Airbus pilots 'too reliant on technology'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the rez
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus pilots 'too reliant on technology'
EXCLUSIVE by VICTORIA BUTTON
A Cathay Pacific Airbus.
Cathay Pacific Airbus pilots are to be given mandatory briefings after a warning that they are relying too heavily on automatic systems to correct potentially dangerous errors.
In a leaked internal e-mail, dated July 31, chief pilot of the Airbus fleet Richard Hall warned that over-reliance on automatic protection systems was potentially dangerous. "If we do not address this issue, I believe that one day we may step outside the capabilities of the protections and get badly bitten," he said.
The error detected by Cathay was of pilots retracting wing flaps too soon after take-off when the plane was going too slowly, the e-mail said.
A pilot said Airbus planes had an automatic system which increased the plane's speed - by opening the throttle and pointing the nose of the plane down - to keep it flying if the wing flaps were retracted too early. Cathay has 35 Airbus planes.
"We are relying on our 'protected' aircraft to look after us rather than good airmanship and adherence to standard operating procedures," he said.
"Unfortunately, it is still only an aircraft, it obeys the basic laws of aerodynamics."
Mr Hall said pilots of Cathay's 42 Boeings, which did not have the automatic protection facility, were not retracting the wing flaps early, leading him to conclude the Airbus pilots were afflicted by "automation complacency".
All pilots would be ordered to attend mandatory briefings on the situation to emphasise the importance the airline placed on it, he said. Information also will be posted on Cathay's internal Web site and notice boards.
Former head of the Civil Aviation Department Peter Lok Kung-nam said the situation described in the e-mail was "not that dangerous" because of multiple layers of protection in pilot training, aircraft design and clear take-off routes.
However, there was a risk that conflict between human and computer commands could put the plane in a situation its systems were not programmed to handle, he said.
In addition, the computer could keep the aircraft from stalling but would not automatically stop it from crashing into obstacles, he said.
"Complacency is simply taboo in the pilot profession," said Mr Lok, who is now an aviation consultant.
Mr Lok said there had been crashes in the past caused by pilots who were not aware of the limitations of automatic systems, and by pilots retracting wing flaps too early in planes with no automatic protection.
The managing director of Trinity Aviation, Steve Miller, said the e-mail appeared to show that Cathay's system of monitoring their cockpits was effective.
"I wouldn't worry," he said.
One pilot said the incidents detected were not in themselves of major concern, but could be a symptom of something more important, such as complacency or tiredness.
However, incidents such as those described in the e-mail could potentially lead to a so-called "coffin corner" scenario where the anti-stall mechanism, which provided extra speed, could cause another type of problem, such as a collision.
Cathay Pacific spokeswoman Lisa Wong Lai-shan said: "We have a flight operation monitoring system in place and part of the chief pilot's job is to be pro-active in identifying ways to improve the standard of operation."
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cannot comment directly because I have not flown Airbus equipment however have received comments from those who have, and their general opinion is the EFIS displays are excellent but the general philosophy of the Airbus FBW system leaves the pilot "out of the loop" to some extent. Wonder if other carriers have been having the same problems as Cathay?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411a.
I fail to see how the FBW system can lead a pilot into retracting flap early. The indicating system shows quite clearly at what minimum speed the flap should be retracted and I ,among many, have never found it confusing.
I fail to see how the FBW system can lead a pilot into retracting flap early. The indicating system shows quite clearly at what minimum speed the flap should be retracted and I ,among many, have never found it confusing.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
apfds
Well, you could be right, but Cathay seems to have a problem...and the question still stands, are other airlines having the same difficulities?
Hard to believe...yes, but maybe so.
Well, you could be right, but Cathay seems to have a problem...and the question still stands, are other airlines having the same difficulities?
Hard to believe...yes, but maybe so.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Brief Explanation Please?
For the benefit of those of us not familiar with Airbus systems could someone who knows just briefly explain what they believe the CX crews are doing that would trigger these reports please?
Are they selecting flaps up, (by increments), when the speed shows them to be 'in the parish' and relying on the safety system to take care of things? Just my guess, nothing more.
Seems highly unlikely that they would deliberately select flaps 'up' when below the indicated flap speed unless they felt it was safe to do so.
Enough speculation! Any answers please?
Are they selecting flaps up, (by increments), when the speed shows them to be 'in the parish' and relying on the safety system to take care of things? Just my guess, nothing more.
Seems highly unlikely that they would deliberately select flaps 'up' when below the indicated flap speed unless they felt it was safe to do so.
Enough speculation! Any answers please?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the rez
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cathay defends its record after warning
VICTORIA BUTTON
Cathay Pacific yesterday defended its safety record after an internal e-mail, which warned pilots were relying too often on automatic systems to correct potentially dangerous errors, became public.
However, the airline's spokeswoman, Lisa Wong Lai-shan, refused to detail the number of incidents of early wing flap retraction on Airbus planes, saying this was an internal issue and was not related to safety.
She also refused to say whether any or all of the incidents had been reported to the Civil Aviation Department. "Cathay Pacific . . . is one of the safest airlines in the industry. We do have a very strict system to monitor our operations and will continue to identify ways to improve," she said.
The unspecified number of incidents was small compared to the number of flights Cathay operated, she said.
In the July 31 e-mail, entitled Flap Retraction Again, chief pilot of the Airbus fleet, Richard Hall, warned: "We are relying on our protected aircraft to look after us rather than good airmanship . . . one day we may step outside the capabilities of the protections and get badly bitten."
Pilots were being detected retracting wing flaps on take-off before the plane was going fast enough to fly without them extended, causing an automatic system to intervene to increase the plane's speed, the e-mail said.
It made it clear there had been repeated incidents but did not go into detail.
Former head of the Civil Aviation Department, Peter Lok Kung-nam, said Cathay should report all such incidents to the department. "It's a deviation from standard operating procedures and . . . potentially could result in a serious incident or accident."
He said the incidents were not that dangerous but said conflict between human and computer commands could end in disaster.
According to the Civil Aviation Department, Cathay reported only one incident this year.
A department spokeswoman yesterday said that such incidents did not need to be reported: "It's not a safety issue . . . there's no mechanical failure."
However, after learning of Mr Lok's view, she said that whether a report was required or not depended on the outcome of the flight crew's manoeuvres.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blue Eagle,
Difficult to say and in fact I find the report hard to believe.
The airbus system shows clearly on the speed tape when it is safe to retract the next stage of flap, and this speed is being constantly computed for weight changes etc.
If CX have a problem then the most likely reason is a training standards one.
Difficult to say and in fact I find the report hard to believe.
The airbus system shows clearly on the speed tape when it is safe to retract the next stage of flap, and this speed is being constantly computed for weight changes etc.
If CX have a problem then the most likely reason is a training standards one.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not being an Airbus person, can anyone tell me if the automatics extend as far as flap settings? In other words, does the computerised protection stop flap retraction if they are selected up early?
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In reply to SafetyBod,
The Airbus system has a couple of systems that affect flap/slat retraction/extension.
For the benefit of the uninitiated, there are 2 speeds that are, as has already been pointed out, continuously computed for weight changes. "F" speed is the minimum speed for flap retraction. "S" speed is the minimum speed for slat retraction. The slats/flaps will move whenever the pilot moves the lever, however SOP is obviously to not retract until above either "F" or "S" speed, as applicable.
The first system to affect slat/flap movement is Flap Load Relief. This is fitted to the A330, and I believe, the A340. This purely inhibits flap extension when the load is too great to avoid surface damage. The only time you see this in action is when you are heavy and you select flap quite close to the Vfe for that setting.
The next system is Auto Flap Retract. This system automatically retracts one stage of flap when speed approaches Vfe, again to avoid damage. You usually see this when on a high weight takeoff, and Vfe for Flap 1+F is below or close to "S" speed. The slats never auto retract.
The last, and most relevant system to the above discussion is Alpha-Lock. This inhibits slat retraction at high angles of attack in order to keep the aircraft from getting too close to the stall.
"A pilot said Airbus planes had an automatic system which increased the plane's speed - by opening the throttle and pointing the nose of the plane down - to keep it flying if the wing flaps were retracted too early."
This sounds to me like the high angle of attack protection, which you should hopefully NEVER see, if you are flying the aircraft like any other.
I too find this report hard to believe, and would imagine that once again, facts have become distorted through misunderstandings.
The Airbus system has a couple of systems that affect flap/slat retraction/extension.
For the benefit of the uninitiated, there are 2 speeds that are, as has already been pointed out, continuously computed for weight changes. "F" speed is the minimum speed for flap retraction. "S" speed is the minimum speed for slat retraction. The slats/flaps will move whenever the pilot moves the lever, however SOP is obviously to not retract until above either "F" or "S" speed, as applicable.
The first system to affect slat/flap movement is Flap Load Relief. This is fitted to the A330, and I believe, the A340. This purely inhibits flap extension when the load is too great to avoid surface damage. The only time you see this in action is when you are heavy and you select flap quite close to the Vfe for that setting.
The next system is Auto Flap Retract. This system automatically retracts one stage of flap when speed approaches Vfe, again to avoid damage. You usually see this when on a high weight takeoff, and Vfe for Flap 1+F is below or close to "S" speed. The slats never auto retract.
The last, and most relevant system to the above discussion is Alpha-Lock. This inhibits slat retraction at high angles of attack in order to keep the aircraft from getting too close to the stall.
"A pilot said Airbus planes had an automatic system which increased the plane's speed - by opening the throttle and pointing the nose of the plane down - to keep it flying if the wing flaps were retracted too early."
This sounds to me like the high angle of attack protection, which you should hopefully NEVER see, if you are flying the aircraft like any other.
I too find this report hard to believe, and would imagine that once again, facts have become distorted through misunderstandings.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alpha Floor is an additional protection which applies TOGA thrust when the aircraft reaches a certain angle of attack threshold, again to avoid the stall. This threshold varies according to several factors, one of them being aircraft configuration. Also, when the aircraft is extremely nose high (greater than 25 degrees nose up), and the pilot pulls the sidestick more than 14 degrees back, the Alpha Floor will activate.
Alpha Floor will engage and apply TOGA thrust regardless of thrust lever postion or autothrust engagement. In other words, you can have the autothrust disengaged, and both thrust levers held fully closed, and Alpha Floor will still engage if required. You do not get Alpha Floor is when either the autothrust is unserviceable, or the aircraft is below 100ft RA in approach. There are one or two other times as well, but these are the main ones for normal operations.
The only way of getting out of Alpha Floor once in it, is to disconnect the autothrust.
I would be very surprised if CX has been getting Alpha Floor on flap retraction - you can get it, but only if you abuse the aircraft completely, and CX are not exactly renowned for abusing their aeroplanes.
Hope this helps
Alpha Floor will engage and apply TOGA thrust regardless of thrust lever postion or autothrust engagement. In other words, you can have the autothrust disengaged, and both thrust levers held fully closed, and Alpha Floor will still engage if required. You do not get Alpha Floor is when either the autothrust is unserviceable, or the aircraft is below 100ft RA in approach. There are one or two other times as well, but these are the main ones for normal operations.
The only way of getting out of Alpha Floor once in it, is to disconnect the autothrust.
I would be very surprised if CX has been getting Alpha Floor on flap retraction - you can get it, but only if you abuse the aircraft completely, and CX are not exactly renowned for abusing their aeroplanes.
Hope this helps
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the rez
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Save it for the Fragrant Harbour forum mate. A different standard of debate and ettiquette here and in Tech Log.
PPRuNe Towers
I didn't take it down this road. The accuracy and truthfulness of an article in a reputable paper is questioned yet you delete a reply to a post basically calling all involved liars, from half way around the world no less. And their post stands?
Ettiquette? Yeah right!
PPRuNe Towers
I didn't take it down this road. The accuracy and truthfulness of an article in a reputable paper is questioned yet you delete a reply to a post basically calling all involved liars, from half way around the world no less. And their post stands?
Ettiquette? Yeah right!
Last edited by 6feetunder; 3rd Sep 2002 at 19:09.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Hang on, I'll check my roster...
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A REPUTABLE paper!!!! I'm sorry, I must be reading things!!! Pilots must analytically and critically survey information presented to them. In my experience when newspapers get involved very little is analytical!! Surely you must have once read an article in a paper on a subject you are familiar with? If you have then you know there is often only the merest shred of truth there with a lot of 'story' to keep it company... I didnt notice anyone calling anyone else a liar, its just that what they reported in '''''good faith'''' seems incredibly unlikely to be accurate; activating alpha floor with pax on board would have been noticed by all and hysterical passengers who had been 'nearly killed' by Cathaywould have been on BBC/CNN et al the second they got off the phone to their lawyers...
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: All the leaves are brown, and the sky is grey....
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Situation:
Heavy weight take-off in Config 1+F. Flaps auto retracted is normal at 200kts.
PF requested Flap Zero below S speed and PNF failed to check prior to selecting it. Alpha Floor activated.
Eye catching I imagine but hardly 'reliance upon automatics'.
Plenty of learning points thats for sure. Plenty of poetic licence in SCMP article.
Heavy weight take-off in Config 1+F. Flaps auto retracted is normal at 200kts.
PF requested Flap Zero below S speed and PNF failed to check prior to selecting it. Alpha Floor activated.
Eye catching I imagine but hardly 'reliance upon automatics'.
Plenty of learning points thats for sure. Plenty of poetic licence in SCMP article.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alpha Floor
This is dated 19 June 01 from HKG-IST.
Inadvertent flap selection led to alpha floor activation
While departing HKG on a Bream 3 SID, after passing 1500 feet climb thrust was set and the modes called, after which the PF requested "Pack 1 ON". The PNF inadvertently selected the flap up and the Alpha Floor activated.
After a momentary assessment Flap 1 was reselected and the climb and clean up carried out. The flight continued without further incident.
Comments by CSD
At the acceleration altitude (approximately 1600 ft) the PF called "Pack1 ON". He commented that he was expecting the "flaps" call. On hearing the call for "Pack 1 ON' he selected the flaps to "0" he selected the flaps to "0" without calling "speed checked". He selected Pack 1 and then Pack 2 to the ON position. On the Captains command he then selected the flap to 1. ATC communications were not a factor.
The F/O had recently completed his CCQ and this was his third or fourth long haul sector on the A340. It was approximately 5AM when his partner left for work and had not slept before commencing duty.
Findings
Non -adherence to SOP's- "Pack 1 ON" is not a standard call. The selection of the Packs to ON is automatically complete by the PNF following thrust reduction. The PNF did not call "speed checked" prior to retraction the flaps to "0"
The PNF, who was new to the A340 fleet, had been awake for 19 hours prior to departure.
The crew recovered from this incident well. The remainder of the flight was without incident.
QQOR data:
Time Event
1623:29 Climb Thrust selected
1623:34 Flap 0 was selected and the flaps and slats began to retract (CAS was 176 knots and S-speed was approximately 220 knots)
1623:49 Alpha Floor activation
1623:47 Slats fully retracted
1624:00 Flap 1 selected
1624:02 Alpha Floor mode changes to TOGA Lock
According to the Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department, this is clearly not a safety issue.
Inadvertent flap selection led to alpha floor activation
While departing HKG on a Bream 3 SID, after passing 1500 feet climb thrust was set and the modes called, after which the PF requested "Pack 1 ON". The PNF inadvertently selected the flap up and the Alpha Floor activated.
After a momentary assessment Flap 1 was reselected and the climb and clean up carried out. The flight continued without further incident.
Comments by CSD
At the acceleration altitude (approximately 1600 ft) the PF called "Pack1 ON". He commented that he was expecting the "flaps" call. On hearing the call for "Pack 1 ON' he selected the flaps to "0" he selected the flaps to "0" without calling "speed checked". He selected Pack 1 and then Pack 2 to the ON position. On the Captains command he then selected the flap to 1. ATC communications were not a factor.
The F/O had recently completed his CCQ and this was his third or fourth long haul sector on the A340. It was approximately 5AM when his partner left for work and had not slept before commencing duty.
Findings
Non -adherence to SOP's- "Pack 1 ON" is not a standard call. The selection of the Packs to ON is automatically complete by the PNF following thrust reduction. The PNF did not call "speed checked" prior to retraction the flaps to "0"
The PNF, who was new to the A340 fleet, had been awake for 19 hours prior to departure.
The crew recovered from this incident well. The remainder of the flight was without incident.
QQOR data:
Time Event
1623:29 Climb Thrust selected
1623:34 Flap 0 was selected and the flaps and slats began to retract (CAS was 176 knots and S-speed was approximately 220 knots)
1623:49 Alpha Floor activation
1623:47 Slats fully retracted
1624:00 Flap 1 selected
1624:02 Alpha Floor mode changes to TOGA Lock
According to the Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department, this is clearly not a safety issue.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm, not a safety issue?
Seems to me that selecting flaps/slats at improper speeds IS a safety issue. Perhaps HKG operates to a different standard.
And, no rest for 19 hours before the flight? The pilot in question actually admitted this?
If correct, WHAT was he doing assigned/reporting for the flight?
Is it NOT the crewmembers responsibility to BE properly rested?
And, WHY was he not?
Seems to me that selecting flaps/slats at improper speeds IS a safety issue. Perhaps HKG operates to a different standard.
And, no rest for 19 hours before the flight? The pilot in question actually admitted this?
If correct, WHAT was he doing assigned/reporting for the flight?
Is it NOT the crewmembers responsibility to BE properly rested?
And, WHY was he not?
Last edited by 411A; 9th Sep 2002 at 17:20.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A,
We ALL make mistakes. I would imagine that the pilots involved won't be making that one again. It is a relevant learning point for all of us. Suggest you don't cast aspersions about other people's safety standards when you are not in posession of the full facts. Maybe you don't make mistakes????
We ALL make mistakes. I would imagine that the pilots involved won't be making that one again. It is a relevant learning point for all of us. Suggest you don't cast aspersions about other people's safety standards when you are not in posession of the full facts. Maybe you don't make mistakes????
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the rez
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's the rub 411A, you go sick you get a letter. Do it again, another letter, do it again.... need I go on. There are a lot of pilots at CX reporting for duty when they are unfit. Management has created an atmosphere so ripe with intimidation that this is going to lead to a serious incident.
SLT, we all make mistakes but we should also be trying to find out why to minimise them being made again.
SLT, we all make mistakes but we should also be trying to find out why to minimise them being made again.