A330 handling for dummies.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: everywhere
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A330 handling for dummies.
I am a die-hard A320 pilot, but recently I managed to have a go in an A330 FFS. While the overall experience was very similar to my good 'ole 320 and I quickly got to know my ways around the cockpit, I noticed some peculiarities, which surprised me. I would appreciate some input form A330 drivers...
1) I was a bit disappointed with the roll control of the 330. The ailerons had a lot inertia. The sim would be very slow to start rolling and then very slow to stop - it felt uncomfortable at times. Is the slugishness in roll a simulator thing, or does the real a/c behave the same? I understand that the wing of A330 is longer, heavier and has more inertia compared to the 320. However, I have flown in 747,767,787 sims before and despite being similar size a/c, they all had very crisp roll control with no perceptible inertia
2) Rudder input required after engine failure at T/O seemed much smaller compared to the A320 - like half of what I was expecting. Does the 330 has a better yaw augmentation than A320?
3) A/THR was very slow to respond to gusts - I understand bigger engines have longer acceleration, but 20+ knot speed excrusions on approach
Again, sim thing or A330 thing?
4) Why is F speed higher on approach than on T/O different for different CONF's? I have read the FCOM and understand how it works, but wonder what's the reason behind it - to keep lower deck angle? keep the a/c close to min drag at all CONF's? Other reasons?
All in all, a great airplane and I hope to fly it for a living someday
1) I was a bit disappointed with the roll control of the 330. The ailerons had a lot inertia. The sim would be very slow to start rolling and then very slow to stop - it felt uncomfortable at times. Is the slugishness in roll a simulator thing, or does the real a/c behave the same? I understand that the wing of A330 is longer, heavier and has more inertia compared to the 320. However, I have flown in 747,767,787 sims before and despite being similar size a/c, they all had very crisp roll control with no perceptible inertia
2) Rudder input required after engine failure at T/O seemed much smaller compared to the A320 - like half of what I was expecting. Does the 330 has a better yaw augmentation than A320?
3) A/THR was very slow to respond to gusts - I understand bigger engines have longer acceleration, but 20+ knot speed excrusions on approach
Again, sim thing or A330 thing?4) Why is F speed higher on approach than on T/O different for different CONF's? I have read the FCOM and understand how it works, but wonder what's the reason behind it - to keep lower deck angle? keep the a/c close to min drag at all CONF's? Other reasons?
All in all, a great airplane and I hope to fly it for a living someday
C star, it has been a number of years since I have flown it but I remember the auto thrust being lazy.Approach power settings were very low anyway so it didn't have a big thrust range to use. It was also quite twitchy in a cross wind.
I am told that the A350 which has a common rating, is much crisper.
I am told that the A350 which has a common rating, is much crisper.
I fly A320/A321/A330.
I do find the A330 sluggish compared to the 'little' jets, but this is to be expected for an aircraft weighing 230 tonnes; it has a lot more inertia !
I don't find it a problem at all, and I quickly adjusted to it.
The A330 autothrust does seem lazy, but as long as you allow for it, it is not a problem.
It's a big aircraft !!!!
I do find the A330 sluggish compared to the 'little' jets, but this is to be expected for an aircraft weighing 230 tonnes; it has a lot more inertia !
I don't find it a problem at all, and I quickly adjusted to it.
The A330 autothrust does seem lazy, but as long as you allow for it, it is not a problem.
It's a big aircraft !!!!
Big? Compared to what? A Cessna 150....!!
A C-5A is big, an A380 is big and so is a An-225
The 330 is a mid sized plastic bus ( yes that makes the 320 a mini bus )
But I do get your point.....
A C-5A is big, an A380 is big and so is a An-225
The 330 is a mid sized plastic bus ( yes that makes the 320 a mini bus )
But I do get your point.....
All right, calm down! 
It's big compared to an A320, which the OP drives.
OK, an A330 is only half the weight of an A380, so that makes the 330 a medium, but when I do my walk around underneath a 330, I am always struck by how big the damn thing is ! If/when I get to fly a 380, I will probably revise my perception
It's big compared to an A320, which the OP drives.OK, an A330 is only half the weight of an A380, so that makes the 330 a medium, but when I do my walk around underneath a 330, I am always struck by how big the damn thing is ! If/when I get to fly a 380, I will probably revise my perception
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Milkway Galaxy
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C Star
The handling quality of FBW only depends on how the engineers tuned the computers for particular type of airplane. I do not consider the differences what you felt is related to inertia, I have flown both types and I do not remember any difference. The reason may be the calibration problem of FFS which you have flown.
And
The function of "F" in Take off, is marking the Vls speed of Con 1+F. That means, regardless Conf 2 or 3 which you have used for take off, when you have retracted the flaps/slats direct to Conf 1+F at "F" speed, even there is no acceleration, the the current speed will not be less than Vls of new selected configuration (= C 1+F), which is fail safe.
However, the function of "F" in Approach is completely different: They represent maneuvering speed of selected configuration (Conf 2 or 3). That maneuvering speed is (L/D) max of selected configuration and approximately equals to 1.4x Vs1g. Since for Conf 2 and Conf 3 for approach there is different Vs1g, so that means there will be different F for each configuration. Airbus formulated or approximated or related it to QRH "F" speed (which is good for take off) as 4 or 14% increase.
The handling quality of FBW only depends on how the engineers tuned the computers for particular type of airplane. I do not consider the differences what you felt is related to inertia, I have flown both types and I do not remember any difference. The reason may be the calibration problem of FFS which you have flown.
And
The function of "F" in Take off, is marking the Vls speed of Con 1+F. That means, regardless Conf 2 or 3 which you have used for take off, when you have retracted the flaps/slats direct to Conf 1+F at "F" speed, even there is no acceleration, the the current speed will not be less than Vls of new selected configuration (= C 1+F), which is fail safe.
However, the function of "F" in Approach is completely different: They represent maneuvering speed of selected configuration (Conf 2 or 3). That maneuvering speed is (L/D) max of selected configuration and approximately equals to 1.4x Vs1g. Since for Conf 2 and Conf 3 for approach there is different Vs1g, so that means there will be different F for each configuration. Airbus formulated or approximated or related it to QRH "F" speed (which is good for take off) as 4 or 14% increase.
Hey JABBARA, thanks, I've learnt something new.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, Jabbara but I fly both and in my opinion the A330 feels very different in roll to a 320, as well it might being (nearly) three times the size, so I wouldnt put it down to sim tuning
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: On the good side of town
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
totally agree Shot , am now on the 333 after many lovely years on the small bus and I still feel that lag after a few thousand hours on her, especially during gusty conditions on landing, I`ve done 2 landings on the backside of a typhoon, but the 330 sure is a beauty to land.
, am now on the 333 after many lovely years on the small bus and I still feel that lag after a few thousand hours on her, especially during gusty conditions on landing, I`ve done 2 landings on the backside of a typhoon, but the 330 sure is a beauty to land.
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Or-E-Gun, USA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy Modification...
The software engineers at AB simply need to add one more cockpit-adjustable dial on the A330. Call it Responsiveness; no words or numbers necessary, just two icons at the 1 and 10 positions: Position 1 (least) can be represented by the outline of a whale and 10 (most) by some slick fighter airplane, perhaps with the canopy half blown off.
Please forgive me if my data are stale: A320 series includes Ejection Seats, while the A330 series do not. The other differences are trivial.
Please forgive me if my data are stale: A320 series includes Ejection Seats, while the A330 series do not. The other differences are trivial.
330 sure is a beauty to land...............
Oh that's funny, you've never flown a 747 or 77W then have you? Now they are easy to land like a fairy's fart.....
Damn that Airbus de-rotation bogey tilt thump....******
******Edited later to add I wasn't implying the crew de-rotated the Sidestick, simply the physical de-rotation of the actual bogies on touchdown after spoiler deployment.
Oh that's funny, you've never flown a 747 or 77W then have you? Now they are easy to land like a fairy's fart.....
Damn that Airbus de-rotation bogey tilt thump....******
******Edited later to add I wasn't implying the crew de-rotated the Sidestick, simply the physical de-rotation of the actual bogies on touchdown after spoiler deployment.
Last edited by ACMS; 18th Apr 2015 at 07:16.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Up there
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CX perhaps?
I spent a few hours chatting with a US based 330 crew in Rome many years ago, first discussing the de-rotation technique, his reply...
"What the **** are you talking about it lands just like any aircraft, I've never heard of de-rotation"
Unfortunately CX maintains this fallacy, the 330 can land just as sweetly as any aircraft.
I spent a few hours chatting with a US based 330 crew in Rome many years ago, first discussing the de-rotation technique, his reply...
"What the **** are you talking about it lands just like any aircraft, I've never heard of de-rotation"
Unfortunately CX maintains this fallacy, the 330 can land just as sweetly as any aircraft.
Nope sorry it's not just Cathay it's Aircraft landing gear design and spoiler deployment rates.
The same on other 330's I've flown in.
You can do very little about the bogies tilting after the spoilers deploy and it's a rough thump........
Anyway, just watch ANY 330 landing next time and watch the "thump" down, I've seen many from the parallel taxyway and it's not pretty...
Easy to firstly grease on the trailing wheels but not so easy for the front.
in fact the smoother the trailing wheels contact the worse the thump later on...
Many techniques to try and stop this including sidestick de-rotation ( which I hardly ever use myself ), slightly delaying the selection of Reverse until the tilt completes or a slightly firmer initial touchdown which seems to de-rotate the bogies a little smoother giving an overall smoother result.
Either way it's no Jumbo or 777.
The same on other 330's I've flown in.
You can do very little about the bogies tilting after the spoilers deploy and it's a rough thump........
Anyway, just watch ANY 330 landing next time and watch the "thump" down, I've seen many from the parallel taxyway and it's not pretty...
Easy to firstly grease on the trailing wheels but not so easy for the front.
in fact the smoother the trailing wheels contact the worse the thump later on...Many techniques to try and stop this including sidestick de-rotation ( which I hardly ever use myself ), slightly delaying the selection of Reverse until the tilt completes or a slightly firmer initial touchdown which seems to de-rotate the bogies a little smoother giving an overall smoother result.
Either way it's no Jumbo or 777.
Last edited by ACMS; 18th Apr 2015 at 07:15.
At the risk of setting off an anorak frenzy:
Land the trailing mains.
Pitch down a few degrees.
Wait for the front mains to land.
NOW pull reverse.
Use elevator to make the nose gear landing gentle.
This will give you a near greaser every time - no thumps at all.
Pulling reverse is what slams the front mains down.
Land the trailing mains.
Pitch down a few degrees.
Wait for the front mains to land.
NOW pull reverse.
Use elevator to make the nose gear landing gentle.
This will give you a near greaser every time - no thumps at all.
Pulling reverse is what slams the front mains down.
Last edited by Uplinker; 5th May 2015 at 09:44.
I agree.
The best I've ever done on the 330 is about the "average to good" standard I did on the 777.
It is very difficult to pull off consistantly good smooth landings on the bus, something you could do on the 777 or 744.
Anyway.....
The best I've ever done on the 330 is about the "average to good" standard I did on the 777.
It is very difficult to pull off consistantly good smooth landings on the bus, something you could do on the 777 or 744.
Anyway.....
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbii by their overcomputerized nature are not intuitive to pilots. Boeings are.
I can tell you that while there are times when one is left wondering what is going to happen next, for the most part, the Airbus FBW system is actually more intuitive than one might think. Boeing's own version in the 777 and later 787 has many of the same "ease of operation" and protection features that the Airbus has.
There were a few things, from perhaps old habits, that I found unnerving. The lack of backdriven throttles and when on A/P, there being no indication outside of the instruments of what was being commanded to do what (aileron/elevator inputs). Training and experience, I was told, and tried my best to trust, got one used to that lack of learned visual reference. Other than that lack of physical feedback, the sidestick arrangement was not an issue and it took very little time to be at home here.
MD787, you've heard the expression "to know me is to love me" - well, with the Airbus FBW, to know one is to understand one. Perhaps a sim visit would set your mind at ease?
Sorry for the sidetrack. Back to the discussion about an aircraft that I have never stepped foot upon (the A330) but have seen many a fine example of going about its business.
Last edited by vapilot2004; 5th May 2015 at 09:27.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Village of Santo Poco
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Airbii by their overcomputerized nature are not intuitive to pilots. Boeings are......
Airbii by their overcomputerized nature are not intuitive to pilots. Boeings are......
Why must people like you insist on peddling this ridiculous nonsense about Airbus being "over" computerised, when you clearly have no operational experience or understanding of the systems that you criticise?
I came off the BAe 146 - a 'conventionally' controlled aircraft - onto an A320, (then onto A321 and A330), and from day one the Airbus was very intuitive and easy to fly. Much easier, in fact than the dear old 146.
And from another poster;
I can tell you that while there are times when one is left wondering what is going to happen next.............
Last edited by Uplinker; 5th May 2015 at 09:39.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes yes UP, training is key to understanding any aircraft including the FBW Airbus. Some of the relevant ideas and new FBW concepts are easy enough to digest, but beyond the FCOM, training, training and more training, yes?
Autoflight and the peculiarities that come with it. Ask anyone (not me) with sufficient time on the aircraft and they will tell you that there are moments when one is left scratching one's head (or other parts human) thinking what the hell is it doing now. 
It's not at all a safety issue, just a peculiarity - which training can sort out. Trust the automatics, and to maintain good SA, going back to Reagan's adage on his presidential era's Soviet nuclear talks, "trust but verify"
You can't tell me - it's never happened to me. What the hell are you talking about?
It's not at all a safety issue, just a peculiarity - which training can sort out. Trust the automatics, and to maintain good SA, going back to Reagan's adage on his presidential era's Soviet nuclear talks, "trust but verify"