Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Airbus takes pilots back to basics with the A350

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Airbus takes pilots back to basics with the A350

Old 1st Nov 2012, 20:31
  #401 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 782
:
Originally Posted by Retired F4
It worked satisfactory for the last 50 years in phantoms and it seams to work in the B-crafts.

Clandestino;
One of the usual problem with Airbus threads on PPRuNe is some folks blowing differences between A and B out of all proportions and hinting Airbus is dangerous because it's different or claiming what was working on their specific aircraft should be fine for every other aircraft, Airbus included. Entertaining stuff, both of them.
And i belong to those folks? Where did i ever say that AB is dangerous? Who are the others? Discrediting posters is no answer, it´s just noise.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Retired F4
If it was abandoned in A-aircraft, then not due to pilots complaints but due to other reasons. Therefore the above statement is ......meaningless.

Clandestino
Way it's done, it works in A-brand also, except if we choose to be extremely biased and ignorant by concentrating solely on single accident and then concentrating just on the tiny parts of the report that taken out of the context confirm our prejudices
Selective quoting again, omitting the main statement, which is simple and understandable as an answer to dozy´s post:

It is meaningless for the pilot, how the feedback is generated, old style direct feedback by cables or by modern systems with computers and electric motors, as long as it is there and as long as it is correct, understandable and usable.
The word A and B just used as comparison to the different philosophies. B with feedback, A without feedback.

Acronym of the day: FUD. Spreading negative and dubious or false information is valid strategy for marketeer fearing no lawsuit, politician, the leader of religious cult or person posting on anonymous forum for purpose of provoking emotional response. However, it is detrimental to properly understanding the matter discussed.
If it would have been my idea to provoke emotional response, then i was successfull. However, i had and have no such intention. Would you point me to post´s, where i was spreading negative and dubious or false information? That would be bad, as my intention with my post was to argue against such a false, dubious and misleading information.

Would you elaborate on the differences concerning flying between direct old style feedback / feel and artificially generated feedback / feel so i can learn from your expierience? My expierience is over 3200 manually flown PF hours in fast jet (without blocktime, taxi or PNF time) with artificial feedback (no cables, no pulleys, only hydraulic flightcontrols), and only few hours in aircraft with direct feedback via cables. Not enough to recognize the difference, i fear. Maybe you can help here.

franzl

Last edited by RetiredF4; 1st Nov 2012 at 20:41.
RetiredF4 is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2012, 20:31
  #402 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DFW
Age: 58
Posts: 246
Originally Posted by Clandestino
So what! Aeroplanes behave differently with different weight and CG. They behave differently when getting iced. They behave differently with lost or stuck control surfaces. They behave differently when part of hydraulics are lost. They behave differently when synthetic pitch feel unit packs up. How come pilots are still expected to cope with all of that and most of the time they do but mere change of flight control law is suddenly big, big, problem? Good old ignorance, I'd guess.
None of your examples address the issue. I notice that you don't challenge my assertion that "the control response from control input varies between normal and alternate." That is the issue I address. (#note) The fix could/would be simple; program sims to replicate a AF447 type incident and require such training for pilot certification. This is the battle I fight. I don't dislike the bus nor think it necessarily dangerous, I do think the the manufacturers insistence that is is flown like any other breeds management, company and regulatory complacency when designing training programs.


Ignoring the ignorance statement,
The answer is simple. There is more to being an aviator than the intellectual application of book knowledge. Just like riding a bicycle, sometimes the aviator must be able to use his "automatic" abilities to fly without conscious thought, while his cognitive powers are focused on dealing with a problem. The pilot should not be forced to cogitate the need for changing his control inputs at the same time he is attempting to decide the nature of an abnormal or an emergency. The change between lateral response of rate, to a direct lateral response obviously demanded far too much attention in the case of AF447. Considering all of the other little "gotcha's" the AF447 were presented with, I wouldn't dare to speculate that a consistent roll response would save the aircraft; but I will point out that the PF spent an inordinate amount of time controlling roll when his attention should have been on pitch. It follows that his attention was misdirected, then misplaced, because he was experiencing roll response he had never before experienced.

Originally Posted by Clandestino
Those in use since 1988. Those produced in more than 6000 examples. Those making 5000+ successful flights every day. Those that have incidents daily yet somehow still make it safely back to earth.

That's laughable?
Nice try Dozy. But, I said your contention is laughable. Nothing was said about the Airbus success rate.

Originally Posted by Clandestino
Pilot disagreeing with his Operating manual, not seeking clarification from his CP or instructors or voicing concern to Safety Dept as it perceives them as ineffective displays very dangerous psychological traits of anti-authority and resignation but then we were all warned about it during compulsory CRM training.
Call me anti-arrogance and I'll plead guilty. But it's nice to know you listen better in CRM school than you listen on the internet. Oh, I forgot to call myself sarcastic as well.

#note, that and auto - no indication - trim, and non moving thrust levers, etc

Last edited by TTex600; 1st Nov 2012 at 20:36.
TTex600 is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2012, 20:54
  #403 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,183
Originally Posted by TTex600 View Post
Nice try Dozy. But, I said your contention is laughable. Nothing was said about the Airbus success rate.
I assure you that Clandestino and I are distinct human beings!

I do think the the manufacturers insistence that is is flown like any other breeds management, company and regulatory complacency when designing training programs.
As I said earlier, "flies like any other" is a statement intended for general public consumption - as you say, in an aviation-savvy context it requires more nuance.


The pilot should not be forced to cogitate the need for changing his control inputs at the same time he is attempting to decide the nature of an abnormal or an emergency. The change between lateral response of rate, to a direct lateral response obviously demanded far too much attention in the case of AF447.
And I think this suggestion needs a little nuance for me to be able to understand it.

but I will point out that the PF spent an inordinate amount of time controlling roll when his attention should have been on pitch. It follows that his attention was misdirected, then misplaced, because he was experiencing roll response he had never before experienced.
Possibly, however it must also be borne in mind that the aircraft was traversing a sector of moderate turbulence at the time. The aircraft went to Alternate Law within seconds of the initial disconnect, so the PF would have to all intents and purposes gone straight to direct lateral response - he was not handflying prior to the disconnect (and thus not accustomed to Normal Law roll "feel") so while what you suggest can't be discounted, is it not also possible that the manual roll control was hampered by the effects of turbulence combined with the sudden requirement to take manual control (and thus assess "feel")?

This question is to some extent only relevant in the pre-stall phase, as once stalled, any attempt to control roll with ailerons would effectively be futile (as I was taught in the sim), with rudder the only way to damp the roll out.

#note, that and auto - no indication - trim
Current trim indication is clearly marked on the wheel - of course in a high-stress situation like AF447 it's probably not the first place most would look!
DozyWannabe is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2012, 20:55
  #404 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Lower Skunk Cabbageland, WA
Age: 70
Posts: 354
Dozy sayeth unto me:
With all due respect, I challenge you to find a single occasion where I've been anything less than scrupulously honest or any point where I have suggested that the Airbus system is superior to any other, let alone "shilling" for them.
No, sorry Mr. W., I'm quite done with that now. I feel sure that I could find hundreds of them were I to have the time and energy and interest. Others with far larger brains than my own have already done so, without any serious results. You are like we used to say about Ronald Reagan: coated with Teflon. Sorry to use such a strong word, but 'shilling' is exactly how it comes off to me, and others I've read here. You give no serious consideration to anyone whose points disagree with yours. You are impermeable and absolutely relentless. But, to keep myself scrupulously honest--- thank you for your knowledgeable contributions.
Organfreak is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2012, 21:07
  #405 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 782

DozyWannabe
This question is to some extent only relevant in the pre-stall phase, as once stalled, any attempt to control roll with ailerons would effectively be futile (as I was taught in the sim), with rudder the only way to damp the roll out.
Sorry to cut in, I suggest, you study the presentation I linked in this post 610 in AF447 thread. You have to download.
It´s from 12. Oktober 2012 and there is no recomendation to use rudder. Start on page 64.

Last edited by RetiredF4; 1st Nov 2012 at 21:15.
RetiredF4 is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2012, 21:31
  #406 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Bucuresti
Posts: 48
The answer is simple. There is more to being an aviator than the intellectual application of book knowledge. Just like riding a bicycle, sometimes the aviator must be able to use his "automatic" abilities to fly without conscious thought
Umm.

Isn't that the simple answer to, in fact, the reason this plane went down? A pilot who relied on his automatic reaction rather than cognitive abilities.

I was taught in a glider that when the aircraft is stalled, the 'automatic' reaction is to pull back harder. Which leads to a plane in the sea. I sincerely hope flight training involves teaching pilots that their 'automatic' reactions may well be wrong, and that they should engage their cognitive functions.


If pilots are really trained to think the seat of their pants is the only instrument they need, and that their intuition is all that's required, then on the whole I can't help but suspect the Airbus protections have saved a lot more lives than they've sacrificed, and as SLF I'm terribly grateful for them.
SLFandProud is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2012, 22:02
  #407 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,183
@Franzl - Correct. Rewind back a few Tech Log threads and this was covered. Like other aspects of stall recovery, it seems the loss of aileron authority was taught once at PPL level and never revised in favour of a total focus on stall avoidance at ATPL level. I'm guessing this will change with the new stall procedures in the wake of this accident.

Bill Wainwright's comments in the PPT regarding avoiding use of rudder seem to relate to upsets rather than stall conditions.

Last edited by DozyWannabe; 2nd Nov 2012 at 00:00.
DozyWannabe is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2012, 23:17
  #408 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,123
SLF

"I was taught in a glider that when the aircraft is stalled, the 'automatic' reaction is to pull back harder. Which leads to a plane in the sea. I sincerely hope flight training involves teaching pilots that their 'automatic' reactions may well be wrong, and that they should engage their cognitive functions."

fwiw... The "natural reaction" to pull back on the stick happens one time, the first time one experiences the Nose falling at Stall. Having been told "back is up" prior to first lesson, it is understandable. Once you are staring at the ground, and told "push", it is unlikely you will need a reminder. Ever.

imo

Dozy... Do not forget, the Rudder was mechanically limited, see ACARS.....

Last edited by Lyman; 1st Nov 2012 at 23:24.
Lyman is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2012, 23:39
  #409 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,183
Even with reduced authority the rudder should still have enough to get a wing down.
DozyWannabe is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2012, 23:39
  #410 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,561
All airplanes fly the same way. They have a wing that only creates lift if not stalled. All pilots in my era of flight understand this so don't stall the wing. Now we have situations where pilots hold back a stick and can not understand why the plane keeps descending at 10,000 fpm when they are pulling full back. Where did they learn to fly?
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2012, 23:39
  #411 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Correr es mi destino por no llevar papel
Posts: 1,423
Darn it, I have to rethink my posting strategy here. I hoped for reasonable discussion and got highly emotional responses.

Folks, this thread is about Airbus training syllabus. It is not about you, it is not about me, it is not about anyone or her/his feelings or (mis)perceptions. If you can not accept that all the claims made on the subject of this thread (and almost everything else on the PPRuNe) can be measured against cold, hard reality - well, proceed at your own risk.

Originally Posted by Retired F4
Would you elaborate on the differences concerning flying between direct old style feedback / feel and artificially generated feedback / feel so i can learn from your expierience?
Sure.

No significant difference.

There.

Originally Posted by TTex600
Nothing was said about the Airbus success rate.
Point of the certification process is to assure we fly operationally successful aeroplanes. Airbuses are certified way they are. So far, nothing has prompted powers to be to rethink their opinion.

Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
As I said earlier, "flies like any other" is a statement intended for general public consumption
It is not. It is message delivered to pilots since 1988. It must not be taken completely literally as she might not necessarily perform Pugachev's cobra with the grace of Su-27 but she is stable platform, not needing FBW or SAS to fly. Of few cases failing to get A320 endorsed in my gang, most were caused by inability to get to grips with FMGS and the odd one by the general ineptitude. 180 hrs wonders going directly into RHS of A320 and 5-6 thousands hours later getting moved to LHS of "classic" controls you-stall-me-I-kill-you Q400 had no problems in transition. I did read a lot of FCOM in advance and approached A320 conversion with trepidation about no-feedback-artificial-or-otherwise controls or that in direct law you have to move stick gently to neutral as you trim with the wheel but as the abnormal sessions got to their successful conclusion, I was quite disappointed to find out that horror stories spread by my colleagues about the dangerous side of this FBW MRJT were gross exaggeration. In the worst control degradation, short of Sioux City config, she was both more stable and responsive than ATR. One can get into knots about randomly picked up phrases from FCOM, flight controls description part, that seem to indicate that it flies weirdly but these knots can be easily untied by just trying her out and seeing for oneself that instructors who said "it flies like anything else" were quite right.

Originally Posted by TTex600
the control response from control input varies between normal and alternate." That is the issue I address.
It's unissue. Come down to Q400 and fly her on roll spoilers alone, when there is no force gradient with yoke deflection at all and also no effort on the part of roll controls to self center. Sounds like fun, eh? How come no one makes an issue of it? Is it acceptable because regional turboprops are not as sexy as FBW jet?

Perish the thought - it is perfectly fine to expect the pilots to cope with it as is with Airbus reconfiguration control laws. In real world.

Originally Posted by Dozy Wannabe
Possibly, however it must also be borne in mind that the aircraft was traversing a sector of moderate turbulence at the time.
Originally Posted by BEA final report on AF447, seldom read and often misunderstood
From about 15 seconds before disconnection, the autopilot countered aerological
disturbances whose intensity would be defined as “light” on the ICAO scale
(variations in vertical acceleration of less than 0.5 g);
ˆˆ When the autopilot disengaged, a concomitant lateral gust caused the aircraft to
depart from its flight path with a roll to the right;
ˆˆ The subsequent roll movements resulted from the inputs by the PF;
ˆˆ The aircraft’s movements in the longitudinal axis were primarily due to the inputs
by the PF, with the exception of small variations due to the aerology (variations in
normal acceleration of about 0.2 g);
ˆˆ The turbulence eased as from about 2 h 10 min 30 s;
ˆˆ With no PF inputs, the aircraft would have gradually rolled further to the left but
the variations in pitch attitude and altitude would have been small.
Acquired taste... like that phrase.

Originally Posted by Dozy Wannabe
any attempt to control roll with ailerons would effectively be futile (as I was taught in the sim), with rudder the only way to damp the roll out.
Category and type specific. There is very limited future in the field of post stall maneuverability of transport aeroplanes research.

Originally Posted by Dozy Wannabe
Current trim indication is clearly marked on the wheel - of course in a high-stress situation like AF447 it's probably not the first place most would look!
Why would anyone want to know exact trim setting (except before take off) in any law on any Airbus, or for that matter, on any aeroplane? We are cheerfully disregarding flying basics here and we shouldn't be doing that. Well, if we accept that Airbus in principle flies like any other aeroplane, that is. Otherwise, entertainment value of the discussion will exceed informational by far.

Originally Posted by SLFandProud
Isn't that the simple answer to, in fact, the reason this plane went down?
Basically, it seems to be.

Originally Posted by SLFandProud
I sincerely hope flight training involves teaching pilots that their 'automatic' reactions may well be wrong, and that they should engage their cognitive functions.
It is, but unfortunately this lesson often gets brushed away as a mere psychobabble as soon as the required answer is circled on multiple choice test.
Clandestino is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2012, 00:40
  #412 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,183
Originally Posted by Clandestino View Post
Acquired taste... like that phrase.
My pleasure.

Category and type specific. There is very limited future in the field of post stall maneuverability of transport aeroplanes research.
I'd say it's pretty universal that if your wing's stalled, your ailerons aren't going to work as they should, no?

Why would anyone want to know exact trim setting (except before take off) in any law on any Airbus, or for that matter, on any aeroplane?
Surely in an abnormal situation you need all the data you can get?

I think I can understand TTex600's position in terms of handflying with manual trim requiring a regular understanding of where the trim is set, whereas with automated trim that knowledge is not part of the control "rote".

We are cheerfully disregarding flying basics here and we shouldn't be doing that.
I think "disregarding" is a stretch - there's no question that prevention of getting into a sticky situation should be considered first and foremost, but the existence of Murphy's Law means that all efforts should be made to improve the odds of getting out of it alive.
DozyWannabe is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2012, 01:42
  #413 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,561
A lot of this seems to show that most pilots will not listen to the posters here that program software but to the pilots that fly airliners and know what works for them. I like automation but it should be there to help you, not to fly you. We still need to be in charge of our flight when things are not going right.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2012, 02:19
  #414 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: U.K.
Posts: 268
pitch+power= performance.Roll control is mostly spoiler,what is the aileron argument? Sorry a bit confused. Off you go...
dash6 is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2012, 02:48
  #415 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DFW
Age: 58
Posts: 246
Originally Posted by SLFandproud
Umm.

Isn't that the simple answer to, in fact, the reason this plane went down? A pilot who relied on his automatic reaction rather than cognitive abilities.

I was taught in a glider that when the aircraft is stalled, the 'automatic' reaction is to pull back harder. Which leads to a plane in the sea. I sincerely hope flight training involves teaching pilots that their 'automatic' reactions may well be wrong, and that they should engage their cognitive functions.


If pilots are really trained to think the seat of their pants is the only instrument they need, and that their intuition is all that's required, then on the whole I can't help but suspect the Airbus protections have saved a lot more lives than they've sacrificed, and as SLF I'm terribly grateful for them.
Tell me, do you ride a bicycle? Or do you think a bicycle? Do you ride a surfboard? Or do you think a surfboard?

Flying, (the actual physical manipulation of the aircraft controls), of an aircraft becomes second nature after proper training and experience. An aviator doesn't think, "i need to apply ten degrees of aileron deflection to affect a three degree per second roll and hold it ten seconds and then neutralize the ailerons to maintain the bank angle at thirty degrees". The aviator just moves the darned control stick/yoke the amount that produces the expected result.

The problem with AF447, at least one of the myriad of problems, was that the aircraft didn't respond as it ever had in this pilots past experience to his control inputs. The machine was not faithful and familiar in response. The nice gentle rate output roll response was replaced with a response he'd never (I assume from reading his training record in the BEA reports) before experience. Instead of being able to focus on understanding what happened with his pitot instruments, he spend an inordinate amount of mental energy maintaining wings level. This, is BTW, ALL my OPINION.

IOW's, the aircraft failed him. see above disclaimer.
TTex600 is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2012, 02:56
  #416 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DFW
Age: 58
Posts: 246
Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
The aircraft went to Alternate Law within seconds of the initial disconnect, so the PF would have to all intents and purposes gone straight to direct lateral response - he was not handflying prior to the disconnect (and thus not accustomed to Normal Law roll "feel") so while what you suggest can't be discounted, is it not also possible that the manual roll control was hampered by the effects of turbulence combined with the sudden requirement to take manual control (and thus assess "feel")?
Your words (quoted in red above) effectively disqualify you from having any meaningful input on a Professional Pilots forum.

Are you KIDDING me? The man had flown the aircraft thousands of hours in Normal roll law. How could you possibly keep a straight face and say that the was not accustomed to Normal roll law feel?

Where's the "shaking my head in disbelief" Smilie?
TTex600 is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2012, 03:00
  #417 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DFW
Age: 58
Posts: 246
I'm STILL sitting here shaking my head.
TTex600 is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2012, 07:10
  #418 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: a shack on a hill
Posts: 129
Snoop

You guys still have to learn how to identify a troll.
heavy.airbourne is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2012, 11:28
  #419 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PLanet Earth
Posts: 823
Originally Posted by TTex600 View Post
The man had flown the aircraft thousands of hours in Normal roll law. How could you possibly keep a straight face and say that the was not accustomed to Normal roll law feel?
Well I'm not Dozy.
But I have the feeling you might have read something in his statement what was simply not there!?

Could it also be that he simply wanted to express that they were not manually flying prior to disconnect on that flight during the cruise and were thus not really in tune with the aircraft the moment they were handed it ?

Besides that, having read a lot of stuff re AF training also in the Af447 threads:
Are you sure they had thousands of hours flying manually at cruise altitude?
I thought that was one of the main concerns: The actual experience in manually handling an airliner also in cruise condition?

Somehow I have the feeling that emotions are running so high here that everything someone writes is already assumed to be an attack.
Is there any hope getting back to a real discussion ?!
henra is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2012, 15:30
  #420 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Lower Skunk Cabbageland, WA
Age: 70
Posts: 354
You guys still have to learn how to identify a troll.
Hey airbourne, Sure, but which one of us are you fingering as the troll?

-I Resemble That

Organfreak is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.