s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,959 
|
A321neo
Feb 14, 2016 18:53:14 GMT 1
Post by s543 on Feb 14, 2016 18:53:14 GMT 1
I believe more probable is simple - incident....
|
|
|
|
Post by nicolele on Feb 16, 2016 9:44:41 GMT 1
|
|
burns
in Convoy en route to Toulouse
A321 NEO !!!
Posts: 82
|
A321neo
Feb 16, 2016 10:06:45 GMT 1
Post by burns on Feb 16, 2016 10:06:45 GMT 1
Doesn't an airbus have certain limits in which the pilots flys the plane? I mean angle of the plane for certain cruise speeds. If they exceed, the autopilot automatically turns on an accelerates, so they do not stall. Is such a system turned off during testing?
And isn't there a system, which knows the altitude of the plane and the angle of attack, so such a thing doesn't happen? If there is such a sytem, it is also turned off? For take off, there is such a system, so the longer 321 does noch tail strike, as far as I know.
|
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,959
|
Post by s543 on Feb 16, 2016 10:09:23 GMT 1
|
|
henge
Final Assembly Line stage 2
Posts: 346
|
Post by henge on Feb 16, 2016 10:34:29 GMT 1
Doesn't an airbus have certain limits in which the pilots flys the plane? For sure, in commercial aircraft the flight computer keeps it in some defined flight envelope. Especially something like an imminent tailstrike should be fairly easy to compute - it's just simple geometry. I can imagine two possible reasons for it to occur anyway: 1) It was one of the fist test flights with a new type - the system might well have been turned off on purpose, or even they might have been in the process of configuring it and adapting it to the new type. 2) A tailstrike might be considered as not so severe, that the system doesn't interfere too much. If as a result of flight-envelope-protection-interference something more severe would happen (stall, runway overrun, etc.), the manufacturer would become the target of major law suits. So settings might be more conservative. Anyway, we can just speculate because Airbus is not providing a too detailed report of what happened. But that's what we love, don't we?  |
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Feb 17, 2016 1:07:45 GMT 1
Well, AW reports that Bregier said 'we go beyond certified limits during testing'. It's pretty clear that the incident resulted from some risk deliberately taken for test purpose.
|
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Feb 17, 2016 1:22:41 GMT 1
Well, AW reports that Bregier said 'we go beyond certified limits during testing'. It's pretty clear that the incident resulted from some risk deliberately taken for test purpose. During testing is fine, but surely not this early in the testing process of a new derivative, it was only on its fourth flight ! |
|
henge
Final Assembly Line stage 2
Posts: 346
|
Post by henge on Feb 17, 2016 2:33:15 GMT 1
Well, AW reports that Bregier said 'we go beyond certified limits during testing'. It's pretty clear that the incident resulted from some risk deliberately taken for test purpose.I don't think that's clear at all. Both AW and FG realize that Bregier specifically didn't say anything definite about the incident. Sounds to me more like he would like people/media to believe that it was such a "beyond-limits"-flight-testing situation, but he cannot state it outright because it's just not true. Hence these vague hints... Aviation week: Flightglobal: |
|
|
|
Post by pa380scal on Feb 17, 2016 12:07:02 GMT 1
photo of the tailstrike:
|
|
|
|
Post by a380admirer on Mar 1, 2016 9:36:16 GMT 1
|
|
