what spirit for the A320?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: EU
Posts: 961
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what spirit for the A320?
hello,
I have studied the a320 systems for around 100h, and this plane is very complicated in his systems.I realize that nobody know exactly how this plane works.even engineers at airbus do not know it perfectly.
Other planes are much simpler.
am I correct?
I ve talked with an a320 pilot recently and he told me there are to many computers, and he told me to disconnect them if something goes wrong¨and be very carefull.(could be tricky?). several years ago, a A320 pilot stalled very close on the approach in paris...
what kind of mind should I have when learning-flying this plane.
the problem I have now is to remember the name of all these computers, and with what they are interconnected.(elac, fmgc, sec, fadec, FTC(flush toilet computer)...)
any suggestion?
I have studied the a320 systems for around 100h, and this plane is very complicated in his systems.I realize that nobody know exactly how this plane works.even engineers at airbus do not know it perfectly.
Other planes are much simpler.
am I correct?
I ve talked with an a320 pilot recently and he told me there are to many computers, and he told me to disconnect them if something goes wrong¨and be very carefull.(could be tricky?). several years ago, a A320 pilot stalled very close on the approach in paris...
what kind of mind should I have when learning-flying this plane.
the problem I have now is to remember the name of all these computers, and with what they are interconnected.(elac, fmgc, sec, fadec, FTC(flush toilet computer)...)
any suggestion?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 1,266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to many computers
several years ago, a A320 pilot stalled very close on the approach in paris...
I have studied the a320 systems for around 100h,
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Europe-the sunshine side
Posts: 755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually ,the plane stalled on approach in Paris was an A310...and also the 320 is not 100% stall proof,as some may think,fact unfortunately proved by few CFIT accidents during its operation.You have to do some 'tricks',though,to accmplish this.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: EU
Posts: 961
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there is even an amateur movie about the stalling of this airbus.
I wonder why the guy did, to stall the plane?with alpha max, radalt, gpws,and Airspeed indicator,...I thought speed and attitude was important during a landing, this is what I have learned on small planes.
what do you think abut the airbus?, this question is for pilots who did the transistion from a conventional airplane like the 737 or fokker100 to the airbus 320 family.
and how do you like the non conventional command?(stick)
I wonder why the guy did, to stall the plane?with alpha max, radalt, gpws,and Airspeed indicator,...I thought speed and attitude was important during a landing, this is what I have learned on small planes.
what do you think abut the airbus?, this question is for pilots who did the transistion from a conventional airplane like the 737 or fokker100 to the airbus 320 family.
and how do you like the non conventional command?(stick)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: ex-DXB
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Paris incident that you saw on video was not a stall. The incident would have happened in any jet a/c whose engines require 6 - 8 seconds spool-up time before full power is available. If the pilot had applied TOGA thrust any earlier that he actually did, it would not have hit the trees. This incident, despite popular belief, has nothing to do with Airbus flight control laws.
He simply did not go-around in good time from his low level pass.
He simply did not go-around in good time from his low level pass.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sandcastle 2
Age: 39
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It actually did have quite a bit to do with the control laws on the A320, or rather the pilots lack of understanding of them.
He thought that the Alpha-floor would kick in, effectively doing the go-around for him. He was however un-aware that when your that close to the ground in the landing config, the Alpha protections are inhibited to allow you to land.
Unfortunately he realised this too late, and by the time he put the power on, the writing was on the wall. Or at least thats my understanding of what happened.
He's still in jail in France i believe. Poor bugger
He thought that the Alpha-floor would kick in, effectively doing the go-around for him. He was however un-aware that when your that close to the ground in the landing config, the Alpha protections are inhibited to allow you to land.
Unfortunately he realised this too late, and by the time he put the power on, the writing was on the wall. Or at least thats my understanding of what happened.
He's still in jail in France i believe. Poor bugger
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: ex-DXB
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maz11,
Ive not spoken to the pilot in question but I have spoken to one of the next best people. The pilot was not waiting or thinking about alpha floor engagement. It was a manual low level pass and he simply did not apply TOGA soon enough.
Slightly off topic, but that crash was testament to Airbus and how solidly they built their planes. All on board survived bar one. That person was a wheelchair 'charlie' and could not get off before the smoke sadly became the overriding factor.
Ive not spoken to the pilot in question but I have spoken to one of the next best people. The pilot was not waiting or thinking about alpha floor engagement. It was a manual low level pass and he simply did not apply TOGA soon enough.
Slightly off topic, but that crash was testament to Airbus and how solidly they built their planes. All on board survived bar one. That person was a wheelchair 'charlie' and could not get off before the smoke sadly became the overriding factor.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: ex-DXB
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maz11,
Ive not spoken to the pilot in question but I have spoken to one of the next best people. The pilot was not waiting or thinking about alpha floor engagement. It was a manual low level pass and he simply did not apply TOGA soon enough.
Slightly off topic, but that crash was testament to Airbus and how solidly they built their planes. All on board survived bar one. That person was a wheelchair 'charlie' and could not get off before the smoke sadly became the overriding factor.
Ive not spoken to the pilot in question but I have spoken to one of the next best people. The pilot was not waiting or thinking about alpha floor engagement. It was a manual low level pass and he simply did not apply TOGA soon enough.
He thought that the Alpha-floor would kick in, effectively doing the go-around for him.
This incident, despite popular belief, has nothing to do with Airbus flight control laws.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sandcastle 2
Age: 39
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Craggenmore, just because it was being flown manually does not mean that the Alpha-floor would not work. As they were flying level for a long period of time the engines would already have been spooled up at around 50% N1 or something like that.
It does not take 6 to 8 seconds for the engines to spool up to TOGA from that. If you listen on the video you can hear the engines spooling up just as he starts to hit the trees. There is no doubt that he left it too late to hit the power but it was my understanding that he thought the aircraft would do it for him. He also shouldn't have been there in the first place, or as is my understanding.
It does not take 6 to 8 seconds for the engines to spool up to TOGA from that. If you listen on the video you can hear the engines spooling up just as he starts to hit the trees. There is no doubt that he left it too late to hit the power but it was my understanding that he thought the aircraft would do it for him. He also shouldn't have been there in the first place, or as is my understanding.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: British Airspace
Age: 53
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let the automatics do all the work!
Actually, I found it easier to fly in Direct Law when I first flew the sim (after driving Boeings forever), but by the end of the course I was as much a hands-off 'Bus driver as the next
If it works, don't fix it. If it doesn't, ask the First Officer
Actually, I found it easier to fly in Direct Law when I first flew the sim (after driving Boeings forever), but by the end of the course I was as much a hands-off 'Bus driver as the next
If it works, don't fix it. If it doesn't, ask the First Officer
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 1,266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which CFIT accidents are you referring to, alex, which involved the A320 stalling?
I can think of A320 CFITs, certainly, but none where the aircraft was stalled, or where departure was even a contributory factor.
Maybe some of those 'tricks' were involved? What would they be? I can think of ways to stall the A320, but they all involve switch selections and operations so far outside the sensible SOP envelope it would be akin to shutting down a serviceable engine.
When I did my first Airbus Type Rating, many years ago in a Boeing-dominated airline, one of the first powerpoint slides we were shown was titled:
"Crew Room Airbus Perceptions". Very apt, subsequent experience with a superb aircraft demonstrated!
The transcript I have of the report into the famous crash at Mulhouse concludes:
"The Commission believes that the accident resulted from the combination of the following conditions: 1) very low flyover height, lower than surrounding obstacles; 2) speed very slow and reducing to reach maximum possible angle of attack; 3) engine speed at flight idle; 4) late application of go-around power. This combination led to impact of the aircraft with the trees. The Commission believes that if the descent below 100 feet was not deliberate, it may have resulted from failure to take proper account of the visual and aural information intended to give the height of the aircraft."
My first TRI went on to point out that "yes, you can crash the A320, but it won't be stalled when it crashes!"
I can think of A320 CFITs, certainly, but none where the aircraft was stalled, or where departure was even a contributory factor.
Maybe some of those 'tricks' were involved? What would they be? I can think of ways to stall the A320, but they all involve switch selections and operations so far outside the sensible SOP envelope it would be akin to shutting down a serviceable engine.
When I did my first Airbus Type Rating, many years ago in a Boeing-dominated airline, one of the first powerpoint slides we were shown was titled:
"Crew Room Airbus Perceptions". Very apt, subsequent experience with a superb aircraft demonstrated!
The transcript I have of the report into the famous crash at Mulhouse concludes:
"The Commission believes that the accident resulted from the combination of the following conditions: 1) very low flyover height, lower than surrounding obstacles; 2) speed very slow and reducing to reach maximum possible angle of attack; 3) engine speed at flight idle; 4) late application of go-around power. This combination led to impact of the aircraft with the trees. The Commission believes that if the descent below 100 feet was not deliberate, it may have resulted from failure to take proper account of the visual and aural information intended to give the height of the aircraft."
My first TRI went on to point out that "yes, you can crash the A320, but it won't be stalled when it crashes!"
Last edited by Gary Lager; 27th Oct 2006 at 18:48.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dubai
Age: 47
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's put some pepper on this topic... one funny thing that my Ground School instructor used to say about the airbus fight control laws was:
"In the worst case sceario, where there is a degradation of all computers and laws, this aircraft will become 737!"
It is funy to think about it, but it is true in a way!
"In the worst case sceario, where there is a degradation of all computers and laws, this aircraft will become 737!"
It is funy to think about it, but it is true in a way!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dartagnan, reading the mostly entertaining answers, I come back to your original questions:
On modern aircraft you have a slightly different approach compared to more "mechanical" aircraft: You don't know everything anymore. Hardware is possible to know, but with the arrival of software, it is impossible to know every line of programming code and what it is doing at which position. This is no difference to other modern aircraft, like a Saab 2000 or other FBW aircraft. That's also the reason why AI hands you out a rather basic FCOM.
This is basically a good way. Remember Airbus golden rule: If it doesn't fly it the way you want, switch off the autopilot. That's no difference to any other aircraft with an autopilot.
If you are coming from a previous aircraft without auto thrust/trottle, you might be astonished by the complexity. An Airbus has basically the same autotrust functions as any other aircraft of its class.
This is also true but mostly standard nowadays. Even a F100 has FADECs. There might be a few more systems on an Airbus but I'm sure that Americans like Boeing knows much more abbreviations. 
its just a matter of training. If you are unsure, install yourself a MS flight sim (now version X avail!) and do some training. On the real aircraft you will be astouned how precise it is (a characteristic of most French planes), and after a few 100 or 1000 hrs of flying (hopefully a few of them flown by hand) you will realize that this aircraft flys nearly like a "normal" plane: you have balloonig effect with flaps setting, you feel small wind changes during landing, you feel a gust and make a small correction, you flare and feel the wheel touching softly the ground and grease it on the concrete.
All of this you will only experience if you still try to fly it like an aviatior. One problem is that Airbus doesn't encourage you to fly it like a normal airplane, even some airlines don't (no visual, no manual flying). People become slaves of the system or like robots. I see that sometimes when people flare the 320 always exactly at 20 feet, when the system calls "retard".
Enjoy it!
Dani
nowbody knows airbus' system
switch off computer if everything goes wrong
If you are coming from a previous aircraft without auto thrust/trottle, you might be astonished by the complexity. An Airbus has basically the same autotrust functions as any other aircraft of its class.
lot of different systems/abbreviations
flying compared to conventional stick
All of this you will only experience if you still try to fly it like an aviatior. One problem is that Airbus doesn't encourage you to fly it like a normal airplane, even some airlines don't (no visual, no manual flying). People become slaves of the system or like robots. I see that sometimes when people flare the 320 always exactly at 20 feet, when the system calls "retard".
Enjoy it!
Dani
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: EU
Posts: 961
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
after reading your posts here my comments:
when you say autopilot, do you mean managed mode?
the 320 is fully computerized and I don't see how you can be in "Manual" as all joystick inputs are sent to computers.(elac,sec,fac)
the last mode of the autopilot is reversed mode.
I think the term "manual flight" doesn't exist in the A320 as you are always controlled, in any configuration, by some computers which transmit the electrical signal (from the stick/rudders) to the commands.
I understand the direct mode is a computerized simulation to make like if it is a conventional aircraft.Apparently they did a great job at Airbus(to simulate the B737...read comment of LFBB).
about the engines, it takes about 12-14 seconds from flight idle to full power.A flight instructor have demonstrated me this in the sim.the flight idle is slightly higher than the ground idle. is it the same in a conventional aircraft?
is there a website related to the A320' systems?
I know there is one for the 737...
when you say autopilot, do you mean managed mode?
the 320 is fully computerized and I don't see how you can be in "Manual" as all joystick inputs are sent to computers.(elac,sec,fac)
the last mode of the autopilot is reversed mode.
I think the term "manual flight" doesn't exist in the A320 as you are always controlled, in any configuration, by some computers which transmit the electrical signal (from the stick/rudders) to the commands.
I understand the direct mode is a computerized simulation to make like if it is a conventional aircraft.Apparently they did a great job at Airbus(to simulate the B737...read comment of LFBB).
about the engines, it takes about 12-14 seconds from flight idle to full power.A flight instructor have demonstrated me this in the sim.the flight idle is slightly higher than the ground idle. is it the same in a conventional aircraft?
is there a website related to the A320' systems?
I know there is one for the 737...
Last edited by dartagnan; 28th Oct 2006 at 10:52.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dartagnan, don't let yourself confuse with all the Airbus expressions. Manual means with your own hands! Yes, the rumor is true, you CAN fly the thing without autopilot
When you go through TLS gnd school, you learn to fly the aircraft in managed mode only, this is true. Reality shows that you can fly it also selected. In fact, I fly it more selected than managed. Then it's exactly the same as every other aircraft with autothrust/trottle. I encourage you to try every mode to get used to it.
Alternate, direct and reverse are only important in the simulator and in theory. In real life you hardly ever use these modes. You must be in big trouble to get there.
Spool up time is commanded by FADEC, i.e. engine, not Airbus. CFM is faster than IAE, older IAE are even slower. Spool up time is industry standard. A RR Trent 900 might need even longer.
For good Airbus sites please check with google/yahoo or PM me. There is one crazy guy who made a completly working cockpit on a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet!!
Dani
When you go through TLS gnd school, you learn to fly the aircraft in managed mode only, this is true. Reality shows that you can fly it also selected. In fact, I fly it more selected than managed. Then it's exactly the same as every other aircraft with autothrust/trottle. I encourage you to try every mode to get used to it.
Alternate, direct and reverse are only important in the simulator and in theory. In real life you hardly ever use these modes. You must be in big trouble to get there.
Spool up time is commanded by FADEC, i.e. engine, not Airbus. CFM is faster than IAE, older IAE are even slower. Spool up time is industry standard. A RR Trent 900 might need even longer.
For good Airbus sites please check with google/yahoo or PM me. There is one crazy guy who made a completly working cockpit on a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet!!
Dani
The Bumblebee
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Inside the shiny tube.
Posts: 333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is an unofficial website http://www.airbusdriver.net
While we are talking about the bus, yesterday while flying I was reading FCOM 3 and in the section for "On Ground Emergency Evacuation" (3.02.80 page 1) a small note caught my attention. In this check list under
AGENTS (ENG/APU).................. As REQD
there is a small note that says "Agent 2 is not available on ground"
Of course in the Engine Fire on ground it says AGENT 1+2 Discharge. (3.02.26 page 2)
My questions is if Agent 2 is not available on the ground why bother with discharging it??
It is a brand new 320 received about a month ago, if you like I can post the MSN number here. In my old FCOM 3 there is no such note but the FCOM 3 in the aircraft has this note in it.
Any comments?
While we are talking about the bus, yesterday while flying I was reading FCOM 3 and in the section for "On Ground Emergency Evacuation" (3.02.80 page 1) a small note caught my attention. In this check list under
AGENTS (ENG/APU).................. As REQD
there is a small note that says "Agent 2 is not available on ground"
Of course in the Engine Fire on ground it says AGENT 1+2 Discharge. (3.02.26 page 2)
My questions is if Agent 2 is not available on the ground why bother with discharging it??
It is a brand new 320 received about a month ago, if you like I can post the MSN number here. In my old FCOM 3 there is no such note but the FCOM 3 in the aircraft has this note in it.
Any comments?