Why does A330 with emergency config will enter direct law after L/G gravity extension
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Taipei 101
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why does A330 with emergency config will enter direct law after L/G gravity extension
Hello everyone
Currently I'm in transition course from A320 to A330. I'm a bit confused about the difference A320 and A330.
In A320 (the old version, I noticed the new one with winglet has different law reversion), whenever we put the L/G gravity extension, the A/C has to enter the direct law.
However, in A330, although for many cases even we lower the gear with L/G gravity extension, it could still stay in Alternate law. I think just like the new A320 with the winglet. It quite makes sense that a new generation A/C could tolerant more failures.
Except in Emergency ELEC Configuration. It will still enter the direct law after we lower the L/G gravity extension. I also check the Land recovery pb function, but still unable to find out why it will enter the direct law. Could someone please explain to me? Very appreciate!
Currently I'm in transition course from A320 to A330. I'm a bit confused about the difference A320 and A330.
In A320 (the old version, I noticed the new one with winglet has different law reversion), whenever we put the L/G gravity extension, the A/C has to enter the direct law.
However, in A330, although for many cases even we lower the gear with L/G gravity extension, it could still stay in Alternate law. I think just like the new A320 with the winglet. It quite makes sense that a new generation A/C could tolerant more failures.
Except in Emergency ELEC Configuration. It will still enter the direct law after we lower the L/G gravity extension. I also check the Land recovery pb function, but still unable to find out why it will enter the direct law. Could someone please explain to me? Very appreciate!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
can8
I remember reading in one airbus instructor meeting report that A330 is not a big A320. So I think it will be better to forget A320 during transition. A330 has better redundancy the flare mode and also the AP is available in some situations in alternate law. But in A320 the transition to direct law with gear down is in fact the only flare mode of alternate law. The flare mode of A330 is slight pitch down elevator is applied while in A320 it progressively pitches down by eight degrees. But without Radio altitude measurement there can be no flare mode any way so with gear down it goes in direct law. A330 also does the same in ELEC EMER. That is why you use manual pitch trim. Do not confuse this with A320 Neo not going to direct law with only some failures like double yaw damper fail. Actually it does not even go into alternate law but remains in normal law with flare mode. Airbus wants pilots to carefully handle since there is a failure so only the indication of alternate law is displayed. As I said if you keep comparing A320 you will add to your confusion.
I remember reading in one airbus instructor meeting report that A330 is not a big A320. So I think it will be better to forget A320 during transition. A330 has better redundancy the flare mode and also the AP is available in some situations in alternate law. But in A320 the transition to direct law with gear down is in fact the only flare mode of alternate law. The flare mode of A330 is slight pitch down elevator is applied while in A320 it progressively pitches down by eight degrees. But without Radio altitude measurement there can be no flare mode any way so with gear down it goes in direct law. A330 also does the same in ELEC EMER. That is why you use manual pitch trim. Do not confuse this with A320 Neo not going to direct law with only some failures like double yaw damper fail. Actually it does not even go into alternate law but remains in normal law with flare mode. Airbus wants pilots to carefully handle since there is a failure so only the indication of alternate law is displayed. As I said if you keep comparing A320 you will add to your confusion.
Last edited by vilas; 22nd Feb 2017 at 08:04.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But as Dual RA failures in A330, it will enter flare mode rather than direct law for A320 when our L/G down provided AP is OFF.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Mordor
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is quite confusing though. The 330 EMER ELEC procedure says the A/C will enter Direct Law upon L/G ext., whereas RA 1+2 FAULT procedure says it will enter Flare Law upon L/G ext. What's the difference between those two? Both cases say "MAN PITCH TRIM...USE"
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Mordor
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about roll? In Direct Law, the roll control is direct. How about the Flare Law in case of both RA failure? I think it will stay in Roll Normal Law. Maybe that's why they use different terminology?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Taipei 101
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Sidestick n Rudder
I agree your opinion about the Roll stay in Normal law while in Flare mode since I've read this in somewhere of this forum. You could check it out when you have time.
Hi Vilas
Thanks for your reply. I do agree I have to forget something to avoid confusing me too much. Normally I could forget very well ha ha!
Just a minor correction, in A320, at 30 feet the direct law will lower down the pitch to -2 degree over 8 sec. Not 8 degrees. It will be too much I guess!( I could not remember this, I just check the FCOM)
Cheers!!
I agree your opinion about the Roll stay in Normal law while in Flare mode since I've read this in somewhere of this forum. You could check it out when you have time.
Hi Vilas
Thanks for your reply. I do agree I have to forget something to avoid confusing me too much. Normally I could forget very well ha ha!
Just a minor correction, in A320, at 30 feet the direct law will lower down the pitch to -2 degree over 8 sec. Not 8 degrees. It will be too much I guess!( I could not remember this, I just check the FCOM)
Cheers!!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: ME
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wondering what's the practical use of this discussion? There are millions of issues like this in Airbus. You will freak out trying to find reasons behind all of them. Just follow the procedure. It was designed this way. To go through CBT, FTD, FFS and fly it next day with passengers. Sure, over time we come across usefull things. But in this case I don't think knowing the reason why the aircraft goes into Direct Law will help you in any way. To remember that it goes Direct? It's written in the QRH or on the screen!
We have so many other thing to know and remember.
We have so many other thing to know and remember.
Last edited by Romasik; 20th Feb 2017 at 15:01.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
o not confuse this with A320 Neo not going to direct law with only some failures like double yaw damper fail. Actually it does not even go into alternate law but remains in normal law with flare mode.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Romasik
I don't agree with you. Although it is an easy aircraft to fly a pilot is not a button pushing Zombie. AOA blocked Valpha protection was not there on ECAM or QRH it was the knowledgeable smart pilot who did it to save the situation. That's what separates average pilot from the extraordinary.
I don't agree with you. Although it is an easy aircraft to fly a pilot is not a button pushing Zombie. AOA blocked Valpha protection was not there on ECAM or QRH it was the knowledgeable smart pilot who did it to save the situation. That's what separates average pilot from the extraordinary.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: ME
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm mostly talking about this particular issue. Knowing the reason of going direct won't make you an extraordinary pilot. There are tonnes of other things that we have to know and refresh from time to time. This is much more practical. It's difficult to draw the line between usefull and useless stuff.
BTW, the idea of gettig rid of protections normally comes to most pilot minds when they start studying it.
BTW, the idea of gettig rid of protections normally comes to most pilot minds when they start studying it.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you don't have the attitude to question then how come you thought about getting out of protections? It is good to know and share information. It gives one the confidence about the machine you operate.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
can8 ko
Correction. The pitch before flare is +4 degrees from there it goes down to -2 degrees so total pitch down is 6 degrees and not 8 degrees as I said. A330 has two flare modes when out of normal law. In ALT1 it has flare mode in which roll is normal only pitch is direct stick to elevator and when in ALT 2 it is like A320, landing gear down direct law. In dual RA fail, inability to read radio altitude is the only problem so it uses the ALT1 flare mode. When in ELEC EMER since there are many inop systems that is not possible. So it reverts to complete gear down direct law. In both these cases the nose down pitch comes from speed reduction and the thrust reduction during flare. The FCS does not apply any nose down elevator.
Correction. The pitch before flare is +4 degrees from there it goes down to -2 degrees so total pitch down is 6 degrees and not 8 degrees as I said. A330 has two flare modes when out of normal law. In ALT1 it has flare mode in which roll is normal only pitch is direct stick to elevator and when in ALT 2 it is like A320, landing gear down direct law. In dual RA fail, inability to read radio altitude is the only problem so it uses the ALT1 flare mode. When in ELEC EMER since there are many inop systems that is not possible. So it reverts to complete gear down direct law. In both these cases the nose down pitch comes from speed reduction and the thrust reduction during flare. The FCS does not apply any nose down elevator.
Last edited by vilas; 22nd Feb 2017 at 08:16.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: 43N
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Vilas - both depth and breadth of knowledge is important.
As an instructor in the USAF and now check airman at my airline, I have never answered a students question with, "That's not important, you don't need to know that." The more insightful the question, the better the student.
The relevant question: "How do we make ourselves and our pilot group better?" This forum most certainly has made me a more knowledgeable pilot. I read replies to questions I would never have thought to ask.
As an instructor in the USAF and now check airman at my airline, I have never answered a students question with, "That's not important, you don't need to know that." The more insightful the question, the better the student.
The relevant question: "How do we make ourselves and our pilot group better?" This forum most certainly has made me a more knowledgeable pilot. I read replies to questions I would never have thought to ask.
So, hoping this is not stupid....
If the A330 is in distress of some description, and crew wanted Direct Law, would selection of L/G in emer. Config be a solution? Instead of disabling two ADR?
ducking.....
If the A330 is in distress of some description, and crew wanted Direct Law, would selection of L/G in emer. Config be a solution? Instead of disabling two ADR?
ducking.....
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly switching off two ADRs doesn't get you in direct law second there is no distress that is relieved by direct law. It is a temporary situation to give you natural aircraft behaviour for flare and landing. Since there are no stupid questions you don't have to duck.
