Pilot Commands TOGA; A320 lands anyway
Guest
Posts: n/a
Once again the sort of tabloid rubbish that ppruners seem so fond of especially 411A (Incidentally the 411A was just about the most dreadful aircraft ever made by Cessna, I digress)
B737 can roll over and die - nobody talks about it much. 747s can explode without reason like the occasional 737 and nobody talks about it.
People talk about FBW and Airbus like it is some evil plague sweeping the community - What are people trying to say here? Because the Airbus is FBW the aircraft has landing accidents? I've seen plenty of other airliners have accidents on landing. Airbus are tackling a potential problem with one 'standard' of ELAC not every ELAC since it has shown that in this instance it could have performed better. Without full knowledge of every single facet of the accident and the data surrounding it none of you pundits can make an informed, professional decision as to the cause of it.
Just because you have a big control wheel in front of you does not mean that you are really 'in control'. 747 - hydraullics and q-feel; hardly wind beneath your wings type stuff is it. Stick pushers, mach trimmers and yaw dampers all mean that the control surface is not necessarlily where the pilot is holding the wheel and they've all been making our lives safer and more comfortable since the 50s.
Grow up children
B737 can roll over and die - nobody talks about it much. 747s can explode without reason like the occasional 737 and nobody talks about it.
People talk about FBW and Airbus like it is some evil plague sweeping the community - What are people trying to say here? Because the Airbus is FBW the aircraft has landing accidents? I've seen plenty of other airliners have accidents on landing. Airbus are tackling a potential problem with one 'standard' of ELAC not every ELAC since it has shown that in this instance it could have performed better. Without full knowledge of every single facet of the accident and the data surrounding it none of you pundits can make an informed, professional decision as to the cause of it.
Just because you have a big control wheel in front of you does not mean that you are really 'in control'. 747 - hydraullics and q-feel; hardly wind beneath your wings type stuff is it. Stick pushers, mach trimmers and yaw dampers all mean that the control surface is not necessarlily where the pilot is holding the wheel and they've all been making our lives safer and more comfortable since the 50s.
Grow up children
Guest
Posts: n/a
A320----die by wire, AirBus style. The pilots have limited input, the machine decides what's best, never mind experienced crew. Truly, the tail wagging the dog, French technology at its "best"?
M14P: Well now you do indeed seem very informed about the CE411A, have you EVER operated one? What are your facts? Do you have any? Or only hot air, with AirBus bias.
The A320 seems to be developing a very dubious distinction, many incidents/accidents, and now pilots must be wondering....what the hell is it doing now?
Our company has now decided that the A320/330/340 is to be avoided at all costs for executive/crew travel. Not to be trusted, ever. I wonder if other company travel departments have done the same? I personally know of six. More to follow, I suspect.
M14P: Well now you do indeed seem very informed about the CE411A, have you EVER operated one? What are your facts? Do you have any? Or only hot air, with AirBus bias.
The A320 seems to be developing a very dubious distinction, many incidents/accidents, and now pilots must be wondering....what the hell is it doing now?
Our company has now decided that the A320/330/340 is to be avoided at all costs for executive/crew travel. Not to be trusted, ever. I wonder if other company travel departments have done the same? I personally know of six. More to follow, I suspect.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Anti-Ice
It has been mentioned before in another thread - that aircraft was an A310, a completely different machine and certainly not FBW.
And yet again there are posts from people (pilots?) who have never flown a FBW Airbus. By all means ask questions, but do not make arrogant statements when you don't know what you are talking about!
Edited for typos and yes I feel better now.
[This message has been edited by Flap 5 (edited 03 June 2001).]
It has been mentioned before in another thread - that aircraft was an A310, a completely different machine and certainly not FBW.
And yet again there are posts from people (pilots?) who have never flown a FBW Airbus. By all means ask questions, but do not make arrogant statements when you don't know what you are talking about!
Edited for typos and yes I feel better now.
[This message has been edited by Flap 5 (edited 03 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
M14P:
I got the impression that you got a bit lost here...
I think nobody is "hitting" on Airbus FBW a/c just because they simply don't like it. But if you carefully follow the history of AI since the introduction of their "new wonder bird" almost 14 years back (prototypes flying around and doing incredible things just to get more customers signing the order book, at the same time promising vast cuts in training budgets (cross crew qualification and so on...) and support costs - because "it is all so and so fail-safe and nobody can do wrong") it is my opinion that AI in general has demonstrated some sort of a serious "attitude" problem, when we are talking "safety".
This is what bothers many people, coming from "conventional" a/c and maybe being a bit too much pampered with manufacturer support, when it came down to problems.
Yes you're right, the B 737 has a Rudder PCU problem and same applies to their center tank/pack design (almost the entire product line). But I'm pretty sure that the guys in Seattle (not their legal department though) are as much concerned about it and trying to improve. Something of that nature was hard to be felt or seen from the folks at TLS - so far...
So I'm very much surprised and even delighted that they obviously have marked a change there recently. Well, keep on the good work, this is the more appropriate track anyways...
Screwjack
I got the impression that you got a bit lost here...
I think nobody is "hitting" on Airbus FBW a/c just because they simply don't like it. But if you carefully follow the history of AI since the introduction of their "new wonder bird" almost 14 years back (prototypes flying around and doing incredible things just to get more customers signing the order book, at the same time promising vast cuts in training budgets (cross crew qualification and so on...) and support costs - because "it is all so and so fail-safe and nobody can do wrong") it is my opinion that AI in general has demonstrated some sort of a serious "attitude" problem, when we are talking "safety".
This is what bothers many people, coming from "conventional" a/c and maybe being a bit too much pampered with manufacturer support, when it came down to problems.
Yes you're right, the B 737 has a Rudder PCU problem and same applies to their center tank/pack design (almost the entire product line). But I'm pretty sure that the guys in Seattle (not their legal department though) are as much concerned about it and trying to improve. Something of that nature was hard to be felt or seen from the folks at TLS - so far...
So I'm very much surprised and even delighted that they obviously have marked a change there recently. Well, keep on the good work, this is the more appropriate track anyways...
Screwjack
Guest
Posts: n/a
It's not the FBW system that is causing grief, it is the Computer override. A Boeing pilot knows that he can always take over and fly the airplane. A Bus driver cannot;ever.
In the circumstances described with the low level wind shear, I thought that the airplane would recover to the programmed descent profile by itself? For example if a wing drops the pilot need not react since the wing will come back by itself under computer control? Similarly the pitch/rate of descent? If not, what is the point of the design?
And another question please: What are the wind limits for landing and takeoff; crosswind and total wind. Are they different for an auto land (ILS)?
In the circumstances described with the low level wind shear, I thought that the airplane would recover to the programmed descent profile by itself? For example if a wing drops the pilot need not react since the wing will come back by itself under computer control? Similarly the pitch/rate of descent? If not, what is the point of the design?
And another question please: What are the wind limits for landing and takeoff; crosswind and total wind. Are they different for an auto land (ILS)?
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK, it's late and I just skimmed over the last two pages of this topic, having read the previous pages, and again, have never received any training on any Airbus type.
Aside from the interesting aspects of fly-by-wire, when a plane encounters an unexpected/variable sink rate on final approach, can the A-320 throttles be pushed forward enough to reduce the sink rate (i.e. 1500 fpm) without activating the TOGA (go-around) mode? Can't you click a button, and just push them up a good bit like on 727s and DC-9s?
Let's say that you suddenly encounter a loss of 10-15 knots on short final while the quartering headwind is 20 gusting to over 30 knots-can you quickly increase the power and still be in whatever is the normal landing throttle mode?
I have no idea when most A-320 (etc) pilots disconnect autothrottles-on the 757 it was our option, but most waited until no more than a few miles out or maybe 2,000 AGL etc for CAT 1 and visual approaches (I preferred flying ILS approaches in the VOR mode on the HSI in order to watch the LOC bar "come alive", planning to go back to the old technology).
Not picking on Airbus here, just curious.
Aside from the interesting aspects of fly-by-wire, when a plane encounters an unexpected/variable sink rate on final approach, can the A-320 throttles be pushed forward enough to reduce the sink rate (i.e. 1500 fpm) without activating the TOGA (go-around) mode? Can't you click a button, and just push them up a good bit like on 727s and DC-9s?
Let's say that you suddenly encounter a loss of 10-15 knots on short final while the quartering headwind is 20 gusting to over 30 knots-can you quickly increase the power and still be in whatever is the normal landing throttle mode?
I have no idea when most A-320 (etc) pilots disconnect autothrottles-on the 757 it was our option, but most waited until no more than a few miles out or maybe 2,000 AGL etc for CAT 1 and visual approaches (I preferred flying ILS approaches in the VOR mode on the HSI in order to watch the LOC bar "come alive", planning to go back to the old technology).
Not picking on Airbus here, just curious.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Some good information on this thread -and some total garbage...411A! So which company has stopped its crew flying as pax on Airbus then? The Glasgow Bus Co.?
You have contributed nothing to this thread. I doubt you are even a pilot. Please stop wasting everyones time.
You have contributed nothing to this thread. I doubt you are even a pilot. Please stop wasting everyones time.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ignition Override
For your info it is quite possible to disconnect the auto thrust on the A320 and fly the aircraft like a 737. In fact on the 737 it is highly advisable to disconnect the auto thrust on the approach to avoid porpoising. The A320 has a much better system with the 1g profile of the Normal Law not allowing porpoising and hence it is recommended to leave the auto thrust on.
However if the auto thrust is on and you want a lot more thrust, because of a rapid sink, you just push the levers forward out of the climb gate and the thrust will go up to the thrust for the thrust lever angle. But, by all means, if you are not happy with flying the approach with the A/T take it out. I have flown with many Boeing trained pilots who have preferred doing that when they first get on to the Airbus.
But don't knock it until you know about it.
For your info it is quite possible to disconnect the auto thrust on the A320 and fly the aircraft like a 737. In fact on the 737 it is highly advisable to disconnect the auto thrust on the approach to avoid porpoising. The A320 has a much better system with the 1g profile of the Normal Law not allowing porpoising and hence it is recommended to leave the auto thrust on.
However if the auto thrust is on and you want a lot more thrust, because of a rapid sink, you just push the levers forward out of the climb gate and the thrust will go up to the thrust for the thrust lever angle. But, by all means, if you are not happy with flying the approach with the A/T take it out. I have flown with many Boeing trained pilots who have preferred doing that when they first get on to the Airbus.
But don't knock it until you know about it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
411A
Quote:
M14P: Well now you do indeed seem very informed about the CE411A, have you EVER operated one? What are your facts? Do you have any? Or only hot air, with AirBus bias.
I am just curious 411A – from your statements is it true to say that you are experienced on Airbus FBW aircraft? Which type and how many hours? You seem to know a lot and I would love to learn from your obvious experience as I am only a beginner.
Quote:
M14P: Well now you do indeed seem very informed about the CE411A, have you EVER operated one? What are your facts? Do you have any? Or only hot air, with AirBus bias.
I am just curious 411A – from your statements is it true to say that you are experienced on Airbus FBW aircraft? Which type and how many hours? You seem to know a lot and I would love to learn from your obvious experience as I am only a beginner.
Guest
Posts: n/a
No, I've never operated a 411A - but I have operated many similar CE types. When public confidence was severly injured by a number of bad crashes of the 411A due to poor engine reliability and inadequate single engine controlability. Cessna got the F100 (SuperSabre) test pilot to fly an engine failure profile in one as the whole thing was videoed. He crashed the aircraft on final approach. This led to the ultimate demise of the 411A and the development of the much better 421.
Yes, the 411A was a rubbish aircraft - Aviation Consumer said "..we would hesitate to even get in a C411A..."
The A320 series, however, has demonstrated and contiues to demonstrate excellent flying qualities and a fantastic safety record. When all the chaps here talk about 'being unable to override a computer' I am not sure that everybody understands the FBW fundementals. The FBW is normally quite passive - achieving the desired performance by sublty altering control surface deflection (as I said before yaw dampers and rudder ratio units have done this for years and every Boeing around has a fistful of them). The ONLY time that the system becomes 'invasive' is at the performance and structural limit of the envelope - for example at extreme angles of attack where it will maintain maximum alpha with the sidestick fully back or at the G-limit of the airframe thus enabling the pilot to be brutal with the controls but without causing damage to the aircraft.
In summary, the FBW 'limits' are there to make it easy for the 'average pilot' to derive MAXIMUM performance from the aircraft in an emergency situation such as a GPWS alert or in windshear without having to have superhuman piloting abilities.
The situation with L80 Standard ELAC has proven that in ONE very unusal case on an aircraft with ONE VERSION of a flight control computer limited pitch authority occured. Without this it is entirely possible that the aircraft may have stalled on approach with a very different outcome but this is one hypothesis too far.
For the record, I am glad that 411A will not be travelling on any Airbus types - it will severely limit his ability to bother the rest of the planet with hs nonsense and rubbish.
My best regards to all the professionals on this site.
[This message has been edited by M14P (edited 04 June 2001).]
Yes, the 411A was a rubbish aircraft - Aviation Consumer said "..we would hesitate to even get in a C411A..."
The A320 series, however, has demonstrated and contiues to demonstrate excellent flying qualities and a fantastic safety record. When all the chaps here talk about 'being unable to override a computer' I am not sure that everybody understands the FBW fundementals. The FBW is normally quite passive - achieving the desired performance by sublty altering control surface deflection (as I said before yaw dampers and rudder ratio units have done this for years and every Boeing around has a fistful of them). The ONLY time that the system becomes 'invasive' is at the performance and structural limit of the envelope - for example at extreme angles of attack where it will maintain maximum alpha with the sidestick fully back or at the G-limit of the airframe thus enabling the pilot to be brutal with the controls but without causing damage to the aircraft.
In summary, the FBW 'limits' are there to make it easy for the 'average pilot' to derive MAXIMUM performance from the aircraft in an emergency situation such as a GPWS alert or in windshear without having to have superhuman piloting abilities.
The situation with L80 Standard ELAC has proven that in ONE very unusal case on an aircraft with ONE VERSION of a flight control computer limited pitch authority occured. Without this it is entirely possible that the aircraft may have stalled on approach with a very different outcome but this is one hypothesis too far.
For the record, I am glad that 411A will not be travelling on any Airbus types - it will severely limit his ability to bother the rest of the planet with hs nonsense and rubbish.
My best regards to all the professionals on this site.
[This message has been edited by M14P (edited 04 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
M14P---
Would agree with you that the A320 series aircraft a unique acheivement, the FBW system does indeed work very well within the performance envelope, but at the edges, when maximim performance is needed to avoid disaster, it would seem to be impossible for experienced pilots to regain the desired profile, unlike in a conventional aircraft. AirBus really does need to vastly improve their product.
With rergard to the 411 aircraft, it was the first cabin class twin that Cessna produced, is very fast, and contrary to your information, the engines are very reliable if treated properly. I have owned one for nine years so I should know. When it was introduced in 1965, it was purchased by attorneys and doctors with the usual predictable results....up in flames on many occasions. If flown properly, much like the A320, it will perform flawlessly, but unlike the A320, it does not have a FBW system to get in the way of a professional pilot. Using a USAF F-100 pilot (single engine) for the test flight was not the brightest idea the manufacturer had. Wonder if ex-French Air Force types are involved with the AirBus?
Would agree with you that the A320 series aircraft a unique acheivement, the FBW system does indeed work very well within the performance envelope, but at the edges, when maximim performance is needed to avoid disaster, it would seem to be impossible for experienced pilots to regain the desired profile, unlike in a conventional aircraft. AirBus really does need to vastly improve their product.
With rergard to the 411 aircraft, it was the first cabin class twin that Cessna produced, is very fast, and contrary to your information, the engines are very reliable if treated properly. I have owned one for nine years so I should know. When it was introduced in 1965, it was purchased by attorneys and doctors with the usual predictable results....up in flames on many occasions. If flown properly, much like the A320, it will perform flawlessly, but unlike the A320, it does not have a FBW system to get in the way of a professional pilot. Using a USAF F-100 pilot (single engine) for the test flight was not the brightest idea the manufacturer had. Wonder if ex-French Air Force types are involved with the AirBus?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Airbus would have done better releasing the following
"Crew are advised not to land our aircraft if windshear exists"
Could have saved themselves all this bickering.
I think the FINGER POINTS AT SPANISH ATC!
Gerona, Britannia 757 - Hull loss due TS/WS
Bilbao, Iberia A320 - Hull loss due TS/WS
Both incidents could have been prevented if a 'Safety conscious' individual had been operating TWR frequency, describing the conditions a little more honestly.
Give the crew a clue, Manuel!
"Crew are advised not to land our aircraft if windshear exists"
Could have saved themselves all this bickering.
I think the FINGER POINTS AT SPANISH ATC!
Gerona, Britannia 757 - Hull loss due TS/WS
Bilbao, Iberia A320 - Hull loss due TS/WS
Both incidents could have been prevented if a 'Safety conscious' individual had been operating TWR frequency, describing the conditions a little more honestly.
Give the crew a clue, Manuel!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Magnus Picus---
The Gerona Britannia 757 accident was due to the aircraft landing very long and over-running. Why would you want to blame the tower controller when the crew clearly mis-judged the approach and landing? The solution is to (what a novel idea)....go around, or divert.
The Gerona Britannia 757 accident was due to the aircraft landing very long and over-running. Why would you want to blame the tower controller when the crew clearly mis-judged the approach and landing? The solution is to (what a novel idea)....go around, or divert.
