Iced AoA sensors send A321 into deep dive
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that unsolicited praise G! Very kind of you, but I'm not 100% sure I am worthy of it...
While I agree with you, we should understand for it to work training would be key. The Airbus philosophy invites those that may have never even seen a stick and rudder aeroplane nor those who came up through the ranks as a Cessna/Piper trainee. (As well as those folks with whom English is not their native language). According to some unofficial stats, between 1/4 and 1/3 of Airbus-rated pilots come directly into the sidestick programme with no prior commercial flying experience and very little basic flight time. The ingenuity of the Airbus philosophy is what makes these groups viable as transport category pilots - at least until things digital go wobbly.
In order for our button to work, basic stick and rudder skills, or at the very least, a solid to-their-bones understanding of power and pitch would need to be second nature.
You may be right GFrange, but as others above and myself have offered, it is a matter of the airplane coming second to the survival of the crew, their fellow fliers in formation, and the success of the mission with the ultimate control over the mission and the aircraft, no matter the weather, situation, or aircraft condition, belonging to the pilot in command.
First, that AB is very aware of the need of such a feature in time critical circumstances.
In order for our button to work, basic stick and rudder skills, or at the very least, a solid to-their-bones understanding of power and pitch would need to be second nature.
Second, that human lives seem cynically less important than military material when it comes to engineers pride or commercial impact.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
all airliners should have a big yellow guarded switch that when turned on immediately turns them back into an aircraft.
Specifically (cannot cut'n'paste so para phrased):
Pitching down... Capt considered switching off ADIRUS to get Direct Law ... had they been switched off, overspeed/pitch protections would have been disabled ... Panel assessed certified 365KIAS limit would have been exceeded by significant margin .. potentially leading to significant damage to the aircraft
.. without excellent technology of A330 flight control laws... outcome could have been different ... realistic potential for loss of aircraft and 198 of our people.
The "big yellow switch", I suspect for the very few occasions it is required, would be overused, and sometimes inappropriately and accidents as a result. Think how many GPWS warnings ignored with impact shortly after? Regrettably, whilst technology is not infallible, humans are more so
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "big yellow switch", I suspect for the very few occasions it is required, would be overused, and sometimes inappropriately and accidents as a result.
I should add that this shortcoming of recent pilots, the lack of both basic flying skills and instinctual situational awareness is partly attributable to automation across all types and not the Airbus flight envelope protections philosophy per se.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A control column???
No thanks it would mess up my fine dining table!
In any event that is what the sidestick order indicator on the PFD is for! Actively monitor that to your hearts content.....
Good retort NoD!
No thanks it would mess up my fine dining table!
In any event that is what the sidestick order indicator on the PFD is for! Actively monitor that to your hearts content.....
Good retort NoD!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: middle of nowhere
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mockingjay
Stop pointing at other manufacturers, it's puerile and does not make the Airbus flaw go away! They have to fix it physically and not through print-band-aids.
By that let me point out a decisive difference between your mentioned Asiana/Boeing accident:
It makes a huge difference if an incident originates with a wrong choice of perfectly normal modes and legal techniques that was not picked up by an absent additional protection, or if it originates by a malfunctioning protection itself that was not induced by the pilot.
The first can and should be avoided by pilots and training is to blame, thus in the responsibility of the airline and regulator. The second is induced by design and the manufacturer is to blame, thus in his responsibility (and the regulators').
We end up at my basic criticism: CHANGE SOMETHING. Do not simply write additional procedures shoving down additional workload to pilots at awkward moments and by that absolve yourself of responsibility. That is despicable.
As to vapilot's statement:
You are confirming a second one of my long standing criticisms. Lack of training and putting inadequate candidates into modern cockpits.
While i understand that the huge need for adequate airline jockeys is almost impossible to satisfy, the trend to want to mitigate this with automatics and protections is to the least dubious. What i mean is that the recent accidents show a trend that this might not work to the extent that the big manufacturers and the regulators intended. Airline management will always hide behind the latter by pretending to do the minimum required and cynically accept the losses. It is therefore up to us professionals to raise the issue and ask for fast and more adequate remedies.
Defending one manufacturer in stating that the other has similar flaws is so beneath any decent professional conscience that it hurts. The pressure has to rise to an unbearable level for the regulator to force him to act. Neither airline management nor manufacturers will move a tad if not forced.
This thread is about Airbus, so forget Boeing for a moment and join us in applying pressure, for the sake of safety.
(You are free to the Boeing flaw thread, i am already there .....)
Stop pointing at other manufacturers, it's puerile and does not make the Airbus flaw go away! They have to fix it physically and not through print-band-aids.
By that let me point out a decisive difference between your mentioned Asiana/Boeing accident:
It makes a huge difference if an incident originates with a wrong choice of perfectly normal modes and legal techniques that was not picked up by an absent additional protection, or if it originates by a malfunctioning protection itself that was not induced by the pilot.
The first can and should be avoided by pilots and training is to blame, thus in the responsibility of the airline and regulator. The second is induced by design and the manufacturer is to blame, thus in his responsibility (and the regulators').
We end up at my basic criticism: CHANGE SOMETHING. Do not simply write additional procedures shoving down additional workload to pilots at awkward moments and by that absolve yourself of responsibility. That is despicable.
As to vapilot's statement:
You are confirming a second one of my long standing criticisms. Lack of training and putting inadequate candidates into modern cockpits.
While i understand that the huge need for adequate airline jockeys is almost impossible to satisfy, the trend to want to mitigate this with automatics and protections is to the least dubious. What i mean is that the recent accidents show a trend that this might not work to the extent that the big manufacturers and the regulators intended. Airline management will always hide behind the latter by pretending to do the minimum required and cynically accept the losses. It is therefore up to us professionals to raise the issue and ask for fast and more adequate remedies.
Defending one manufacturer in stating that the other has similar flaws is so beneath any decent professional conscience that it hurts. The pressure has to rise to an unbearable level for the regulator to force him to act. Neither airline management nor manufacturers will move a tad if not forced.
This thread is about Airbus, so forget Boeing for a moment and join us in applying pressure, for the sake of safety.
(You are free to the Boeing flaw thread, i am already there .....)
As the Airbus 'we're smarter than any pilot' design contributes to one incident / accident after another and they continue to 'patch the flight control software' in a futile attempt to finally make it 'pilot proof' you might wonder when they will finally admit they got it very badly wrong.
Of course they won't.
While I thank my lucky stars I fly a Boeing that if it ever second guesses me I just disconnect (really disconnect) the autopilot and I tell it exactly what I want to do and it complies, simple as that.
Of course they won't.
While I thank my lucky stars I fly a Boeing that if it ever second guesses me I just disconnect (really disconnect) the autopilot and I tell it exactly what I want to do and it complies, simple as that.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Exeter
Age: 59
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The print-band-aids solution as you point out is a short term fix whilst the problem is resolved. Its a little rich for you to tell me to stop pointing out flaws of other manufacturers. Fair point. Perhaps. But may I suggest you stick to this issue/OEB48 and not make wild generalisations about the Airbus/FBW as a whole.
Admitting there's a fault and producing a robust workaround is highly commendable of Airbus. They didn't wait for smoking holes to appear.
Admitting there's a fault and producing a robust workaround is highly commendable of Airbus. They didn't wait for smoking holes to appear.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Y ou are confirming a second one of my long standing criticisms. Lack of training and putting inadequate candidates into modern cockpits.
While i understand that the huge need for adequate airline jockeys is almost impossible to satisfy, the trend to want to mitigate this with automatics and protections is to the least dubious. What i mean is that the recent accidents show a trend that this might not work to the extent that the big manufacturers and the regulators intended. Airline management will always hide behind the latter by pretending to do the minimum required and cynically accept the losses. It is therefore up to us professionals to raise the issue and ask for fast and more adequate remedies.
While i understand that the huge need for adequate airline jockeys is almost impossible to satisfy, the trend to want to mitigate this with automatics and protections is to the least dubious. What i mean is that the recent accidents show a trend that this might not work to the extent that the big manufacturers and the regulators intended. Airline management will always hide behind the latter by pretending to do the minimum required and cynically accept the losses. It is therefore up to us professionals to raise the issue and ask for fast and more adequate remedies.
If only pilot unions were less focused on pay scales, time limits, and liability fights, not to mention membership numbers, and instead, more focused on protecting and advancing our group as a whole...
This begs the question and opens up an altruistic opportunity for a new group in this new millennium to emerge - an international union of pilots with a shared central purpose: the perpetuation and preservation of classic pilotage skills and the safety of air transport travel in the face of tight airline budgets, newfangled and skill-sucking gadgetry, and too little/too late/too over-encompassing regulation that is often steamrollered into the docket before those with the most to lose and benefit can have their earned and learned say.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Exeter
Age: 59
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well. You know people could just hand fly a bit more. My airline encourages it and it is done a lot in the sim. Perhaps a list of airlines forbidding pilots from manually flying an approach should be named and shamed? After all automation complacency and lack of flying skills is an industry wide issue. I don't proclaim to fly every single approach manually but I do to keep up the flying skills. As do many of my colleagues.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well. You know people could just hand fly a bit more. My airline encourages it and it is done a lot in the sim. Perhaps a list of airlines forbidding pilots from manually flying an approach should be named and shamed? After all automation complacency and lack of flying skills is an industry wide issue. I don't proclaim to fly every single approach manually but I do to keep up the flying skills. As do many of my colleagues.
Increased (and paid) simulator sessions would be a partial solution and should be regulated into a trial program of volunteer pilots and airlines. Without government subsidy or tax breaks, it would raise costs in the short term, but as we as a group become more man-machine conversant, the rate of the very costly 'incidents' and accidents would decrease dramatically if our original lack of skills theory holds true - I'm betting there's little disagreement on that last bit... It would be a small price to pay for such a dramatic increase in our shared pool of solid, basic flying skills, to be applied as needed.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: london
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahh!!
Incredible.
Alot of people are missing the argument here, i think its in agreement the automation has saved lives and has made flying safer, its about when it goes wrong(not necessarily software but hardware), and what is in place when this occurs.
What i find utterly incredible is there hasn't been more protest from pilots who from day to day fly these machines, i've read on here for years about people believing a 'red button' or such should exist on AB to revert back to 'an airplane' or safe default AS/trim.
Would such a button potentially give the crew valuable time for 'panic fog' to clear and the ability to gain control then assess the issues thus saving pax and crew? If yes then why hasn't this been demanded? Fear of losing ones job for suggesting such a profit wasting feature?
If i had my way tomorrow, i would introduce such a switch along with training to fly in direct law (along with familiarity of manual operation of THS). An enforced training drill which must me executed x times a year along with stall recovery procedures (which has also been evidently lacking in some fatal incidents).
As someone here has pointed out it (manual overide button) is utilised in the military AB spec already, so there must be some requirement, although i have no idea in what mode/law it operates and the benefits.
I feel a button/training mentioned above would be far more beneficial than additional training and bulletins to decipher various ACARS messages etc in a panic situation in bad weather working out what needs disabling first, whilst grappling with an A/C behaving in a strange and unpredictable way. Whilst the self righteous people on the ground are tut'ing 'should of known that from your training'.
Now, why hasn't this been addressed, contested, protested with the powers that be. You have the power! I can barely fly a quadcopter and it seems obvious to me.
Alot of people are missing the argument here, i think its in agreement the automation has saved lives and has made flying safer, its about when it goes wrong(not necessarily software but hardware), and what is in place when this occurs.
What i find utterly incredible is there hasn't been more protest from pilots who from day to day fly these machines, i've read on here for years about people believing a 'red button' or such should exist on AB to revert back to 'an airplane' or safe default AS/trim.
Would such a button potentially give the crew valuable time for 'panic fog' to clear and the ability to gain control then assess the issues thus saving pax and crew? If yes then why hasn't this been demanded? Fear of losing ones job for suggesting such a profit wasting feature?
If i had my way tomorrow, i would introduce such a switch along with training to fly in direct law (along with familiarity of manual operation of THS). An enforced training drill which must me executed x times a year along with stall recovery procedures (which has also been evidently lacking in some fatal incidents).
As someone here has pointed out it (manual overide button) is utilised in the military AB spec already, so there must be some requirement, although i have no idea in what mode/law it operates and the benefits.
I feel a button/training mentioned above would be far more beneficial than additional training and bulletins to decipher various ACARS messages etc in a panic situation in bad weather working out what needs disabling first, whilst grappling with an A/C behaving in a strange and unpredictable way. Whilst the self righteous people on the ground are tut'ing 'should of known that from your training'.
Now, why hasn't this been addressed, contested, protested with the powers that be. You have the power! I can barely fly a quadcopter and it seems obvious to me.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Exeter
Age: 59
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I personally don't worry about this issue. I'm well aware of what to do should the worst happen. I say I don't worry as I am pretty confident that fix will work. I don't worry however I am well aware of it and always highly vigilant of what's happening.
Stator Vane - you are very right. One CP pointed out to me as FO after a few months on line that I (like many many others) have a tendency to over control. Since then I conciously thoight 'make the plane do what you want, but achieve it by using HALF as many side stick inputs as you feel that you need' and that works, for me anyway, particularly in blustery conditions. There's one place we fly to that is hot, thermal and has lots of factories below the final app. I used to find myself working hard flying over this area, now it's a lot smoother and a lot easier too! Another place we fly to has a pretty short runway with a hump in the TDZ. Again it's a lot easier using less inputs.
I'm just a mere FO but any TRI/TRE/TCs got any thoughts on sidestick use?
Stator Vane - you are very right. One CP pointed out to me as FO after a few months on line that I (like many many others) have a tendency to over control. Since then I conciously thoight 'make the plane do what you want, but achieve it by using HALF as many side stick inputs as you feel that you need' and that works, for me anyway, particularly in blustery conditions. There's one place we fly to that is hot, thermal and has lots of factories below the final app. I used to find myself working hard flying over this area, now it's a lot smoother and a lot easier too! Another place we fly to has a pretty short runway with a hump in the TDZ. Again it's a lot easier using less inputs.
I'm just a mere FO but any TRI/TRE/TCs got any thoughts on sidestick use?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We end up at my basic criticism: CHANGE SOMETHING. Do not simply write additional procedures shoving down additional workload to pilots at awkward moments and by that absolve yourself of responsibility. That is despicable.
This thread is about Airbus, so forget Boeing for a moment and join us in applying pressure, for the sake of safety.
This thread is about Airbus, so forget Boeing for a moment and join us in applying pressure, for the sake of safety.
It now very roughly covers 50% of the civil airliner flying. I would therefore suggest the technology is proven safe. Not 100% safe, nothing is. Therefore the only changes I think we will see will be incremental tweaks, not the fundamental redesign in either hardware or software you seem to seek?
Only my guess, I have say 8k hrs on FBW Airbus. Yes, for handling I'd rather the 757 I've also flown, but I have no safety concerns about the Airbus. Although of course today's events might alter things
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from the technical challenge, is there any reason why these side sticks could not be arranged to move together?
I know that plenty of aircraft with conventionally linked controls have had accidents, but an aircraft that can have one set of controls set in opposition to the other, seems less than optimal.
I know that plenty of aircraft with conventionally linked controls have had accidents, but an aircraft that can have one set of controls set in opposition to the other, seems less than optimal.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from the technical challenge, is there any reason why these side sticks could not be arranged to move together?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from the technical challenge, is there any reason why these side sticks could not be arranged to move together?
I know that plenty of aircraft with conventionally linked controls have had accidents, but an aircraft that can have one set of controls set in opposition to the other, seems less than optimal.
I know that plenty of aircraft with conventionally linked controls have had accidents, but an aircraft that can have one set of controls set in opposition to the other, seems less than optimal.
In day to day ops, it is pretty much a non-event. The "Dual Input" audio has been added as a mitigation. In training, or when 1 pilot does something completely off the wall (AF447), it is not ideal.
However, given the large numbers of ab-initio cadets that transfer successfully to the 320 series, I would say that the requirement to link (or force drive?) the sidesticks is not compelling enough to:
- Redesign the whole cockpit hardware
- Redesign and certify the software
- Retrain all crews to the new design and SOPs
- Take aircraft out of service, modufy them at great expense
- Run training and operations for a considerable time with both the "new" and "current" systems
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hampshire physically; Perthshire and Pembrokeshire mentally.
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I should imagine so, yes. The task of redesigning and re-certifying the worldwide A320 series fleet, A330 fleet, A340 fleet, A350 fleet and A380 fleet defies imagination. Better to make sure the next generation of FBW airliners have interlinked controls. Or only one pilot. 