What I dont like of the Bus I.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Valencia
Age: 49
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I dont like of the Bus I.
Some of you want a constructive criticism thread. I going to submit this one to talk about some points of the Airbus that dont like me.
This is only my opinion, and I´m writing from the knoledge and unknoledge that I have of the plane.
I will try to be serious and not throw bulls**t
1. Phylosophy.
First of all, I want to talk about the general phylosophy of this craft. There are some points that I want to emphasize.
First, I´m going to try to explain what is the operational loop of an aircraft for me.
The operational loop, is the circle of data, inputs, feedback and reactions around the aircraft flight. Is the circle of information inside and around the aircraft, that set the parameters for a flight, make the systems function and set the pace of futher events or actions. In a conventional plane, the pilot is in the middle of this loop, and can modify the flow at his will in almost any point of the chain.
The pilot has control of all flight parameters, can modify the data of the MCDUs, the course, select with data want to see, and with this new inputs, the aircraft continue it´s flight normally, asimilating data in the loop naturally.
Well, some of you are wondering what this all is about. The Airbus do all this things.
Here is the first diference. In the bus, the pilot appears to be in the middle of it, but I think that this is no true. First of all were are going to remember which words Airbus uses.
Intervention. This is for example, when you put a speed in the FCU. This word means that you are interrupting the flow of the operational loop, setting a new parameter that disrupts it. Normally this is going to be temporally.
Constrain. Normally this is use to set the alttitude and speed limits. But when you are in cruise, and you want to set an exact Mach Number, you only can do it throught an intervention, or a speed Constrain. This is also expected to be temporally.
I think that this two words are important, because they tell us, that we, the pilots, are disrupting flow of the machine. Not just altering it.
Yes, we can set a Cost Index, but do you think that is normal to set the cruise speed related to an index that is a factor between time and fuel consuption. Yes, this is ideal in a free flight scenario where you can let the craft fly at it´s most efficent speed, but not in the long haul routes with clearances that includes fixed Mach Numbers.
Here is another two.
Managed. This mean that the aircraft is taking care of it. This word is a surprise to me, because is related to the business world. And I think that is used by Airbus, because when the aircraft manages something, it is doing it at the top of it´s parameters. It´s the maximum efficiency.
This can be applyed to an speed, to a track, route and an approach (Vertical and laterally.)
Also when you are disrupting tha managing process, tha aircraft see it as an intervention, and it quits from it. I.E. Reverting modes.
Monitor. This is the primary function of the pilot. Monitor the flight. This last word is also important because, when in other aircrafts you are out of the loop an do monitoring of the flight, in the Airbus has another interpretation.
If you seek the loop process of the Bus, you will see that almost all pilot actions doesnt change the flow of the operational loop, you just cut it inserting something strange to the aircraft that he doesnt need or want to be efficient. I.E. The Mach Number Constrain. It also appear in very loud showy colours to catch your attention. MAGENTA.
Ending this first part.
I believe that in this plane the pilot is not in the center of the loop, he is another chain of it. Yes, he is a very important one, but when you touch something, the craft is telling you that dont want it, is telling that if you insert new data or new parameters, the operation is no going to be efficient because you are cutting it.
I think that this is important, because the same aircraft is advise or warning you for messing with it´s operational loop.
Another probe of this are the flight control location, shape and operation. As I said before, they are small, mislocated and no designed to be fully funtional for conventional flying. For emergencies or departures from the flight envelope there is not a FCA switch (Full Control Authority) like some fly by wire, no real feedback, fighter planes. Only an altered Alternate law.
Yes, probably you never would need it, but I appreciate if I´am the last responsible of the flight and I have the switch in the cockpit.
That confirms me that I´m not in the center of the operation, I´m just another big chain.
I think that this is the main cause of the machine-human comunication errors, and this happen in this way, because the real boss of the plane is the company who owns it, and want money from it.
That´s who really is in the center of the loop if there is someone now. Call it the company ghost, or the money making ghost. Because that´s the entity who really tell the aircraft how is going to do the flying.
The Bus is designed for them not for you, the pilot/operator. This is the origin of all bus "illness"
From my point of view, in other aircraft the pilot is the center of the operation, in this one you are probably the biggest part of it. No more.
Change of phylosophy: yes. Like it: No.
Now folks is you turn. I can see the fans of the bus sharpening their knifes. I promise that I will have more raw meat in the future.
I wait your opinions of this physolophycal and metaphorical thread.
All aircraft have their cons, but we are talking now only and about the Bus. No comparations please, just opinions.
This is only my opinion, and I´m writing from the knoledge and unknoledge that I have of the plane.
I will try to be serious and not throw bulls**t
1. Phylosophy.
First of all, I want to talk about the general phylosophy of this craft. There are some points that I want to emphasize.
First, I´m going to try to explain what is the operational loop of an aircraft for me.
The operational loop, is the circle of data, inputs, feedback and reactions around the aircraft flight. Is the circle of information inside and around the aircraft, that set the parameters for a flight, make the systems function and set the pace of futher events or actions. In a conventional plane, the pilot is in the middle of this loop, and can modify the flow at his will in almost any point of the chain.
The pilot has control of all flight parameters, can modify the data of the MCDUs, the course, select with data want to see, and with this new inputs, the aircraft continue it´s flight normally, asimilating data in the loop naturally.
Well, some of you are wondering what this all is about. The Airbus do all this things.
Here is the first diference. In the bus, the pilot appears to be in the middle of it, but I think that this is no true. First of all were are going to remember which words Airbus uses.
Intervention. This is for example, when you put a speed in the FCU. This word means that you are interrupting the flow of the operational loop, setting a new parameter that disrupts it. Normally this is going to be temporally.
Constrain. Normally this is use to set the alttitude and speed limits. But when you are in cruise, and you want to set an exact Mach Number, you only can do it throught an intervention, or a speed Constrain. This is also expected to be temporally.
I think that this two words are important, because they tell us, that we, the pilots, are disrupting flow of the machine. Not just altering it.
Yes, we can set a Cost Index, but do you think that is normal to set the cruise speed related to an index that is a factor between time and fuel consuption. Yes, this is ideal in a free flight scenario where you can let the craft fly at it´s most efficent speed, but not in the long haul routes with clearances that includes fixed Mach Numbers.
Here is another two.
Managed. This mean that the aircraft is taking care of it. This word is a surprise to me, because is related to the business world. And I think that is used by Airbus, because when the aircraft manages something, it is doing it at the top of it´s parameters. It´s the maximum efficiency.
This can be applyed to an speed, to a track, route and an approach (Vertical and laterally.)
Also when you are disrupting tha managing process, tha aircraft see it as an intervention, and it quits from it. I.E. Reverting modes.
Monitor. This is the primary function of the pilot. Monitor the flight. This last word is also important because, when in other aircrafts you are out of the loop an do monitoring of the flight, in the Airbus has another interpretation.
If you seek the loop process of the Bus, you will see that almost all pilot actions doesnt change the flow of the operational loop, you just cut it inserting something strange to the aircraft that he doesnt need or want to be efficient. I.E. The Mach Number Constrain. It also appear in very loud showy colours to catch your attention. MAGENTA.
Ending this first part.
I believe that in this plane the pilot is not in the center of the loop, he is another chain of it. Yes, he is a very important one, but when you touch something, the craft is telling you that dont want it, is telling that if you insert new data or new parameters, the operation is no going to be efficient because you are cutting it.
I think that this is important, because the same aircraft is advise or warning you for messing with it´s operational loop.
Another probe of this are the flight control location, shape and operation. As I said before, they are small, mislocated and no designed to be fully funtional for conventional flying. For emergencies or departures from the flight envelope there is not a FCA switch (Full Control Authority) like some fly by wire, no real feedback, fighter planes. Only an altered Alternate law.
Yes, probably you never would need it, but I appreciate if I´am the last responsible of the flight and I have the switch in the cockpit.
That confirms me that I´m not in the center of the operation, I´m just another big chain.
I think that this is the main cause of the machine-human comunication errors, and this happen in this way, because the real boss of the plane is the company who owns it, and want money from it.
That´s who really is in the center of the loop if there is someone now. Call it the company ghost, or the money making ghost. Because that´s the entity who really tell the aircraft how is going to do the flying.
The Bus is designed for them not for you, the pilot/operator. This is the origin of all bus "illness"
From my point of view, in other aircraft the pilot is the center of the operation, in this one you are probably the biggest part of it. No more.
Change of phylosophy: yes. Like it: No.
Now folks is you turn. I can see the fans of the bus sharpening their knifes. I promise that I will have more raw meat in the future.
I wait your opinions of this physolophycal and metaphorical thread.
All aircraft have their cons, but we are talking now only and about the Bus. No comparations please, just opinions.
Last edited by Strongresolve; 17th Mar 2008 at 23:46.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: B Pier
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It sounds like your training department is severely at fault. Didn't they teach you that no matter what Airbus or the aeroplane thinks, you're the boss?
You don't like what the aeroplane is doing, just go Selected. It doesn't matter if Airbus considers it a "temporary intervention" or whatever. If you want to fly selected, as you see fit, all day long, do it, you're in charge remember, the aeroplane isn't.
However, there is no need to do this, as an understanding of the aeroplane's "thought processes" will leave you fully equipped to fly the aeroplane as it's supposed to be flown, whilst leaving you in control.
Remember, the automation is a slave to you, not you to it.
I think a re-read of the books and new head of training is called for!
You don't like what the aeroplane is doing, just go Selected. It doesn't matter if Airbus considers it a "temporary intervention" or whatever. If you want to fly selected, as you see fit, all day long, do it, you're in charge remember, the aeroplane isn't.
However, there is no need to do this, as an understanding of the aeroplane's "thought processes" will leave you fully equipped to fly the aeroplane as it's supposed to be flown, whilst leaving you in control.
Remember, the automation is a slave to you, not you to it.
I think a re-read of the books and new head of training is called for!
I agree with VC.
I used to be a staunch Pro-Boeing/Anti-Airbus guy, but late last year I started a job that had me having to learn the A330.
And I'm happy to say that now I know the real story (much bulldust out there) I reckon they're a pretty good thing. Very clever in the way they work but as has been said you have to lose the Boeing philosophy of doing things. And yes, they really can be flown just like any other aeroplane - albeit with the inherent normal law protections, and those are there for very good reasons.
The only thing I still do not like is the seperate joysticks. I still firmly believe that they should be mechanically connected.
(Hey, I got used to the non-moving throttles!)
My point is that the Boeing guys have often been fed a lot of mis-information about how the Airbus works. It's really worth the effort to find out how they tick, they're quite friendly once you get used to them.
I used to be a staunch Pro-Boeing/Anti-Airbus guy, but late last year I started a job that had me having to learn the A330.
And I'm happy to say that now I know the real story (much bulldust out there) I reckon they're a pretty good thing. Very clever in the way they work but as has been said you have to lose the Boeing philosophy of doing things. And yes, they really can be flown just like any other aeroplane - albeit with the inherent normal law protections, and those are there for very good reasons.
The only thing I still do not like is the seperate joysticks. I still firmly believe that they should be mechanically connected.
(Hey, I got used to the non-moving throttles!)
My point is that the Boeing guys have often been fed a lot of mis-information about how the Airbus works. It's really worth the effort to find out how they tick, they're quite friendly once you get used to them.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Third planet from the sun
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I'm a captain on A320. I used to fly B727 and B737 (jurassic and classic) before that.
What I do like less on the Airbus are the non-moving thrust levers (even if I got used to them) and non-connection of the sidesticks. I also think B737's are easier to handle in gusty crosswind conditions then the bus.
Having said that, the positive things I could say about the A320 compared to the others I flew, are far more numerous. I'll save you the long list!
The B727 and B737 are fantastic machines, but still I very much prefer the A320. (BTW: I fly 95% of the approaches with A/P, A/T and F/d's off)
Regards,
Sabenaboy
What I do like less on the Airbus are the non-moving thrust levers (even if I got used to them) and non-connection of the sidesticks. I also think B737's are easier to handle in gusty crosswind conditions then the bus.
Having said that, the positive things I could say about the A320 compared to the others I flew, are far more numerous. I'll save you the long list!
The B727 and B737 are fantastic machines, but still I very much prefer the A320. (BTW: I fly 95% of the approaches with A/P, A/T and F/d's off)
Regards,
Sabenaboy
Originally Posted by Strongresolve
But these are my opinions as pilot and TRI of the A320. I been only flying this thing two years, and I been always flying boeings and Mc Douglas.
(...)
Chris Scott, I appreciate your coments. You were right on the bullseye, my beloved B757 was pashed out, and I started as B727 driver, so you may imagine what are my throughts about the bus.
Also, I´m a A320 TRI against my will, I resigned since my appointment, but in this part of the world things works this way, and I have not other choice than continue or go to the unemployment office.
(...)
Chris Scott, I appreciate your coments. You were right on the bullseye, my beloved B757 was pashed out, and I started as B727 driver, so you may imagine what are my throughts about the bus.
Also, I´m a A320 TRI against my will, I resigned since my appointment, but in this part of the world things works this way, and I have not other choice than continue or go to the unemployment office.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I dont like of the Bus I.
- Sometimes it is unable to leave the holding
- The wing tips touch the concrete at touchdown very often
- You never know what the machine is actually doing
- The ECAM is a full colour **** house
- We all gone die if the hydraulics are gone
Is it that what you wanne hear?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get good training from people who understand Airbus Philosophy, ditch what you previously knew about Boeings/MD's etc and fly the aeroplane as you are taught.
In 6 months, re evaluate how you are now operating the aeroplane.
You should now know why Airbus operate the way they do.
The biggest problems arise from people who want to stick to old methods, people who are given short courses with improper training and companies who try to operate the aeroplane with SOP's that differ from the manufacturer.
7,000hrs plus on 320,321 and 330......... I would NOT now wish to go back to the old technology of any other aeroplane.
The Airbus is a beautiful tool, very flexible, fun to fly and not to be feared
In 6 months, re evaluate how you are now operating the aeroplane.
You should now know why Airbus operate the way they do.
The biggest problems arise from people who want to stick to old methods, people who are given short courses with improper training and companies who try to operate the aeroplane with SOP's that differ from the manufacturer.
7,000hrs plus on 320,321 and 330......... I would NOT now wish to go back to the old technology of any other aeroplane.
The Airbus is a beautiful tool, very flexible, fun to fly and not to be feared
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: S51 30 W060 10.
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok...the only thing I really dislike about the A340 is those 4 hair dryers it´s got underneath the wings that make me feel ****ty every time I takeoff.
I understand that´s a personal thing, but from a performance standpoint I ´d like to have some more margin in case of windshear, etc... Now I am conscious that the flight control laws make it a very safe plane against CFIT and windshear scnarios, but once u reach CL MAX (high drag too) if you can´t overcome the windshear you´re going down...ok, unstalled...but down.
Also, lately I´ve discovered that the A/THR system sometimes takes a while to respond to wind gusts...come on now...don´t think I am forgetting this Ground speed mini thing....but sometimes the hw component is insignificant to generate a GS mini intervention, or sometimes u receive tail gusts...the non-moving thrust levers are uncomfortable to override, especially because if you do it at or below 100 feet A/THR disconnection will occur just at the same time as you enter the flare (direct) law portion of the flight..which means the a/c will pitch in response to power (close to the ground, large a/c...see where I am getting?). For that reason I´ve started to disconnect A/THR if by 500 ft wind gusts justify it, according to the judgement I´ve just explained.
The other thing I really hate is that stupid "retard" call out at 20 feet (10 ft for autoland)...Mr John Airbus, we know we have to retard the thrust levers, thank u..we ain´t that stoopid. It just bothers me because I like to hear the RA call outs as I look at the middle of the rwy to achieve a smooth centered landing.
Now besides these 3 things the rest is pure gold. The FCU, MCDU, ECAM, and flight control laws are excellent.
Now Hetfield...you´re kidding right?....
Regards,
SW.
PS: OHH and the sliding TABLE !!!!!!!
PS2: Very good post Javelin
PS3: I didn´t really understand that Loop thing Strongresolve talks about. If u wanna fly constant mach u just do so by flying selected...Boeing lets u do it on the FMC too, Airbus doesn´t (CI isn´t exactly that) so what?? u just fly selected. Stong resolve, read Javelin post. He ´s got a point. I am not discrediting your post. I appreciate your contribution, but I strongly agree with Javelin in that this machine is different. Rgds...
I understand that´s a personal thing, but from a performance standpoint I ´d like to have some more margin in case of windshear, etc... Now I am conscious that the flight control laws make it a very safe plane against CFIT and windshear scnarios, but once u reach CL MAX (high drag too) if you can´t overcome the windshear you´re going down...ok, unstalled...but down.
Also, lately I´ve discovered that the A/THR system sometimes takes a while to respond to wind gusts...come on now...don´t think I am forgetting this Ground speed mini thing....but sometimes the hw component is insignificant to generate a GS mini intervention, or sometimes u receive tail gusts...the non-moving thrust levers are uncomfortable to override, especially because if you do it at or below 100 feet A/THR disconnection will occur just at the same time as you enter the flare (direct) law portion of the flight..which means the a/c will pitch in response to power (close to the ground, large a/c...see where I am getting?). For that reason I´ve started to disconnect A/THR if by 500 ft wind gusts justify it, according to the judgement I´ve just explained.
The other thing I really hate is that stupid "retard" call out at 20 feet (10 ft for autoland)...Mr John Airbus, we know we have to retard the thrust levers, thank u..we ain´t that stoopid. It just bothers me because I like to hear the RA call outs as I look at the middle of the rwy to achieve a smooth centered landing.
Now besides these 3 things the rest is pure gold. The FCU, MCDU, ECAM, and flight control laws are excellent.
Now Hetfield...you´re kidding right?....
Regards,
SW.
PS: OHH and the sliding TABLE !!!!!!!
PS2: Very good post Javelin
PS3: I didn´t really understand that Loop thing Strongresolve talks about. If u wanna fly constant mach u just do so by flying selected...Boeing lets u do it on the FMC too, Airbus doesn´t (CI isn´t exactly that) so what?? u just fly selected. Stong resolve, read Javelin post. He ´s got a point. I am not discrediting your post. I appreciate your contribution, but I strongly agree with Javelin in that this machine is different. Rgds...
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about the lack artificial feel; how did that grab you all at first ?
and I was once told [in another thread] that the stick is a 'g' and 'roll rate selector'
does that explain all of those twisty low level GA's that the type is famous for?
and I was once told [in another thread] that the stick is a 'g' and 'roll rate selector'
does that explain all of those twisty low level GA's that the type is famous for?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Above and beyond
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It always overshoots the runway
Sometimes it is unable to leave the holding
The wing tips touch the concrete at touchdown very often
... not true
You never know what the machine is actually doing
The ECAM is a full colour **** house
We all gone die if the hydraulics are gone
Am sure that is not a type specific fault, wasn't the crash at sioux city all those years ago attributable to that cause? The airbus can still be controlled using stab trim and rudder inputs unless i'm very much mistaken. Ok it will probably be as controllable as the wright flyer, but hey! triple redundancy? what are you worried about?
I find the main resentment to the airbus comes from those who used to fly the boeings. The airbus still has little red button that turns it into a conventional aeroplane.
The protection envelope is designed to make the flight safer, read the QRH actions for GPWS alert..... pretty much full backstick, removes the temptation to pull that little bit harder to gain altitude, its false economy, similar to trying to stretch a glide.
regards
T
Last edited by TACHO; 19th Mar 2008 at 20:39. Reason: due to my tiny brain confusing airbus abbreviations
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry guys/gals to be sarcastic.
This discussion I guess, is one of the most frequent in pprune and therefore it's hard to be serious.
This discussion I guess, is one of the most frequent in pprune and therefore it's hard to be serious.
Last edited by hetfield; 20th Mar 2008 at 07:03.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Domaine de la Romanee-Conti
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
1. The layout of airbus documentation is a bloody rat's nest. You are never truly confident that you've found the answer to your question / fully completed a procedure on this aircraft, until you've completed the ECAM, cross checked with the QRH (which is twice the size of most other aircraft QRHs and it's in a totally frustrating random order in any case), then fire up the laptop to check the current OEBs, check the FCOM, and then the company ops manual. Why can't everything be in one place? Wasn't the original concept that everything would be built into ECAM and there would be no QRH? What happened?
2. The windscreen wipers are junk, I had better ones on my 40-year old Ford Cortina.
3. The managed descent profile - who the hell programmed that thing and if you get an early step descent (say from 390 to 310 when you're still 200 miles away from destination), why is the pink donut so bloody determined that it has to maintain target of 500 fpm and 250 kts the entire rest of the way to the threshold?
2. The windscreen wipers are junk, I had better ones on my 40-year old Ford Cortina.
3. The managed descent profile - who the hell programmed that thing and if you get an early step descent (say from 390 to 310 when you're still 200 miles away from destination), why is the pink donut so bloody determined that it has to maintain target of 500 fpm and 250 kts the entire rest of the way to the threshold?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After flying several years on an Airbus and now going "back" to a conventional jet, I must say that I don't get used to moving throttles and yokes! 
I'm not joking.
I agree that moving throttles give you a tactile feedback, but somehow this moving throttles are not reacting timely, sometimes the thrust is one click away from the desired position, and I basically have to override the thing (which most people do). So for me an autothrottle is not auto but rather a support - throttlesupport. Only Airbus has Autotrust, i.e. it's automatic.
Same valid for the sidestick. It's by far the most adequate way for pilots input. Ever seen a fighter jet or a glider plane with a yoke??
Finally I set up a theory that it's not the Airbus way that gives pilots a problem, it's the habit of pilots, because they learned it the other way. If every aircraft would be like an Airbus, nobody would have a problem.
Dani
I'm not joking.I agree that moving throttles give you a tactile feedback, but somehow this moving throttles are not reacting timely, sometimes the thrust is one click away from the desired position, and I basically have to override the thing (which most people do). So for me an autothrottle is not auto but rather a support - throttlesupport. Only Airbus has Autotrust, i.e. it's automatic.
Same valid for the sidestick. It's by far the most adequate way for pilots input. Ever seen a fighter jet or a glider plane with a yoke??
Finally I set up a theory that it's not the Airbus way that gives pilots a problem, it's the habit of pilots, because they learned it the other way. If every aircraft would be like an Airbus, nobody would have a problem.
Dani
Last edited by Dani; 20th Mar 2008 at 12:23.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ***
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strongresolve, you have done this kind of bitching and whining on some other thread. It is getting boring. If you hate it that much being an instructor on the Airbus, and with you showing that you obviously have not understood what the machine is about, maybe you should take it to the unemployment office afterall. Right now there are millions of jobs everywhere.
Nic
Nic