Airbus system limitations

[Ignition Override]

Are most pleased with the limitations, i.e. flight controls, reverse thrust available, auto-braking effectiveness, i.e. two wheels per main gear instead of four? How about the simplicity of engaging autopilots and then disconnecting, in order to manually fly (to be a real pilot, for those who have little such background...)? Do any pilots outside the US hand-fly :uhoh: the Airbus up to about 15,000', assuming that your airline Flt. Ops Chief Pilots/Fleet Captains are not afraid of your doing that?

How about with experienced pilots (with about 5,000 hours+) who already flew FMC aircraft such as the CRJ, Embraer, F-70 737-500, MD-88, B-757, etc?

Forgetting an employer's policies on manual flying, is the Airbus 320 etc just as easy to hand fly as on the 757 etc, regarding flying and non-flying ("handling") pilots' duties in a dense traffic environment?

One of our very experienced Captains told me that he was a bit disappointed with several limits which are imposed by Airbus systems designers upon the pilots-maybe the A-320 was his first FMC aircraft. Our most junior Airbus FO is probably over 35 years old with at least 6,000 hours (if total background in transports vs tactical). On the other hand, many guys love the airplanes. For a large number, the 319/320 or even the 330, is their first plane with an FMC and autothrottles. I'm seeking objective opinions based on operating style from a pilot's viewpoint, and am not interested in a nationalistic (or trans-Atlantic) Airbus versus Boeing (McD.) debate, Euro versus US, Toulouse versus Texas/Wash. state etc. :oh:

[catchup]

quote:
Do any pilots outsude the US hand-fly the Airbus up to about 15,000', assuming that your airline Flt. Ops Chief Pilots/Fleet Captains are not afraid of your doing that?

A:
Yes, working for a large EU carrier, we do.

quote:
How about with experienced pilots (with about 5,000 hours+) who already flew FMC aircraft such as the CRJ, Embraer, F-70 737-500, MD-88, B-757, etc?

A:
FMC (FMS) is one thing and may be very similar. Great difference will be the autoflight and flight control system as well as the ECAM

quote:
Forgetting an employer's policies on manual flying, is the Airbus 320 etc just as easy to hand fly as on the 757 etc, regarding flying and non-flying ("handling") pilots' duties in a dense traffic environment?

A:
The aircraft is very easy to handfly (talking about 320 family and 340). It takes only a few hours to get used to the stick. For my opinion in approaches with gusty weather it may become a challenge.

regards

[alatriste]

Just only one tip that might be helpfull when flying aproaches manually:

If you are flying with AP and AT engaged and decide to fly the aproach manually, DO NOT FORGET TO disconect the F/D after switching off the A/P. If you leave the F/D bars on, and you are descending of THR IDLE, the A/T will not revert to SPEED mode and therefore, if you decided to level off manually above altitude selected on the window the autothrust WILL NOT mantain speed cause it will remain idle, not very nice when close to the ground!!

I don´t know if the above is true for all A 320 MSN.

[hptaccv]

...thats why our company SOP states: manual flight = manual thrust!

tricky to get used to the load factor demand for landing technique
(my personal opinion)

[A330AV8R]

Quote : Our most junior Airbus FO is probably over 35 years old with at least 6,000 hours (if total background in transports vs tactical). Unquote

I got my Airbus A320 rating when I was 26. .. . .... and to answer your other question about people hanflying it ... .outside the US the answer is Yes .... I've flown her all the way up to ALT CRZ on the FMA .

If this is your first Jet then trust me you will forget about Boeing's and hell as we BUSBOYS call them DIRECT LAW aircraft cause once your flown the wire you DON'T wanna get disconnected EVER !

Happy landings !

[The The]

Further to alatriste,

The 330 will default to SPEED mode when the speed reduces to vls. The F/D bars will flash and then dissappear.

OPEN DES is a mode to be wary of because of this as alatriste says. In a boeing, using LVL CHG you can simply override the autothrottle by pushing the thrust levers up a bit to arrest rate of descent, it is not so intuitive on the bus when manually flying as you have to bring the thrust levers back to idle before disconecting to avoid rapid thrust increase or get your mate to select another mode for you.

I personally don't like OPEN DES near the ground because of this, much prefer V/S mode if using F/D and always fly the F/D accurately in the coreect mode or turn it off and get SPEED mode in A/THR.

In a boeing, you can somewhat ignore the F/D commands in pitch and be in control by overriding A/THR, on the bus, you must be very much aware of the mode selection is and what it is commanding.

Flying the bus manually is great, with or without A/THR, with or without F/D, just be very aware of the combination you have/need.

Cheers

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

At the risk of disagreeing with some very experienced pilots here, the Airbus is no problem to fly with autopilot off - with or without flight directors. In both Airbus companies I have worked for it is normal to swith off the autopilot between 500' and 1000' above ground level and leave the FDs in. There is never any problem with spooling up. Under these circumstances I use 2 methods to ensure that I have sufficient power in very gusty conditions. I push the throttles just forward of the FLEX/MCT position for a couple of seconds to command a spool up of the engines (not good below 100' ra!) or I raise the nose slightly to get the speed just below Vapp and it commands a spool up of the engines to compensate.

I also regularly take out the autothrust and flight directors to practice manual flying in reasonable weather. I find the aircraft does not naturally sit on a heading without many little alterations to maintain the course. Once you get used to it there is no problem and all the good advice is that below 500'ra do not let the N1 decay below 50% or you are in danger of a heavy landing. To get the correct power setting for Vapp, with CFMs I use Gross Weight/1000 - 5 for 2 engines and Gross Weight/1000 + 10 single engine - that seems to be about right.

[Ignition Override]

AirFranz: I began flying two-engine turbofans in 1985, after flying some twin- and four-engine turboprops for a few years. Turbofans mostly consist of 100-122 seat planes :), along with a few years in the 757-200 :O. The 757 training program left quite "a bad taste in my mouth" (back then, no training equipment except for very rushed tng. periods at 0600 in fixed-base sim...:( :yuk: ). Lower budget managers were apparently in control.

Thanks for the thoughtful replies. I'll one day go to the Airbus (flying mostly 100, and some 194-seat turbofans since '85), but can't give up most of my seniority yet on the other basic narrowbody plane. Our Airbus trips seem to consist mostly of 4- and 5-day trips, instead of lots of 3- with some 2-day trips.

Hasta luego(sollte mir die Wettervorhersage anschauen). :D

[A-3TWENTY]

Fine A/C to handfly. I just don`t like it during approaches in gusty conditions.

It has a very slow roll rate comparing with other aircrafts.

As I go to FNC very often ,it`s normal to use the sticks to the stops and not having a response fast enough.

I think during this conditions airbuses have a higher rate of go arounds than other aircrafts.

Think that flying in direct law during this conditions woulf be fine

:O :O

[TopBunk]

A-320

I tend to agree - hand flying the A320 family is straight forward - if rather simpler than 'conventional' B737 (for example). The nearest equivalent is flying the 737 in CWS (Control Wheel Steering).

The 'sidestick' is only a roll/pitch rate-of-change demand device - as such, hitting the 'stops' does not mean max control surface deflection, unlike full up/down/left/right on a 737/757/747. You have to wait for the input to get to full surface deflection as all you have asked for is max rate of change of roll/pitch.

It is this characteristic that can be uncomfortable/counter intuitive in turbulence on the approach. I would agree that reversion to 'direct' law in pitch and roll when the gear is down would be a possible improvement.

However, with the non-moving thrust levers, I would still like to see the pitch/power couple taken out of the equation as per normal operations. Going into 'direct' law in roll would also remove the unnatural requirement to remove the roll demand before touchdown and then reapply it after touchdown when direct law then applies!