Originally Posted by
Turbine D
WRONG - Not my quote, you got your "hamsters" mixed up.
My apologies, sir, I indeed wrongly attributed the quote to you. Sorry. I'll do my best not to let it happen again.
Originally Posted by
Turbine D
I'll stand to be corrected when you show me evidence of AB's high altitude, high Mach cruise situations, such as UAS events, which are clear and simple.
Interim 3, page 59. Oh, wait a minute...
Originally Posted by
Turbine D
Not only does AF's procedures seem confusing, AB's procedures don't seem to me to be much clearer.
So you know about them!
I have some bad news for you, sir. If you think procedures are confusing as you sit comfortably in front of your computer screen, there is no chance in Detroit you'll be able to recognize the one to be applied at 0400 AM at FL 330 when hell breaks loose. You can't be an Airbus pilot unless you radically improve your airmanship. As Boeing procedures, despite indignant and unsubstantiated cries they're otherwise, are not radically different from AB's, you probably won't cut it right now as Boeing pilot either. Or Embraer pilot. Or Tupolev pilot. Or any airliner pilot.
Good news is: given solid & undamaged head mounted computer, clean bill of health, good hand to eye coordination, lots of effort and determination and considerable time, one can become a pilot.
Originally Posted by Infrequentflyer789
AFs procedures at least are clearly confusing since preople here can't agree what they mean even with plenty of time to read them.
Good thing they were designed with pilots in mind, not PPRuNers.
Originally Posted by rudderrudderrat
It seems to me that PF may have simply memorised 3 attitudes and power settings, and forgotten the "Below Thrust Reduction Alt" bit.
Once he had selected TOGA power, then he placed the aircraft at 15 degs pitch and waited.
Flying aeroplanes is tough job! One of the requirements thereof is to promptly tell the difference between "below acceleration altitude (tipically 1500 ft above ground level) and "above FL100". Not for easily confused.
Originally Posted by Gretchenfrage
That there exists a better solution to the problem and that it might just be a better idea to copy that than shout down those who bring up the problem.
Do you have a slightest idea what was the topic you brought on and we were discussing?
It was flight instruments (ATA 31) and autoflight (ATA 22), not FBW (ATA 27)!
Regarding EFIS/AP/FD there is not much difference between Airbus and the rest of the world. Heck, Piper Cheyenne has more FD buttons and not much less FD modes than FBW Airbi. I don't see that allegedly better solution applied anywhere!
Originally Posted by Lyman
Nose down is allowed when the bus is initially dealing with Overspeed
Not applicable as aeroplane was in ALTN law. No overspeed protection there.
Originally Posted by Lyman
I notice your discomfort with a connection twixt UAS and the STALL
There shouldn't be any connection. If it weren't for utterly paradoxical pilots' reaction, that is.
Originally Posted by infrequentflyer789
Does "safe conduct affected" just mean "if no danger of terrain impact" ?
No. It's a tough life in the cockpit, when one has to know all the time what is safe and what unsafe. This game is not for faint hearted. Or feeble minded.
Originally Posted by infrequentflyer789
If most of their crews crashed when faced with the scenario on the sim, then something systematic is wrong at AF and not (only) with the guys on the night. If we knew why they crashed in the tests, then we might be much clearer about why 447 climbed.
You might want to have a look at interim2, pages 100-103. 37 330/340 crews faced with the same problems as AF447's did. In real life, not sim. All survived. Surprise, surprise.
Originally Posted by CONF iture
how do you positively know ALT CRZ mode was engaged when the trace is nowhere to be seen ?
(...)
The FD/AP VERTICAL MODE is a critical parameter for the all event, after, but also before the AP disconnect.
BEA ... where is the trace ?
I have never used anything but ALT CRZ in cruise, never heard of anyone who didn't, interim 3 is pretty clear on it and anyway I don't think that "Superiority of using V/S mode in cruise instead of ALT CRZ on A330 series aroplanes" thesis is going to get anyone that coveted PhD, no matter how original the research will turn out to be.
It's critical... just how? As long as AP is engaged, it's straight and level. When it drops out, aeroplane behaviour is consistent with the sidestick input in ALT law. Do you dispute that?