BAW492 diversion at Gibraltar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: A better place.
Posts: 1,746
What happens in a PIO if you simply let go of the sidestick during the roll?
Will the aircraft stabilise at a certain level of roll - or does it all depend on what law you're in?
Never understood Airbus's...
Will the aircraft stabilise at a certain level of roll - or does it all depend on what law you're in?
Never understood Airbus's...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 119
Originally Posted by tartare
What happens in a PIO if you simply let go of the sidestick during the roll?
Will the aircraft stabilise at a certain level of roll - or does it all depend on what law you're in?
Never understood Airbus's...
Will the aircraft stabilise at a certain level of roll - or does it all depend on what law you're in?
Never understood Airbus's...
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 345
Originally Posted by AerocatS2A
Neither of those seem relevant. The first one was associated with flaps locked at full and the lever selected to 3 in accordance with an ECAM, the second involved ice accretion.
As an aside and not directly relevant but more to highlight what pilots are not told as a matter of course: Hamburg A320 LH wing tip scrape in crosswind landing revealed that aileron authority reduced significantly as a/c sensed ground mode even though only one gear on ground and so limiting crew ability to correct the situation more rapidly.
Flight Global A320
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,787
Originally Posted by Sailvi767
That looks like a flight control malfunction to me. Possibly direct law in roll mode.
I've wound up in Direct law, and believe me, the airplane flew quite nicely, was like the Pitts S-2 I did a bit of flying in....
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 284
Originally Posted by AerocatS2A
Neither of those seem relevant. The first one was associated with flaps locked at full and the lever selected to 3 in accordance with an ECAM, the second involved ice accretion.
One of the outcomes of this incident and others similar at the time was change to the FBW roll laws with additional data points and proper flight testing of the various configs to confirm certification compliance. The question has been raised in this latest incident as to whether this was sufficient, particularly if the autopilot remained engaged.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,482
Originally Posted by FCeng84
From the videos that has been linked above it appears that the airplane was well above the ground when the roll oscillations documented occurred. The speed altitude trace shows descent to a very low altitude prior to executing the go-around. I am left with a couple of questions that others may be able to help with:
1. Were there roll oscillations during the final approach that led to the go-around? Did any passengers (particularly those who submitted interior videos) comment on the altitude when worrisome roll oscillations occurred?
2. Did the go-around involve touching down or was it executed without wheel to runway contact? Were there any objectionable pitch or roll motions associated with the flight just prior to initiation of the go-around or during the go-around itself?
3. Has the airline made any statement about this event with regard to either the equipment or the crew?
As is often the case, more questions than answers!
1. Were there roll oscillations during the final approach that led to the go-around? Did any passengers (particularly those who submitted interior videos) comment on the altitude when worrisome roll oscillations occurred?
2. Did the go-around involve touching down or was it executed without wheel to runway contact? Were there any objectionable pitch or roll motions associated with the flight just prior to initiation of the go-around or during the go-around itself?
3. Has the airline made any statement about this event with regard to either the equipment or the crew?
As is often the case, more questions than answers!
a) the altitude traces from the flight-trackers clearly aren't relative to a SL datum (i.e. uncorrected for QNH)
b) the GA started at around 1.6 nm from the THR (so presumably at around 500' AAL)
c) there was no runway contact (the THR was overflown at around 1700')
In other words the tracking data is consistent with the video, as one would expect.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,432
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
See my earlier post(s):
a) the altitude traces from the flight-trackers clearly aren't relative to a SL datum (i.e. uncorrected for QNH)
b) the GA started at around 1.6 nm from the THR (so presumably at around 500' AAL)
c) there was no runway contact (the THR was overflown at around 1700')
In other words the tracking data is consistent with the video, as one would expect.
a) the altitude traces from the flight-trackers clearly aren't relative to a SL datum (i.e. uncorrected for QNH)
b) the GA started at around 1.6 nm from the THR (so presumably at around 500' AAL)
c) there was no runway contact (the THR was overflown at around 1700')
In other words the tracking data is consistent with the video, as one would expect.
In my experience, FR24 gives poor altitude information close to airports. Track information is better.
When i follow a flight it often stops at a few hundred feet, flies over the runway and then drops straight down to the ground.
OMG, it nose dived into the ground! No, just FR24 acting up.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,482
Originally Posted by ManaAdaSystem
There had to be a major difference between actual QNH and STD to get that 500 ft difference. What was the QNH at the time?
A QNH of around 1030 would account for that difference. I haven't seen a METAR, so I don't know what the actual value was.
That hasn't been mine, other than the fact that you obviously need to adjust for QNH. YMMV.
And, regardless of size of the offset, by the time the aircraft was over the threshold it was clearly around 1200' higher than at the lowest point of its approach, so neither the video or the data would indicate any runway contact.
In my experience, FR24 gives poor altitude information close to airports.
And, regardless of size of the offset, by the time the aircraft was over the threshold it was clearly around 1200' higher than at the lowest point of its approach, so neither the video or the data would indicate any runway contact.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,432
For those who are interested, QNH in LHR is 1027. You can watch as all aircraft on FR24 are landing short of the runway.
Probably the same situation as in Gibraltar.
I agree, the difference in QNH can show the opposite, aircraft hanging in the air above the runway in low QNH situations.
How would the resulting plunge to the runway show up on a graph?
Probably the same situation as in Gibraltar.
I agree, the difference in QNH can show the opposite, aircraft hanging in the air above the runway in low QNH situations.
How would the resulting plunge to the runway show up on a graph?
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: All-At-Sea
Posts: 20
Originally Posted by AerocatS2A
Neither of those seem relevant.
*the reports cite other previous examples too, also not involving ice, admittedly the details are beyond page 1 however
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,214
While not wanting to get into the detail of this incident it would seem to me that there is an over reliance on autoflight within the industry and with the lack of hand flying the pilots skill at avoiding PIO has become degraded.
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: The North
Posts: 29
Originally Posted by A and C
While not wanting to get into the detail of this incident it would seem to me that there is an over reliance on autoflight within the industry and with the lack of hand flying the pilots skill at avoiding PIO has become degraded.
Very much agree, from what it seems there are far too many pilots who are merely system operators rather than airmen. I recently heard that you're not allowed to remove the Flight Directors in our favourite irish loco airline. Visuals are discouraged in others and more and more outfits are banning visual approaches as they keep messing them up.
Unfortunately in times when real pilot/flying skills are required, they're nowhere to be seen. My two cents.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 2,383
Originally Posted by geardown1
Very much agree, from what it seems there are far too many pilots who are merely system operators rather than airmen. I recently heard that you're not allowed to remove the Flight Directors in our favourite irish loco airline. Visuals are discouraged in others and more and more outfits are banning visual approaches as they keep messing them up.
Unfortunately in times when real pilot/flying skills are required, they're nowhere to be seen. My two cents.
Unfortunately in times when real pilot/flying skills are required, they're nowhere to be seen. My two cents.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 2,852
Originally Posted by Just the fax maam
Evidence of several* other incidents of uncommanded severe roll oscillations in strong gusty conditions on A320 family aircraft not relevant? Are you absolutely certain about that???
*the reports cite other previous examples too, also not involving ice, admittedly the details are beyond page 1 however
*the reports cite other previous examples too, also not involving ice, admittedly the details are beyond page 1 however
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: by the seaside
Age: 71
Posts: 939
Hydraulic reservoir and pump capacity
Looks as though too many control inputs depleted control surface hydraulic jack pressure leading to a lag in movement and eventual over control. Known problem.
solution go around or if clever be patient and use smaller stick deflections but knowing how rough the rock can be easier said than done.
solution go around or if clever be patient and use smaller stick deflections but knowing how rough the rock can be easier said than done.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: usa
Posts: 58
Originally Posted by MichaelKPIT
Here's a video from outside:
or just saying ``hello`` to somebody on the ground..Or a serious problem with the autopilot..
Fly safe,
B-757
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
..To me that looks intentional..Maybe a demonstration (for training purposes),
or just saying ``hello`` to somebody on the ground..Or a serious problem with the autopilot..
or just saying ``hello`` to somebody on the ground..Or a serious problem with the autopilot..
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 947
Originally Posted by blind pew
Looks as though too many control inputs depleted control surface hydraulic jack pressure leading to a lag in movement and eventual over control. Known problem.
solution go around or if clever be patient and use smaller stick deflections but knowing how rough the rock can be easier said than done.
solution go around or if clever be patient and use smaller stick deflections but knowing how rough the rock can be easier said than done.
The co-pilot flew the Wind Sheer Go-around. (Capt. hadn't resumed control for the landing) and with little practice in "manual flying" in those conditions, over controlled the sidestick inputs, resulting in the 30deg PIO.
Situation was resolved when the gear selected up, which presumably removed the R Alt fault signal and returned the aircraft to Normal FBW Airbus handling.
I'm not Airbus qualified so excuse the neccesarily rather non technical description.
