PDA

View Full Version : Pilots banned from landing A380


Spearing Britney
6th Apr 2004, 09:48
Rumour has it that the insurance company taking on the A380s destined for Qantas has specified that the only accepted method of landing will be the full autoland. :sad:

Would you like to land your aeroplane once every six months, and then only in the simulator? :\

Paterbrat
6th Apr 2004, 10:05
Well now isn't that a rousing endorsement and proclamation of confidence???

trainer too 2
6th Apr 2004, 11:18
Knowing the qualities of the average autopilot landing vs the good old handwork I would almost agree with them... :8

Sounds like a wind up to me, one that fits in the Boeing vs AI rows. Boeing will initially claim that they want the pilot in charge and do not like this new thing (as they did with fly by wire) and in 5 years silently aprove it..:ooh:

Boeing 7E7
6th Apr 2004, 11:23
Splendid RUMOUR

steamchicken
6th Apr 2004, 11:31
Troll

20 chars required

itchy kitchin
6th Apr 2004, 11:35
Not suprised to see the Boeing v Airbus debate pop up on this thread. If there is any truth in it, it's ridiculous.
...I still would like to see them demo an evac on one in under 90 seconds. Has anyone seen the escape slides? On water they would make great sails.
I don't want to bash the A380, can;t wait to see them fly and all that, but is a lot of eggs in one basket...

Final 3 Greens
6th Apr 2004, 11:51
only accepted method of landing will be the full autoland.

What happens when you get a tech failure that means autoland is not allowed?

Will warning lights flash, horns sound and "Not Insured" flags spring out all over the dashboard :}

PPRuNe Radar
6th Apr 2004, 11:57
Maybe it is only for QF Bangkok services ???

Was bad enough driving and putting over the 747 last time I hear :)

Kerosene Kraut
6th Apr 2004, 12:22
The A380's FBW-system will be quite similar to all the other Airbus types used today. Type conversion from A340 is like ten days or something. There's not too much difference in handling it aside from a heavier and bigger a/c. (Mind you the A340-600 is longer) Why should some insurance company suddenly request new procedures?

747FOCAL
6th Apr 2004, 13:09
What I want to know is once you guys are no longer on the flight deck who is going to feed the dog? :p

SimJock
6th Apr 2004, 13:19
...and simulator manufacturers are so concerned about A380 pilots being out of practice with manual landings , that the only landings allowed in the simulator will be full autolands...

;)

Devils Advocate
6th Apr 2004, 13:38
Sometime in the future ( maybe ) -

"Ladies and gentlemen, welcome onboard this fully automated aircraft. Utilising millions of line of software, the flight control computers manage every aspect of the flight; Nothing can go wrong.... Nothing can go wrong.... Nothing can go wrong...." ;)

sixmilehighclub
6th Apr 2004, 13:53
Itchy-

Re your comments on the evac slides, you are incorrect.

All pax in premium classes are supplied with parachutes for a ground evac. All other pax are expected to make their way to the lower deck via McDonalds to use the firemans pole.

Just thought I'd clear that up.

:ok:

TURIN
6th Apr 2004, 15:11
The evac slides will be cushioned at the bottom with a massive bunch of sour grapes supplied by Boeing.:p

747FOCAL
6th Apr 2004, 15:16
TURIN,

Not even grapes will slow you down when your going 30 miles per hour with a 3rd degree burn on your arse. Oh and watch out for the Fat heffer with heels right behind you. :E :E

steamchicken
6th Apr 2004, 15:26
And I suppose diversions to anywhere that doesn't have a serviceable CATIIIA/B approach will be banned? Insurers surely will prefer the world's number 1 smoking hole/steaming splash to letting the pilots ignore the dog!

18-Wheeler
6th Apr 2004, 16:14
A few days late, but this thread is a really good wind-up.
8/10.

akerosid
6th Apr 2004, 16:34
Maybe they can fit Winalot dispensers in the cockpit, so the pilots can be dispensed with altogether.

Seriously, though, the regulatory authorities will never go along with this and insurers requirements will not take priority over the Australian CAA (or any other such authority). No way will they accept such a condition.

TogaLock
6th Apr 2004, 17:53
Is there even a Runway in Australia with a LOC / GP certified below Cat I minima?

arcniz
6th Apr 2004, 18:15
The perfectly obvious solution to this is to add a bit more automation.

Firstly, cover the flight deck windows so problems from those nasty bird strikes and hailstones are history. Substitute some nice high-resolution screens in the same general end of the FC compartment. Ergonomics, after all, are very important.

Secondly, include a bang-up version of Flight Sim as integral part of the basic instrumentation package. A panel switch can select among Manual, Auto, and Auto Sim. Rather than wasting the flight crew's valuable time waiting quietly during the autoland, they can practice approaches and gain valuable sim time concurrently. If the aircraft wants crew help for any reason, it can alert them and then seamlessly switch the Pilot Simulating over to Direct Control.

This way Airbus is happy, the dog gets watered, the aircraft doesn't have to put up with a lot of unexpected manoeuvers, and the flight crew are still available for handling paperwork.

Anthony Carn
6th Apr 2004, 19:49
This thread may be a wind-up.

But just give it a few more years and we'll have a bunch of pilots who've lost the ability to hand fly, navigate by needles and operate without dozens of computers holding their hand. I'm seeing this trend, without any doubt, amongst the younger pilots I work with.

The problem is that in a few years, it'll be more than a few years too late to recover without major retraining.

As for safety, especially if something goes wrong which demands the basic skills for a recovery of the situation, well...........:uhoh:

Spearing Britney
6th Apr 2004, 20:00
Info comes from a skipper on the 744 with Qantas...

sixmilehighclub
6th Apr 2004, 20:12
Anthony - Thats a sobering thought... Best we add nappies to the sick-bags in the seatpockets then, just in case......

Arcniz -
Hey, how about we offer pax the option of some hot crispy chilli beef with their mcdonalds fries? Just hook a tube to the galley from the back of the engine, chuck some steak in the front and voila...!

HangerBanger
6th Apr 2004, 22:11
with gusto........."If it's not a Boeing - I ain't going!!"

Anti-ice
6th Apr 2004, 22:20
:zzz: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...........................

genius747
6th Apr 2004, 22:25
This thread is a waste of space, I feel I am wasting my time right now even reading and posting to it.

What was stated WILL NEVER HAPPEN, anybody that knows a little about the real world of commercial flying knows exactly why for the many many reasons there is.

BlueEagle
6th Apr 2004, 23:01
Having spent nearly three years in the London aviation insurance market many moons ago, (but still keep in touch), I'd say it is highly unlikely that any underwriters would venture to start imposing ''warranties' on an A380 operating company's insurance.

Underwriters generally will only impose warranties on small and/or new operations where past experience shows them that they are needed, (due to a few unscrupulous operators who have used inexperienced crew). Hardly likely to be the case with major carriers, in fact underwriters expect the respectable operators to operate in accordance with their own SOPs that have been approved by a recognised aviation authority and will leave them to it, it will be a condition of the insurance anyway.

A favourite myth is that it is the underwriters who decide how many hours are required for command in some airlines but this is not so, it is up to the operator and their regulators to decide. The underwriters would only get involved if they had serious doubts about the way an operation was being run, again, not likely with most respectable carriers.
It is not unknown, however, for an operator to say to aspiring crew, "Sorry, it's an insurance requirement, our hands are tied", much easier than saying we don't think you have enough experience yet!;)

Flight Detent
7th Apr 2004, 02:26
Hi Anthony Carn,
With reference to your last comment,

Methinks your prediction has already happened in a 744 in Bangkok!!

I'm really nervous as a passenger, wondering if anybody really knowns whats ahappinin up the front!

I've been up there enough to know what goes on, that's one of the main reasons I won't darken the door of any Airbus!

"If it ain't.......

Cheers

broadreach
7th Apr 2004, 03:10
Blue Eagle, touché,

Thanks for bringing some experience-laced common sense to the thread. When I read the breaking news I was sure there was something about it that didn't quite fit.

From personal experience (a few score years in funny places as Lloyds Agent, Salvage Assn rep etc dealing with maritime mishaps) it seemed quite out of character for underwriters to come out and say how an operation should be conducted. Outside their realm of competence.

It's only when the stuff hits the fan that they'll question what was done and call on expert witnesses to say what should have been.

ratarsedagain
7th Apr 2004, 03:12
Flight Detent,

wondering if anybody really knowns whats ahappinin up the front!

More than you, that's for sure!

I've been up there enough to know what goes on

Don't flatter yourself FD. With an attitude like yours, I'd doubt if you've ever had the privelage of ever being invited "up there"

halas
7th Apr 2004, 03:44
TogaLock asked... Is there even a Runway in Australia with a LOC / GP certified below Cat I minima?

Answer... No.

halas

sluggums
7th Apr 2004, 06:05
Should fit right in with Emirates plans....god forbid that you should fly the a/c, and going visual!!!!!! the horror

itchy kitchin
7th Apr 2004, 08:24
Special Procedures:
No Dme: Radar ranges will be passed every .5 mile etc
No Autoland: Pilots are requested to avoid any use of their own judgement and wait for the technician to arrive and fix it.
No Insurence: You can fly this thing can't you? ...can't you...?

Love these wind ups. Great joke waiting till after april fools day for this one!

swh
7th Apr 2004, 10:45
itchy,

nice one, maybe the tech can dial the aircraft up and land it from home with an autoloand problem.

:rolleyes:

Chronic Snoozer
7th Apr 2004, 11:18
Autoland this Mr Underwriter!

Crótalo
7th Apr 2004, 14:13
Now, now, ratarsedagain, no need to get nasty with individuals who are uneducated about how things really work in our profession. Instead of berating them, why not take the opportunity to educate them a bit? We all can learn something new every day, right?

Flight Detent, in reality the automation features, navigation computers, and all the other "oooh/aahhh" things on the flight deck are simply tools which assist the ones "up the front". Just as a joiner may use precision tools to assist them when necessary, they still routinely use a basic handsaw, or simple hammer & nails.

Many airlines (and dare I say MOST if not ALL) have in their SOPs something to the effect of the following (this is not an exact quote, just a summary of philosophies in practice):

Pilots must be proficient in operating the aircraft at all levels of automation, from
- the lowest form -- hand flying (no autopilot/autothrottle) on raw instrument data (no flight director),
- through all intermediate levels of partial automation,
- to full automation -- catIII/autoland type operations.

As such, pilots are encouraged to fly, and are evaluated (both in the real aircraft and the simulator) on the entire range of their flying skills. It often comes down to a question of task-management. Pilots determine which level of automation to use during flight, based on the current/impending situation, aircraft requirements or capabilities, and other tasks at hand. For example, flying an approach in a low-visibility situation might require full automation with autoland, or it may require hand-flying the aircraft using a HUD for path guidance. When flying certain instrument departures and arrivals from busy airports, it is often wise to let the automation do most of the flying, so pilots' brains are freed-up to do other important tasks, such as clearing for other aircraft, verifying correct departure/arrival procedures compliance (other than the simple track itself that the autopilot is doing for you), weather radar scans (you don't want to fly into that big thunderhead that just happens to have popped up in front of you!), planning and anticipating the next thing to happen, and other "big picture" sort of things.

Most pilots I fly with (and I as well) will hand fly as much as possible when situations suggest that it's good judgment to do so.

So you can rest assured that we do really know what's happening up front, and we're evaluated routinely just to make sure we do.

-------

(Oh, and re the original topic of this thread--here's my humble opinion: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: )

GlueBall
7th Apr 2004, 14:55
...it's always amazing how one tiny rumour, or otherwise off-the-wall statement, can quickly mushroom into a full blown debate, even when the subject matter is of impractical reality. :eek:

sky9
7th Apr 2004, 19:40
Is it just Oz pilots that have to do autolands?:D

MarkD
7th Apr 2004, 19:56
Will the same demand be made of the 7E7? Why the A380 and no other?

Silver Tongued Cavalier
7th Apr 2004, 19:57
Spearing Britney, haven't you got a wedding to be planning, rather than winding up PPrune??!!!!! ;)

ironbutt57
7th Apr 2004, 23:07
Are there any paved runways in Oz;) c'mon "dulacca Jack" where's your rebuttal?;) anyway...why wake up from a good power nap and potential wet dream to be bothered to land the airplane..oops..sorry airBUS it's only gonna insult you and call you a "retard" anyway!!!:\ :\ :bored:

DanAir1-11
8th Apr 2004, 02:18
Classic wind up with unfortunately not a shred of truth in it!
Maybe you should be a journo??

As for evac in under 90 seconds, we'll see!! :-) Hopefully never for real of course.

It is interesting as a 'neutral' observer to watch the Airbus / Boeing 'debates' proliferate, with so many passionate 'supporters' on either side. In my experience this polarisation is far greater than any previous I have seen, ie Boeing vs Douglas (then McDD) or Lockheed .I suppose with the industry widely perceived as presently being in decline, it is a survival of the fittest. Let's hope they both prosper!

Zoner
8th Apr 2004, 03:03
:p And when you try to go manual the computer says: “Sorry Dave, I can’t let you do that!” Always thought HAL was an Airbus project.

itchy kitchin
8th Apr 2004, 09:23
Blah blah blah Airbus blah blah blah Insurance blah blah blah not certified blah blah blah terrified passengers blah blah blah 30,000 feet blah blah blah airlines covering up blah blah blah sensationalism blah blah blah not a shred of truth etc

full story on page 93

In other news, Beckham and Posh etc etc...

Ugly Buzzard
14th Apr 2004, 10:44
I can't wait to see M Rats and the purple goat pounding 'em in around the sandbox.:cool:

mutt
14th Apr 2004, 18:59
ratarsedagain/crotalo,

You may not have like the comments from Flight Detent, but he is entitled to them, a little research would have shown you that he is a professional aviator............... :):)

Mutt.

Crótalo
14th Apr 2004, 23:31
Errrrm...mutt, where did that come from? Nowhere in my post did I make any derogatory reference to Flight Detent's remarks. (Did I not chastise ratarsedagain for being a bit harsh towards FD?)

FD simply expressed some concerns, and I provided some facts to hopefully alleviate those concerns. Even as a professional aviator, he may have flown in a time (or for a company) where automation was "king", not realizing that many companies have backed down from that stance over the years, and gone instead to emphasizing "all levels of automation". His comments/concerns certainly seemed to reflect that.

PPRuNe pages not fully legible in your part of the world perhaps? ;)

Big Pistons Forever
15th Apr 2004, 01:33
There is an upside : When you land at the wrong airport you can blame the autoland:D

unmanned transport
15th Apr 2004, 02:48
Will Airbus be the first major manufacturer to launch the next generation of unmanned transport aircraft?

steamchicken
15th Apr 2004, 11:08
And I thought this april fool/troll/Boeing propaganda nugget had been soundly killed a week ago!

slamer
15th Apr 2004, 23:58
I look forward to learning about the "Auto-Taxi/takeoff" capability of these Aircraft! in particular the RTO considerations.

Ummm... Does this thread (topic) have anything to do with the QF10 (Sin-Mel) flight the other day?

ExSimGuy
16th Apr 2004, 03:20
A380, can;t wait to see them fly and all that, but is a lot of eggs in one basket...

Probably the same once said about the 747, and maybe the 707 before that.

never mind "see them fly" - I can't wait to fly in one :)

back to the post - I remember jump-seating into LGW in an Airtours 737 and asking if they were going to autoland, the piulot replies "no way, lovely clear night and we need the practice ;) " - then FO procedes to run it down the ILS on rails - no movement on the yelow bars making me wonder if it was switched on!!

The Invisible Cat
16th Apr 2004, 15:01
Some time ago, I posted on this thread, saying that the waste of bandwidth was not restricted to a single forum.
That post got deleted within 10 minutes. :uhoh:
Today, I just found out that this thread has been moved from R&N to JB.

How long will this post last ?

:confused: :confused: :confused:

As Filed
17th Apr 2004, 03:53
now thats funny...yikes!!