Maggie's Farm

A friend in federal service sent this to me, I can't validate its accuracy but it sounds right to me.
You judge.

__________________

Subject: Fwd: Airbus Ditching in the Hudson: A very interesting read!!

This came via an old Army buddy of mine who was an NTSB Accident
Investigator. You saw him on TV when Kennedy Jr. dumped his plane in
the Atlantic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
A very interesting read!!

I received this from an associate. Interesting.

Hello all:

The press is having a field day turning "Sully" Sullenberger into a
Lindbergh-like hero. I attended his welcoming home reception in
Danville, CA last weekend... me and the estimated 3000 other attendees.
All credit is given to him and his crew, but they will be the first to
tell you, "they just did their jobs." They did them well, but when your
job entails holding the lives of hundreds of people in your hands every
time you fly, then doing your job well is the minimum acceptable
standard.

I don't, and I doubt if more than just a handful of other pilots,
begrudge Sully his day in the sun. What I am concerned about is how the
real cause of this accident is being glossed over and, on the part of
Airbus Industries, actually lied about.

There are stories circulating now about how the flight computers helped
"save" the aircraft by insuring the ditching was done properly. The
stories themselves are absolute nonsense and the contention that the
flight computers ensured the proper attitude was maintained for ditching
is pure fabrication.

So what's wrong with Airbus wanting to steal a little glory for their
computerized drones? There is a good chance it was the computers that
put the aircraft into the water!

I readily admit I heartily dislike Airbus because of their design
philosophy, I will never set foot in an A-380 (the superjumbo) as I
consider it a really bad accident looking for a place to happen. I am
not much happier with the rest of them but especially the A-320 which
has killed several folks, while the engineers try to perfect software
that can replace a human brain that has a talent for flying... something
that I, rather naturally, don't believe possible.

It is well known that I love Boeings. I love to fly them. Beyond the
sheer joy of just flying the Boeing, I also believe in their design
philosophy that the last word has to be with the pilot, not the machine.


No pilot, no matter how hard he tries, can turn an A-320 upside down.
It just won't do it. Airbus believes it has designed a computer that is
smarter than a pilot (the evidence of dead bodies scattered around
Mulhouse, France to the contrary) and gives the last word to the
computer. If a pilot moves the controls so as to turn the airplane
upside down, the computer will refuse.

I can turn the B777 upside down. Once I get it upside down, if I let go
of the controls, it will turn itself right-side up (smart airplane). I
don't believe I will ever be in a situation where I will need to turn
the airplane upside down, but I feel good knowing I have the control to
do it. That's why I'm not really kidding when I say: "if it ain't a
Boeing; I ain't going".

What follows is an e-mail from a retired US Air Pilot who has flown the
Airbus A320 just like the one that ended up in the Hudson. It was
written in response to a friend asking him if he knew the pilot who did
the ditching. It is most illuminating and worth the read...

Dear Chuck,

I don't know him. I've seen him in the crew room and around the system
but never met him. He was former PSA and I was former Piedmont and we
never had the occasion to fly together.

The dumb shit press just won't leave this alone. Most airliner
ditchings aren't very successful since they take place on the open ocean
with wind, rough seas, swells and rescue boats are hours or days away.
This one happened in fresh smooth water, landing with the current and
the rescue boats were there picking people up while they were still
climbing out of the airplane. It also happened on a cold winter day
when all the pleasure boats were parked. Had this happened in July it
would be pretty hard not to whack a couple of little boats. Sully did a
nice job but so would 95% of the other pilots in the industry. You
would have done a nice job.

Don't be surprised if the Airbus fly by wire computers didn't put a
perfectly good airplane in the water. In an older generation airplane
like the 727 or 737-300/400, the throttles are hooked to the fuel
controllers on the engine by a steel throttle cable just like a TBM or a
Comanche.

On the Airbus nothing in the cockpit is real. Everything is electronic.
The throttles, rudder and brake pedals and the side stick are hooked to
rheostats who talk to a computer who talks to a electric hydraulic servo
valve which in turn hopefully moves something.

In a older generation airplane when you hit birds the engines keep
screaming or they blow up but they don't both roll back to idle
simultaneously like happened to Flt. 1549. All it would take is for
bird guts to plug a pressure sensor or knock the pitot probe off or plug
it and the computers would roll the engines back to idle thinking they
were over boosting because the computers were getting bad data.

The Airbus is a real pile of shit. I don't like riding on them. Google
the Airbus A320 Crash at the Paris Airshow in 1998. Watch the video of
an airbus A320 crash into a forest because the computers wouldn't allow
a power increase following a low pass. The computers wouldn't allow a
power increase because they determined that the airspeed was too low for
the increase requested so the computers didn't give them any. Pushing
the throttles forward in a Airbus does nothing more than request a power
increase from the computer. If the computer doesn't like all the
airplane and engine parameters you don't get a power increase. Airbus
blamed the dead crew since they couldn't defend themselves.

A Boeing would still be flying.


------ End of Forwarded Message