PPRuNe Forums


Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 9th Feb 2017, 02:41   #61 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tropics
Posts: 273
In the latest revision of the FCOM, the OEB on the abnormal alpha prot has been removed. Does anyone know if any modifications were done, if not on what basis was it decided that it no longer applies? Can't find any info on this.
dream747 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th Feb 2017, 06:39   #62 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London
Posts: 77
Any ideas why on one of the three scenarios you can't use the FPV but on the other two you can?
PilotJames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th Feb 2017, 13:50   #63 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Turkey
Age: 40
Posts: 3
FPV utilization

You can use FPV and vertical speed IF ALTITUDE INFO IS RELIABLE. Need to cross check with GPS altitude, as depicted in QRH.
butcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th Feb 2017, 15:39   #64 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wandering
Posts: 1,546
FPA is Vzbi or Baro inertial vertical speed. When the baro part is lost the bird could not be used. But after Modification No.153528 after loss of ADRs the FPA is calculated using hybrid vertical parameters based on GPIRS. The procedure for all ADRs off now is to use FPV is available.
vilas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th Feb 2017, 16:39   #65 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London
Posts: 77
If you have a look at the OEB there are three scenarios listed. The first is for a continuous nose down pitch.
One ADR - Keep on
Two ADRs - OFF

But in this scenario it doesn't say to use the FPV.
My guess is that it's a dynamic situation so the FPV might be erroneous in this situation.
PilotJames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Feb 2017, 10:16   #66 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wandering
Posts: 1,546
PilotJames
This topic was discussed in the following thread:


A320 OEB Blocked AOA probes 25/12/2012
vilas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Feb 2017, 15:19   #67 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wandering
Posts: 1,546
Actually this is only AOA locked without any problem with Pitot Static system. So the speed and bird are not affected. The first scenario is immediate action in case of uncontrolled descent and the remaining two possible displays on the PFD. The bird should be usable for all the situations.
You can see the explanation from below reference:
http://mes-transferts.lescigales.org...PROT%20320.pdf
vilas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th Feb 2017, 11:45   #68 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: lagos
Posts: 577
Yes it's not an unreliable airspeed indication.

Bird using IR data, usable but not sure how it will be very helpful.
pfvspnf is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 17th Feb 2017, 13:15   #69 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wandering
Posts: 1,546
The aim is to get out of normal law. After that's done when you loose FD, the bird surely is a help to maintain flight path. Also speed indication is correct.
vilas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th Feb 2017, 14:12   #70 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: lagos
Posts: 577
As an amateur as i am, can you explain how the FDs are not reliable in alternate law when the situation is stabilized?
pfvspnf is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 17th Feb 2017, 14:37   #71 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wandering
Posts: 1,546
Because this particular OEB says so.
The AP and FDs are lost for remainder of the flight.
vilas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th Feb 2017, 22:25   #72 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,380
And you also need to include the Turkish Airlines crash at Amsterdam. I think this statement
Quote:
combine this with pilots with no real flying background and we will continue to spend time sonar searching the floors of the worlds oceans!
is closer to the mark regarding recent crashes.
Lookleft is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th Feb 2017, 22:48   #73 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: France
Posts: 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by clunckdriver View Post
As one of the early Bus Pilots in North America I just cant belive that these totally stupid systems have not been removed from Airbus products by now! When we first put crews through training on this aircraft {320s} it became obvious that there were so many problems caused by the totally flawed design concept that we were convinced that Airbus would wake up and fix things, but no, their only reaction was to mumble about "uneducated Canadians" and the merits of everthing French, now the launch customer for whom I worked at the time has given up on them and is disposing of the total Airbus fleet and switching to Boeing, long overdue Im afraid. In the mean time Mr Ziegler and his cohorts push their heads deeper in the sand, combine this with pilots with no real flying background and we will continue to spend time sonar searching the floors of the worlds oceans! {By the way, in case one blames my rant on any anti French bias, I live in French speaking Canada by choice and educated my kids in the French school system}
Everybody loves Mr Ziegler
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Ziegler
KayPam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th Feb 2017, 06:50   #74 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wandering
Posts: 1,546
KayPam
clunckdriver is a rabid airbus hater who no doubt was an early airbus pilot but who seem to have gone in hibernation since then and after suddenly coming back to life started voicing same prejudices while the rest of the world has moved on. Likes and dislikes are part of human psyche but it should not be completely divorced from reality. The airbus FBW order book as on 31/01/2017 stands at 16268 aircraft. There are hundreds of airlines that operate them and thousands of pilots like them. No one pilot or an airline can claim to be smarter than everybody else. Boeing also has moved on to FBW and they were not at all keen to extend the only non FBW 737 but for South west their biggest customer demanding an immediate equivalent to A320 Neo or else threatening to buy the Neo. Airbus FBW is different but it is here to stay and thriving not just surviving. Outside the US A320 Neo is outselling 737 by a margin. As you may have noticed some PPL/CPL or non airbus pilots use such posts to have pot shots at airbus. Other than that they are a waste of time.

Last edited by vilas; 18th Feb 2017 at 11:15.
vilas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th Feb 2017, 12:32   #75 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 3,503
The OEB 48 is cancelled provided that the aircraft is equipped with at least two Thales AoA probes (PN C16291AB or AA with repetitive check of the heating element) and ELAC standard L97+ or higher (A320) or L99 or higher on A319/A321. Sadly the information we got didn't elaborate what was changed on those ELAC versions, just that it solves the problem.
Denti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th Feb 2017, 13:49   #76 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 84
Is there any guidance or thoughts on which two ADRs to turn off...ie does it matter which you turn off? Are there any implications which may influence your choice. I have heard some pilots discuss that turning off certain ADRs may require a manual gear extension later on.
767-300ER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th Feb 2017, 14:02   #77 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: lagos
Posts: 577
Doesnt specify, PF's data should stay on.
pfvspnf is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 28th Feb 2017, 14:38   #78 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Around the world.
Age: 35
Posts: 597
If you turn off 2 ADRs you will lose Flight directors, Autopilot and autothrust.

If you turn off 1&3 you will need to manually extend the gear and will be in direct law for remainder of the flight once gear down, gear will not come up on a go around.

If you have no prior ADR failure turning off 2&3 would surely be a sensible course of action to allow the capt to become PF for the upcoming alternate law raw data man thrust approach to direct law approach, landing and possible go around. Not saying FOs wont be able to, but personally I would prefer to take that on.
tom775257 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th Feb 2017, 20:31   #79 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Wengen
Age: 46
Posts: 334
EVA AIR AOA

A330/A340 EAD (AoA PROBES)
Winnerhofer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 16:42.


1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1