How one confused pilot killed over 200 people..

[Spiffav8]

Originally Posted by James OLC

At approximately 2 am, the other co-pilot, David Robert, returns to the cockpit after a rest break. At 37, Robert is both older and more experienced than Bonin, with more than double his colleague's total flight hours. The head pilot gets up and gives him the left-hand seat. Despite the gap in seniority and experience, the captain leaves Bonin in charge of the controls

I read this as Bonin being "the flying pilot". That doesn't mean he was the "Pilot in Command". If it was his leg (or turn to fly) he would remain as the "flying pilot" until the end of the flight or until it was his turn to get some rest. Pretty much standard.

I do when I can Curtis but from time to time I have to fly on a Caribbean carrier who does tend to make me a little bit nervous.

Are you riding between JFK and POS with them? They seem to be decent and are now starting to run 737-800's. Awesome airplane that I really enjoy flying. The biggest challenge is flying into POS is at night in heavy rains due to poor visibility and their crews seem to have that down pretty well. Probably due to all those flights between POS and TAB (Crown Point) when they where commuter pilots. I'd fly with them....if that helps.

[James OLC]

Originally Posted by Spiffav8

Are you riding between JFK and POS with them? They seem to be decent and are now starting to run 737-800's. Awesome airplane that I really enjoy flying. The biggest challenge is flying into POS is at night in heavy rains due to poor visibility and their crews seem to have that down pretty well. Probably due to all those flights between POS and TAB (Crown Point) when they where commuter pilots. I'd fly with them....if that helps.

When I'm flying with "them" it's usually between YYZ and POS - occasionally from POS to BGI. Most of the time through I'm able to fly CA through IAH but with the weather changing in Calgary that connection is getting tighter and tighter so it may have to be YYZ, JFK or MIA in the future.

And yeah - the approach in to POS at night is tricky at the best of times - especially now in the rainy season. And yeah... your endorsement makes me feel a bit better.

[GregWeld]

I'm never flying again.

Where's the Red Barron?!?! Or Snoopy?

[Simmo]

Originally Posted by Spiffav8

That's a very good rant. Sadly it's true.

Lol don't get me started. I'm still driving a Q300 down here in NZ...nice to have cables and pulleys though . To fly a Jet down here would require signing up with one of "those" airlines right now, bad career call most probably but f it I have principles and I'll wait my turn to stick with decent T's & C's. The race to the bottom is alive and well in the Asia Pacific thats for sure.

Always wanted to do some lighty flying up your way...we'll get there one day!

[racin66coupe]

Just read that... that is scary as hell..

[MattG]

With over 13,000 hrs of flight time and over 4,000 in an airbus, this is one of the most outrageous events I have ever heard of in my profession. It makes me sad and angry to see such a terrible event unfold. Even the most basic airmanship could have prevented this event...not the planes fault, not Airbus' fault, just an extremely poor pilot doing everything wrong.

I have equal time in Boeing and Airbus, and I always compair them as Ford and Chevy. They both do the job equally as well, just with different approaches. I prefer Boeing and I prefer Chevy, because of senority, I fly an airbus (won't own a Ford..Ha)!

I can assure all of you that if you get on a mainline flight with any major airline in the U.S. that you will have highly experienced pilots that have earned the right year after year to get you where you need to go safely. The regionals are full of hightly competent grossly underpaind pilots that are safe as well. Sometimes a bad apple slips through the cracks, it happens in every profession, and unfortunately in aviation, it kills people as in this case.

Don't let this change how you feel about flying. Get on the plane, say thanks to the pilot when you get to your destination, and let's all go safely drive the crap out of our cars!

Matt

P.S. The laws designed in the airbus are to protect the state of the aircraft as much as possible. With a much more direct input while in Alternate Law(the first downgrade of flight controls), if both pilots were to get equal action on the controls, you could very easily over stress the aircraft and cause an even worse situation. Last but not least, there is a lockout that either pilot can use to completely take control of the aircraft and "Lockout" the other pilots ability to control the aircraft. The Airbus engineers are no dummies. In this case the pilots were 100% the cause of the accident.

[Sieg]

This was posted in on a thread I started on another forum:

I'm pretty sure the philosophy for Boeing is to always give the pilots full control, and this is maintained in fly by wire systems similar to mechanical systems.

The Airbus control philosophy is similar on all models after the A320. It looks like the flight crew finally recovered from the stall at around 2,000ft, however the envelop protection prevented them from exceeding a positive G limit set in alternate mode for the purpose of protecting the airframe structure from damage due to excessive loads. This is one of many fundamental flaws in the Airbus flight control laws. In a similar accident, a newly appointed Gulf Air A320 captain mishandled the airplane while executing a missed approach at night with similar results; a late recovery followed by envelop protection kicking in at low altitudes with a subsequent crash into the ocean. Very unfortunate for all involved.

[ProTouring442]

Originally Posted by Sieg

This was posted in on a thread I started on another forum:

I'm pretty sure the philosophy for Boeing is to always give the pilots full control, and this is maintained in fly by wire systems similar to mechanical systems.

The Airbus control philosophy is similar on all models after the A320. It looks like the flight crew finally recovered from the stall at around 2,000ft, however the envelop protection prevented them from exceeding a positive G limit set in alternate mode for the purpose of protecting the airframe structure from damage due to excessive loads. This is one of many fundamental flaws in the Airbus flight control laws. In a similar accident, a newly appointed Gulf Air A320 captain mishandled the airplane while executing a missed approach at night with similar results; a late recovery followed by envelop protection kicking in at low altitudes with a subsequent crash into the ocean. Very unfortunate for all involved.

If I understand the problem correctly (and I am in no way familiar with the real state of things) the Airbus system lacks two features that could have saved this aircraft:

1) The computer needs a way to recognize an "out of bounds" situation wherein it allows inputs and maneuvers that may otherwise damage the aircraft.

2) A big red button that gives full control of the aircraft to the pilot during immediately lethal situations (i.e. pulling out of a dive and exceeding maximum G forces).

Shiny Side Up!
Bill

[MattG]

Originally Posted by ProTouring442

If I understand the problem correctly (and I am in no way familiar with the real state of things) the Airbus system lacks two features that could have saved this aircraft:

1) The computer needs a way to recognize an "out of bounds" situation wherein it allows inputs and maneuvers that may otherwise damage the aircraft.

2) A big red button that gives full control of the aircraft to the pilot during immediately lethal situations (i.e. pulling out of a dive and exceeding maximum G forces).

Shiny Side Up!
Bill

The Airbus has both:

1. Direct Law
2. Lockout

Once again, there is nothing wrong with the design of the aircraft. The pilots had ALL of the control necessary to save the aircraft.

It may appear that they regained control of the aircraft at 2000ft, but they had not and it takes 2-5 thousand feet to recover a transport category aircraft from a full stall like they were in (depending on how high you are).

All I want everyone here to know is that Airbus is completely safe to fly. Training for this aircraft is completey up to date and they pilots were COMPLETELY at fault...they did nothing right.

[Spiffav8]

Originally Posted by MattG

The Airbus has both:

1. Direct Law
2. Lockout

Once again, there is nothing wrong with the design of the aircraft. The pilots had ALL of the control necessary to save the aircraft.

It may appear that they regained control of the aircraft at 2000ft, but they had not and it takes 2-5 thousand feet to recover a transport category aircraft from a full stall like they were in (depending on how high you are).

All I want everyone here to know is that Airbus is completely safe to fly. Training for this aircraft is completey up to date and they pilots were COMPLETELY at fault...they did nothing right.

I'd ride the Airbus any day. Heck I just took an A330 across the Pacific a few weeks ago. The head phone jack was broken in my seat so I couldn't watch any movies, but other than that the 15 hour trip was fine.