Afriqiyah Airbus 330 Crash
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Boston
Age: 73
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC:
For murph's benefit - 95%+ of go-rounds in the simulator and for real will be flown in 'instrument' conditions. In any case, the pitch angle of a g/a in a modern jet g/a is such that judging pitch attitude 'on a horizon' is difficult and imprecise. Therefore it is the norm to transfer to instruments for a g/a.
For murph's benefit - 95%+ of go-rounds in the simulator and for real will be flown in 'instrument' conditions. In any case, the pitch angle of a g/a in a modern jet g/a is such that judging pitch attitude 'on a horizon' is difficult and imprecise. Therefore it is the norm to transfer to instruments for a g/a.
If the earlier speculation in this thread is correct then this was one of
the 5% of go arounds not in instrument conditions. at least untill just before the decision to go around.
This could mean the PF had little if any expereice (real or sim) transitioning to intrumetns during a go-around.
First hole in swiss cheese?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing like the high climb rates that can be experienced on G/A's. A/c's typically fairly light(less than max landing weight) and the transition from a stable approach to a G/A is a busy event.
I'm a HUGE fan of turning the autothrottles off and reducing the power on G/A's once the initial transition to the G/A has been established. Reduces acceleration rate(vertigo issues), reduces climb rate(often low altitude level off on G/A), and reduces pitch attitude(less pitch transition), and reduced power reduces the threat of flap overspeed on the G/A. All of this adds time to the G/A, clean up, acceleration, time to level off, and the time compression is relaxed.
Of course this is often 'frowned' upon - "just let the automation(ie A/T's) due the work for you." Uh, they're increasing the workload, which is why I reduced the power in the first place.
I'm a HUGE fan of turning the autothrottles off and reducing the power on G/A's once the initial transition to the G/A has been established. Reduces acceleration rate(vertigo issues), reduces climb rate(often low altitude level off on G/A), and reduces pitch attitude(less pitch transition), and reduced power reduces the threat of flap overspeed on the G/A. All of this adds time to the G/A, clean up, acceleration, time to level off, and the time compression is relaxed.
Of course this is often 'frowned' upon - "just let the automation(ie A/T's) due the work for you." Uh, they're increasing the workload, which is why I reduced the power in the first place.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Possible artificial horizon?
Would it be possible to project, as with holograms (think Laser Floyd), an artificial "green line" horizon as seen from the pilots' chairs? This would go some way toward combating this physical illusion.
Such an instrument could take its cue from a simplified onboard inertial navigation unit ("platform"), which could be aligned by the PF shortly before approach if needed. Thus it need not maintain strict alignment over a long time.
-drl
Such an instrument could take its cue from a simplified onboard inertial navigation unit ("platform"), which could be aligned by the PF shortly before approach if needed. Thus it need not maintain strict alignment over a long time.
-drl
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC,
I agree entirely. I have performed several G/As in visual conditions, and the G/A in a 737-200 needed the pitch attitude to be nailed, with a strong arm pushing the elevators against the nose-up pitch from TOGA, meanwhile trimming like mad!
In comparison, the G/A in an A330 is benign, with the auto trim being very efficient. Nailing the pitch attitude still applies. On to instruments as soon as a go-around is initiated.
I agree entirely. I have performed several G/As in visual conditions, and the G/A in a 737-200 needed the pitch attitude to be nailed, with a strong arm pushing the elevators against the nose-up pitch from TOGA, meanwhile trimming like mad!
In comparison, the G/A in an A330 is benign, with the auto trim being very efficient. Nailing the pitch attitude still applies. On to instruments as soon as a go-around is initiated.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Low altitude, low vis, G/A's are 'black and white' events. See the field. lose it, see the field, lose it, etc, etc. It can be a tricky time, especially when dealing with the 'yes, no, yes, uh, maybe, uh, G/A' cycle that can occur.
Buddy talked about doing G/A's, almost always VFR, in F-15's. Mil power, rapid acceleration. Great fun VFR. Could be, and was, deadly IMC. Experienced guys would just close the speedbrakes. That would be enough acceleration to reduce the risk of vertigo while allowing the a/c to climb.
Squadron deployment. IMC, fighter radar in trail department. Advised that last a/c RTB'd due to loss of radios. Turns out they were trying to protect the crews from the real event, which was a crash on departure. High speed acceleration, transition to IMC, resulted in vertigo and loss of life/a/c.
Sometimes power is your friend, sometimes it isn't.
Buddy talked about doing G/A's, almost always VFR, in F-15's. Mil power, rapid acceleration. Great fun VFR. Could be, and was, deadly IMC. Experienced guys would just close the speedbrakes. That would be enough acceleration to reduce the risk of vertigo while allowing the a/c to climb.
Squadron deployment. IMC, fighter radar in trail department. Advised that last a/c RTB'd due to loss of radios. Turns out they were trying to protect the crews from the real event, which was a crash on departure. High speed acceleration, transition to IMC, resulted in vertigo and loss of life/a/c.
Sometimes power is your friend, sometimes it isn't.
Go Around Philosophy
Doesn't anyone ever just add power gradually so as not to induce vertigo or precipitate an "unusual attitude"? It's called flying the airplane. The guys at Madrid didn't fly the airplane. They just hauled it up into a stall. With enough power available to make some folks concerned about overspeeding the flaps on a GA, it doesn't seem to me that you need a whole fist full to keep from busting minimums and climbing out smoothly.
Unions originally started out to preserve quality in the work of their members. What do pilots' unions have to say about training? Are they not concerned about the erosion of basic flying skills, especially under IMC? How about chief pilots? Do they have no interest in maintenance of flying skills.
Unions originally started out to preserve quality in the work of their members. What do pilots' unions have to say about training? Are they not concerned about the erosion of basic flying skills, especially under IMC? How about chief pilots? Do they have no interest in maintenance of flying skills.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Near Puget Sound
Age: 86
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Murphy was right --
Polarized plastic has a two major problems. First, the plastic sheet on the windshield/canopy usually has to be curved which makes the polarization vary from angle to angle and creates light spots where external cues can be seen. Also, many windscreens have stresses in the glass which can be seen with polzatized goggles. Blue-amber works just fine. The instructor/safety pilot can see with only a minor effect.
Well, maybe not just fine. I tried it once in an airplane with some LED frequency/DME displays (which were amber), With the blue goggles, you couldn't read them at all
I used blue-amber to block the external cues in early HUD flight testing. By putting the amber sheet behind the HUD, you could read the HUD but not see any external cues.
While any complementary color pair will work, one must be careful. In one HUD program, we used red plastic on the windshield and a green visor. I was flying with the green visor and the safety pilot (flying with a minor color vision waiver) commented that the red sheet on the windshield was no problem -- in fact he couldn't tell it was there --- UNTIL --- the sun went behind a cloud and his view went from transparent to opaque! It is very disconcerting to hear your safety pilot say "I can't see anything!"
I agree with the basic thread -- we seem to have lost basic instrument flying skills.
Goldfish
Polarized plastic has a two major problems. First, the plastic sheet on the windshield/canopy usually has to be curved which makes the polarization vary from angle to angle and creates light spots where external cues can be seen. Also, many windscreens have stresses in the glass which can be seen with polzatized goggles. Blue-amber works just fine. The instructor/safety pilot can see with only a minor effect.
Well, maybe not just fine. I tried it once in an airplane with some LED frequency/DME displays (which were amber), With the blue goggles, you couldn't read them at all
I used blue-amber to block the external cues in early HUD flight testing. By putting the amber sheet behind the HUD, you could read the HUD but not see any external cues.
While any complementary color pair will work, one must be careful. In one HUD program, we used red plastic on the windshield and a green visor. I was flying with the green visor and the safety pilot (flying with a minor color vision waiver) commented that the red sheet on the windshield was no problem -- in fact he couldn't tell it was there --- UNTIL --- the sun went behind a cloud and his view went from transparent to opaque! It is very disconcerting to hear your safety pilot say "I can't see anything!"
I agree with the basic thread -- we seem to have lost basic instrument flying skills.
Goldfish
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 82
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somatogravic Experience and Thoughts
The memories I have of military instrument training while sitting under the bag in the rear cockpit of my jet trainer all involve the sensation of sitting in a trash can while flying the aircraft. Success required conquering this illusion and allowing the information from the instruments to flow directly to the fingertips and stripping away the illusory body position information from my control inputs.
The first mention of the somatogravic illusion that I can recall was in an accident report from the late 1960s. An F-4 had cleaned up and accelerated to climb schedule below a low overcast while in afterburner and then pulled up into the overcast for the departure. The aircraft was then seen diving out of the overcast still in burner!
FWIW, With reference to the somatogravic illusion, night catapult shots were not unduly disorienting to me. After a bit of eye blurring 4+ g acceleration and shaking, the catapult letting go felt like a deceleration and the key tasks were setting the rotation attitude (not always trivial due to the variables involved) and verifying that you had flying speed.
There were other visual/body position illusions
encountered during my career as well that do not fall into the classic somatogravic illusion frame and will not be discussed here. If interested PM me.
The mental link that allows the mind to overpower one set of information with another will deteriorate with time. Simulators help reinforce the linkage, but perhaps we should not worry about perfect alignment of the calculated force direction applied by the simulator. Perhaps instead, the simulator should give a deliberate case of the “leans” or sitting in a bucket feeling so that the crews will reinforce their ability to override the somatogravic information they are bombarded with. Yes, it will make simulator sessions harder to do well, but I can about guarantee it will make you a better aviator.
The first mention of the somatogravic illusion that I can recall was in an accident report from the late 1960s. An F-4 had cleaned up and accelerated to climb schedule below a low overcast while in afterburner and then pulled up into the overcast for the departure. The aircraft was then seen diving out of the overcast still in burner!
FWIW, With reference to the somatogravic illusion, night catapult shots were not unduly disorienting to me. After a bit of eye blurring 4+ g acceleration and shaking, the catapult letting go felt like a deceleration and the key tasks were setting the rotation attitude (not always trivial due to the variables involved) and verifying that you had flying speed.
There were other visual/body position illusions
encountered during my career as well that do not fall into the classic somatogravic illusion frame and will not be discussed here. If interested PM me. The mental link that allows the mind to overpower one set of information with another will deteriorate with time. Simulators help reinforce the linkage, but perhaps we should not worry about perfect alignment of the calculated force direction applied by the simulator. Perhaps instead, the simulator should give a deliberate case of the “leans” or sitting in a bucket feeling so that the crews will reinforce their ability to override the somatogravic information they are bombarded with. Yes, it will make simulator sessions harder to do well, but I can about guarantee it will make you a better aviator.
Machinbird
The memories I have of military instrument training while sitting under the bag in the rear cockpit of my jet trainer all involve the sensation of sitting in a trash can while flying the aircraft. Success required conquering this illusion and allowing the information from the instruments to flow directly to the fingertips and stripping away the illusory body position information from my control inputs.
The memories I have of military instrument training while sitting under the bag in the rear cockpit of my jet trainer all involve the sensation of sitting in a trash can while flying the aircraft. Success required conquering this illusion and allowing the information from the instruments to flow directly to the fingertips and stripping away the illusory body position information from my control inputs.
Why did it get lost in the training of commercial pilots?
franzl
Last edited by RetiredF4; 19th Jun 2010 at 22:00.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It bears no relevance to this thread, admittedly, but I supposes after 57 pages little does:
My late friend Dick Weeghman, with whom I worked at Flying Magazine in the 1960s and '70s, tells of the time he made his first fully-under-the-hood takeoff in a T-6, during his cadet days. (He survived to fly -86 Dogs.)
"I lined up on the centerline, carefully set the gyrocompass to runway heading and pulled down the hood. Gently brought the throttle up and we rolled faster and faster while I kicked away at the rudder, working my ass off to keep that gyro centered, and we finally lifted off, to my relief. Only then did I realize I'd never uncaged the gyro."
My late friend Dick Weeghman, with whom I worked at Flying Magazine in the 1960s and '70s, tells of the time he made his first fully-under-the-hood takeoff in a T-6, during his cadet days. (He survived to fly -86 Dogs.)
"I lined up on the centerline, carefully set the gyrocompass to runway heading and pulled down the hood. Gently brought the throttle up and we rolled faster and faster while I kicked away at the rudder, working my ass off to keep that gyro centered, and we finally lifted off, to my relief. Only then did I realize I'd never uncaged the gyro."
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Glorious West Sussex
Age: 76
Posts: 1,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smilin-Ed
If no visual reference at DA you need to make the a/c go up - in the A330 the AP will only do that if you select TOGA thrust. If you "nearly" select TOGA it keeps going down, while accelerating.
Manual flight - you still need to go up to avoid busting MDA - and the FD is switched to G/A mode by selection of TOGA.
So you cannot add power gradually in this instance.
Doesn't anyone ever just add power gradually so as not to induce vertigo or precipitate an "unusual attitude"? It's called flying the airplane.
Manual flight - you still need to go up to avoid busting MDA - and the FD is switched to G/A mode by selection of TOGA.
So you cannot add power gradually in this instance.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by smilin ed
Doesn't anyone ever just add power gradually so as not to induce vertigo or precipitate an "unusual attitude"? It's called flying the airplane.
Things have changed.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC:
Is that cute sarcasm or is it simplistic?
The more things change, the more they remain the same, at least in fundamental aspects. I believe there is a consensus on this forum that far too many of today's pilots are button-pushing bus drivers, who are truly screwed if the automatics go bad (Turkish Air) and they have to (horrors) actually hand-fly the airplane and be able to accomplish a basic critical flight instrument scan on a continuing basis. Oh, and actually use the throttles to control airspeed? Wow, what a quaint concept.
Ed could be sent through transition training and line qualifications on, say, a 737-NG, and once qualified probably be a far better, safer pilot in that advanced aircraft than many of the folks flying it today who lack the fundamental skills of flying.
- I see you are a 'retired US Navy pilot', Ed. I assume in your career you had to pass the odd instrument rating test? I'm afraid you would not now.
Things have changed.
Things have changed.
The more things change, the more they remain the same, at least in fundamental aspects. I believe there is a consensus on this forum that far too many of today's pilots are button-pushing bus drivers, who are truly screwed if the automatics go bad (Turkish Air) and they have to (horrors) actually hand-fly the airplane and be able to accomplish a basic critical flight instrument scan on a continuing basis. Oh, and actually use the throttles to control airspeed? Wow, what a quaint concept.
Ed could be sent through transition training and line qualifications on, say, a 737-NG, and once qualified probably be a far better, safer pilot in that advanced aircraft than many of the folks flying it today who lack the fundamental skills of flying.
I think BOAC is trying to point out that trying to be "gentle" on a GA at low level is a risky strategy and frowned on by most instructors (to the point of re-training being necessary).
If you're IMC, you're probably going around due no visual contact at DH/MDA... How far do you think it's wise to descend while being smooth? If you're visual, it's because something's gone wrong with the approach and it needs throwing away - again a need to get away from the ground rapidly.
If a pilot can't cope with the pitch change during a GA on TOGA power, they shouldn't be flying, IMHO.
If you're IMC, you're probably going around due no visual contact at DH/MDA... How far do you think it's wise to descend while being smooth? If you're visual, it's because something's gone wrong with the approach and it needs throwing away - again a need to get away from the ground rapidly.
If a pilot can't cope with the pitch change during a GA on TOGA power, they shouldn't be flying, IMHO.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FullWings:
I guess we need to define what is "gentle," what is "robust," and what is "excessive."
The most important action to minimize descent below DA or keep from going below MDA is proper control of attitude and sink rate, whether with automatics or flown by hand. Obviously, if power isn't applied at the same time, the speed is going to decay. (then, it short order flaps to what is appropriate for GA) But, assuming sufficient power to keep the speed from decaying, the first order of business is achieving target attitude.
If the power were applied a bit slowly but the other elements of configuration are done correctly, the airplane will climb, albeit at less than the maximum possible ROC. Since most missed approaches are predicated on a 40:1 OCS, ROC far less than maximum will easily keep you out of the weeds.
Application of GA thrust, of course, is the name of the game, but getting to that maximum thrust setting quickly is not as important as attitude and flap reconfiguration, assuming a "sufficient" application of thrust.
I think BOAC is trying to point out that trying to be "gentle" on a GA at low level is a risky strategy and frowned on by most instructors (to the point of re-training being necessary).
The most important action to minimize descent below DA or keep from going below MDA is proper control of attitude and sink rate, whether with automatics or flown by hand. Obviously, if power isn't applied at the same time, the speed is going to decay. (then, it short order flaps to what is appropriate for GA) But, assuming sufficient power to keep the speed from decaying, the first order of business is achieving target attitude.
If the power were applied a bit slowly but the other elements of configuration are done correctly, the airplane will climb, albeit at less than the maximum possible ROC. Since most missed approaches are predicated on a 40:1 OCS, ROC far less than maximum will easily keep you out of the weeds.
Application of GA thrust, of course, is the name of the game, but getting to that maximum thrust setting quickly is not as important as attitude and flap reconfiguration, assuming a "sufficient" application of thrust.