Keep in mind it was an average flight crew that did such a great job getting that crippled DC-10 into Sioux City Iowa several years ago.
Captain Al Haynes was also coincidentally about 57 years old, just like Captain CB "Sully" Sullenberger. This Sioux City accident also had an additional DC-10 pilot/flight instructor in the cockpit, adding to the amount of experience in the cockpit.
I think that perhaps having a medium length of time for the incident may have allowed greater focus. Less chance that stray thoughts get in the way and the adrenaline is up as high as it can go.
Actually from the stories Captain Al Haynes tells and the NTSB writeups that crew performed a minor miracle keeping their wounded bird in the air. They were flying along minding their own business when BAM! - they get a big jolt followed by indications of engine problems and flight control problems. They fought a several minute battle where things kept going from bad to worse after which they had to relearn to fly using only the throttles!! I am willing to bet their adrenaline levels were right up there - but yeah after the initial crisis they had some time to think. Personally I think that crew pulled off a much harder set of miracles since the A320 only lost engines (not flight controls).
Airbus flight control laws still prevent the pilot from intentionally performing radical maneuvers (like large bank angles or approaching a stall). They have hard limits that the pilot cannot fly through. Those limits do not seem to have had any impact (positive or negative) on this incident.
Usually, they're to protect the airframe from undue stress, right?
Thats one of the arguments but not really a good one - there are lots of things that an airplane can do that are low/no stress that the Airbus primary flight control laws don't allow. My favorite example is a 1G roll. No stress on the airframe at all - heck done correctly the airplane never really knows it is upside down
. Another one is stalling - no real airframe stress.
It really is a philosophy thing that ties into cultural tendencies and who should have the final say. If you assume the pilots are good and know what they are doing you warn them where the limits are (and the warnings are usually loud/obvious) but let them choose to spill the drinks and maybe abuse the airframe a bit if they need to. Airplanes have impressive design margins so letting a good pilot push the envelope can be the difference between an incident and an accident.
On the other hand if you assume the crew is under trained (by comparison to say the typical US commercial crew) and a bit ham handed you let the flight controls protect the plane from the pilots. Of course that assumes that the engineers designing the thing have managed to figure out everything that can go wrong and design in the right response - yeah, that's going to happen.
I guess I'll fess up here too. I am an engineer and I work on avionics systems, including flight control systems once upon a time ago. The teams I have worked with have all been very good but I would rather put my faith in the pilots. If nothing else the guy in the front seat has the added incentive that he is usually the first to arrive wherever the airplane is going.
- Eric
Previous Topic
Index
