Spirit A319, skydiving plane in close call over Michigan

[DozyWannabe]

I guess the first question to ask would be whether the descent was initiated via the FCU panel and handled by the autopilot, or whether AP was disengaged and the descent commanded manually via the sidestick.

I'm speculating here, but I do know that the A320 series has an "emergency avoidance"* mode in the pitch axis, which kicks in when a sudden and significant reversal is made (such as when a climbing aircraft is ordered to descend in an expedited manner, and vice versa). This mode effectively doubles the commanded vertical speed rate until the aircraft is commanded to level off. I wonder if that's relevant here?

* - Actually "Rapid Pitch Change" mode, apparently...

[A4]

Have you got a reference for that Dozy? The only thing I'm aware of is EXPedite Mode which is selected by a button on the FCU - however this wouldn't be used in an immediate avoidance scenario. It results in a target speed of GN DOT for EXP CLB or Barbers Pole for EXP DES and aircraft entry into the mode is "positive" i.e. not blended for pax comfort.

[NOLAND3]

Also interested in this too. Have never heard of this before.

[ironbutt57]

Airbus procedure is all automatics/FD off

[DozyWannabe]

Originally Posted by A4

Have you got a reference for that Dozy?

There's an oblique reference (to a "safety feature in the autopilot") in this Wiki page on Air Inter 148:

Air Inter Flight 148 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'll try to find something more in-depth, but I remember reading about it years ago, and I think it was mentioned in the Mayday/ACI episode on the subject.

@ironbutt57 - Sure, but in a pinch (especially sudden warnings) sometimes procedure is not followed.

EDIT : Here you go - Air Inter Flight 148 - Analysis - AviationKnowledge - under "Rapid Pitch Change". Note that as I understand it, this would only be relevant in this case if the TCAS descent was performed by dialling in the descent on the FCU panel.

[Mr Pax]

This thread reminds me of a flight I was on back in 2006

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/2...166-tampa.html

[CONF iture]

Originally Posted by dozy

I'm speculating here, but I do know that the A320 series has an "emergency avoidance" mode in the pitch axis, which kicks in when a sudden and significant reversal is made (such as when a climbing aircraft is ordered to descend in an expedited manner, and vice versa). This mode effectively doubles the commanded vertical speed rate until the aircraft is commanded to level off. I wonder if that's relevant here?

Total bs again.
Bring up official references, not Mayday type.
Maybe time to go to Spectators Balcony (Spotters Corner) - PPRuNe Forums or Jet Blast - PPRuNe Forums and see if they tolerate your disinformation there ...

[DozyWannabe]

Originally Posted by CONF iture

Bring up official references

See section : 117.542 - Détermination de l'instant de désaturation du mode PA vertical

F-GGED

[BARKINGMAD]

BASIC MATH(s) AGAIN??!!

Long time ago on the 747 "Classic", before the advent of "red coffins" wandering around glass PFDs, the advice given when the "fishfinder" detected an intruder was to anticipate by dividing 1,000 by ones TAS and using that pitch change as a starter to avoid the enemy when the RA finally shouted.

Obviously that required HANDFLYING (!) and in a Jumbo of geriatric pedigree, it was practised and performed smoothly and gently despite the adrenalin rush.

But that was a long time ago and handflying, whether 'bus or Boeing or any other type, appears to be a dying art judging from the postings in this forum...?

Children of Magenta line again.......................................... ???

[JW411]

Have things changed since I stopped teaching five years ago?

An RA only required a SMOOTH climb or descent of 1,500 fpm to stay in the green band.

It was only if that proved to be insufficient and an Increase Climb/Descent was commanded that the rate should be increased to 2,500 fpm.

In any event, there really was no need to plaster the ceiling with 380 gin and tonics.

[DozyWannabe]

Originally Posted by BARKINGMAD

But that was a long time ago and handflying, whether 'bus or Boeing or any other type, appears to be a dying art judging from the postings in this forum...?

Children of Magenta line again.......................................... ???

Originally Posted by ironbutt57

Airbus procedure is all automatics/FD off

Emphasis above is mine.

[BARKINGMAD]

Dozy, nobody is saying handflying for RAs is not SOP, but as BUBBERS said, it's the transition from fully automatic to fully manual, in short order and in "startle" mode which should not faze anyone professionally trained and in practice.

And it can still be smooth and avoid launching CC and pax into astronaut mode whilst achieving the desired result.

Are we in agreement that manual flying skills are in decline and airline management/training departments have to take some share of the blame?

[KBPsen]

I think we can all agree that that there are a fair amount of people who "used to be somebody" who have problems with the "used to be".

[Capn Bloggs]

Dozy, as is often the case, is again out of his non-pilot depth.

Dozy's theory: A crew, contrary to SOPs, uses Vertical Speed to instigate an RA manoeuvre, realise they've stuffed it so does a big reversal of the VS, then monsieur Airbus says "right, instigating super-over-reaction feature" and so generates so much negative G that the FAs and food/gin hit the ceiling. Get real.

Are we in agreement that manual flying skills are in decline and airline management/training departments have to take some share of the blame?

You'll never get agreement on that from a non-pilot. They simply don't/won't understand (nor do they listen to the pilots).

[DozyWannabe]

Originally Posted by BARKINGMAD

Dozy, nobody is saying handflying for RAs is not SOP, but as BUBBERS said, it's the transition from fully automatic to fully manual, in short order and in "startle" mode which should not faze anyone professionally trained and in practice.

Sure, and I'm not saying any different - the point I was getting at is that using automatics in that situation is not sanctioned by the manufacturer - that is all.

Are we in agreement that manual flying skills are in decline and airline management/training departments have to take some share of the blame

I don't know first-hand - I haven't been in an airliner flight deck on the line since I was a teenager. But based on the conversations I've had, it's a fairly common perception. As I understand it, I don't think training departments are a root cause - they can only work with what they're given and have little say beyond that. I think that management quality has declined in the aviation industry much as it has elsewhere, thanks to the ubiquitous MBA generation.

Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs

Dozy's theory: A crew, contrary to SOPs, uses Vertical Speed to instigate an RA manoeuvre, realise they've stuffed it so does a big reversal of the VS, then monsieur Airbus says "right, instigating super-over-reaction feature" and so generates so much negative G that the FAs and food/gin hit the ceiling. Get real.

That's not "my theory" - it was merely a suggestion of a possibility given that the descent rate was unexpectedly severe and the crew announced it as a "flight control problem" over the PA. Right now we have very little hard info and I stated clearly that I wondered whether it might be relevant. Not that it was definitely relevant, nor that it was what I thought happened (because I don't).

You'll never get agreement on that from a non-pilot. They simply don't/won't understand (nor do they listen to the pilots).

On the contrary, this non-line pilot listens very attentively to what pilots have to say.

He won't, on the other hand, blindly accept statements that he knows to be false.

[JoeyBalls]

Being a Spirit pilot myself, reading these replies makes me cringe, do you guys even fly airplanes professionally?

[DozyWannabe]

@JoeyBalls - everything so far on this thread is just speculation, whether the poster is a line pilot or not. Don't take it to heart.

[Capn Bloggs]

Originally Posted by Dozy

As I understand it, I don't think training departments are a root cause - they can only work with what they're given and have little say beyond that.

My point exactly; not a very good understanding of the real world of aviation. Training departments could easily require/encourage more hand-flying, either in the aircraft or in the SIM. Read Sabena-boy's posts. Full of handflying! Flying a precise but gentle manoeuvre such as an RA is easier if you're used to and practised at hand-flying.

[JoeyBalls]

Understood

[DozyWannabe]

Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs

My point exactly; not a very good understanding of the real world of aviation. Training departments could easily require/encourage more hand-flying, either in the aircraft or in the SIM. Read Sabena-boy's posts. Full of handflying! Flying a precise but gentle manoeuvre such as an RA is easier if you're used to and practised at hand-flying.

I'm not disagreeing with you on the hand-flying front. As SLF, I'd feel much more secure if the situation were better than it seems to be. But training departments (like any other department) have a fixed budget which they cannot exceed. Practicing handflying takes time and sim time is expensive. If senior management cannot be made to understand the importance of this in spite of efforts to convince them, then the training department has no choice but to make the best of it.

Look, I may be a tech guy for a living - but if anything that serves only to make me more cognisant of the limits of technology. I don't see technology itself as a factor, but I sure as hell worry about the misuse of technology at the behest of those who don't properly understand it.