Peter G-W - Unbelievable! You can read? Oh no, it's clear you can't.

I also hear the Captain deliberately did it, there were 7 prostitutes, an orgy and lots of cocaine.

This guy is an experienced aviator, who has done what many of us have - taken a camera into a cockpit. What happened is a 'freak' occurrence and very unfortunate for all concerned. There is no cover up, the report has come out quickly and lessons have been learned.

I think everyone who is judging here, should take a long look at themselves and think what they have done ( and got away with) in aviation first.

Safe flying to all.

Tourist,

I don't know which aircraft you fly. The breakout force to disengage the autopilot on an Airbus sidestick is high. In 19 years on Airbus 320 & 330 I have never seen anybody inadvertantly disengage an autopilot this way.

Beardy

I may have only 7 years Airbus experience but I've seen the autopilot disconnected inadvertently by knocking the side stick several times: in fact, I've done it myself.

Ham Phisted,
Fair enough, I wonder why that could be? There may be some difference in the disposition of cockpit articles. We rarely have anything on the console next to the sidestick. We use the clip on the window for plates and the table for everything else. What is it that knocks the sidestick? A previous poster mentioned knees and elbows which, the way I fly, makes little sense to me, but then I don't cross my legs when flying.

RP, you are not at the controls if the seat is motored back by several inches. As was subsequently demonstrated by this Captain in quite a dramatic fashion.

Maybe he has very long arms, some of our pilots are very odd shapes. Maybe he had cramp in his legs and was stretching them after 6 hours in the seat? Maybe he had reached back to get his TAP's or similar out of his nav bag, we are allowed to do that. I'm sure the report will explain all.
With ref to knocking the stick in error, Airbus apparently said this does happen on occasion as mentioned on here.

It's 3/4 years since I flew Airbus but I seem to recall our Flying Manual had some statement about keeping the sidestick area clear of objects for this very possibility although being rather larger than most of my colleagues it was usually my knee that managed to knock the sidestick, disconnecting the A/P.

beardy wrote: Does Voyager have OITs for the (still non-functioning) Mission Planning System instead of the normal A330 trays? I know that was planned for the KC-30A, but am not sure whether it's the same for the RAF version.

Quite how an elbow / knee can nudge a sidestick seems strange to me - don't pilots sit correctly in seats these days? I've seen a few co-pilots in other aircraft slouch in their seats with legs crossed when acting as non-flying pilot, but very few.

As for motoring the seat whilst acting as flying pilot, I can see that a slight nudge or two might be needed to fine tune the seat position, but that's about all.

So, the RAF has procured a new tanker that will routinely fly in close formation with other aircraft, day and night, on Ops, on trails, fair weather and foul for the next 25 or so years. And yet, the autopilot can easily be accidently disconnected in flight? Also, with the second pilot out of the seat or incapacitated for any other reason, a lone pilot does not have full authority over the flying controls? How can such a situation have been allowed to develop? How can such an aircraft be cleared for formation flying?
So many Questions!

OAP

Yes Onceapliot, so many questions, none of which will be answered here, so they must be rhetorical.

I think many of your fears will be allayed by how the aircraft is operated. Just have a think how the F16, with all those same problems inherent in it's design, has been operated all those years.

BTW the lone pilot in the circumstance under discussion in this thread had full authority over the flying controls, they worked properly, he just didn't realise it. An operating technique if there is a problem with either sidestick or thrust lever is to use the automatics (autopilot or autothrust.) Of course this wouldn't have worked in this instance for the sidestick principally because there was no fault with the sidestick.

BEagle

"Quite how an elbow / knee can nudge a sidestick seems strange to me - don't pilots sit correctly in seats these days? I've seen a few co-pilots in other aircraft slouch in their seats with legs crossed when acting as non-flying pilot, but very few."


It is usually nudged by a knee after motoring the seat back to put feet on the strange foot rest thingys.
Civvy flying is not like military. People tend to roam around a lot more rather than being both sat in a flying posture. I find it quite odd.

beardy,
Please retract your insult. I do not insult you.
I have little faith in the FSTA, borne out by an almost-disaster in 7000 odd hrs of FSTA flying. There is little point in comparing any sidestick fast jet with a 200 tonne tanker. If you have any knowledge/experience of AAR you should know that was a specious argument. I have no connections with FSTA or Airbus, do you?

OAP

"Insult" duly retracted. BTW some would say Jeremiah was right all along!

I have no connection with FSTA, I fly Airbus which is my only connection to them. My only experience of AAR is as a receiver and is irrelevant to this incident. There is every point in considering the integrity of sidestick operations in all sidestick operated aircraft. The 'almost disaster' was as a result of the actions of a pilot, the result would have been far worse in an aircraft without the normal law protection offered by Airbus.

Now I believe the thread was not about the rights or wrongs of FSTA, but about a specific incident, which is independant of FSTA and could have happened to any Airbus 330. It just happened to be one flown by the RAF in fewer hours than I have on Airbus.

Thank you beardy. You should not see my criticism of the FSTA/AirTanker/RAF project as direct attack on Airbus aircraft. However, the level of robust integrity of the A330 autopilot/flying controls in the role of a close formation leader has been severely called into question by this accident. As a (former?) receiver you might recall the reliance that you put in the smooth accurate flying of a tanker? Well, most of that was through the autopilot. Surely the introduction of the FSTA should not see questions about the suitability of the flying controls in this role?

OAP

Sure, there has been no questioning of the autopilot, it performed as advertised. The only time I have had an A330 autopilot drop out was in severe turbulence, the drop out is a very rare occurrence, unlike in the A320 series. I have never had the autopilot do anything it was never designed to do, nor the flying controls. It is actually an impressive and impressively capable autopilot. I would assume that, unlike in this incident, during tanking there would be 2 pilots at the controls throughout, but of course it is dangerous to rely upon assumptions.

When I tanked from the Vulcan was that the autopilot flying it too?

And yes a former receiver from my 17 years occupying an ejection seat.

I can't help but wonder what you would all be saying if a maintainer had left an uncontrolled loose article in such a position?

beardy,
I have no idea what autopilot modes the Vulcan used in AAR. However, getting back to the 330, it would seem incredible to me that a less robust system is replacing the first-class kit we are scrapping. As regards two pilots in seats, are you saying the A330 would need this?

OAP

Nope, I am not saying that: I am assuming that in a critical phase of flight including take off, landing and, in the case under discussion, tanking then a crew aircraft would have the full crew complement at station and would be operated as designed, as a crew aircraft. But, it is only an assumption, it would be up to the operating authority to decide, not me. It is not impossible, but would not be advisable, to land the A330 single pilot, it has been done when the other pilot has been incapacitated.

I am not sure why you think that the A330 is less robust, where is the evidence of that? A loose article misplaced by a pilot impinged on the flying controls. In the same scenario an older aircraft would have continued to pitch down until the article was removed or the aircraft broke up, the control laws on the Airbus prevented that by stabilising it in a high speed descent with idle thrust.

I must admit, It is not the control system I would be wary of re tanking so much as the Airbus autopilot lackadaisical attitude towards height and speed keeping if it is anything like a A320.

They tend to let the speed wander a long way and then power up quite aggressively.

The A330 isn't like the A320 in those respects. The engines are much bigger and have much more inertia. Mind you I don't usually operate at altitudes lower than FL 350/370, apart from climb and descent.The AUTOTHRUST may well have different characteristics when cruising at lower altitudes.