The Danger with Rapid Rotations
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: East of West and North of South
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you can provide a reference from the your Airbus manual with a recommendation to look at the PFD during rotation and flare, all I can say is strange aircrafts, strange ideas! However, I doubt you can...?
Takeoff:
Rotation is conventional. The PF must perform the rotation mainly head-up, using outside visual reference until airborne, or at least until visual cues are lost, depending on visibility conditions. The PF must then monitor the pitch attitude on the PFD.
Flare:
In order to assess the rate of descent in the flare, and the aircraft position relative to the ground, look well ahead of the aircraft.
Rotation is conventional. The PF must perform the rotation mainly head-up, using outside visual reference until airborne, or at least until visual cues are lost, depending on visibility conditions. The PF must then monitor the pitch attitude on the PFD.
Flare:
In order to assess the rate of descent in the flare, and the aircraft position relative to the ground, look well ahead of the aircraft.
I could not agree with you more Cosmo and with you less Dani.
Regardless of the size (or width) of the jet transport in question rotation is a VISUAL manoeuvre.
Your monitoring Pilot can be double checking your pitch attitude after VR but your eyes should be out of the cockpit until you are properly airborne when you can transition to the ADI and start a normal scan.
Seat position is vital to one's perspective.
And the same with landing, once over the threshold you should have transitioned to 100% visual, looking down at the far end of the runway to judge sink rate and subsequent flare, once again the Pilot monitoring can be double checking attitude (and other indications)
If you are the Pilot flying and are rotating for take off and flaring for landing by watching the ADI you are doing it WRONG.
No matter what you are type rated on.
Regardless of the size (or width) of the jet transport in question rotation is a VISUAL manoeuvre.
Your monitoring Pilot can be double checking your pitch attitude after VR but your eyes should be out of the cockpit until you are properly airborne when you can transition to the ADI and start a normal scan.
Seat position is vital to one's perspective.
And the same with landing, once over the threshold you should have transitioned to 100% visual, looking down at the far end of the runway to judge sink rate and subsequent flare, once again the Pilot monitoring can be double checking attitude (and other indications)
If you are the Pilot flying and are rotating for take off and flaring for landing by watching the ADI you are doing it WRONG.
No matter what you are type rated on.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and flaring for landing by watching the ADI you are doing it WRONG.
Your monitoring Pilot can be double checking your pitch attitude after VR but your eyes should be out of the cockpit until you are properly airborne when you can transition to the ADI and start a normal scan.
Define "properly airborne" please.
Surely it's a question of using all the cues and information which is available?
For me one of the best tips an experienced training captain on the B737-800 gave me was don't exceed 10 degrees pitch up below 10 feet RA - I agree the key is rotation rate though - the vast majority I see are much too rapid!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK465, the HUD is a great tool, but not all that many airlines have ordered it. My outfit included, they opted rather for ther CAT IIIb option instead. Interesting enough boeing opted to put a dual HUD installation as standard equipment into the 787. Will be interesting to see it in operation.
Anyway, judging correct rotation-rate is nothing new and something we learned from our first take offs during flight school. One just has to adjust rotation rate according to tail clearance and aircraft length, but that can be easily done visually by any competent pilot.
Funny enough, we have both an airbus and a 737 fleet. No tailstrikes on the 737 in the last 30 years although we always flew the longer variants (400, 800) and according to FOQA there is low overall tailstrike risk. On the airbus fleet (except 321) the tailstrike is much higher and we had already few of those. Wonder why, but probably because of a mentality like Dani's that is quite prevalent on that fleet.
Anyway, judging correct rotation-rate is nothing new and something we learned from our first take offs during flight school. One just has to adjust rotation rate according to tail clearance and aircraft length, but that can be easily done visually by any competent pilot.
Funny enough, we have both an airbus and a 737 fleet. No tailstrikes on the 737 in the last 30 years although we always flew the longer variants (400, 800) and according to FOQA there is low overall tailstrike risk. On the airbus fleet (except 321) the tailstrike is much higher and we had already few of those. Wonder why, but probably because of a mentality like Dani's that is quite prevalent on that fleet.
Last edited by Denti; 9th Feb 2012 at 09:04.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rotation is a VISUAL manoeuvre.
There is no neighter nor, it is a "fading in" or out, a simple change in scanning rate. Airbus FCTM says it best when it says that you shouldn't look out anymore if you don't have references anymore. I wonder how much reference you get with 10° pitch looking forward and seated correctly.
I find it also funny when you play with the word "wide", since I'm not talking about the width of an aircraft but the shear mass and mainly length. There is no long body aircraft class as far as I know. Ridiculising a standard expression just makes me feel that you don't really get what I was saying.
Anyway, I hope you soon can make a transition to a wider or longer aircraft to proof my theory that not only the rate but also the correct value of degrees initial pitch up is essential.
I also favor HGS (Heady-up display) very much, I flew about 6000 hrs on regional aircraft with Cat III manual landing capability and can only see advantages in it. The problem is a financial one since the cost of the system is most probably higher than a few tail strikes or other incidents industry wide.
Cheers,
Dani
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The moon
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I taught my rotation rates were normal until I saw a video of one of my takeoffs on youtube. The tail got closer to the ground than I would have liked and I counted the time it took from nose wheel liftoff until what looked like 15 degrees nose up, it worked out to be 3.5 degrees per second! Since then I have slowed it down and I use the PFD.I now feel I have much better control than when I look outside. Maybe I'm just odd
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: East of West and North of South
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder how much reference you get with 10° pitch looking forward and seated correctly.
very true so, but as any visual manoeuvre you should never forget to scan for your instruments. Or are you advocating a visual approach simply by looking out?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: canada
Age: 85
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too fast rotation
There is another reason why too fast rotation is not a good procedure.
On our fleet we have had a number of fanblade interference with the inner shroud on our big 115 Tons GE's.
An engine of that size at T/O power does not like to have its direction changed too quickly.
On our fleet we have had a number of fanblade interference with the inner shroud on our big 115 Tons GE's.
An engine of that size at T/O power does not like to have its direction changed too quickly.
