The Children of Magenta / Rage against the Machine

[Natstrackalpha]

Maybe there is a new concept in flying these FBWs.

You can have much fun on the FCU. You can steer it across the sky or indeed across the approach being vectored by ATC.

You Selected so you are in control, not, it.

Go back to Managed and what you see will be happening soon, just as what you are seeing is happening.

You can sit and watch, observe, as PM and PF and, you get to make the selections.

When Selected its in your hands - why go manual if there are no problems? - think like the platform.

Enjoy the laziness, but you will be working harder than when you are manually flying, at least mentally, because you have to stay so much ahead of events - lest one of the events is unfavourable. You will not have the instantaneous response of direct link with the flying controls, obviously, so you just have to think in a pre-emptive way - you would only want to think like this.

It truly is an x-box AND a real aeroplane, with real pax and engines.

Its just automation and modern technology - but these same problems and queries we face - are the same problems and discussions in other industries where automation is making man/womankind feel as if s/he has just turned up for coffee!

We would not shout across the street if we are talking to the person on our mobile cell phones.

We would not want to keep our loved ones waiting for two weeks while we crossed the Atlantic in a big boat.

Or make a phone call instead of a text, or employ a further ten people, instead of being called by a person on a keyboard, which goes to the server, is fed to an antenna and transmitted to a satt which bounces it back to Earth into a receiver, along the wires, back into the air again and eventually bleeping on your phone it is time to go to work.

The same machine that has ordered all the fuel, planned the flight plan, counted the pax, picked the aircraft, scheduled the crew on leave, and called you for this flight.

We built this to make life easier, and it has. It could never replace human pilots except in an act of extreme folly and even larger insurance bills and fewer passengers plus an eventual shutdown of the aviation industry.

Why is that?

Well, what individual would be insane enough to fly at 35.000 feet with no-one at the controls?

[Centaurus]

Through years of reading Pprune comments about Airbus versus flying a Boeing 737 for example, it is clear there are those pilots that dislike flying Airbus types and much prefer the Boeing.

On the other hand, there is very little comment from those Air Bus pilots that have gone back to Boeings. I have only flown the various types of 737 and that was decades ago so I am quite out of touch except what I read. Many pilots who thoroughly enjoy the Airbus have difficulty understanding why former Boeing people going to Airbus for the first time either like or loathe it.

Would appreciate readers views in general terms for my own edification.:ok:

[Uplinker]

I am an Airbus pilot and have never flown Boeing, but I have flown other conventional jet and turboprop types.

My 2p worth is that I like flying Airbus, and found it quite intuitive to learn - as long as you always remember that almost everything is interfaced by a computer, (so remember garbage in = garbage out, and therefore always CHECK THE FMA/PFD, not the FCU!!).

I also like the fact that (unavoidable) design "flaws" of conventional jets such as the power/pitch couple and having to increase back pressure to stay level in a turn are absent in a FBW Airbus thanks to the fly-by-wire system.

There seem to be a lot of "old school" pilots who like to wrestle with the controls, and these tend to be more macho: ("I always go fully manual below 10,000', and I never use the automatics with an engine failure" etc.), and an equal number of "new school" pilots who are happy to control computer systems to conduct a flight, (unless they are flying manually).

[Capn Bloggs]

I also like the fact that (unavoidable) design "flaws" of conventional jets such as the power/pitch couple and having to increase back pressure to stay level in a turn are absent in a FBW Airbus thanks to the fly-by-wire system.

Tell the AF447 pilots that...

Autotrim in a turn is merely a gimmick IMO. If you're flying it, you should be flying it, not toggling a joystick.

There seem to be a lot of "old school" pilots who like to wrestle with the controls
Exactly the skills that were required over the Atlantic that night...

Well, he did say rage against the machine! :}

[Uplinker]

I was afraid some of the "old school" might object to that, but I meant no disrespect. However I'll pick up that ball and run with it:

The AF447 crash was a case of gross mishandling, the cause of which has been explored elsewhere, and which would have crashed a Boeing just as easily as it did an Airbus. I posted my thoughts on that thread and there's no point going over it all again here.

Let's take a hypothetical example; Say all the cars we drive veer strongly to the right on acceleration. When we brake, they veer to the left. However, this is how all cars are and we all learn to input left steering wheel pressure when accelerating and right steering wheel pressure when braking. Everybody is happy, nobody thinks it is strange.

Then one day a car is built which has a design which prevents the deviation when accelerating or braking. So, 99% of the time, every driver's job is made much easier and more relaxed, and the cars go straight. However, occasionally, the new cars design system fails and the old skills need to be remembered.

Autotrim in a turn is merely a gimmick IMO. If you're flying it, you should be flying it, not toggling a joystick.

Why exactly? Why not embrace progress? For example, do you still do your clothes washing by hand or do you have a machine to do it?


Quote:

There seem to be a lot of "old school" pilots who like to wrestle with the controls
Exactly the skills that were required over the Atlantic that night...


Well, arguably, wrestling or mishandling the controls was the cause of the AF447 crash.


My 2p worth were my personal answer to the OP - I like the Airbus. I'm sure you have your own opinions, and I defend your right to them.

[Capn Bloggs]

Uplinker, yes, I understand we've done these topics to death. My post, while sincere, as also a big tongue-in-cheek, hence the :} smiley.

However, you hit the nail on the head with:
the new cars design system fails and the old skills need to be remembered.

The AF guys did not have the skills, or could not remember them. When they hand fly, they don't have to trim. Do you then really think that the need to trim forward to get the A330 un-stalled, to correct what the designers thought was a good idea at the time (autotrim right back into the stall), is going to be second nature to them? Unless this stuff is practiced, either on the line on in the sim often we can't expect a guaranteed safe result every time. The company that makes my aeroplane apparently prides itself in simplicity, with very few Recall times in the QRH. The stall recovery procedure is a whole page, and not a Recall item!

Re washing machines. No problem if mine fails; it'll take me twice or three times as long, and the job won't be as good, but I'm not going to kill someone in the process if I don't do a good job of it.

Continue the rage! :)

[alf5071h]

Natstrackalpha, :ok:

The human-machine interface.
Do not devalue the human in order to justify the machine.
Do not criticize the machine in order to rationalize the human.
Advocate the human–machine system in order to amplify both.

Aretha Franklin principle …

“R.E.S.P.E.C.T... is a very funny thing. I hear many older generations say, respect is not the same as it was in my day. I think I am pretty convinced of that. As technology grows it seems that respect diminishes. Maybe it just has not kept up. When we were younger we were taught things like not to talk with your mouth full, how to address your elders, etc. But where are the rules that cover how to speak on a cell phone... when to answer it, when not to. Do you have to speak with respect to someone when you IM or is it all fair game. Who is producing the new etiquette and where is it published. Respect boils down to one rule, no matter the situation. "Treat others as you would want to be treated yourself." Maybe the Golden rule is a pretty appropriate name for this ethic. The idea works no matter what, where or when.”

We have to respect automation.

Design
“When the situations exceed the capabilities of the automatic equipment, then the inadequate feedback leads to difficulties for the human controllers.
To solve this problem, the automation should either be made less intelligent or more so, … … What is needed is a soft, compliant technology, not a rigid, formal one.” Not over-automation. (www.jnd.org/dn.mss/Norman-overautomation.pdf)

IMHO the latter sentence is interpreted as requiring a human for those situations where feedback and interaction are inadequate … we must not expect automation to have the required intelligence; we must use our own.

Training
To train, you must have opportunities to perform.
It’s an empirical fact that for people to perform in complex sociotechnical contexts, they must continually learn new things.
“Human-centered systems do not force a separation between learning and performance.
They integrate them”.

“Cognitive apprenticeship involves activity that extends students slightly beyond their level of competence and engages a gradual transition from peripheral to central activities.
People acquire expertise by abstracting and relating lessons from individual experiences, but a training program should use an explicit organizing framework to connect.
The learning challenge becomes one of discovery and integration versus one of memorization.
Some may feel that course material should be structured to discourage error, but the performance of errors in a safe context helps students learn to recognize the consequences of error as they unfold and to practice error recovery.”

“… errors rarely provide direct evidence of the nature of the underlying knowledge gap or skill deficiency. Errors tell us that something is going wrong, but they don’t inform us directly of the nature of the problem.”Janus Principle. (http://xstar.ihmc.us/research/projects/EssaysOnHCC/JanusPrinciple.pdf)

[DownIn3Green]

I think everyone has fallen into Natstrackalpha's clever little game...

While it's true that the Boeing vs. Airbus debate has raged ad nausem on PPrune for years, and it will always be so, since each viewpoint gives a little, but stands firm in their beliefs, (I am a Boeing Guy, BTW, 727 and 737) what has gone unoticed by even the most astute old timers posting on this thread is this:

Natstrackalpha has only recently joined PPrune. His/Her public profile gives little clues as to motivation...

One thing does stand out, however, and that is Natstrackalpha's "home base", BGTL...

If memory serves me correctly, Natstrackalpha is happily sitting in Thule, Greenland...BGTL....where I spent the entire year of 1979 while an ATCO in the USAF...

Furthermore, it is only now becoming daytime at Thule...being 75 or so degrees North graces Thule with 3 months night, then 3 months day...

So, in the cold dark of Thule's long dark 3 month "night", Natstrackalpha really had nothing to do but sit around, surf the net, and see what mischief he/she could stir up...

Lord knows, I did it in 1979, and I had radios and long haul landlines to help me...Natstrackalpha has PPrune...

Airbus vs. Boeing? 1979 vs. 2013? You guys decide...

All the above said tongue in cheek...Boeing guys notice details because we have to...;););)

[Rick777]

In answer to Centarus about going from A to B to A to B they both have advantages and disadvantages. I went from 707 to 737-300 and thought it was the neatest thing I ever saw. Then I went to 747-200 and wasn't impressed. Then the 757/767 and was happy again. Then to A320. Steep learning curve but learned to love it. Then to 727 just to say I flew it. Back to A320 and happy again. Then to 777 had to learn the Boeing way again but loved it. The Boeing FMC is much more intuitive and user friendly. I am lazy and really liked not to have to trim in the bus. Also the bus way of pulling to take control and pushing to give control to the computer is very nice. All in all I'd call it a tossup.

[DownIn3Green]

Rickallseven's...

I had the opportunity to fly the 737-400 with Istanbul Airlines...In one of the first meetings of us 16 ex-pats only 2 of us were typed in the 727...As it turned out, Istanbul needed 2 B-727 Captains...I jumped at the chance...

However, in hindsight, I probably should have stuck with the 73, because if I had done so, I wouldn't be unemployable now...

Got to love the 727 though...

And it's true...I was in BGTL from 1/04/1979-1/06/1980....There are only 2 days, and 2 nights in a whole year there....

[bubbers44]

I loved the 727. I always showed up 5 minutes before departure and clicked the seat belt sign, did the checklist and departed on time. The FE did all the hard stuff, the FO did all the clearance stuff and I just showed up. Great job.

[Capn Bloggs]

Love ya work, Bubbers! :D

[ANCPER]

I started Boeing (733) then Airbus (320) then Boeing (744) then Airbus (320). I'd take the AB for the narrow body and definitely Boeing for WB.

For me the biggest downfall for Airbus is the ECAM, ECAM is a PITA as is the protocol!

[DownIn3Green]

Bubbers...Exactly...Hop in the seat, talk to the ground guy (Ready to start Captain?) look right and say checklist while calling starting 1...Great...and the best flying A/C I've ever flown...especially in the "slow down, go down" mode...

As for ANCPER...We have our initial speak thingy's on the 727 as well...

We have a VOR, an ADF, VSI, ASI, A/P, RADAR, GPWS and lots of other gadgets that are common on Cessna's and Piper's. On the newer ones there's a thingy called TCAS and some other sort of a gizmo that we didn't really need and I never understood how it worked anyway...I remember now, a GPS?

Lots of other bits on the 727 have initials, but it would be boring to go over them now...

Anyway, I hope you take this in fun, cause I've been out of flying a while...The magenta to me defined what altitude controlled airspace started at on a VFR Sectional...:D:D:D

[Ocean Person]

I wonder what Ned Ludd would have thought of the fly by wire and other complexities of an Airbus ? Would he have seen it as a perceived threat to real aviators ?
Perhaps a little Neo-Luddism (modified of course) might get pilots back to being pilots.

[Mac the Knife]

http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/Norman-overautomation.pdf

This thoughtful paper made me understand the situation better than zillions of posts.

Should be compulsory reading for anyone dealing with complex technologies.

[alf5071h]

Mac, for a more light hearted, but serious approach to the problems, see How To Talk To People (www.jnd.org/dn.mss/Norman%20HowToTalkToPeopleDOFT.pdf).

Automation Surprises (http://csel.eng.ohio-state.edu/productions/xcta/downloads/automation_surprises.pdf) provides a more academic look at the problems, but also covers issues that could be addressed in training and operation.

The bedrock of thought about automation is in The Ironies of Automation. (www.bainbrdg.demon.co.uk/Papers/Ironies.html)

[aterpster]

bubbers44:

I loved the 727. I always showed up 5 minutes before departure and clicked the seat belt sign, did the checklist and departed on time. The FE did all the hard stuff, the FO did all the clearance stuff and I just showed up. Great job.

I never developed that affection for what we at TWA called "Miss Piggy" I suppose part of the problem was the smallest engine option Boeing had.

Now, the 1011 was a different story. Same easy gig for the captain, at least on domestic. And, a real autoflight system instead of the 727 JC Penney thing.

:)

[bubbers44]

Never got to fly the DC10 even though I could have bid it. We never had any L1011's but kind of liked the dinasour B727 with absolutely nothing automatic. It took me many hours to figure out how to smoothly change the AP pitch because my first job in it was captain. I kept looking back at the engineers panel making him nervous because he was brand new and explained I never really learned what all that stuff back there does. One day I said usually I see 10 KW on each engine, today I see two at 15 KW and one at zero, why is that? He said well, the light is out. I asked him to check the light and it had burned out so we took off on two generators, not good with packs on. Remember the LAX night flight that crashed decades ago? Departing Barbados on a wet runway with 1,000 ft ceiling just before V1 we lost #1 generator so I said it is just one generator so continue. At Vr the FE switched essential from #3 to #1 even though I just calmly said just take care of the problem. I then said he will fix it because he had a FE check airman behind him. Of course he lost all of his instruments for a moment but they got us everything back before entering the clouds. It would have been a close call on an abort with a wet runway. He passed his check ride by the way. My last sim ride my instructor said never say check essential, KW's unless it is #3 because he is spring loaded to select #1 gen, so I didn't.

[aterpster]

bubbers44:

That was a UAL 727-100 I believe in 1965. Night, rain fairly low ceilings. I believe they dispatched with one generator inop. I don't recall the switch position specifics but suffice it to say they were suddenly in the dark and the F/E didn't select Standby. I think the F/Es during on the galleys just after takeoff.

TWA paid extra during submission of their order to have the Standby switch on the overhead where all three crewmembers could reach it.

[bubbers44]

That sounds right, as I recall the electrical load with flaps down on two generators overloads them. We took off during daylight so maybe our power requirement was less. Maybe we just had better generators. Had the pleasure to have lunch down at Dana Point near San Clemente a couple of weeks ago with my buddy Aircal pilot and wife. My wife lived in San Clemente. We are both now ex Aircal,AA. By the way we don't like AA any more than you but nobody asked us so we are just along for the ride.

[bubbers44]

Yes, the 727 spent half it's life in a climb didn't it so calling it Miss Piggy is appropriate. Going to the 757 when the FO said we could cross 24N going into Cuban airspace I always declined until I finally realized now we could.

[GlueBall]

Capn Bloggs: Autotrim in a turn is merely a gimmick IMO. If you're flying it, you should be flying it, not toggling a joystick.

Uplinker: "Why exactly? Why not embrace progress? For example, do you still do your clothes washing by hand or do you have a machine to do it?"

Uplinker: can you conceptualize perhaps what Capn Bloggs may be inferring? ...That when flying MANUAL that everything should be MANUAL, without the velvet glove of Fly-By-Wire automatics trying to smooth your control inputs? :ooh:

[vilas]

Uplinker
I fully agree with you. I have flown A300 and B747 classic and I flew them very well, then I flew the A320 and loved it. I support the automation Airbus has brought in. Every field of life we look for comfort, ease and safety why not in the cockpit? Nobody designed an aeroplane which needed great skills to fly. Older ones needed that not because the designer wanted it that way but because the technology wasn't advanced enough to be otherwise. Now almost anyone can fly. Sadly though a day will come when pilot is not needed in the cockpit. I have seen first navigator then the FE exit the cockpit. It cannot be helped.

[Uplinker]

Hi Glueball,

Yes of course I can, but would that include the engine FADECS?. Do you really want to fly fully manually and look after the EGT's and max N1, N2? AND the pressurisation etc. etc. What I am questioning is why stay rooted in the 70's ?

In daily life; Do you send telegrams from the post office to your friends, or do you send texts? Do you drive a car with ultra efficient fuel infection and digital engine control, or one with carburettors and manual choke? Do you get your information from the internet or do you go to the local library? Do you wash your clothes by hand or do you have a machine to do it for you? Do you have a mobile telephone on you at all times, or do you have to go down the street and use a call box? Do you keep paper manuals or do you have everything on an iPad?

The "old school" pilots have embraced all the above examples of modern technology, but for some reason will not go the 'extra mile' and do the same with aircraft technology. Would you want to go back to open cockpits? No, that would be absurd, but why won't you accept improved aircraft automation, why do you want to fly an airliner as if it were a Seneca?

I'm not having a go, I am genuinely curious.

[rudderrudderrat]

Hi U,
why do you want to fly an airliner as if it were a Seneca?
Because you then know how much control surface deflection is being applied.

This Lufthansa crew had no idea how much aileron was being applied by the FBW computers.
Report: Lufthansa A320 at Hamburg on Mar 1st 2008, wing touches runway in cross wind landing (http://avherald.com/h?article=42826d3a)
"The flight control laws of the Airbus Fly By Wire (FBW) change from flight mode via flare mode to ground mode in the pitch axis and change directly from flight mode to ground mode in the roll control. In ground mode the side stick deflection lead to a direct proportional deflection of ailerons and roll spoilers without computer interaction.

However, above 80 knots the effectiveness of roll control, ailerons and roll spoilers, is reduced by the half (e.g. aileron deflection limited to 50% of maximum deflection)."

Perhaps you are content not knowing how much your control surfaces are deflected, but others prefer to know.

The "old school" pilots have embraced all the above examples of modern technology, but for some reason will not go the 'extra mile' and do the same with aircraft technology.
Have you ever wondered why B777 & B787 FBW give control surface position feed back via the yoke?

[galaxy flyer]

Uplinker,

The "old school" pilots have embraced all the above examples of modern technology, but for some reason will not go the 'extra mile' and do the same with aircraft technology. Would you want to go back to open cockpits? No, that would be absurd, but why won't you accept improved aircraft automation, why do you want to fly an airliner as if it were a Seneca?

Perhaps, some us believe the ultimate end of "improved automation" is pilotless airplanes. While improvements have, no doubt, increased ease and safety of aviation, these improvements have also dumbed down aviation to the point the beancounters think our craft is worthless.

[main_dog]

Why exactly? Why not embrace progress? For example, do you still do your clothes washing by hand or do you have a machine to do it?


Quick interjection: I use a washing machine because I hate washing clothes, thus I'm perfectly happy to have someone/something else do it for me. I love flying airplanes however, and with the bus you never really feel as if you're flying it.

The difference between hand-flying a bus and a Boeing to me is the same as sex with or without a condom: both are great, but I know which I prefer!

Just my 2¢...

[lastbirdy]

No matter what type of aircraft you fly, it all dépends on how you mentally take up your flying skills. Having flown B737, B747, A320 & A330: they are all lot of fun to fly but I had to adapt my way of flying.

It's all in the head....:ok:

[vilas]

galaxyflyer, main dog
while you have every right to lament about the disapperence of the age of innocence you have to accept the reality. Airbus FBW came in airline service in 1989 and today it is 2013. It is here and expanding. It has bagged more than double of order for 737 so in the coming decade you are likely to be flying A320 than 737. So instead of looking through the Boeing binocular and being miserable why not enjoy the new concept and it's advantages?

[rudderrudderrat]

Hi vilas,
It has bagged more than double of order for 737 so in the coming decade you are likely to be flying A320 than 737
What source states that?
Have a look at: Boeing tops 1,000 737 orders for 2012, hits record annual delivery level | CAPA - Centre for Aviation (http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/boeing-tops-1000-737-orders-for-2012-hits-record-annual-delivery-level-90529) &
Boeing overtakes Airbus in annual sales race | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/17/us-airbus-orders-idUSBRE90G0CF20130117)

[bubbers44]

Unfortunately as AF 447 found out sometimes piloting skills are required and typing doesn't get the job done. Maybe not typing but knowing how to keep the aircraft flying without automation. Us old guys woould probably limit pitch to 2 degrees and use a tad over cruise power if AS went away. We would never pull full back because we are old. The Seneca didn't have stall protection like the Airbus sometimes does.

[main_dog]

So instead of looking through the Boeing binocular and being miserable why not enjoy the new concept and it's advantages?

Vilas, I was an Airbus pilot for seven years before I transitioned to Boeing. For the last six+ years I have been on the Jumbo, so I am about as far from miserable as a pilot can be! :ok: What a great ship.

The Airbus was (for me) not as fun to fly... still fun, but I enjoy the Boeing more. It feels like Boeing design their machines around the pilot, with the man at the centre of the machine.

During my airboos years I could never escape the feeling that the airplane had been created by over-confident engineers who were trying to design the pilot out of the machine; you felt disconnected from what the automatics were doing, what the other pilot was doing and what the flight control surfaces and engines where doing. It all worked fine until things went wrong and then all of a sudden it went horribly wrong, leaving you -on the proverbial dark and stormy night- with a three-page Ecam and an airplane you had never actually flown before (ie in altn/direct law which is never practiced except in the sim).

Disclaimer: over my career I have met a great many skilled pilots who preferred the Toulouse way of doing things... so it's horses for courses (à chacun son goùt).

[vilas]

Rudderrat and main dog
Last year Paris air show 737 got zero orders that's right zero to 900 of A320. This year they got whatever you say. By now A320 Neo orders have crossed 2000. You can check it for yourself. Any way I don't own any Airbus or Boeing shares. Also I have more hours on B 747 classic and A300 than A320 but I enjoyed change. I found A320 a piece of cake as compared to 747 classic. Flying one engine out on take off in A320 after trimming the rudder you can go to the toilet and back if you want to. Compare two engine out on one side in classic.

[Denti]

Last year boeing racked in around 400 more orders than airbus did. Despite the lack of orders in Paris. Funny that. This year airbus is leading by a bit, but there is still quite a bit to go in this year. All in all the order backlog for the A320 series including NEO is 3927 whereas the backlog for the 737 including the MAX is 3138. So yes, airbus has a few more orders, but not all that many more after all. And airbus is currently kinda cheap on the market, in my outfit it makes sense to lease out or 737 deliveries and lease in new airbus to replace them, makes around 80k per aircraft and month which currently just offsets the higher fuel consumption on the airbus and earns a tiny bit on the side.

[Uplinker]

do you fly jet airliners because this is where your hard work and skills got you or because it is full of automation?

Both to be honest.

There is nothing wrong with a Seneca or a Cessna, and I did not ever suggest there was. They do what they are designed to do - I have flown both.

Seneca or Cessna flying is FLYING in a very real sense, and fair play to all who still do it. But flying day in, day out, commercially, in busy London airspace, saving fuel, keeping to the schedule, changing freq's every 3 mins over Germany etc., I would not want to fly all that manually every day - give me a modern jet. The Airbus is a fantastic machine which is very efficient and modern. It can do a lot of the 'donkey work' for me, and I like that. I finish the day more relaxed and unstressed, and I have plenty of other stuff to do to keep me occupied on a flight. If I want to; I can hand fly it, or if I am tired after a 10 hour sector, I can program and monitor. If I do that though, I still need to understand exactly what it is doing and manage the energy etc.

I have flown both 'clockwork' BAe146's and Airbus. I found both very easy and a pleasure to fly, but they are polar opposites. However, my 'clockwork jet' experience did not prevent me from embracing the modern technology of the Airbus.

Bubbers, I agree and I don't think any of us pilots can understand what the hell the AF447 pilot was doing holding full backstick in alternate law, but that was down to his (lack of) training, not the Airbus. His actions would have crashed a Boeing too. Ditto why did that other pilot snap the fin off an A310 by working the rudder pedals like a bicycle? (lack of) training again. Sometimes the bad apples get through.......

Galaxy, don't worry - passengers will never accept pilotless aircraft. If an automatic tube/subway train goes wrong it won't fall out of the sky - they can just cut the power and it will stop. But pilotless aircraft....nobody will ever accept that.

[galaxy flyer]

Uplinker,

IOW, we're not pilots or "system managers", we're hostages keeping the pax happy.

[DozyWannabe]

I agree that I can't help but think the original post was a fishing expedition - not least because the poster concerned commits the cardinal sin of lumping FBW and automation in together, when they are very much two separate entities.

Because you then know how much control surface deflection is being applied.

Well, in the Airbus FBW system you're commanding rate rather than deflection (I know you know that though! ;)).

This Lufthansa crew had no idea how much aileron was being applied by the FBW computers.

You're leaving out the other half of the story there - the Captain in that case made some judgement calls that were alarmingly poor. Namely allowing the F/O to continue an approach that had gusts approaching the regulation limit for F/O approaches, followed by grabbing the stick to correct when the correct action would have been to call a go-around as soon as things looked uncertain.

Now I can't argue against the notion that the Airbus control approach doesn't lend itself to last-minute correction of that nature, but that's what the SOPs are for, and why they should be followed - is it not?

Have you ever wondered why B777 & B787 FBW give control surface position feed back via the yoke?

I don't wonder, I know :ok: - it's because offered the choice between sidesticks and yokes, the T7 launch customer (United IIRC) chose the latter. Boeing then used that as a sales differentiator against Airbus. What should be noted however is that the feedback is simulated via software, and that makes the software far more complex than the Airbus equivalent.

Additionally, even older designs with yokes don't necessarily behave in a logical manner when given conflicting inputs. One thing that came out of the EgyptAir 990 investigation is that when the yokes are pushed and pulled in opposite directions on the 767 - with sufficient force you get a split elevator condition (i.e. one elevator deflects up, the other down). Boeing had to spend a lot of money correcting that.

During my airboos years I could never escape the feeling that the airplane had been created by over-confident engineers who were trying to design the pilot out of the machine...

On this occasion your gut instinct was incorrect - pilots were very much involved in the design and development, including pilots who worked for the ARB (home of "Handling The Big Jets" author D.P. Davies) and who worked on Concorde.

so it's horses for courses (à chacun son goùt).

On this you're absolutely correct, and I agree totally. It saddens me that with two successful approaches there's this tendency for aficionados of one to try to denigrate the other.

[Capn Bloggs]

Namely allowing the F/O to continue an approach that had gusts approaching the regulation limit for F/O approaches, followed by grabbing the stick to correct when the correct action would have been to call a go-around as soon as things looked uncertain.
There is no problem with either of these apparently heinous crimes, Dozy.

Additionally, even older designs with yokes don't necessarily behave in a logical manner when given conflicting inputs. One thing that came out of the EgyptAir 990 investigation is that when the yokes are pushed and pulled in opposite directions on the 767 - with sufficient force you get a split elevator condition (i.e. one elevator deflects up, the other down). Boeing had to spend a lot of money correcting that.
Correcting what, exactly??

[DozyWannabe]

Who said anything about "heinous crimes"? I said they were poor judgement calls. Correcting in the flare is appropriate in a trainer, but Lufthansa's own regulations were violated, along with Airbus's recommended procedures - which made those actions inappropriate in that situation.

I remember reading about correcting the split elevator condition - it was an unintended design fault. I don't know any more than that.

[Capn Bloggs]

Correcting in the flare is appropriate in a trainer, but Lufthansa's own regulations were violated
And what are those regs?

[DownIn3Green]

Arpster,

The situation with the UAL 727 out of LAX that IFR night, was after departing with one generator MEL'd, the other 2 tripped, due to a spike, overload or whatever...

Now remember, this was a brand new a/c at the time, no one really had any time on it...

So anyway, the remaining 2 generators tripped, and the loss of all generator ck list was called for...

At the time, the battery switch on the FE panel was unguarded and was located next to the gen sel sw...

The FE turned the batteryoff, which cancelled what they had...which was battery power, in a climb in IMC...the result was predictable...

As a result, Boeing moved the battery switch and placed a guard over it...problem solved...

[bubbers44]

We got rid of our 727's about 15 years ago so forget how all that stuff works. I enjoyed flying it even though it was a pig on climb out. I loved the 757 because you had to be really stupid to not survive an engine failure with all of it's performance. It looked very cool too. Sort of like a Corvette cruising down the highway at 120 mph.

[bubbers44]

So the FE turned the battery switch off? Why?

[BOAC]

Namely allowing the F/O to continue an approach that had gusts approaching the regulation limit for F/O approaches - why do you consider that to be poor judgement, DW? A limit is a limit, after all.

[FLCH]

So the FE turned the battery switch off? Why?

Maybe because the Galley power switch is just below the Battery switch ?

All I remember is check essential, download, cover the bus.

[rudderrudderrat]

Hi DW,
Good to read you again.
Quote:
Have you ever wondered why B777 & B787 FBW give control surface position feed back via the yoke?
I don't wonder, I know - it's because offered the choice between sidesticks and yokes, the T7 launch customer (United IIRC) chose the latter. Boeing then used that as a sales differentiator against Airbus. What should be noted however is that the feedback is simulated via software, and that makes the software far more complex than the Airbus equivalent.
Please see this document:
http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS2012/PAPERS/605.PDF
Page 10
"The pilot’s awareness of the horizontal stabilizer position is of crucial importance to flight safety, especially when the automatic stabilizer function is suddenly lost in flight conditions close to the edge of the envelope."
&
"The integration of a horizontal stabilizer position indication below the PFD of the Airbus A380 is a important modification, as it is expected to enhance the crew’ awareness of the stabilizer position."

Would you agree that anything which enhances flight crew's awareness of the position of their flight controls is a good design?

[Clandestino]

This Lufthansa crew had no idea how much aileron was being applied by the FBW computers.Poor things... if only they had outside visual reference available or at least one synthetic attitude reference (three would be even better) that would warn them they were about to land on downwind gear in wind exceeding maximum demonstrated. How could they know that squeezing out the right crab with left rudder will cause left roll? I assure you: a whole lot of PPRuNers doesn't know this.

Why is that? As these are anonymous forums, anyone can rant around here as (s)he pleases. That's why minor and manageable issues get blown to it-will-be-demise-of-all-of-us proportions.

[Teldorserious]

Isn't this all a little pointless. Airlines aren't culling for the best pilots, nor do most of them do any real sim tests or ground testing. So what are we talking about...flying a computer? All the real problems happen when the lights go out...who's talking about the skills to deal with that? Long winded conversations about SA looking at 7 tubes is pretty silly. If you lose SA in one of these aircraft you have to be literally the dumbest, most unqualified pilot on Earth hired on pure nepotism or networking skills.

[4Greens]

Have no experience on the Airbus but one thing I like about Boeing is the you can see immediately what the FO is doing with his control column. This ability is absent on Airbus.

[vilas]

4Greens
What you noticed has nothing to do with Boeing. Right from Dakotas to all MDs, Lockheeds and also A300 B4, A300, A310 all aircrafts turbo props or jets have it. Only Airbus FBW all aircrafts it is not there.

[4Greens]

Vilas, not sure what point you are making.

[vilas]

4Greens
Ability to see what the FO is doing is in any aircraft, not only Boeing aircraft. In non FBW AC it may have been easier to duplicate controls by connecting both sides. Yes it would have been an asset if Airbus FBW could have it.

[DownIn3Green]

Bubbers and FLCH...

FLCH is correct. The "immediate action" for the F/E (at Eastern) was "Essential Power, Galley Power, Cargo Heat and Packs..."

"Check the busses, check the loads and don't exceed the MAX"

The Galley power and Packs are self explanitory, but for the non-727 guys, the Cargo Heat was a switch that closed a vent underneath the fuselage that enabled warm air to heat the cargo bin. By closing it, you can save pressure in the a/c, because you've all ready turned off the packs...

Anyway, the Battery Switch was located next to the Cargo Heat Outflow Switch, both of which were located just to the left of the Galley Power switch (only one of these in the 100).

The cockpit went dark, and reacting on training the F/E accidently turned off the Battery instead of the Cargo Heat.

As a result, Boeing redesigned the F/E Panel, moving the Battery Switch, and Guarding it so before it could be switched off, the guard would have to be raised...

Wow...surprised I still remember this stuff...

[DozyWannabe]

Hi RRR,

Hi DW,
Good to read you again.

Likewise - hope you're well!

Please see this document:

Cheers, I'll give it the once-over when I get a decent bit of time to study it properly!

Would you agree that anything which enhances flight crew's awareness of the position of their flight controls is a good design?

I'd say it depends on the context. If we're talking about the stab trim wheels (as in that document) then the issue in the case they're describing is not that the information is unavailable - it's that the indications are referred to so infrequently in the day-to-day workload that when abnormal situations present themselves crews may forget to check the indications as a possible factor in the problem. The A380 layout moves the display from just inboard of the pilot's waist to directly in front of them - but this is not in response to the issue, as the A380's layout was finalised well before the AF447 accident. Correct me if I'm wrong, but does the 744's stab trim interface not work in a similar fashion?

Now if we're talking about primary flight controls, again context is all-important. In the Airbus FBW setup, PFC deflection commands rate, not flight surface deflection - except in the case of Direct Law. That leaves the aspect of duplicating the input of the opposite seat, which will probably still be debated for a long time to come. In a trainer, such a setup is vital - however in an airliner which is only ever supposed to be controlled by one pilot at a time it becomes more optional. Interestingly, the Airbus FBW approach and the 767 "split elevator" function* I mentioned earlier are both predicated on the assumption that the crew will be working together as a unit and follow procedure. Both AF447 and EgyptAir 990 provide examples of how those design decisions can cause problems when that assumption is violated, whether accidentally or deliberately. In short, there are benefits and drawbacks to both approaches.

* - Is 767 elevator split possible? - Yahoo! Answers (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100626140550AALcQGC)

As for Children of the Magenta - like most people with tiny brains, I am facinated by colour and light so the mere inkling of something electric and potentially blue describing a modern day young technocrat with an ATPL and flying in conjunction with an A320 was +ively fascinating (again).

Small point of order - the magenta-coloured line is actually used on Boeing's FMS displays. Airbus FMGS uses a line which if I recall correctly is either white or green.

[Capn Bloggs]

Instead of pontificating about the colours of magenta lines, Dozy, where are those violated Lufthansa regs you mentioned earlier?

[DozyWannabe]

I'm only going on memory from the thread on the subject - I'm sure you can find it with the search function.

And with all due respect, how about playing the subject, not the person?

[Capn Bloggs]

Dozy, I am not going to use the search function. You were the one stating that the crew violated LH procedures; back up your claim with facts or withdraw it.

If you consider holding you to account for your claims as "playing the man", then I will continue to do so.

[DozyWannabe]

Report: Lufthansa A320 at Hamburg on Mar 1st 2008, wing touches runway in cross wind landing (http://avherald.com/h?article=42826d3a)

After the Airbus established on the localizer and after handoff to the tower, the tower controller reported winds from 300 at 28 knots gusting 47 knots. Upon query by the captain the tower reported, about 50% of the preceding aircraft had gone around in the last 10 minutes repeating the wind data 300 at 28 knots gusting 47 and offering runway 33. The captain decided to attempt runway 23 first. The tower subsequently cleared the flight to land reporting winds from 290 at 29 knots gusting 47.

The Lufthansa documentation said, that their limit was 30 knots of cross wind on dry and wet runways. The highest cross wind component demonstrated by Airbus was 33 knots gusting 38 knots.

So while technically within Lufthansa minima, it was only just - and trending stronger. Coupled with the gust component which was well outside Lufthansa's minima I maintain that it was a very poor judgement call on the part of the Captain to allow the F/O to continue the approach.

[DownIn3Green]

Well, just checked DozyWANNABEE's profile....Can you believe it! A "former" Air Cadet who hopes one day to afford a PPL...

Working as a software engineer...

While his comments may have value, I lean towards Bloggs and others...

IF ONE WASN'T THERE on the given day, in the LEFT SEAT of the cockpit on that or any other day, (as in Dozy)...One can spout all the "theory" one wants...

Those of us who Have been there, Done that, and proudly wear the T-Shirt" very well know that "Theory" isn't ALL that matters, and DOES NOT apply to every simulated computer problem...

Sorry Dozy...you lose this one...

Upon rereading the link provided and quoted by Dozy, I realize it is NOT the actual report....It leads you to an article in the AvHerald, quoting the ACTUAL REPORT...as translated into English...

In other words, journalist license...

[rudderrudderrat]

Hi DownIn3Green,
It leads you to an article in the AvHerald, quoting the ACTUAL REPORT.....In other words, journalist license...The link is incorrect - it should say: (in BFU's language)
http://www.bfu-web.de/EN/Publications/Investigation%20Report/2008/Report_08_5X003_A320_Hamburg-Crosswindlanding.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
On seite 46 "During the next few seconds the aircraft rolled to a 23° left wing down attitude in spite of the full right deflection of both sidesticks and application of right rudder."
On seite 47 "Within this investigation the wind conditions derived by simulation and calculation were used as additional factual information. This enabled the BFU to work on the assumption that the actual crosswind component was about 30 kt gusting up to 40 kt."
On seite 35 "The following values were documented in the manufacturer's FCOM for Airbus A319/A320/A321 in the
chapter OPERATING LIMITATIONS (Appendix 6):
• Wind for takeoff and landing:
• Maximum crosswind demonstrated for takeoff: 29 knots gusting up to 38 knots
• Maximum crosswind demonstrated for landing: 33 knots gusting up to 38 knots"

The crew had no idea that they were about to run out of aileron authority when (seite 63) "The aircraft was designed so that the effect of lateral controls (along the longitudinal axis) would reduce by about one half of full deflection as soon as one main landing gear touched down."


Old Smokey sums up nicely Airbus documentation in post 6 of http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/515051-a320-dual-hyd-question.html

[EGPFlyer]

Here's the report
http://www.bfu-web.de/EN/Publications/Investigation%20Report/2008/Report_08_5X003_A320_Hamburg-Crosswindlanding.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

The wording of the crosswind limits in the manuals played a part as they discounted the gusts when they shouldn't have. It was interesting to note that half of the pilots surveyed for the report at the time thought that the crosswind limits were only guidance.

Our Part B has changed since this incident (same a/c type but different airline) with a single value (gusts included) and the statement that the numbers are limits except in unavoidable circumstances.

[DozyWannabe]

The wording of the crosswind limits in the manuals played a part as they discounted the gusts when they shouldn't have. It was interesting to note that half of the pilots surveyed for the report at the time thought that the crosswind limits were only guidance.

Quite.

And yes, I thought that discrepancy of understanding was strange...

For the record folks, Cool Guys didn't ask me to link the report - he asked me for supporting information regarding Lufthansa's crosswind minima. It was late, I was knackered, so I just Googled for the first relevant link that came to hand.

RRR - I concur totally about the somewhat quirky language of Airbus documentation, probably a result of their policy of writing first in French, then translating to English rather than writing them separately. I also agree that the systems response to the dual input during flare and touchdown was non-optimal - however the fact is that dual input during that final landing phase is a no-no, and I believe (again, correct me if I'm wrong) is trained as such.

(Incidentally, aside from the Hamburg incident, I'd be interested in your views on my post #59...)

[CONF iture]

The crew had no idea that they were about to run out of aileron authority when (seite 63) "The aircraft was designed so that the effect of lateral controls (along the longitudinal axis) would reduce by about one half of full deflection as soon as one main landing gear touched down."
The aircraft behaves one way then the next second it's a different aircraft. Not what pilots expect, especially when such characteristic is not even mentioned in the documentation.

[Natstrackalpha]

Small point of order - the magenta-coloured line is actually used on Boeing's FMS displays. Airbus FMGS uses a line which if I recall correctly is either white or green.

Yeh, green and missed Approach is blue and Sec flt pln is white.

There is a lot of magenta about though, in about five seconds somebody will state which flashy bits are magenta, there is also a yellow temporary line - which is there when you are making slight adjustments to the flight plan invariably in PLAN but also / or in the SEC FLT PLN and they turn - grren? Normal when you insert it, (othewise known as tmpy)

(actually, am gonna take a look to see what is magenta on the A320)

Well, I have just returned from my trip on the internet - looking for Magenta, there is a whole world out there of Magenta colouring (and we are stuck on avionics):

Its a sort of Orange pink to shocking pink, to flourescent day-glo in yer face pink.

found on the PFD, ILS
the Donut is magenta
Spd select ind is magenta unless you - - - ? and then its - - - ?
Am trying to think what is on the ND that is magenta. . . .?
Next speed is magenta
Glideslope is magenta
LOC is magenta
ILS ident and freq is magenta
wpts not in the flt pln display magenta
Alt constraint arrows magenta - if not selected not the FCU
decell point (a dot on the ND) is magenta
Alt constraint if predicted to be met is magenta
DME/TACAN on the ND in magenta - if not part of the flt pln.
VORs, Airports, asterisk magenta
NDB.........................magenta
:)
selected heading (not the one you are on) magenta

I wonder what Orville and Wilbur would have thought about magenta.

[DozyWannabe]

The aircraft behaves one way then the next second it's a different aircraft. Not what pilots expect, especially when such characteristic is not even mentioned in the documentation.

And yet in every one of the countless landings executed in an Airbus FBW model bar that one, the setup seems to work just fine. As far as I know, training does state that dual input - at that stage especially - is to be avoided. The ins and outs of flare mode are documented should one choose to look into it more closely.

[CONF iture]

As far as I know, training does state that dual input - at that stage especially - is to be avoided.
What dual input has to do with the observation made by rrr and I ... ?

The ins and outs of flare mode are documented should one choose to look into it more closely.
As you know so well the ins and outs of the point mentioned, you are invited to closely quote the documentation ...

[CONF iture]

In a trainer, such a setup is vital - however in an airliner which is only ever supposed to be controlled by one pilot at a time it becomes more optional.
What make you think that a trainer is not supposed to be controlled by one pilot at a time ?

[CONF iture]

Both AF447 and EgyptAir 990 provide examples of how those design decisions can cause problems when that assumption is violated, whether accidentally or deliberately.
The 767 "split elevator" function has never been the problem or caused the problem in the Egyptair case.

[CONF iture]

One thing that came out of the EgyptAir 990 investigation is that when the yokes are pushed and pulled in opposite directions on the 767 - with sufficient force you get a split elevator condition (i.e. one elevator deflects up, the other down). Boeing had to spend a lot of money correcting that.
And what did they correct exactly ... ?

[DH_call]

*I apologize for the thread drift but I'm really curious..*

Why don't you have a PPL Dozy? It's very easy to get. Shirley with your vast knowledge of aviation and flying big jets you should be able to safely takeoff and land three times on a Cessna.

[DozyWannabe]

On my wages? Pull the other one, it's got bells on! ;)

[Natstrackalpha]

Back to the plot then . . .

Some of you seasoned hallowed Captains (young and less young alike)
refer to stick and rudder manual - real flying (I know what you mean of course) but, is not dancing the skies on laughter silvered wings - just that? - Flying.

You are in it. Off the Earth. In the air. Flying.

So, as long as you are in that dimension, what difference does it make if you pb a push button or apply fwd pressure and trim?

I mean, look at the Primary Flight Display (PFD) you`ve got speed, altitude, RoD, heading(track) artificial horizon plus general state of what modes are in force FMA - all in one place all the engines and fuel and electrics and hydraulics and every thing are contained on quite large electronic screens - all in one place. Heck, its like flying a book, or should I say a Kimble. It is sssoooo laid back. It does half of your flying for you (because of you - you set it all up at the start of the flight, don`t forget) and yet you are still flying, you are still thousands of feet above the ground in some . . 65 tons of aeroplane - doing about 7.5 miles a minute - kewel!

[LeadSled]

Boeing had to spend a lot of money correcting that.

Dozy,
The B767 flight control system has not been re-designed. The mechanical link between the control columns are designed with a breakout link, it is part of the design to ensure control with a part jam.
Tootle pip!!

[Greek God]

Having tried both, my gripe with AB is its quirkyness, and the fact as a pilot you only get what AB deems important, until something happens that is! (LH incident)
Magenta generally is what is commanded - why does the speed bug move to Vapp when flaps are deployed? Surely it should overlay F indications?
I hate the static thrust levers with AT engaged especially in gusty conditions with GS mini. Actually wound up doing a GA from an approach when AT was slow to react and PF moved thrust levers forward past CLB giving GA mode. Never mind GS mini was still commanding 30kts above Vapp!
Hate being PM on a gusty approach as you can't see / help / follow through on the controls plus you do certainly get pitch coupling as the system changes from NL to Landing mode.
But every aircraft has its foibles and you have to accept understand and live with them, however, if its all gone to rats**t I do prefer to have direct control of the beast, not through some interface which can modify my input. Why do AB treat Direct Law as there dragons be? It's the law under which all other aircraft I've ever flown have operated!
As mentioned before 90% of the time it's great but you need to have your wits about you in abnormal situations as sometimes things be less than logical!

[Natstrackalpha]

your writin be loved it be

[DozyWannabe]

The B767 flight control system has not been re-designed. The mechanical link between the control columns are designed with a breakout link, it is part of the design to ensure control with a part jam.

I didn't say re-designed, but I'm sure I read somewhere the breakout settings were tweaked so a situation whereby the elevator could be fully split to the point where the outcome was a potentially unrecoverable loss of control was no longer possible.

[DozyWannabe]

I'm not actually seeing an A. vs. B. situation developing in the conversation here.

I'm seeing a lot of misunderstandings (including my own re: 767) about the Airbus FBW vs. traditional control layout, but given that the Airbus FBW technology is probably the most misunderstood application of technology to aviation in history, I guess that's not surprising. I'm also seeing a worrying lack of understanding as to the fact that FBW and FMS (including automation) are completely separate concepts - especially in the original poster.

RRR's concerns that he still finds the flight control system on the Airbus FBW series to be something of a "black box" are perfectly reasonable, but then even with the old electro-mechanical and electro-hydraulic control systems, it was a rare FE, let alone pilot, who understood the principles of cam setup and gearing used within them. Maybe it's a question of there being a generational mistrust of digital computing technology over and above the old mechanical setup?

Of course, saying that, reading HTBJ it becomes apparent that pilots of the era were muttering darkly about the old stick-push mechanisms for much the same reasons...

[DozyWannabe]

Hi John,

It's been discussed a lot on other threads (a few examples here):
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/379795-use-automation-policy-airlines.html
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/351759-dumbing-down-instrument-rating-tests.html
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/500939-flight-should-airline-pilots-have-more-better-different-upset-recovery-training-4.html
http://www.pprune.org/middle-east/229649-emirates-pilots-no-longer-allowed-fly-plane.html

[PEI_3721]

The current view of “Children …” is not necessarily aiding the industry’s quest for safety improvement.
AFAIR the original ‘Children of the magenta line’ quote is attributed to Don Bateman, the Father and Mentor of GPWS/EGPWS. The context was that of pilots blindly following computed navigation solutions - the magenta flight plan route, without further thought.
The famed video clip is one particular airline’s view of the need to revert to manual flight control, often overlooked as complex situations evolve. This is similar to many manufacturers’ recommendations to reassess the level of automation, use a lower level, or disengage the autos.

The underlying issue, which the video and much of the discussion overlooks, is how does the pilot become aware of the need to change, how does a crew achieve an understanding of the situation and then decide to change. What are the key factors, the processes, and thus what training and guidance is provided to aid this judgement.

This discussion and previous threads have toyed with A vs B, or the symptoms encountered in modern day operations, and as much of this involves automation, allocates a causal effect, but fails to identify the deep seated reasons for incidents and accidents.
Recommending more manual flight practice etc, may only be throwing a wet blanket over the problem. The underlying cause could erupt elsewhere and with greater effect. Most of the problem situations require the use of automation, areas where the human cannot, or is not allowed to operate. More manual flight practice might aid recovery from the very rare abnormal situations, but not the normal situations involving automation and human aspects which deteriorate to incident scenarios.

The operators (we the pilots) probably have the greater value information as to the real ‘cause’, but in the majority have failed to think about this, or if known, been unable to communicate the issue. We tend to confuse factors of events or outcome with cause.
One particular aspect could relate to how automation is perceived; it’s not human and thus will not fly or behave like a human. Yet much of the ‘quick-fix’ training focuses on comparing the human and computer.
A rage against the machine might only represent our frustration of not understanding.

We have a very powerful and useful set of tools; we have to understand their purpose, capabilities (particularly the limitations), and the optimum methods of use. Following the magenta line is generally very safe and helpful, but we need to know when this might not be so, and then change what we think and do.

[Teldorserious]

There is no argument 'for' automation other then for chief pilots not wanting to deal with high time pilot attitude. That's it. So they cull for scared FOs that will push buttons and stay scared, controlled, always listening to the captain, always taking orders.

Nothing scares a chief pilot more then some 10,000 hour pilot calling him on his bull****, especially as another jackscrew mishap, or one of his robots adjusting the seat takes out out a plane load of people.

What pisses me off is that the FAA is in on it.

[gums]

First of all, thanks, Slam for the video of the AA pilot's briefing/presentation.

My feeling is that AA was reacting to the Cali accident, when entering a confusing waypoint turned the plane the wrong way. Although realizing the jet was turning the wrong way, and then coming back to the desired course, they continued the descent. The end result was still heartbreaking to me, as I knew the A/C very well.

The issue is not the FBW systems. I can't think of any heavy planes that have flown since the 70's that had exclusive mechanical linkages to the control surfaces. Seems most had simple hydraulic valves at the bottom of the yoke that moved actuators via pressure. There were some real mechanical connections like cables, pulleys, pushrods and such for some surfaces. But the primary control surfaces, the big ones, were pure hydraulics. Feedback seemed to be springs and such to provide "feel". Same as I flew for many years in lites.

[PEI_3721]

A quote from a pilot some time ago:-

“the machine that we will be handling will become increasingly automated; we must therefore learn to work as a team with automation;
a robot is not a leader in the strategic sense of the term, but a remarkable operator;
humans will never be perfect operators even if they indisputably have the capabilities to be leaders;

strategy is in the pilot’s domain, but not necessarily tactics;
the pilot must understand why the automation does something, and the necessary details of how;

it must be possible for the pilot to immediately replace the automaton, but only if he has the capability and can do better;
whenever humans take control, the robot must be eliminated;

the pilot must be able to trust automation;
acknowledge that it is not human nature to fly;
it follows that a thinking process is required to situate oneself, and in the end, as humiliating as it may be, the only way to insure safety is to use protective barriers” (1996)

[vilas]

PEI3721
I find your comments the most sensible on this topic. What you said is writing on the wall and must be accepted. Everyone else have exercised their right to have an opinion but mostly it is in form of their own preferences, prejudices and lament. Thanks.

[main_dog]

vilas PEI3721
What you said is writing on the wall and must be accepted. Everyone else have exercised their right to have an opinion but mostly it is in form of their own preferences, prejudices and lament.

While I also mostly agree with that quote, why is it that that is the writing on the wall while everyone else's view is only "opinion"? Isn't that just your, er, opinion? ;) As an aside, through the years I have noticed that pilots enamoured of "A" products usually have opinions similar to that above, while pilots who prefer flying "B" aircraft tend have a more jaundiced/cynical view.

Personally, whether they happen to fly A or B products I prefer pilots who view automation as a mere tool, very useful but still at their service (and not a crutch to be relied on). I trust the guys/gals who retain a firm grasp of the essentials of aviation (aviate, navigate, communicate!) and with the skills/confidence necessary to switch to lower and simpler levels of automation as required, right down to manual flight -which is exactly what Airbus recommends by the way. This requires solid basics of flight, loads of experience, and a good knowledge of one's aircraft's thrust settings and attitudes, which probably means that once in a while you remember to click everything off and hand fly it! :}

Of course that is just my opinion...

[Brian Abraham]

There is no argument 'for' automation other then for chief pilots not wanting to deal with high time pilot attitude.
Ridiculous comment.It's OK John, he's not a pilot so not expected to know.

[Speedwinner]

Just my comment:

I fly medium and short range out of the UK. I don´t get the comments posted here: a pilot who flies more raw data ils than others is a better pilot? Come on, be professional. I NEVER had the feeling the guy next to me was unable to fly or control the airplane. NEVER. We fly challenging approaches: Salzburg, Innsbruck, Bastia, Dubrovnik, Olbia, Funchal and so on. I have always seen and flown safe approaches and landings.

I believe keeping up the skills is important. Flying visual approaches is the greatest thing on earth and our company encourages us to do so in nice weather. But truly flying for me is like swimming: i learned it, i practice it and i can do it. I believe in my skills. So mavericks and overconfident pilots whats your problem? Be professional. Dont fly raw data in :mad: weather conditions to prove yourself. Stay with the automatics. And nice argument in posts before: i wouldnt place my family in your aircraft when flying raw data at minimum weather. No way.

And please dont tell me the stories of no FD in stormy weather with minimum visibility and heavy crosswind. In this case you should have enough extra fuel to divert and do a safe landing somewhere else. Otherwise you shouldnt sit in that damn cockpit.

So i dont fly long range but i could imagine that the jockeys there are not that much proficient. For sure: my friend on the 747 makes maxiumum 3 landings a month with autopilot on till 500ft agl. You can't be really proficient that way.

Sometimes i think we could improve out landings and techniques. I have seen a thousand of them with a too early thrust reduction, the damn autothrust reducing to early the power, no flare at all, too long etc. I think we should improve in this section not in flying the perfect raw data ils and :mad: up the landing.

Thanks and comments appreciated


PS: Excuses for my bad english, it´s not my native language

[Megaton]

Boeing recommends F/D and autopilot for the heavy jet I fly so that's good enough for me. If you want to "hobby fly", rent a Cessna.

[Capn Bloggs]

Boeing recommends F/D and autopilot for the heavy jet I fly
Oxymoron in there, methinks...

[Megaton]

For the heavy jet I'm paid to operate :ok:

Good point. :ok:

[FlightPathOBN]

the video mentions 'navdatabase errors"...

you have no idea....

with RNP and GBAS...the procedures and coding are there, from enroute, approach, missed, and EO missed..

other threads have shown the 'issues' with understanding of EO missed, yet it can be right there in the box. (I would suppose that unfortunately, while it is figured in the box, if you lose the box, you are screwed)

There are many airports in the world where there is no approach or departure procedure other than RNP, and that trend will continue in Chna, South America, and other developing areas. (and if RAIM doesnt check before DEP, you are not going to that airport)

dont discount the tech...learn how to optimize it for your use.

[main_dog]

Instrument flying is a perishable skill. Use it or lose it.

You, a pilot, actually fly your airplane? Gasp, shock, horror; I didn't think we were allowed to do that anymore, only to "operate".. ;) Take cover and standby for the usual brigade of "you dangerous, crazy macho"!

Fifteen years of airline flying and I have yet to come across a rambo-pilot who wanted to hand-fly when inappropriate (low vis/ceiling, traffic, fatigued, windshear or tech problems), that simply doesn't happen. However I have witnessed plenty who would always pass up on perfect chances to polish their skills and work on their instrument scan (cavok, no traffic or tech problems, no fatigue issues). They inevitably click on the A/P at minimum engagement altitude and leave it engaged until minimums. Usually with a sheepish comment like "it flies better than I do anyway" or "they don't really want us to hand-fly"...

As john_smith says, use it or lose it. :ok:

[aterpster]

FlightPath:

the video mentions 'navdatabase errors"...

That video was made when RNP AR was just a gleam in daddy's eye.:)

I can only speak to the U.S. about RNP AR IAP databases. The verification and "flyability" process required for each qualified FMS gives a lot more assurance that, at least, RNP AR IAPs are both coded correctly and will fly correctly.

[Natstrackalpha]

I have seen many cadet pilots after a few years flying, they fly the automatics wonderfully in the simulator. However when the time comes for them to fly a manual circuit without any automatics they panic and in many cases can not do it without significant step by step instruction.

Okay, the above is one extreme, which could/should be rectified to let the poor FOs try their hand a bit more often, whether they like it or not, you could call it . . . .yes, that`s it . . training. Surely a pilot in such a state needs training - throw in some mandatory training on manual handling.

I want to make another point, which could be personal, or, maybe not.

I have seen pilots progress on from light twins and singles to greater things like . .airliners. They then come back and ask to do the necessary to maintain their PPL in a light single, C152/172/PA28 say.

I always ask myself, why do they want to do that? Why sweat through years of hard graft to make it to the airlines, after having gone through all that training (and money) only to toddle back on your day off for reval and check out on the aircraft where it all started?

I thought I was an aviation person, but I do not share bimbling around in a single when one has progressed onto greater things.

Why not marry your airbus rather than come back to puddle jumpers . . .?

There must be loads of opportunity in day to day life of just flying manually - for example, in the sim, or when doing mandatory training, check outs in the aircraft, command conversion training . .etc., etc., that sort of thing.

As soon as the base training is over and they have had a sector or two - they come flying back as if reaching for momma. What is it that makes pilots do this? Is it perhaps that after being so hammered and beaten up in training they come back just to prove to the world - that they can in fact fly, just as well, all on their lonesome?

I realise I am going to get criticised for this - but does no one share my view?

[galaxy flyer]

No......all flying is fun. All flying has its boring bits. Going to an Airbus/Boeing/Whatever doesn't end flying in Cessna/Piper/Extra/Whatever. Are you a pilot or ego-driven SJS slave?

[Natstrackalpha]

What are you talking about? What the hell is SJS?

ALL flying is not fun to everyone. Fancy flying in a balloon? A Zeppelin?

Do you therefore enjoy flying in every single aircraft?

Well, fine, stuff yourself full of one particular aircraft for ages and then you might want to fly something else.

ALL flying is fun, is it :mad:!

All flying what you want to fly is fun.

[galaxy flyer]

Shiny Jet Syndrome--def. an affliction common among the new and inexperienced jet pilots. Also, applies to pilot's who reflexively look askance at pilots who are aviating in lesser aircraft, as defined by those afflicted.

That's what I meant,


BTW, care to post your aviation credentials in your profile.

[Mach E Avelli]

Dunno about the rest of yez, but I still usually enjoy flying at two completely different levels:

1. Professionally. Mainly 'cos I get paid for it, but having hot coffee brought up on cue is still kinda nice too. And getting to play with all those clever autopilots and stuff. Good for an ageing brain.

2. Decidedly UNprofessionally in my bugsmasher. Mainly 'cos there is no F/O sitting there to criticise my lax attention to airspeed, altitude and track. Time to smell the roses (or cow dung) from 500 feet. VERY good for ageing reflexes.

Mix the two = no stress in the simulator when that pr!ck of an examiner fails the goodies.

That may sound a bit smug, but the point is, reverting to basics by occasionally flying light aircraft definitely has its benefits. The so-called "Gimli glider" incident is one of the best examples of this.

[USMCProbe]

After 4 airlines plus the military, 9 jets, 3 FBW, what I believe is this:

It is up to each of us, as pilots, to decide if we want to be able to perform as Sully did, or the A330 in the South Atlantic. There were 4 regional crashes in the 2000-2010 period in the US that were caused by the lack of ability to basically control the aircraft.

We make this decision every day. Do we maintain our flying skills? Do we shut off the automation and hand fly when weather, time, and flying partner permit?

The time to make this decision about what kind of pilot we are going to be cannot be made on the day of reckoning. On that day, it is too late.

I have flown with outstanding pilots, and horrible pilots, from all over the world. Automation is great, when used for what it was meant for. It vastly increases safety on a daily basis. But we need to maintain our flying skills. That is why we get paid the big....er....above average bucks.

Unfortunately there are more and more airlines around the world, including well known ones, that are discouraging us to maintain our skills, and some don't allow it by SOP. Someday they will pay the price unfortunately, and maybe the passengers as well.

[Denti]

To be honest, flying a jet is kinda fun, but it is mainly a very tightly regulated job. For real fun, completely on my own terms, i rather fly a puddlejumper, glider plane, hang glider or turn myself into a small plane on my own by jumping out of healthy plane.

It's called recreation and in our profession it has the huge added bonus that it also helps us maintaining a part of our professional skill. I started flying at 14 not to get into a profession, but to have a huge load of fun. Eventually i did turn to flying professionally, but i would not give up flying for fun on my own, only constraints are time and money, and both are indeed crippling, especially with the added financial burden of EASA regulation.

[Natstrackalpha]

No......all flying is fun. All flying has its boring bits. Going to an Airbus/Boeing/Whatever doesn't end flying in Cessna/Piper/Extra/Whatever. Are you a pilot or ego-driven SJS slave?

Sorry GF.

You are right. Also my response was unnecessary - apologies.

deleted text - not like you to be catty ?

[gums]

I had some time to collect my thoughts and axioms since my last post.

I really like this thread, and that AA pilot's presentation rings home with this old fighter pilot. It should be a part of all commercial airline pilot's annual training.

There is no substitute for being able to fly the plane with little or no help from otto. The Sully incident and the Gimli glider incident show what can be done when otto goes Tango Uniform or is not able to do the approach/landing due to electronic failures, mechanical failures, structural damage, etc. .The Sioux City incident is another great example of what can be done when the "magenta line" is not available and the crew must rely upon basic airmanship and flying skills.

One observation by one of the pilots here is one that scares the hell outta me - engage otto soon after takeoff and then disengage at about 200 or 300 feet on final approach. Think about the "feel" of the plane due to gusts, crosswinds, changing conditions approaching the runway. Maybe the pilot should be flying a bit more without "help" to realize that things were gonna be tricky once at the end game, ya think?

We had various levels of automation ( otto) in the jets I flew, but for the most part we flew our planes manually with "guidance" from the various systems - TFR, nav guidance cues, etc. The "magenta line" for we light pukes. In my day, the only jet with otto for terrain following was the 'vaark.

Main Dog has it nailed: Use it or lose it.

In the 70's, USAF actually had a program to have the "heavy" pilots fly a few times a month in the T-37. No otto a,nd they could do stall avoidance or even spin recovery. No magenta line and they had to do the whole intrument approach using the charts and basic IFR techniques. No guidance cues as in the T-38, so course interception and let down rates were all done using basic flying skills and experience. Imagine that?

I take issue with Ater about the FMS nav data. Go look at Cali. You must still have good, if not great, situational awareness about MEA and hazards and the basic navaids/fixes for your destination.

The pilots here that fly lights when not hauling 200 SLF's around have my utmost respect and trust. After all, we pilots are supposed to be aviators first and foremost, and not "system monitors".

[USMCProbe]

Children of the Magenta Line.

When I think about the title of this thread, I don't think the Magenta line is the problem. As a matter of fact it massively increases situational awareness. An ILS and VOR are nothing more than another artificial way to navigate. Personally I will take the Magenta line.

The two things I have seen that destroy pilots ability to maintain situational awareness are too much AP and auto throttles, and here is a huge one: massive overreliance on VNAV for descents. Using VNAV and the FMC exclusively for descents allows one to be just along for the ride, instead of staying 10 minutes ahead of where the airplane is currently

Again, the choice to be a hero or a bum is not made on the day that determination is made, but in the months and years before. Did you maintain your proficiency?

If your answer is yes, you might end up being a hero some day. If the answer is no, you might be the causal factor in a smoking hole, that you were determined to have caused.

[BOAC]

destroy pilots ability to maintain situational awareness - you cannot dismiss the 'Magenta Line' in terms of 'situational awareness' - I have flown with a couple of pilots who COULD NOT navigate without it. Heaven knows how they passed an IR. Without the 'line' they were completely 'lost' - VOR/DME and PLOG were a mystery to them. One even asked me how I was managing to navigate between two VORs on an airway without LNAV.

[RAT 5]

2 stories about non-GPS a/c which of course still had a magenta line: and needles & dials.

B733 CL. Approaching the Azores for an ILS. Been over the ocean for quite a while, hence long time since IRS updates. F/O was in HDG SEL with VOR/LOC armed to capture ILS and about a 60 degree intercept. I was looking at ADF needle for OM, he was looking at Magenta line on MAP. Suddenly, about 1.0" before extended magenta centre line the a/c banked sharply and captured the ILS. F/O was shocked, disconnected and suggested false capture. I suggested he look at the LOC deviation on the EADI and also at the ADF OM. "Ah Ha! But the magenta line is off to the left." It quickly updated to the LOC. I explained about map shift. B757 into Cairo for a VOR on the easterlies. Again, long time since update over Africa. The ryw's are very widely spaced and viz was bad in sand. A/C was in HDG SEL with VOR/LOC armed for VOR approach. I asked PM to select RAW data on EHSI. Long before the magenta extended centre line the a/c banked and captured the VOR radial. I now looked at PROG/2 and showed the F/O the X-TK deviation. Not even the airfield was in sight at this point. I confirmed with the F/O that he was happy to continue using the raw data and I switched from MAP to same and we flew a successful VOR/NPA. I have to admit that I was concerned we may have tuned the wrong VOR and be lined up on the wrong rwy. He'd never seen anything as bad as that before.
In the B738 I spent many unsuccessful years trying to encourage F/O's to scan the green & blue arrows on the MAP. "Never seen map shift, so why should I?" "What are you going to do if the GPS fails? Should you descend if you do not confirm you are within 5 degrees of C/L on NPA? Is ANP?RNP enough on its own?"
I once tried to convert a B738 senior captain onto B733. When flying an NDB you had to use HDG SEL & V/S. To intercept the NDB inbd he just used HDG SEL to fly the magenta line; BUT there was map shift and he was way outside 5 degrees as he descended. When at MDA I froze the sim, switched on CAVOK, and heard "how is that possible?" It took a longtime to re-train this ex-B727 captain how to fly the needles again. He hadn't looked at them in years and forgotten how to use them. All very sad.
I still don't understand guys who teach, and those who follow, that you fly a 'raw data ILS' in MAP and not raw data APP mode. Putting the TK LIne on the magenta line does not always work.
There are some great new things out there, but sometimes the old ways can still be better.

[Centaurus]

I still don't understand guys who teach, and those who follow, that you fly a 'raw data ILS' in MAP

Horses for courses. Some prefer to use HSI VOR/ILS mode mode for ILS where you have a whacking big localizer CDI to follow. Much easier than squinting at the itsy bitsy LLZ needle situated under the ADI. Better still always have the standby ADI ILS set up if installed. Good cross-check airmanship.

[aterpster]

Centaarus:
Horses for courses. Some prefer to use HSI VOR/ILS mode mode for ILS where you have a whacking big localizer CDI to follow. Much easier than squinting at the itsy bitsy LLZ needle situated under the ADI. Better still always have the standby ADI ILS set up if installed. Good cross-check airmanship.

This does all of it:

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa214/aterpster/OnILS_zpsd4641160.jpg

[RAT 5]

....whacking big localizer CDI to follow. Much easier than squinting at the itsy bitsy LLZ needle situated under the ADI.

Quite agree. Trouble is, most of the SFI's who I encounter are children of the magenta line and know nothing else and have never flown a non-GPS a/c. They do not know how to teach the full APP mode display method.

For Aterpster: What does that name come from? I do not have a play station, but if I did................

[alf5071h]

The operational world is increasingly complex – ‘entropy’, more disorder, uncertainty, unpredictability; thus it is unlikely that there is a ‘simple’ solution such as # 115.

Most of the new integrated displays have to be optimized for a specific situation or task, and thus might not be suitable for other situations or tasks; worst still, they may introduce new or unforeseen problems.

These displays tend to mix vector graphics (like older, conventional instruments) with a ‘bit mapped’ background of picture-like graphics, simulating the real world. Neither of these is perfect, although the real world can be convincing.
Problems with ‘overlays’ can arise from the choice of scaling. Generally head-down instruments use more than 1:1, thus a pitch scale provides greater fidelity during instrument tasks; whereas in manual flight where the real world is like a bit map, the scaling is exactly 1:1.
Although the flying task is the same, the mental process may not be, pilots have to adjust for this.

If a bit-map is used as a backdrop to a vector display for instrument flying task, then 'the world' may have non standard scaling, which may be fine while head down, but might require some mental readjustment when transitioning to real world visual flight. Converse arguments might apply to visual flight transition to instrument flight. There is some evidence that the mental transition, the realigning the mental model, situation awareness and understanding, takes time; perhaps as much as 4 sec.

HUD tends to overcome this as the vector scaling is normally conformal with the real world (only one synthetic item). Also, during transition from HUD to real-world in low visibility, the bit-map real-world is increasingly of higher quality (less mental effort) as the visual scene improves (regulatory limits on DH and RVR – 'see to land'). However, if the visibility suddenly degrades (poor quality bit-map) there may be similar problems with mental switching, taking 2-4 sec to transition back to the vector display which requires ‘reinterpreting’.

There may be similar issues with the lateral axis, and with the depiction of track-course (over the ground) and flight-path vector (in space/time - 3D/4D on a 2D screen); further problems may arise with displays of vector accelerations such as potential flight path, which also interact with thrust.

In isolation, instrument or visual flight tasks, then a suitable format might be chosen, but with transition between them, or for intermediate tasks, problems could occur. Compare this point with current safety issues of awareness and transition from auto-flight to head-up manual flight. Would a futuristic display simplify the mental process or just add more data, more mental workload, without improving understanding?

[Natstrackalpha]

One assumes then that the use of Radio Aids and DR with Pilot Navigation can be `confirmed` by reference to the `magenta` as opposed to relying on the magenta whilst trying to remember where they put the VOR dial.

Its a bit like having a light aircraft and stuffing it full of GPS kit, which is the same as Tom Tomisation in cars - point . . . ?

Point is - the mind, if not the brain becomes GPS dependent or `lazy` or more importantly one dimensional. In the case of the Tom Tom road navigation . . . kit, you can navigate around the world - but when you get there, you won`t really know where you are - as you would have been a passenger.

In fact, if you think too much magenta - then when you turn your head away to `think`about your nav you find yourself - very momentarily - having to tranfer dimensions.

The whole mindset of `where are we?` `where are we now?` and `where are we going to be in how long?` has not been used - unless, hopefully, in conjuction with reality, namely Radio Aids and if in VMC the Mk1 eyeball and position dist/spd = That sort of thing, and that other piece of equipment, ah yes, thats it . . a chart . . . I wonder how long it would take to get the chart out if all the kit went TU?

Obviously, we do not follow momma magenta blindly . . . .and yet, there is a tendency for the human brain to stay safe - staying safe in a wood with a swamp means avoiding the swamp say - so being in a mass of work, swamped, the magenta child will refer to momma magenta as opposed to trying to satisfy an innate desire to know! where one is - position, altitude/level. Or putting it a little less delicately, WTF R WE?

[Teldorserious]

At this point, I really think people are so stupid that a requisite amount of people have to die before any real change occurs.

[Tee Emm]

See Post 115 the beautiful picture of the integrated PFD. That is most impressive with all that info packed into one TV screen.

Yet, I must say looking at the picture, have you ever wondered why the "little aeroplane" symbol with its wings drooping in anhedral is so tiny, when it is the most important symbol of the lot.

I prefer a whacking big "little aeroplane" symbol that stands out like dogs balls and looks like a real model aeroplane viewed from the back.

Remember the old Sperry Artificial Horizons that showed the little aeroplane as a big little aeroplane which certainly concentrated your scan when flying on instruments. You couldn't miss it even in poor lighting conditions.

Maybe a Ppruner could cut and paste a photo of a typical DC3/ DC4 AH or the huge AH symbol in some of the early fighters like the F86 Sabre.

Again, I have often wondered if recovering from an unusual attitude on instruments is much easier when using a realistic large aeroplane symbol rather than a small flattish triangle shaped symbol designed primarily to accommodate a flight director symbol like the V-Bars.

Look at the latest EFIS displays in Cessna 172 training aircraft. All that peripheral information and an itsy bitsy artificial horizon in the middle of that lot and so small that a student could be forgiven for not appreciating the vital purpose of that symbol which is to keep the blue side up. :ok:

[aterpster]

Tee Emm:

See Post 115 the beautiful picture of the integrated PFD. That is most impressive with all that info packed into one TV screen.

It's a screen capture from the PC trainer for the Garmin G-3000, which is going into the Phenom Jet 300 beyond a specified serial number in production. The MFD and touch screen data entry display are quite impressive as well.

https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/in-the-air/flight-decks/g3000-/prod66916.html

The G-3000 is a major, but incremental improvement of Garmin's G-1000 system.

The G-3000 will likely be certified for single-string RNP AR using AHRs.

[Natstrackalpha]

At this point, I really think people are so stupid that a requisite amount of people have to die before any real change occurs.

People die because they are stupid? Or do you mean you want to shoot a requisite number of instructors?:}


Quote:
The G-3000 will likely be certified for single-string RNP AR using AHR.



By the same token, have you seen Chelton PFDs and associated FMS?

Cool three dimensional displays, you can watch the mountain in threeD as you pass by it - hopefully by a long way - and also fly through valleys in IMC complete with top view, profile view and Highway In The Sky (HITS) - you can use this kit on a small aeroplane like an Otter or Cessna, nice!

IFR -- airways, TAWS, WAAS approaches, and visual approaches with a glide path.