Я тут пообщался с западными товарищами по поводу Airbus и возможных причин.

Товарищ по имени Airbusteacher сказал буквально следующее:

Pete: "Actually, the A319 is a fly by wire jet, similar to the F-16...and 777! Hydraulics-yes, but no cables/pulleys "

You're right, Pete. No hydraulics, no fly. The A320 series has three hydraulic systems (Green, Yellow, Blue) and there are backups....In typical design fashion, it is considered the likelyhood of all three systems failing to be very low.

The flight control system can best be desrcibed as making the pilot a "voting member". A sidestick control input results in the flight control computers evaluating the "request" and saying either "yes you can do that" or "no you may not"

The only known malfunction with this system to date was a Lufthansa A320 that lifted off and the captains contol inputs being reversed in the roll due to a bent pin in a caniplug. The quick thinking F/O took control and it was quickly learned what the problem was. It worked out favorably....and fotunately.

But no, there is no direct link to the flight control from the sidesticks. Additionally, the flight control computers are redundant, powered by different busses, and are very simple in their operation (1980's technology).

The A320 series of aircraft, with all FCC's operating, cannot be intentionally placed in a flight envelope not appropriate for transport A/C. This doens't mean that it cannot go out of control.....it is still susceptible to wake turbulence, mountain waves, microbursts, etc.

I suspect there was some other malfunction that kept the 319 from taking off. It may not even have been the temperature.

I recall in the late 80's in Phoenix, all air ops stopped at all airfields military and civilain because the temp was 122 deg F. Not that the planes couldn't fly in that environment....but the published performance data only went to 120 deg F. No published data makes it an unknown and therefore unsafe.

I can't find my POH for the A320, but I was wondering if the perf data wasn't available or didn't go down to that temp.

I could find out by talking to the guys I used to work with.....I'm sure one of them knows. Give me a week.

air
и далее..

OK, found the POH. In the limitations section, the temperature limits for fuel, if using Jet-A, is -36C. There are other fuel grades listed, but I suspect they were using Jet A.

There is a note saying that "If TAT reaches -34C, call the ECAM FUEL page and monitor fuel temps to ensure the fuel temperature remains above -36C"

The fuels they could use for ops below the temp you stated are, Jet B (-46), JP-4(-54C), RT and TS-1 (both -45C)

Now this is assuming the fuel can get heated and remain at those temps or above but in my best guess, they were using Jet A and there's no way they could keep the fuel warm enough.

If I recall correctly and I may be wrong because it's been awhile, the danger of ice crystals forming in the fuel is the biggest risk. Different fuels have different specific gravities and therefore will cyrstallize at different temps. But frozen fuel is bad. According to my A&P general handbook, this is why we monitor fuel temps.

I recently observed this phenomenon on PBS, watching as divers SCUBA'd inside a glacier to check for hidden lakes. The water was at the freezing point and cloudy due to the formation of ice crystals....The same thing happens to fuel at it's freezing point.

So that, I think, was the problem. Too dang cold for the fuel.

air
Вероятная причина, на его взгляд, в топливе.

Но и поэтому поводу у меня вопросы.