AEI says "Pilots Not Reporting Aircraft Defects ...
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Human factors and Going off the runway
I agree about the human factors as I would like to see more human factors training alongside CRM.
The following examples, proposed by Jean-Jacques Speyer, with
Airbus Industrie, illustrate this point:
“The link between A320 nosewheel steering and the Air Data Inertial
Reference System (ADIRS) would have been impossible to achieve in
previous design generations. Yet, the conceptual advantage - nosewheel
steering sensitivity as a function of aircraft speed - is quite
straightforward. As with most automation concepts, however, the
benefits are often counterbalanced by an increased need for an in-depth -
operational understanding which may not be intuitive.
A pilot experiencing difficulties with nosewheel steering may need to work through the operation of the steering, the ADIRS and their interactions in order to understand and cope with the anomaly.
Similarly, the advantage of linking both pressurisation computers with both Flight Management and Guidance Computers (FMGCs) and all three ADIRs on the A320 is that planned and actual flight profiles can be continuously compared for adequate pressurisation control in any phase of flight.
However, the pilot is then placed in the position of having to understand the interactive system functioning in order to exercise the ultimate accountability function.”
itwilldoatrip,
"A320 nose wheel steering MEL is on all A320's. Proves your training is not up to scratch, never been told about differrential braking. Before you asked yes have dispached an aircraft with this MEL and been on board."
Differential braking! wow that's a bloody surprise, got me there, you must have been trained by Luthansa.
"Been on board " does that mean you were a pax,crew or engineer ?
What part of my training is not up to scratch exactly my friend ?
Please enlighten me, as I am here to learn.
You are missing the point here.
The point is it is the Captain's decision and the consequences are not to be taken lightly and yes your ass could be sent to jail. you have to cover your ass no one else will.
You need minimum 15 knots on the corners and if you use too much differential thrust and the nose gear gets stuck to full travel or 90 degrees you are hooped and you need a tow. The operational procedure says you need 5 knots to initiate a turn but this does not seem fast enough.Sure use differential braking combined with differential thrust on the corner.
I brought it up as we recently had a Captain who taxiied out tried it using differential braking and thrust, he did not like the way it turned corners and returned to base. Good for him that was his decision and the decision to dispatch and go in your MEL case was fine as well, as it was completed safely ( wasn't there )
Sure you can go out and complete the flight safely but you could also go off the side of the runway or taxiway.
Put some crosswind rain,narrow runway or a reverser problem into the equation.
Why take the risk of going off the side of the runway or a corner on taxiway ?
Or having the nose stuck at 90 degrees and you block the taxiway until you get a tow ?
The following examples, proposed by Jean-Jacques Speyer, with
Airbus Industrie, illustrate this point:
“The link between A320 nosewheel steering and the Air Data Inertial
Reference System (ADIRS) would have been impossible to achieve in
previous design generations. Yet, the conceptual advantage - nosewheel
steering sensitivity as a function of aircraft speed - is quite
straightforward. As with most automation concepts, however, the
benefits are often counterbalanced by an increased need for an in-depth -
operational understanding which may not be intuitive.
A pilot experiencing difficulties with nosewheel steering may need to work through the operation of the steering, the ADIRS and their interactions in order to understand and cope with the anomaly.
Similarly, the advantage of linking both pressurisation computers with both Flight Management and Guidance Computers (FMGCs) and all three ADIRs on the A320 is that planned and actual flight profiles can be continuously compared for adequate pressurisation control in any phase of flight.
However, the pilot is then placed in the position of having to understand the interactive system functioning in order to exercise the ultimate accountability function.”
itwilldoatrip,
"A320 nose wheel steering MEL is on all A320's. Proves your training is not up to scratch, never been told about differrential braking. Before you asked yes have dispached an aircraft with this MEL and been on board."
Differential braking! wow that's a bloody surprise, got me there, you must have been trained by Luthansa.
"Been on board " does that mean you were a pax,crew or engineer ?
What part of my training is not up to scratch exactly my friend ?
Please enlighten me, as I am here to learn.
You are missing the point here.
The point is it is the Captain's decision and the consequences are not to be taken lightly and yes your ass could be sent to jail. you have to cover your ass no one else will.
You need minimum 15 knots on the corners and if you use too much differential thrust and the nose gear gets stuck to full travel or 90 degrees you are hooped and you need a tow. The operational procedure says you need 5 knots to initiate a turn but this does not seem fast enough.Sure use differential braking combined with differential thrust on the corner.
I brought it up as we recently had a Captain who taxiied out tried it using differential braking and thrust, he did not like the way it turned corners and returned to base. Good for him that was his decision and the decision to dispatch and go in your MEL case was fine as well, as it was completed safely ( wasn't there )
Sure you can go out and complete the flight safely but you could also go off the side of the runway or taxiway.
Put some crosswind rain,narrow runway or a reverser problem into the equation.
Why take the risk of going off the side of the runway or a corner on taxiway ?
Or having the nose stuck at 90 degrees and you block the taxiway until you get a tow ?
Last edited by Mach trim; 17th Oct 2007 at 22:36.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Monrovia / Liberia
Age: 63
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ARINC - Your profile says your an Avionics Engineer and you've said
Therein are you suggesting that a complete failure of the E&E bay equipment cooling system might lead to a fire in said same compartment?
If so, I find that very strange as nowhere in my Boeing aircraft systems manuals (B737 & 757) and / or the QRH's for said same aircraft does it suggest this... or have Boeing got their design wrong and / or ommited / overlooked the fitting of appropriate preventative measures for such a condition?
Not wishing to sound to sensationalist but if the E&E overheats it will ruin your day big style. It's unlikely that your aircraft has fire detection and suppression in the E&E bay.
If so, I find that very strange as nowhere in my Boeing aircraft systems manuals (B737 & 757) and / or the QRH's for said same aircraft does it suggest this... or have Boeing got their design wrong and / or ommited / overlooked the fitting of appropriate preventative measures for such a condition?
411A:
You might have seen this numerous times over the years, but sometimes our highly-experienced Ground Instructors will say something such as "The FAA requires us to teach you That, but what you also need to know is This...". They amplify and add details which allow us to understand and give us the inside knowledge of a system or two.
At one time, much info had disappeared from the aircraft manual, but gradually, much more useful info was built into the manual with a "chunking" (maybe that strange phrase came from digesting sour lutefisk before gripping a large glass of Leinenkugel ?), or building block approach.
The airline Training Departments were once afraid of providing too much info-in contrast, the Navy C-9 manual gave you too much. No surprise there.
Anyway, the alleged idea was that anything could be 'fuel' (no pun intended) for an FAA
Inspector's (or company Check Airman's..?) burning search for "trivial pursuit" during an oral exam for the type rating or whatever. Even now, if the emergency inverter works, fine....
The right #2 TR is powered by the Gnd Service Bus....
Too little caffeine in that vending machine 45-cent mocha.
You might have seen this numerous times over the years, but sometimes our highly-experienced Ground Instructors will say something such as "The FAA requires us to teach you That, but what you also need to know is This...". They amplify and add details which allow us to understand and give us the inside knowledge of a system or two.
At one time, much info had disappeared from the aircraft manual, but gradually, much more useful info was built into the manual with a "chunking" (maybe that strange phrase came from digesting sour lutefisk before gripping a large glass of Leinenkugel ?), or building block approach.
The airline Training Departments were once afraid of providing too much info-in contrast, the Navy C-9 manual gave you too much. No surprise there.
Anyway, the alleged idea was that anything could be 'fuel' (no pun intended) for an FAA
Inspector's (or company Check Airman's..?) burning search for "trivial pursuit" during an oral exam for the type rating or whatever. Even now, if the emergency inverter works, fine.... The right #2 TR is powered by the Gnd Service Bus.... Too little caffeine in that vending machine 45-cent mocha.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Machtrim: "Differential braking! wow that's a bloody surprise, got me there, you must have been trained by Luthansa."
What are you alluding to? Just curious, not trying to nitpick or anything...
What are you alluding to? Just curious, not trying to nitpick or anything...
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Machtrim showing inexperience BRE, especially if he doesn't know about diff braking. First he says dispaching under MEL without steering is no go, said MEL refers to this in ops proceedures with assymetric thrust. Then he say's tried it on a previous sim ride, now someone in his company tried it.
Bit of a dreamer probably wants engine changed with a 3 degree EGT shift or puts defects in log that happened previously say 40 log pages ago.
What happened to pilots who use commonsense. Machtrim a product of the nanny state
Bit of a dreamer probably wants engine changed with a 3 degree EGT shift or puts defects in log that happened previously say 40 log pages ago.
What happened to pilots who use commonsense. Machtrim a product of the nanny state
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Uk
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think the intention of the AEI in raising the issue is to highlight the isuue of a cup holder in the flight deck being broken for a whole days flying before being entered as a defect.
What they are trying to highlight is the need for aircraft safety to be controlled, in an operating enviornment by engineers and pilots and not the accountants.
Regardless of how many pilots/engineers say safety comes first, everyone will will at some stage be put under commercial pressure which might compromise safety. Will everyone react in the same way?
I'm sure that lots of you out there will make the best decision every time based on safety but it only needs one decision.
With the industry becoming more and more self regulating to suit the accounting departments there is a need for the NAA's to take back more control.
This statemant and request by the AEI is a step in the right direction.
What they are trying to highlight is the need for aircraft safety to be controlled, in an operating enviornment by engineers and pilots and not the accountants.
Regardless of how many pilots/engineers say safety comes first, everyone will will at some stage be put under commercial pressure which might compromise safety. Will everyone react in the same way?
I'm sure that lots of you out there will make the best decision every time based on safety but it only needs one decision.
With the industry becoming more and more self regulating to suit the accounting departments there is a need for the NAA's to take back more control.
This statemant and request by the AEI is a step in the right direction.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
itwilldoatrip,
You are a funny guy.It does appear that you have a reading disability though,not understanding what I have written.
never had a problem with an engineer in 14 years in aviation, usually phoned the engineers before writing up defects in the tech log unless it is totally clear, also have pints with engineers after work as well.
I can bet you have had problems dealing with pilots over the years as I detect a little resentment and even animosity there,
Would you like to tell us about it ? It would be good to hear one of your stories for the thread.
You are a funny guy.It does appear that you have a reading disability though,not understanding what I have written.
never had a problem with an engineer in 14 years in aviation, usually phoned the engineers before writing up defects in the tech log unless it is totally clear, also have pints with engineers after work as well.
I can bet you have had problems dealing with pilots over the years as I detect a little resentment and even animosity there,
Would you like to tell us about it ? It would be good to hear one of your stories for the thread.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Not Ardua enough
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Therein are you suggesting that a complete failure of the E&E bay equipment cooling system might lead to a fire in said same compartment?
If so, I find that very strange as nowhere in my Boeing aircraft systems manuals (B737 & 757) and / or the QRH's for said same aircraft does it suggest this... or have Boeing got their design wrong and / or ommited / overlooked the fitting of appropriate preventative measures for such a condition?
If so, I find that very strange as nowhere in my Boeing aircraft systems manuals (B737 & 757) and / or the QRH's for said same aircraft does it suggest this... or have Boeing got their design wrong and / or ommited / overlooked the fitting of appropriate preventative measures for such a condition?
Thank you for taking the time to read my small contribution, yes I'm an Avionics engineer and yes I've seen fried E&E bays and yes it very well may say nothing about it in your QRH, AOM, AMM or even yesterdays newspaper. The fact remains and common sense dictates if critical components in EE bays are not cooled (which is why fans are fitted in the first place) then said black boxes will at the very least go south and may even get very very hot. sounds like a source of ignition to me. These areas are known generically as unprotected spaces and fire risk is always a worry here.
Some reading...
http://avtoday.com/av/categories/commercial/765.html
Last edited by ARINC; 19th Oct 2007 at 02:34.
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MEL example.
Our MEL , A-320 says you can go with no nosewheel steering.
Amazing!!
Anyone done it successfully ?
for me it is a definite no go !! by Mach trim
Our MEL , A-320 says you can go with no nosewheel steering.
Amazing!!
Anyone done it successfully ?
for me it is a definite no go !! by Mach trim
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Avionics Magazine
ARINC,
interesting post and thanks for the link to avionics magazine have saved it in my favourites.
" Pilots therefore are about 5,000 times more likely to face a smoke event than a failed engine."
A collegue told me of a nasty avionics fire he had a few years ago in the A320 in Milan. cockpit filled with smoke couldn't see landed with autoland, AIRBUS changed their avionics smoke procedure after that apparently.
Dreamland,
Sounds like you have common sense.
Interesting how we define common sense in regards to reporting defects, deferring items and grounding aircraft.
interesting post and thanks for the link to avionics magazine have saved it in my favourites.
" Pilots therefore are about 5,000 times more likely to face a smoke event than a failed engine."
A collegue told me of a nasty avionics fire he had a few years ago in the A320 in Milan. cockpit filled with smoke couldn't see landed with autoland, AIRBUS changed their avionics smoke procedure after that apparently.
Dreamland,
Sounds like you have common sense.
Interesting how we define common sense in regards to reporting defects, deferring items and grounding aircraft.
Last edited by Mach trim; 19th Oct 2007 at 13:37.
