Lyman

"The older I get the better I used to be....."

Along with command comes discretion. Command diminishes a degree at a time, so's you wouldn't even notice......

hawker and fireflybob sound a lot like the Captains of old, and in a very good way. With the loss of Power in the cockpit, even as power on the wing increased, we lost a safety margin. A big one.

That there was any ambivalence on 447's flight deck as to who had command as the Captain left, speaks volumes. If it isn't important enough to make clear to one's subordinates, it isn't important at all.

I am weary of picking on the aircraft. One does not seek risk for thrill, but when it presents, one gains focus and self confidence, or one need ride in back. And weather is risk.

"What do we do?"......

SLFinAZ

TTex your comments are way beyond my experience and understanding. I've got a bit of PPL time (long ago) but limited to 152/172 VFR. What your saying scares the hell out of me as an SLF. If I understand you correctly even under "manual" control the airbus is actually flown by the AP??

That seems at odds from what I have read....my assumption based on everything I've read is that it has all the built in AB "safety" but that within those parameters when off autopilot it is still equivalent to a corresponding Boeing model. Is that incorrect?

hawker750

BOAC
I agree, picking your way throught the ITCZ is done daily. But I think it is clear that they went through a cell, I doubt if the pitots would have iced up by flying through the rest of the stuff. My question is why did they choose not to deviate a long way away from a cell? This may have been discussed before and I appologise if it is old ground. My comment is that IMO the Captain should have been there. Putting it another way, it would not have been detrimental to the situation if he had been, so I cannot understand the view that he need not have been there.
There will be lessons learned from this tragedy and I guess after a decent time interval it will be used in CRM classes. I just hope the lessons will be remembered.

DozyWannabe

@SLFinAZ

I don't think so - I think what he is saying is that in a lot of cases airline management decree use of the autoflight system to the extent that manual handling tends to fall by the wayside.

However, when he says...

...he is actually incorrect, and conflating the FMS/autoflight system with the FCU system.

You are correct in stating that they Boeing FBW setup is exactly the same in terms of high-level function. The FCU (which mediates the flight control inputs and commands the flight surfaces) can be considered roughly equivalent to the old "Q-feel" system on hydraulically-controlled conventional airliners in that it translates the pilot's inputs to flight-surface deflection.

I suspect that TTex600 considers the FCU to be a quasi-autopilot because of the bank angle and pitch limitations in the Normal Law protection suite, whereas the Normal Law limitations in fact give a pilot more than twice as much leeway (in terms of bank angle limitation) as the old-fashioned autopilot bank and pitch limits.

White Knight

For both Hawker750 and BOAC - from the POV of a skipper that often punches through the ITCZ with two F/Os. I am ALWAYS on the flightdeck through the weather Every single time. As I would expect my fellow captains to be when I'm taking advantage of staff-travel through the same areas.

Likewise I am always in my seat when crossing the Himalayas - FL280 being the on airway MSA... Why some of my fellow skippers aren't is a source of endless confusion to me

BOAC

- where is your evidence for this? You do not need 'CB' to produce icing cloud, do you? - see previous

- so you know they didn't? - certainly has, and we are forever pointing out that there is NO evidence they did fly in or near a cell. You have around a week of reading to do I think - it is all on PPrune somewhere in one of the many threads.

The rest of your statements I agree with, and there are few who support the absence of the Captain. In view of your career it may interest you to know that some of the 'old' BOAC/BA chaps I contacted in 2009 assured me that they would always 'take their rest as rostered' regardless???.

I am sorry to say that your story of your KingAir and Hawker 'adventures' leads me to say you got what you deserved and it should have been little surprise. Was the radar u/s?

Slickster

This talk of the Captain not being there, and taking his rest, is a red herring, as far as I'm concerned. If the aircraft had crashed at some other point in the flight for some other reason, you would argue exactly the same point.

I regularly "punched" my way through the ITCZ, as an FO, on a 747, heading to Jo'burg etc. with the other FO sat next to me, and the Captain sound asleep, in the bunk. Occasionally, between the two of us, we even had the wit to deviate several hundred miles, past weather.

To be an FO on long haul in my airline, you need to have an ATPL, be qualified to P1 standard, and have several thousand hours experience. For sure, the Captain is in charge, but he has to delegate that responsibility, make sure his FO's are briefed, and are happy to call him if they feel the need. Using the weather radar, and course deviations are not really a big deal. They happen all over the place, as can any other emergency, whilst the Captain is asleep.

I am now a Captain on short haul, and to judge by some of the comments on this thread, I'd better never go to the toilet, in case something happens, whilst I'm chatting to the CC, and the "200 hour wonder", or whatever you want to call them is at the controls.

These AF FOs were deemed qualified to act as P1, by their company, whilst the Captain took his rest. They could easily have been captains, on another fleet, or in another airline. Let's move away from this "man and boy" concept, and "if only the captain was there" rubbish. Frankly, if you's seen some of the captains' flying skills I've seen, you wouldn't be saying such things!

Of course there is the emotional concept of "being responsible" when one is a captain, and I take that very seriously, but I doubt anyone wants to die really, do they? When I was an FO, I would frequently look left, for advice, whilst now, I only see my own reflection, but hopefully always remember to then look right, and share the problem. These sorts of moments are almost invariably not QRH actions, or "flying the aircraft" ones, but more typically, tricky ones on the ground, involving ATC, passengers etc.

There should be no reason why 2 experienced FOs could not navigate, using the weather radar, or fly their aeroplane equally as well, if not better than their captain.

TTex600

[quote =SLFinAZ]oTTex your comments are way beyond my experience and understanding. I've gOot a bit of PPL time (long ago) but limited to 152/172 VFR. What your saying scares the hell out of me as an SLF. If I understand you correctly even under "manual" control the airbus is actually flown by the AP??

That seems at odds from what I have read....my assumption based on everything I've read is that it has all the built in AB "safety" but that within those parameters when off autopilot it is still equivalent to a corresponding Boeing model. Is that incorrect?
[\quote]

Incorrect. Every Boeing (less 777and 787), Douglas, Embraer, Canadair, etc, places the pilots hands and feet in direct contact with the control surfaces. Airbus places a battery of computers between the pilot and the control surfaces. The 777 and 787 place computer there also, but the computers don't modify the pilots request before they order acontrol deflection. The Bus only gives me what it decides I need, not what I ask for.

The FMGC flys the airplane. FMGC = master computer in simple terms. The pilot communicates with the FMGC through the MCDU - keyboard that programs, the FCU - glareshield mounted knobs and buttons used to request specific speeds/altitudes/headings/vertical speeds- and the SS. Regardless which input device the pilot uses, the FMGC flys the airplane. Unless the computers give up and hand the pilot the aircraft because the computer can no longer do the job. That is the case withAF447, BTW.

I actually operate/program/"fly" an Airbus unlike certain persons on is site with obvious agendas and positions to protect. In simple terms, the Airbus is flown by the various computers. The SS is nothing more than an input device to the computers. The pilot does NOT receive the control outputs he commands unless the computers agree with his requests.

The thousands of posts on this forum alone indicate that there is more to the Airbus than just "it flys like a normal airplane"

DozyWannabe

@TTex600

I disagree completely.

The last Boeing to have directly-connected controls was the 737. Everything since (and that goes for the DC-10, L-1011, 747 and onwards in terms of US-built airliners) had fully-hydraulic controls, which ran through a Q-feel system that modified the outputs to the flight controls with weighted feedback to the pilots to simulate the feel of direct connection. Without that mediation, it would have been possible to yank the flight controls from neutral to maximum in less than a second (and tearing the airframe apart in the process), as the hydraulics were performing the movements and *not* the pilot's muscle power. D.P. Davies explains the development of these systems in great detail. Indeed, the reason Capt. McCormick was able to effect a landing when he lost most of his hydraulics over Windsor, Ontario was precisely because he was unsatisfied with Douglas's assurances that complete hydraulic failre was impossible and therefore direct connection was unnecessary.

The 7(7/8)7 systems mediate the inputs and feedback - of course they do. They may be designed to simulate the more traditional control systems, but that's all it is - a simulation, like the Q-feel units before them.

The Airbus design simply takes that one step further, reasoning that since direct connection had been done away with for nearly two decades prior to the A320 starting development, they might as well start from a clean slate, which is where the G-loading and rate command control technology comes from. Yes it's different, but only marginally so and as I understand it the difference in behaviour between Normal versus Alternate versus Direct is more than manageable.

The 'bus in fact gives you what you ask for unless what you're asking would take it outside the flight envelope. It even goes beyond that and tries to accommodate what you're asking by managing thrust if necessary.

I'd like to know what "agendas" and "positions" you see, and who you think is "protecting" them, as well as why you think that's the case. In my experience the ones with the agendas seem to be the ones taking every opportunity to bash the 'bus.

Aileron Drag

Slickster

I have a feeling that you might be one of the 'nightmare' F/Os of my experience in a very large British airline. Senior F/Os who spent their entire working lives shuttling to and from "Jo-Burg", racking up the credited hours and 'Box' payments.

I spent years on short-haul, and your biggest decision is normally whether to have the steak or chicken. I contend that you would think about this matter in a different way if you were 50 years of age, about to penetrate the ITCZ, and you were looking at two kids on the flight deck who had shiny new ATPLs in their briefcase, and an ego the size of the moon.

You guys have grown up in the job being totally spoiled by technology. You couldn't do a better job than your old captains if they had one hand tied behind their backs. You would probably be lost without GPS. You probably haven't had to manually set take-off power in your life! You just hit 'EPR'.

Your attitude reinforces my opinion that there is no way I would fly as a passenger in my retirement with guys like you up front.

fireflybob

Slickster, that may be true but they're not qualified Captains

Clandestino

By severe stretch of imagination, it just might be true. FMGS is integrated FMS/FD/AP/Autothrust. It calulates navigation and guidance parameters for FD, sends commands to FCCs and FADECS via AP and ATHR respectively. Kick out the AP and ATHR and FMGS has no authority over aeroplane anymore. ATA22.

You are wrong on sidesticks - they are not connected to FMGC but rather to flight control computers - ELACs/SECs on minibus, PRIMs/SECs on widebodies. ATA27.

SLFinAZ

Dozy,

I recognize that my views are fundamental not professional in the sense that my actual first hand experience is limited to basic airman-ship (152/172) vs flying more complex aircraft. With that caveat out of the way my personal feeling is that the entire airbus concept is the single worst development in professional aviation. It unquestioningly takes flying to the lowest common denominator and I think that AF447 has to be taken as the wake up call.

In spite of the endless drivel and speculation this should have been a non-event. For a professional pilot to lose an air frame that was handed off from the AP in an entirely stable configuration is unfathomable (vs a circumstance where the AP "spun out" until the airplane was in an entirely unstable configuration).

In effect the specter of "what is it doing now" has met the reality of why isn't it doing what it needs to? Evan as an "amateur" pilot the total lack of airmanship in this incident astounds me. At the end of the day the blunt truth is that the PF was fundamentally incompetent...and that is a scary reality.

Brian Abraham

You are not alone SLFinAZ. Know of a gentleman who cut his teeth flying the A-26 in Vietnam and went on to an airline career with a major US carrier. Not only did he refuse to fly Airbus products but also refused to fly as a pax on them. Now living out his days in a nursing home unfortunately.

Slickster

Well, you go with your feelings then. For the record, "Box payments" are ancient history, and the credit hours for a Jo'burg ain't that good. There may be a trade off, if you love your golf, but in a very large British airline, credit is king. In any case, you might find yourself flying over the Bay of Bengal, or in severe turbulence to LA, on a 3 crew, which was my point.

No senior FO has spent their entire lives racking up credited hours. They've either done it in said same airline on short haul, come from another airline (where they've racked up their golf, no doubt), or the forces, where they've racked up their points by demonstrating their talent (even though they probably have low hours?). No doubt, whilst doing all of that, they've managed to kid the selection process. Well, if they're that clever, good luck to them.

There is much talk of this, but I don't see it. I occasionally have to depart with the autothrottle u/s, and we deal with it. So, yes, I have had to set take off power, manually. My aircraft does not have GPS, we fly on N1s on it, and universally, we call "set power", so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Well, I couldn't give a toss whether you're on my aeroplane or not, providing you behave yourself. In the meantime, I'm curious to know which airline you will fly with, based on your rational assumptions above.

TTex600

Dozy, does it disturb you that someone such as myself actually flys the Bus? I obviously don't know much about flying it or anything else.

Maybe you forgot that this string is about the crews final conversation. Some of these readers may not be interested in pedantic and anal analysis. That's over in the tech log.

My generalizations regarding the way an Airbus is hand flown are correct.

NOTHING you say or write will change the FACT that the SS does not directly control the control surfaces in other than direct law. Lateral SS movement is translated into roll rates and longitudinal SS movement is translated into load factor requests. I've flown cable controlled, steam gauge, jets for thousands of hours and I assure you that an lateral yoke deflection in a Lear does not result in a roll rate; it results in an aileron deflection which results in a roll rate depending on the airspeed and other factors. Likewise, yoke movements in pitch do not directly result in load factor changes; yoke movements in a Lear result in elevator movements which result in load factor changes depending on A/S etc.

I am NOT anti Airbus FBW. I'm anti the continual statements to the effect that it flys like any other airplane. It does not, and most anyone who actually operates one understands that fact.

I do have a question for you. Why is it that old dogs like myself, reared on the likes of DC9s, (NWA crews for example) manage to maintain control of UAS A330s in the ITCZ while the only airframe lost was flown by Airbus only pilots? BTW, everyone who's read more than my last three posts knows that I defend the pilots and am insulted by those who want to blame this accident on them.

TTex600

I may be technically incorrect about the exact function of the FMGC, but that doesn't matter. My point is that the SS's are not connected to the controls, the SS's are connected only to computers; a point that you yourself concede.

Organfreak

I'm makin' the popcorn!

--The Peanut Gallery

TTex600

SLF, the airframe might have been entirely stable when the A/P and A/T dropped off line, but they dropped off because of false inputs. The pilots were not faced with a stable situation. They were faced with the same bad data and had to quickly separate good data from bad data - and deal with a control law situation they had likely never before experienced.

I'm not ready to declare the PF fundamentally incompetent. :Let's wait until the entire CVR and DFDR data is released before we pass judgement.

It does appear on that pilot actions were incorrect, however that in no way exonerates the machine. The crews last comments indicate extreme confusion and I maintain that the machine was causing that confusion in large part.

TTex600

Organfreak,

I spent an hour pecking away at rebutals on my iPhone during my commute home today, but never hit send after I got a signal. Had I done so, you'd need an adult beverage to go along with the popcorn.

Alas, I decided that I don't have the interest to pursue it further than the last three posts. The "experts" can have it. They aren't going to convince me that the Airbus flys like a normal airplane and I'm not going to convince them of anything. Besides, I initially followed this string for education and I actually have benefited from the information guys like Dozy provide. And..................I don't have a position to protect, an airplane to defend, a concept to justify. So we'll have to see where it goes from here. In the mean time, I'm certain that certain posters will continue to provide entertainment.