PDA

View Full Version : Airbus shock


TE RANGI
23rd May 2003, 14:49
Having come from a fairly conventional type, I found the transition to the bus a tough cathartic ordeal. Even many years of Boeing glass offered little support as I sweated through the new parlance and exotic practices.

A few months down the line and I'm a convert. And like most converts, a devout one. Misgivings vanished into thin air to be replaced by a sense of lull and overconfidence that should worry me.

Now gentlemen fellow Ppruners who've walked this avenue before, did my naïveté cause me too short a stride, am I through a typical bout and can still consider myself "normal" or should I give it up altogether?

Your comments, please.

;)

Rabbit
23rd May 2003, 22:57
Sound normal to me.

I too went through the same ordeal in 92'. After 17 years on Boeings/various I switched to the A320. It was hard work I aggree and gave me a few sleepless nights especially the first few sim checks. However 6000hrs on A320's and another few thousand on the A340 later I think I have a reasonable grip on things. Of all the aircraft I have flown in my 38 yr career I have no hesitation in saying that the A340 is by far the easiest aircraft I have ever flown by far.

Now as I have said on many occasions, both Boeing and Airbus make fine aircraft but going into the future I believe airbus has the winning formula at the moment. Its time for Boeing to spend the bucks as Airbus have and start a completely new line up of aircraft to replace most of there ageing retread dinosaurs(777 excepted). That said, if my company wanted me to fly a boeing next week I wouldn't say no.

Have a nice day

L337
24th May 2003, 15:37
After 2000 hours on the A320/ 319 at crosswind central, BHX. The aeroplane is an absolute pig in high winds. In a strong turbulent crosswind it is a real handful.

The fact that the thrust levers do not move, causes huge problems. For instance, by the time you have looked at the cyan arc, worked out the FMAs, too often the situation is out of control.

The whole design of the aeroplane is dedicated to keeping the pilot out of the loop. And that is not a good thing.

When all is going well it is a brilliant place to work. When it starts to unravel, it goes to worms horribly quickly.

All in my opinion.

L33t

LEM
25th May 2003, 03:58
I strongly agree, although not rated on the Airbus!
It's a shame they've removed the sensorial feedback.
The design, which is really putting the pilot out of the loop, is advertised as an improvement, but actually saving money is the real reason!
Who has invented speed tapes, for example?
Is it easier to know your airspeed looking with the tip of the eye at the position of the needle, or if you absolutely have to read the small number?
Try telling me what time it is from 3 meters on a digital watch!
On an analog display it's still possible.
Is this an improvement?
I think modern human beings are blindly fascinated by what is less and less ergonomic and straightforward.
And I don't believe landing with fixed, full forward thrust levers!
Like people in the contemporary society, pilots too are getting more and more ALIENATED.
It's a shame!
We could still have all the Airbus protections, but in a HUMAN cockpit!

and cockpits must be designed around the pilots, not pilots be
genetically modified to adapt to their cockpits!

WE are the users, and our opinion IS the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

L337's opinion IS the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!

L337
25th May 2003, 05:20
aaaaaaaaaaaahh a disciple!!

Praise be.

ROFL :D

L337

Diesel8
27th May 2003, 09:29
Got about 4k on it, great airplane, not really that tricky. I came from the DC-8 and had no real problems, other than understanding Frenglish.

The biggest problem I see with crosswinds, is over controlling, other than that pretty easy.

Enjoy,

D8

stillalbatross
27th May 2003, 10:10
Agree with Diesel8, has a few things that could be better but overall pretty easy to fly and live with and if you want to feel the thrust levers move then disconnect the autothrust and do it yourself. Also find the 340 a lot quieter than the 747-400 but no doubt Boeing have a logical explanation for this. Boeing could spend a lot more on development and have far greater resources but why bother when they can flog a 40 year old design that plenty still think is cutting edge. And USD$300 million for a 767, no wonder Senator McCain thought Boeing was ripping off the taxpayer bigtime. Other problem from talking to engineers is Boeing really screw you on parts prices after you paid plenty to buy their aircraft in the first place.

Rabbit
27th May 2003, 15:47
Re the comments regarding crosswind difficulties. I have been training on the type since 93 and the only time I found problems were as previously illuded to and that is overcontrolling.

Remember the inbuilt stability is such that if you can make yourself leave it alone it will return to where you had it after an external disturbance. If you are to quick as is possible and correct a disturbance, then you have introduced a new datum for the computer to which it will fly to and this I have found almost always leads to overcontrolling. So the answer is to train yourself to letting the aircraft do its thing first and then if necessary apply a correction.

As for landing in crosswind I have found it quite literally the easiest by far using one if the Airbus preferred techniques. Which is the wing down into wind method. You can get yourself set up early in strong x-wind situations by removing the drift early and just using aileron to maintain the certreline to touchdown. Those who prefer the decrab method, thats OK but if you misjudge the touchdown in strong x-wind then it usually turns rapidly to a bag of worms.

Now don't get me wrong here as I believe that Boeing produces good aircraft be they somewhat dated but I always harken back to a comon saying of a friend who by the way flies Boeings - "You can't make strawberry jam from pig sh#t". I also believe that Boeing in due course will modernise and who knows what new cockpit concept they will come up with.

Have a nice day

:D :D :D

Bombaysaffires
28th May 2003, 08:00
re: disconnecting the autothrust, I have heard from folks at some US carriers this actually constitutes an emergency procedure on the Airbus according to their procedures.

Is this true elsewhere as well??

stillalbatross
28th May 2003, 09:47
I dunno what they read, the Airbus manual just says the pilot should use autothrust but can disconnect if they want to. The aircraft still appears pretty stable and straightforward on the approach even with a bit of wind. Nothing about it constituting an emergency procedure and unlike say, a 737, it doesn't seem to have a tendancy to throw in rudder, roll on it's back and dig a big hole in the ground.

LEM
28th May 2003, 16:19
Apart from landing techniques, I'm really concerned with the design putting the pilot out of the loop.

Of course it's an exaggeration to say "out of the loop".
I think we should say "alienated from the loop".

The Airbus pilot is not seated at half a meter from his instruments anymore, but at a few meters away, and I don't think it's an improvement.

Let's take an example:
In 1990 an Indian Airlines crashed on the ILS in good weather, because they let the speed decay so much that by the time they realised it, it was too late.
How come?
My answer is: because they were sitting 3 meters away from their cockpit!
Of course these two guys (two Captains btw!) were not the best pilots in the world, but:
1) they were denied the analog display of the airspeed indicator, and as I've already said, it's much more difficult to have an awareness of your speed if you only have a small number to look at;
2)they were denied the same display of the VSI, which is ridiculously small;
3)they were denied the physical sensorial feedback of those fixed thrust levers, so they didn't realise their IDLE power.

You can say these guys were poorly trained, but is this new ,modern design a step forward or a step back?
People died.
We are not talking about CFIT, about altitude bust, about turning in the wrong direction toward a mountain, but about alienated pilots lacking an awareness of what the airplane is doing, like in the Air France crash in Strasbourg, in which the pilots didn't realise their 3300ft/min rate of descent in the VOR DME approach!

52049er
28th May 2003, 19:55
^ Ummm "3 meters"???? Where did that come from :) I could have sworn that last night I had to clean my PFD cos some grubby fingered FO had decided to point something out in close up. Must have had very long arms eh? Oh, and by the way, ive yet to see an easier way of monitoring airspeed than a trend arrow. Bit tricky to put those on an analogue dial.

Ridiculously small VSI? Is that the VSI that takes up the whole right hand side of the PFD, rather than another bloody dial somewhere on the cluttered fascia.

To prevent these errors I propose 3 rules for this thread in the spirit of the first post :cool:

1) Only Airbus rated/experienced posters

2) No discussion of xwind landings unless youve operated out of BHX

3) Only Airbus fans to post

That should solve my blood pressure problem

PS I love airbus (except in strong winds at BHX)

Rabbit
28th May 2003, 20:14
LEM

I don't know where you get your info from but as you stated you were not rated on an airbus I believe you should get your facts right before you comment further. In fact there is no digital type speed display on the PFD. If you check the display is not unlike an annalog display just straightened out. The numbers are not small in fact they are larger than those on the Boeing (or any)annalog ASI. In fact as with all "Glass Displays"(Boeing & Airbus), the speed appreciation is far superior to that of a conventional annalog display due mainly to the use of colours. See for yourself, check it on: http://www.meriweather.com/320/320_main.html
Just click on the PFD and see what I mean.

As for your reasoning for the Indian Airlines accident back in 1990, Well it had nothing to do with speed decay or being on an ILS. It was quite simply lack of understanding of the system with a new operator of the type and an attempt to utilize procedures from an older aircraft. Quite simply when you select "OPEN DESCENT" it is precisely that. It is procedure to select a capture altitude that is above the ground not "ZERO" as they did according to their Company procedures at the time. So the aircraft did precicely as it was told to but when the pilots realised their problem it was to late. The aircraft just descended to "ZERO" altitude, unfortunately the ground level was above that. Also if they had had the ILS selected then the aircraft would have captured the G/S thus saving the day as well.

Your comment re the VSI is also unjustified as at the time as any experienced pilot would probably not even be considering it at the time as you are descending and there are more important factors to be monitoring.

As for "they were denied the physical sensorial feedback of those fixed thrust levers, so they didn't realise their IDLE power." Well they had "OPN DES" selected which means idle power which will be clearly dieplayed on the PFD, so I once again think you need to get your facts correct.

How can you say "these two guys (two Captains btw!) were not the best pilots in the world" or "these guys were poorly trained", do you Know them? Have you checked them? or are you just being a little superior.

As for the design, well it has been around noe more than 15 years and the safety record has been exceptional. Sure there has been a few hull losses but compare it with other types. Also see as how these new "modern" designs are out selling everything else then I believe you have your answer.

You might think I am using strong language in these comments - well you are correct. Nothing personal here but lets be professional here. If you don't know the facts - DON'T SPEAK. If you havn't flown Airbus or Boeings, don't comment on things you know nothing about. Sure ask questions - no prob's.

Have a nice day

LEM
29th May 2003, 02:54
Rabbit and 52049er, I don't have any problems with strong language, and here it's me who starded with it. On the contrary, I like that!
I'm not rated on the Airbus, but I've got some thousands hours on glass cockpit, and a big A320 poster on my wall (once I was fascinated by it), so my opinion is not completely misplaced, and even if it were, it's the freedom of talking which brings intelligent and wise comments from experienced people - which I think is one of the goals of this forum - so please, don't even talk about RULES here - unless you want to negate one of the great and revolutionary aspects of the internet.
So I'll continue to say what I think and even to ask stupid questions, with the awareness that sometimes it can be wrong, too strong or wathever.
I hope your blood pressure can cope with it.

Very funny comments on cleaning PFD's and long arms! You really got my point.
Maybe you don't know that in the very early stages of design trend arrows didn't even exist. But when they noticed how difficult it was to fly with the new display, they added them.
They were an afterthought to try to solve a problem.
BTW 737ng can have the traditional display, glass cockpit yes, but with analog instruments and trend vectors on it (on a crt you can draw whatever you like).
My criticism here is against various tapes (speed and so on), not against CRT, which lack the information described in my previous exaple of the distant watch.
I'm criticising this new philosohy rather than Airbus, apart from being the inventor (I might be wrong) of this new trend.
BTW the " bloody VSI dial somewhere on the cluttered fascia" was so easy to use, even only with your peripheral field of view....
Regarding my being superior to the pilots who crashed that way in good weather on final, well, yes, I hope I'm superior to that.
Of course I was not there, my information comes from usual sources (books and whatever): after reading of an accident like that, MY blood pressure has got a problem!

To me the selling of something doesn't mean it's good, it's only proof that money comes first in our world!
In this case they've advertised the concentration of various instruments in only one CRT as an improvement for the pilots, but the true reason is, I think, saving money ! (one CRT costs much much less that 5 mechanical ones).
I maintain the result is a step back, not forward, to the pilot: on a tape you must read the number to know your speed, while on analog a quick look gives immediately the awareness of the situation.
You can do the experiment on pictures, posters and so on: is the airplane of your site going fast or slow?
And with conventional thrust levers I know the amount of power
even without looking at the intrument.
Now you are gonna tell me I'm supposed to look!
Of course, but with the dozen things I'm supposed to look at, the information coming through my hand is a valuable one, isn'it?
I'd like to discuss in depth of the joystick with you, but it would take too long.

So, nice day to you also! :E

Jet_A_Knight
29th May 2003, 13:51
I would be interested to hear what it is like to fly the Airbus' without the 'traditional' sensory feedback from 'the yoke'.

How different is it going through computers as opposed to conventional cable or hydraulic/q feel operated controls with regard to control input etc and lack of 'feel'.

Is it more difficult/easier to be using predominantly the 'optic' senses as a ameans of garnering info as to what the aircraft is doing?

LEM
29th May 2003, 20:36
Using only "optic" senses is definitely worse, in my opinion, than using optic and sensory feedback.

And this is one of my points in criticising Airbus and typical glass cockpits (whether Airbus or Boeing or whatever).

I'd like to add something to my previous post Re Rabbit & 52049er.
Regarding the Indian crash I've used the expression "not the best pilots in the world": First of all because they killed 92 persons because of mishandling in good weather, and second because of this: (cited from "Aviation Disasters" by David Gero):

"As noted in the accident report, the Indian Directorate General of Civil Aviation had previously advised the carrier that the pilot who was in command of Flight 605 be 'positively monitored' in such areas as operation of the flight management and guidance system (FMGS) used on the Airbus 320. His instructors noted '...numerous small errors and omissions...' with the FMGS and mishandling of the aircraft's power controls."

Also, and this pertains too to my criticising fixed thrust levers:
"During the approach to Runway 09, made in conditions of good visibility, the crew inadvertantly placed the flight director in the open descent mode by selecting an altitude on the flight control unit that was lower than the aircraft's actual height. This in turn changed the autothrottle setting to idle engine thrust. The airspeed, which was not being properly monitored ,then began to decay, and the twin jet transport deviated below the glide path. Meanwhile, the aircraft's nose pitched up as the pilot tried to maintain the correct flight path , unable to do so at idle power ." (italic is mine).

Don't tell me a good pilot forgets to monitor his airspeed on final, please!:{
But what is worse is that when he realised the problem he pulled up on the stick, but did not add power with his hand.
It comes instinctively to a traditional pilot to add power when pulling the nose up. Not so on the Airbus. His hand was already full forward, but he had idle power!
This design has removed one of the most precious instincts from the pilot's background!!
If your attention gets focused on something else, you don't look at the EPR, and the one thing that could save the day, your hand, is lost and dead.
As others have said, as long as all goes well it can be nice and easy to operate , but too many pilots have just about forgotten how to fly an airplane.

Regarding speed tapes, I'm sorry but they are not like an analog display straightened out. The pictorial geometric position of the needle is lost.
Why don't we straighten out the ADI too?
We could have a U5 R15 display, instead of blue sky and brown earth, where U5 stands for UP 5 degrees and R15 for Right 15 degrees! Thanks God, in this case at least they've recognised the graphic display is invaluable and cannot be replaced by a tape!

I believe cockpits should be fool proofs; that would be an improvement. But we don't like to think WE, the great pilots, need something foolproof, do we?
I think the ideal cockpit is like the 737 NG with ANALOG displays, glass, trend vectors, colours, but bigger (and of course more expensive) CRTs. Thrust levers must move - thanks God it's been the choice of Boeing on the 777. All the Airbus protections are good and wellcome.

I'm now very accustomed to fly standard glass cockpits, but ideally I cannot come to a different conclusion.
LEM :mad:

White Knight
1st Jun 2003, 13:52
Actually LEM if the Indian Airlines guys had shoved the thrustlevers FULLY forward to the TOGA gate they would have got full thrust...and go-around mode !!
I have to say I'm a fairly new 'bus pilot but I like it a lot:ok: :ok:

LEM
1st Jun 2003, 17:15
The problem is that a go around is the extreme solution, and often you want to simply add the required power, not to go around.

No doubt you can like it, but I hope some Airbus (or even glass cockpit Boeing) pilots will answer my criticism in the details.
If I'm wrong I'll be ready and pleased to admit it, but you don't need to be a scientist to observe the reality in a logical manner.
;)

bookworm
1st Jun 2003, 18:14
But what is worse is that when he realised the problem he pulled up on the stick, but did not add power with his hand.
It comes instinctively to a traditional pilot to add power when pulling the nose up. Not so on the Airbus. His hand was already full forward, but he had idle power!

That bears little resemblence to Mac Job's account in Air Disaster 3, which is presumably based on the accident report.

When the trainee captain finally realised the gravity of the situation at 140 ft, he pushed the thrust levers to TOGA. In fact, he didn't need to, as the Alpha Floor protection had activated and the engines were already spooling up.

Both crew then pulled and held sidestick full back, which gave the Airbus a chance to optimise its escape at maximum lift coefficient -- a conventional aircraft it would have just stalled. But it was too late to arrest the descent into terrain.

This appears to have been a case of the crew being too late in recognising that their trajectory was wrong. That's something that comes from not monitoring the instruments, which has to be done visually, regardless of aircraft type. Their actions after recognition of the problem were optimal but insufficient to avoid the crash.

18-Wheeler
1st Jun 2003, 18:26
Heck, I've got the best of all worlds - Boeing, 747, analogue clocks up the front, and FMS & map display on the lower console.

http://www.billzilla.org/747freighterfms.jpg

stillalbatross
1st Jun 2003, 18:44
LEM, I don't quite understand what you are getting at. If you want a little more power on the approach while autothrust is engaged in the Airbus then you simply move the levers a touch forward out of the detent and the autothrust system gives it to you. You put the levers back in the detent and autothrust automatically reengages (til 100 ft) . And I am a big fan of trend vectors, they are a very simple way of allowing you to set power to maintain speed stability, you move the levers until the trend arrow disappears - I don't know what could be easier.

Dan Winterland
1st Jun 2003, 19:16
My only experience of the A320 is a 30 minute sim assessment for a job. At the time, I was on glass Boeings. My impression was that it had very clear and logical displays, and precise handling. Liked it a lot!

Ironically, the job assessment was for a classic Boeing.

LEM
1st Jun 2003, 19:35
Bookworm, that's exactly my point: why did it take so long to visually recognise the situation was bad?

I believe in the air, and especially in some situations, our brain is somehow blinded by the confusion, emotion and whatever, like having smoke in front of our eyes.
Now, with smoke in front of our eyes, it's like being sitting at some distance from the instruments.
Look at a glass cockpit picture on a magazine or on the net and tell me if the airplane is going fast or slow: impossible to tell!
while you can still immediately tell the position of the analogue dials. (BTW 18 wheeler I love your cockpit!!!!).
To me , the worste pilot in the world, it seems I can recognise immediately if my descent rate is too big on a classic analogue display, than on that narrow VSI; and if I'm distracted, when I look back at the speed, I immediately know that I have vref with the dial at (let's say) 3 o'clock, while on a tape I must first read the number to translate it in a fast /slow value.
I have nothing against trend vectors, I think they help a lot, but we could have them on an analogue display on a CRT.
And they help if accelerating/decelerating: if maintaining a stable speed, you have no trend, but you might be well below the intended value.
Once again, with the needle at 6 0'clock, I know immediately I have minimum clean, in a fraction of a second, without reading the number.

Once you have figured out the situation, no doubt you know what to do.
The problem is how long it takes to understand you are in deep sh#it.

And on a Boeing you can look at the ovhd panel and feel with your hand if the thrust is at idle.
Not so with the Airbus autothrust (tell me if I'm wrong)....

stillalbatross
1st Jun 2003, 23:49
But you have a magenta diamond that's popped up at your Vref that is a lot bigger than the bugs you set on the conventional ASI. So how can that be more difficult? And the engine parimeters are an analogue style readout, with trend and a boxed number below. With the benefit of flashing or changing colour for anything out of the ordinary. What could be easier?

Airbus Unplugged
2nd Jun 2003, 17:53
Most of the myths and legends about the ‘Scarebus’ are just that – myths. They are usually spread around by those who either don’t understand the machine, or find their monopoly on selling airliners under threat. If flown according to the recommended techniques, the aeroplane is very straightforward to operate, and frees up considerable extra capacity to manage the flight effectively. By the use of advanced flight control software, the use of GS mini and alpha protection, it has been certified to 1.23 Vs allowing flexible approaches in all weathers and wind conditions.

There is still psychosematic feedback, and you can still feel trim changes on flap selections etc. The sidestick concept is readily embraced by fighter pilots, and once you've eaten your lunch unencumbered by the yoke you'll never look back. Apart from anything else, the controls on a conventional aeroplane have 'artificial feel' to restore some of the feedback lost by the use of power controls. I've had an aileron jam in a 767 before, you have to lose a lot of redundancy in an Airbus before you lose roll control - think of that!

Having said that, any fool can crash an aeroplane, and it simply won’t wash to blame the manufacturers. It is simply a system that has protocols and methods, which by virtue of your command you have accepted your responsibility to know inside out. I flew Boeings for many years, and didn’t find the transition that difficult. If you fly a descent and approach properly in the 767, the thrust levers shouldn’t move till 1000’ anyway, they should be at idle!!

If I could change anything at all in the Airbus, I would have Normal Law wash out at 50’ during the flare to enhance roll control but that’s it.:ok:

LEM
2nd Jun 2003, 19:16
If you fly a descent and approach properly in the 767, the thrust levers shouldn’t move till 1000’ anyway, they should be at idle!!

And below 1000 I guess you are gonna feel the thrust levers moving forward with your hand, and if during a visual your copilot inadvertantly selects level change - or open descent- I guess you are gonna feel them coming back again.
This feel may reach your brain well before your eyes do so.
I think this contributed a lot to the indian crash.

Yes, I'd love to eat my meal on a tray!

Rabbit
3rd Jun 2003, 00:15
Heh guys and gals, LEM said in his opening thread that he was not rated on any airbus type yet he continues to push his one-sided view with commendable gusto. However, one of the things that a good human factors course will convey to an EXPERIENCED pilot is to "LISTEN", maybe there are smarter/more experienced/more qualified/etc pilots around or even beside you in the cockpit. I think both of the above key words are missing here.

As I said earlier, if you don't know don't comment. Here is a perfect case in point - he only thinks he knows yet he talks as if with actual knowledge/experience which he himself admits he does not.

Therefore LEM please listen, everyone but you so far has had positive comment, therefore just maybe your ideas just might be out of step with reality. I myself have20000+ hrs, 6000+ hrs on the 320 and a few more thousand on the A340. With more than 7000 on various Boeings both glass and round dial. I can tell you from ACTUAL experience that round dials on any aircraft do not compare with any glass cockpit. The glass cockpit concept is far superior by any assessment. The A320 was but just one step in the evolution of the aircraft cockpit. This concept has been refined as time goes on and the latest concept for the A380 is simply awesome. The 777 cockpit is also Boeings best yet but you can bet that what they are cooking up will not be that much different to the best that Airbus puts forward.

Therefore LEM its time for you to come out of the dark ages and upgrade your thinking. Its time to LISTEN.

Have a nice day

The Stude
3rd Jun 2003, 05:39
Airbus Inertial Guidance Systems

The aircraft knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is the greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation. The Inertial Reference System uses deviations to generate error signal commands which instruct the aircraft to move from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, arriving at a position where it wasn't, or now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position where it wasn't; thus, it follows logically that the position where it was is the position where it isn't. In the event that the position where the aircraft now is, is not the position where it wasn't, the Inertial Reference System has acquired a variation. Variations are caused by external factors, the discussions of which are beyond the scope of this report.

A variation is the difference between where the aircraft is and where the aircraft wasn't. If the variation is considered to be a factor of significant magnitude, a correction may be applied by the use of the autopilot system. However, use of this correction requires that the aircraft now knows where it was because the variation has modified some of the information which the aircraft has, so it is sure where it isn't.

Nevertheless, the aircraft is sure where it isn't (within reason) and it knows where it was. It now subtracts where it should be from where it isn't, where it ought to be from where it wasn't (or vice versa) and integrates the difference with the product of where it shouldn't be and where it was; thus obtaining the difference between its deviation and its variation, which is variable constant called "error".

:)

LEM
3rd Jun 2003, 07:24
Rabbit, first I want to tell you that I respect a lot your experience,
which no doubt is impressive and comprehensive.

But unfortunately your attitude, which here is not unlike that of the KLM captain in Tenerife, makes my reply even too easy to make:

His majesty the EXPERIENCED pilot wants people to religiously LISTEN to his word because he is smarter/more experienced/more qualified/etc .
Listen to what?
Have you answered my points? Have you explained in a logical and, I might say, scientifically way why my criticism in wrong?
Your only answer is: you have to LISTEN, LEM, because I'm God and you are nothing!
And you talk about a good human factor course!
You could also be God, I don't care, you have to answer my points in the details; putting forward your prestige won't work with me.
If my points are so wrong, it should be very easy to explain
why, but all you do is trying to impress people ( Heh guys and gals...) with your curriculum.

yet he continues to push his one-sided view
Absolutely, my thoughts are mine , they are the product of my brain, they are not precooked mass opinions.

As I said earlier, if you don't know don't comment. Here is a perfect case in point - he only thinks he knows yet he talks as if with actual knowledge/experience which he himself admits he does not.
You should at least read my posts more attentively: I said-admitted, if you like- I'm not rated on the Airbus, but the Airbus is not the only airplane with glass cockpit: I have some thousand hours on a glass cockpit virtually identical to the bus, so when I'm criticising speed tapes for example, I know what I mean.

Therefore LEM please listen, everyone but you so far has had positive comment,
Once again, you are so blinded by your 20000 hours that you purposely forgot L337's post, who is an Airbus pilot.

I can tell you from ACTUAL experience that round dials on any aircraft do not compare with any glass cockpit.
It's not sufficient to say that, but explain why.
BTW if you had read my posts more carefully, you would have understood that my criticism is very radical and idealistic, and that round- or analog- dials are not opposed to glass cockpit, we could very well design round dials on CRT. (and, as already I've said, the 737NG option is there to proove it can be done)

Therefore LEM its time for you to come out of the dark ages and upgrade your thinking.
Dark ages or modern ages.... still, we are human beings!

Its time to LISTEN.
Listen to what?

I cant't hear nothing, but the sound of empty words...

Have a good night! :p

MANTHRUST
4th Jun 2003, 00:59
LEM would you give us a quick overview of Airbus FBW problems over the last 7/8/9 years it seems that most of us are getting the hang of it.
So my advise is to calm down get yourself on an airbus course very soon and then come back and apologise to Rabbit.
Who knows you might change your view when you have knowledge of what you are talking about, until then it would seem to me that you are more the one heading for TFN2.

LEM
4th Jun 2003, 05:51
Yes I might, who knows!...

But if I change my view I'm pretty sure I'll explain why , in the details, instead of talking about my curriculum.

Better to write your autobiography if you want to impress people.

Btw, excuse my ignorance, but would you explain me what TFN2 stands for, please.

Truly yours.
LEM

Kliperoo
4th Jun 2003, 06:06
Hi All,

While reading through all the responses so far, Im inclined to ask how many hours LEM has on ANY Airbus type. I'm quite happy to start out by saying I have only 5 hours, all SIM time and all while with a friends dad way back when in the mid 90's. I also point out that I also have this "experience" (for lack of a better word) on 747, 767 and DC-9. Even though I am in no way ready, able or willing to discuss the flight characteristics in detail, I do have to say that the Airbus was the easiest out of all 4 aircraft to read AND understand what was being given to you. At the time I was doing my PPL (so again WAY BACK WHEN) so I had a half decent understanding of systems. I too also have an A320 poster in my study, but I do have to ask...who in the heck sits 3 meters from the cockpit itself. I dont ever remember sitting that far back! Again it was long ago, but I do believe that a properly trained Airbus pilot should have NO problems understanding their aircraft. An airbus pilot once told me "...if you're not careful and airbus will bite you in the ass when you least expect it.". Funny then that I also got this quote from the same man who now flies the 767.

LEM
4th Jun 2003, 06:56
... so move your seat forward 3 meters, get close to a good dictionary, and open it at the "metaphor" page!
It should explain you, in simple words, what a metaphor is.

Amazing to see how many people fly modern airplanes but have retained a dark age mentality;
we are now in the age of information: do you really need to have an Airbus rating to express an opinion on speed tapes and fixed thrust levers, when you are a professional with **** hours glass cockpit, when you can buy and watch dozens of line and sim videocassettes, when you can access the world with internet, when you have friends flying the bus, when you have flown on the jumpseat yourself, when you have read bus manuals, studyguides, various books and accidents reports in three different languages etc etc etc?

And I say again, all this is to just express an opinion and doubt, which are ready to accept any concrete confutation.

:cool:

Captain Stable
4th Jun 2003, 09:00
It appears to me that this thread has gone 10% further than is useful.