Yesterday, a A320 departed RWY07R, the aircraft did not fly the standard SID but instead turned right track direct to TD after airborne. That resulted heading towards the Lantau Peak. Do I have to continue? The carrier was Axx Axxx.

I hope they had their Quran handy.

Spotted
 

Have been visiting a mate in Discovery Bay. Normally the planes head up past Disneyland and make a right turn. Last night around 9pm, a jet flew over the hills (Tiger's Head) in Discovery Bay around 3000 feet and then down the harbour in Discovery Bay. Didn't look right :ugh:

Possibly, but you definitely can't have two pilots fighting for control of an aircraft at the same time while neither is aware of that fact and expect a good outcome.

I'm sure that the aircraft has more chance (but slim) of recovering itself than when a stick is being held aft. However, even Airbus are not willing to suggest that it will recover by itself when it is at an alpha way beyond the boundaries of any in flight testing. If I recall correctly there were short periods in the AF447 stall that the stick was pushed forwards and it was suggested that the aircraft displayed an initial recovery response, but the stick did not stay forwards for anything like long enough.

"If it ain't Boeing, I'm not going!"

Just as a matter of interest , how many of our SOs actually get to hand fly the aircraft in cruise under the Capts supervision ?

Absolutely none I hope since we fly almost all our flights in RVSM airspace. FL390 is no place for our new generation to play pilot, that's what simulators are for.

"If it ain't Boeing, I'm not going!"
 

cxorcist

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 910

"If it ain't Boeing, I'm not going!"

http://youtu.be/rvkEpstd9os

If it's built at their South Carolina plant I might just reconsider that statement !

Al Jazeera? Now there's a credible news source. Can't speak for SC plant myself.

You're telling me if CX bought 787-9/10 that you would jump at the opportunity to fly them, I think not.

If you had to choose between 737 and A320 and you were concerned about resale, which one would you buy? Look at comparable residual values, it's not even close.

While it is never just "one" thing that creates an accident, and no doubt there are cultural/organisational issues at play here too, the fact remains that:

It's 2015, and a serviceable A320 was crashed by it's crew with the loss of all on board due to a minor technical issue. As pilots, we earn our money by being able to apply our training and skills to fly an aircraft safely when dealing with multiple system failures.

We're supposed to be able to keep the thing straight and at v2 for an EFATO but these guys pranged it from FL320 performing a reset when it just needed to be kept straight and level... Wtf.

But then on the other hand our GMF thinks we don't need a handling sim anymore...

Boeing pilots think because controls are linked both pilots can make control inputs at the same tme, the stronger one wins. That should never be the case, one pilot flying, one pilot monitoring.

On the Airbus, the other pilot can isolate their control a any time, and should say, I have control control to make it clear the roles of each crew member.

The captain failed simple CRM 101, I have control, to tell the FO of his changed role. If that does not work, hit the priority push button and isolate his inputs.

It is not about whether you know that the other pilot is playing with the stick it is about knowing which corner he has parked it in.

No it isn't. If the other pilot is flying the aeroplane and the right performance is not being achieved you take over and fix it. I don't give a **** where the other stick is. If I want to control the aeroplane I push and hold the take over button and fly the aeroplane. If I know the correct Power and Attitude to set the performance will follow. If I don't know how to fly the aeroplane I should be there.


In the Air Asia crash the red button was pressed twice but for only short periods .... so it was effectively useless in this scenario with these two pilots. They didn't know how to fly the aeroplane.

It was also useless in AF447 as it was not used at all. They didn't know how to fly the aeroplane.

Have there been any examples from the cruise where it has been used successfully? I rest my case. In the cruise, not that I know of, but there was a case where a side stick had been miss-wired by maint, not checked properly prior to flight and just after lift off the Capt (PF) put in a roll command and the aeroplane rolled the wrong way. Cant didn't know what was happening. The FO took over, with the Take Over Button, used correctly to lock out defective side stick. They safely returned and had the side stick replaced.

Another thought. In a conventional aircraft I might be making the wrong control inputs, you might see this and try to take control. I am physically stronger and I win the fight over the controls, so we crash. Or, with a side stick, you don't like what I am doing, so you (knowing how the flight control system works because you are not an idiot, have thought about these things and have been properly trained) push and hold a button with your thumb and now have complete control of the flight controls.

These crashes aren't the fault of the aeroplanes. They are the fault of the 'pilots' who don't know how to fly the aeroplanes they are in charge off. These guys are the products of the aviation systems modern aviation now follows. CX is heading in the same direction. Unless wee change our ways we will crash an aeroplane, killing hundreds of people. The DFO has been warned.

Controlled Rest

I completely agree with your last para....however, having flown both Airbus and Boeing, Boeing wins. There's nothing like being able to see the input being made by the other pilot and then assessing the airplane's response.

As well, if I want more than 67 degrees of bank (think unusual attitude recovery) then I should be able to have it. And why can't I see the throttles moving? The Airbus has some wonderful design features, but one or two weird ones. Sadly, the Airbus community have an almost religious attachment to those weird aspects. They stubbornly refuse to consider any other point of view that might make their product even better.

An F/O I flew with once had me in stitches when he imagined the response from the design engineers at Toulouse considering any ideas from the test pilots....."Pilots!...Poo....I spit on dem...!"

On the other hand....there's nothing like a tray table when dinner is served.

controlledrest,

That's exactly why Air Aisa and Air France crashed. I still cannot believe how many people talk about that Power + Attitude = performance. Well it does, but only in a very small regime and usually when everything works alright.
What it really should say is: Power + angle of attack = Performance.
People who flew airplanes with angle of attack indicators in the flight deck know what I'm talking about.

Recovering from a stall at high altitude requires a complete different Attitude. If you just put it to what you assume to be correct attitude and then you wait for the performance, well, you wait for a long time.

Pitch 20 degrees + full power, do you get constant performance?

I thought so too.

The pitch and power equals performance proverb only helps when you on the correct side of the power curve.
So really, look behind the Attitude and start thinking about what angle of attack you have. Then the performance becomes completely predictable.

All performance is based on angle of attack, not speed nor attitude.

Btw, this works on Airbus and on Boeing.

The flight controls architecture debate is secondary.

The main issue is that you have pilots around who can't fly airplanes.

Fix that first, then worry about perfecting flight control systems.
Otherwise, you're pointing the searchlight at the wrong culprit while airlines continue to cut corners on training such as, for instance, removing handling sims, and regulators continue to act as if it's all alright...



But Boeing v. Airbus is a much more interesting debate, isn't it? Since we're all obviously paid by them.
:hmm:

I think, Controlled Rest, you have just proven that you don't know how to fly the aeroplane when it is at extreme angle of attack QED.

So far 5/5 randomly chosen pilots and Controlled Rest have shown that they cannot fly the aeroplane.

Seeing the yoke and thrust levers move didn't save Flash airlines, Ethiopian and Turkish B737s from crashing. Nor did it prevent Asiana from crashing a B777. If pilots can't fly it doesn't matter what they sit in, they can crash it.

raven11

That is why we have Abnormal Attitude Law to allow you to recover from an upset.

Again you do not need too see them move they did not save Turkish in AMS or Asiana in SFO!

Insert Boeing drivers here!:rolleyes:

Iceman 50, I agree with your thought about the Turkish crash not being prevented by moving AT's, but I believe Asiana is another story.

The PF was transferring from an airbus, so his was probably not even expecting the levers to wake up in his hand.
So, in effect the crash happened partly because he came from the airbus and the airbus not having moving thrust levers.

big disclaimer: never flew airbus, so i'm probably taking out of my you know what.