Emirates emergency landing in JNB
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: _
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a bunch of clowns. I hope there are heads rolling over this, and I don't just mean the gentlemen who had his hand on the sidestick on the day - the problem goes much, much deeper than that.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say, this seems absolutely unbelieveable! Not just what seems to have been a "technique", but that Airbus have to issue guidance as to the very basics as to how to rotate an aeroplane...
NoD
NoD
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So......finally EK has been exposed for the rock show that it really is.
This puts into perspective how poor the conditions here are for the majority of pilots. Every pilot here has to rely on the experience and knowledge that they bring to the job, because some of the stuff that gets taught here is less than ideal, and some (as shown above) is outright dangerous.
Even though the bulk of EK pilots bring with them a wealth of experience and are great operators, EK pays them as if they came with nothing, and owe everything to being lucky enough to be an 'EK' pilot.
As soon as this outfit starts paying the guys what they are worth, then you will find some seriously talented and experienced pilots volunteering for training to replace the guys who are teaching this rubbish.
dmf
This puts into perspective how poor the conditions here are for the majority of pilots. Every pilot here has to rely on the experience and knowledge that they bring to the job, because some of the stuff that gets taught here is less than ideal, and some (as shown above) is outright dangerous.
Even though the bulk of EK pilots bring with them a wealth of experience and are great operators, EK pays them as if they came with nothing, and owe everything to being lucky enough to be an 'EK' pilot.
As soon as this outfit starts paying the guys what they are worth, then you will find some seriously talented and experienced pilots volunteering for training to replace the guys who are teaching this rubbish.
dmf
Last edited by druckmefunk; 2nd Jun 2004 at 14:40.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Over the horizon
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"then you will find some seriously talented and experienced guys volunteering for training to replace the idiots who are teaching this rubbish."
Was this technique actually taught by the EK instructors?
Have that particular crew, never flown an Airbus before.
If the info from Airbus is correct, then it does appear, that it was a pilot technique problem.
Was this technique actually taught by the EK instructors?
Have that particular crew, never flown an Airbus before.
If the info from Airbus is correct, then it does appear, that it was a pilot technique problem.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the 'technique' described was probably more along the lines of a stab at an initial stick position until the aircraft nose begins to move. Then continue the rotation at 3°/sec and eventually follow the SRS.
Perhaps a bit of gen passed around and used inappropriately due to worries about inducing a tail strike. The only rotation procedure formally published was IAW Airbus. It maybe betrays the lack of experience of the trainers involved and 'let's reinvent the wheel syndrome'.
Cerberus
Perhaps a bit of gen passed around and used inappropriately due to worries about inducing a tail strike. The only rotation procedure formally published was IAW Airbus. It maybe betrays the lack of experience of the trainers involved and 'let's reinvent the wheel syndrome'.
Cerberus
Last edited by Cerberus; 2nd Jun 2004 at 14:31.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good grief...retrograde
In the early days of jet transport flying, the FD was not used for pitch commands during takeoff for very good reasons, not the least of which was 'not reliable'.
Then, along comes the Lockheed TriStar, with its superb autoflight/FD system, that provided very useful data for low vis takeoffs.
Yes, I can here 'em now, those from BA or GF with the proviso that it was not CAA approved, but nonetheless, it was however FAA approved, and it worked good.
Reliable heads down pitch info for takeoff...more than thirty years ago.
Now we have Airboos equipment where you (apparently) have to look out the windscreen for takeoff pitch data.
Three steps behind, it seems. Why are we not surprised.
OTOH, Lockheed got it right, many many years ago.
PS: I would however be remiss if I did not mention that Lockheed got it right with help from the 'ole Trident design team...good gosh, even makes Airboos look even further outdated.
Then, along comes the Lockheed TriStar, with its superb autoflight/FD system, that provided very useful data for low vis takeoffs.
Yes, I can here 'em now, those from BA or GF with the proviso that it was not CAA approved, but nonetheless, it was however FAA approved, and it worked good.
Reliable heads down pitch info for takeoff...more than thirty years ago.
Now we have Airboos equipment where you (apparently) have to look out the windscreen for takeoff pitch data.
Three steps behind, it seems. Why are we not surprised.
OTOH, Lockheed got it right, many many years ago.
PS: I would however be remiss if I did not mention that Lockheed got it right with help from the 'ole Trident design team...good gosh, even makes Airboos look even further outdated.
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hilton, Sheraton or Marriott
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we're missing the important link indicated in the Airbus document above. Of course you can rotate the aircraft referring only to the PFD - that's the only recourse in a low visibility takeoff; sure it's a good idea to look outside but it's not necessary.
What this kid seems to have done is placed the crosshairs depicting the sidestick position on his PFD (only displayed on the ground) at the desired pitch attitude instead of rotating the aircraft and placing the pipper of the aircraft symbol at the desired pitch attitude.
It's conceivable. What is difficult to grasp is that they trundled the 4.5 kilometer runway at max flex thrust (I assume that refers to maximum possible reduction) and only got to 175 buttons as they rumbled off the end of the blacktop. That's an awfully slow acceleration for an aircraft at only 85% of MAUW.
Should we be doing max flex T/O's out of a high elevation fields such as Joburg? Sure go for some reduction to save the donkeys & keep the beancounters happy but Max? I don't think so.
4HP
What this kid seems to have done is placed the crosshairs depicting the sidestick position on his PFD (only displayed on the ground) at the desired pitch attitude instead of rotating the aircraft and placing the pipper of the aircraft symbol at the desired pitch attitude.
It's conceivable. What is difficult to grasp is that they trundled the 4.5 kilometer runway at max flex thrust (I assume that refers to maximum possible reduction) and only got to 175 buttons as they rumbled off the end of the blacktop. That's an awfully slow acceleration for an aircraft at only 85% of MAUW.
Should we be doing max flex T/O's out of a high elevation fields such as Joburg? Sure go for some reduction to save the donkeys & keep the beancounters happy but Max? I don't think so.
4HP
Sorry Jack, but T/O min vis 125m, I think using visual references would leave you a bit short of cues. PFD young man , that is where you get your primary reference, unless it's a nice day.
So as much as it pains me to say it 411a is right on this occasion.
EK has its duty scapegoat ,TCK.
Remember TCK was only a management tool, don't be fooled into thinking all the changes were his doing. I can be sure that he was against most of them.........makes you think, well maybe not...just blame the person.
New Scapegoat required please apply within..
So as much as it pains me to say it 411a is right on this occasion.
EK has its duty scapegoat ,TCK.
Remember TCK was only a management tool, don't be fooled into thinking all the changes were his doing. I can be sure that he was against most of them.........makes you think, well maybe not...just blame the person.
New Scapegoat required please apply within..
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the comfy chair.
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A REPRODUCTION OF THE PFD DISPLAY, BASED ON DFDR DATA, HAS SHOWN
THAT THE PILOT FLYING (PF) USED THE SIDESTICK POSITION SYMBOL
DISPLAYED ON THE PFD WHEN THE AIRCRAFT IS ON THE GROUND (THE
CROSS) TO PERFORM THE ROTATION DURING TAKEOFF.
AT VR, THE PF PULLED ON THE SIDESTICK TO SET THE CROSS AT A
POSITION CORRESPONDING TO ABOUT 9 DEGREES ON THE MOVING PITCH
ATTITUDE SCALE. AT THAT TIME, THE AIRCRAFT PITCH ATTITUDE WAS
CLOSE TO ZERO.
DURING THE ROTATION, THE PF ATTEMPTED TO KEEP THE CROSS ON THE
SAME POSITION OF THIS MOVING REFERENCE. HOWEVER, IN THIS PHASE,
THE AIRCRAFT PITCH ATTITUDE INCREASES, AND THEREFORE THE PITCH
ATTITUDE SCALE OF THE PFD MOVES DOWN. AS A CONSEQUENCE, THE FACT
OF MAINTAINING THE CROSS ON THE SAME MARK (ABOUT 9?) OF THE
MOVING SCALE LED THE PF TO PROGRESSIVELY REDUCE THE PITCH UP
SIDESTICK ORDER.
THAT THE PILOT FLYING (PF) USED THE SIDESTICK POSITION SYMBOL
DISPLAYED ON THE PFD WHEN THE AIRCRAFT IS ON THE GROUND (THE
CROSS) TO PERFORM THE ROTATION DURING TAKEOFF.
AT VR, THE PF PULLED ON THE SIDESTICK TO SET THE CROSS AT A
POSITION CORRESPONDING TO ABOUT 9 DEGREES ON THE MOVING PITCH
ATTITUDE SCALE. AT THAT TIME, THE AIRCRAFT PITCH ATTITUDE WAS
CLOSE TO ZERO.
DURING THE ROTATION, THE PF ATTEMPTED TO KEEP THE CROSS ON THE
SAME POSITION OF THIS MOVING REFERENCE. HOWEVER, IN THIS PHASE,
THE AIRCRAFT PITCH ATTITUDE INCREASES, AND THEREFORE THE PITCH
ATTITUDE SCALE OF THE PFD MOVES DOWN. AS A CONSEQUENCE, THE FACT
OF MAINTAINING THE CROSS ON THE SAME MARK (ABOUT 9?) OF THE
MOVING SCALE LED THE PF TO PROGRESSIVELY REDUCE THE PITCH UP
SIDESTICK ORDER.
I really don't believe what I'm reading. Using the cross? How the hell did anyone come up with that idea?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not saying for one second that what happened with the cross actually did, we dont know what happened yet, but IF it was the cross then it is scary. Absolutley nowhere is is written that the cross by used as a reference during rotation, and IF that was the case where was the PNF during all of this?
AD
AD
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the design perspective, what the heck is the sidestick position cross doing on the PFD when approaching VR?
It seems to me that good man-machine interface design would remove the cross from the display once airspeed reached a value where the pilot would normally shift his focus from the sidestick ground postion indication, to pitch attitude indication (just prior to rotation). Get the darn thing off the display when its no longer needed, so the pilot doesn't accidently focus (or get distracted) by an unneeded indicator.
I know that most posting are focused on the training issue (which is extremely important), but there's a design issue here as well.
It seems to me that good man-machine interface design would remove the cross from the display once airspeed reached a value where the pilot would normally shift his focus from the sidestick ground postion indication, to pitch attitude indication (just prior to rotation). Get the darn thing off the display when its no longer needed, so the pilot doesn't accidently focus (or get distracted) by an unneeded indicator.
I know that most posting are focused on the training issue (which is extremely important), but there's a design issue here as well.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the design perspective, what the heck is the sidestick position cross doing on the PFD when approaching VR?
THE SIDESTICK POSITION SYMBOL (THE CROSS) WAS DESIGNED TO BE
USED ON THE GROUND FOR TWO MONITORING PURPOSES:
- DURING THE FLIGHT CONTROLS CHECK (IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE
ECAM F/CTL PAGE),
- DURING THE INITIAL TAKEOFF ROLL IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE
PILOT NON-FLYING TO MONITOR THE PF SIDESTICK INPUTS.
USED ON THE GROUND FOR TWO MONITORING PURPOSES:
- DURING THE FLIGHT CONTROLS CHECK (IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE
ECAM F/CTL PAGE),
- DURING THE INITIAL TAKEOFF ROLL IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE
PILOT NON-FLYING TO MONITOR THE PF SIDESTICK INPUTS.
NoD
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NoD, yes it does, but apparently the PNF was NOT monitoring the stick position of the PF. Then again, Airbus did use the phrase "Initial Takeoff Roll".
To me, this whole setup raises lots of questions. When I get some time I'll sort them through, and hopefully post some relevant questions.
My first question.
What kind of design is this???
Why superimpose a sidestick reference box OVER a moving pitch attitude display, when the 2 have no direct correlation with each other? Shouldn\'t these be separated displays (assuming you have room on the PFD)? Since the cross moves relative to the fixed right angle marks, why put a moving pitch attitude scale underneath it, when there is no direct correlation to the aircraft pitch attitude? This is an opportunity for confusion.
To me, this whole setup raises lots of questions. When I get some time I'll sort them through, and hopefully post some relevant questions.
My first question.
ON GROUND, THE SIDESTICK POSITION IS INDICATED BY THE POSITION OF A CROSS, RELATIVE TO THE FOUR WHITE RIGHT-ANGLE MARKS THAT REPRESENT THE MAXIMUM LATERAL AND LONGITUDINAL SIDESTICK DEFLECTION. ON THE PFD, THE FOUR RIGHT-ANGLE MARKS ARE FIXED, AND THE CROSS MOVES RELATIVELY TO THE FIXED SYMBOLS. THEY APPEAR SUPERIMPOSED TO THE MOVING ATTITUDE SCALE, BUT THEY ARE NOT REFERENCED TO IT.
Why superimpose a sidestick reference box OVER a moving pitch attitude display, when the 2 have no direct correlation with each other? Shouldn\'t these be separated displays (assuming you have room on the PFD)? Since the cross moves relative to the fixed right angle marks, why put a moving pitch attitude scale underneath it, when there is no direct correlation to the aircraft pitch attitude? This is an opportunity for confusion.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dirty Sands
Age: 62
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Safety,
That was exactly my point when I first met this system.
However I must admit that although there's no correlation between stick input and attitude, the system works very well in telling you the percentage of flight control input at a time when they produce no effect on attitude i.e, ground roll. It's just placed in the right place.
As in many Airbus designs it may sound weird when read but you've got to use it to really appreciate its functionality.
This is no concern whatsoever to any experienced Airbus drivers and I'm pretty sure it was not contributory to this incident.
That was exactly my point when I first met this system.
However I must admit that although there's no correlation between stick input and attitude, the system works very well in telling you the percentage of flight control input at a time when they produce no effect on attitude i.e, ground roll. It's just placed in the right place.
As in many Airbus designs it may sound weird when read but you've got to use it to really appreciate its functionality.
This is no concern whatsoever to any experienced Airbus drivers and I'm pretty sure it was not contributory to this incident.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regard to the PNF, and what was he doing, read the AB statement again, initial rotation was correct. And from what I understand it was only 1st or second sector on type, at night out of JNB. Flying with a very experience Capt., so how was the guy supposed to know that there was a different technique being used. He probably compared it to the 500 and thought the storys are true, what a pig, with the nose in the air at night at elevation....... makes it a tricky one if your honest and think about it. The stick was put in the correct position for rotation, so why would you second guess the guy next to you?
Thoughts?!
Thoughts?!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FS...
It might sound "confusing", or "strange", but as others' have said, works well in practice.
There is absolutely no chance of confusion to anyone who has been trained on the system, and knows what it represents. To someone not trained on the system, and/or in basic "Instrument Flying" skills (the IF Take-Off being a most basic manoeuvre IMHO), possible potential for confusion.
Why is it needed? Main reasons:
1. For the PNF to see what is happening. I mainly use it in crosswinds, to ensure the PF is applying the correct aileron (or rather, not applying the incorrect aileron), and the correct elevator during the early part of the roll (on the A32x series, you start with 1/2 down elevator, and then remove this between 80K & 100K).
2. For the PF to make some of these control movements. With a Control Wheel, you can describe the deflections in terms of stick position e.g. on the 757, the aileron deflection can be decribed in terms of the trim scale on top of the wheel. Not possible with a sidestick, and the indicator on the screen works very well as a substitute (e.g. for a X-Wind, use up to 1/2 white cross width).
3. As you get airborne in an Airbus, the effects of the sidestick alter. During the TO Roll, stick input directly demands control stick deflection. Shortly after takeoff new "laws" blend in e.g. lateral input demands roll rate. So any aileron put in during the TO Roll has to be removed, since it is now asking for something else. And also the need for the white cross, since sidestick input can be correlated to what you see happening with the attitude.
4. It does not need much aft stick in the A32x to rotate. However, the Airbus article mentioned 2/3 aft stick required to "initiate" rotation in the A330/340. I've forgotten my A340 days, but the only way for PNF to judge if this is applied, and then backed off as the 3d/s get going is an eye on the white cross, whilst of course monitoring primarily the attitude as the "performance instrument".
It might be worth holding back into reading too much into this. Let's see what the pilot and/or EK have to say (if anything). This is Airbus' first statement in a potential PR battle with EK a la AA in New York. If the "white cross" caused genuine problems, then we would have seen lots of similar incidents?
It might sound "confusing", or "strange", but as others' have said, works well in practice.
There is absolutely no chance of confusion to anyone who has been trained on the system, and knows what it represents. To someone not trained on the system, and/or in basic "Instrument Flying" skills (the IF Take-Off being a most basic manoeuvre IMHO), possible potential for confusion.
Why is it needed? Main reasons:
1. For the PNF to see what is happening. I mainly use it in crosswinds, to ensure the PF is applying the correct aileron (or rather, not applying the incorrect aileron), and the correct elevator during the early part of the roll (on the A32x series, you start with 1/2 down elevator, and then remove this between 80K & 100K).
2. For the PF to make some of these control movements. With a Control Wheel, you can describe the deflections in terms of stick position e.g. on the 757, the aileron deflection can be decribed in terms of the trim scale on top of the wheel. Not possible with a sidestick, and the indicator on the screen works very well as a substitute (e.g. for a X-Wind, use up to 1/2 white cross width).
3. As you get airborne in an Airbus, the effects of the sidestick alter. During the TO Roll, stick input directly demands control stick deflection. Shortly after takeoff new "laws" blend in e.g. lateral input demands roll rate. So any aileron put in during the TO Roll has to be removed, since it is now asking for something else. And also the need for the white cross, since sidestick input can be correlated to what you see happening with the attitude.
4. It does not need much aft stick in the A32x to rotate. However, the Airbus article mentioned 2/3 aft stick required to "initiate" rotation in the A330/340. I've forgotten my A340 days, but the only way for PNF to judge if this is applied, and then backed off as the 3d/s get going is an eye on the white cross, whilst of course monitoring primarily the attitude as the "performance instrument".
It might be worth holding back into reading too much into this. Let's see what the pilot and/or EK have to say (if anything). This is Airbus' first statement in a potential PR battle with EK a la AA in New York. If the "white cross" caused genuine problems, then we would have seen lots of similar incidents?
Last edited by NigelOnDraft; 4th Jun 2004 at 10:08.