What's the deal with the AP "TOGA"
Thread Starter
Thank you, Spandex.
Closing in on my concerns about the AP modes and the AT modes and all that stuff.
If the AP is trying to maintain a flight path, then I can understand an increase in speed if the pilot crams the throttles forward before disconnecting the AP.
Only AP approaches I ever flew required manual throttle, so for GA, hit the paddle switch below stick grip to disconnect AP and move throttles forward. Jet tries to maintain trimmed speed/AoA and descent rate changes. Kinda like the "Navy" approaches, where AoA was primary, not a calculated speed, and descent rate controlled by power and not by nose position. Establish a "standard" attitude then, and use throttle for speed climbing back up.
From my peanut gallery seat, it all comes back to the level of automation and what happens in this mode or the other or the sub-mode and the beat goes on. Would seem to me that the pilots and engineers designing the system could come up with something that resembles, closely resembles, what a human pilot would do, ya think?
I thank all here flying the heavies and using all the automation on a regular basis. Am learning a lot, and also seeing a lot of philosophy. Except for 400 hours with an AP that could be used for a precision approach, my other 3500 hours were all manual. I still had to deal with configuration changes and such for a missed approach, but knew exactly what was gonna happen. Lest you think I never flew much in weather, my first two years were in a lot of WX, and I was cleared for field minimums even as a nugget.
Closing in on my concerns about the AP modes and the AT modes and all that stuff.
If the AP is trying to maintain a flight path, then I can understand an increase in speed if the pilot crams the throttles forward before disconnecting the AP.
Only AP approaches I ever flew required manual throttle, so for GA, hit the paddle switch below stick grip to disconnect AP and move throttles forward. Jet tries to maintain trimmed speed/AoA and descent rate changes. Kinda like the "Navy" approaches, where AoA was primary, not a calculated speed, and descent rate controlled by power and not by nose position. Establish a "standard" attitude then, and use throttle for speed climbing back up.
From my peanut gallery seat, it all comes back to the level of automation and what happens in this mode or the other or the sub-mode and the beat goes on. Would seem to me that the pilots and engineers designing the system could come up with something that resembles, closely resembles, what a human pilot would do, ya think?
I thank all here flying the heavies and using all the automation on a regular basis. Am learning a lot, and also seeing a lot of philosophy. Except for 400 hours with an AP that could be used for a precision approach, my other 3500 hours were all manual. I still had to deal with configuration changes and such for a missed approach, but knew exactly what was gonna happen. Lest you think I never flew much in weather, my first two years were in a lot of WX, and I was cleared for field minimums even as a nugget.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Not lost, but slightly uncertain of position.
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gums,
Mind you that the dweebs with the thick glasses who designed the lovely Viper you used to fly, actually did a good job regarding pilot friendliness. The entire way the aircraft is built is oriented towards making it very simple and easy to fly, so that the green, self propelled stick actuator can concentrate on the tactical stuff. And not only that. The stuff that is automated, is very simple and easy to figure out.
The leading edge flaps manages themselves. The trailing edge flaps are hooked to the gear handle. The gear limit is 300 KTS, the flap (if you for some reason elect to extend them manually without the gear) have an even higher limit. The engine reacts almost instantaneously and the stick does not take a lot of strength to manipulate.
Only thing I used to find challenging when first exposed with this wonderful aircraft, was getting used to the 1 g trim and the lack of feedback from the stick (as opposed to a conventional flight control system), and the lack of sound change (noise) with the change in speed. It takes a good instrument crosscheck to fly it well in the weather, especially if flying heads down. In the MLU, the HUD is not certified as a primary flight instrument/display and we therefore have to be able to fly on the round dials.
Also, the weather here in northern Europe kind-of sucks, so we are often exposed to real IMC conditions, which in turn helps the jocks to hone their skills. Apparently all this automation in the liners, along with some companies policy that demand it is to be used to the max extent possible, results in the fact that the crews lose their most important skills. Being able to hand fly their aircraft by use of stick (joke) and throttle. Scary !! The old American Airlines video, "Children of the Magenta", shows that it is a known issue, and that it has been known for a while now.
Maybe the designers at Boeing and Airbus should rethink the concept of pilot friendliness and how tho reduce pilot workload, and maybe the airline companies should focus their training a bit more on basic pilot skills.
Mind you that the dweebs with the thick glasses who designed the lovely Viper you used to fly, actually did a good job regarding pilot friendliness. The entire way the aircraft is built is oriented towards making it very simple and easy to fly, so that the green, self propelled stick actuator can concentrate on the tactical stuff. And not only that. The stuff that is automated, is very simple and easy to figure out.
The leading edge flaps manages themselves. The trailing edge flaps are hooked to the gear handle. The gear limit is 300 KTS, the flap (if you for some reason elect to extend them manually without the gear) have an even higher limit. The engine reacts almost instantaneously and the stick does not take a lot of strength to manipulate.
Only thing I used to find challenging when first exposed with this wonderful aircraft, was getting used to the 1 g trim and the lack of feedback from the stick (as opposed to a conventional flight control system), and the lack of sound change (noise) with the change in speed. It takes a good instrument crosscheck to fly it well in the weather, especially if flying heads down. In the MLU, the HUD is not certified as a primary flight instrument/display and we therefore have to be able to fly on the round dials.
Also, the weather here in northern Europe kind-of sucks, so we are often exposed to real IMC conditions, which in turn helps the jocks to hone their skills. Apparently all this automation in the liners, along with some companies policy that demand it is to be used to the max extent possible, results in the fact that the crews lose their most important skills. Being able to hand fly their aircraft by use of stick (joke) and throttle. Scary !! The old American Airlines video, "Children of the Magenta", shows that it is a known issue, and that it has been known for a while now.
Maybe the designers at Boeing and Airbus should rethink the concept of pilot friendliness and how tho reduce pilot workload, and maybe the airline companies should focus their training a bit more on basic pilot skills.
Thread Starter
Nice, F-16.
Off-topic: Don't know who the pilots were that helped design the Viper, but they sure as hell knew how to keep the basics simple. Just wish we had a better autopilot like I was used to in two other jets.
Secondly, I was a HUD pilot due to being far-sighted, but always cross-checked the steam gauges per the official policy.
I still like to hear from the heavies here about the GA/TOGA stuff. I am gaining an appreciation about the automation and the procedures and such.
Seems most of the high time folks here are very comfortable with a manual GA and such. A mental picture of the missed approach course and altitudes and such must really help to ensure otto is doing his job.. Then cleaning up the jet as I never had to do except raising the gear handle and in four others, the flaps. BFD.
The 777 folks seemed to have a lotta pilots in the design process, and I thot the 'bus folks did too. The latter may have been a poor opinion on my part, as evidenced by a few accidents/incidents.
Off-topic: Don't know who the pilots were that helped design the Viper, but they sure as hell knew how to keep the basics simple. Just wish we had a better autopilot like I was used to in two other jets.
Secondly, I was a HUD pilot due to being far-sighted, but always cross-checked the steam gauges per the official policy.
I still like to hear from the heavies here about the GA/TOGA stuff. I am gaining an appreciation about the automation and the procedures and such.
Seems most of the high time folks here are very comfortable with a manual GA and such. A mental picture of the missed approach course and altitudes and such must really help to ensure otto is doing his job.. Then cleaning up the jet as I never had to do except raising the gear handle and in four others, the flaps. BFD.
The 777 folks seemed to have a lotta pilots in the design process, and I thot the 'bus folks did too. The latter may have been a poor opinion on my part, as evidenced by a few accidents/incidents.
Salute Gums,
Airbus radically changed the pilot actions to initiate a go-around when they/we introduced the A320 into airline service in 1988.
Their previous type, the A310 (and the A300, for that matter), had thrust levers that the auto-throttle / auto-thrust could drive forwards and backwards when it needed to change the thrust setting - just like most other 1970s and 1980s big jets, including the DC10 and B747. I call that a "driven" thrust lever. Of course the pilot - if he must - can override the A/THR temporarily, without disengaging it, simply by overpowering the clutch that connects the levers to the mechanism that drives them.
To initiate a take-off or go-around on an A310, the PF presses a small "go-lever" on each thrust lever (just below the hand grip). if the A/THR is armed or active, it will advance the thrust levers and the thrust to TOGA thrust (unless, only in the case of take-off, the crew has pre-set Flexible Thrust on the Thrust-Rating Panel).
But the "go-levers" have a second, crucial function, which is to re-jig the auto-flight system for the flight director (assuming it's in use) and AP (likewise) to provide suitable pitch and roll commands for a T/O or G/A. So, if the PF is using manual thrust, (s)he must still remember to operate the go-levers.
Boeing stuck with a similar philosophy for the B777, although they probably have a different name and form for the go-levers (buttons or switches, perhaps). To see what can happen if the PF forgets to operate the B777 equivalent of the A310's go levers, see the PPRuNe thread here, and the BEA report on the same serious incident.
So what did Airbus change on the A320, and the Airbuses that followed? Well, as you know, the thrust ("throttle") levers are no longer "driven" by the A/THR (although they work conventionally for manual thrust). Their position provides a thrust LIMIT only. On T/O or G/A, the PF pushes the thrust levers forwards manually. That single, instinctive action commands the thrust increase AND re-configures the AFS for flight-director/AP.
Hope this helps?
Airbus radically changed the pilot actions to initiate a go-around when they/we introduced the A320 into airline service in 1988.
Their previous type, the A310 (and the A300, for that matter), had thrust levers that the auto-throttle / auto-thrust could drive forwards and backwards when it needed to change the thrust setting - just like most other 1970s and 1980s big jets, including the DC10 and B747. I call that a "driven" thrust lever. Of course the pilot - if he must - can override the A/THR temporarily, without disengaging it, simply by overpowering the clutch that connects the levers to the mechanism that drives them.
To initiate a take-off or go-around on an A310, the PF presses a small "go-lever" on each thrust lever (just below the hand grip). if the A/THR is armed or active, it will advance the thrust levers and the thrust to TOGA thrust (unless, only in the case of take-off, the crew has pre-set Flexible Thrust on the Thrust-Rating Panel).
But the "go-levers" have a second, crucial function, which is to re-jig the auto-flight system for the flight director (assuming it's in use) and AP (likewise) to provide suitable pitch and roll commands for a T/O or G/A. So, if the PF is using manual thrust, (s)he must still remember to operate the go-levers.
Boeing stuck with a similar philosophy for the B777, although they probably have a different name and form for the go-levers (buttons or switches, perhaps). To see what can happen if the PF forgets to operate the B777 equivalent of the A310's go levers, see the PPRuNe thread here, and the BEA report on the same serious incident.
So what did Airbus change on the A320, and the Airbuses that followed? Well, as you know, the thrust ("throttle") levers are no longer "driven" by the A/THR (although they work conventionally for manual thrust). Their position provides a thrust LIMIT only. On T/O or G/A, the PF pushes the thrust levers forwards manually. That single, instinctive action commands the thrust increase AND re-configures the AFS for flight-director/AP.
Hope this helps?
Last edited by Jetdriver; 3rd Feb 2014 at 00:55.
