A320 manual handling

[Natstrackalpha]

Sorry to unleash another hairy chestnut and I realise you have all been here before but . . .

One of the Airbus Golden Rules is: It handles just like any conventional aircraft when manually flying - it.

Well, that may be true, or it may not be true.

Take an experienced A320 jockey - and ask her or him to do the approach and landing manually, there you go, nothing to it.

Now, take a very experienced conventional aircraft jockey and ask him or her to fly an A320 manually, during turn onto finals to land - for the very first time, they may or will over correct, they will not have the experience of setting an attitude and letting it stay there. They may not realise the minimal control input is required and therefore they tend to swan either side of the centreline, trying to put the aircraft where they want it.

So, to say, It handles like a conventional aircraft is true maybe for those trained on it and well versed and practised on it. Now take said experienced Boeing pilot say, and ask him or her to fly an L1011 - 1 no problem, and vice versa for the L1011 pilot to fly the 747 - not a problem, slightly different yes, but hardly worth writing home about it.

Same with light aircraft. Go from a Cessna to a Piper - okay, fair difference but handling characteristics only slightly different - it (the PA28) is a lot more stable but any Cessna pilot would handle it, and vice versa.

Take said light aircraft pilot and put her or him in a 747 sim, obviously this is a lot different but handles expectedly under normal conditions.

Put the same pilots into an A320 for the very first time, without briefing, say . . . and no way will they be able to handle it like the 74 or any other conventional aircraft.

My point? The Airbus, does not handle like any conventional aircraft - (remember your first time . . . ? Admit it, you were all over the shop).
The main reason is of course, that it is simply not a conventional aircraft.

[compressor stall]

With no AP and AT....

Push forward, it goes down. And gets faster

Pull back it goes up. And gets slower

Push right, it goes right

Push left it goes left.

Push Thrust levers forward - you go faster

Pull power levers backwards - you go slower.


Yep, pretty conventional to me.

[vilas]

Natstrackalpha
Yes and NO. First put a light aircraft pilot in 747 and no way he is going to handle it well. I have seen pilots from medium turboprops all over the shop in a 707 on approach. First time in A320 its different? yes, but difficult? No way. That is the beauty of A320. I came on to it after 747 with a break of two years in between. Very benign aircraft. The best way to fly A320 is let it fly itself.

[Clandestino]

:eek: OMG! FAA has approved flight manuals that contravene Natstrackalpha! It's just unbelievable these government thugs would rather trust certification test pilots than anonymous internet ranter :}

Sorry to unleash another hairy chestnutGlad you cleared that all up beforehand as otherwise I would be mislead into believing you actually enjoy perpetuating many times disproved yet still persisting old wives tales regarding brand A.

Admit it, you were all over the shopThat would be a lie. My first time in sim was raw data, direct law, manual thrust and I immediately found her far easier to fly than ATR-42. Hardest part of my 320 transition was killing the spare time as company thoughtfully provided day off between each two abnormal sim sessions to consolidate the knowledge on oh-so-complicated-and-hard-to-know Electric Deathjet. Fortunately Albertina, Belvedere and KHM were within easy reach.

The best way to fly A320 is let it fly itself.Valid for 320 or any transport plane; do just the minimum to keep her pointed into the right direction. Far more mishaps were caused by folks trying too hard than by those doing too little.

[vilas]

Natstrackalpha
One of the Airbus Golden Rules is: It handles just like any conventional aircraft when manually flying - it
This no longer forms golden rule. There are only four now.

[Bergerie1]

I have never flown any Airbus aircraft, so my views may be suspect. On the other hand some years ago I spent many hours flying their simulators in Normal, Alternate and Direct Law and experienced no problems at all. I very much liked the side stick and the envelope protections in Normal Law, but I missed the throttles/thrust levers not moving when the auto-thrust was engaged as I like to have the tactile feedback when they move.

My previous experience had been on VC10s, 707s and 747s both as a line pilot and as an instructor on each, also C.of A. test flights where stalling and other tests were the norm. I firmly believe an aircraft is an aircraft is an aircraft and they all can be hand flown with ease.

[Natstrackalpha]

OMG! FAA has approved flight manuals that contravene Natstrackalpha! It's just unbelievable these government thugs would rather trust certification test pilots than anonymous internet ranter

The FAA are NOT Government thugs! (We are not talking about EASA here, like from Europe!)
>
Per dido en el corazon de la grande Babilon,

[Chris Scott]

Quote from Natstrackalpha:
...remember your first time . . . ? Admit it, you were all over the shop

No offence intended, but I have a quetion. Do you (or have you ever) flown an A320 as a full-time occupation, or ever started an A320 conversion course?

[Chris Scott]

Sorry, Natstrackalpha, am a long-retired line pilot and easily confused by current jargon and abbreviations. Could you humour me by repeating that in plain English?

[Natstrackalpha]

Chris,

hardly. you`re 60 bloody 6 not 90!

[Natstrackalpha]

@ Bergerie 1

Yes, you had no problems, because you spent many hours flying in the sim.

I was talking about the first time on the A320. for somebody

as opposed to the first time on the
737
G91
MD11
L1011
B74
B75
B76
All group A
P66
P68
Caravan
Apache
Aztec
Lear jet
F50 Jet
to name but a few which, are all easy peasy Japanesy, from the very first time. . . that was all.

[Natstrackalpha]

I`ll note your points. . .like somebody else said on here . . perhaps too much input

[Chris Scott]

Pity, I thought we might be able to compare notes from different perspectives. I now see you've trippled the length of your post I was asking you to clarify. And I'm still none the wiser.

Never mind, but I wouldn't want to be one of your students; or even an experienced A320 line pilot on a recurrent sim-check run by you.

[flyboyike]

Chris, I wouldn't recommend coming 'round these parts for clarity.

[Natstrackalpha]

but I wouldn't want to be one of your students; or even an experienced A320 line pilot on a recurrent sim-check run by you.

Nonetheless, Chris - you managed to just slip that one in didn`t you?
Well, worth sacrificing a perspective I guess. . . (sigh)

[Natstrackalpha]

Chris, I wouldn't recommend coming 'round these parts for clarity.


. . .so . . when is the wedding . . ?

[Chris Scott]

Natstrackalpha,

I'm tempted to leave our unproductive discussion there, but perhaps I owe you and your future students (assuming I have understood correctly that you are becoming an A320 trainer) an explanation of my last comment.

I first flew the A320 as an ordinary line captain about a fortnight after it received its type-certification (which had been delayed by a problem involving minor redesign of the electrical system). It was my sixth jet type, and the fourth I'd flown in command (the most recent being the DC-10).

That was over 25 years and nearly 6000 hulls ago. In the later part of my 14 years on the type, by which time this "French electric jet" had been proved to be just another aeroplane, a number of ace trainers and management pilots (the latter groomed for management stardom in the company) started to be parachuted on to the fleet as a short-term stepping-stone to a bigger a/c or more important desk job.

Whereas those of us who flew the A320 in its early days came with a lot of enthusiasm and an open mind, most of the guys I'm referring to thought they knew most they needed to know by the time they arrived on the line, or as trainers had got to grips with the current refresher module in the simulator. They rarely, if ever, found themselves flying into a short strip on a wet night in a gusty crosswind.

So, if you're being parachuted straight into an A320 training job, as I was trying to verify, have you already got the a/c "sussed" as an odd-ball before you've even done your line sectors? You seem to be suggesting students find the FBW unintuitive and their handling is "all over the place" at first, whereas you, as a student, "manage to handle the 320, raw data and everything is fine - beats me how that is though. . ."

Is that preconceived attitude going to be helpful to your students in a few months' time?

[FlyMD]

A few years ago, we had to tale a customer to Nepal, so we needed to train Kathmandu in the sim. The only simulator in our neighborhood with a Kathmandu visual database being an A330 in Zurich, 3 of us Gulfstream jockeys proceeded to do a short 25-minute handflying familiarization on the machine, under the guidance of our experienced sim-instructor, before doing the mandatory approach and missed-approach training.

Flying visual circuits, some pilot-induced oscillations were notable on the first couple line-ups on final from my 2 colleagues, who had never piloted anything else than conventional business-jets up to that point. A short hint from the instructor to make smaller inputs, and to release the sidestick for a bit after a correction solved the issue, and from the third final onwards, they were handling the machine competently.

The interesting part is that I came next, with 1500 hours of Airbus under my belt. Not having touched a sidestick for 2 years, I had EXACTLY the same issues as the other 2 guys: 2 patterns all over the place, followed by a mental review of input technique, then no problems for the rest of the session.

My conclusion: Airbus IS a different beast, but once you have switched your brain, it flies beautifully in a visual scenario, with no counter-intuitive behavior. The slightly odd technique for X-wind landings being an exception, but easy to remember once you have understood what the automation does in the flare sequence.

Finally: we now fly a FBW business jet, with faster processors and simpler control-law architecture. The result is that the thing is easy to fly from the very FIRST visual pattern.... I would be completely in love with it, save for the fact that it took a near-fatal trim runaway incident for Dassault to give us pilots a manual override of the stabilizer...

2 cents duly paid...

[mikedreamer787]

First hardest thing I had to grapple with was remembering
Normal Law in roll is a rate demand and that the thing is
always in (in Boeing parlance) CWS. Once I did I had it
licked.

I love Direct Law - its handles like a twitchy Pitts.

Second hardest was remembering this thing is a very
counter-intuitive beast systemwise. One cannot nut
out problems like in the Boeing and make some fairly
intelligent moves that either a) minimises the impact or
b) cures the problem. Pull a circuit breaker or turn off
an engine bleed thinking it will help in a 320 situation
and christ knows what you'll unleash. That's why one
has to follow that CB reset guide.

When everything is ok and honky-dory a 320 isn't a
bad work office. But when things go complicatingly
tits up one can't rely on intuitive counter measures -
which I don't like.

[Dan Winterland]

My first A320 experience was a sim check for a job. At the time I was current on the 744 having previously flown VC10s and Victors. With no brief and never having seen an Airbus flight deck, I found it very easy. I must have flown it OK - they gave me the job!