience at the edge of the performance envelope may have lead to overconfidence in the flight computers

Just like with the 727, most of the early, and even later crashes involving the A32x/A33x/A34x family can be traced back to training deficits and improper responses to abnormal situations because the change in command philosophy (prop -> jet; direct -> computer) does take some time getting used to, especially if the crew inquestion has thousands of hours in other, older aircraft types that required a different mindset.