PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Mismanagement of automation
View Single Post
Old 17th Dec 2015, 08:05
  #1 (permalink)  
Geoffersincornwall
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Mismanagement of automation

I made the mistake of including this in my previous post about Vmini so it was lost along the way. Now it has it's own thread.

The EHEST document has the flavour of one of the 'old hands' talking as it refers to the notion that it's a good idea to enter a turn by pushing against the trim motor springs because an unusual attitude can be recovered by simply letting go of the cyclic.

I hope this is not taken seriously. In the AW139 you should trim into a turn. This is just what the AP does when a turn is commanded during 'auto' flight. If you have an AP failure in an AW139, for example, it's likely to occur because some wise guy has disguised the AP OFF button on the cyclic by calling it the 'SAS RELEASE' consequently it is often confused with the (nearby) button called 'FD SBY'. One single push of the SAS REL button removes both the AP's in one fell swoop. Statistically this is the single most common way that AP OUT flight mode is entered during my recurrent training sessions in the sim.

As a general rule you need (IMHO) a recovery strategy for unusual attitudes that deals with all eventualities given than you wouldn't have much time to play around if the aircraft is threatening to treat you to a touch of inverted flight. Best not to rely on the AP to play a part in your strategy so please ignore those that invite you to push against the springs or for that matter to use the GA mode to help.(RFM suggests it has a use in this respect - not very smart though).

You may have only a few seconds to get it right so stick to the tried and trusted method, wings level, balance, pitch - nose on the horizon then as required by the IAS, power as required when pitch is sorted.

I wonder if EHEST could publish a correction? I guess an SFI who's been doing this stuff for more than 3000 hours may not have quite the clout required but you never know.
I get the impression that the EHEST team is more familiar with the Airbus AP systems than they are with the AW139. There are dangers in generalisation I believe.



G.
Geoffersincornwall is offline