Very good story, CONFiture. Now let's suppose the same too-little-nose-up-trim mistake has happened on aircraft with classic flight controls
1- That was not just "too-little" but MAJOR ... passing 50 feet the VISIBLE trim wheel (and at least it's a good thing they kept it !) moved from 1.5 to ... 4.5 UP
2- No interest in classic flight controls comparison, but in fully visible coupled flight controls, it could be as well 777 or C-17 or EMB last generation ...
So what's the relevance of miscalculated CofG to FBW controls?
I don't know, it is your own question !?
Please do not change my meaning at your own convenience.
You don't see the usual nose movement, but as vigilant PM you SEE that capt has pulled just the right amount of yoke
That's the word I like, so instead of logically thinking that the guy did not pull, you already know he DID, so he's not the one at stake, but airplane is !
so chances are you probably do nothing
WRONG !
I'm already THINKING ... and in the RIGHT direction:
Either that elevator is not connected ...
Either the trim setting is not correct (and I would not mind that option ...)
I am in the knowledge
I am in the loop
I am aware of
I am a step ahead
I am prepared for the probable next development
If it does not make a difference to you, it does a MAJOR one to me.
Captains pulls a little more and as veesquared starts to bite, nose pitches up far too quickly
Wrong again !
If the guy pulls a little more, an additional 15 KT to Vr won't make a huge difference to the rotation rate.
It will if the guy decides to pull too quickly ...
... but if he does it's natural and easy to block it.
Interesting matter:
Due to the sidestick size, it is by far easier to command an abrupt and out of proportion displacement than it is with a control column.
thanks God, PF is as fast to stop that high rate rotation ...
It does not hurt if PNF is in the loop ... two brains usually produce a better fix than one.
Did you look at the Sidestick Position Indicator? That would allow you to monitor exactly what inputs PF was applying at Vr. I do it on every take-off as PM.....
Lucky Luke
No, I did not ... and you're right: I probably should have !
To be honest, it is not something that has been mentioned during initial or recurrent, or I don’t remember, but for sure it has not been emphasized.
Even Airbus keeps very discreet on the subject:
Originally Posted by Note from FCTM
the cross is not to be used by PF during the takeoff, whereas the PNF can check the validity of the PF initial stick input
That's the single mention I've found, and I believe it to be pretty new in FCTM
AI even does not mention it in the « AVOIDING TAILSTRIKES » FCOM BULLETIN where they talk at large on rotation technique.
That makes me think that Airbus does not want to promote the idea that input monitoring must be necessary or at least desirable as they're unable to provide it except for this flight phase ...
Saying that, staring at that little cross during that intense flight phase makes one more too many things to look at and probably extra concentration witch could be detrimental to other parameter observations ... when control column displacements provide such information in a very natural way.
Additional note from Emirates incident safety recommendations :
It is recommended that the operator immediately issue a clear instruction to ensure that the Airbus FBW pilots are left in no doubt that the Side Stick Order Indicator is not to be used for reference during the takeoff rotation
But still, I take your advise Lucky Luke, and I will work on that !
One last thing: Interesting to see that you value and care about control inputs from your team mate, contrary to many here !?
P15, once again I mainly share your comments.
Why not develop a system that allows you to set attitude, add thrust and not have to have the arms of a Bulgarian weight lifter (no offence offered) and the scan rate of Chuck Yeager? WAIT A MINUTE, somebody already did!
No doubt, nice feature, and I would not criticize.
But of any utility during short final ?
My critics go to the way Airbus decided to implement a sidestick philosophy, which is detrimental to a two crew members awareness on each other control inputs, fact Airbus had to acknowledge later on, but for which a fix is "operationally not beneficial, technically not efficient"
From the instructors station it is possible to observe rudder input from leg movement, or readout from screen displayed parameters, but much easier from rudder movement tactile feedback. But, wait a minute! Even the Great Satan Airbus has live and linked rudder pedal movement!
Glad they kept that as well, and did not reach the extreme to do without.
Rudder input consciousness during V1 cut is paramount for PNF.
But do not under value pitch and roll input knowledge (as well as rudder ...) during short final and flare in adverse conditions !
No official jet instruction under my belt, but first months operation with new guys on type requires fair amount of monitoring, and contrary to what was said earlier, simulator is not the place you assimilate everything.
Cessna instruction, so many touch and go, at all time flight control displacements in your visual perimeter, ideal to produce a valuable debriefing, and when requested, discreet hand and feet on these flight controls, in a damping mode, enough to better appreciate student inputs and react when necessary.
... why should it be different on big jets ?