Airbus hand-flying characteristics
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most Airbus pilots I talk to either love it or hate it. Learning the French FMS is evidently difficult if you are used to the Boeing way of doing things. In this economic climate, flying any airliner (keeping your job) should be appreciated. Enjoy flying to the US Mainland, Australia and Asia in the A330! Mahalo!
Best video of using the sidestick is this one:
Best video of using the sidestick is this one:
Last edited by Iver; 4th Jan 2013 at 00:00.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Besides, I guess there's no speed input into the pitch law (alternate pitch law is the same as normal and it works even if all ADR's are lost).How would this g/pitch blending work?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Microburst2002:
The blend of pitch rate and G load is determined by the constant factor of the pitch rate term in the C* feed back parameter. It does not require a speed input.
The airplane aerodynamic characteristics (not the FBW control law) determine the airplane response to elevator movement in terms of pitch rate and G-load. These are speed-dependent, of course.
The 'gains' used in the elevator control loop are normally speed-dependent. However, in alternate 2B law, the final report on AF447 states in paragraph 2.2.5:
The blend of pitch rate and G load is determined by the constant factor of the pitch rate term in the C* feed back parameter. It does not require a speed input.
The airplane aerodynamic characteristics (not the FBW control law) determine the airplane response to elevator movement in terms of pitch rate and G-load. These are speed-dependent, of course.
The 'gains' used in the elevator control loop are normally speed-dependent. However, in alternate 2B law, the final report on AF447 states in paragraph 2.2.5:
In the specific case of alternate 2B law, some coefficients used in the longitudinal flight control law become speed-independent and are set for te maximum speed for the aeroplane configuration (330 knots in clean configuration)
Last edited by HazelNuts39; 4th Jan 2013 at 10:15.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hazel
to be honest, I don't understand that factor you mention in the C* law.
I know that the airplane will respond aerodynamically to elevator changes, but the elevators will constantly move to meet the demand of the sidestick as interpreted by the computers, which is different depending on the active law, normal or alternate and flight condition.
I donīt know exactly how the "blending" works, but the idea that I had is that at low speeds we are demanding not only g load but also pitch rate, while at high speeds we are demanding g load alone, and that speed is somewhere in the algorithm.
What you say is that normal law simply demands pure g load, as it is stated in the FCOM, with no "blended" demand of anything else?
to be honest, I don't understand that factor you mention in the C* law.
I know that the airplane will respond aerodynamically to elevator changes, but the elevators will constantly move to meet the demand of the sidestick as interpreted by the computers, which is different depending on the active law, normal or alternate and flight condition.
I donīt know exactly how the "blending" works, but the idea that I had is that at low speeds we are demanding not only g load but also pitch rate, while at high speeds we are demanding g load alone, and that speed is somewhere in the algorithm.
What you say is that normal law simply demands pure g load, as it is stated in the FCOM, with no "blended" demand of anything else?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's some detail from an e-mail correspondence I had some time ago (it provides some info on the differences with the Boeing system too):
Wrt 'stability' as provided by Airbus FBW laws etc, they are actually using the space shuttle C* law.
Aircraft natural longitudinal stability can be regarded as having two modes: the short period which is essentially an interchange of pitch and vertical speed at constant forward speed (and where of course vertical speed variations at constant forward speed are effectively AoA changes), and the so called 'phugoid' mode which is effectively an interchange of forward speed and altitude. This latter shows itself to the pilots as an ability to hold trimmed speed without any pilot input.
With a C* law in place this changes. The short period motion is obviously modified because stick movement no longer commands pitch acceleration but pitch rate or normal acceleration and the damping is adjusted to give an optimum response as seen by the pilot; that is a reasonable response rate commensurate with the size of the aircraft combined with limited overshoot (about 5% used to be a good value)
The bigger change is that with zero stick deflection the system (as used by Airbus) maintains 1g level flight. This means that the phugoid is suppressed since no interchange of potential and kinetic energy is possible. This is turn means that trim stability is wholly dependent on how (T-D)/W varies with airspeed. Most of the time the aircraft flies above minimum drag and the 'speed stability' is positive, but maybe not exciting. For this reason Airbus FBW aircraft are flown with autothrust engaged most of the time. If A/T is not available then one is thrown back on the (T-D)/W variation.
Boeing, in their FBW version chose to modify C* by adding a reference speed term and calling the result C*U. With this system they are effectively producing a stable 'phugoid' of the classical type, but of course they must be accepting small altitude variations to maintain airspeed if there is no A/T in operation.
Effectively the Airbus FBW designs are neutrally stable in pitch and may, or may not be, speed stable depending on flight condition.
Aircraft natural longitudinal stability can be regarded as having two modes: the short period which is essentially an interchange of pitch and vertical speed at constant forward speed (and where of course vertical speed variations at constant forward speed are effectively AoA changes), and the so called 'phugoid' mode which is effectively an interchange of forward speed and altitude. This latter shows itself to the pilots as an ability to hold trimmed speed without any pilot input.
With a C* law in place this changes. The short period motion is obviously modified because stick movement no longer commands pitch acceleration but pitch rate or normal acceleration and the damping is adjusted to give an optimum response as seen by the pilot; that is a reasonable response rate commensurate with the size of the aircraft combined with limited overshoot (about 5% used to be a good value)
The bigger change is that with zero stick deflection the system (as used by Airbus) maintains 1g level flight. This means that the phugoid is suppressed since no interchange of potential and kinetic energy is possible. This is turn means that trim stability is wholly dependent on how (T-D)/W varies with airspeed. Most of the time the aircraft flies above minimum drag and the 'speed stability' is positive, but maybe not exciting. For this reason Airbus FBW aircraft are flown with autothrust engaged most of the time. If A/T is not available then one is thrown back on the (T-D)/W variation.
Boeing, in their FBW version chose to modify C* by adding a reference speed term and calling the result C*U. With this system they are effectively producing a stable 'phugoid' of the classical type, but of course they must be accepting small altitude variations to maintain airspeed if there is no A/T in operation.
Effectively the Airbus FBW designs are neutrally stable in pitch and may, or may not be, speed stable depending on flight condition.
Last edited by DozyWannabe; 4th Jan 2013 at 15:46.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Microburst2002,
Like you, I don't know exactly how the "blending" works. I'm just piecing together various bits of information that have been posted or linked in various threads on this forum. At the moment I'm slightly handicapped writing from memory because I'm away from the computer where I stored those bits.
IIRC there was a Cranfield paper that defined C* as: C* = n + A*q,
where n is incremental normal load factor, q is pitch rate, and A is a constant.
There was also a paper from a mr. Fabre of Airbus that described the implementation of the C* law on Airbus airplanes and showed a diagram of the longitudinal control logic in an inner and an outer control loop. The outer control loop compared the feed-back value of C* calculated from the actual values of n and q to the commanded value of C*. The commanded movement of the elevator was then proportional to the difference between feed-back C* and commanded C*.
Standing by for corrections.
Like you, I don't know exactly how the "blending" works. I'm just piecing together various bits of information that have been posted or linked in various threads on this forum. At the moment I'm slightly handicapped writing from memory because I'm away from the computer where I stored those bits.
IIRC there was a Cranfield paper that defined C* as: C* = n + A*q,
where n is incremental normal load factor, q is pitch rate, and A is a constant.
There was also a paper from a mr. Fabre of Airbus that described the implementation of the C* law on Airbus airplanes and showed a diagram of the longitudinal control logic in an inner and an outer control loop. The outer control loop compared the feed-back value of C* calculated from the actual values of n and q to the commanded value of C*. The commanded movement of the elevator was then proportional to the difference between feed-back C* and commanded C*.
Standing by for corrections.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turns out it's much mor complex than I've ever suspected... 
@Hazelnuts - can you please explain what exactly does the term C* is? Is it some physical value? What does it represent?
I am starting to regret not paying attention on Automatics 101 at my uni...
@Hazelnuts - can you please explain what exactly does the term C* is? Is it some physical value? What does it represent?
I am starting to regret not paying attention on Automatics 101 at my uni...
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Stuck,
What can I add to C* = n + A*q ? It represents a 'blend' of G-load and pitch rate that is fed into the control loop to command the position of the elevator.
What can I add to C* = n + A*q ? It represents a 'blend' of G-load and pitch rate that is fed into the control loop to command the position of the elevator.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@HazelNuts39
This AF447 Thread No8, page 89 link will take you back to the original discussion re the C. Favre paper, and other C* references on the same page.
This AF447 Thread No8, page 89 link will take you back to the original discussion re the C. Favre paper, and other C* references on the same page.
Last edited by mm43; 4th Jan 2013 at 18:03.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to worry, you don't need to know all the equations behind the technology - whether that be cables and counterweights, advanced FBW or anything inbetween - to fly the aircraft well.
However, considering myself a bit of a techie type (un-justifiably, it seems
), I'd really like to now how it all works...
What can I add to C* = n + A*q ? It represents a 'blend' of G-load and pitch rate that is fed into the control loop to command the position of the elevator.
I have always thought that a "control law" would be represented as:
output = function of (input, other variables),
How does the C* term (which represents the nature of the control law) translate into the above?
Salute!
Thank you Doze and Nuts to add the technical and aero stuff.
Our small jet used "stby gains" when we lost the air data. The stby gain for total pressure was basically sea level 14.7 psi, dynamic pressure was about 300 knots gear up and maybe 160 or 180 knots with gear down. The ratio was what HAL used to determine control surface deflection and rate. So like the 'bus, we had a "heavy stick" unless going the speed of stink.
Remember that the FBW control input never commands absolute surface movement rate nor position unless in the 'bus "direct" mode. We didn't have that option. So the biggie is the gains determine the rate of movement of the control surfaces. Body rates are blended with existing gee until reaching the commanded gee. This prevents a "rough" ride and helps to prevent overshooting your desired AoA/attitude. Once getting to your desired pitch attitude, relaxing the stick allows the system to maintain the gee ( one gee corrected for pitch attitude in the 'bus, and trimmed gee in our little jet).
Still seems like many here do not fully understand the control law implementation, and the plethora of reversion modes in the 'bus is still confusing to this old fart.
Thank you Doze and Nuts to add the technical and aero stuff.
Our small jet used "stby gains" when we lost the air data. The stby gain for total pressure was basically sea level 14.7 psi, dynamic pressure was about 300 knots gear up and maybe 160 or 180 knots with gear down. The ratio was what HAL used to determine control surface deflection and rate. So like the 'bus, we had a "heavy stick" unless going the speed of stink.
Remember that the FBW control input never commands absolute surface movement rate nor position unless in the 'bus "direct" mode. We didn't have that option. So the biggie is the gains determine the rate of movement of the control surfaces. Body rates are blended with existing gee until reaching the commanded gee. This prevents a "rough" ride and helps to prevent overshooting your desired AoA/attitude. Once getting to your desired pitch attitude, relaxing the stick allows the system to maintain the gee ( one gee corrected for pitch attitude in the 'bus, and trimmed gee in our little jet).
Still seems like many here do not fully understand the control law implementation, and the plethora of reversion modes in the 'bus is still confusing to this old fart.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Stuck iaA
output=function of (input,other variables)
Output is a signal to the actuator to move the elevator up or down
Function of - is the gain"
Input is delta (C*) , i.e. the difference between commanded and actual C*, where commanded C* is a function of side stick longitudinal angle and actual C* is calculated from the G and pitch rate sensed by the relevant accelerometer and gyro sensors.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it (until I get a better explanation):
Output is a signal to the actuator to move the elevator up or down
Function of - is the gain"
Input is delta (C*) , i.e. the difference between commanded and actual C*, where commanded C* is a function of side stick longitudinal angle and actual C* is calculated from the G and pitch rate sensed by the relevant accelerometer and gyro sensors.
Output is a signal to the actuator to move the elevator up or down
Function of - is the gain"
Input is delta (C*) , i.e. the difference between commanded and actual C*, where commanded C* is a function of side stick longitudinal angle and actual C* is calculated from the G and pitch rate sensed by the relevant accelerometer and gyro sensors.
Just to make sure I understand it correctly:
-Each SS longitudal angle actually corresponds a "g-load" AND a pitch rate
-Then, "commanded C*" is calculated (which is solely a function of SS angle).
- "actual C*" is computed from nz and pitchrate sensors and then subtracted from the "commanded C*) to obtain delta (C*).
- The computed delta(C*) x "gain" = elevator deflection.
- elevator deflection then changes nz and pitchrate. New "actual C*" is computed and fed back into the loop...
Right?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: ex-DXB
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Hazelnuts! Now, it is starting to make sense!
Just to make sure I understand it correctly:
-Each SS longitudal angle actually corresponds a "g-load" AND a pitch rate
-Then, "commanded C*" is calculated (which is solely a function of SS angle).
- "actual C*" is computed from nz and pitchrate sensors and then subtracted from the "commanded C*) to obtain delta (C*).
- The computed delta(C*) x "gain" = elevator deflection.
- elevator deflection then changes nz and pitchrate. New "actual C*" is computed and fed back into the loop...
Just to make sure I understand it correctly:
-Each SS longitudal angle actually corresponds a "g-load" AND a pitch rate
-Then, "commanded C*" is calculated (which is solely a function of SS angle).
- "actual C*" is computed from nz and pitchrate sensors and then subtracted from the "commanded C*) to obtain delta (C*).
- The computed delta(C*) x "gain" = elevator deflection.
- elevator deflection then changes nz and pitchrate. New "actual C*" is computed and fed back into the loop...
In gusty conditions at 300ft AAL, this is the last thing you are thinking about..!
SIDESTICK
hikoushi,
You will have a lot of fun on the A330, and there's a lot of good stuff here. I don't know what Iver's problem is with the FMS part of the FMGS (or even if he is a user of it), but I must correct any false impressions you may have gleaned from the YouTube video he recommends.
The video itself is great; handling of the sidestick poor by both PFs. It's a tribute to the FBW system that stirring the pudding to that extent does not produce PIO.
In the case of the L/H seat PF, three faults are evident.
1) The stick is never stationary in the neutral position (which it should be much of the time, even when manoeuvring). It's always on the move.
2) He constantly holds the stick in his hand, instead of using fingers and thumb.
3) His armrest is so badly positioned (too low, and wrong rake-angle) that he is unable to rest his forearm on it. (See the landing approach at the two-minute point on the video.) As a result of this and (2), his whole forearm moves back and forth, unsupported, during pitch commands.
It's very important first to adjust the armrest to the best graduations of height and angle that suit your arm. These can be quickly established during type conversion. The best way to operate the sidestick is to rest your elbow stationary on the armrest so that your open hand surrounds the top of the stick without touching it. Your wrist should be clear of the armrest at all times while you are controlling the stick, so that your hand movements are unimpeded. Your fingers will be on the outside of the stick; your thumb on the inside of it.
The following description of how to control the stick assumes you are in the L/H seat, the R/H seat obviously being a mirror-image of the left (I had to maintain currency in both). Remember: your elbow should not move.
Use your thumb to move the stick to the left, and to move it forwards. The transition from one action to the other is achieved by twisting your wrist through about 90 degrees. Diagonal movements (forward-left) are achieved with the wrist somewhere between the two extremes.
Use your fingers (as many as you like) to move the stick to the right, and to move it backwards. The transition from one action to the other does not require as much of a twist of the wrist as with the thumb action.
Someone said recently on the Airbus FBW thread that stick commands should be small, but long-lasting. I partly disagree. The only long-lasting commands I can think of are to rotate the a/c on take-off or go-around, and rolling it from a turn one way into a turn the other way. Landing flare is comparatively brief. *** There are no hard and fast rules, but normal commands are small-to-medium jabs, their effects limited by short duration. Between each jab, the stick should be allowed to return to and remain in neutral while - with your hand relaxed - you observe the effect of the command.
So how to fly the Airbus FBW manually? I'm not going to try and discuss C* in this post (and others are currently doing that). But I can offer a flavour of what it's like, from a pilot's perspective. Five years ago, during PPRuNe discussions on an A320 crosswind incident at Hamburg, I wrote and amended this, which may be of some (unofficial) interest:
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/31609...ml#post3956007
On the general subject of how the sidestick is often misused, I offered this:
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/31609...ml#post3979423
Disclaimer: Although I flew the A320 for 14 years, I retired at the end of 2001; so am way out of date. Anyway, I hope this helps.
*** [EDIT] This is correct in terms of the time taken to rotate the a/c by only about 3 degrees. However, it overlooks the effect of Landing Mode, which - below a certain height (30ft in my 1988 FCOM) - requires the PF to pull the stick progressively backwards: even to maintain a steady pitch-attitude. This feature goes some way to simulate the stick load on landing with traditional controls. Without Landing Mode, it would be easy to over-flare.
You will have a lot of fun on the A330, and there's a lot of good stuff here. I don't know what Iver's problem is with the FMS part of the FMGS (or even if he is a user of it), but I must correct any false impressions you may have gleaned from the YouTube video he recommends.
The video itself is great; handling of the sidestick poor by both PFs. It's a tribute to the FBW system that stirring the pudding to that extent does not produce PIO.
In the case of the L/H seat PF, three faults are evident.
1) The stick is never stationary in the neutral position (which it should be much of the time, even when manoeuvring). It's always on the move.
2) He constantly holds the stick in his hand, instead of using fingers and thumb.
3) His armrest is so badly positioned (too low, and wrong rake-angle) that he is unable to rest his forearm on it. (See the landing approach at the two-minute point on the video.) As a result of this and (2), his whole forearm moves back and forth, unsupported, during pitch commands.
It's very important first to adjust the armrest to the best graduations of height and angle that suit your arm. These can be quickly established during type conversion. The best way to operate the sidestick is to rest your elbow stationary on the armrest so that your open hand surrounds the top of the stick without touching it. Your wrist should be clear of the armrest at all times while you are controlling the stick, so that your hand movements are unimpeded. Your fingers will be on the outside of the stick; your thumb on the inside of it.
The following description of how to control the stick assumes you are in the L/H seat, the R/H seat obviously being a mirror-image of the left (I had to maintain currency in both). Remember: your elbow should not move.
Use your thumb to move the stick to the left, and to move it forwards. The transition from one action to the other is achieved by twisting your wrist through about 90 degrees. Diagonal movements (forward-left) are achieved with the wrist somewhere between the two extremes.
Use your fingers (as many as you like) to move the stick to the right, and to move it backwards. The transition from one action to the other does not require as much of a twist of the wrist as with the thumb action.
Someone said recently on the Airbus FBW thread that stick commands should be small, but long-lasting. I partly disagree. The only long-lasting commands I can think of are to rotate the a/c on take-off or go-around, and rolling it from a turn one way into a turn the other way. Landing flare is comparatively brief. *** There are no hard and fast rules, but normal commands are small-to-medium jabs, their effects limited by short duration. Between each jab, the stick should be allowed to return to and remain in neutral while - with your hand relaxed - you observe the effect of the command.
So how to fly the Airbus FBW manually? I'm not going to try and discuss C* in this post (and others are currently doing that). But I can offer a flavour of what it's like, from a pilot's perspective. Five years ago, during PPRuNe discussions on an A320 crosswind incident at Hamburg, I wrote and amended this, which may be of some (unofficial) interest:
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/31609...ml#post3956007
On the general subject of how the sidestick is often misused, I offered this:
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/31609...ml#post3979423
Disclaimer: Although I flew the A320 for 14 years, I retired at the end of 2001; so am way out of date. Anyway, I hope this helps.
*** [EDIT] This is correct in terms of the time taken to rotate the a/c by only about 3 degrees. However, it overlooks the effect of Landing Mode, which - below a certain height (30ft in my 1988 FCOM) - requires the PF to pull the stick progressively backwards: even to maintain a steady pitch-attitude. This feature goes some way to simulate the stick load on landing with traditional controls. Without Landing Mode, it would be easy to over-flare.
Last edited by Chris Scott; 5th Jan 2013 at 16:28. Reason: Addition of Landing Mode
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Stuck iaA,
That is my understanding too. But it is perhaps not the whole story. Some PPRuNers will recall my failed attempt to derive the C* coefficients from the FDR data of AF447.
What puzzles me in particular is the FCOM and other Airbus documents always saying that the side stick commands a load factor, and Figure 4 in C. Favre's paper (copied in the post linked in mm43's post above) that seems to indicate a special treatment of (commanded - actual) vertical load factor. That's why I wrote that the 'blend' with pitch rate is mainly important for the build-up phase of load factor, and perhaps less so for maintaining the commanded load factor in a steady-state pull-up maneuver.
That is my understanding too. But it is perhaps not the whole story. Some PPRuNers will recall my failed attempt to derive the C* coefficients from the FDR data of AF447.
What puzzles me in particular is the FCOM and other Airbus documents always saying that the side stick commands a load factor, and Figure 4 in C. Favre's paper (copied in the post linked in mm43's post above) that seems to indicate a special treatment of (commanded - actual) vertical load factor. That's why I wrote that the 'blend' with pitch rate is mainly important for the build-up phase of load factor, and perhaps less so for maintaining the commanded load factor in a steady-state pull-up maneuver.
Last edited by HazelNuts39; 6th Jan 2013 at 15:57. Reason: typo
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Stuck iaA,
That is my understanding too. But it is perhaps not the whole story. What puzzles me in particular is the FCOM and other Airbus documents saying that the side stick commands a load factor, and Figure 4 in C. Favre's paper (copied in the post linked in mm43's post above) that seems to indicate a special treatment of (commanded - actual) vertical load factor. That's why I wrote that the 'blend' with pitch rate is mainly important for the build-up phase of load factor, and perhaps less so for maintaining the commanded load factor in a steady-state pull-up maneuver.
4th Jan 2013 22:29
That is my understanding too. But it is perhaps not the whole story. What puzzles me in particular is the FCOM and other Airbus documents saying that the side stick commands a load factor, and Figure 4 in C. Favre's paper (copied in the post linked in mm43's post above) that seems to indicate a special treatment of (commanded - actual) vertical load factor. That's why I wrote that the 'blend' with pitch rate is mainly important for the build-up phase of load factor, and perhaps less so for maintaining the commanded load factor in a steady-state pull-up maneuver.
4th Jan 2013 22:29
Big thanks!While I couldn't fully comrehend the figure from Favre's paper (and can't get access to the paper itself), I understand that in steady state the load-factor may be dominant. That, however, is different from the basic C* algorithm (or at least my understanding of it). Isn't it?
Anyway, I guess some book-digging is on order...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: B.F.E.
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really great stuff here, although I'll probably have to come back to some of the deep technical stuff both here and in the AF447 threads after getting checked out and having some time to get familliar in type. And Chris, great practical info on the handling techniques, will definitely reference that again before going to the sim.
Thankfully plenty of others who did the same transition, most of whom are smarter than me, to lean on for help and therefore be obligated to purchase libations for in the coming months.
And the "stick-handling" (ahem) in that video, looked more like the last 30 feet of a DC-9 landing in a 35 knot gusting wind than anything any of our Airbus converts have described!.
Thankfully plenty of others who did the same transition, most of whom are smarter than me, to lean on for help and therefore be obligated to purchase libations for in the coming months.
And the "stick-handling" (ahem) in that video, looked more like the last 30 feet of a DC-9 landing in a 35 knot gusting wind than anything any of our Airbus converts have described!
.
Last edited by hikoushi; 4th Jan 2013 at 23:51.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the "stick-handling" (ahem) in that video, looked more like the last 30 feet of a DC-9 landing in a 35 knot gusting wind than anything any of our Airbus converts have described!.
Last edited by Stuck_in_an_ATR; 5th Jan 2013 at 07:40.