A330 handling for dummies.

[C_Star]

I am a die-hard A320 pilot, but recently I managed to have a go in an A330 FFS. While the overall experience was very similar to my good 'ole 320 and I quickly got to know my ways around the cockpit, I noticed some peculiarities, which surprised me. I would appreciate some input form A330 drivers...

1) I was a bit disappointed with the roll control of the 330. The ailerons had a lot inertia. The sim would be very slow to start rolling and then very slow to stop - it felt uncomfortable at times. Is the slugishness in roll a simulator thing, or does the real a/c behave the same? I understand that the wing of A330 is longer, heavier and has more inertia compared to the 320. However, I have flown in 747,767,787 sims before and despite being similar size a/c, they all had very crisp roll control with no perceptible inertia

2) Rudder input required after engine failure at T/O seemed much smaller compared to the A320 - like half of what I was expecting. Does the 330 has a better yaw augmentation than A320?

3) A/THR was very slow to respond to gusts - I understand bigger engines have longer acceleration, but 20+ knot speed excrusions on approach:confused: Again, sim thing or A330 thing?

4) Why is F speed higher on approach than on T/O different for different CONF's? I have read the FCOM and understand how it works, but wonder what's the reason behind it - to keep lower deck angle? keep the a/c close to min drag at all CONF's? Other reasons?

All in all, a great airplane and I hope to fly it for a living someday :ok:

[tubby linton]

C star, it has been a number of years since I have flown it but I remember the auto thrust being lazy.Approach power settings were very low anyway so it didn't have a big thrust range to use. It was also quite twitchy in a cross wind.
I am told that the A350 which has a common rating, is much crisper.

[Uplinker]

I fly A320/A321/A330.

I do find the A330 sluggish compared to the 'little' jets, but this is to be expected for an aircraft weighing 230 tonnes; it has a lot more inertia !

I don't find it a problem at all, and I quickly adjusted to it.

The A330 autothrust does seem lazy, but as long as you allow for it, it is not a problem.

It's a big aircraft !!!!

[ACMS]

Big? Compared to what? A Cessna 150....!!

A C-5A is big, an A380 is big and so is a An-225

The 330 is a mid sized plastic bus ( yes that makes the 320 a mini bus )

But I do get your point.....

[Uplinker]

All right, calm down! :) It's big compared to an A320, which the OP drives.

OK, an A330 is only half the weight of an A380, so that makes the 330 a medium, but when I do my walk around underneath a 330, I am always struck by how big the damn thing is ! If/when I get to fly a 380, I will probably revise my perception :ok:

[JABBARA]

C Star

The handling quality of FBW only depends on how the engineers tuned the computers for particular type of airplane. I do not consider the differences what you felt is related to inertia, I have flown both types and I do not remember any difference. The reason may be the calibration problem of FFS which you have flown.

And
The function of "F" in Take off, is marking the Vls speed of Con 1+F. That means, regardless Conf 2 or 3 which you have used for take off, when you have retracted the flaps/slats direct to Conf 1+F at "F" speed, even there is no acceleration, the the current speed will not be less than Vls of new selected configuration (= C 1+F), which is fail safe.

However, the function of "F" in Approach is completely different: They represent maneuvering speed of selected configuration (Conf 2 or 3). That maneuvering speed is (L/D) max of selected configuration and approximately equals to 1.4x Vs1g. Since for Conf 2 and Conf 3 for approach there is different Vs1g, so that means there will be different F for each configuration. Airbus formulated or approximated or related it to QRH "F" speed (which is good for take off) as 4 or 14% increase.

[Uplinker]

Hey JABBARA, thanks, I've learnt something new.

[ShotOne]

Thanks, Jabbara but I fly both and in my opinion the A330 feels very different in roll to a 320, as well it might being (nearly) three times the size, so I wouldnt put it down to sim tuning

[320busdriver]

totally agree Shot :ok:, am now on the 333 after many lovely years on the small bus and I still feel that lag after a few thousand hours on her, especially during gusty conditions on landing, I`ve done 2 landings on the backside of a typhoon, but the 330 sure is a beauty to land.

[No Fly Zone]

The software engineers at AB simply need to add one more cockpit-adjustable dial on the A330. Call it Responsiveness; no words or numbers necessary, just two icons at the 1 and 10 positions: Position 1 (least) can be represented by the outline of a whale and 10 (most) by some slick fighter airplane, perhaps with the canopy half blown off.
Please forgive me if my data are stale: A320 series includes Ejection Seats, while the A330 series do not. The other differences are trivial.

[ACMS]

330 sure is a beauty to land...............

Oh that's funny, you've never flown a 747 or 77W then have you? Now they are easy to land like a fairy's fart.....

Damn that Airbus de-rotation bogey tilt thump....******



******Edited later to add I wasn't implying the crew de-rotated the Sidestick, simply the physical de-rotation of the actual bogies on touchdown after spoiler deployment.

[CCA]

CX perhaps?

I spent a few hours chatting with a US based 330 crew in Rome many years ago, first discussing the de-rotation technique, his reply...

"What the **** are you talking about it lands just like any aircraft, I've never heard of de-rotation"

Unfortunately CX maintains this fallacy, the 330 can land just as sweetly as any aircraft.

[ACMS]

Nope sorry it's not just Cathay it's Aircraft landing gear design and spoiler deployment rates.

The same on other 330's I've flown in.

You can do very little about the bogies tilting after the spoilers deploy and it's a rough thump........

Anyway, just watch ANY 330 landing next time and watch the "thump" down, I've seen many from the parallel taxyway and it's not pretty...

Easy to firstly grease on the trailing wheels but not so easy for the front.:ugh: in fact the smoother the trailing wheels contact the worse the thump later on...

Many techniques to try and stop this including sidestick de-rotation ( which I hardly ever use myself ), slightly delaying the selection of Reverse until the tilt completes or a slightly firmer initial touchdown which seems to de-rotate the bogies a little smoother giving an overall smoother result.



Either way it's no Jumbo or 777.

[Uplinker]

At the risk of setting off an anorak frenzy:

Land the trailing mains.
Pitch down a few degrees.
Wait for the front mains to land.
NOW pull reverse.
Use elevator to make the nose gear landing gentle.

This will give you a near greaser every time - no thumps at all.

Pulling reverse is what slams the front mains down.

[ACMS]

I agree.

The best I've ever done on the 330 is about the "average to good" standard I did on the 777.

It is very difficult to pull off consistantly good smooth landings on the bus, something you could do on the 777 or 744.

Anyway.....

[mikedreamer787]

Airbii by their overcomputerized nature are not intuitive to pilots. Boeings are.

[vapilot2004]

Airbii by their overcomputerized nature are not intuitive to pilots. Boeings are.

Now I am not current on the Airbus, but I did complete a type course years ago. I came from experience spanning all conventionally controlled aircraft.

I can tell you that while there are times when one is left wondering what is going to happen next, for the most part, the Airbus FBW system is actually more intuitive than one might think. Boeing's own version in the 777 and later 787 has many of the same "ease of operation" and protection features that the Airbus has.

There were a few things, from perhaps old habits, that I found unnerving. The lack of backdriven throttles and when on A/P, there being no indication outside of the instruments of what was being commanded to do what (aileron/elevator inputs). Training and experience, I was told, and tried my best to trust, got one used to that lack of learned visual reference. Other than that lack of physical feedback, the sidestick arrangement was not an issue and it took very little time to be at home here.

MD787, you've heard the expression "to know me is to love me" - well, with the Airbus FBW, to know one is to understand one. Perhaps a sim visit would set your mind at ease?

Sorry for the sidetrack. Back to the discussion about an aircraft that I have never stepped foot upon (the A330) but have seen many a fine example of going about its business.

[Amadis of Gaul]

Airbii by their overcomputerized nature are not intuitive to pilots. Boeings are.

In my experience, all-encompassing statements like the above come from people who have never flown either an Airbus or a Boeing. Or anything else, for that matter.

[Uplinker]

Quote:
Airbii by their overcomputerized nature are not intuitive to pilots. Boeings are......

What a load of absolute total ******. You speak for all pilots do you?

Why must people like you insist on peddling this ridiculous nonsense about Airbus being "over" computerised, when you clearly have no operational experience or understanding of the systems that you criticise?

I came off the BAe 146 - a 'conventionally' controlled aircraft - onto an A320, (then onto A321 and A330), and from day one the Airbus was very intuitive and easy to fly. Much easier, in fact than the dear old 146.


And from another poster;

I can tell you that while there are times when one is left wondering what is going to happen next.............

You can't tell me - it's never happened to me. What the hell are you talking about? If this happens to you it is due to your lack of situational awareness and nothing to do with the aircraft. Go back and study your FCOM if you don't understand how it works.

[vapilot2004]

Yes yes UP, training is key to understanding any aircraft including the FBW Airbus. Some of the relevant ideas and new FBW concepts are easy enough to digest, but beyond the FCOM, training, training and more training, yes? :ok:

You can't tell me - it's never happened to me. What the hell are you talking about?

Autoflight and the peculiarities that come with it. Ask anyone (not me) with sufficient time on the aircraft and they will tell you that there are moments when one is left scratching one's head (or other parts human) thinking what the hell is it doing now. :}

It's not at all a safety issue, just a peculiarity - which training can sort out. Trust the automatics, and to maintain good SA, going back to Reagan's adage on his presidential era's Soviet nuclear talks, "trust but verify"

[Uplinker]

Sorry for the thread creep, but if an Airbus ever does something that you weren't expecting, it is your situational awareness or your understanding of the systems that is the problem, not the Airbus. I am sick of people blaming and slagging off Airbus. Airbus make fantastic aircraft which are very safe and efficient if operated correctly, (and so do Boeing).

Every thing an Airbus FMGS does has either been programmed by you, selected by you, or is in reaction to a situation that you or the atmosphere has caused. Nothing should therefore be a surprise.

There are pilots, including some of those who have gone from Boeing to Airbus, who have clearly not taken the time to properly read, learn and understand the Airbus systems. Again, this is their problem, not Airbus's.

[hikoushi]

Okay. Here is a scenario. Deviating 50 miles left of track for weather, using the offset function, ALT CRZ / NAV. Clear of weather. Relief captain decides to return to course, great. Does a "direct to" the next fix, which is about 150 miles down line. Airplane turns, active waypoint is that fix, "OFFSET DELETED" pops up in the scratchpad and all is well in the world.

5 minutes later I look down and notice that all my FMS flight plan predictions are dashed as if it is trying to calculate. His side is normal. "Hm". Minute or so later mine comes back, but is wildly different from his. Time estimates are now about 20 minutes off at each fix, EFOB at destination (YSSY) now showing -15,000 (minus) whereas his side now shows some ridiculously high number.

Break out a plotting chart, plot GPS position, all good and the NAV function is still working fine. Check flight plan numbers over previous waypoint vs ground speed, distance to the next fix, and fuel burn, numbers look fine. Still carry an E6B for superstition if no other reason, and found it handy at that particular time.

Tried everything we could think of to jog the system out of whatever brain-lock it was having (reset cost index, secondary flight plan, refresh direct, everything we could find in the QRH, Volume 3 or 4 etc). Nada, no change. "Hm."

Passed the waypoint. Waypoint sequenced but same discrepancies persisted. 20 minutes later, they crept back together, minute by minute. Soon, they matched up. Fuel calculations went haywire and then came back together, and all matched our manual running calculation. All was once again well in the world.

During this entire sequence there were NO ECAMS, no alerts of any kind, nada. No systems faults shown on the maintenance menus, no status page items, no scratchpad messages, nothing, zip.

Tell me how in the hell that was something we caused by "lack of knowledge" and I'll buy you a beer. Said "relief" captain was a TRE by the way, and I'm no slouch myself.

BTW the maintenance engineers had no clue, couldn't find anything wrong. Just pulled the boxes out and re-racked them for lack of any better solution. Was fine on the way home.

[Uplinker]

Hi hikoushi, am just off to work, but for a quick answer talk to Honeywell or whoever made your aircraft's FMGCs.

It sounds like a fault, caused by a bad connection which was cured by re-racking the FMGC's. I was not talking about fault scenarios, but a similar thing would have happened to a Boeing with a faulty FMGS, so it's nothing to do with Airbus per se, or Airbus being "overcomputerised", which was one of my points.

Not all faults are monitored by ECAM, but you know that right? - and you also know which faults and systems are not monitored don't you?

We always actively run plotting charts when crossing oceans and plot our position regularly to guard against the sort of navigation problem that you mention.

I do not know everything, but from my own personal experience; TRE's do not know everything either. :ok:

[Microburst2002]

Hikoushi

You might have found a new "fms specificity".

I love them!:eek:

[mikedreamer787]

You speak for all pilots do you?Nope, nor did I insinuate same.

Rewrite your post without the rants and ad-hominem statements and I will reply to it stating my reasons.

when you clearly have no operational experience or understanding of the systems that you criticise?Yes I must go fly an Airbus one day!

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/524322-a320-dc-ess-bus-fault-after-takeoff-would-you-return-2.html#post8078791

[hikoushi]

Hi hikoushi, am just off to work, but for a quick answer talk to Honeywell or whoever made your aircraft's FMGCs.

It sounds like a fault, caused by a bad connection which was cured by re-racking the FMGC's. I was not talking about fault scenarios, but a similar thing would have happened to a Boeing with a faulty FMGS, so it's nothing to do with Airbus per se, or Airbus being "overcomputerised", which was one of my points.

Not all faults are monitored by ECAM, but you know that right? - and you also know which faults and systems are not monitored don't you?

We always actively run plotting charts when crossing oceans and plot our position regularly to guard against the sort of navigation problem that you mention.

I do not know everything, but from my own personal experience; TRE's do not know everything either. :ok:


Yes indeed! Regarding the ECAMs and fault messages, "FM DISAGREE" is the one I did not get but kind of expected.

Some say get rid of the plots and old school flight logs; I say they work great, always have and always will!