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 16th Nov 2012, 03:32
  #501 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,183
Originally Posted by bubbers44 View Post
You do not have to reaquire a feel for an aircraft you have thousands of hours in.
Would you not agree that you probably would have to when there exists a possibility of damage? That aside....

How long would it take you to react? Right, the same time it would take the PNF to have total control of the machine. Less than 3 seconds in each case would be my estimate.
OK, so (please correct me if I'm wrong) retired Captain and instructor (therefore well-versed and experienced in HA manual control) bubbers44 reckons just short of 3 seconds or thereabouts.

Damn it - so much for my hope this was over...

According to the DFDR traces of AF447, the application of significant control inputs from the PF were to all intents and purposes *instant* subsequent to AP disconnect.

Originally Posted by Lyman View Post
Lack of high altitude manual flying experience? Nope.
Er - if we're talking about either of the AF447 F/Os, that's untrue. They certainly had no training in that regime.

Startled by loss of Autopilot? Nope.
How can you be so certain? I'm not, but I definitely consider it a possibility (one of many).

Surprised at the Stall Warning three seconds post a/p? Somewhat.
Again, your certainty is perplexing given no conclusive evidence on the matter.

Totally flummoxed by a controls system that had split into two modes? Yep.
Look, you can believe what you want. Whatever makes you feel better. I desperately want to be done with this subject for now.

All I ask is how it is possible for a pilot to be "flummoxed" by a change in control response due to a flight law degradation when said pilot had neither significant experience nor proper training in manual handling at that altitude in the cruise regime in Normal - or any other - Law.

Unless you can give me a reasonable answer to that question with supporting evidence, then as far as I'm concerned I'm done with the subject.

Originally Posted by bubbers44 View Post
I never had high altitude training and I could fly manually and recover from a stall very easily.
You cut your teeth in a very different era by your own admission. Hand-flying in cruise on the line was relatively commonplace and in that environment you could practice and learn by (metaphorical) osmosis.

Most modern line operations are predicated on AP engagement shortly after gear-up and disengagement during descent or approach for reasons of cost and consistency.

If you are not trained for it buy a book. Flying the big jets is a good start.
HTBJ is set at a more advanced level than that (at least my copy is). The idea that the higher airspeed and lower air density at cruise has an effect on control response is expected to already be known.

Why do the new generation pilots need spoon feeding on how to fly at high altitude. Us old guys never got a course on it and did quite well reading a book.
And practicing on the line, which is verboten in a lot of operations today. It's not that the "new generation" need "spoon feeding", it's that they are prohibited from practicing on the line and training was never beefed up to compensate.

We didn't need CRM courses to fly our airplanes.
No, but a minority of pilots (mostly senior) definitely needed it to properly lead their flight crews.

We busted our asses through all the crap we had to do to be airline pilots.
By all accounts the level of "crap" hasn't changed even if the nature of it has.

We learned how to fly the hard wasy, by experience, not schools.

Grow up, either learn how to fly on your own or get out of the business.
I say again, modern operations and business culture prohibit this due to the risk factors involved.

Last edited by DozyWannabe; 16th Nov 2012 at 03:58.
DozyWannabe is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2012, 03:40
  #502 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,123
Bubbers, it must be me, but we've had this issue before. I am NOT saying modern pilots are not competent, on the contrary, I am saying this crew WAS NOT bothered by high altitude behaviour. Instead, my point is the actual problem, the Roll issue, is virtually ignored, and Airbus comes up with a broad brush palliative and condemns all crews. They did the same thing after 447. They released a paper that scolded pilots for not knowing how to recognize the STALL.

Same way Gourgeon scolded the crew for being "unlucky" with the RADARS...

Bonin likely had no CLUE why Roll was such a control problem.... Obsessed with roll, and overspeed, PITCH was unattended, until he'd lost his SA, and OOPS,,,, bigtime problem, bigtime Stall.....

BUT, it is easier and more profitable to create a narrative that destroys his reputation, and all they need do is present remedial ab initio... Pretty slick.

Sheesh....

Doze... "Unless you can give me a reasonable answer to that question with supporting evidence, then as far as I'm concerned I'm done with the subject."

Honest engine? You'd be done? Then no reasonable answer is forthcoming....

Last edited by Lyman; 16th Nov 2012 at 03:44.
Lyman is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2012, 04:00
  #503 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,561
PNF could not have not noticed G loads so ignored what was happening on his flight instruments. He could have saved the day but didn't because in my opinion he didn't have the confidence to take over.

This thread says Airbus takes pilots back to basics with the A350.

Airbus must realize the problem and is trying to fix it.

Good for them.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2012, 04:13
  #504 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,183
Originally Posted by Lyman View Post
Bonin likely had no CLUE why Roll was such a control problem.... Obsessed with roll, and overspeed, PITCH was unattended
I say again, the Airbus sidestick is spring-loaded in both axes to return to centre if pressure is relaxed. If you wish to control roll with no pitch input then simply relax forward or backward pressure and the stick moves laterally as if on rails.

BUT, it is easier and more profitable to create a narrative that destroys his reputation, and all they need do is present remedial ab initio... Pretty slick.
Again, variations on the term "pilot error" appear nowhere in the report. The report implies strongly that the problems are systemic and industry-wide. Airbus have made no statement regarding causes of the accident - you are lying for reasons that I cannot understand.

Honest engine? You'd be done? Then no reasonable answer is forthcoming....
I think the idiom you're looking for is "Honest, Injun?", but I won't carp. The point is that if you can't answer that question then it leaves a significant hole in your argument from a logical standpoint, but if you're good with that then I'm too tired to press the issue.
DozyWannabe is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2012, 04:31
  #505 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,561
I taught aerobatics for a while and taught unusual attitude recovery. One of the recoveries was with an extremely high nose attitude roll into a 90 degree bank and let the nose fall through level flight. Then gradually nose up to level flight to recover. Seems like in the AF situation they would have been better off in a high bank angle to let the nose fall through the horizon.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2012, 09:50
  #506 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Age: 65
Posts: 1,136
I too taught aerobatics, many of those who developed the syllabus for Airbus taught aerobatics and funnily enough in their syllabus, as given to me, is broadly the recovery technique you remember apart from considering the power set and power required, rolling wings level after achieving a nose low attitude, not stalling on the pull to level flight and being aware of the safety altitude.
Having taught aerobatics you will realise that your students practiced, probably regularly, what you taught, and, if they were sufficiently adventurous, would have used and become familiar with unusual attitude recovery techniques. Most, if not all bar the odd one or two, Airbus pilots would never have used the recovery techniques in an Airbus after their initial exposure in the sim.

IMHO it is beginning to dawn upon the more enlightened regulators and manufacturers that there are pilots in the airlines who do not and have no wish to expand their repertoire themselves.

Last edited by beardy; 16th Nov 2012 at 09:55.
beardy is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2012, 13:01
  #507 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 64
Posts: 1,809
Again, variations on the term "pilot error" appear nowhere in the report. The report implies strongly that the problems are systemic and industry-wide. Airbus have made no statement regarding causes of the accident - you are lying for reasons that I cannot understand.
Indeed .. nothing in the report
It is during the trial that will be know the (real) opinions of Airbus .. Air France regarding who did what (or did not) and finally who is guilty (if any)
But we have already some clues by Airbus and Air France statements in the press:
Air France
AF447 was manned by a highly competent crew
This crew made the maximum for save the aircraft
Bonin action (pull) is not understand and it's the duty of investigation for find out (we know now that the investigation have no clue about Bonin action)
The AF447 crashed
Airbus Industrie
The plane was functioning as per design (no technical fault .. exclude the Thales probe .. who was not in the original A330 design)
The AF447 crashed

Last edited by jcjeant; 16th Nov 2012 at 13:59.
jcjeant is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2012, 13:23
  #508 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,939
Originally Posted by DW
Burkill has it that his F/O was the PF during the incident (albeit possibly after A/THR disconnect). What's your source?
PF is PF whatever the AP status. What do you think ... !?
Read the report.
CONF iture is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2012, 13:32
  #509 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,939
Originally Posted by DW
With respect, that's not the question I asked, which was - do you rate your handling skills such that in an emergency situation where you had been PNF for most or all of the leg you could take control and make the correct control deflection instantly, without first assessing what the aircraft was trying to do and get a feel for how it was responding?
Yes, except on the Airbus where the PNF is unaware of the inputs already made by the PF.
CONF iture is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2012, 13:49
  #510 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bedford, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 1,265
I realise that the significance of ss interconnectivity and feedback is much more general than its role if any in the 447 accident. But in that particular case a low tech solution would have been for the cpt to have asked the pf what he was doing or better yet given him some direction or instruction, presumably the other guys must have thought the pf was doing something and not just twiddling his thumbs.
Mr Optimistic is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2012, 15:45
  #511 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Devonshire
Age: 93
Posts: 300
MR O.
A "simple solution" for any of the pilots might have been to NOTICE that the THS was nearly full NU - not so much the cause, but the result of the control input. ( I think that I have seen the white marks on a trim-wheel painted red to indicate an unusual position, but I cannot remember which type of aircraft.) If this could be done, it might count as a KISS Modification.

DW
Try one of Lyman's " thought exercises" and replace the current air traffic being carried world-wide, with Brabazons. Years ago I "replaced the fleet of one airline with 400 Yorks", because both the MD and I had flown them !
It might be worth re-starting the production line - or not ?
Linktrained is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2012, 16:00
  #512 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 78
Posts: 1,460
Regarding interconnectivity between the two sets of pilot controls, there is one situation where the B approach is indisputably better than the A FBW approach:

In the event the PF encounters PIO, with interconnected controls the PNF can assist by physically freezing the controls but without taking over control.
With independent side stick controls, PNF must actually take over control to have an effect.
Since there are psychological barriers to taking over control, particularly with a perceived adverse cockpit gradient, the interconnected approach is more effective

Perhaps what is really needed is a hands on introduction to PIO in the sim. That would better prepare folks for the infrequent PIO encounter. Once in a lifetime should be sufficient, so the training cost would not be excessive.
Machinbird is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2012, 16:42
  #513 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 759
Originally Posted by Machinbird #480
If someone else has had a PIO experience, feel free to provide a description.
When I had the opportunity to test on simulator my method to come out quickly from a dutchroll, the other pilot who had no method, lost 11,000 FT rolling quickly from one side to another. Despite 6,000 hrs on type (MD83) he was totally focused on the quick roll.

In PIO the coordination between pitch and roll rates control is to rebuild totally.
Machinbird is right, that must be taught and trained.
roulishollandais is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2012, 17:29
  #514 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,123
That is the thing, and the reason spins are not even demonstrated any more, let alone taught. Someone decided to eliminate them from the syllabus.

For good reason. And the reason this thread is testimony to marketing, not safety.

AB has no sincere (honest) interest in 'training' at all. Nor should they, it is 100 percent PR.

If they were not devoted to creating a smokescreen, they would support the platform by teaching fluency in degraded controls.

Airbus has created a form of hypnosis in its customers. Witness the lack of attention the 'PIO' has garnered, when it can be argued the split mode was entirely responsible for the lack of Pitch maintenance in the crash of 447......

It is a toxic form of 'training', this hypnosis.

Last edited by Lyman; 16th Nov 2012 at 17:45.
Lyman is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2012, 18:17
  #515 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DFW
Age: 58
Posts: 246
Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
Look, you can believe what you want. Whatever makes you feel better. I desperately want to be done with this subject for now.
Seriously? Then stop posting.

Or, do you desperately want to come out on top and wish all of your opponents would just concede?
TTex600 is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2012, 18:31
  #516 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,123
DW

The flying pilot was abruptly handed an aircraft that was maneuvering, and in a mode that separated Pitch from Roll in a way that was not only unexpected, but quite possibly unknown to him.

His stick work shows signs of an inability to isolate Pitch input from Roll input, have a look....

After thirty seconds of focusing on Roll, and 'learning' DIRECT LAW in ROLL, he appears to have lost his sense of attitude, and may still have not been able to utilize the stick with any knowledge of the completely different modes for each, as is evident by his lack of "discipline" with the Pitch mode.

Everything you say in defense of the platform depends on ignoring how important the roll excursions were in the loss of Pitch maintenance.

And you accuse me of 'lying'?
Lyman is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2012, 19:01
  #517 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 78
Posts: 1,460
Originally Posted by TTEX
How do you propose inducing one if the trainee never gets into one?

...you gonna teach them how to do a PIO?
Nope. I'm going to cheat!

Set up an emergency (as recommended by the stability engineers) that confronts the pilot with an abrupt change in control system performance (such as the A330 Alt2b law does). Then tweak the gains or add subtle lags in the visual display that push stability over the edge.
It will be easy.
Machinbird is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2012, 19:20
  #518 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,183
Originally Posted by TTex600 View Post
Seriously? Then stop posting.
If it wasn't clear, I think that trying to transfer the same old arguments on the now-receding AF447 Tech Log threads to a different thread (which had little or nothing to do with AF447) isn't going to get us anywhere.

Or, do you desperately want to come out on top and wish all of your opponents would just concede?
Nope - a simple agreement to disagree and leave it there would be more than fine! I have a hunch that at least some of my detractors feel that way about me, however.

Originally Posted by Lyman View Post
The flying pilot was abruptly handed an aircraft that was maneuvering, and in a mode that separated Pitch from Roll in a way that was not only unexpected, but quite possibly unknown to him.
I don't know how many times I can say this, but the lack of HA manual training and experience means that the handling characteristics of Normal Law in that phase of flight were also unknown to him. How can the change in roll response have confused him when he had no basis with which to make a comparison?

As a hypothetical analogy, if a person does not know 2 + 2 = 4, how are they going to know that 2 + 2 = 5 is a diversion from the norm?

His stick work shows signs of an inability to isolate Pitch input from Roll input, have a look....
I've seen the diagrams, but I don't know on what basis you're making that assertion other than a hunch that happens to dovetail with your latest theory.

I for one simply see a sequence of overlaid movements on a graph - I can't derive any conclusion from that as to what led him to make those inputs, and I suspect your conclusion is more a case of trying to make the facts fit the theory rather than the other way round.

Everything you say in defense of the platform depends on ignoring how important the roll excursions were in the loss of Pitch maintenance.
I'm not saying anything in defense of the platform* - in this case I'm simply stating the fact that if a handling pilot wants to input on the roll axis alone, the sidestick centring mechanism will hold neutral pitch command when forward or back pressure is relaxed. In this case the PF would have been aware of this design feature through low-level manual handling, which implies (because at the end of the day conjecture is the best we can do) that the pitch commands were deliberate rather than unintentional.

And you accuse me of 'lying'?
When it comes to claiming Airbus are somehow involved in a nefarious Gallic plot to besmirch the reputation of a pilot in the name of profit (which is the statement of yours I was referring to specifically), there's no "accusation" about it - you are lying.

[* - And to be honest, I think I've been a pretty good sport about letting slide seemingly unrelenting attempts from some quarters to project a non-existent agenda onto me and put words into my mouth.]

Last edited by DozyWannabe; 16th Nov 2012 at 19:25.
DozyWannabe is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2012, 20:07
  #519 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 64
Posts: 1,809
Cool

Hi,

Doze
When it comes to claiming Airbus are somehow involved in a nefarious Gallic plot to besmirch the reputation of a pilot in the name of profit (which is the statement of yours I was referring to specifically), there's no "accusation" about it - you are lying.
In this video (at 40min20sec) this is someone (a french "juge d'instruction") who have a different idea ( opinion ? ) of your .. even if it is not about AF447 case)
In french ... of course .....

Last edited by jcjeant; 16th Nov 2012 at 20:10.
jcjeant is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2012, 22:21
  #520 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,183
jcj, To be honest I've got even less desire to talk about Habsheim and the 2 decade-plus religious war that has grown up around the subject on this thread than I want to to talk about AF447, because it has even less relevance to the subject supposedly under discussion.

I'm interested in discussion based on reported fact, not innuendo and scuttlebutt of the kind that legal and press involvement invariably bring to the table.
DozyWannabe 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.