Aviation History being made 19 March 2007

Monday has two Airbus A380's landing in the US. An Airbus A380 is planned to touch down on the northern most runway at 9:30 AM local time at LAX and and another one is planned to touch down at the same time in NY.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=2961043

http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release_html_b1?release_id=220938

http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/070227/0220938.html

I know that this is not an RV related post and the moderators may want to delete it. I checked to see if it went over the line and IMHO, it did not so am posting it. If I went over the line, delete and send me a message that it was not a post that should have been made here.
 
Gary:
This didn't go over the line. See thread title "Terry Lutz...".
RV8 builder, former airforce test pilot, former NWA pilot and now test pilot for Airbus will make the first landing on US soil. Terry has done comprehensive flight tests on several RVs in Michigan prior to his assignment in France. I imagine having your initial flight data signed off by this guy was a pretty good feeling.
Terry
 
American for me

Sorry to rain on their parade guys, but the French can keep their airplanes for several good reasons. The major one being how poorly they compare to Boeing or Lockheed.

Regards,
 
Sorry Pierre, just trying to shine the spotlight on one of our own. Didn't realize the plane makes the pilot.
Terry
Underpowered, nosegear, non-aerobatic, fixed pitch 9A with less than 20,000 in the logbook
 
Terry Lutz

I really admire Terry Lutz and I was in no way casting any aspersions on him...in fact, I'm envious of his accomplishments. It's about the French and the Airbus......I still feel like our airplanes are better and safer.

Regards,
 
I have to laugh

Aww we don't have one so we complain.....A little jealous are we?

I seem to remember Concord not being allowed to fly over the US for several very good reasons I'm sure...NOT!

In this case however you may very well be right, the A380 could well end up being a very large white elephant due to production delays more than anything.

My chest still expands with pride though when I sit down on a 747 with Rolls Royce RB211 stickers on the engine cowls...:)

Frank the Brit...:)
 
Bummer - FlightAware.com does not show any flights originating in europe arriving at LAX around the 9:30 local time of arrival for the west coast flight. I was hoping to catch the west coast arrival on the scanner.
 
Here is from an AP writer:

"Lufthansa chief pilot Juergen Raps, who has flown the A380 before, said that despite the superjumbo jet's size, it was nimble and responsive."

Wow, without that bit of reporting, I would have assumed it was his first flight. :p
 
A tribute

Thats a nice tribute to Nancy Lynn if that is why Terry named his RV8. I was sad to see her go.
 
I saw that full deflection rudder action at the LAX landing also (on TV). Looked like my rudder all the time <g>.

b,d


OldAndBold said:
Lots of rudder action just before and during touchdown at LAX.

JCB
Click to expand...
 
I flew into LA this morning and landed just a few minutes ahead of the A380, we watched the landing while taxiing to the gate. The ground wind was relatively calm, only a few knots, but there was a little shear at about 500 feet or so, I remember our SWA 737 kicking back and forth a fair bit on short final, that was maybe 7 or 8 minutes ahead of the A380.
 
RV7Aflyer said:
...but I have never booked a flight and then refused to board because the aircraft designated for the flight was an Airbus.

....PS: I believe the A380 is equipped with Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engines developed by Rolls-Royce which was a partnership between General Electric and Pratt & Whitney known as Engine Alliance.
Click to expand...


Funny little piece of irony here. About five years ago, my wife and I traveled through Russia on an adoption journey. We flew Delta into Moscow on a good old Boeing 767.....aaarrrggghhhh!!! ( Tim Allen grunt). We had booked on Aeroflot to continue to our destination, and the ONLY reason we did that was because Aeroflot had recently introduced the Airbus 310 into their fleet!....A WESTERN AIRPLANE!!!!. There was a mechanical delay at the local terminal ( if you can call it that...) with the Airbus, and there was some talk about switching aircraft to one of their jet age( 50's I think) IL-62s! I had heard horror stories about these planes, but didn't know if they were true or not. ...didn't particularly want to find out over a nine hour journey either.

Well, they finally fixed the Bus, and off we went across Siberia in this beautiful WESTERN airplane!! Since I was an American airline pilot currently flying the A-320, I got to go up to visit Igor and Vasily about half way through the flight...somewhere over Southern Siberia. The instrumentation was familiar as well as the Jepps Hi Altitude charts of Central Russia ( in English to boot!). There was a certain comfort in being surrounded by some good ol' Western technology. It's all relative folks....

Flew the Bus for seven years, and loved it..and no it didn't fly me...I flew it! It IS possible to turn off all the automation and hand fly the airplane!. The rest of the time at my airline has been all Boeing and I've loved every single minute of it! The 767/757 fleet are now the antiques of the "glass" generation, but the stuff that Boeing is now cranking out is simply amazing! I can't believe they put a yoke in the 787 though! That side stick in the newer Airbus models is something you get real spoiled on really quick!!!

The A-380, as well as the 320/19/18 at least, is comprised of a lot of American made parts; after all , it IS a consortium! Oh well....this A-380 will either make Airbus or it will be their death! Seems Boeing was in a similar state of affairs when they were rolling the 747 back in the early 70's. ..That was sink or swim too!

Personally, I'm glad Boeing finally heeded their wakeup call, because I do truly believe in this homegrown American company which has it's roots that date all the way back to the early airmail days. ....as does my airline, which incidently was originally comprised of many smaller carriers...one of which was Boeing Air Transport.
 
Airbus can be flown manually....

After seeing that Airbus "autoland" into the trees at Paris, I have avoided them at all costs. Since I fly Delta when I go commercial, it is not a problem. Now you say the airplane can be flown by hand, that does make me feel better.

My first CATIII ride into LAX was on a Delta flight aboard a Lockheed L-1011. The last one I can recall was on a Delta flight to Boston on a Boeing 767. Both of the landings were uneventful. The LAX arrival was on a foggy morning with no view of the terminal building from the runways. The fog was so thick, an escort truck with big flashing yellow lights was sent to the runway to lead the airplane to the gate.

I too, feel good in Boeing airplanes when the RV-9A is not practical to get to my destination.

Jerry K. Thorne
RV-9A N2PZ
 
Rejected a flight on an Airbus...

First of all, congratulations to Terry Lutz. Hope he gives us some comments about the flight.

. . .

( deleted comments unrelated to the thread 3/21/07 )

JCB
 
Last edited:
Using the Rudder on the Airbus

I'm a Boeing man.

Fact: the A380 wings failed below design limits during testing. Has that been corrected?

Fact: the Vertical Stab failed on an American A300 killing hundreds of people.
The NTSB blamed the copilot for using the rudder too much! Yikes! From that investigation I learned that there is no maneuvering speed for an Airbus. What??? The rudder is not a primary flight control! Really???

Unbelievable! It's Boeing or I'm not going!
 
Not quite

Danny King said:
Fact: the Vertical Stab failed on an American A300 killing hundreds of people.
The NTSB blamed the copilot for using the rudder too much! Yikes! From that investigation I learned that there is no maneuvering speed for an Airbus. What??? The rudder is not a primary flight control! Really???
Click to expand...
There is a manuevering speed on the A300; however, full deflection apparently means something a bit different to Airbus since it excludes movement from full deflection in one direction to full deflection the other direction. Of course, they didn't tell the pilots this until after the accident, and it still seems like a pretty poor design practice.

The full report is here.

I won't get on an A300 or A310 (same vertical stab). I always check my flights before since I fly American frequently and they have a few of them. Not sure I would get on an A380 till its got a few hours on it either.
 
Sorry to rain on their parade guys, but the French can keep their airplanes for several good reasons. The major one being how poorly they compare to Boeing or Lockheed.

Regards,
__________________
Pierre Smith



Yep couldn't agree more.
__________________
Milt



It's about the French and the Airbus......I still feel like our airplanes are better and safer.

Regards,
__________________
Pierre Smith



After seeing that Airbus "autoland" into the trees at Paris, I have avoided them at all costs. Since I fly Delta when I go commercial, it is not a problem. .

I too, feel good in Boeing airplanes when the RV-9A is not practical to get to my destination.

Jerry K. Thorne




Well, I stopped to think about this. They were going to open up the controller and monkey with the innards and then we were all going to fly off in the darkness and rain out of a crowded airport. Without a test flight before carrying passengers. With me, my wife and my brand new daughter aboard.

As far as I was (am still) concerned tampering with the sidestick controller on a fly by wire airplane IS a major repair based on my experience as someone who designs and codes avionics software. I politely and discretely expressed my concerns to the captain. He pooh poohed them and sent me back to my seat. I sat down and looked at my new family members and told them to get up and leave the airplane. Boy oh boy was that captain pissed off when I walked off his airplane. I tried to diplomatically express my concerns but he just talked over me and wouldn't listen.

I'm a Boeing man.




Fact: the A380 wings failed below design limits during testing. Has that been corrected?

Fact: the Vertical Stab failed on an American A300 killing hundreds of people.
The NTSB blamed the copilot for using the rudder too much! Yikes! From that investigation I learned that there is no maneuvering speed for an Airbus. What??? The rudder is not a primary flight control! Really???

Unbelievable! It's Boeing or I'm not going!
__________________
Danny King

You Airbus experts are scaring me. I been flying the Airbus for the last 7 years and I never realized how unsafe it is. Guess I'll dust off the ol' resume and look for a Boeing job...
 
Landing an Airbus is just like landing an A model RV on a grass strip. If the pilot is proficient and does what he/she is supposed to do, all will go well. :D

Sorry, couldn't resist... :p
 
n2prise said:
After seeing that Airbus "autoland" into the trees at Paris, I have avoided them at all costs. Since I fly Delta when I go commercial, it is not a problem. Now you say the airplane can be flown by hand, that does make me feel better.
Click to expand...
I assume you are talking about the accident at Mulhouse-Habsheim where the pilot was doing a fly past at an airshow with a full load of people? He flew down the runway, with the engines at idle descending to below the tops of the trees, with the angle of attack at the max allowable, which is just before the stall. He eventually realized he was below the tops of the trees, and tried to pull up. The flight control system did not allow the angle of attack to increase, or the aircraft would have stalled. He advanced the thrust levers to max, but hit the trees five seconds later while the engines were still accelerating. Three people died. 133 people survived.

If he had tried the exact same manoeuvre in a Boeing aircraft, he would have been allowed to stall the aircraft, one wing would have dropped at the stall, and likely more people would have died.

Mind you, there is an argument that he was lulled into a false sense of complacency by the presence of the angle of attack limit, and that no airline pilot would have been crazy enough to attempt the same manoeuvre on an aircraft that did not have an angle of attack limit. I have a hard time blaming this accident on the aircraft. It was caused by a pilot whose ego dug a hole that he couldn't fly out of.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for posting this Kevin ...

Kevin Horton said:
I assume you are talking about the accident at Mulhouse-Habsheim where the pilot was doing a fly past at an airshow with a full load of people? He flew down the runway, with the engines at idle descending to below the tops of the trees, with the angle of attack at the max allowable, which is just before the stall. He eventually realized he was below the tops of the trees, and tried to pull up. The flight control system did not allow the angle of attack to increase, or the aircraft would have stalled. He advanced the thrust levers to max, but hit the trees five seconds later while the engines were still accelerating. Three people died. 133 people survived.

If he had tried the exact same manoeuvre in a Boeing aircraft, he would have been allowed to stall the aircraft, one wing would have dropped at the stall, and likely more people would have died.

Mind you, there is an argument that he was lulled into a false sense of complacency by the presence of the angle of attack limit, and that no airline pilot would have been crazy enough to attempt the same manoeuvre on an aircraft that did not have an angle of attack limit. I have a hard time blaming this accident on the aircraft. It was caused by a pilot whose ego dug a hole that he couldn't fly out of.
Click to expand...
I was "across the pond" when this happened.

If you view the video and listen closely, I think you can hear the engines trying to spool up WAY TOO LATE. Also you will see that that plane was going so slow that you would have thought it was going to fall out of the sky any minute. It was an impressive maneuver that was taken WAY TOO FAR, given that it should have been attempted AT ALL. Cannot blame the plane or its country of origin for that.
 
Airliner Accident Rates

This is the best link I could find for accident rates by aircraft. Unfortunately its a few years old. The A300/310 are not real good, but the newer Airbus aircraft with enough time to have some statistical basis are fine.

On the other hand, the 737 is by far the lowest of the really old aircraft (first flight 1967!). Also, the rudder damper failure mode on the 737 was never actually identified. It was redesigned because it was the only item they could think of that could cause the uncommanded yaw.

And of course, congratulations Terry, but more for building a beautiful looking RV than flying an A380!
 
...

Guys,

I'm a little bit surprised on the discussion regarding the A380.

I truly declared that the RV are the best homebuilt aircraft and, in any case, I believe that, for example, the first flight of the RV12, besides any future success or insucess of the model, is an accomplishment. Full stop.

Be fair, guys and just for the first flight of the A380 in US. just say that is a great accomplishment, even if it is not made in US.

Other comments, just the first day when this aircraft arrived, seems more dictated by envy than anything else.

Hope my message is not misunderstood,
Ciao
Luigi (like the car in Cars, as any American say when meets me :D )
 
Didn't realize the extent of aeronautical engineering expertise this thread would evoke. From a personal standpoint, I never get in a plane that I'm not in command of unless the pilot:

Has a commercial license - ATP preferred.
Is instrument rated and has current competency.
Has at least 2000 hours of flight time.
Has logged at least 200 hours over the past 12 months.
Has at least a second class physical with no restrictions.
Does not require corrective glasses.
Exhibits no outward signs of mental illness.

Most importantly, when I see the word "EXPERIMENTAL", my motto is:
IF IT WASN'T BUILT BY A PRO, I DON'T GO!

If the FAA and EAA were to adopt these as standards, I'm certain we would have far fewer "accidents".
Terry
 
Well said

RV7Aflyer said:
I find it even more interesting to see that only a few folks offered their congratulations to Terry, an RV8 builder, somebody we should all be able to relate to and identify with, for a job well done.
Over and Out
Click to expand...

Well said Dave Pohl....surely that is the point of this whole thread.....It must have been a very proud moment for Terry as he made History....Terry is obviously a very talented individual.

All aircarft from all parts of the world require development and testing to prove their fitness for service - unfortunately sometimes this does not reveal unforeseen faults (and cannot reveal bad practices or decisions by companies or employees )

I fly commercially on US and non US a/c and place my trust in the Professionals who maintain and operate them. ( What scares me is the amateur who is building my a/c - :eek: - although I am trying to do the best I can and expect the professional who will sign it off to check my amateur work. )

Personally I don't think that parochial opinions and attitudes appear in a good light on these threads and am saddened to see them.

To give an example from my homeland the UK CAA will not allow a PPL holder with a US Instrument Rating to use it to fly a UK registered a/c - they obviously don't think all you US IR pilots are as safe - a disgraceful attitude that they should be ashamed to have.

From a purely aesthetic point of view the A380 is an ugly a/c - on par with the Boeing LCA.........sorry I let my opinion slip in :rolleyes:

Back to the point......Congratulations Terry :D :D :D :D :D
 
I got a message on my phone (from an airline pilot buddy who has flown with me in the RV and has the bug) right after the plane landed saying ... "I just saw the A380 land ans that is one BIG .....!"

And I replied ..."Yup and he is an RV8 pilot as well!" Felt good.

Congrats Terry.


James
 
terrykohler said:
From a personal standpoint, I never get in a plane that I'm not in command of unless the pilot:

Has a commercial license - ATP preferred.
Is instrument rated and has current competency.
Has at least 2000 hours of flight time.
Has logged at least 200 hours over the past 12 months.
Has at least a second class physical with no restrictions.
Does not require corrective glasses.
Exhibits no outward signs of mental illness.

If the FAA and EAA were to adopt these as standards, I'm certain we would have far fewer "accidents".
Click to expand...

No corrective lenses huh? Seriously? So, with personal standards like that I'm guessing you never set foot in an airliner... lots of airline pilots wear corrective lenses, nothing wrong with that. Plus, you mention the FAA/EAA adopting your list as standards... standards for what? That particular statement makes no sense at all.

Just an opinion from a corrective lense wearing, 16000 hr ATP/B737 type rated airline pilot.
 
Last edited:
Oh well...

Gosh, Terry. I guess I can't ever take you up in my -6 as a passenger. I literally do not meet one of your criteria - even the last one ;^)

b,
dr


terrykohler said:
snip....I never get in a plane that I'm not in command of unless the pilot:

Has a commercial license - ATP preferred.
Is instrument rated and has current competency.
Has at least 2000 hours of flight time.
Has logged at least 200 hours over the past 12 months.
Has at least a second class physical with no restrictions.
Does not require corrective glasses.
Exhibits no outward signs of mental illness.

....snip
Click to expand...
 
terrykohler said:
Didn't realize the extent of aeronautical engineering expertise this thread would evoke. From a personal standpoint, I never get in a plane that I'm not in command of unless the pilot:

Has a commercial license - ATP preferred.
Is instrument rated and has current competency.
Has at least 2000 hours of flight time.
Has logged at least 200 hours over the past 12 months.
Has at least a second class physical with no restrictions.
Does not require corrective glasses.
Exhibits no outward signs of mental illness.

Most importantly, when I see the word "EXPERIMENTAL", my motto is:
IF IT WASN'T BUILT BY A PRO, I DON'T GO!

If the FAA and EAA were to adopt these as standards, I'm certain we would have far fewer "accidents".
Terry
Click to expand...


Good night! Of course there would be fewer accidents... because there would hardly be anybody that flew anymore! Just about every one of us who fly for fun would never be able to take a passenger if they had the same standards. Great Scott... I am going to take my PPL non-inst. lisenced self with less than 2000 hours total time and 3rd class medical and go flying... as soon as I can find my glasses... I know I put them down here somewhere!
 
terrykohler said:
Does not require corrective glasses.
Click to expand...
Gosh, I bet Terry Lutz is glad that Airbus's pilot standards are lower than yours (see the pics in the first message).
 
n2prise said:
After seeing that Airbus "autoland" into the trees at Paris, I have avoided them at all costs.
Click to expand...


Okay...I'm really not trying to defend Airbus or to try and prove them better than Boeing. Far from it! I would much rather fly a Boeing product simply because I do believe in them and want very much to support an American product. The fact is that Boeing, for a long time had their head up their a$$es, assuming no one could touch them competitvely. The American car makers made the same mistake back in the 80's and lost a huge edge to the Japanese manufacturers. Same thing happened here with Boeing in letting Airbus get a foothold in the US.

Well, now Boeing has come back around and come up with good solid designs to take us into the next decade or two, and Airbus is going through a major upheaval in their management of their business. We'll see how it all shakes out, but I'm cheering for Boeing!

That being said....... some information that non Airbus pilots would likely never know about.... The Airbus 320 family has something in their flight control system called Alpha Floor. This is part of the flight control system when engaged in what's called "Normal Law". This is where normal passenger flight operations take place day in and day out. It is designed to keep pilots ( okay..third world pilots ) safe by designing certain safety parameters that will essentially "take over" if you fall outside of those predetermined safety zones.

Alpha Floor is the bottom end of the stall safety zone, and when reached, will give maximum thrust and pitch the aircraft up slightly to "fly" out of the impending stall. The test pilots in the above mentioned accident were attempting to demonstrate Alpha Floor to the airshow crowd. While flying down the flightline, the pilots waited for Alpha Floor to kick in and fly them out of danger. When the test pilots saw that it wasn't going to happen, they then manually pushed throttles to the firewall, but were too late. Jet engines take a while to spool up and there simply wasn't enough time to recover before hitting the trees.

Part of the Alpha Floor design incorporates a disengage altitude of the system, so you can physically get the airplane on the ground. I forget exactly what that altitude is(100-200' maybe), but those guys were inadvertantly below that altitude as they flew down the runway. There was no way Alpha Floor was going to kick in because it was deactivated by their low altitude.
If it wasn't for that particular design characteristic, every time you tried to land the aircraft, it would go into Alpha Floor and initate a go-around.

Had those guys been at or above the predetermined activation altitude, the airplane would have performed as the test pilots were hoping it would. I hope that clears up a lot of misconception about that particular accident.

Now..back to the thread subject... congrats to Terry Lutz for his accomplishments. First for building the -8, then for getting an American aboard this aircraft!! Good job!!!
 
jartlip said:
Actually, they had the autothrust disconnected to slow below Vapp. No autothrust, no alpha floor.
Click to expand...
And, to cover guys who inadvertently go to high angle of attack with autothrust disconnected, the system is designed to automatically reengage the autothrust when alpha floor is needed. But, in this accident, when the alpha floor triggered, the pilot then disconnected the autothrust again and pulled the thrust lever back to idle.

jdmunzell said:
The test pilots in the above mentioned accident were attempting to demonstrate Alpha Floor to the airshow crowd.
Click to expand...
They weren't test pilots. They were Air France pilots. The Airbus test pilots understood how the system worked, so they would not have gone so low, nor would they have waited so late to advance the thrust.
 
CAUTION
If the pilot pushes and holds one instinctive disconnect pushbutton for more than 15 seconds, the A/THR
system is disconnected for the remainder of the flight. All A/THR functions including ALPHA FLOOR are lost,
and they can be recovered only at the next FMGC power-up (on ground).
 
Timing is everything.

jartlip said:
CAUTION
If the pilot pushes and holds one instinctive disconnect pushbutton for more than 15 seconds, the A/THR
system is disconnected for the remainder of the flight. All A/THR functions including ALPHA FLOOR are lost,
and they can be recovered only at the next FMGC power-up (on ground).
Click to expand...

" *click* One one thousand, two one thousand, three one thousand, four one thousand, five one thousand, six one thousand, seven one thousand, eight one thousand, nine one thousand, ten one thousand, eleven one thousand, twelve one thousand, thirteen one thousand, HEY! WHAT THE *** AM I DOING! AIIIGGGHHHHH!!!"

:D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.