http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/pub...ep/nag-4-7.html

While the aircraft was making an ILS approach to Runway 34 of Nagoya Airport, under manual control by the F/O, the F/O inadvertently activated the GO lever, which changed the FD (Flight Director) to GO AROUND mode and caused a thrust increase. This made the aircraft deviate above its normal glide path.

The APs were subsequently engaged, with GO AROUND mode still engaged. Under these conditions the F/O continued pushing the control wheel in accordance with the CAP's instructions. As a result of this, the THS (Horizontal Stabilizer) moved to its full nose-up position and caused an abnormal out-of-trim situation.

The crew continued approach, unaware of the abnormal situation. The AOA increased the Alpha Floor function was activated and the pitch angle increased.
It is considered that, at this time, the CAP (who had now taken the controls), judged that landing would be difficult and opted for go-around. The aircraft began to climb steeply with a high pitch angle attitude. The CAP and the F/O did not carry out an effective recovery operation, and the aircraft stalled and crashed.

The AAIC determined that the following factors, as a chain or a combination thereof, caused the accident: 1. The F/O inadvertently triggered the Go lever

It is considered that the design of the GO lever contributed to it: normal operation of the thrust lever allows the possibility of an inadvertent triggering of the GO lever.

2. The crew engaged the APs while GO AROUND mode was still engaged, and continued approach.

3. The F/O continued pushing the control wheel in accordance with the CAP's instructions, despite its strong resistive force, in order to continue the approach.

4. The movement of the THS conflicted with that of the elevators, causing an abnormal out-of-trim situation.

5. There was no warning and recognition function to alert the crew directly and actively to the onset of the abnormal out-of-trim condition.

6. The CAP and F/O did not sufficiently understand the FD mode change and the AP override function.

It is considered that unclear descriptions of the AFS (Automatic Flight System) in the FCOM (Flight Crew Operating Manual) prepared by the aircraft manufacturer contributed to this.

7. The CAP's judgment of the flight situation while continuing approach was inadequate, control take-over was delayed, and appropriate actions were not taken.

4-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. The Alpha-Floor function was activated; this was incompatible with the abnormal out-of-trim situation, and generated a large pitch-up moment. This narrowed the range of selection for recovery operations and reduced the time allowance for such operations.

9. The CAP's and F/O's awareness of the flight conditions, after the PlC took over the controls and during their recovery operation, was inadequate respectively.

10. Crew coordination between the CAP and the F/O was inadequate.

11. The modification prescribed in Service Bulletin SB A300-22-602 1 had not been incorporated into the aircraft.

12. The aircraft manufacturer did not categorise the SB A300-22-6021 as "Mandatory", which would have given it the highest priority. The airworthiness authority of the nation of design and manufacture did not issue promptly an airworthiness directive pertaining to implementation of the above SB.

然後呢？

你貼的那段 到底是哪接文字敘述了軟體決定重飛???

依據你的假設，你算出來的會是起飛攻角.............那個用查的就好
你用的是min V，所以那時候的升力已經夠了....

這證明了.......給猴子看莎士比亞也不會提升猴子的語言能力


麻煩你說明你敘述的一大堆狗屁和你所謂的A380高攻角飛行有什麼關係

失控的飛機的解決方案會是一個需要極高度控制的飛行狀態？
你還不如說翹孤輪是避免新手撞車的解決方案算了

才在想說？！怪了∼a380可以在78區活這麼久，原來又開戰了…沒事∼繼續！

那應不是低速爬升，而是 Slow Flight。Slow Flight 主要是為了讓飛行員了解並善用油門（控制上升下降）以及善用操縱桿（往下推速度變快，往上拉速度變慢）。再進入 Slow Flight 臨界點後，除非引擎馬力大的不得了，否則油門推越大速度越慢（因為會往上升）。


不對。通常飛機做表演時都會展現此類慢速飛行，不管是哪一家製造廠。94 年華航空難也不是軟體和駕駛爭奪控制權。


基本上沒辦法。簡單來講，攻角是機翼與氣流之間的角度，仰角是機翼與地面水平的角度，但是妳無法判定氣流到底是怎麼吹的。所以，通常高攻角飛行通常為了顯示引擎很有力，在無法完善使用氣流的情況，光是引擎的推力就可以把飛機硬撐在天空上，並且還可以做一些有的沒的的動作。而低速爬升卻包含了機翼的高效率設計使得飛機能夠以更低速往上爬。


不對。就如 e 大所講，客機引擎近氣道不長，所以引擎不會在高攻角有特別的聲音。

跟你扯蛋是浪費時間,就這樣! :D

也沒見你把時間用在有意義的地方過.............

有時間去偷別人的圖，有時間來上網鬼扯瞎，你就應該要有時間去看書，而不是在鬼扯瞎

上面其他人質問你的問題快回答阿！還是你又要換帳號拉？

也差不多是該進入市場的時候囉
A380可是很被看好的耶

to ewings大:
嗯，step 1，確實是會讓人誤解為是在算起飛攻角，所以step 1是有問題的。(走路想到的，還是有漏洞滴... =.=a，高攻角的狀態，怎麼可以將阻力的分量忽略呢？ )
不過，基本的觀念卻還是可用，把step 1與step 2一起解就對了，如此就不會是在算起飛攻角。(仍然可求得一組攻角 vs 昇力係數圖)
當然，若能查到起飛攻角的資料，那對整個計算驗證過程是有利的，因為由起飛的資料計算，可知A380機翼最大的昇力係數是多少？而此值正可用來找出上述攻角 vs 昇力係數圖下合理的攻角值。

to 豬肉大:
小弟認同您的說法，沒有參考線，真的是很難知道其攻角是多少？但這討論的議題是HAOA飛行，所以小弟才會想有沒有辦法利用網路的資訊與一些合理的預估或假設，來估算影片中A380最大可能能達到的攻角是多少？如果經數據推估後A380在影片中的攻角最多不會超過某個角度範圍(例如:15度)，就能知道這是否是HAOA等速平飛，還是較大攻角的慢速爬升？
疑，對了AOA要超過多少才能稱之為HAOA？