Pilot Commands TOGA; A320 lands anyway
Guest
Posts: n/a
411A
Wrong again two posts ago. At Gerona the 757 went off the side, not over the end, on a very nasty night. The crew had the runway in sight at DH and lost it again in mist just before touchdown. Nose gear went up thru avionics bay and screwed up almost everything electrical as well as electronic. Not nice.
And inadequate weather advice from tower again. The latter is beginning to sound familiar on this thread.
Try again when you know.
Wrong again two posts ago. At Gerona the 757 went off the side, not over the end, on a very nasty night. The crew had the runway in sight at DH and lost it again in mist just before touchdown. Nose gear went up thru avionics bay and screwed up almost everything electrical as well as electronic. Not nice.
And inadequate weather advice from tower again. The latter is beginning to sound familiar on this thread.
Try again when you know.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I am comfortable with the redundancies designed into FBW systems, that is functionally. I take issue, though, with a computer programmer acting as PIC in my stead. There should exist, on the yoke, a kill switch to disable all the magic. I can't believe that the response to an accident attributable to software is to "fine tune" that same software. What about the next time an AirBus pilot finds himself in a situation that the programmers hadn't forseen.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Shortfinals--
I was at Gerona one week later and talked to the tower supervisor. The Britannia 757 landed half way down the runway and went off the runway (side) at the end. Clearly a mis-judged approach and landing. I have operated to Gerona many times, it is NOT a difficult airport. As the CREW has the responsibility of landing the aircraft (not the tower operator) it is ludicrous to point out otherwise. The wise old advise...if in doubt, simply go-around. Even you should be able to understand this.
Brad737---
It will most likely ah....crash.
I was at Gerona one week later and talked to the tower supervisor. The Britannia 757 landed half way down the runway and went off the runway (side) at the end. Clearly a mis-judged approach and landing. I have operated to Gerona many times, it is NOT a difficult airport. As the CREW has the responsibility of landing the aircraft (not the tower operator) it is ludicrous to point out otherwise. The wise old advise...if in doubt, simply go-around. Even you should be able to understand this.
Brad737---
It will most likely ah....crash.
Guest
Posts: n/a
411A:
Oh it went off the end, did it? Went there did you? Spoke to ATC eh?
Well take a look at this, 411A, are you capable of clicking on the link?
http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/Oper.../balcrash0.jpg
I'll give you a clue, 411A, as you obviously don't have one yourself, the END of the runway is the narrow bit with the numbers painted on it, the side is the longer edge
[This message has been edited by overstress (edited 06 June 2001).]
Oh it went off the end, did it? Went there did you? Spoke to ATC eh?
Well take a look at this, 411A, are you capable of clicking on the link?
http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/Oper.../balcrash0.jpg
I'll give you a clue, 411A, as you obviously don't have one yourself, the END of the runway is the narrow bit with the numbers painted on it, the side is the longer edge
[This message has been edited by overstress (edited 06 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Overstress---
Looks like they are at nearly the end of the runway to me, off to one side. Landed long, just as the tower supervisor mentioned. Clearly a Britannia crew fu@kup to me. How else would you discribe it? Quit making excuses for very POOR pilot technique, ....blame the tower? (the tower made me do it).
Lets put the tail on the donkey....Britannia style.
Looks like they are at nearly the end of the runway to me, off to one side. Landed long, just as the tower supervisor mentioned. Clearly a Britannia crew fu@kup to me. How else would you discribe it? Quit making excuses for very POOR pilot technique, ....blame the tower? (the tower made me do it).
Lets put the tail on the donkey....Britannia style.
Guest
Posts: n/a
If I remember correctly the BY incident at Gerona had a few additional circumstances:
1. Gerona was the alternate.
2. As a result, the fuel state was likely to have a large significance in the thought process.
3. Bad luck on the day.
As always, please correct me if I'm wrong!
[Edited for poor grammar]
[This message has been edited by airforcenone (edited 07 June 2001).]
1. Gerona was the alternate.
2. As a result, the fuel state was likely to have a large significance in the thought process.
3. Bad luck on the day.
As always, please correct me if I'm wrong!
[Edited for poor grammar]
[This message has been edited by airforcenone (edited 07 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
411A
The guy in the tower would say that, wouldn't he? He's human and is not going to point out, gratis, any ATC shortcomings.
Before dumping any more opinions on us, read the AAIB's preliminary statement on the Gerona event.
Meanwhile your overall thesis in this thread, which remember is about the Bilbao event, seems to be: If it happens to a Boeing, slag the crew off; if it happens to an Airbus, slag the aeroplane off.
It must be very undemanding to live in a world where things are so straightforward.
The guy in the tower would say that, wouldn't he? He's human and is not going to point out, gratis, any ATC shortcomings.
Before dumping any more opinions on us, read the AAIB's preliminary statement on the Gerona event.
Meanwhile your overall thesis in this thread, which remember is about the Bilbao event, seems to be: If it happens to a Boeing, slag the crew off; if it happens to an Airbus, slag the aeroplane off.
It must be very undemanding to live in a world where things are so straightforward.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Magnus Picus,
Its the pilot-in-commands responsibility to continue an approach or go-around.Not ATC!Your derisory attitude to Spanish ATC is below the belt and misinformed.You're not a white-hatter per chance?Runway condition and windhsear reports(of any value)are mostly pilot-generated anyway.
KLM tried to blame Spanish ATC for the Tenerife disaster.ATC's role was scrutinized in the Eastern 1011 everglades and the Erebus disaster.Unfairly,I believe,on both accounts.
As pilots,we expect and get unrestricted control over our fate.When things go wrong we cant turn around and blame ATC.
Its the pilot-in-commands responsibility to continue an approach or go-around.Not ATC!Your derisory attitude to Spanish ATC is below the belt and misinformed.You're not a white-hatter per chance?Runway condition and windhsear reports(of any value)are mostly pilot-generated anyway.
KLM tried to blame Spanish ATC for the Tenerife disaster.ATC's role was scrutinized in the Eastern 1011 everglades and the Erebus disaster.Unfairly,I believe,on both accounts.
As pilots,we expect and get unrestricted control over our fate.When things go wrong we cant turn around and blame ATC.
Guest
Posts: n/a
When you criticise an American, even if your points are valid, they respond by attacking you. When you criticise an Airbus pilot you get the same response. In the end, there is no communication.
I do not fly the Airbus, and have never wanted to. I have seen it in the news since it came out, in mostly negative reports. It clearly is not as good as the Airbus supporters think it is, and not as bad as its critics say it is. But even if the truth is in the middle, it has faults (and so does the Boeing product).
My own home PC fails at the most arkward times, and since the A320 (etc) is ultimately flown by the computer with suggestions by the pilot, the pilot is bound to lose control of it once in a while.
The Boeing product takes this into account and if I need to, I can put that airplane wherever I want, whenever I want.
When I feel I am not as good as a piece of machinery made on a production line in Asia, I will be glad to fly the Airbus.
I do not fly the Airbus, and have never wanted to. I have seen it in the news since it came out, in mostly negative reports. It clearly is not as good as the Airbus supporters think it is, and not as bad as its critics say it is. But even if the truth is in the middle, it has faults (and so does the Boeing product).
My own home PC fails at the most arkward times, and since the A320 (etc) is ultimately flown by the computer with suggestions by the pilot, the pilot is bound to lose control of it once in a while.
The Boeing product takes this into account and if I need to, I can put that airplane wherever I want, whenever I want.
When I feel I am not as good as a piece of machinery made on a production line in Asia, I will be glad to fly the Airbus.
Guest
Posts: n/a
bunyip,
"The Boeing product takes this into account and if I need to, I can put that airplane wherever I want, whenever I want. " ?
Although I appreciate your view on the subject seems to be more openminded than most other's on this string, I have to disagree with the above statement. You cannot put the any aircraft wherever you want whenever you want. Aircraft have aerodynamic limitations. Maximum angle of attack will give you maximum lift coefficient on any aircraft FBW or not. So the manoeverabimity of an aircraft is limited by the amount of lift it can produce.Boeing aircraft will allow you to pull the aircraft to a slightly higher angle of attack. But what is the use? Higher than max alpha will give you a lower lift coefficient, and so LESS manoeverability. The AI FBW system is designed to give you maximum lift coefficient whit full back stick or max G, whatever is higher. You do need to allow the system to temporarily overshoot it's limits and -MAYBE- that if where AI didn't allow enough "play"?
Where I think most critics of FBW are wrong is that they don't differentiate between design faults and inherent defficienties. In this incident there -probably!- whas a design fault that prevented the aircraft from achieving maximum angle of attack. So there is one element in a much bigger system that failed to work correctly instead of it being inherently defficient. I think every airliner should have angle of attack protection. Please understand that this does not limit the authority of the pilot. On the contrary, it concistently gives the pilot maximum manoeverability right when he needs it by simply applying full aft stick. That is provided it works well. In this case it didn't. So there is a fault in the system. And apparently AI is correcting it. As usual in aviation you immediatly hear about when things go wrong. But how many times did AI's FBW save the day?
"The Boeing product takes this into account and if I need to, I can put that airplane wherever I want, whenever I want. " ?
Although I appreciate your view on the subject seems to be more openminded than most other's on this string, I have to disagree with the above statement. You cannot put the any aircraft wherever you want whenever you want. Aircraft have aerodynamic limitations. Maximum angle of attack will give you maximum lift coefficient on any aircraft FBW or not. So the manoeverabimity of an aircraft is limited by the amount of lift it can produce.Boeing aircraft will allow you to pull the aircraft to a slightly higher angle of attack. But what is the use? Higher than max alpha will give you a lower lift coefficient, and so LESS manoeverability. The AI FBW system is designed to give you maximum lift coefficient whit full back stick or max G, whatever is higher. You do need to allow the system to temporarily overshoot it's limits and -MAYBE- that if where AI didn't allow enough "play"?
Where I think most critics of FBW are wrong is that they don't differentiate between design faults and inherent defficienties. In this incident there -probably!- whas a design fault that prevented the aircraft from achieving maximum angle of attack. So there is one element in a much bigger system that failed to work correctly instead of it being inherently defficient. I think every airliner should have angle of attack protection. Please understand that this does not limit the authority of the pilot. On the contrary, it concistently gives the pilot maximum manoeverability right when he needs it by simply applying full aft stick. That is provided it works well. In this case it didn't. So there is a fault in the system. And apparently AI is correcting it. As usual in aviation you immediatly hear about when things go wrong. But how many times did AI's FBW save the day?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quite.
It doesn't matter how many times you explain it - people who do not want to understand will not.
Having rubbished the whole thing for a purist view they will then fly their aircraft with stability augmentation devices such as slats, yaw dampers, autothrust, Thrust Assymetry Compensation, powered flying controls, autobrakes, mach trimmers, FADEC, and all of the rest of it that we take for granted. This they will do safe in the knowledge that they are 'really flying it' because they have a q-feel back-driven wheel poking out of the floor lending the impression that it is directly connected to the flying controls.
Having done this they will leap into their trusty car - equipped with digital engine managment systems, antilock brakes, traction control, power steering, adaptive suspension, gearboxes that monitor steering wheel angle and throttle pedal position - and drive home.
It's fantastic to live a life so unimpeded by technology.
It doesn't matter how many times you explain it - people who do not want to understand will not.
Having rubbished the whole thing for a purist view they will then fly their aircraft with stability augmentation devices such as slats, yaw dampers, autothrust, Thrust Assymetry Compensation, powered flying controls, autobrakes, mach trimmers, FADEC, and all of the rest of it that we take for granted. This they will do safe in the knowledge that they are 'really flying it' because they have a q-feel back-driven wheel poking out of the floor lending the impression that it is directly connected to the flying controls.
Having done this they will leap into their trusty car - equipped with digital engine managment systems, antilock brakes, traction control, power steering, adaptive suspension, gearboxes that monitor steering wheel angle and throttle pedal position - and drive home.
It's fantastic to live a life so unimpeded by technology.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well I've flown the A320 for 10 years, and on many occasions, following a turbulent approach, I've run out of elevator authority during the flare. I've always filed an ASR, and Airbus have always responded that it was my fault. On one occasion, they said that I probably hadn't applied full up elevator as there is a detent which has to be overcome. Now they have finally recognised the problem, and introdueced a flap 3 procedure for approaches in turbulent conditions. My point is that this problem, which has been experienced by many pilots in my company, so presumably in every other company, should have been recognised and acted on years ago. Mayben some time in the future they'll work on the problem of reversed aileron effect during an approach in turbulence. This is a much rarer problem, but exists none the less. The rudder solves that problem - just like the good old days.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I agree wholeheartedly, The AOA protection is a very nice idea but evryone can see that in special circumstances (turbulence, ground effect) the detirmination of AOA can be less than perfect. So pilots end up limited by an inaccurate system. I have always felt that the protection system should be there, but that there should have been pressure sensors in the stick. full deflection would alow the pilot control with in the envelope, but a further pull of lets say 25 pounds would allow the pilot to exeed the envelope, I think this would have been a nice trade off.
By the way I absolutly hate normal law on final and in the flare turbulent or not otherwise it is a great invention.
[This message has been edited by Haas_320 (edited 09 June 2001).]
By the way I absolutly hate normal law on final and in the flare turbulent or not otherwise it is a great invention.
[This message has been edited by Haas_320 (edited 09 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Obviously the Airbus FBW and control logic will be the future of airline aviation, and if the problems can be recognised they can be worked out. If they are rejected as merely complaints by the uneducated then there is less chance this will happen.
You make the point for me that it might (has) happened that the computers have restricted the airplane maneuverability because of a fault in the computer (logic, maintenance, programming). In a conventional airplane, never mind that the pilot is not really moving the controls but via hydraulic servos, it is possible to set whatever power and attitude desired. Sometimes the pilot can save the airplane this way, and sometimes the Airbus system will prevent it from being saved.
There must be a middle ground.
A question please; I flew the B737-200 and it had Control Wheel Steering. Is the Airbus system similar to this in its operation?
You make the point for me that it might (has) happened that the computers have restricted the airplane maneuverability because of a fault in the computer (logic, maintenance, programming). In a conventional airplane, never mind that the pilot is not really moving the controls but via hydraulic servos, it is possible to set whatever power and attitude desired. Sometimes the pilot can save the airplane this way, and sometimes the Airbus system will prevent it from being saved.
There must be a middle ground.
A question please; I flew the B737-200 and it had Control Wheel Steering. Is the Airbus system similar to this in its operation?
Guest
Posts: n/a
M14P, Adams, Haas 320,
Thank you for confirming the point I was making: Aircraft need systems to provide optimum performance, and limit protections, but the systems that provide them haven't been develloped enough. Don't forget the A320 was the first airliner to have full FBW. So the system is pretty new to airliners and the A320 technology is -relatively- old... On military aircraft FBW has been used since the early 70'ies! (F-15,F-16...) So it has been develloped to a much greater degree and so it currently works so well that there are almost no military aircraft left that are designed without it. The fact that the A320 has problems to atain the required angle of attack during the flare means there is a small (but not insignificant!) problem with normal law in AI aircraft. It does not mean that FBW is inherently defficient. Weigh of the advantages against the disadvantages and I would prefer to fly a protected aircraft any day. Give AI a chance to devellop and don't forget Boeing had to and still has to do the same with their aircraft.
Open your mind...
PS: Haas320: Normal law has converted into direct law by the time you flare (unless you start your flare above 100feet !?) Adams: I see your problem with needing so much aft stick in the flare, and I agree. The A320 artificially lowers the nose during the flare. this is because at first, pilots used to "overflare" the aircraft. Maybe AI has overdone it a bit. Good point. It doesn't feel natural to pull the stick that far back either.
By now you might have gathered that it is a great ambition of mine to go and work for AI to help devellop their FBW system ;-) . Still a long way away though.
[This message has been edited by Frederic (edited 10 June 2001).]
Thank you for confirming the point I was making: Aircraft need systems to provide optimum performance, and limit protections, but the systems that provide them haven't been develloped enough. Don't forget the A320 was the first airliner to have full FBW. So the system is pretty new to airliners and the A320 technology is -relatively- old... On military aircraft FBW has been used since the early 70'ies! (F-15,F-16...) So it has been develloped to a much greater degree and so it currently works so well that there are almost no military aircraft left that are designed without it. The fact that the A320 has problems to atain the required angle of attack during the flare means there is a small (but not insignificant!) problem with normal law in AI aircraft. It does not mean that FBW is inherently defficient. Weigh of the advantages against the disadvantages and I would prefer to fly a protected aircraft any day. Give AI a chance to devellop and don't forget Boeing had to and still has to do the same with their aircraft.
Open your mind...
PS: Haas320: Normal law has converted into direct law by the time you flare (unless you start your flare above 100feet !?) Adams: I see your problem with needing so much aft stick in the flare, and I agree. The A320 artificially lowers the nose during the flare. this is because at first, pilots used to "overflare" the aircraft. Maybe AI has overdone it a bit. Good point. It doesn't feel natural to pull the stick that far back either.
By now you might have gathered that it is a great ambition of mine to go and work for AI to help devellop their FBW system ;-) . Still a long way away though.
[This message has been edited by Frederic (edited 10 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dear Fredrick
You have confused two things in your post on the further developed 330 and 340 Normal law blends into direct law at 100 feet for the flare. In the 320 at 50 RA feet flare law becomes active wichis normal law with the adition of memorising the current pitch attitude and starting at 30 feet begining to reduce pitch attitude to reach 2 degrees nose down in a period of 8 seconds if there would be no pilot action. This is the very thing that would limit your pitch up authority in the flare. Unless like was mentioned in the post that started this thread you would hit A protection because of windshear above 100 feet RA. This system will be with us as long as there are 320 around even though an improved system is available on the 330/340 alas.
The point I was making that if there was an override available that would alow a larger input than full stick by pressure sensors al benefits of FBW could be combined with final authority were it belongs with the pilot.
The Concord was equiped with FBW and could even react to pressure on the yoke should it become yammed.
[This message has been edited by Haas_320 (edited 10 June 2001).]
You have confused two things in your post on the further developed 330 and 340 Normal law blends into direct law at 100 feet for the flare. In the 320 at 50 RA feet flare law becomes active wichis normal law with the adition of memorising the current pitch attitude and starting at 30 feet begining to reduce pitch attitude to reach 2 degrees nose down in a period of 8 seconds if there would be no pilot action. This is the very thing that would limit your pitch up authority in the flare. Unless like was mentioned in the post that started this thread you would hit A protection because of windshear above 100 feet RA. This system will be with us as long as there are 320 around even though an improved system is available on the 330/340 alas.
The point I was making that if there was an override available that would alow a larger input than full stick by pressure sensors al benefits of FBW could be combined with final authority were it belongs with the pilot.
The Concord was equiped with FBW and could even react to pressure on the yoke should it become yammed.
[This message has been edited by Haas_320 (edited 10 June 2001).]