The Children of Magenta / Rage against the Machine
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That sounds right, as I recall the electrical load with flaps down on two generators overloads them. We took off during daylight so maybe our power requirement was less. Maybe we just had better generators. Had the pleasure to have lunch down at Dana Point near San Clemente a couple of weeks ago with my buddy Aircal pilot and wife. My wife lived in San Clemente. We are both now ex Aircal,AA. By the way we don't like AA any more than you but nobody asked us so we are just along for the ride.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, the 727 spent half it's life in a climb didn't it so calling it Miss Piggy is appropriate. Going to the 757 when the FO said we could cross 24N going into Cuban airspace I always declined until I finally realized now we could.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uplinker . . .
Capn Bloggs: Autotrim in a turn is merely a gimmick IMO. If you're flying it, you should be flying it, not toggling a joystick.
Uplinker: "Why exactly? Why not embrace progress? For example, do you still do your clothes washing by hand or do you have a machine to do it?"
Uplinker: "Why exactly? Why not embrace progress? For example, do you still do your clothes washing by hand or do you have a machine to do it?"
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uplinker
I fully agree with you. I have flown A300 and B747 classic and I flew them very well, then I flew the A320 and loved it. I support the automation Airbus has brought in. Every field of life we look for comfort, ease and safety why not in the cockpit? Nobody designed an aeroplane which needed great skills to fly. Older ones needed that not because the designer wanted it that way but because the technology wasn't advanced enough to be otherwise. Now almost anyone can fly. Sadly though a day will come when pilot is not needed in the cockpit. I have seen first navigator then the FE exit the cockpit. It cannot be helped.
I fully agree with you. I have flown A300 and B747 classic and I flew them very well, then I flew the A320 and loved it. I support the automation Airbus has brought in. Every field of life we look for comfort, ease and safety why not in the cockpit? Nobody designed an aeroplane which needed great skills to fly. Older ones needed that not because the designer wanted it that way but because the technology wasn't advanced enough to be otherwise. Now almost anyone can fly. Sadly though a day will come when pilot is not needed in the cockpit. I have seen first navigator then the FE exit the cockpit. It cannot be helped.
Hi Glueball,
Yes of course I can, but would that include the engine FADECS?. Do you really want to fly fully manually and look after the EGT's and max N1, N2? AND the pressurisation etc. etc. What I am questioning is why stay rooted in the 70's ?
In daily life; Do you send telegrams from the post office to your friends, or do you send texts? Do you drive a car with ultra efficient fuel infection and digital engine control, or one with carburettors and manual choke? Do you get your information from the internet or do you go to the local library? Do you wash your clothes by hand or do you have a machine to do it for you? Do you have a mobile telephone on you at all times, or do you have to go down the street and use a call box? Do you keep paper manuals or do you have everything on an iPad?
The "old school" pilots have embraced all the above examples of modern technology, but for some reason will not go the 'extra mile' and do the same with aircraft technology. Would you want to go back to open cockpits? No, that would be absurd, but why won't you accept improved aircraft automation, why do you want to fly an airliner as if it were a Seneca?
I'm not having a go, I am genuinely curious.
Yes of course I can, but would that include the engine FADECS?. Do you really want to fly fully manually and look after the EGT's and max N1, N2? AND the pressurisation etc. etc. What I am questioning is why stay rooted in the 70's ?
In daily life; Do you send telegrams from the post office to your friends, or do you send texts? Do you drive a car with ultra efficient fuel infection and digital engine control, or one with carburettors and manual choke? Do you get your information from the internet or do you go to the local library? Do you wash your clothes by hand or do you have a machine to do it for you? Do you have a mobile telephone on you at all times, or do you have to go down the street and use a call box? Do you keep paper manuals or do you have everything on an iPad?
The "old school" pilots have embraced all the above examples of modern technology, but for some reason will not go the 'extra mile' and do the same with aircraft technology. Would you want to go back to open cockpits? No, that would be absurd, but why won't you accept improved aircraft automation, why do you want to fly an airliner as if it were a Seneca?
I'm not having a go, I am genuinely curious.
Last edited by Uplinker; 21st May 2013 at 09:53.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi U,
Because you then know how much control surface deflection is being applied.
This Lufthansa crew had no idea how much aileron was being applied by the FBW computers.
Report: Lufthansa A320 at Hamburg on Mar 1st 2008, wing touches runway in cross wind landing
"The flight control laws of the Airbus Fly By Wire (FBW) change from flight mode via flare mode to ground mode in the pitch axis and change directly from flight mode to ground mode in the roll control. In ground mode the side stick deflection lead to a direct proportional deflection of ailerons and roll spoilers without computer interaction.
However, above 80 knots the effectiveness of roll control, ailerons and roll spoilers, is reduced by the half (e.g. aileron deflection limited to 50% of maximum deflection)."
Perhaps you are content not knowing how much your control surfaces are deflected, but others prefer to know.
Have you ever wondered why B777 & B787 FBW give control surface position feed back via the yoke?
why do you want to fly an airliner as if it were a Seneca?
This Lufthansa crew had no idea how much aileron was being applied by the FBW computers.
Report: Lufthansa A320 at Hamburg on Mar 1st 2008, wing touches runway in cross wind landing
"The flight control laws of the Airbus Fly By Wire (FBW) change from flight mode via flare mode to ground mode in the pitch axis and change directly from flight mode to ground mode in the roll control. In ground mode the side stick deflection lead to a direct proportional deflection of ailerons and roll spoilers without computer interaction.
However, above 80 knots the effectiveness of roll control, ailerons and roll spoilers, is reduced by the half (e.g. aileron deflection limited to 50% of maximum deflection)."
Perhaps you are content not knowing how much your control surfaces are deflected, but others prefer to know.
The "old school" pilots have embraced all the above examples of modern technology, but for some reason will not go the 'extra mile' and do the same with aircraft technology.
Last edited by rudderrudderrat; 21st May 2013 at 11:04. Reason: extra text
Uplinker,
Perhaps, some us believe the ultimate end of "improved automation" is pilotless airplanes. While improvements have, no doubt, increased ease and safety of aviation, these improvements have also dumbed down aviation to the point the beancounters think our craft is worthless.
The "old school" pilots have embraced all the above examples of modern technology, but for some reason will not go the 'extra mile' and do the same with aircraft technology. Would you want to go back to open cockpits? No, that would be absurd, but why won't you accept improved aircraft automation, why do you want to fly an airliner as if it were a Seneca?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Krug departure, Merlot transition
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why exactly? Why not embrace progress? For example, do you still do your clothes washing by hand or do you have a machine to do it?
The difference between hand-flying a bus and a Boeing to me is the same as sex with or without a condom: both are great, but I know which I prefer!
Just my 2¢...
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Belgium
Age: 63
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No matter what type of aircraft you fly, it all dépends on how you mentally take up your flying skills. Having flown B737, B747, A320 & A330: they are all lot of fun to fly but I had to adapt my way of flying.
It's all in the head....
It's all in the head....
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
galaxyflyer, main dog
while you have every right to lament about the disapperence of the age of innocence you have to accept the reality. Airbus FBW came in airline service in 1989 and today it is 2013. It is here and expanding. It has bagged more than double of order for 737 so in the coming decade you are likely to be flying A320 than 737. So instead of looking through the Boeing binocular and being miserable why not enjoy the new concept and it's advantages?
while you have every right to lament about the disapperence of the age of innocence you have to accept the reality. Airbus FBW came in airline service in 1989 and today it is 2013. It is here and expanding. It has bagged more than double of order for 737 so in the coming decade you are likely to be flying A320 than 737. So instead of looking through the Boeing binocular and being miserable why not enjoy the new concept and it's advantages?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi vilas,
What source states that?
Have a look at: Boeing tops 1,000 737 orders for 2012, hits record annual delivery level | CAPA - Centre for Aviation &
Boeing overtakes Airbus in annual sales race | Reuters
It has bagged more than double of order for 737 so in the coming decade you are likely to be flying A320 than 737
Have a look at: Boeing tops 1,000 737 orders for 2012, hits record annual delivery level | CAPA - Centre for Aviation &
Boeing overtakes Airbus in annual sales race | Reuters
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately as AF 447 found out sometimes piloting skills are required and typing doesn't get the job done. Maybe not typing but knowing how to keep the aircraft flying without automation. Us old guys woould probably limit pitch to 2 degrees and use a tad over cruise power if AS went away. We would never pull full back because we are old. The Seneca didn't have stall protection like the Airbus sometimes does.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Krug departure, Merlot transition
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So instead of looking through the Boeing binocular and being miserable why not enjoy the new concept and it's advantages?
What a great ship.The Airbus was (for me) not as fun to fly... still fun, but I enjoy the Boeing more. It feels like Boeing design their machines around the pilot, with the man at the centre of the machine.
During my airboos years I could never escape the feeling that the airplane had been created by over-confident engineers who were trying to design the pilot out of the machine; you felt disconnected from what the automatics were doing, what the other pilot was doing and what the flight control surfaces and engines where doing. It all worked fine until things went wrong and then all of a sudden it went horribly wrong, leaving you -on the proverbial dark and stormy night- with a three-page Ecam and an airplane you had never actually flown before (ie in altn/direct law which is never practiced except in the sim).
Disclaimer: over my career I have met a great many skilled pilots who preferred the Toulouse way of doing things... so it's horses for courses (ą chacun son gołt).
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rudderrat and main dog
Last year Paris air show 737 got zero orders that's right zero to 900 of A320. This year they got whatever you say. By now A320 Neo orders have crossed 2000. You can check it for yourself. Any way I don't own any Airbus or Boeing shares. Also I have more hours on B 747 classic and A300 than A320 but I enjoyed change. I found A320 a piece of cake as compared to 747 classic. Flying one engine out on take off in A320 after trimming the rudder you can go to the toilet and back if you want to. Compare two engine out on one side in classic.
Last year Paris air show 737 got zero orders that's right zero to 900 of A320. This year they got whatever you say. By now A320 Neo orders have crossed 2000. You can check it for yourself. Any way I don't own any Airbus or Boeing shares. Also I have more hours on B 747 classic and A300 than A320 but I enjoyed change. I found A320 a piece of cake as compared to 747 classic. Flying one engine out on take off in A320 after trimming the rudder you can go to the toilet and back if you want to. Compare two engine out on one side in classic.
Last edited by vilas; 21st May 2013 at 16:51.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last year boeing racked in around 400 more orders than airbus did. Despite the lack of orders in Paris. Funny that. This year airbus is leading by a bit, but there is still quite a bit to go in this year. All in all the order backlog for the A320 series including NEO is 3927 whereas the backlog for the 737 including the MAX is 3138. So yes, airbus has a few more orders, but not all that many more after all. And airbus is currently kinda cheap on the market, in my outfit it makes sense to lease out or 737 deliveries and lease in new airbus to replace them, makes around 80k per aircraft and month which currently just offsets the higher fuel consumption on the airbus and earns a tiny bit on the side.
do you fly jet airliners because this is where your hard work and skills got you or because it is full of automation?
There is nothing wrong with a Seneca or a Cessna, and I did not ever suggest there was. They do what they are designed to do - I have flown both.
Seneca or Cessna flying is FLYING in a very real sense, and fair play to all who still do it. But flying day in, day out, commercially, in busy London airspace, saving fuel, keeping to the schedule, changing freq's every 3 mins over Germany etc., I would not want to fly all that manually every day - give me a modern jet. The Airbus is a fantastic machine which is very efficient and modern. It can do a lot of the 'donkey work' for me, and I like that. I finish the day more relaxed and unstressed, and I have plenty of other stuff to do to keep me occupied on a flight. If I want to; I can hand fly it, or if I am tired after a 10 hour sector, I can program and monitor. If I do that though, I still need to understand exactly what it is doing and manage the energy etc.
I have flown both 'clockwork' BAe146's and Airbus. I found both very easy and a pleasure to fly, but they are polar opposites. However, my 'clockwork jet' experience did not prevent me from embracing the modern technology of the Airbus.
Bubbers, I agree and I don't think any of us pilots can understand what the hell the AF447 pilot was doing holding full backstick in alternate law, but that was down to his (lack of) training, not the Airbus. His actions would have crashed a Boeing too. Ditto why did that other pilot snap the fin off an A310 by working the rudder pedals like a bicycle? (lack of) training again. Sometimes the bad apples get through.......
Galaxy, don't worry - passengers will never accept pilotless aircraft. If an automatic tube/subway train goes wrong it won't fall out of the sky - they can just cut the power and it will stop. But pilotless aircraft....nobody will ever accept that.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that I can't help but think the original post was a fishing expedition - not least because the poster concerned commits the cardinal sin of lumping FBW and automation in together, when they are very much two separate entities.
Well, in the Airbus FBW system you're commanding rate rather than deflection (I know you know that though! 
).
You're leaving out the other half of the story there - the Captain in that case made some judgement calls that were alarmingly poor. Namely allowing the F/O to continue an approach that had gusts approaching the regulation limit for F/O approaches, followed by grabbing the stick to correct when the correct action would have been to call a go-around as soon as things looked uncertain.
Now I can't argue against the notion that the Airbus control approach doesn't lend itself to last-minute correction of that nature, but that's what the SOPs are for, and why they should be followed - is it not?
I don't wonder, I know - it's because offered the choice between sidesticks and yokes, the T7 launch customer (United IIRC) chose the latter. Boeing then used that as a sales differentiator against Airbus. What should be noted however is that the feedback is simulated via software, and that makes the software far more complex than the Airbus equivalent.
Additionally, even older designs with yokes don't necessarily behave in a logical manner when given conflicting inputs. One thing that came out of the EgyptAir 990 investigation is that when the yokes are pushed and pulled in opposite directions on the 767 - with sufficient force you get a split elevator condition (i.e. one elevator deflects up, the other down). Boeing had to spend a lot of money correcting that.
On this occasion your gut instinct was incorrect - pilots were very much involved in the design and development, including pilots who worked for the ARB (home of "Handling The Big Jets" author D.P. Davies) and who worked on Concorde.
On this you're absolutely correct, and I agree totally. It saddens me that with two successful approaches there's this tendency for aficionados of one to try to denigrate the other.
).
This Lufthansa crew had no idea how much aileron was being applied by the FBW computers.
Now I can't argue against the notion that the Airbus control approach doesn't lend itself to last-minute correction of that nature, but that's what the SOPs are for, and why they should be followed - is it not?
Have you ever wondered why B777 & B787 FBW give control surface position feed back via the yoke?
- it's because offered the choice between sidesticks and yokes, the T7 launch customer (United IIRC) chose the latter. Boeing then used that as a sales differentiator against Airbus. What should be noted however is that the feedback is simulated via software, and that makes the software far more complex than the Airbus equivalent.Additionally, even older designs with yokes don't necessarily behave in a logical manner when given conflicting inputs. One thing that came out of the EgyptAir 990 investigation is that when the yokes are pushed and pulled in opposite directions on the 767 - with sufficient force you get a split elevator condition (i.e. one elevator deflects up, the other down). Boeing had to spend a lot of money correcting that.
so it's horses for courses (ą chacun son gołt).
Last edited by DozyWannabe; 22nd May 2013 at 14:22.
Originally Posted by Dozy
Namely allowing the F/O to continue an approach that had gusts approaching the regulation limit for F/O approaches, followed by grabbing the stick to correct when the correct action would have been to call a go-around as soon as things looked uncertain.
Originally Posted by Dozy
Additionally, even older designs with yokes don't necessarily behave in a logical manner when given conflicting inputs. One thing that came out of the EgyptAir 990 investigation is that when the yokes are pushed and pulled in opposite directions on the 767 - with sufficient force you get a split elevator condition (i.e. one elevator deflects up, the other down). Boeing had to spend a lot of money correcting that.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who said anything about "heinous crimes"? I said they were poor judgement calls. Correcting in the flare is appropriate in a trainer, but Lufthansa's own regulations were violated, along with Airbus's recommended procedures - which made those actions inappropriate in that situation.
I remember reading about correcting the split elevator condition - it was an unintended design fault. I don't know any more than that.
I remember reading about correcting the split elevator condition - it was an unintended design fault. I don't know any more than that.