FD in a stall
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Golden
I have no problem with the idea of better or improved stall warning. I am more concerned about pilots stalling a/cs with vicious pitch input which starts it all. You will agree that in any aircraft at cruise altitudes there is no requirement to apply any control input without checking your pitch and bank especially so in AB FBW since the flight path maintained and also the result of your input must be checked. If this is instilled agressively such accidents can be avoided which is all I am saying. I am not suggesting pilots to have extra ordinary skills. If you don't light a fire you don't have to extinguish.
I have no problem with the idea of better or improved stall warning. I am more concerned about pilots stalling a/cs with vicious pitch input which starts it all. You will agree that in any aircraft at cruise altitudes there is no requirement to apply any control input without checking your pitch and bank especially so in AB FBW since the flight path maintained and also the result of your input must be checked. If this is instilled agressively such accidents can be avoided which is all I am saying. I am not suggesting pilots to have extra ordinary skills. If you don't light a fire you don't have to extinguish.
Last edited by vilas; 17th Dec 2015 at 06:14.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: N5109.2W10.5
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Check Airman,
The Stall warning does have priority over the other audio alerts. Unfortunately it has been designed to go mute if IAS<60 kts. (Despite still being airborne).
I sincerely hope that design feature is being addressed. (e.g. include Weight on Wheel logic)
vilas,
I think that is AB logic too. Provided the aircraft remained in Normal Law, then even if the AP dropped out, the crew would have a familiar aircraft - no problem.
However ALT LAW feels completely different at high FLs with ailerons in roll direct. It took AF447 & QZ8501 PFs completely by surprise. (See bank excursions in report). The end result has been well discussed previously.
I suggest that crews need more sim practice in ALT LAW at high FLs.
I'd have thought that the stall warning would have taken priority over all other audio alerts.
I sincerely hope that design feature is being addressed. (e.g. include Weight on Wheel logic)
vilas,
If you don't light a fire you don't have to extinguish.
However ALT LAW feels completely different at high FLs with ailerons in roll direct. It took AF447 & QZ8501 PFs completely by surprise. (See bank excursions in report). The end result has been well discussed previously.
I suggest that crews need more sim practice in ALT LAW at high FLs.
Last edited by Goldenrivett; 17th Dec 2015 at 12:03. Reason: typo
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Check Airman. I do not know if it still the case, but in 80's on B767 in UK the CAA certified the a/c such that on autoland the FD's were removed. I think the theory was that the FCC's were driving both A/P & F.D and thus there was no cross check of correct operation of A/P. My memory is fuzzy of so long ago.
In training, when I was teaching V/S & HDG SEL NPA's, with A/P & A/T, I made the students turn the FD's OFF. They were nervous until I explained that the FD's told them nothing. They would always be centred. You had to scan the basic T as YOU were in charge of vertical & lateral navigation. It didn't matter what rubbish you selected in MCP the FD would always be in the middle. Cold Comfort and dangerous as it stopped the basic scan.
So it encouraged a scan, AND it trained WHERE to look for the important information on a 'side by side' EFIS. Now, when they were doing LNAV/VNAV NPA"s they knew how and where to monitor the A/P. They even did VNAV/LNAV NPA's with FD's ON/OFF. More Ah Ha moments.
In training, when I was teaching V/S & HDG SEL NPA's, with A/P & A/T, I made the students turn the FD's OFF. They were nervous until I explained that the FD's told them nothing. They would always be centred. You had to scan the basic T as YOU were in charge of vertical & lateral navigation. It didn't matter what rubbish you selected in MCP the FD would always be in the middle. Cold Comfort and dangerous as it stopped the basic scan.
So it encouraged a scan, AND it trained WHERE to look for the important information on a 'side by side' EFIS. Now, when they were doing LNAV/VNAV NPA"s they knew how and where to monitor the A/P. They even did VNAV/LNAV NPA's with FD's ON/OFF. More Ah Ha moments.
Last edited by RAT 5; 17th Dec 2015 at 12:15.
Rat 5, your views at #18 represent old school flying. I am old school, but increasingly believe that this approach will not solve modern day safety problems; the world of aviation has changed.
Aircraft have changed beyond recognition, they are easier to fly, but require much more ‘operating’.
The technology changes are immense, affecting all aspects of aviation. With hindsight there were mistakes in the introduction of automation; yet the safety benefits far outweigh the negatives. Automation was seen as a saviour – ‘if an aircraft system fails engage the autopilot’ – it provides the pilot with more time, opportunity to fly different routes, new ATC structures, which then mandate automation, etc, etc. But who considered ‘what if’ the automation failed in the self-generated mental environment that considered humans as the weak link and automation the saviour.
Regulators must review their past activities in the above; how to train automation, approach to a stall, engine failure, … The regulatory process is more biased towards law, something which constrains opposed to enabling safer operation; who can read (understand) and apply all of the regulations. All operations are in regulatory ‘error’, it’s only with the continual adjustment by the front-line human that operators’ deviations are not discovered.
Thus, the operating environment is increasingly complex; it cannot be fully understood, even described in detail. Within this the human has also changed.
We do not live in the same social climate; our expectations have changed, seeking instant knowledge without considering its value (Goo and Wik), immediate self-satisfaction for minimum input, bombarded by endless distractions – TV adverts, 'must see' text messages, etc. There is no need to ‘learn’, remember facts, or even apply logical thought.
These aspects have changed behaviour towards and in flying/operating – pilots may expect the FD to provide the correct flight path without looking at attitude or heading, use FD to cross check AP, expect the AT to maintain speed at all times.
We are creatures of habit; we – the industry, have embraced the automation habit.
In this scenario it would be extremely difficult (time and cost) to apply ‘back to basics’ or ‘old school training’, which could still be inappropriate for the current aircraft design, operational environment, and social climate.
We require modern day solution for modern day problems. Following the FD might be a solution for pilots; I don’t know, but if it is then the solution must have the robustness required for operations to deal with unforeseen and surprising situations, and the even greater surprises of what the human is capable of in these situations. I suspect the current FDs do not meet these requirements, particularly in a stall.
Thus future systems, including training, will have to ‘protect us from ourselves’; this requires a new view of safety which must also consider the changes in the overall operational environment as above.
Aircraft have changed beyond recognition, they are easier to fly, but require much more ‘operating’.
The technology changes are immense, affecting all aspects of aviation. With hindsight there were mistakes in the introduction of automation; yet the safety benefits far outweigh the negatives. Automation was seen as a saviour – ‘if an aircraft system fails engage the autopilot’ – it provides the pilot with more time, opportunity to fly different routes, new ATC structures, which then mandate automation, etc, etc. But who considered ‘what if’ the automation failed in the self-generated mental environment that considered humans as the weak link and automation the saviour.
Regulators must review their past activities in the above; how to train automation, approach to a stall, engine failure, … The regulatory process is more biased towards law, something which constrains opposed to enabling safer operation; who can read (understand) and apply all of the regulations. All operations are in regulatory ‘error’, it’s only with the continual adjustment by the front-line human that operators’ deviations are not discovered.
Thus, the operating environment is increasingly complex; it cannot be fully understood, even described in detail. Within this the human has also changed.
We do not live in the same social climate; our expectations have changed, seeking instant knowledge without considering its value (Goo and Wik), immediate self-satisfaction for minimum input, bombarded by endless distractions – TV adverts, 'must see' text messages, etc. There is no need to ‘learn’, remember facts, or even apply logical thought.
These aspects have changed behaviour towards and in flying/operating – pilots may expect the FD to provide the correct flight path without looking at attitude or heading, use FD to cross check AP, expect the AT to maintain speed at all times.
We are creatures of habit; we – the industry, have embraced the automation habit.
In this scenario it would be extremely difficult (time and cost) to apply ‘back to basics’ or ‘old school training’, which could still be inappropriate for the current aircraft design, operational environment, and social climate.
We require modern day solution for modern day problems. Following the FD might be a solution for pilots; I don’t know, but if it is then the solution must have the robustness required for operations to deal with unforeseen and surprising situations, and the even greater surprises of what the human is capable of in these situations. I suspect the current FDs do not meet these requirements, particularly in a stall.
Thus future systems, including training, will have to ‘protect us from ourselves’; this requires a new view of safety which must also consider the changes in the overall operational environment as above.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe it would be beneficial for the FD bars to automatically be removed during a stall or upset, thus forcing the pilot to properly interpret the instruments. It's not as if the FD is providing any useful information.
It also saddens me that Airbus doesn't install an AoA indication on the PFD as standard. In 2015, with all new airplanes rolling out with glass displays, the six pack should be expanded to 7.
Good point on monitoring the ils with the FD off. It's probably easier to catch a problem without the FD there as a distraction.
It also saddens me that Airbus doesn't install an AoA indication on the PFD as standard. In 2015, with all new airplanes rolling out with glass displays, the six pack should be expanded to 7.
Good point on monitoring the ils with the FD off. It's probably easier to catch a problem without the FD there as a distraction.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Goldenrivett
High level handling is already addressed in type rating. At FL350 handling is given in normal law and the margin available and the decrease in it with bank is shown, followed by alternate law handling and with increasing bank stall recovery. This can be reinforced during recurrent training. However both accidents are the result of intentional totally uncalled for pitching. Therefore there is enough evidence to suggest that the sensitivity of roll and dangers of full stick inadvertent application in alternate law are not well understood. In QZ5801 case there was no speed problem and yet the application of recovery procedure indicates inadequate knowledge of the procedure. As for FDs are concerned it is not raw data flying but the habit of looking through FDs and noticing the pitch is what needs to be developed.
High level handling is already addressed in type rating. At FL350 handling is given in normal law and the margin available and the decrease in it with bank is shown, followed by alternate law handling and with increasing bank stall recovery. This can be reinforced during recurrent training. However both accidents are the result of intentional totally uncalled for pitching. Therefore there is enough evidence to suggest that the sensitivity of roll and dangers of full stick inadvertent application in alternate law are not well understood. In QZ5801 case there was no speed problem and yet the application of recovery procedure indicates inadequate knowledge of the procedure. As for FDs are concerned it is not raw data flying but the habit of looking through FDs and noticing the pitch is what needs to be developed.
Check Airman, see the presentation on AoA research which concludes “that we probably do not need a display”, “little of no use when approaching the stall”. There are strong arguments re rule and knowledge interpretations of AoA displays.
Note that the display formats were research orientated, but they do identify the difficulty in creating an intuitive display, e.g. compare the gauge with the indexer (S7 and S8), which way to push?
Villas, the presentation also shows some of the difficulties of trying to ‘looking through’ the FD with EFIS.
Modern display formats tend to ‘box in’ visual attention toward attitude and thus towards the FD; – Gestalt where the visual interpretation will perceive a boundary even if not actually present.
Many old style displays had a true 3D construction; EFIS is a 2D depiction of a 3D system – no depth in the perception; thus more knowledge based effort is required to ‘look through’ an EFIS FD than with a mechanical instrument.
There are similar problems with instrument scanning.
Note that the display formats were research orientated, but they do identify the difficulty in creating an intuitive display, e.g. compare the gauge with the indexer (S7 and S8), which way to push?
Villas, the presentation also shows some of the difficulties of trying to ‘looking through’ the FD with EFIS.
Modern display formats tend to ‘box in’ visual attention toward attitude and thus towards the FD; – Gestalt where the visual interpretation will perceive a boundary even if not actually present.
Many old style displays had a true 3D construction; EFIS is a 2D depiction of a 3D system – no depth in the perception; thus more knowledge based effort is required to ‘look through’ an EFIS FD than with a mechanical instrument.
There are similar problems with instrument scanning.
I've always advocated, but never been given the time, that students should learn to fly the basic a/c.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: on thin ice
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Fly Zone
Must have something to do with your handle...
I (and most of my colleagues) regularly hand fly on departure up to around 10,000' and below say 5-6000' on arrival, even higher depending. Company encouraged.
In the 744 and 748.
Our younger guys do it too.
Keeps up proficiency and is actually 'fun'.
Cheers,
Soda
I (and most of my colleagues) regularly hand fly on departure up to around 10,000' and below say 5-6000' on arrival, even higher depending. Company encouraged.
In the 744 and 748.
Our younger guys do it too.
Keeps up proficiency and is actually 'fun'.
Cheers,
Soda
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vilas,
That's just the problem. It's harder to look through the FD, than to just turn it off. While in sim during my 320 rating, I noticed that I had no clue what my VS or heading was. I was just focused on keeping the FD perfectly centred. When I turned of the FD, I was much more in tune with what was going on.
That's just the problem. It's harder to look through the FD, than to just turn it off. While in sim during my 320 rating, I noticed that I had no clue what my VS or heading was. I was just focused on keeping the FD perfectly centred. When I turned of the FD, I was much more in tune with what was going on.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check Airman, see the presentation on AoA research which concludes “that we probably do not need a display”, “little of no use when approaching the stall”. There are strong arguments re rule and knowledge interpretations of AoA displays.
Note that the display formats were research orientated, but they do identify the difficulty in creating an intuitive display, e.g. compare the gauge with the indexer (S7 and S8), which way to push?
Villas, the presentation also shows some of the difficulties of trying to ‘looking through’ the FD with EFIS.
Modern display formats tend to ‘box in’ visual attention toward attitude and thus towards the FD; – Gestalt where the visual interpretation will perceive a boundary even if not actually present.
Many old style displays had a true 3D construction; EFIS is a 2D depiction of a 3D system – no depth in the perception; thus more knowledge based effort is required to ‘look through’ an EFIS FD than with a mechanical instrument.
There are similar problems with instrument scanning.
Note that the display formats were research orientated, but they do identify the difficulty in creating an intuitive display, e.g. compare the gauge with the indexer (S7 and S8), which way to push?
Villas, the presentation also shows some of the difficulties of trying to ‘looking through’ the FD with EFIS.
Modern display formats tend to ‘box in’ visual attention toward attitude and thus towards the FD; – Gestalt where the visual interpretation will perceive a boundary even if not actually present.
Many old style displays had a true 3D construction; EFIS is a 2D depiction of a 3D system – no depth in the perception; thus more knowledge based effort is required to ‘look through’ an EFIS FD than with a mechanical instrument.
There are similar problems with instrument scanning.
The presentation didn't detail the experimental methods used to come to the conclusion that the direct AoA readout is ineffective. I'd like to see that data.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAT 5, your views at #18 represent old school flying. I am old school, but increasingly believe that this approach will not solve modern day safety problems; the world of aviation has changed.
Aircraft have changed beyond recognition, they are easier to fly, but require much more ‘operating’.
Indeed, but I still advocate that one must have a good sound understanding of the basics of handling the a/c and how it wants to fly so that you can become a sharper operator. It is a building block process. Todays MPL courses are being completed by 148hr cadets with very basic handling experience: even very basic aviation/airborne experience. They have rigid SOP's telling them what to do when and which buttons to push when. It is a play station, not an aircraft. Guys get commands 3000-3500hrs after 4 years of those same rigid SOP's and they have no idea about the a/c, and not too much about the environment. It is still a play station. Put them outside the SOP ideal environment and they are lost. Is that healthy or professional?
I'm not sure modern a/c are easier to fly; the basics still apply. They are easier to fly very accurately in 3D due to the displayed information. What is missing in TQ's is a good grounding of what is being displayed and how to use it. I still see guys in the sim, and on line, who obviously are not looking at the MAP. VNAV/LNAV is in CMD and the FD's are centred. All must be OK with the world. Duh!
The reason I advocate the 'old school' approach is because I went from B732 to B767. I didn't dump all the good basics and start with a clean sheet. I kept the old drawings, the picture changed, added a few new lines and I coloured them in. It worked and stood me in safe stead for the next 25 years. The EFIS displays were just a different way of giving me the same basic information, in a much more useful manner, and adding some really good extra titbits. The automatics were awesome after the B732. Wow, it allowed me to be much more precise and efficient is a really relaxed manner. I could see exactly what the a/c was doing, what I wanted it to do and what it was going to do. My training was in-depth. It was company culture. Standards were set high.
The instructor, if he has the courage, and the skill should be able to hop into the seat and do a flawless demonstration without the flight director to help him.
Skill should be a given, then courage is not a problem. Indeed it should be a delight to do so. Trouble is the time required. Self-funded TR's are short of such time. It would be great to teach V1 cuts with no FD. You always ask what the rotate ATT should be. The cadet always gets it correct, but then the FD is a magnet and they over rotate and end up <V2. AT MFRA they do not attack the FD to accelerate but sit just above it with too high a V/S and thus slow acceleration. With no FD they have to fly V/S 0-200fpm i.e. look at it.
I realise I am a Boeing man and this is an Airbus thread, with more laws than my wife & mother-in-law put together. One of them was Direct, the other Alternate and I was whatever was left. However, whatever a/c you are being trained on to operate I still believe you should be able to fly a broken bird with whatever it can throw at you and which the manufacturer says should be survivable. My older MD's expected it and I'm damned sure the pax expect it.
Bring on Space Cowboys
I suspect base training is the only time guys get to handle a basic a/c. It is a hoop to jump through and show competence. Why then is it so discouraged afterwards by so many airlines? The argument is safety. I wonder if that has proved to be the case, or is it the opposite?
I suspect this will become another circular never ending discussion resurrecting the same old same old..........
Aircraft have changed beyond recognition, they are easier to fly, but require much more ‘operating’.
Indeed, but I still advocate that one must have a good sound understanding of the basics of handling the a/c and how it wants to fly so that you can become a sharper operator. It is a building block process. Todays MPL courses are being completed by 148hr cadets with very basic handling experience: even very basic aviation/airborne experience. They have rigid SOP's telling them what to do when and which buttons to push when. It is a play station, not an aircraft. Guys get commands 3000-3500hrs after 4 years of those same rigid SOP's and they have no idea about the a/c, and not too much about the environment. It is still a play station. Put them outside the SOP ideal environment and they are lost. Is that healthy or professional?
I'm not sure modern a/c are easier to fly; the basics still apply. They are easier to fly very accurately in 3D due to the displayed information. What is missing in TQ's is a good grounding of what is being displayed and how to use it. I still see guys in the sim, and on line, who obviously are not looking at the MAP. VNAV/LNAV is in CMD and the FD's are centred. All must be OK with the world. Duh!
The reason I advocate the 'old school' approach is because I went from B732 to B767. I didn't dump all the good basics and start with a clean sheet. I kept the old drawings, the picture changed, added a few new lines and I coloured them in. It worked and stood me in safe stead for the next 25 years. The EFIS displays were just a different way of giving me the same basic information, in a much more useful manner, and adding some really good extra titbits. The automatics were awesome after the B732. Wow, it allowed me to be much more precise and efficient is a really relaxed manner. I could see exactly what the a/c was doing, what I wanted it to do and what it was going to do. My training was in-depth. It was company culture. Standards were set high.
The instructor, if he has the courage, and the skill should be able to hop into the seat and do a flawless demonstration without the flight director to help him.
Skill should be a given, then courage is not a problem. Indeed it should be a delight to do so. Trouble is the time required. Self-funded TR's are short of such time. It would be great to teach V1 cuts with no FD. You always ask what the rotate ATT should be. The cadet always gets it correct, but then the FD is a magnet and they over rotate and end up <V2. AT MFRA they do not attack the FD to accelerate but sit just above it with too high a V/S and thus slow acceleration. With no FD they have to fly V/S 0-200fpm i.e. look at it.
I realise I am a Boeing man and this is an Airbus thread, with more laws than my wife & mother-in-law put together. One of them was Direct, the other Alternate and I was whatever was left. However, whatever a/c you are being trained on to operate I still believe you should be able to fly a broken bird with whatever it can throw at you and which the manufacturer says should be survivable. My older MD's expected it and I'm damned sure the pax expect it.
Bring on Space Cowboys
I suspect base training is the only time guys get to handle a basic a/c. It is a hoop to jump through and show competence. Why then is it so discouraged afterwards by so many airlines? The argument is safety. I wonder if that has proved to be the case, or is it the opposite?
I suspect this will become another circular never ending discussion resurrecting the same old same old..........
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check Airman and safetypee
Looking through the FD is not literally but means just notice attitude also. Since all we do with FDs is just centre them once they are centred the attention can be shifted to other parameters before moving back. It is just a matter of forming a habit. Pure raw data requires good scan which requires practice but once a pilot develops it shouldn't require much practice to maintain it. The problem is with everything normal you don't need all this so unless you force yourself good habits can get rusty. But many things will only be practiced in the SIM like EFATO, alternate/direct law or high level manual flight.
Looking through the FD is not literally but means just notice attitude also. Since all we do with FDs is just centre them once they are centred the attention can be shifted to other parameters before moving back. It is just a matter of forming a habit. Pure raw data requires good scan which requires practice but once a pilot develops it shouldn't require much practice to maintain it. The problem is with everything normal you don't need all this so unless you force yourself good habits can get rusty. But many things will only be practiced in the SIM like EFATO, alternate/direct law or high level manual flight.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is just a matter of forming a habit. Pure raw data requires good scan which requires practice but once a pilot develops it, it shouldn't require much practice to maintain it. The problem is with everything normal you don't need all this so unless you force yourself good habits can get rusty.
Vilas: well said, but there is one problem, and that is with the starting point. I agree with the process, but today's training doesn't require the students to 'develop a good scan'. Neither does every day operations in many airlines. Therefore there never were good habits and therefore the rust is deep seated from the beginning and the metal corrodes fast until there is no strength when it is tested under stress.
Vilas: well said, but there is one problem, and that is with the starting point. I agree with the process, but today's training doesn't require the students to 'develop a good scan'. Neither does every day operations in many airlines. Therefore there never were good habits and therefore the rust is deep seated from the beginning and the metal corrodes fast until there is no strength when it is tested under stress.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAT 5
Airbus type rating for CPL starts with Entry Level Training in which the trainee undergoes 8 sessions in FBS of Flight and Navigation Procedure Training. First four sessions are without AP/FDs and ATHR in which they practice raw data flying including SIDs, arrivals, approaches and landing. Progressively FDs and AP is introduced but the entire course is without ATHR. But many airlines have managed to hoodwink the authorities and have replaced it with their own inadequate version of only one session of handling in FBS and 4 to 5 sessions in procedure trainer. So unless the trainees are very talented they are found wanting in this aspect. Even then it needs to be consolidated in line flying. So ultimately it is a business after all and the best airline is not the one with best pilots but with maximum profits.
Airbus type rating for CPL starts with Entry Level Training in which the trainee undergoes 8 sessions in FBS of Flight and Navigation Procedure Training. First four sessions are without AP/FDs and ATHR in which they practice raw data flying including SIDs, arrivals, approaches and landing. Progressively FDs and AP is introduced but the entire course is without ATHR. But many airlines have managed to hoodwink the authorities and have replaced it with their own inadequate version of only one session of handling in FBS and 4 to 5 sessions in procedure trainer. So unless the trainees are very talented they are found wanting in this aspect. Even then it needs to be consolidated in line flying. So ultimately it is a business after all and the best airline is not the one with best pilots but with maximum profits.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: somewhere hot and sticky
Age: 44
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While above the FCU selected altitude (FL320), surely the FD would be commanding nose down. The bottom picture on p57 of the final report certainly indicates this. Of course as soon as they descended below FL320 it would be commanding nose up, but they were well down the road by that time.
However I agree that FD has no business showing such a disastrously incorrect command. And I also think the airbus FDs do reduce our awareness of the aircraft state. Which brings me to ask the question why do we leave them on at all? The plane works fine without them. I gave it a go today, FDs off, but left the AP on. Flew the whole descent and approach with normal inputs to the AP, but I watched carefully what the plane was doing, rather than watching 2 nicely centred FD bars.
So why do we fly routinly with FDs on? Why not keep them on as an aid to hand flying as and when required?
However I agree that FD has no business showing such a disastrously incorrect command. And I also think the airbus FDs do reduce our awareness of the aircraft state. Which brings me to ask the question why do we leave them on at all? The plane works fine without them. I gave it a go today, FDs off, but left the AP on. Flew the whole descent and approach with normal inputs to the AP, but I watched carefully what the plane was doing, rather than watching 2 nicely centred FD bars.
So why do we fly routinly with FDs on? Why not keep them on as an aid to hand flying as and when required?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So ultimately it is a business after all and the best airline is not the one with best pilots but with maximum profits.
Vilas: thank you for that insight into AB's standard TR syllabus. I had heard that with their new generation a/c they were going even more back to basics. I wonder if other manufacturers, Boeing in particular, have the same ideas. Considering the recent, too many, crashes of reasonably serviceable a/c perhaps the authorities who are responsible for over-seeing training/crew certification standards should open their eyes and become active in defining what the training MUST involve and not just the old style regurgitated TR syllabus which hasn't changed since 1980, to my knowledge. The required items on an LST form have been there for eons. In my experience some airlines have substituted rigid SOP's for in-depth training. Stick rigidly to the rigid SOP's and you'll be OK. Trained monkey comes to mind.
Ref' your closing statement it reminds me of "if you thought safety investment was expensive wait until you have an accident." Somehow that seems not to be quite so prevalent as it used to be. Cost/risk management seems the game today.
Duper: So why do we fly routinly with FDs on? Why not keep them on as an aid to hand flying as and when required?
Great question and one which I think needs a real serious considered debate. With A/P in use they are nigh on useless, and indeed hinder the monitoring process. Hand flying they can be useful, but need monitoring via raw data.
If you ask the many XAA"s your question I would not be surprised by either of these answers. "we've always done it that way since they were invented." ..."I don't understand the question." I suspect the debate will encounter huge inertia, but don't give up. What about the technical committee of ECA?
Vilas: thank you for that insight into AB's standard TR syllabus. I had heard that with their new generation a/c they were going even more back to basics. I wonder if other manufacturers, Boeing in particular, have the same ideas. Considering the recent, too many, crashes of reasonably serviceable a/c perhaps the authorities who are responsible for over-seeing training/crew certification standards should open their eyes and become active in defining what the training MUST involve and not just the old style regurgitated TR syllabus which hasn't changed since 1980, to my knowledge. The required items on an LST form have been there for eons. In my experience some airlines have substituted rigid SOP's for in-depth training. Stick rigidly to the rigid SOP's and you'll be OK. Trained monkey comes to mind.
Ref' your closing statement it reminds me of "if you thought safety investment was expensive wait until you have an accident." Somehow that seems not to be quite so prevalent as it used to be. Cost/risk management seems the game today.
Duper: So why do we fly routinly with FDs on? Why not keep them on as an aid to hand flying as and when required?
Great question and one which I think needs a real serious considered debate. With A/P in use they are nigh on useless, and indeed hinder the monitoring process. Hand flying they can be useful, but need monitoring via raw data.
If you ask the many XAA"s your question I would not be surprised by either of these answers. "we've always done it that way since they were invented." ..."I don't understand the question." I suspect the debate will encounter huge inertia, but don't give up. What about the technical committee of ECA?
Last edited by RAT 5; 18th Dec 2015 at 16:28.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: somewhere hot and sticky
Age: 44
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From memory the other planes I have flown with APs, needed the FDs on for the AP to be engaged. Either that or I thought they did!
Maybe it's a hangup from the mistaken belief that the FD must be on for the AP to follow it? I'll admit I didnt know until today when I tried it out!
Maybe it's a hangup from the mistaken belief that the FD must be on for the AP to follow it? I'll admit I didnt know until today when I tried it out!
It is surprising and alarming that many new pilots are apparently happy to just centre their FDs and assume that everything is OK.
Now that we don't have to record our autolands, I think that we should have to record raw data, manually flown ILS approaches. We should be required to make a certain number of such approaches in every six month period (weather and conditions permitting) and record them on a form, like we used to for autolands.
By making it official and mandatory, it might start to get us all into thinking about raw data as being a normal procedure, and it would help us hone our flying and prevent ourselves becoming lazy by not allowing our skills to atrophy.
@Dupre, just be bloody careful with Airbus. The systems are interlinked and you can get yourself into serious trouble (as others have done). For example, turning both FDs off forces the A/THR into speed mode - which is usually a safe thing, but just be careful about unintended consequences caused by interactions between systems
Now that we don't have to record our autolands, I think that we should have to record raw data, manually flown ILS approaches. We should be required to make a certain number of such approaches in every six month period (weather and conditions permitting) and record them on a form, like we used to for autolands.
By making it official and mandatory, it might start to get us all into thinking about raw data as being a normal procedure, and it would help us hone our flying and prevent ourselves becoming lazy by not allowing our skills to atrophy.
@Dupre, just be bloody careful with Airbus. The systems are interlinked and you can get yourself into serious trouble (as others have done). For example, turning both FDs off forces the A/THR into speed mode - which is usually a safe thing, but just be careful about unintended consequences caused by interactions between systems