Air Asia Indonesia Lost Contact from Surabaya to Singapore
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So it will take a long time SS full nose down to get those elevators moving beyond the neutral position into nose down, and only then would the trim start to follow and start to trim nose down. There is no time to wait for that. Use the procedure which is established, and that one includes the use of manual trim.
If I handfly a B,I rest my thumb on the trim switch.Automatically.I dont think about it.Its a motor function.
An Airbus pilot can probably go a whole line career and never invoke law degradation and so never trim manually except twice a year in the sim.How easy then might it be to forget to use manual trim in a stall with no stick shaker and only that useless "stall,stall" going?Aural warnings get filtered out under stress.ECAM advisories,twenty at a time,not much good either.No stick shaker.Well,there isnt a stick...Nothing tactile,best channel of all under stress.
Trim down,stick down,reduce thrust mid-position..Just how difficult is it?Why the confusion?What can be done?
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speculating
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are only two ways that the Airbus could have climbed as rapidly as it did: with severe and persistent up elevator or with CG way too aft. We have reports that the CG was well within limits. So that leaves severe and persistent up elevator - something that should not be allowed by the FACs. So we have a problem with either the FACs or the elevator itself. It is reported that both FACs were reporting a fault and that the stall warning was sounding. So it would appear that the FACs "knew" something was wrong and that the plane was in a stall. From this thread, it is reported that the FACs respond to a stall condition by increasing thrust and applying down elevator. It is possible that the FAC software failed in this simple duty, but I would bet against that. Also, if the main problem was with the FACs, then cutting them out should have made the flight recoverable by ATC pilots.
That leaves the elevator itself. If the pilot started a climb, the elevator may have visited a severe up position. If the elevator got stuck in that position, the FACs would signal a fault and the plane would attempt an inside loop and enter a dramatic stall.
But why would the pilots take out the FACs that were already trying to get the elevators into a nose down position? So that they could do something that the FACs were not programmed to do - attempt to shake the rudder free.
Please feel free to poke holes in this notion. That's what I've posted it for.
That leaves the elevator itself. If the pilot started a climb, the elevator may have visited a severe up position. If the elevator got stuck in that position, the FACs would signal a fault and the plane would attempt an inside loop and enter a dramatic stall.
But why would the pilots take out the FACs that were already trying to get the elevators into a nose down position? So that they could do something that the FACs were not programmed to do - attempt to shake the rudder free.
Please feel free to poke holes in this notion. That's what I've posted it for.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: bangko
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When a tail loses lift the nose pitches down because the horizontal stabilizer pushes the tail down for stability.
Actually it is not for stability, but for moment compensation. The moment compensated is the nose-down pitching moment produced naturally by any cambered airfoil with attached flow. So when stalled, this pitching moment may disappear, and no more downforce on the tail is required. But that depends heavily on the specific airfoil characteristics, whether the flow separation starts at the trailing edge and extends forward, or whether it starts at the leading edge and reattaches further aft.
.
Actually it is not for stability, but for moment compensation. The moment compensated is the nose-down pitching moment produced naturally by any cambered airfoil with attached flow. So when stalled, this pitching moment may disappear, and no more downforce on the tail is required. But that depends heavily on the specific airfoil characteristics, whether the flow separation starts at the trailing edge and extends forward, or whether it starts at the leading edge and reattaches further aft.
.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Clinton WA
Age: 75
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE Various posts
In the early 80's I believe NASA did some testing of deep stall characteristics using a single place T tail Schweitzer 1-36 which was modified to permit the horizontal stab to angle nose down to about 45 degrees. The pictures of tell tail streamers angled up about 45 degrees to the wing mean chord in a steady stable descent was arresting. I don't recall any longer whether a single angle of descent was explored or whether the H stab was capable of various nose down settings allowing a variety of descent angles to be investigated. But the point was that a stable controlled descent in a fully stalled condition, well in excess of the perhaps 13 degree Wortman airfoil stall AOA of the 1-36 was achieved. And, importantly, was repeatedly recovered from.
There have been quite a few (not necessarily connected) posts now from pilots apparently familiar with the A320 suggesting that a combination of thrust moment, auto fly to G, mode of readouts, lack of pilot SS feedback, narrow speed margin, warning chaos, and possible rapidity of AOA change in relatively rare turbulence, not to mention pilot error (however small) and confusion over what the control system is thinking could ALL have contributed to two accidents where a stall all the way from altitude to impact occurred. There are more recently some hints (and counter opinion) that, once stalled, the A320 control system might actually be attempting to hold the plane in a stall.
A few posts have argued about whether the horizontal stab and elevator act to counter wing airfoil pitch moment, or to produce dynamic stability which is to a degree needlessly confusing because both moment forces and dynamic stability are involved. But those posts did not mention (and I don't think anyone has) running a relatively aft cg via fuel transfer to reduce drag by streamlining the Hstab/elevator, for fuel savings of course. I would appreciate some better detail from an A320 pilot on 1) whether and to what degree fuel transfer is used to supplement aerodynamic trim, 2) at what point in a flight is fuel transfer usually performed, 3) if fuel transfer is employed, is there an SOP for reversing that transfer in anticipation of encountering a storm line, and 4) wqhether the FDR would record fuel transfer events. Running on the ragged edge of an aft CG, even if inadvertant, of course would not be the best situation from which to begin an altercation with bad weather.
Jack of All, thanks for that post. How rapidly is the training you took being distributed through the entire pilot complement?
There have been quite a few (not necessarily connected) posts now from pilots apparently familiar with the A320 suggesting that a combination of thrust moment, auto fly to G, mode of readouts, lack of pilot SS feedback, narrow speed margin, warning chaos, and possible rapidity of AOA change in relatively rare turbulence, not to mention pilot error (however small) and confusion over what the control system is thinking could ALL have contributed to two accidents where a stall all the way from altitude to impact occurred. There are more recently some hints (and counter opinion) that, once stalled, the A320 control system might actually be attempting to hold the plane in a stall.
A few posts have argued about whether the horizontal stab and elevator act to counter wing airfoil pitch moment, or to produce dynamic stability which is to a degree needlessly confusing because both moment forces and dynamic stability are involved. But those posts did not mention (and I don't think anyone has) running a relatively aft cg via fuel transfer to reduce drag by streamlining the Hstab/elevator, for fuel savings of course. I would appreciate some better detail from an A320 pilot on 1) whether and to what degree fuel transfer is used to supplement aerodynamic trim, 2) at what point in a flight is fuel transfer usually performed, 3) if fuel transfer is employed, is there an SOP for reversing that transfer in anticipation of encountering a storm line, and 4) wqhether the FDR would record fuel transfer events. Running on the ragged edge of an aft CG, even if inadvertant, of course would not be the best situation from which to begin an altercation with bad weather.
Jack of All, thanks for that post. How rapidly is the training you took being distributed through the entire pilot complement?
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: toofaraway
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel transfer
I usually get modded out, even when I'm being constructive like now.
Someone will no doubt correct me, but I don't think the A320 has a wet tail.
So how to vary c.g?
Someone will no doubt correct me, but I don't think the A320 has a wet tail.
So how to vary c.g?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: I used to know
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silver
If you are refering to Turkish at AMS then the lack of recovery was more late recognition and inappropriate recovery techniques as I recall.
However the Bournemouth b737 incident shows quite clearly the effect toga has on the pitch attitude along with the fact the aircraft trimmed for slow speed. They recovered thankfully!
If your point is that maintaining max power makes the situation unrecoverable then yes, they did not recover until power was reduced and elevator authority regained.
The stall is certainly*not*recoverable on the 737 (for instance), at low altitude with the engines at max, as was amply demonstrated a few years back on an ILS approach.*
However the Bournemouth b737 incident shows quite clearly the effect toga has on the pitch attitude along with the fact the aircraft trimmed for slow speed. They recovered thankfully!
If your point is that maintaining max power makes the situation unrecoverable then yes, they did not recover until power was reduced and elevator authority regained.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jack:
I have recently undergone the Upset Recovery Training developed specifically to train airline crew to recognize and recover from extreme upsets and Loss of Control Inflight ( LOC-I).
I have recently undergone the Upset Recovery Training developed specifically to train airline crew to recognize and recover from extreme upsets and Loss of Control Inflight ( LOC-I).
Why so late?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flexpwr:
To my knowledge, no commercial aircraft is ever directly "commanding" an attitude with either a stick or control column.
To my knowledge, no commercial aircraft is ever directly "commanding" an attitude with either a stick or control column.
The 737 in CWS mode does exactly that - it commands and maintains an attitude (always in pitch and sometimes in bank). And CWS is controlled by the control column. Which is why I thought the A320 must be doing the same type of thing.
Flexpwr:
I recommend that you spend some time in the Tech Log and get a good grip with the concept of Airbus FBW before suggesting this is nonsense, or why would anyone design such a thing.
I recommend that you spend some time in the Tech Log and get a good grip with the concept of Airbus FBW before suggesting this is nonsense, or why would anyone design such a thing.
Any other questions?
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Clinton WA
Age: 75
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A320 fuel trim
A320 does not have an aft fuel trim tank. However to amend my earlier post, A320 CG does move with fuel consumption. So my question for Those Who Know remains somewhat the same: Would cg changes due to fuel burn in any way exacerbate the set of conditions already being discussed resulting in an unsustainable climb?
Quote “nice to know.. but in A320, CG always move backward with fuel consumption, irrespective of the tank..” at 13 Aug 2011 at:
fuel consumption and CG movement [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums
Other comments on A320 cg changes, Google:
trim changes due to a320 fuel consumption
Conflicting quote: “It's interesting to note that the performance chapter for the A320 bases all the figures on a MAC of 33%. Seems to me that if you start off with a MAC of34%, the fuel burn will cause the MAC to decrease during the flight towards a lower number, say about 30% depending on the length of the flight. This will keep the MAC close to the book value of 33%. Since the performance figures are based on 33%, wouldn't it make sense to load the airplane to reflect this value? Seems not many ops people, chief pilots etc pay much attention to this area.” 20 May 2013 at:
A320 CofG THS [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums
Quote “nice to know.. but in A320, CG always move backward with fuel consumption, irrespective of the tank..” at 13 Aug 2011 at:
fuel consumption and CG movement [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums
Other comments on A320 cg changes, Google:
trim changes due to a320 fuel consumption
Conflicting quote: “It's interesting to note that the performance chapter for the A320 bases all the figures on a MAC of 33%. Seems to me that if you start off with a MAC of34%, the fuel burn will cause the MAC to decrease during the flight towards a lower number, say about 30% depending on the length of the flight. This will keep the MAC close to the book value of 33%. Since the performance figures are based on 33%, wouldn't it make sense to load the airplane to reflect this value? Seems not many ops people, chief pilots etc pay much attention to this area.” 20 May 2013 at:
A320 CofG THS [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums
Originally Posted by .Scott
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are only two ways that the Airbus could have climbed as rapidly as it did: with severe and persistent up elevator or with CG way too aft
, but lesser changes indicate those numbers are pretty close. It's not difficult (and certainly not severe) to pull 10°: there's your 8000ft/min climb rate... for a short time at least.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: wales
Age: 81
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a lot of the discussions on the airbus fbw and just what is HAL capable of have questioned whether airbus actually do stall testing to garner data, does this post from way back throw any light on that
page 111 post2216
Quote:
Originally Posted by AM
The Concorde prototypes had a crew escape hatch
I'm not sure what your point is, but all the Airbus prototypes I've been on have had crew escape hatches. They would be used in case something went very badly during any of the many stall tests that were done
page 111 post2216
Quote:
Originally Posted by AM
The Concorde prototypes had a crew escape hatch
I'm not sure what your point is, but all the Airbus prototypes I've been on have had crew escape hatches. They would be used in case something went very badly during any of the many stall tests that were done
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quoting Capn Bloggs
You're measuring the stick movement by the effect of pitch on the plane - rather than the position of the control surface.
Having never flown anything heavy, my assumption is that to reach an 800FPM climb (FACs not-withstanding), you would pull back on the stick far enough so that your target ROC was reached in perhaps 5 or 10 seconds. Then you would relax the stick a bit to hold that ROC.
However, if the control surface (the elevator) jammed in place you would find yourself at 800FPM in say 7 seconds, 1600FPM in 15 seconds, 2400FPM in 24 seconds, and only a your airspeed would keep you from completing an inside loop.
If that rate of climb isn't enough to build up to what was seen in RADAR, then perhaps the pilot was merely trying to maintain altitude in a sudden down-draft. He may have been very aggressive in trying to restore altitude and attempted to cause that 1 degree pitch up in much less than 7 seconds.
The point is that a control surface movement applied for 5 seconds can be very normal - but when jammed in place for tens of seconds can be very severe.
Also, there is no deicing provided on the tail of the A320.
Actually, the amount of stick you need to generate that rate of climb isn't a lot: as a rule of thumb for my TCAS responses (passed on down by an old hand) I use: 1° of pitch change results in about your Mach number in Rate of Climb: If you're doing .8 and you pull 1° of pitch, your ROC will be around 800ft/min. I haven't actually used 10° on a TCAS RA , but lesser changes indicate those numbers are pretty close. It's not difficult (and certainly not severe) to pull 10°: there's your 8000ft/min climb rate... for a short time at least.
, but lesser changes indicate those numbers are pretty close. It's not difficult (and certainly not severe) to pull 10°: there's your 8000ft/min climb rate... for a short time at least.
Having never flown anything heavy, my assumption is that to reach an 800FPM climb (FACs not-withstanding), you would pull back on the stick far enough so that your target ROC was reached in perhaps 5 or 10 seconds. Then you would relax the stick a bit to hold that ROC.
However, if the control surface (the elevator) jammed in place you would find yourself at 800FPM in say 7 seconds, 1600FPM in 15 seconds, 2400FPM in 24 seconds, and only a your airspeed would keep you from completing an inside loop.
If that rate of climb isn't enough to build up to what was seen in RADAR, then perhaps the pilot was merely trying to maintain altitude in a sudden down-draft. He may have been very aggressive in trying to restore altitude and attempted to cause that 1 degree pitch up in much less than 7 seconds.
The point is that a control surface movement applied for 5 seconds can be very normal - but when jammed in place for tens of seconds can be very severe.
Also, there is no deicing provided on the tail of the A320.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: bangko
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CG
On a swept wing, CG will always move back with fuel consumption if you deplete inside tanks first, which is preferential for wing loading
( assuming no other tanks, only wing tank )
( assuming no other tanks, only wing tank )
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When a tail loses lift the nose pitches down because the horizontal stabilizer pushes the tail down for stability.
...
Actually it is not for stability, but for moment compensation.
...
Actually it is for stability....modern jets are still aerodynamically stable..
...
Actually it is not for stability, but for moment compensation.
...
Actually it is for stability....modern jets are still aerodynamically stable..
The highest stabilizer downforce required for modern transport aircraft is to compensate the extreme pitching moment of the main wing with full flaps. In cruise, modern aircraft do not produce significant downforce, some even produce slight lift. However, due to complexity trim tanks do disappear again, and we are now moving a bit away again from the idea of the stabilizer producing lift, as the drag penalty of the stabilizer downforce is neglectable in transonic cruise.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Volume
... a Canard has to produce lift, a conventional tail has to push the tail down
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a lot of the discussions on the airbus fbw and just what is HAL capable of have questioned whether airbus actually do stall testing to garner data, does this post from way back throw any light on that
page 111 post2216
Quote:
Originally Posted by AM
The Concorde prototypes had a crew escape hatch
I'm not sure what your point is, but all the Airbus prototypes I've been on have had crew escape hatches. They would be used in case something went very badly during any of the many stall tests that were done
page 111 post2216
Quote:
Originally Posted by AM
The Concorde prototypes had a crew escape hatch
I'm not sure what your point is, but all the Airbus prototypes I've been on have had crew escape hatches. They would be used in case something went very badly during any of the many stall tests that were done
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
post 3061 - RetiredF4
What good would that do ? If "the system" wants 1g, if you trim the THS nose down, won't it just keep feeding in up elevator to counter you, until it is finally full up ? By that stage you will have far more THS nose down trim than is healthy. Might you then be in a worse place than from whence you came ?
And if the full forward stick does not lead to the desired reaction, feed in manual trim.