Airbus Crosswind... "White Knuckled Landing"

[Fat Busdriver]

Originally Posted by fox niner

Without going into the B vs. A discussion, could someone with airbus experience clarify something for me? ...Since I have exactly 0 minutes flight hours on an airbus.
We were lining up behind a departing A340 in a strong crosswind. There was NO aileron input at all into the wind during their takeoff roll. The plane was clearly begging for it, as the upwind wing was higher than the downwind wing. When it lifted off the runway, only THEN was aileron input introduced. My colleague said that this was normal in an airbus because of design/control law etc.
To me it seems consistent with this landing of this airbus in Birmingham, above. No cross control in the way I have been doing the past 3 decades on boeings.

Instructors teach you not to use aileron input, reason is it's a bigger danger of having spoilers extended than no having aileron input (they simply don't thrust pilots to not overcompensate) . With this said any good pilot will still use a bit of aileron. Try it in a sim with max crosswind, it is very hard to maintain centerline and steady wings without using aileron and I always use it! Rudder is there for a reason it is not a naked girl being touched by a virgin! Step on it!! All these things apply to any aircraft 737, 172 etc. People complicate Airbus too much it is just an aircraft and it flies like an aircraft (almost) despite FBW etc, don't think just fly! Biggest problem is companies not allowing pilots to fly, all these stupid rules, with FDs, APs, Autothrust, Visual approaches......makes pilots dumb! I am lucky to fly for acompany where you actually get to fly and guess what? A330 is just a big C172 I handle it the same way, except on ground, taxi it nice and slow :-)

[Centaurus]

all these stupid rules, with FDs, APs, Autothrust, Visual approaches

How true that is. One 737 operator in Australia now requires their crews to select landing flap downwind because their pilots have difficulty flying a visual downwind and cannot guarantee to be stabilised for landing by 1000 ft. So the powers that be decide that if you can arrange to be stable and all landing checks completed before turning base, then in theory they should already be stable passing 1000 ft.

[fdr]

Originally Posted by Centaurus

How true that is. One 737 operator in Australia now requires their crews to select landing flap downwind because their pilots have difficulty flying a visual downwind and cannot guarantee to be stabilised for landing by 1000 ft. So the powers that be decide that if you can arrange to be stable and all landing checks completed before turning base, then in theory they should already be stable passing 1000 ft.

Unintended consequences can be that in such a case, the standard GPWS modes are reduced in effectiveness by being in the landing configuration. With the wonders of Don Batemans creativity, EGPWS still exists, but configuring early removes a layer of onion skin off of Shrek, as much as configuring and completing the checklist before turning base would. Circling approaches were fun, but they have had their time, and with RNP-AR Radius To Fix approach capabiity, there is really little justification for circling approaches anywhere. If anyone wants RNP-AR approaches sorted out, or ARA, or point in space approaches, GAS on the VIC/NSW border does very capable work in that area.

The commercial imperatives in a competitive market make it difficult for the airlines to justify spending the additional time for training that is above the minimum required to achieve compliance with an approved training matrix. Reinforcement training is great, when the issues are known, but most of the time we are placing bandaids on top of bandaids, making checklists include more items that can now get in the way of driving an aircraft. This is off topic, but then the topic was to raise the general question of training and comfprt of our flight crew going out into the wide world and slaying dragons on a daily basis. Aviation doesn't happen because of lift and drag, it happens because of confidence that people have in being able to go out and deal with the vagaries of operating in a complex dynamic environment.

Around 98% of all HF incidents involve loss of SA at some point in the process. Often, it is because the crew are busy dealing with compliance matters, (not always, but ti happens), and end up losing the plot. Our rules, regulations and procedures end up being blood based, and become a cascade of changes to the operator of the aircraft. Sometimes those changes are well thought out, and the change management processes really deal with risk analysis, sometimes they do not. The best solution is going to be well trained crews, who comprehend what the rules are, and why they are there. That is the same as a reasonable way to fly, knowing what you do, and why you do so. The upside of some knowledge about why is that when things go pear shaped, then the mismatch between what needs to occur, is recognised, S.A. Level 1, understood S.A. Level 2, and the implications of the problems can be comprehended promptly, S.A. Level 3, and defences implemented to maintain a safe operation.

Today, we do little in the way of S.A. training, which is a shame as it impacts all aspects of the operation, and can be conducted at very low levels of fidelity.

Cognitive loads on the flight crew impact S.A. and it's maintenance. The risk areas are identifiable in the funny pages, as well as the happy snaps such as the videos in this thread etc. The conditions we ask crews to fly in puts considerable load on the crew to make good decisions, and there are occasions that the crews would probably make different decisions if they could roll back the clock, and the passengers might just understand that.

[ImageGear]

The Green/Magenta Line?

After staying with this thread from its beginning, I am more uncomfortable than ever with the responsibility placed on very young captains who simply cannot have gained the wealth of experience that is obviously necessary to deal effectively and consistently, with the situations covered above.

The media has recently featured several really young crews, flying their all singing and dancing, company wonder jet. When your destination is a socked in, and a "captains only" landing, (Thinking Nice on Westerlies) should I not be more nervous?

IG

[Capn Bloggs]

Originally Posted by Centaurus

One 737 operator in Australia now requires their crews to select landing flap downwind because their pilots have difficulty flying a visual downwind and cannot guarantee to be stabilised for landing by 1000 ft. So the powers that be decide that if you can arrange to be stable and all landing checks completed before turning base, then in theory they should already be stable passing 1000 ft.

Forgive me for going off-topic for a post, but I don't actually have a problem with this. It works well. In the old days with no autothrottles, no FDs to speak of, and no FDM, it was all a piece of cake. Now it's different. Everybody's watching, and the automatics can make life more difficult. For example, remember the nice, reduced-power base and Final with the speed slowly reducing? That was because there was no ATS. Now, she's all on or all at idle. Flap changes, min speeds, VS being wound in, MCP speed being changed, checklists, sink rates, bank angles, it goes on and on. Much easier to do all that on downwind, get everything done and just do a easy base turn onto final. In fact, that is what my FCOM says to do on a min weather circle, so it can't be too dangerous. Better SA around the base turn.

And don't get me wrong; I am all in favour of having the visual pattern in our quiver of options. Now, back to white-knuckle crosswind landings!