Airbus trepidation... convince me otherwise!

[aa73]

Airbus trepidation... convince me otherwise!
OK Folks this question has been a long time coming. I know I'm gonna hear a lot of good and bad from both camps... that's fine.

With the A319 only 1.5 years away from arriving here at AA, I'm trying to erase a long running hesitation in someday flying this bird. For years I strongly disliked the Airbus cockpit philosophy and was rather glad that AA chose to stay true to Boeing.

I've had the opportunity to j/s on United and USAir Airbus cockpits and I must say..... I'm still hesitant.

There is no doubt in my mind that this is one of the most comfy cockpits I have ever sat in. The ergonomics are spectacular. Everything flows nicely.

But... I still question: Are the pilots REALLY in control? I had a lot of difficulty watching the engine instruments register changes without the throttles moving. I never quite knew what the engines were doing. Why are the throttles locked at Climb Thrust with the engines back at idle? This stuff really conflicts with my "Boeing-warped" mind.

I also had a tough time comparing aircraft pitch/roll commands without seeing a corresponding stick movement. Why, because the other stick doesn't move. How does the other pilot know what the flying pilot is doing?

Lastly: I understand that the stick commands a RATE, not simply a control surface movement. So if you bang in left stick and center it, the aircraft will continue rolling left until you bang in right stick. VERY disconcerting to me: I expect that, if you bang in left stick and center it, the aircraft would stop rolling, not increase it.

As I understand it, the 777, while still FBW, maintained the Boeing philosophy of keeping it a pilot's airplane.

As you can see, I have serious issues with this philosophy, not to mention the fact that this "pilot out of the loop" philosophy may have contributed to the lack of SA exhibited with Air France 447. I want to feel comfortable with the Airbus as this aircraft may very well be my first CA upgrade at AA. Please give me the pros and cons and help convince me that this aircraft will not "go computer psycho" without anything I can do about it.

Posted on APC and FI.com as well.

Thanks for any responses.
73

[NOLAND3]

Just to clarify - when you apply left stick you are commanding a roll rate. As soon as you centre the stick the FBW will attempt to hold that bank.

Regards

[C212-100]

There is no such thing as "banging the stick left, center it and the a/c continuing on the roll". What the bus do, and it works wonderfully once you fully understand the "how" is that once you reach the bank angle you commanded it will "autotrim" to keep that bank angle and fly it.

[TTex600]

aa73, to my knowledge in over 20 years of operation, no FBW Airbus (AF447 could be argued) has fallen out of the sky because the FBW failed. That's a nice thing to dwell on.

In general, the biggest difference between the computer flown bus and the human brain flown McBoeing is pitch trim. The Bus auto trims and it does not trim for speed. Other than that, and here comes a BIG IF, IF the automation is all operable, the airplane pretty much flies like any other transport category swept wing jet. You want to turn left, you deflect SS left until you get the bank you want and let off, it just stays where you put it. Steep turns are easy as pie. Pitch appears at first glance to be normal, if you want to raise the nose, pull back and the nose comes up.
You will find that the SS and the FBW take about a hour on your first sim session to get used to and after that you will only think about it when you start reading AF447 threads. :eek:

[aa73]

Thanks for the correction regarding roll rate.

But why does Airbus "auto-trim"? As a pilot I **WANT** to trim out the forces myself - so that I am in concert with what I want the airplane to do. When I put my 757 in a bank, I trim slightly nose up and it's exactly how I've flown for 20+ years.

I don't **WANT** autotrim, as it removes me from control that much more. I want to know where my trim is at all times. Is there any way to disconnect the autotrim and keep 100% "hands on" operation?

edit: in response to TTex: understood about the FBW not failing in AF447. But - and this is a big but - do you Airbus folks believe that the lack of "cues" (sticks not moving together, throttles not moving) contributed to the lack of the pilots' SA?

[FatFlyer]

Hi,
The way to disable autotrim would be to turn off a few flight control computers and put the aircraft in direct law .The message USE MAN PITCH TRIM would appear on PFD and you would use the trim wheel. There is no artificial feel on the stick so it is difficult to fly smoothly (in the sim, never tried it for real) in direct law. This is not an approved procedure, flying in direct law is only ever done as as abnormal procedure.
The lack of thrust lever movement can lead to lack of awareness, if you get behind the plane, it can get a bit confusing. AB say, always know your FMA, this way you should have an idea what the plane is doing. AB also say that you have the option to disconnect and fly like a conventional plane though, as lots of us don't practise this enough, it sometimes causes more problems.
After a few years on the 73, I would say, the bus is generally has less work load and is more comfortable and takes care of pilots errors more. When it goes wrong though, it can get quite complicated, eg the BMI A321 which had a generator problem leading to flickering screens, uncommanded rudder trim, and caused the plane to turn and go 10 miles off course while the poor crew try to work out what is going on. Have fun

[fantom]

OK, excluding my mil (very) fast types, and having only flown the 320; 321 and 330, and having only forty-two years' experience and having been an examiner on Airbus types for only the last twenty years or so, I can tell you it was the best flying in civil aircraft I had.

Pure magic; wait and see.

Post a notice here when you agree...waiting.

f

[extreme P]

Do the course and see for yourself what the 'bus is all about.

Used to be the non-Airbus guys and gals knew all the reasons why the 'bus was substandard but after some time on type the tune usually changes.

The 777 has auotrim now as well so that is something you have to get used to in the future.

[Wizofoz]

The 777 has auotrim now as well so that is something you have to get used to in the future.

No, it doesn't.

That being said, I have never flown an Airbus, don't care to as I'm to old to learn BUT- know plenty of guys who do and are perfectly happy doing so.

Honestly, differences in the flight controls are a minuscule fraction of what it means to be a pilot.

You are responsible for safely conducting the flight and putting the aircraft where it needs to be, in one piece with everyone breathing.

The Airbi do this JUST as well as the Boeing's, even if by a different philosophy re flight controls.

Go for it, enjoy the table (yeah, I DO wish I had one) and get used to the differences in FBW architecture.

Oh- and cash the paycheck and go home!!

[macdo]

Sooooo much better than anything else! Would never want to go back now.

[TTex600]

Thanks for the correction regarding roll rate.

But why does Airbus "auto-trim"? As a pilot I **WANT** to trim out the forces myself - so that I am in concert with what I want the airplane to do. When I put my 757 in a bank, I trim slightly nose up and it's exactly how I've flown for 20+ years.

I don't **WANT** autotrim, as it removes me from control that much more. I want to know where my trim is at all times. Is there any way to disconnect the autotrim and keep 100% "hands on" operation?

edit: in response to TTex: understood about the FBW not failing in AF447. But - and this is a big but - do you Airbus folks believe that the lack of "cues" (sticks not moving together, throttles not moving) contributed to the lack of the pilots' SA?

aa, This site has a large number of engineers/programmers/techies who can tell you why it autotrims. I only know that it does. I agree, I want an airplane to stay on trim speed when I put it there, I hate having to chase airspeed when hand flying.

You can not disconnect auto trim, and contrary to the flight manual, you can't trim like a normal aircraft. Even if you attempt to manually trim, the system will fight you and remove your input as soon as you release the trim wheel. This is because the trim trims for "g" and for flightpath, unless you train your brain to trim for flightpath or "g", you will never get it in trim.

The AF447 discussion has about a million responses on at least seven threads, so I'll let you dig through them regarding the FBW failing. FWIW, my opinion on AF447 is this: everything contributed to the accident. In no particular order, I think poor training and procedures (based upon some utopian claim that the airbus flys like any other airplane), combined with auto trim that trimmed nose up well past the stall angle of attack, combined with the FP's limited experience (outside of the AB world and in manual flight), combined with the PM's lack of CRM, combined with bad pitot tubes, combined with flat glass/tape style displays, combined with non-linked SS's, all caused the accident. Oh yeah, had the crew been trained in cruise level Unreliable Air Speed drills, or how to properly take the controls, they would likely be drinking wine on the beach at Rio today.

For your future line flying, many of us have developed our own personal procedure for indication anomalies at cruise. It goes something like this.....ANY possible discrepancy of A/S, etc, leads to A/P off, Auto Thrust off, Flight Directors OFF, set 80% N1 and hold 2.5 degrees nose up and ignore all else until you are absolutely certain that you have it under complete control. You have to trust something, attitude and power are the most reliable instruments so we go with them.

[extreme P]

Hey Wiz, have you ever noticed that bank angles up to 30 degrees do not require back pressure on the 777? Can you explain how that works?

"PFC's automatically control pitch to maintain a relatively constant flight path".

Is auto trim by any other name still as sweet?

[Wizofoz]

No, it is not auto trim.

In Normal Flight Control Mode the 777 is trimmed by means of the Stabilizer. That does not move in response to the turn bias system. The 777 has a speed trim system.

If you change the ATTITUDE of the Airbus, it trims for that attitude- THAT is an Autotrim system.

It is not an autotrim system by another name- it is quite simply not an autotrim system.

[extreme P]

So to clarify, PFC's automatically positioning the elevator and stabilizer is not auto trim?

[aa73]

Thanks for the replies to all... and yes I look forward to commending the Bus on this site once I start flying it!

[Flytiger]

@Extreme P

777 has autotrim?

I was of the impression that Boeings only trim for speed, if that?

The problem OP is talking about is that the Buses fly counter-intuitively, and take away command authority in ways he isn't comfortable with. As a pilot I think what he is saying is that he wants the responsibility to actually command the inputs - even many of them - all of them - to the ship - because then he knows what he has or has not commanded.

AF447 has been a runaway story in the MSM about this, the genie isn't going back into the bottle. The public are interested (and wary?) of the Airbus voodoo, much like engineers, architects etc who use PCs are wary of the so called Apple Mac voodoo.

What's so special about Airbus, except it gives you less work (all possible detriments aside for the minute)?

[A and C]

No need for trepidation the bus can be treated more or less like any other aircraft, most of the peope who have been bitten by the bus simply failed to disengage ALL the automatics and take full manual control of the aircraft.

If you want an easy life then as long as you fall in love with the FMC you will like the bus, what it won't do as well as the Boeing is ride turbulence or crosswinds.

I personally prefer the Boeing but this is just a matter of taste, others on this forum will no doubt disagree......but at the end of the day I prefer to be connected to the controls with a large steel cable rather than a bunch of wiggly amps !

[FLEXPWR]

C212

A small correction, that Airbus FBW (at least the 320 series) does not maintain a bank angle, it maintains a zero roll-rate when stick is at neutral.

Only two years flying on it and it is beyond what I hoped for in ergonomics and systems. Of course some things could be improved, but the magic is, they do get improved! Fully upgradable airplane in my opinion.

Flex

[extreme P]

Hey Flytiger,

The 777 trims for speed. My point is if you are manually flying the airplane and it automatically trims for your control inputs to produce a "maneuver" that is auto trim. In my mind no back pressure or trim input required for bank angles up to 30 degrees means auto trim. It also auto trims for gear and flap selections. I don't see the difference between auto trimming for attitude or speed. It's still auto trim.

[TTex600]

No need for trepidation the bus can be treated more or less like any other aircraft, most of the peope who have been bitten by the bus simply failed to disengage ALL the automatics and take full manual control of the aircraft.

If you want an easy life then as long as you fall in love with the FMC you will like the bus, what it won't do as well as the Boeing is ride turbulence or crosswinds.

I personally prefer the Boeing but this is just a matter of taste, others on this forum will no doubt disagree......but at the end of the day I prefer to be connected to the controls with a large steel cable rather than a bunch of wiggly amps !

How do you "take full manual control" of the stab trim?

Seriously, all of this "the bus can be treated more or less like any other aircraft" is getting old. It isn't any other aircraft and Airbus pilots need to recognize such. Not that it's bad, it isn't; in it's own way it works very well but it demands techniques not demanded by other aircraft and that fact needs to be both understood and trained for. Bad grammar, I know, sorry.

[vapilot2004]

The Airbus cockpit is a dream and systems management is just about as simple as it can get. Coming into the type course from Boeing and McDonnell Douglas experience, I was skeptical of the Airbus fly by wire system, but came to appreciate the sophisticated and elegant implementation.

There will be times you'll be asking yourself "what the hell is it doing now?". Any long-time driver (not I) can attest to this being an occasional annoyance. It is something I've been told you adjust to. I have also been advised one eventually learns to "trust, but verify" the automatics.

The only areas the A320 comes up somewhat short of the competition from a piloting perspective would be moderate to strong crosswind landings, manual flight in moderate to heavy turbulence and when things electronic go wobbly, all situations best avoided if possible on any type, naturally.

From a trainee perspective, systems coverage is overly simplified and often limited to black-box level breakdowns, heavy on logic flow charts and light on engineering details, but this is an industry-wide dumbing down of recent times and not limited to the Airbus.

[misd-agin]

I'm not a fan of the unlinked sidesticks or the non-moving throttles that Airbus provides. Visual cues are part of your regular scan. That said I'd fly the Airbus, without hesitation, if it made sense for my seniority.

777, as some posters have said, produces trim changes on it's own(gear, flaps). Talk about nice. 777-300ER and 787-9 will be the same. Every time you click the trim it immediately resets to that speed. One click 'on speed' trim. :D

If you require having cables, as one poster mentioned, don't bid the 777-200ER, 777-300ER, or 787-9 that AA has on order. FBW.

F-16, F-18, F-22, F-35, etc, etc all have auto trim. Before your time but guys that hadn't flown F-16's bitched about it back then. It's not an issue today.

Years ago people used to bitch about putting ABS in cars. Next-door neighbor testified in Congress back in the early/mid 1970's trying to get them mandatory. Too much opposition. Trying buying a car without ABS today... And what would they have said about VSC, were the brakes work on their own when they feel like it!?!?

And the pull out table? :ok::ok: Also heard AA has received their first STC approval from the FAA for the Airbus a/c....160 lbs table limit instead of the standard 120 lbs. :)

[galaxy flyer]

misd-agin

Clearly, AA F/As are heavier than French engineers had anticipated! :E :E

GF

[CONF iture]

Is there any way to disconnect the autotrim and keep 100% "hands on" operation?
No, unless you make that call to switch a few flight control computers off ...

do you Airbus folks believe that the lack of "cues" (sticks not moving together, throttles not moving) contributed to the lack of the pilots' SA?

Thrust levers not moving is ok, information is taken directly from the instruments. The thing is that the A/THR disconnect and A/THR re-engagement is less natural and needs practice, regular practice.

Sticks not moving together is definitely a way to lose valuable information for the PNF.

[galaxy flyer]

Sorry for the disturbing image, OK465. But, I'm trying figure out why they need to be stressed for 120 lbs; let alone 160. Only explanation I could come up with.

While most pilots want backfeeding of the sidesticks, the engineers I have talked with say that the failure modes are too numerous for certification.

GF

[TTex600]

Thrust levers not moving is ok, information is taken directly from the instruments.

Maybe OK for you, but "information taken directly from the instruments" is one of my biggest points of concern when flying the Bus.

Quite simply, the eyes can only take in so much at once. The Bus puts far too much emphasis on visual clues at the expense of tactile clues. I spent the better part of the last 25 years flying with moving throttles. I don't have to look at a screen to tell my approximate power setting with moving throttles; with the Bus, I have to consciously focus on the engine instruments. In my opinion and experience, that philosophy forces me to overload my visual receptors and under-uses everything else. At least the Airbus engineers gave us round dials for engine parameters, that helps a bit.

[Wizofoz]

So to clarify, PFC's automatically positioning the elevator and stabilizer is not auto trim?

During manual flight the PFCs do NOT move the stabilizer in turns.. They temporarily bias the elevators so you don't need back pressure in a turn.

If you hold constant back pressure on the column of a 777, does the aircraft trim that pressure out? If you are using manual thrust and let go of the controls, does it keep the current attitude, which would be the case for Auto trim, or return to it's original trim speed- which would be a speed trim.

It's a matter of definition, but what the 777 has is completely different to the auto trim on an Airbus.

[Slasher]

aa73. As one who's done over 6,000 hours on Scarebus 320s
after cutting one's career teeth on 727s 737s and 747s, all I
can say is - stick to Boeings!

I for one can't wait to get back on 'em.

Why? Number of reasons -

I don't like the philosphy

I want a prong I can grab hold of, not a bloody gamestick

I don't like its confusing dog-dinner manuals (which are still
confusing despite the latest revision).

When everything's honky-dory a Airbus is fine. When the ****
hits the fan though...

I don't like French mechanical thinking. French women booze
and food yes but not Airbuses or French cars.

Boeings are built by geniuses to be flown by idiots. Airbuses
are built by idiots to be flown by geniuses. QED.

[Rick777]

I also have 6000 hours or so on the 320 and I loved it. I have types is all the Boeings from 707 to 777 except the 737 and I have 1000 or so hours in the right seat of it. I have the opposite opinion of slasher. The 320 was designed for third world pilots. That is why they tried to take the pilot out of the loop as much as possible. Slasher is right though in that when things go wrong on the Airbus they really get interesting.
As for the 777, regardless of what you call it, the only time you have to manually trim is for speed changes. About one good click per knot seems to work. The plane takes care of everything else.

[stilton]

I have heard that before and it is nonsense 'Airbus are designed for 3rd world Pilots'


If First world Pilots cannot understand them, how can those from more 'primitive lands'



It seems like a good fair weather Aircraft, as long as nothing goes wrong.


On the Other hand, in over 20,000 hours of flying around the world in Boeing, and to a lesser extent Douglas products I have never had a moment where I lacked confidence in the Aircraft or were totally confused as to what it was doing.


Boeing simply makes a better product, far more rugged, intuitive and Pilot friendly.

[josmison]

You guys are hilarious with your new concept of " third world and first world pilots "

pilot from Primitives lands !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

give me a break

[CONF iture]

The Bus puts far too much emphasis on visual clues at the expense of tactile clues.
I don't disagree.
In the meantime, it is not because one, two, three, or four throttles will move into a given position (under auto or not) that the output will be what we could expect ... better have a quick glimpse to the dials for confirmation of the normal operation for all.

[Slasher]

intuitive

Yep stilt dead right. One I forgot to include.

[TTex600]

I have heard that before and it is nonsense 'Airbus are designed for 3rd world Pilots'


If First world Pilots cannot understand them, how can those from more 'primitive lands'

Roger that!

I don't know who the Airbus FBW "protected" aircraft were designed for, but I'll speculate that it was designed for the European trained pilot. That is, minimal flight time (flight time is expensive and highly regulated) combined with maximum book learning and knowledge examination. The American way is just the opposite, you have to prove you could fly the airplane with extensive training and checking, but the book learning was minimal. I once flew with a pilot who took every written exam after taking a weekend "here's the answers" ground school .......but he could fly with the best of us. (Qualification: the US used to be that way, after hearing more and more about the training received by the guy who crashed his Q400 in Buffalo, NY, I have to wonder)

I think the "third world" pilot perception likely came from airline managers who misread the intent of the design.

BTW, I think most of us understand it only as well as we were trained. Someone else posted earlier that the manuals were bad. I concur. The manuals provided to pilots are minimal at best.

[TTex600]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TTex600
The Bus puts far too much emphasis on visual clues at the expense of tactile clues.

I don't disagree.
In the meantime, it is not because one, two, three, or four throttles will move into a given position (under auto or not) that the output will be what we could expect ... better have a quick glimpse to the dials for confirmation of the normal operation for all.

If all hell is breaking lose, why must I divert me attention from the primary flight displays to re focus my over 40 eyes on the engine instruments. When my brain is 100% focused on maintaining control, why must I break that mental focus to redirect my eyes at the engine instruments? In any other airplane I know of, in the same situation, I know without thinking or redirecting my mental focus approximately what power the engines are producing.

[SMT Member]

If all hell is breaking lose, why must I divert me attention from the primary flight displays to re focus my over 40 eyes on the engine instruments. When my brain is 100% focused on maintaining control, why must I break that mental focus to redirect my eyes at the engine instruments? In any other airplane I know of, in the same situation, I know without thinking or redirecting my mental focus approximately what power the engines are producing.

There's a solution for that as well: Disconnect A/T and move the throttles yourself, just like you would on a Boeing.

[Meikleour]

aa73: Oh no!!! .................not this old chestnut again!!

It reminds me of the furore the invention of the "aileron" caused old Wilber and Orville who were absolutely convinced of the superiority of their "wing warping" system!! (hint: I think "aileron" may be a French term!)

[A and C]

By taking manual control I was refering to disengaging the autopilot and autothrust (rather than letting the aircraft fly its self into the ground while wondering what the automatics were doing)

I will grant all the Bus fans on the forum that this has recently been done on a Boeing but the crew had to work very hard at it.

[kbrockman]

already answered before

[Monarch Man]

4400hrs A320/21/330

2500hrs 757/767

1500hrs 777

A few years ago in the process of collecting a new build A320, I had the chance to speak with an airbus flight acceptance pilot in Toulouse over a particularly fine glass of Merlot. I can confirm that his view was that the FBW family of aircraft started with the A320 was borne out of a desire to mitigate the need for thousands of hours of experience, and was in essence the VW beetle for cheap short haul travel.
Nothing I've seen in the time I flew the Aeer Boos changed my mind.
It is an aircraft built to a lower specification in terms of durability and required build quality, it is an aircraft designed to operate with less human input and is thus from the engineers who designed it safer.
It's also worth noting that many of these same very clever engineers were heavily involved with technical response to the Air Inter incident, most allegedly refuse to this day too accept that their clever machine human interface was as fallible as it has proved to be.
In my opinion the 320 family and siblings IS designed for the third world in the sense that it removes the aviating from aviating and so is suitable for low houred, low experienced and less thoroughly trained pilots.
Standing by for in coming :uhoh:

[captplaystation]

The only criticism I can level at that comment is that you compared it with a VW Beetle & added "low specification in terms of durability and required build quality"

Excuse me ! ! don't you mean Citroen 2CV ? Beetles beat the sh1t out of Airbi in sturdiness.
Actually, so do 2CV's come to think of it. :rolleyes:

[TTex600]

Monarch Man, I guess I have been giving Airbus too much credit. Thanks for the story.

[main_dog]

4000+ TT Airbus 319/20/21
1000 TT B747-200
1000+ TT B747-400

In seven years spent flying the Airbus I could never quite shake the feeling that it was designed by an engineer whose true desire had been to design the pilot out of the equation :ouch:.

I never was a fan of the non-moving throttles (oops, thrust levers) nor the unconnected sidesticks (are we in gusty wind or is the other guy over-reacting on the controls?) I also disliked the way they rode turbulence: it has been almost five years since I got off the Airbus and got on Boeings, and a couple years ago I began to wonder, why don't I never hit turbulence anymore? ;) Finally, as many have stated, when all is working well Airbuses are fine, but when things go wrong, boy they go really wrong, and it can be quite confusing on a dark night with degraded flight controls and a three-page ECAM.

However many colleagues (good pilots I respect) swear by the "Airbus philosophy" and seem very content to fly nothing else for the rest of their careers. Admittedly the Bus is more comfortable... better ergonomics, great seats, fairly quiet, good air conditioning etc. And if it means a promotion/better base/lifestyle etc, then probably don't think twice about it. Who knows, you might even like it better, there's only one way to find out.

Personally I still love that (small) part of our job that is intimately knowing exactly what attitude to set for a given weight/speed, gently placing the aircraft there, setting the correct thrust, trimming the control forces out, and then observing that airspeed and altitude settle nicely and behave exactly as you planned. On the Airbus, I had lost these small pleasures...

MD

[Flytiger]

@Rick777 - correct answer. Airbus design seems to be too smart by half. Automation that is counter intuitive to actual input is probably automation too far. How did we get to the Moon and back and survive without all of that Airbus automation? We got to the Moon and back because we didn't have no :mad: Airbus automation.

Real pilots, I could imagine, want real control, and tactile feedback from their ship. Flying 300 passengers and cabin crew anywhere is not a game.

[Slasher]

Automation that is counter intuitive...

Example - you lost a donk after an assumed temp TO. At 3rd
segment you level off. You notice the performance is lousy so
you shove the throttles up to TOGA with the final flap yet to
be retracted...

In a Boeing: The plane accelerates faster, remaining in level
flight as one would expect it to do.

In a Scarebus: Bloody thing goes into GA mode because now
you are out of SRS with flap still out and selected TOGA! :ugh:

Damn idiotic Frog thinking. The Progress page has "EO clr" so
the box knows you're on one engine. So why can't the bloody
flt guidance circuitry know the same ****?

BTW do you (lucky) Boeing blokes know that this damn thing
CAN'T track a VOR radial? You got a LOC button, but no VOR
or VOR/LOC ones.

If Apollo 13 had've been designed by AI, I tell you now Lovell
and Co would be still orbiting the Moon.

[stressmerchant]

BTW do you (lucky) Boeing blokes know that this damn thing
CAN'T track a VOR radial? You got a LOC button, but no VOR
or VOR/LOC ones.
I thought that the ability to navigate with VOR radial info was a prerequisite for IFR clearance.

[stilton]

Well the 757 / 767 / 777 and probably the 787 cannot track a radial either. You simply
'build the radial' on the legs page and track it in LNAV.


Not that I am any fan of the Airbus !

[rudderrudderrat]

I thought that the ability to navigate with VOR radial info was a prerequisite for IFR clearance.
Things have moved on a bit since since Loran, Consul, and VOR radials.
Air Bus have 3 IRS position updated by twin GPS receivers or DME/DME.
You can "navigate with VOR radial info" using RNAV and display the VOR radial for cross checking purposes.

As previous posters have said, whether it's Air Bus or Boeing - they have different solutions to certain aviation problems. e.g. :
The Boeing has a vicious nose up couple when applying TOGA thrust during the GA from a low powered approach - which can catch the unwary out.
On the Airbus, the unwary can easily get caught out with TL / auto thrust mismanagement.

Get to know and understand your aircraft.
If you get left behind - who's fault is that really?

[Denti]

@Stilton, really? no VORLOC button? He was talking about basic nav, i know the 737 can do that, would have thought the other boeings can do that as well?

[Fakawi]

I must say that i am getting a bit bored by this continued discussion if Boeing is an Airbus is not a "pilots" airplane.
First NO airliner ist a pilots airplane. Its the airlines airplane !
Second a cocpit is a place where you work. Ideally in a professional way.
Third if you want to be a real pilot in a real airplane buy yourselve a glider.

As a office the Bus is a much better working environment.
It begins with the traytable. No not for eating, but for paperwork and checklist work.

As for the B. "philosophy" to build a FBW aircraft and then STILL put a macho device between your knees for wich you need to introduce technological crutches like artificial feel units is complete beyond me.
Rather childish.

[porch monkey]

But by definition, isn't ALL airbus feel artificial?

[aterpster]

Well the 757 / 767 / 777 and probably the 787 cannot track a radial either. You simply 'build the radial' on the legs page and track it in LNAV.

It's been a long time, but recall with certainty that the early 767s I flew would track an actual VOR radial, albeit with a bit of wandering.

[Slasher]

There is tracking an actual radial from a VOR and tracking a
radial inserted in the box (then NAV'd or LNAV'd).

Some radials aren't perfect and have their minor twists and
turns. Suppose one steam-driven is inbound to a beacon and
one with a FMC outbound (flight phase immaterial), and both
are given radials to maintain minimum lateral separation.

If I'm given a radial by ATC to track in or out with min sep in
the equation then I'll use it. (eg KCH VOR in Malaysia is one I
recall with a few bends in radials within the Western sector).

[Checkboard]

Six months Airbus 320/319 (500 hrs), 5000 hrs 737 300/700, 3500 hrs 146-200 (round dials), 2000 hrs Westwind (Business jet)

But why does Airbus "auto-trim"? As a pilot I **WANT** to trim out the forces myself - so that I am in concert with what I want the airplane to do. When I put my 757 in a bank, I trim slightly nose up and it's exactly how I've flown for 20+ years.

I don't **WANT** autotrim, as it removes me from control that much more. I want to know where my trim is at all times. Is there any way to disconnect the autotrim and keep 100% "hands on" operation?


There is a confusion that the airbus control system is designed as under a philosophy for pilots - which is rubbish, of course. The airbus side stick models were designed to be cheaper - cheaper to build, cheaper to operate (less weight in the control system), and everything else flows from that as a matter of course. The side stick thus doesn't have reverse engineered motion or artificial feel (because it would cost money to include that).

That means that it feels the same to pull back the stick at 150 knots as it does at 450 knots - it follows then that you cannot allow a direct stick-to-elevator relationship as the aircraft would be too easy to overstress. Thus stick position relates to G (because it's cheaper). Same for the aileron control.

As the stick relates to G, you then need auto-trim - so that was included.

With no stick movement, there's no stick push - hence the Airbus low speed protection. With no speed trim you need the Airbus high speed bias etc etc.

With so little feedback, you have to force concentration onto the FMA's so you call EVERY change. You talk your self to death on an Airbus - I have said "check" more in the last six months that the previous 10 years.

As the power levers use the top third of the range of motion for the TOGA, Flex/MCT and Climb stops, and the bottom third for the reverse thrust area, there is only the middle third for manual thrust control - which makes manual thrust very sensitive - so few people use it.

The point is - everything "Airbus" flowed from a manufacturing philosophy, not from a "better handling" or "safer" philosophy. The airbus is rubbish to fly by hand - but Airbus never cared that that would be the case, they only cared that it was good enough for it to be certified.

Everything else is marketing. The marketers sold the (rubbish, and dangerous) idea "you can't stall an airbus".

In terms of operating it:
- The seats are about the same as the Boeing IMO.
- The space is nicer (larger and cleaner).
- The table is OK - I never noticed the lack in the Boeing, but I DO notice the lack of chart space in the Airbus (as the table needs to be stowed for landing).
- I HATE the cold feet problem on longer flights in the Airbus.
- I seriously dislike having to call engineering on the phone around once every 20 sectors or so (once a working week!) to organise a computer or system reset.
- the Boeing FMC was faster and easier to use and better in calculating performance.
- the map display in the Boeing was better (you can show airports AND constraints at the same time!), not that that is anything to write home about compared to current cockpit displays.
- as the Airbus is rubbish to hand-fly, as stated above - you'd rather be in a 737 rather than an A319/20 on a gusty high crosswind day.
- I am honestly surprised that the manuals in the Airbus were certified, they are THAT bad.
- Engine failures in the sim in the Airbus are much easier, as the autopilot is available for almost the entire exercise.
- Cat IIIb is better than Cat IIIa (I know it's an option on the 737).

I don't care enough to change my job over it, though.

[rudderrudderrat]

Hi Checkboard,

32 years Boeings & Lockheed, 7 years A319/20.

Spot on!
+ what is PF doing with the controls when I'm close to the ground?
+ ECAM is like trying to read a newspaper through the letterbox.

[Checkboard]

Indeed - agree with those two as well.

I prefer the Boeing QRH to ECAM. At least you can flick through the QRH on the Boeing on long sectors for easy revision, and choose which checklist to run first on complex failures.

ECAM prevents both of those, and having some checks on paper, and some on ECAM is a pain, and makes a mockery of the ECAM philosophy.

[TTex600]

Checkboard, nice analysis. Spot on I think.

To those who continue to claim that the Bus flys like a normal airplane: you must not know how a normal airplane flys.

With all that said, I lift a 320 off the ground 40 to 60 times a month and I don't feel unsafe doing so.

[Cool Guys]

An argument used to support unusual, or perhaps incorrect ways of doing things, particularly with AB aircraft, is “with sufficient training everything will be alright”. While this is ultimately true it does have practical limitations. You can design an aircraft where you push the stick forward to go up and pull the stick back to go down and providing sufficient training is done everything will be OK. You can label the “fuel dump” switch the “undercarriage” switch and providing the appropriate training is done and systems are in place to prevent accidental operation of the wrong switch everything will be OK.

[Dan Winterland]

AA73, in anaswer to your original post - and ignoring the A vs B responses which were invevitable!

I transitioned from B to A, but with no trepidation - I decided and forced myself to approach the course with an open mind. My advice to you is to do the same. As are diffferent to Bs, some bits are better on As, some worse. What you must do is resist the temptation to think "I wish the A has what I'm used to on the B" because this will just make the task harder.

Unfortunately, the A gets a lot of bad press from the B fans, especially in the USA - perhaps because it's not American. And a part of your experience will be how the aircraft is introduced into service. My compay has been flying As for years. About five years ago, we were bought by a larger company which has As, but was traditionally more a B company. We knew the A wasn't poplular there with comments such as the Airbus course being the Boeing appreciation course being common. When they forced their SOPs onto us, we found out why - they were trying to fly their As like 747 Classics. Gradually, we've got rid of their SOPs and are back to (almost) pure A SOPs. If you have any influence on policy in your company, I strongly suggest you advocate using the Airbus SOPs and forget any other manufacturer's procedures.

The A philosophy is different to B's. Accept it and operate the A the way Airbus Industrie intended. You will get far more out of it, and like me, may come to appreciate it. Having done this, I've come to like the A more than the B.

[misd-agin]

Flew with an FO years ago new to the 757/767. He keep complaining how he liked the 727 better. Another complaint was - "it should be right here, I shouldn't have to go look for it." Funny, but the 727 never provided that information(that point was lost on him).

If was funny as heck, sad actually, to watch him pull out his high altitude charts, switch from MAP to VOR, and start dialing in radials as I flew across the country in LNAV - "how do we know where we are if we don't do it this way? The VOR's aren't the VOR's we're navigating off of." :{

He wanted to fly the return leg in heading select while tracking the VOR manually. := So off we go, in LNAV, while he's dialing up VOR frequencies and radials - "Xxx, it would be easier if you'd try to understand it instead of fighting it the whole time." :ugh:

[ReverseFlight]

You can design an aircraft where you push the stick forward to go up and pull the stick back to go down and providing sufficient training is done everything will be OK.As you know well, A designed flick switches aft for "on" and forward for "off" (meaning "I have it" and "shove it" respectively) which is the opposite of the traditional B style of forward for "on". Then you have the option of turning the A switches the other way round like the Bs for those who like the B-style switching. Convenient.

[Flytiger]

While this is ultimately true it does have practical limitations. You can design an aircraft where you push the stick forward to go up and pull the stick back to go down and providing sufficient training is done everything will be ...

That would likely result in a lot of accidents in an extraordinary situation where there was a need for a quick maneuver, as no amount of training would counter the muscle memory of pilots. The brain has practically wired "pull back" as up and "push forward" as down, in everyone, any kid with a flight sim or a computer, anyone who has watched pilots on tv, or any pilot, just as the brain has wired the way your other fingers and thumb sit when pointing with your index finger. It would be practically like taking a steering wheel and making the vehicle turn left when the wheel is pulled to the right.

As for the switches, pushing them up or forward could means go, back could mean stop. I don't see the logic of I have it/I dont have it.

[PantLoad]

Feel free to substitute another eight-letter word for 'nonsense'.

Here's what Airbus has to say....and, I agree:

1. The aircraft can be flown like any other aircraft;
2. Fly, Navigate, Communicate, and Manage;
3. Respect task sharing, and back each other up;
4. Know your FMA at all times;
5. Cross the accuracy of the Flight Management System with raw data;
6. One head up at all times;
7. When things don't go as expected, take over;
8. Use the proper level of automation for the task.


Duh!!!!! Basic airmanship....

My commentary:

1. The aircraft is a beautiful-flying aircraft. It's balanced,
dynamically well-designed;
2. Fly, Navigate, Communicate, Manage. This has been taught in
basic flight training for maybe a century;
3. Respect task sharing. One of the principle tenants of CRM;
4. Know your FMA at all times. OK, so you ask, "What the hell is
it doing now?" Well, just look at your FMA....your question is answered
for you;
5. Crosscheck the accuracy of your FMS. Do you know where you are,
right now? Duh!
6. One head up at all times. Or, is someone paying attention to
the store?
7. Oh! Things are going badly! Perhaps, I should take over!
Again....Duh!!!!
8. Use the level of automation you want to use. You're the pilot.
You decide.


OK, so now you know the philosophy of the Airbus.....


Fly safe,


PantLoad

[stilton]

Denti and Aterpster,


There is a 'Loc' button on the 757 / 767 but it is not Vor/ Loc.

It will track a Localizer


It will NOT track a radial.


You can, of course display any radial you would like and could track it yourself
using Hdg Sel but the Autopilot will not do it for you.


When tracking of a Radial is required you simply build the radial on the legs page and fly it in LNAV.


You can verify you are tracking it if you wish by tuning in the radial manually
which should superimpose it self on the LNAV course (visible on the Map display)

[Fakawi]

Tracking a radial is best done in "track/fpa" imho.
wich is a great feature in the Bus. Being able to follow a precise trajectory through SPACE rather than a drifting airmass.

[TTex600]

Feel free to substitute another eight-letter word for 'nonsense'.

Here's what Airbus has to say....and, I agree:

1. The aircraft can be flown like any other aircraft;
2. Fly, Navigate, Communicate, and Manage;
3. Respect task sharing, and back each other up;
4. Know your FMA at all times;
5. Cross the accuracy of the Flight Management System with raw data;
6. One head up at all times;
7. When things don't go as expected, take over;
8. Use the proper level of automation for the task.

The aircraft can be flown like any other aircraft? Really?

Try trimming for 250 in a climb and get back to us on how it went.

[Stone Cold II]

Simple turn flight directors off, select climb thrust and pull the nose up to an attitude to maintain 250kt in the climb aircraft will maintain and trim for you.

Simples.

Having flown both Boeing and Airbus then give me the Airbus everytime. Yes it's slightly more tricky in a crosswind but once you get the technique sorted it's fine. I see some people saying the Airbus is complicated when things go wrong, I found the Boeing more difficult because I always thought the design of the 737 flight deck was just one big mess and hated the QRH. However it can be difficult for someone who has flown as certain type of aircraft for 20 years and then suddenly have to change to a new type that has a different way of doing things.

It depends what you are use to, go with an open mind and I'm sure you will enjoy it. It will take a good year to start to feel comfortable, I have been on the Airbus now for 5 years and how I operate it is second nature to me and feels natural and I know what the aircraft is doing.

Everyone has their own opinion. Both companies make very fine aircraft.

[Checkboard]

Simples

Really? :suspect: It will maintain the speed? Or the pitch attitude? :rolleyes:

... do you KNOW how it flies? Or do you put it on autopilot at 200' like everyone else who is afraid to admit it doesn't handle well manually?

[babotika]

It will maintain a 0g attitude, or a continuous trajectory through space, until low speed protection eventually comes into play if you wait long enough.

I've seen both sides and I prefer the bus, despite what most people think/say the aircraft is a joy to hand fly once you get used to the augmentation and ECAM does beat having to fish for the wrong checklist in the dark once you accept it.
If you approach the training with an open mind and accept that everything you know is not necessarily applicable anymore you should be fine...

S.

[cosmo kramer]

stilton:
There is a 'Loc' button on the 757 / 767 but it is not Vor/ Loc.
...
When tracking of a Radial is required you simply build the radial on the legs page and fly it in LNAV.

If you are instructed to fly a radial outbound, is that possible to build that in the 757/767 FMC?

Not possible in the 737 (unless you put in an arbitrary distance, which will lead to route discontinuity and "using reserve fuel" FMC warnings and so on), we do have VOR tracking capability though.

[dlcmdrx]

Fakawi, search in youtube for children of magenta, good video for pilot haters.

I also suggest the af447 thread, many engineers dressed as pilots in that thread, you sure will like it.

[TTex600]

Simple turn flight directors off, select climb thrust and pull the nose up to an attitude to maintain 250kt in the climb aircraft will maintain and trim for you.

Simples.
........................

It depends what you are use to, go with an open mind and I'm sure you will enjoy it. It will take a good year to start to feel comfortable, I have been on the Airbus now for 5 years and how I operate it is second nature to me and feels natural and I know what the aircraft is doing.

Everyone has their own opinion. Both companies make very fine aircraft.

Stone, the 320 series does NOT trim for speed. Read your manual. Fact, not opinion.
Babotika has it correct, BTW, I actually like the bus, but I don't completely trust her.

[stilton]

On the 75/ 67 You can build a radial outbound on the legs page with an arbitrary distance if instructed to do so it will track in Lnav.


It will affect your fuel planning but since this is only a temporary clearance it does not matter, if it will rejoin your route further downline and if cleared to do so you can close up the discontinuities and then your fuel estimates will be accurate.

[PantLoad]

Well, I'm retired, so I can't 'try' holding the speed at 250, or whatever.

I flew Boeings for almost 23 years before I did the Bus for nine years.
Boeing makes a damn good aeroplane, there is no question. I loved the 737, especially. It's really my sweetheart. That's one of the best hand-flying planes I've ever flown....and I've flown over 30 different planes in my career.

But, the Bus is a great aircraft. It's really advanced. It's a well-designed airplane, aerodynamically...very honest....no surprises aerodynamically.

If you want to make it fly like a hand-flown 737, turn off a bunch of sXXt, go into direct law, and fly your heart out. (Only kidding)

It really does fly like any other aircraft. Really.... In my opinion, which is worth nothing, the training is a problem area. We train to learn all the
'trick-sXXt' stuff the Bus will do, and we do little actually pilot-flying stuff. Try hand-flying as much as possible...AThr OFF....you can use the bird if you like...or not.....but, be a pilot and hand fly. You'll get to where you really enjoy the stability and honesty of the Bus.

You really don't need all that trick-sXXt stuff to fly the thing....it's just an airplane, and a really well-designed one, to boot. Use as much automation as you like....or,as little as you like. It, too, is a sweet machine.

Fly safe,

PantLoad

[Stone Cold II]

I see what you mean by trim for a specific speed but why would you need to? Select speed that you want select attitude that you want and it will hold it fact.

I always at least take all the automatics out once during my working week to help keep some sort of scan up. It will fly like any other plane apart from manual trim and anybody who says it doesn't does not know what they are talking about.

[rudderrudderrat]

Hi Stone Cold II,

Select speed that you want select attitude that you want and it will hold it fact.You are simply using autothrust to try to control speed.

Most of us will climb using a constant climb power setting. A Boeing can be trimmed for speed - an Airbus can NOT. Airbus will hold a constant pitch attitude and the stab will be autotrimmed to follow the subsequent speed changes. It is completely different in longitudinal speed stability - just as the crew of AF 447 discovered.

[Stone Cold II]

Ta ridderrudderrat, that exactly what I meant. Auto thrust would control your speed at the pitch attitude you selected and naturally if the pitch was too great the speed would reduce until flight control laws would kick in.

As I have said everyone will have their own opinion on what they prefer. Some like Airbus more and some prefer Boeing. Myself I prefer the Airbus however think the 737 was better in a crosswind but for me day to day operation Airbus wins hands down.

But I will fly what ever it is as long as I get a pay cheque at the end of the day.

[powerstall]

stonecold,

that last line said it all. :ok:

[CONF iture]

Great watching dlcmdrx.
Not Airbus promoted ... I would guess.

Children of Magenta :

h3kREPMzMLk

[DBate]

Great watching dlcmdrx.
Not Airbus promoted ... I would guess.I agree, it is a great watch.

However: He is referring to a lot of examples flying Boeing aircraft, so this is not a genuine Airbus problem, but rather applies to all modern flight deck designs ... I would guess. ;)

[CONF iture]

Except that Airbus has been and is a big pusher for more automation and expects its crews to rely on it.
Even TCAS maneuvers to be soon flown under full auto ...

Did you notice how the guy is talking about disconnecting auto thrust : click click - Airbus has made it different, it used to be really simple but now you need to think to do it the correct way.

[kbrockman]

video @ 21:50,

Commenting on the 757-767-A300 piloting community,
"What's it doing now?"
Specially for those that think this issue only came up first with the advent of FBW in the A320.

Nice video BTW, good advice for all pilots no matter what type they fly.

[boofhead]

I don't know the design parameters of the latest Airbus's but the 310 had a vicious go around compared to the Boeing. The Boeing will maintain 2000 fpm while the AB goes to full thrust. If the airplane is light the attitude is way high in the Bus and it is necessary to cancel the auto thrust if you want to make it more reasonable (for passenger comfort perhaps).
China Air lost a 310 when the pilot, while doing a go around on auto pilot, pulled back the thrust levers to reduce the rate of climb and climb attitude, which led to a stall. He was slow to turn off the auto pilot and recover and the airplane only just managed to make level flight at less than 100 feet agl. Unfortunately, there was a 150 foot building in front of them. Sad. The pilot was one of their best, too, and he had his wife and kids as passengers.
Other than that, the 310 is a great airplane, pre fbw.

[cosmo kramer]

Auto thrust would control your speed at the pitch attitude you selected and naturally if the pitch was too great the speed would reduce until flight control laws would kick in.

In my opinion a crazy and dangerous idea to have an aircraft that is not speed stabile.
This is not an Airbus vs. Boeing thing. This is Airbus against anything that has otherwise ever been build. This FBW itself it not a problem, it's the way that they implemented it.

With a conventional aircraft that is in trim, the nose would pitch down to keep the trimmed speed (unless active back pressure on the controls). That the speed just decays until protections (hopefully) kicks in seems like a recipe for disaster.

Like with AF447, the F/O held the stick back the aircraft actually trimmed itself to fly 60 knots or the stop of the stabilizer, because the protections didn't kick in. A back pressure which in itself would have felt highly unnatural in a conventional aircraft, since a significantly pressure would be required (here only the force of a tiny spring or whatever keeps the stick centered when no force is applied).

In a conventional aircraft no one would ever have held full up elevator, simply because it would have felt unnatural and uncomfortable requiring quite a bit of muscular power. Secondly the stabilizer would not have moved and third the aircraft might have recovered on it's own as soon as someone had let go of the controls.

Makes you wonder how it ever got certified!

[DBate]

Did you notice how the guy is talking about disconnecting auto thrust : click click - Airbus has made it different, it used to be really simple but now you need to think to do it the correct way. I did indeed notice that. However back then when I flew the A320 I never felt this was much of a problem; sure, you need to adjust the thrust levers with the 'donuts' prior to disengaging autothrust - otherwise you'd be in for a nice increase to climb thrust - but I never thought of it as another step I would to really have 'think' about. I just did it.

On the other hand I have to admit that I can imagine pilots not having flown Airbus before having some difficulties adjusting to that.

DBate

[CONF iture]

Another one is that TCAS procedure where not one but both FDs need to be switched OFF in order for the autothrust to turn to SPEED mode.
From a straightforward procedure as described in the video : click click - click click it is now click click on the AP only + both FDs OFF + FMA confirmation you really get what you're looking for.

I just question if things are that better ...

[ReverseFlight]

Except that Airbus has been and is a big pusher for more automation and expects its crews to rely on it.
Even TCAS maneuvers to be soon flown under full auto ... Where did this come from ? I thought it mandates AP off, both FDs off, then follow TCAS aural commands (at least in the A320 anyway).

[PT6A]

Its from the A380 and can be retrofitted to other types via a FWC upgrade... This is old news... Was in the Airbus pubs back in 08/09.

[ReverseFlight]

PT6A, thanks. Now I can just sit back and watch planes fly by ... :ok:

[PT6A]

I know! Pretty neat.... Weird to watch it in the sim the first time

[babotika]

That the speed just decays until protections (hopefully) kicks in seems like a recipe for disaster.

Protections don't hopefully kick in on the bus, they do if you're in normal law and they don't otherwise.
That said, in alternate law (what AF447 had) the aircraft will start shouting STALL when you get to vs1g, and the auto trim ceases to function which essentially gives you a speed stable aircraft again.

But I guess it's more fun to bash the "scarebus" than to try and understand it's logic.

[jcjeant]

Hi,

That said, in alternate law (what AF447 had) the aircraft will start shouting STALL when you get to vs1g, and the auto trim ceases to function which essentially gives you a speed stable aircraft again.


:ugh:

[mm43]

But I guess it's more fun to bash the "scarebus" than to try and understand it's logic.Suggest you understand it. "Houston, we have a problem!"

[cosmo kramer]

But I guess it's more fun to bash the "scarebus" than to try and understand it's logic.
That's the problem, isn't it - when **** hits the fan over the Atlantic you have to think instead of instinctively react. Apparently even experienced Airbus pilots have problems understanding the "logic" (misnomer?).

The pilot has to adapt to the engineers idea of a good aircraft, instead of a design that is build around what is natural from a pilots point of view. This is a prime example of poor engineering!


I am not saying that it can't be flow like a normal aircraft or that it is not pleasant to fly (can't speak intelligently about either since I never flew it), I am just saying that when things go wrong, it's a bad concept - like numerous accident have proven, most lately AF447 and the Perpignan test flight (incidentally both due to sensor failures and stabilizer trimmed to full pitch up without pilot knowledge as contributing factor). Then there are all the close calls, like zoom climb and subsequent stall due to a simple overspeed, aileron deflection that reduces after touchdown in x-wind without pilot knowledge, aircraft dropping several thousands of feet because a box goes belly up... and what have we not.

Try to convince me once again that we should just "understand it's logic". :hmm:



All that said I sadly prefer to fly Airbus when flying as a passenger, considering the deteriorating skills of pilots, I have more confidence in the computer not breaking down, then someone up front having to deal with an engine failure while hand flying. :ooh:

[babotika]

That's the problem, isn't it - when **** hits the fan over the Atlantic you have to think instead of instinctively react. Apparently even experienced Airbus pilots have problems understanding the "logic" (misnomer?).

Pulling up is the instinctive reaction to counter a stall? I didn't think so either.

I don't know why the crew reacted the way they did, I can only speculate that in addition to severe disorientation it had to do with the way they were trained, probably to be "children of magenta" a problem which is common to all modern aircraft these days...

[Chunky Monkey]

I have limited experience on Boeing and Airbus (B737-200,300,400, 747-100,200, B777 - A391,320,321 - 22 years in all) and test flew the airbus for a short time some years ago, and would just like to put your mind at rest.

1. The sidestick and flight control system on the bus can take ages to get used to - sometimes as much as 7 or 8 seconds.

2. You never need to manually take control of pitch trim, as the stick is basically an attitude selector - so forget about trim (excepting when in degraded modes without it, when it will tell you to trim, and this is then easy).

3. If you want something to worry about, worry about the manuals - they are a pain when learning the type, and the new acronyms take some getting used to.

4. If you want something else to worry about, worry about ECAM which also takes some getting used to.

That said, it is the most fantastic, comfortable, enjoyable, able aircraft it has ever been my pleasure to fly, and for the last 6 years on the 777 I've been missing an FMA that works properly, a FMC that can do a descent properly, and a flight deck that isn't cack-brown!

[Smilin_Ed]

But I guess it's more fun to bash the "scarebus" than to try and understand it's logic.

If one must work at understanding the logic, maybe there is a problem with the logic.

[CONF iture]

Protections don't hopefully kick in on the bus, they do if you're in normal law and they don't otherwise
Except for QF72

That said, in alternate law (what AF447 had) the aircraft will start shouting STALL when you get to vs1g, and the auto trim ceases to function which essentially gives you a speed stable aircraft again
Except for AF447

You never need to manually take control of pitch trim, as the stick is basically an attitude selector - so forget about trim (excepting when in degraded modes without it, when it will tell you to trim, and this is then easy)
Except for AF447 it did not.

But I guess it's more fun to bash the "scarebus" than to try and understand it's logic
No bashing, no scarebus either, just discussing facts.

[AlphaZuluRomeo]

babotika, I have to agree with CONF iture on his second point: It dit not in AF447, and in fact it's not a bug, it was "as designed" that the autotrim (up) was not inhibited at or below vs1g.

CONF iture, re: your 3rd point:
"Except for AF447 it did not."
Wrong exemple, indeed it did not for AF447, because it was not in the proposition:
"excepting when in degraded modes without it, when it will tell you to trim, and this is then easy"
It may not tell you to trim in one case: Abnormal attitude law.

(btw: I do feel that some parts (inhibition at vs1g, telling the crew in abnormal attitude law) of the trim logic may/should be enhanced on A ; but let's keep facts straight, shouldn't we?) :)

[cosmo kramer]

Pulling up is the instinctive reaction to counter a stall? I didn't think so either.
My theory:
(and yes it should be obvious by now that I don't like that Airbus philosophy, but at least I believe I have it backed up with arguments as to why)

I would say that in general, it is very natural to pull back when you are going down. You have to remember that not once in the CVR do they discuss the possibility that they are in fact stalled, despite the oral warnings. Hence, it would be quite reasonable to conclude that they were not aware that they had stalled.

With the first problem being unreliable airspeed, it may have caused them to subconsciously dismiss the warning. Further another Airbus "feature" may have enforced their belief that they in fact where not in a stall. As they pulled back and the speed dropped below 60 kts the stall warning seized.
Question: How can you design a stall warning that stops when the airspeed get extremely critical? How can the "logic" dismiss a speed of less that 60 kts as being "invalid" when the air/ground sensor is in flight?
Rhetorical: Oh yes, I forgot, it's not necessary since it's obviously impossible to stall an Airbus!! (my bad, since: "we must try and understand it's logic").

With no tactile feedback from the stick (which would have presented itself as unusually high back pressure in a conventional aircraft, like mentioned in previous post), the only indication that something was terribly wrong would have been the high pitch presented on the PFD.

Another question: Correct me if I am wrong, but is the normal GPWS maneuver for an Airbus full back pressure and full thrust? Oh, they were in another mode where that doesn't apply, you say? ("we must try and understand it's logic").

Conclusion:
With the assumption that the aircraft is flying it is perfectly natural instinctive reaction to pull back to arrest a descend.


Of course It's unfortunate, to say at least, that they didn't recognize the high pitch, but with turbulence, bell and whistles and an aircraft providing no feedback what-so-ever I won't be the judge of that. From reading the transcript it seems like they got really confused and overloaded, and they certainly didn't get any help from the aircraft.

Surely, the situation could have been handled better with pitch and power, but with daily ops with "path stability" and other concept that goes against the laws of nature, is pitch and power even a concept in the Airbus "logic"?

Lack of training... Yes, an inherent Airbus problem, since you can't make up the daily training on the line with simulator sessions twice a year. The problem with the Airbus in my opinion is, that you can't train flying it in alternate or direct law. With a conventional aircraft you can train "direct law" raw data daily, and this is the worst situation the automatics will drop you into. With Airbus on the other hand, when you have a problem on a dark stormy night, the aircraft itself drops another problem on you lap - that you get an aircraft that you are not used to handle and never will be properly trained to handle!
Of course this could be solved by mandating that all Airbus pilots get a simulator session pr. week, where they can practice flying in the lowest level of automation! (they would still get less practice then an eager pilot on a conventional aircraft).

To say that AirFrance managed to pair up the 3 worst pilots in their fleet and their incompetence was the cause of the crash is simply too easy a solution. Im am not buying it, and I feel sorry not only for those onboard but also for those the pilots left behind, who now have to live with the public pressure that their loved ones, who may have been dutiful and decent pilots, killed a lot of people.

[Organfreak]

In case some of you didn't see this article when it was first posted:

Technique: The 'Panic Pull'

AOPA Online: Technique: The 'Panic Pull' (http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2011/october/technique.html?WT.mc_id=111028epilot&WT.mc_sect=tts)
:eek:

[galaxy flyer]

Cosmo Kramer

Perfect explanation of the problem with the Airbus philosophy and its limitations. WRT to "goes against laws of nature", I offer this:

[QUOTE][For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.

Richard Feynman
US educator & physicist (1918 - 1988)
/QUOTE]

GF

[Dream Land]

Perfect explanation? I don't think so, when a pilot can't relate attitude / ROD / ground speed, multiple warnings, the airplane will crash.

With no tactile feedback from the stick Has nothing to do with it as demonstrated by several accidents in Boeing aircraft with bad pitot indications. :=

[99jolegg]

I'm not an expert on the Boeing or the Airbus (but fly Airbus) but the thing that strikes me as odd in this thread is the fact that various causal factors in accidents involving Airbus are being attributed to the philosophy or Airbus, for various reasons.

However, as far as I can see, nobody seems to be attributing any Boeing accident to their philosophy. This is more than just Airbus vs Boeing, and I mention it because it seems to be a flaw in the argument of those who argue against the Airbus philosophy, when it's not beyond unreasonable thought to suggest that it was perhaps pilot error and not knowing the aircraft that was a causal factor, rather than purely down to the manufacturer.

For example, Turkish 1951. In some ways, it has its similarities with AF447. Lack of situational awareness, lack of monitoring and possible task saturation, for instance. After all, would that accident have occurred in an Airbus? I'd suggest not, since the sensing of the low energy state (SPEED, SPEED) or alpha floor would have saved the day. Is that an issue or problem with Boeing aircraft? Well apart from identifying the issues surrounding a faulty RA, I'd say not.

I do wonder whether some are blaming the aircraft when in reality, those in control should know their aircraft and the signs the aircraft they are type rated on will present in certain conditions.

I think it's probably "pilot nature" to compare the two (primarily if you've flown both!) but should we not know the basic characteristics of the aircraft and assuming the manufacturer has provided us with something sensible, be able to handle it in all conditions?

If the Swiss Cheese Gods align without appropriate intervention from the crew, then an accident will occur. You could go through most accidents and say "well....if they had this function / feature / attribute / characteristic then it might not have happened" but that's the nature of safety in an industry that has so many variables. The Airbus vs Boeing debate with regards to safety, is surely just another one of those statements...

[galaxy flyer]

DreamLand

First, I'll admit I haven't flown an Airbus, I do, however look forward to a FBW plane. But, WRT "multiple warnings", with each warning, th pulled on the side stick and what happened? The warning stopped, in a sense, they were rewarded by the cancellation of the warning and thought they solved the stall. Game Over! They hadn't been trained to assume there were TWO methods of stopping the stall warning--the usual way we all assume it works and the Airbus alternative by reducing airspeed below 60 knots.

I completely agree they should have been trained to see the whole picture and recover by recognizing the ROD and speeds.

Would the TU AMS plane, if it had been an Airbus with the same RA failure leading it to believe it was at zero feet, not have crashed, too?

GF

[Bengerman]

FWIW, over 3000hrs cmd time on Airbus. It does some things very well, and some things very poorly.

Non moving thrust levers are a pain, sidestick is not a problem as long as you are ok with being "disconnected" with the aircraft.

Screens, especially early ones, are crap. LCD screens an improvement.

Cockpit lighting, again better on newer models, garbage on older models.

No trim, good for some, not others.

Controls law, complicated but understandable. Not as clever as airbus like to think since electrical failures can drop you into the biggest pile of s**t imaginable.

Autothrust can be glacial in response to demands, even when they are computer generated demands.

Main issue is the relationship between systems and how one, seemingly innocuous, failure can swiftly develop into a whole miserable world of hurt....hence the phrase "What's it doing now?"

Overall, Boeing!:ok:

[rudderrudderrat]

Hi galaxy flyer,
Would the TU AMS plane, if it had been an Airbus with the same RA failure leading it to believe it was at zero feet, not have crashed, too?

Yes it would.
From OEBProc-38

"During ILS (or MLS, GLS) approach with AP engaged, in the event of an
unexpected early THR IDLE and FLARE modes engagement, the flight crew must immediately react as follows:
‐ Immediately perform an automatic Go-Around (Thrust Levers set to TOGA),
OR
‐ Immediately disconnect the AP,
‐ Then continue the landing using raw data or visual references (FDs set to OFF),
OR
‐ Perform a manual Go-Around (Thrust Levers set to TOGA). Significant longitudinal sidestick input may be required.
Note: 1.If the flight crew does not immediately react, the angle-of-attack will increase and may reach the stall value."

[galaxy flyer]

RRR and OK465

I'll let you two fight it out, but it seems to me with an RA below some value (50'?) the Airbus must go into a landing "law", else it never would land. Or is there an algorithm that looks at RA and pressure altitude for just this case and negates the erroneous RADALT? The TU B737 had an essentially 0' RA for sometime during the approach, sending the autothrottles in RETARD mode. I suspect the TU plane, if an Airbus, would have looked similar to Habesheim, no?

GF

PS: Just a dumbbell cable 'n fluids pilot, not too sure why we need to computer whizs to fly.

[Hahn]

aa73, I had the pleasure to fly MD 80s for ten years before hopping on the bus and I must say that the good old MD felt like "my wings", we where one once I strapped in and the JT8s where running. Then came the A 320 course and after 10 minutes in the Sim I loved the fly by wire, the comfy office and all the electric gismos. Today, after 11 years of "busdriving" I still don't miss moving throttles or flightcontrols at all. Airbus has "golden rules" and No. 1 says: " This aircraft can be flown like any other aircraft" and they are right. You can treat it like a proper aircraft and it will do anything a conventional aircraft does, plus a lot more.
I hope you will enjoy it as much as I do!

[rudderrudderrat]

Hi OK465,
No. Alpha Floor would have kicked in.

I don't think so:
FCOM DSC Aircraft systems, 27, 20, 10, Pitch Control Protections.
"The αfloor function is available from lift-off to ​100 ft RA before landing."

Same as Habesheim.

[CONF iture]

AZR,
For AF447 the trim did not reach the stop when actually the sidestick request was still there. In the meantime the BEA has not communicated about any USE MAN PITCH TRIM PFD MSG and dixit BEA, Abnormal Attitude Laws have not been triggered ... so what's going on here ?

Why the THS did not go to the full UP position ?
Is it possible for any reason the autotrim stopped working ?
If so has the crew been advised through a PFD message ?

I think some questions deserve to be asked.

[babotika]

Conf sorry I'm muddled, are you saying auto trim should continue to work in alternate law below vs1g - i.e. while the aircraft is stalling? FCTM doesn't agree.

The aircraft was in alternate law, it's stated in the report date 1/6/2009 at 1.16.4.2 (P40)

[A33Zab]

With the first problem being unreliable airspeed, it may have caused them to subconsciously dismiss the warning.
Further another Airbus "feature" may have enforced their belief that they in fact where not in a stall.
As they pulled back and the speed dropped below 60 kts the stall warning seized.
Question: How can you design a stall warning that stops when the airspeed get extremely critical?
How can the "logic" dismiss a speed of less that 60 kts as being "invalid" when the air/ground sensor is in flight?


this was not the - Airbus Stall Warning Logic - it was the ADIRUs which invalidated the AOAs.....

Boeing drivers, be prepared,

B777:

The AOA will be invalidated if the CAS <30 kts = NIL stick shaker......
Don't rely on your SAARU because it already did quit at CAS <50kts
and Yes this is true when the air/ground sensor is in flight!

[CONF iture]

I'd suggest not, since the sensing of the low energy state (SPEED, SPEED) or alpha floor would have saved the day.
...
I do wonder whether some are blaming the aircraft when in reality, those in control should know their aircraft and the signs the aircraft they are type rated on will present in certain conditions.
How is it possible then you are not aware your Airbus will not trigger Alpha Floor below 100 feet RA erroneous indication or not ?

SPEED SPEED SPEED would remain available for a 320 but not for a 330 … Go and figure ?

Are things really that simple in the Airbus world … ?

[CONF iture]

Conf sorry I'm muddled, are you saying auto trim should continue to work in alternate law below vs1g - i.e. while the aircraft is stalling?
Not I would expect but still what AF447 did ... up to 13 degrees up.

[rudderrudderrat]

Hi OK465,

Sorry the only information I have is from my current FCOM. (My bolding)
What's your latest source?

FCOM OEB 201/2 says:
!Erroneous Radio Altimeter (RA) height indication
APPLICABLE TO:
All A318/A319/A320/A321 operators
... other pages of faults and explanations ....

Warnings / Callouts
-
Untimely Terrain Awareness and Warning System (TAWS) alerts
-
Untimely or absence of “RETARD” callout
-
Untimely L/G GEAR NOT DOWN ECAM warning
-
Absence or interruption of RA automatic callout (height announcement)
-
Activation of AUTOLAND warning light in ILS (or MLS, GLS) approach (Refer to FCOM 1.22.30) with AP engaged in LAND or FLARE mode when:
o
One RA height goes below 200 feet and
o
The difference between both RA height indications is greater than 15 feet
Note: There is no ECAM message or audio warning in association to the AUTOLAND warning light. The AUTOLAND warning can be triggered even if AUTOLAND is not planned
Auto Flight System mode changes (indicated on FMA)
-
NAV mode engagement not possible after take off
-
During an ILS (or MLS, GLS) approach, and depending on the engaged Flight Guidance (FG) modes, the consequences may be:
o
Untimely/early engagement of the LAND / FLARE / THR IDLE modes if the RA height used by the FG is erroneous and lower than the real height.

Note: During ILS (or MLS, GLS) approach with AP and A/THR engaged, THR IDLE (RETARD) mode untimely engagement will be associated with an initial pitch attitude increase due to FLARE mode engagement.
o
In AUTOLAND, the LAND / FLARE / THR IDLE modes will not engage, if the RA height used by the FG is erroneous and higher than the real height.
o
In case of Go-Around and if the RA is still frozen at a very low height indication:
–
SRS and GA TRK modes engage
–
NAV, HDG or TRK lateral modes cannot be selected
–
LVR CLB will not be displayed on the FMA at THR RED ALT
–
ALT* and ALT will not engage at FCU altitude
Disconnecting AP and resetting both FDs enable to recover basic modes (HDG and V/S).
During an ILS (or MLS, GLS) approach with AP engaged, if an erroneous and very low RA height indication occurs, THR IDLE and FLARE modes may engage early with the following consequences:
-
In CONF FULL, the High Angle of Attack protection is not available. As a consequence the autopilot will not automatically disconnect at α prot +1°. If the flight crew does not immediately react, the angle-of-attack will increase and may reach the stall value.
-
In configurations other than CONF FULL, the High Angle of Attack autopilot disconnection is available. The autopilot will automatically disconnect at α prot +1°.
-
Loss of ALPHA FLOOR.
-
The LOW ENERGY AUDIO WARNING – “SPEED SPEED SPEED” - remains available. In case of activation of LOW ENERGY AUDIO WARNING, the flight crew must react as per procedure (QRH 2.03).
-
In CONF FULL, the auto-trim function is inhibited.
-
In manual flight or after AP disconnection, significant longitudinal sidestick input may be required."

If only No1 AP is engaged with No 1 RAD ALT giving erroneous readings of below 30 feet, then the above may occur.
With no Alpha Floor - that sounds like Habesheim to me.

How the heck could anybody just sit there and watch it?

[CONF iture]

If only No 1 RadAlt is below 30 feet with only No 1 A/P engaged, is the other RadAlt ignored totally?
Not totally as the difference between RA readings will trigger the AUTOLAND warning light for an ILS approach.

With only one RA below 100 feet, what other conditions must be in place to cause FLARE mode activation?
Except from being on an ILS approach, none.

As per the OEB as quoted by rudderrudderrat the consequences of an erroneous RA indication for the Airbus are numerous and surprising ...
Anyway, it is a long stretch to affirm that the AMS event would have ended differently if the aircraft was an Airbus ...

[Organfreak]

CONF iture:
As per the OEB as quoted by rudderrudderrat the consequences of an erroneous RA indication for the Airbus are numerous and surprising ...

SLF checking in again:
I've said it before and I'll say it again--

I will NOT get on an AB, ever. I want a plane that can be flown (and landed) by a well-trained human being without undue confusion or SURPRISES. The above is frightening, given the cut-rate training on some airlines.

[rudderrudderrat]

Hi Organfreak,

I hope you don't really mean "I will NOT get on an AB, ever." because of something you've read here.

The advantage of sharing mental models on PPrune of how we think some remote failure might affect the aircraft, is that we learn from others. It would be a shame if we stopped because it was having an adverse effect on the travelling public.

Please rest assured, the vast majority of us learn something useful here and are better prepared to "take control" when needed.

[Organfreak]

Rudderrudderrat and OK465,
Thanks so much for your thoughtful replies. Sure, I expect that most pilots posting here are the cream of the crop, given their obvious interest in learning and even self-examination, IOW, intellectual curiosity. I would fly with most any of you if you could show me your official PPRuNe Membership Cards first! :)

I doubt that I've done much damage to AB's reputation by saying I'm scared to fly on one. I think they're already quite familiar with this attitude (pun intended). But, I'm a firm believer in Murphy's Law, which is, of course, what caused AF447 to get all broken.

I know one pro 767 driver who doesn't come here for the reason that "it gets too technical." YIKES! How many pilots are like that?

[CONF iture]

I would be interested to know exactly what RA failure mode would produce the single erroneous reading. I've read info about moisture effects but that's all...
Extracts from the Airbus Safety Magazine JAN 20011 :

http://i45.servimg.com/u/f45/11/75/17/84/ra_00410.png (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=130&u=11751784)

http://i45.servimg.com/u/f45/11/75/17/84/ra_00510.png (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=131&u=11751784)

http://i45.servimg.com/u/f45/11/75/17/84/ra_00610.png (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=132&u=11751784)

[rudderrudderrat]

Hi OK465,
I would be interested to know exactly what RA failure mode would produce the single erroneous reading.
Please see page 16 onwards.
www.blackholes.org.uk/PP/20101536_SafetyFirst-11-Toconsult.pdf

[CONF iture]

OK465,
As you was looking for specific info on the 330 :

http://i45.servimg.com/u/f45/11/75/17/84/ra_00210.png (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=135&u=11751784)

http://i45.servimg.com/u/f45/11/75/17/84/ra_00310.png (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=133&u=11751784)

Note how the auto-trim function is inhibited ... no difference with a 737 then.
And the non operation of the auto-trim would NOT be announced on the PFD !
Something to watch in case of GA ...

[AlphaZuluRomeo]

@ CONF iture, re: your post #114.
I'm sorry, I can't see why you ask (me?) those questions: Is there a relation with what I wrote previously? :confused:
Or are they "just" (valid) questions re:AF447?
In the last case, I suggest we continue this on one or the other of the AF447 dedicated topics. :)

[CONF iture]

I'm sorry, I can't see why you ask (me?) those questions: Is there a relation with what I wrote previously?
It was in the continuity of your post 101 (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/473490-airbus-trepidation-convince-me-otherwise-6.html#post6955241)
It may not tell you to trim in more than one case ... Abnormal attitude laws was a known case, Erroneous RA height indication is a now known case, AF447 could be another one ... ?

[Machinbird]

Just a point for historical reference.

When I was flying off the boat in the fabulous Phantom II a long time ago, we had an SOP of requiring an operational RA for night carrier landings. This was a no-go item per SOP.

Radar altimeters of that day worked well when they worked, but had a much higher failure rate than present day ones for the same reasons listed in CONFiture's post #128. About 1/5 of my flights had an inoperative RA on post-start checks. What most of us did was go flying and gripe it on return. At least the RA was not integrated into the rest of the aircraft systems.

With that operational experience behind me, I am extremely distrustful of RA equipment and am amazed that present day system integrators have given RA equipment a position of high trust with so few possibilities for reconfiguration following an obvious failure.

[AlphaZuluRomeo]

CONF iture : OK, got what you meant. :ok:
Well, you mention an unproven hypothesis (i.e. : the autotrim was not functional on AF447 after the THS reached the maximum value recorded on the flight). I'll wait for someone to explain me how & why it became not functional before following you there. :)

[Lemurian]

This is getting as boring as beating a dead horse :
Between the Bfanboys who are strong on opinions but short on memory and the imbecillic mantra of " if it's not a boring i ain't going ", the discussion only breaks down to side sticks vs yokes.
A rad alt failure on approach, by converging designs will provoke very similar reactions, whether you're on a 'B or an 'A. So much that the differences will be minimal.
The much cited absence of stall warning between o and 60 knots on an 'A330, would also have happened in a 777, in very comparable Vi values.

The THY 1951 accident in Amsterdam , I thought, would have woken up Boeing drivers over the fact that their toys are not exactly perfection itself... and before anyone would say it's because they were Turks, the same situation happened on an Australian 738 in Sydney in APR (?) 2009.

Then the quasi general dishonesty of the Bfanboys about the level of automation reached on the 777, and carried over to the 787 : automatic trim, pitch protection on takeoff,single engine lateral correction (as far as I know,this goes further than the much maligned 319, 320, 321, 330, 340)... as if it was shameful to have a degree of automation comparable to the Airbus prodicts... Sheesh !

I've flown DC-4s, 737s, L-1011s, 741, 2, 3, 4s, the 320 family and the 330/340. Been on the 'Bus range for 16 years, and don't want to go back to old tech.
It will be getting even older as the new generations apparently go the 'Bus way ;: Bombardier, Sukhoi, the Chinese, Dassault... remains the Argentines in the yoke fans...

[Organfreak]

Lemurian wrote:This is getting as boring as beating a dead horse :
Between the Bfanboys who are strong on opinions but short on memory and the imbecillic mantra of " if it's not a boring i ain't going ", the discussion only breaks down to side sticks vs yokes.

Ha ha, what a load of poppycock!

[thermostat]

TTex600. You left out one very important part. They flew into a thunder storm too close to the coffin corner. Also, the RADAR wasn't properly set up at top of climb (which is SOP).

[CONF iture]

With that operational experience behind me, I am extremely distrustful of RA equipment and am amazed that present day system integrators have given RA equipment a position of high trust with so few possibilities for reconfiguration following an obvious failure.
No doubt, the RAs are an important part of the System. The Airbus documentation mentions how ''they supply information to the AP and A/THR modes, plus inputs to switch flight control laws at various stages.
Although the ECAM procedure for a RA 1 + 2 FAULT is straightforward, the consequences of the failure on the aircraft operation require consideration.''

But still better to face a well identified dual RA FAULT than a nebulous erroneous RA height indication.

[stilton]

You can hardly blame the Amsterdam THY crash on the Aircraft.


So the RA failed and the autothrottles did not bring the power up.


Because of this the crew allowed the Aircraft to stall ?


Unbelievable, they couldn't think to push the power up themselves.


If the auto whatever doesn't work, just fly the bl**dy aeroplane.


(I know you can't do this in an AB)

[0-8]

They did push the throttles up. But because the autothrottle was in flare mode (due to the faulty RA) it simply brought them back to idle again.

At least on an Airbus if you push the the thrust leavers forward to TOGA, they stay there....

[Dream Land]

So they selected full thrust and it went back to idle? Scary, sounds complicated!:ugh:

[Lemurian]

You can hardly blame the Amsterdam THY crash on the Aircraft.
No ?
Can't have it both ways : as in many instances, an RA failure will cause similar results on any aircraft, you can't blame A and exonerate B, putting the whole fault on the crew.
So the RA failed and the autothrottles did not bring the power up.
They did push the throttles up. But because the autothrottle was in flare mode (due to the faulty RA) it simply brought them back to idle again.
which gets us to one of the demands of modern equipment : " Know how it works, or else !"

[cosmo kramer]

Of course the failed RA in the Turkish accident was a contributing factor. If Boeing had a made a comparator between the two RA, the accident may not have happened. Or if that had had the new "Airspeed low" warning that we have now (introduced after that accident), they may have had sufficient time to correct their inattention.

Every aircraft has it's pitfalls and that is why there are pilots in the cockpit. The buttom line is that they did not watch was going on, and that at a completely unacceptable phase of flight.

However, the aircraft did not change it's characteristics. Nothing was working against them. Nothing cluttered the information at hand, one look at the airspeed indicator should have been enough to know what was going on. It's always procedure to disconnect the automatics when taking over manually, they failed to do so as well. Maybe it was lucky, since they performed an incorrect recovery procedure as well. Had the engines stayed at high thrust they may have ended up with nose 45 deg high and airspeed of 30 knots and the crash may have been a lot worse. That they pancaked it on to the ground, is probably the reason that most survived.

The problem with the Airbus is that you have an aircraft that is changing it's behavior depending on which failure you may encounter. Comparing Turkish and AirFrance is utter unfair to the AF crew, who despite acting incorrectly (justified or not, see previous post) were not negligent. They had an aircraft that adapted to- and covered up every false move they made.

All conventional and Boeing FBW aircraft always retains the same flying characteristics.

[0-8]

However, the aircraft did not change it's characteristics. Nothing was working against them.

So when the pilots pushed the throttles forward to increase the thrust and the aircraft automatically did the complete opposite and reduced the thrust to idle.

You don't consider that working against them? :hmm:

[rudderrudderrat]

You don't consider that working against them?
No. That's called passive acceptance.

If you turn your car indicators on and they self cancel prematurely when you turn the steering wheel - is that called "working against" you? What would you do? Carry straight on and miss your turn?

[cosmo kramer]

Boeing philosophy: Basically anytime there is severe a problem, the pilot should assume control (the pilot should also monitor airspeed, keep his hands at the controls etc.):

FCTM:
Recovery from an approach to a stall is not the same as recovery from an actual stall. An approach to a stall is a controlled flight maneuver; a stall is an out-of-control, but recoverable, condition.

Note: Anytime the airplane enters a fully developed stall, the autopilot should be disengaged and the autothrottle should be disconnected.

[0-8]

No. That's called passive acceptance. I'm sorry, I think you must have misunderstood me somehow. Just to be 100% clear: You are trying to say that if an aircraft does the complete opposite of what you just commanded it to do and reduces thrust to idle when you require (and have commanded) full thrust, that is not 'working against you' in your book?

A more appropriate analogy would be:

You are in a car, pulling out of a T-junction. As you pull out you see a car approaching so you step fully on the accelerator pedal. But the car instead applies the brakes.

For the record, I think that the tens of millions of flight hours flown by both manufacturers have proved both Airbus and Boeing products to be remarkably safe and reliable types. I'm just a little gobsmacked at some of the double standards that the anti-bus brigade seem to display.

[cosmo kramer]

Just to be 100% clear: You are trying to say that if an aircraft does the complete opposite of what you just commanded it to do and reduces thrust to idle when you require (and have commanded) full thrust, that is not 'working against you' in your book?
Since they never disconnected the autothrottle, technically (and practically, which is case in point) they didn't command anything. The autothrottle was still in command.

[A33Zab]

Since they never disconnected the autothrottle, technically (and practically, which is case in point)
they didn't command anything. The autothrottle was still in command.


So in fact........the boeing is a 'pilots plane', but only after disconnecting the automatics
and the airbus automatics follows pilot command....but still isn't a 'pilots plane'...:confused:

[rudderrudderrat]

Hi
As you pull out you see a car approaching so you step fully on the accelerator pedal. But the car instead applies the brakes.
Er no. They stepped on the accelerator pedal briefly, whilst cruise control was still engaged, then took their foot off the pedal and were surprised with the result.

ASN Aircraft accident Boeing 737-8F2 TC-JGE Amsterdam-Schiphol International Airport (AMS) (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20090225-0)

"The first officer responded immediately to the stick shaker by pushing the control column forward and also pushing the throttle levers forward. The captain however, also responded to the stick shaker commencing by taking over control. Assumingly the result of this was that the first officer’s selection of thrust was interrupted. The result of this was that the autothrottle, which was not yet switched off, immediately pulled the throttle levers back again to the position where the engines were not providing any significant thrust. Once the captain had taken over control, the autothrottle was disconnected, but no thrust was selected at that point. Nine seconds after the commencement of the first approach to stall warning, the throttle levers were pushed fully forward, but at that point the aircraft had already stalled and the height remaining, of about 350 feet, was insufficient for a recovery."

[kbrockman]

Er no. They stepped on the accelerator pedal briefly, whilst cruise control was still engaged, then took their foot off the pedal and were surprised with the result.

With this comparing of A vs B for this particular event, what would have happened with the Airbus if they did the same thing , advance the throttles
,which would be set at CLB and probably be forwarded to MCT as far as I know, and subsequently not follow up on that action like they did with the Boeing ?
Would the outcome have been the same ?

[misd-agin]

Seems to me that you might be able to see the other pilots stick inputs based on this video(ignore the title) -

Watch This If You Are Not Scared of Flying (http://jalopnik.com/5876469/watch-this-if-you-are-not-scared-of-flying)

[stilton]

If the autothrottles are not doing what they are supposed to do turn them off and manually put the thrust where you want it.


I mean, seriously, does a Pilot really need to be told that ?



The Amsterdam crew had their head's up their a**e

[infrequentflyer789]

If the autothrottles are not doing what they are supposed to do turn them off and manually put the thrust where you want it.


I mean, seriously, does a Pilot really need to be told that ?



The Amsterdam crew had their head's up their a**e

At least one did, but it may not be fair to say all of them did.

PF was advancing throttles and pushing stick forward (IIRC) within a second of stick shaker - then his captain told him to leave off, and crashed the plane.

PF might not have had enough height & luck to recover, but he was doing the right thing before he was told to stop.

[CONF iture]

Seems to me that you might be able to see the other pilots stick inputs based on this video
Because a wide-angle camera has been set by the pilots on some strategic places but absolutely not representative of what a PNF or jumpseater would naturally see.
It is an excellent video. Interesting to see the trim moving, something you rarely notice when scanning the instruments or looking outside, especially in manual flight.

[misd-agin]

J/S'd on an A320 last year and leaned forward so that I could watch the FO's stick inputs. Trying to get a feel for how much control input was needed vs. the airplane's response.

He moved it a lot less than the pilot did in this video.

Actually had his fingers around the stick like you'd hold a wine glass. It wasn't a full fist like grip. Interesting to see.

[Slasher]

Actually had his fingers around the stick like you'd hold a
wine glass. It wasn't a full fist like grip.

Indeed - the driver in that vid was grabbing the stick like a
virgin holding her first appendage. One can accomplish the same
sequence with light finger inputs only.

[Neupielot]

Too many pages...i can't read all of them.

Not sure if anyone said the same thing.

Was a Boeing man before switching to Airbus.

My only advice to you, Don't compare.

If you want to fly an Airbus, then do it the airbus way.

Comparing it with a Boeing will make the transition very very difficult.

Good luck.

[Fly3]

Neupielot
That's the best advice I've seen here. They are two entirely different beasts and if I had a dollar for everytime someone has said "in the Boeing we did it this way" during Airbus type ratings I would have retired from training years ago!

[thermostat]

One hand should always be on the thrust levers inside the FAF. Since the TLs on the Boeing move he would have felt the movement towards idle and responded.

[FCeng84]

By making the design choice not to have the thrust levers backdriven during autothrottle operation, Airbus has declared that a hand on the thrust levers plays no role in monitoring their system. "Hand on the thrust levers" has been replaced for these airplanes by "eye on the engine instruments".

In general, the Airbus design approach renders all tactile feedback meaningless. As a result, it is more difficult for crew on an Airbus flight deck to keep themselves in the loop than on a flight deck where the throttle levers and the pitch/roll controller inputs are backdriven and coupled.

[Mike X]

SLF here and a lifelong well-read enthusiast/spotter. Simmed when I was younger and read all I could find - from performance/procedures of all modern jets and ALL accident/crash reports.

Have flown on B 722, 732, 742, 743 & A 300B4, A300-600 (in real life).

IMHO, both companies produce aircraft to be respected.

If one don't understand philosophy, let me know before I board.

P.S. Definite difference in handling A vs B, but same with cars.

All my respect.

Mike X

[Natstrackalpha]

But... I still question: Are the pilots REALLY in control?Yes. Transition to the Airbus family is a tad "different" at first, as with any new thing.
As you get on with it, you realise how you are going to fly this thing. there are new rules to flying, its fly-by-wire for a start, it has different laws for another it has managed and selected inputs to differentiate - bottomline, you are always in control because you always know what it is going to do next or indeed what to do if it "supposedly" decides not to play ball - (rare). So long as you learn everything about the aircraft - and more importantly - keep on learning, it is a nice bit of kit. you will never get the feel you get with a conventional aircraft - but if you assimilate all the knowledge and get used to setting it up and its characteristics of attiude being maintained by leaving the stick in neutral and other aspects pertaining to the Airbus family (most of them) you will find the A319 to be a babe to fly - just adapt, after studying like a b-----d!:ok: . . . and, as Stilton rightly said -

If the auto whatever doesn't work, just fly the bl**dy aeroplane.

[Natstrackalpha]

In case some of you didn't see this article when it was first posted:

Technique: The 'Panic Pull'
this "anomaly" wouldn`t occur if those `pilots` or whatever they call themselves had the proper R.U.A. training and if anyone does not know what R.U.A. means then it is time to get on a course, without delay.

[Fakawi]

Geez Natstrack you must be the Boss in general of super high intensity training.
And in case you dont know THAT acronym......:ugh:

come to think of it you propably are full of such training

[Uplinker]

You don't need to trim out the control forces on an Airbus, because there aren't any ! It's just a joystick connected to 5 computers.

The main thing no-one ever tells you is that the autopilot arrangement is different to a Boeing. When you disconnect the autopilot in a Boeing, your control inputs then go directly to the control surfaces. (Don't know about the 777 or NG). In an Airbus, the autopilot is always in !! When you disconnect the autopilot in an Airbus, what you are actually doing is changing where the autopilot receives its guidance from: The FMGS/FCU, or your sidestick. The autopilot is still in circuit, keeping the aircraft flying where you put it (and keeping it trimmed) - which reduces the control inputs required from you. All you need to do is 'tell it' where you want it to go. The Airbus will keep the attitude you command, even through turbulence. (Although severe turbulence or upsets will require corrections from you).

Don't hose the side stick around, just make small corrections to keep the box on the cross hairs and the Airbus will do the rest. In windshear or strong cross winds, you may need to hold full sidestick for several seconds, but it will respond and this is fine once you're used to it.

I do think however, that they should have made the side sticks move together, so the other guy knows what you're doing and vice-versa.

Regarding moving auto throttles, the Airbus system is very easy to fly. Your scan will soon modify itself to look for the thrust clues rather than feeling them through your hand.

Good luck - it's a wonderful machine !

[wheelie my boeing]

Sorry Uplinker, but your statement is partially inaccurate. I believe the AF447 pilots also would have made the same statement which I believe is the ultimate flaw in Airbus by design. In NORMAL law there is no need to trim out the control forces, however when in direct law then yes you do need to trim out the forces and not only that but there is no force on the stick! So you have to trim the aircraft with absolutely no feedback from the stick! As an Airbus pilot I would never just consider what is accurate when the aircraft is in normal law but I must consider Alt with prot and Alt without plus direct law. 4 different logics (which totally confuses people even to this day - and quite rightly as it's ridiculously over complicated).

"The airbus will keep the attitude you command, even through turbulence". Erm, no it wont! It will command 1g. If the pitch changes, it will still command 1g, so no that is a factually incorrect statement. Take your hand off the stick on approach, yes it can be very impressive and hold the attitude for all of 10 / 15 seconds on an ABSOLUTELY clear day. However add any variance (which as you know is always there) and you have to make an input. Large or small, its an input. I agree, it does reduce the control inputs required but to say the aircraft will keep the attitude you command is simply not true (which you allude to by saying FULL stick may be required in strong crosswinds etc).

Your statement re modifying your scan to include the engine instruments is (yes, in my opinion) another flaw with the Airbus design. WHY remove something which you can monitor easily. No, it's not difficult, however what is the point? What is the purpose? You could make it easier and arguably improve pilot SA by having moving thrust levers - there is no argument that pilot SA is improved by removing moving thrust levers! In fact I believe the original Airbus idea was to have absolutely no thrust levers at all and have buttons instead!

I still fly the Airbus and I enjoy it. I agree, it is a wonderful machine. I do also feel however that Airbus have tried to oversimplify being a pilot by removing things that were actually quite useful (moving thrust levers, linked moving sidesticks).

[DozyWannabe]

The trick with understanding the FBW Airbus is to realise that the test pilots and engineers who designed it elected to come at airliner operations from the standpoint of the technology available in the early '80s. If something you expect to be there isn't, it's because it's done in a slightly different way.

The reason the sticks aren't interconnected was because they simplified the hardware aspect of the flight deck design. In normal operation only one pilot is supposed to be in control at any given time. Because the controls are fully-hydraulic, the need to use more muscle power on the stick/yoke is not there. The upshot of this is that if your colleague in the other seat suffers an incapacitation, you can take and hold control with the override button and don't need to physically move them until the situation is resolved. This means that when monitoring, you are monitoring the instruments rather than control deflection - but most of those I've spoken to have got fairly used to this.

The same goes for the thrust levers. The actual thrust setting is visually displayed on-screen rather than by physical position - this also can take some getting used to, but most have had little to no difficulty adjusting.

Autotrim is not to be feared - it's simply a logical follow-on from the design of the rest of the system. Either you or the automatics command a pitch angle and the aircraft will trim itself to match. What needs to be borne in mind when discussing AF447 is that the autotrim responded to the PF holding full back stick for almost a minute during a time when the protections were unavailable - the question that everyone's trying to answer is why he did that.

The bank angle and alpha protections only kick in at the edge of the safe flight envelope - it wouldn't surprise me if you never ever encounter them. Contrary to what you may have heard, none of the protections will cause a positive change in attitude opposite that which the pilot orders - the only positive command to come from the protections is the thrust being set to TOGA in Alpha Floor. Everything else just maintains your order at the safe maximum for the airframe.

Another common misconception about the Airbus FBW flight deck was that it was designed by managers, engineers and us computer geeks without pilots getting a word in. Needless to say, this is complete garbage. The engineering and test pilots who worked on the programme were among the best in the world and nothing got through without their say-so.

The Airbus FMS setup is not actually a massive leap over that fitted to the 757. As such it is very important to keep the concept of automation and the concept of FBW separate and distinct in your head. Going on the evidence, Airbus are no more wedded to the concept of automation than any other manufacturer.

But dont take it from me, take it from 757 captain and rock legend Bruce Dickinson:

Bruce Dickinson flies the A320 - YouTube

[Uplinker]

Wheelie Boeing thingy, my dear chap.

I have been flying Airbus FBW for 7 years and stand by my comments - which stem from my experience.

Perhaps I could have written a clearer post, or gone in to much more detail, but my purpose was to try to reassure the thread starter not to be so scared of the FBW Airbus. There is a lot of nonsense paraded about it.

Regards.

U

[DozyWannabe]

Ultimately the short answer is that you have nothing major to worry about. Your training captain should be able to answer most of the questions you have, and if you're still worried after that, there are more than a few on here who can answer too (I know for a fact that there are several Airbus FBW line pilots and at least one TRE).

Change from what one is used to is always something of a hump to get over, but I'm certain that before you know it you won't even be thinking about it.

[White Knight]

But... I still question: Are the pilots REALLY in control? I had a lot of difficulty watching the engine instruments register changes without the throttles moving. I never quite knew what the engines were doing. Why are the throttles locked at Climb Thrust with the engines back at idle? This stuff really conflicts with my "Boeing-warped" mind.

I also had a tough time comparing aircraft pitch/roll commands without seeing a corresponding stick movement. Why, because the other stick doesn't move. How does the other pilot know what the flying pilot is doing?


Yes- Airbii pilots in control..

If you can't see or undertand that then YOU A R E STUPID

[DozyWannabe]

@White Knight:

Your second statement is a little harsh. There's a lot of misinformation out there about the A320 and her descendants, and a lot of it seems plausible until you do a fair amount of digging - to the extent that a lot of people believe it and repeat it without checking.

Regarding the part you quoted, the A320 system (other than the moving levers), is essentially the same as the FADECs in the 757 and 767 under the hood - but the feedback regarding actual thrust setting is rendered by a screen rather than electric motors moving the levers.

[Uplinker]

I agree. No need for that White Knight.

Another way of looking at it is to remember in the 1970's when cars had manual chokes. We were all used to adjusting the choke and accelerator to get the engine started on a cold morning. Now, with electronic engine management and fuel injection - cars just start and run - every time ! Yet we don't miss fiddling around with the engine controls just to keep it running do we ?

U

[TyroPicard]

Oh good heavens here we are again...

If as a professional pilot you believe that T/L movement tells you what your thrust is....... I would rather fly with someone else. All competent pilots include EPR/N1/RPM/whatever the dial says, in their scan.
Imagine engine failure on approach in a 737 - moving thrust levers will both move forward - but does that mean that thrust has increased on both engines? No.
You don't know what is happening until you look at the dials.

[Natstrackalpha]

Trust me - you will get used to it all.

[vilas]

You cannot acquire new experties if you are phobic. A320 is the most poular and preferred a/c in its category. Last year airshow A320 bagged more than 900 orders and its rival 737 nil, yes zero. I switched on to this FBW after being a 747 classic captain. Offcourse I enjoyed flying the big bird. I found absolutely no problem in change over because I carried no preferrences or prejudices in the new cockpit. Just open mind. Automatics are way of modern life. If you enjoy horse riding so much then stick to it. But you can always learn to drive a car. While learning new technique don't compare. When you acquire enough time on this one then you can. Enjoy the transition.