Bad Design | Indian Airlines Flight 605
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 сен 2024
- Please support this channel by following me on Patreon
/ allecibay
Indian Airlines Flight 605 was a scheduled domestic passenger flight from Bombay to Bangalore. On 14 February 1990, an Airbus A320-231 registered as VT-EPN, crashed onto a golf course while attempting to land at Bangalore, killing 92 of 146 people on board.
Music: The Only Light Is Gone
Artist: Dalo Vian
Listen to the entire music here:
• The Only Light Is Gone...
Follow me on:
/ allec.ibay
You know the aftermath will be bad when "Only Light Is Gone" begins playing.
Notice the double-bogie main landing gear in so many photos of Indian Airlines A320 aircraft? That was because these aircraft served remote airports where the tarmac would buckle under the weight of regular single-bogie main landing gear. Unique to Indian Airlines.
Never knew this, thanks for writing re the double bogie set up.
To clarify, even relatively thin pavement on an airliner-capable runway/tarmac won't actually buckle from the weight of an airliner's landing gear. As gear load increases, that will however decrease the life of the pavement since they fail in fatigue much as metal parts of an aircraft can. That's where the extra tires of a dual tandem come in: To lower peak pavement stress relative to a dual gear on an aircraft of the same weight, thus increasing pavement life.
Yes I know and what a load of bollocks, in order to satisfy Indian airlines criteria for their A 320,s to use low strength runways Airbus contracted Dowty Messier to design a compact four wheel bogie instead of the standard A320 two wheel truck not a bogie ., A bogie is a rigid beam mounting two or more axles one behind the other and what you call a single bogie is wrong, it is a truck ,two wheels on a common axle like that off a skate board . Relying on the geekery is a recipe for disaster, fly the bloody plane.
@@basiltaylor8910 it is not a truck. it is a bogie
@@soccerguy2433 Yes I know, if you cared to read the reply I clearly state that and not blind, In easy to understand ladybird book language, An A320 in standard form is fitted with a main undercarriage comprising two oleo legs ,each fitted with a two wheel truck . Air India,s fleet of A320,s were built with a bogie main undercarriage to a special order for the airline to use airports built in the 1950,s with low strength runways on their domestic routes.
A Captain with only 250 hours of flight time on the Airbus shouldn't have been supervising a Captain with 60 hours of flight time. They both were very green and new to the aircraft
It’s not as if in 1990 you would have found a ton of captains with thousands of hours on an A320.
Totally agree, sort of like a 2nd year surgical resident supervising a 1st year surgical resident while repairing a hernia.
Liam makes an excellent point. When new aircraft models are first delivered, NOBODY has any flying time on them.
I agree, however, you can't have tons of experience if the aircraft is a new model. So the blind lead the blind for several years.
@@BigfistJP except that it's not the first hernia having been repaired in history. Big difference.
I remember the Air France accident and discussion about the fly by wire system that followed. One issue discussed was testing of the software and one person consulted stated that it would take enormous amounts of time to go through all the possible routines and situations that the system might have to handle. Result - dead people. Another attempt to make things safer that did the opposite. They're trying similar stuff on cars now - I've turned the lane keeping off, for example, after battles between me and the car over where it should be on the road.
RIP to 92 Passengers and Crews
#NeverForget ❤️❤️🇮🇳🇮🇳
Hug from Brazil 🇧🇷🇧🇷❤️🇮🇳🇮🇳
This was one of those rare aircraft with a four wheel MLG bogies. Great video, RIP.
When the A320 first debuted with its fly-by-wire and flight protection envelopes, it was pretty much touted as "un-crashable" by Airbus and some pilots. Sort of like the Titanic being "un-sinkable". We all know how that turned out...
It tourned out to have wayyyyyy less accidents due to airplane failure than Boeing. Like this one.
@@bullseyes1983 When the A320 was introduced, It had 2 crashes in less than 4 months.
@@Owlventure_Aviation yes, everybody died, and every single plane was grounded for more than 2 years... Oh wait, that was the 737 max
Titanic was declared 'practically unsinkable' NOT 'unsinkable'. The ship's designers couldn't conceive of a spontaneous, catastrophic hull failure of the magnitude that actually occurred.
The first mistake was to change their minds from go around to trying to capture the glideslope instead. The QNH should already set to the MSL of the airport so the instrument report the correct altitude. The radio altimeter reports regardless of the QNH setting. Monitor Airspeed, Altitude and Attitude. They relied on automation and lost situational awareness.
Same thought here:
Cpt. Gopujkar: "Do you want a go around? Or do you want vertical speed?"
Cpt. Fernandez: "Let's do vertical speed instead."
Cpt. Gopujkar: "OK , *death* it is, then."
rip to the passengers and crew who died on this crash
Computers deciding if the inputs are correct, what happened to flying by the seat of your pants , I get the impression that most airline pilots couldn’t fly a light aircraft as they wouldn’t know how to.
As I heard somewhere, "Before, we flew the plane. Now, the plane flies us."
Not many began their flying career on multi-turbines. Guess where literally everyone started out ?
Your impression would be wrong.
@@dx1450 back then "they flew the plane", more people died. The statistics are inarguable. Modern technology has made flying safer, not more dangerous. It seems like each passing year now becomes the safest year on record.
@@thefreedomguyuk Full motion simulators, cheapest way to learn how to operate aircraft (not to be confused with piloting an airplane).
A pilot error in an aircraft with a design flaw doesn't is not a good combination.
As Chuck Yeager once said (more or less) when climbing into the cockpit of a modern jet fighter, 'If a pilot can't fly the jet without using all of these instruments, he shouldn't be in the cockpit'. He was alluding to the fact that a good pilot must possess basic 'seat of the pants' flying skills, look out the damned windows, and know what the aircraft is doing at all times. System faults or not, the ultimate responsibility lies with the pilots not actually flying the plane. The guy doesn't notice that they're going down until they're at 136 feet? Seriously?
@stargazer57
True, and the technology adds more complexity and complication as well, so if you are in a critical situation it probably makes for MORE potential problems and mistakes.
Yeager.. Great pilot.. But a big a**hole in person. He once said that Niel Armstrong was not a good pilot. It's irrelevant whether he was or not.. Why say it? Because he didn't have a college degree and was basically a West Virginia yahoo and wasn't selected to the lunar program.. Be surprised if he had a HS degree.. He started the war as a mechanic
At 700 FMP descent rate you will eat up 136 feet in 11 seconds. Doesn't give you a lot of time to figure out how badly you have f'd up.
@@Vincent_Sullivan 700 FPM is the normal rate of descent at approach speed on an ILS. The rule is 5 x Ground Speed = FPM required to maintain 3 degree Glide Slope. The problem with this flight was neither pilot was flying the airplane. The pilot flying should maintain the proper airspeed and the pilot monitoring is responsible to speak up if he is not on airspeed.
Well said sir !
the amount of 'stuff' crammed into any modern aircraft is so incredible, that I have a feeling that the task of checking all this
can become so overwhelming, that one does not clearly see the end of the tunnel. The pilots died, imagine to survive a crash
and having to live with that till the day you die, being a pilot? I watch planes here at YVR almost every day, and it still amazes
me that everything seems to go correct. Watchin Air Indies 777 climbing out here for their Non Stop run to Delhi, that plane
is stressed, and so is everybody in the cockpit. And inside, everybody expects a movie, a few meals, a circus act, and very few
people will witness the sweat on the pilots foreheads. Because they are heavy, and ALL real estate is used.
Thanks Alec, nobody enjoys watching a plane crash, but the set up of your program is very good.
Of course Airbus would support the report that absolves them. I remember back in the 90s all the controversy surrounding Airbus but I didnt know why much less what fly-by-wire even meant. In hindsight, I gotta side with the pilots but on top of all that I think some shade needs to be thrown at not only Airbus but the higher ups in the respective airlines. After all, this is a brand new aircraft with a brand new technology that these pilots had less than 100 hours of flight time with. Personally, if I was the manufacturer I'd want one of my people in the cockpits in situations like this to oversee if for anything to not tarnish my company's reputation in the industry.
Once again we'll researched and very detailed account Alex. Rip for the unfortunate souls. Thankfully improvements were made instead of trying to assign blame which based on ur research that was clearly shown
It's also unfortunate it took 3 similar accidents of the same type of aircraft b4 they took more decisive action that in a better world more deaths could have been prevented 🤔
Another brilliant very good outline with A320 flight deck... well done Allec.
I came off the DC9 and B737-200 , 300/400 EFIS onto the A320 in 1993 the airline;s first A320 MSN in low 300s.
Going onto the A320, we had heard all the bollocks about "if it aint't Boeing, I ain't going" etc.... on my transition at ground school, the whole pilot group was with intrepidation going onto the A320.
On day one of ground school, during coffee break, the sim techs... installing the CAE A320 sim for our airline, allowed my F.O and I to pop in and see first hand the flight feck.... we took our seats and the sim was at 39,000 frozen over a city in slight bak.
we both went "wow" and from that instant, I fell in love with the Airbus A320 and took it on as a real positive challenge.
Day one of sim training (one of 7 plus check ride), I was very fortunate at having a French Airbus captain from Toulouse to do our first seven sessions, pre check ride).... on our first take off and airborne doing simple aerial work, handling the Airbus A320, he said that he will now show us and to do it ourselves, to fly the Airbus, just like a Baron/C310, no automatics, to show and prove that contrary to all the rubbish about Airbus and the A320, you can fly the A320 like any other GA aircraft from take off to landing using manual thrust and flying.
He then showed us, all the automatics and protections, and again, made us fly the A320 with all the various autoflight modes and purposely getting into awful positions, ie.... high on approach forcing aircraft to reinterecpt from above, Idle Open descent, high sink rates, low, lannding long go-around, cancellation of approach and visual approaches etc etc, and of course below the all important, 100 Rad Alt, and with every single scenario making us take over, hand fly the aircraft and manual thrust and how to quickly get out of trouble if the Autoflight isn't doing what you are trying to establish or correct...... and from session one, it has stuck like the proverbial to a blanket all my thirty years fying Airbuses :)
Its fundamental, anyone flying the A320/321/330/340/350/380 etc, that your first sim, you see and do it yourself take over and hand fly with manual thrust to go around and fly it like any other normal aircraft, and several landings and turning off all automatics to continue the flight and/or Go-Around, to get that confirdence , belief and understanding of how to fly this fabulous aircraft .
Its a beautiful aircraft to fly, watch the FMA like a eagle eye and you're good !
"Just saying"
keep up the hundreds of your re-created incidents please Allec, we ALL learn from them no matter how many decades of flying, they're all incredibly interesting , thanks
5:48 "400," is announced, followed by "300," followed by "200," followed by the captain stating "Hey, we're going down" at 5:08, just a second or two before "100" is announced. Why didn't one of the pilots realize they were too low within that 20 second period when those three announcements were made? They were too close to the runway landing for "Terrain Terrain Pull Up Pull Up" to warn of impending disaster, and probably for the same reason "Sink Rate Sink Rate" also did not sound. It is eerie that the computer voice is calm until the moment of impact, as if everything is just a normal routine landing.
Thank you Allec, looks like there were three trying to fly and “aviate, navigate, communicate” had been replaced with button pushing.
Airbus - I don't know why full throttle select by the pilots need to be analysed and made a decision on by a computer and even then it's up to the computer whether to do it or not. WHY Airbus, WHY? Let the pilots make these decisions. This system has caused so many crashes. As a pilot, I would want the airplane to do exactly what I want it to do and when I want it to do it. After all I'm the one with eyes and a brain.
@@MegaSunspark Well said MegaSunspark; appreciate your pilot’s experience and knowledge. Two guys in trouble beaten by Hal the dumb computer.
You can’t blame the autopilot. Pilots are paid to MONITOR what it is doing. Flight mode annunciators tell the pilots what the autoflight system is doing. Not a secret.
Indian pilots do have a bad reputation in following orders and procedures even today
So many instruments and controls to have to monitor,
So many things can go wrong so fast,
So many lives can be lost so quickly,
I think I’ll take the bus !
Good choice, you will be much safer.
A captain with 250 hours on the A320 TRAINING a pilot with 60 hours on the A320 to become captain... that's INSANE!
Hey, Allec! Nicely done video! Also just wanted to say I found this video 7 seconds after it was first posted. As a view of your channel of 7 years, keep up the great work! I appreciate it!
Changes to airplanes that add to their safety, and the regulations relevant thereto, are always written in the blood of past victims of disasters. It was pilot error, but regardless of fault, so many people died (including the pilots) who didn't have to.
The A320 is too automatic and wasn't thought out entirely properly. I don't like flying -any- Airbus 320 or later model, fwiw; fly-by-wire takes control from the pilot, who is supposed to be the expert in the cockpit. Rest the souls of the dead. Nice video, Allec-
Many pilots have criticized the Fly by wire systems especially on the AirBus aircraft. But looking at the glass half full instead of half empty, these systems have safes many pilots from crashes. Nothing in life is perfect.
Yeah the whole Boeing vs Airbus thing is tiresome - both have comparable safety records. So is the belief that fly-by-wire controls make you a "lesser" pilot. Most modern fighter jets are controlled this way after all.
@@jpaulc441 And now we have drive-by-wire cars, lol! No thank you.
Both pilots’ lack of training/hours on that plane caused this tragedy.
thank you
Another very informative video! It makes you wonder what undiscovered issues there are in designs there are at present!
can we say "737 Max"?
“Glide slope, glide slope”
Someone in the cockpit: turn that b***h off
I remember I saw that on one of your videos, but I can’t remember what it is
A Captain friend of mine had his sleeves rolled up and selected the gear down. Unknowing to him he set the parking brake when his sleeve turned it on. Said that was the shortest landing he had ever seen. FedEx did it twice. No ECAM message for the parking brake. Airbus claimed it was impossible to do that. He offered to take the Airbus people and show them. Lol. They declined! If it ain’t Boeing, I ain’t going. Keep your electric planes.
Too much reliance on computers in aircraft.
Exactly
Monitor the flight instruments and when the automation does not give the desired results fly manually.
What a pity they didn’t just do a go-around.
Excellent video.
The fault should lie on the check captain. He was doing the monitoring . Also Captain Fernandez wanted to do a go around-I think the outcome would have been better
There are no shortcuts to have a safe landing.
Never felt totally comfortable to rely on a fly-by-wire system, unless there is a back-up system. It seems that we humans are more and more trusting AI. Thereby turning over our human instinct and independence to electronic and computer devises in all forms of transport, witch can have devastating consequences, whether in the air or on the ground.
Was there ILS at the airport to see they were below glide slope? Even so, if it was a VFR approach, the glide slope lights (VASI in US) would be all red showing a major problem. Why so much dependence on trying to fly a computer by dialing settings?
That's exactly what I thought, Bob. Don't all pilots look at those lights before landing just in case? I mean, that's why they have them, right? For redundancy purpose?
@@BillGreenAZ I don't know what ATP's look at. I looked at those things in small single engine aircraft years ago. I heard of a crash on approach at SFO where the plane was below the glide slope in good weather and nobody corrected it. Apparently, the auto-pilot had a problem with the ILS that day. Seems inexcusable to those of us who only ever hand flew planes.
A low experience pilot, on this aircraft type, training another low experience pilot! SMH
If the pilots had actually flown the plane instead of using autopilot/autothrottle they may not have crashed?
Hi. Great channel. I like the closed caption rather than narration. Thanks. Also I already support a couple other channels. I think Patreon should allow anytime donations rather than enrolling folks in another pay every month plan. I won't use them. I only donate when I can choose the amount and when. Anyway, thanks for the very informative channel.
This aircraft has made thousands of successful flights since its introduction, but as soon as an accident occurs the airlines want to blame the design instead of their pilots. In this particular incident, it was obvious that neither pilot had sufficient hours on the aircraft. An aircraft cannot possibly account for what’s going on in a pilot’s head 100% of the time.
The computer systems that link all sorts of actions and reactions of the flight controls are a key to a number of these post crash analyses. Pilots in many cases are overwhelmed, without knowing it, by choices made by computers that are the key link in the accident chain.
Heartbreaker , any way around...
Good job Allec. Thx.
Ergonomics.
Get it right, or people die.
They would need a Second Officer in the jump-seat with this experience.
In what alternative universe is it a good Idea to have a computer override the Pilots?
Every current fighter or bomber, as the planes try to avoid he pilot’s occasional proclivity to exceed the capabilities of the aircraft and destroy it. Most could not be controllable without computer control.
In this case, it was a pilot entering incorrect data into a computer. And said pilot failing in monitoring his AS indicator.
@@thefreedomguyuk That was my take: the plane performed as designed, but the ‘garbage in/garbage out’ applied.
@@thefreedomguyuk My whole point is who is flying the Plane. The Computer or the Pilot? I feel the line should be clear as to who has final authority over control of the plane. I trust the pilot's ability and experience over a Computer that can't take into account real world factors. Computers see in black and white. If it makes a mistake it will carry that mistake into the ground.Pilots can adapt to real world emergency's. The real problem I have with fly by wire ,is it takes away time pilots could actually Fly the plane. Get the feel of flying the Aircraft . You can't teach real world flying in a simulator. Like I said most pilots are Damn good at what they do, I trust and respect them. Also how many times have you heard of a Auto pilot saving a plane as opposed a pilot saving a plane
@@mred8002 You misunderstand my point. I think a computer working those duties on a aircraft are invaluable, But when you boil it down to the basic duties of the computer ,it's only giving the pilots warnings. That is great. But taking control away from pilots is insane. Computers can't think on their own. they can't tell if they are making a mistake and correct it . Take the peto tubes. if they get blocked, Pilots can kiss their ass goodbye.. unless you have a good pilot that acts fast and can fly without instruments.
I just subscribed. Good video!
Another informative video! Thank you! May those on that flight rest in peace.
Please show us the different knobs you are referring to.
Hey I really like your videos! Just an idea for what it's worth, it would be great if these were narrated. Not sure how many other people do this, but usually when I warch YT, it's when I'm doing other things around the house. Like having the tv on. So I don't really watch the videos without narration, because with those you have to always be looking at the screen. Just a thought and keep up the good work!
Similar to Air Inter Flight 148.
Weird exposion 5:26
ROAR! 5:24
I do not care for the Airbus type aircraft,
I’ve been in the business over 40 years,
Too glitchy. To bad 😢
Very interesting. On a new design of aircraft, how could the supervising pilot have accumulated many hours? I believe the Airbus design corrections implicate them!
As soon as I saw t he title Bad Design, I knew their was an Airbus involved
You must be psychic, I can tell you more design flaws from Boeing than from Airbus.
@@steffen4083 let’s hear it other than the Max issues…..
That's right, I still remember how they screwed up with the MCAS--oh wait...
@@piotrstrzyzowski3336 Still waiting
@@saganich74 737 rudder issues during the 90s, several crashes, killing lots of people.
Why do you call this "bad design" every plane from a Cessna 172 to Boeing 777 behave this way. Airspeed controlled by the elevator. Pilots need to know how to operate the airplane they're on.. If not, you get this.
The captain and first officer had only 310 combined hours on the plane?
AND the captain couldn't properly descend?
That's a recipe for disaster.
RIP to the 92 people on board.
Two relatively inexperienced-in-type pilots paired together, with one having the added stress of getting a checkride. Not good planning.
Hola. Este accidente es una demostración de un desconocimiento total del sistema de controles de Airbus y una falta de profesionalidad al no respetar los procedimientos estándar de operación. En primer lugar, si estaban muy alto se considera aproximación no estabilizada y es mandatorio ejecutar el go-around, de haberlo hecho no habría habido accidente. En segundo lugar, cuando se hace una aproximación visual, al alcanzar el MDA o antes, si tiene la pista a la vista, se desconecta el autopiloto, AMBOS directores de vuelo y se selecciona el track de la pista y no se toca nada más en el FCU para evitar errores y caer en modos no apropiados. Por otra parte, ninguno de los dos pilotos identificó en el FMA el modo en que habían puesto el avión y por eso no podían tomar una decisión acertada. Por eso, y otras cosas más, no se puede culpar al avión y si a la administración de la aerolínea por tan pobre plan de entrenamiento y por nombrar un piloto como supervisor con tan poca experiencia
Two pilots created errors and the magical fly-by-wire system couldn't save them from themselves. It was the reason Airbus went with the fly-by-wire system to eliminate pilot monkey business.
Once again, Airbus design flaws kill more people. Never ends.
Whats disgusting about this crash is how so many people died from this, there could've been a lot more survivors if the firefighters had responded early
Airbus called it pilot error what in their view may be right.
I would prefer to call it over automation a danger late Waren van den Berg warned us about in the ninetees
Hi allec! Which flight simulator do you use?
Can you make videos on indian airlines 113 and alliance air 7412
gimme a Boeing....
So many of these crashes seem to be caused by the Pilot Monitoring failing to properly do the 'monitoring' part of their job.
can someone explain what did flight director have to do with this?
Had both FDs been turned off, the onboard computer would've automatically add power. They were descending on Open Descent which is a thrust mode (the computer keeps the engine thrust at set level and the pilots govern the speed by raising or lowering the nose). Switching both FDs off would've engaged the speed mode (the speed is kept at the set level, which was at the time set at 132 knots - the sink rate would've lowered significantly and the pilots would've got more time to react and escape the trouble).
It WAS pilot error...
READ YOUR FMA!!!!!!!!
on a people-mover conveyor belt somewhere near a terminal...
Bad Design | Indian Airlines Flight 605
Bad Design | Indian Airlines Flight 605
Without watching yet the entirety of the video, the first thing that struck me is how is this pilot being assessed, when the examiner has only 250 hours on this type. I am assuming he is being tested on his proficiency as a captain on a A320.
Never ahead of their aircraft i.e. discussion about a missed approach procedure should have been discussed in the Approach briefing prior to TOPD. Very poor airmanship all round.
Bad design? It’s an Airbus, what do you expect? Do you expect some kind of warning if the aircraft goes int open descent mode?
Yes, better fly with Boeing 737 Max, it is not giving you any warning despite pilot did nothing wrong.
pilots need to just fly the jet. nothing prevented them from looking out side, determining energy state, and flying pitch & power setting.s
Yet another hull loss and many deaths involving an Indian (or Pakistani) airline. There have been so many that I have lost count. Don't fly with them unless you have made a will, or travel by horse instead, it will be much safer.
Unfortunately it's western countries like US who had more air disasters than any other countries in the world. So forget Indo Pak airlines, you should definitely make a will while flying with those airlines.
Or buying a horse would do
Airbus automation killing people for the several dozenth time. Oh, my airplane went into a different mode, so let's crash.
I'm with the icpa on this one. If it was from pilot error, it was a result of improper training by Airbus, from whom all Airbus training flows. Bottom line.
Fore😮
Perhaps too much automation...know turning etc!!!...les about hand flying!!!...sad
Was Airbus sued for the error playing the blame game
Pro tip: If the names of the pilots are given at the start of the video, they're dead men.
❤️💯
What about Indian airlines 814 hijack in 1999 to 2000
Yeah, rules and regulations are writen in blood, unfortunately for us. Not a pilot but energy man. Typo.
😢 They should've done the go around. That's it...blame the pilots. 🤬 Obviously, pilots weren't trained on this type of plane enough & there was something severely wrong with the computer design. It always takes hundreds of innocent lives until the airline industries correct it. 😤
👍
Design flaws. Not pilots error
I hope Qatar airways wins its lawsuit against Airbus
For the first time I don't like the video's title and treatment of the case. I think it is biased, and unlike we always see, following the conclusion of the investigation, it ends up with the union making the same claim they always do. In this case with a very, very long shot...
They trainee Captain failed to stick with his decision to go round, the other one failed to monitor (if not effed it up himself by turning the wrong knob, lets give him the bennefit of the doubt), but you DO NOT land a plane in idle engine! I'm a civil aviator and even I know this! And it is clear they where not aware of the airspeed at all.
Airbus have not changed the A320 design at all after this crash, the altitude knobs are in the same place. and it's been more than 30 years. And it is the best selling commercial plane ever.
But yet you chose to blame the plane? Because of the pilots union report? Please...
Was the aircraft repaired and returned to service?
😂
Are you kidding? Didn't you read, and look at the pictures?
@@donnabaardsen5372 Aw, it was just scratched up a bit. Some duct tape and crazy glue, and you're back in business.
You're joking, right?
@@donnabaardsen5372 they can do wonders with bondo these days
Terrible accident even worse was the lack of spacial awareness. 136 feet above the ground?! That's when you finally notice? And why did the aircraft NOT make them aware? Good title. Bad design. Sad. Rip.
That's what happens when you are flying a plane that is smarter than you. Attention to detail.
It’s called scare buss for good reason.
Capt. Sullenberger flew a A320 when landing on the Hudson after bird strike, he probably would not say that.
The A320 family has one of the best safety records in the business.
I’d rather fly boeing…the old good ones that is
2 seconds, gee whiz!!!
Captain1: So how many hours you got on this "uncrashable" plane?
Captain2: 60
Captain 1: Oh so not that many, I've got 260hrs!
Captain 2: Lets crash this bitch!!
So many safety features built in and so few actual pilots who know how a plane works and that can fly them. I mean seriously! Why we feel the need to live like Buck Rogers in the 21st century like one day we'll actually live on Mars is retarded to say the least. I love automation but when it comes to flying I like flying the plane too!!
I am not a fan of Airbus, AT ALL.....this Inspite of the troubles Boeings been going through I hope they all get their $#&@ together one day soon!
As always capitalism blame some final users, not his bad made but expensive and profit creature
The fly-by-wire system just complicates the fact that turbines can't spool up instantaneously - there's always some delay. Honestly, though, if a 0.5s delay is going to cause you to crash, I daresay you've already f'd up pretty badly.
Well done, thank you. So frustrating to hear, yet again, how reliance on technology killed so many. 2 pilots get to a point that they don't feel the need to monitor their own air speed short final???? Uuuugh. Simple solution is come up with audible notifications anytime the system changes something/modes - "OPEN DESCENT MODE". Wow, how complicated would that be??? They expect each pilot to verbally confirm all changes - why not the computer? Anyhow, sad - blue skies everyone.