“SPEED, SPEED, SPEED” Warning
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slight digression, but after reading all these posts about what fiddling with thrust levers can do to modes and a/cx reactions and other systems etc. it seems these are not intuitive and need to be absorbed deeply and remembered and hopefully become intuitive to AB pilots. Yet still we hear some differing opinions about how one should action this and what the a/c will do.
What concerns me is that it is legal, and I believe some do, to operate one day AB and the next a B737 KISS a/c. Wow: in TEM terms that seems not the best idea. Opinions? On a good ideal day, all cool, perhaps; but on a bad hair day?
What concerns me is that it is legal, and I believe some do, to operate one day AB and the next a B737 KISS a/c. Wow: in TEM terms that seems not the best idea. Opinions? On a good ideal day, all cool, perhaps; but on a bad hair day?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It’s not as complicated as it sounds. When you undestand well how the Autoflight system works, it’s actually very « pilot friendly ». And if the 
hits the fan, you can always fly the Airbus like a Cessna with or without autotrim depending of the failure.
hits the fan, you can always fly the Airbus like a Cessna with or without autotrim depending of the failure.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAT5
You cannot get an easier aircraft to fly than A320. It is not difficult but at the same time it is different. I don't want to start another A Vs B but you can't compare 737 with it. EFATO in 737 will be a nightmare as compared to Airbus. It is an ideal aircraft for low time pilots because it demands minimum flying skills. More procedural but not complicated. However it is not a good idea to keep switching between the two and I don't think it is permitted. At least some DGCAs don't permit it.
You cannot get an easier aircraft to fly than A320. It is not difficult but at the same time it is different. I don't want to start another A Vs B but you can't compare 737 with it. EFATO in 737 will be a nightmare as compared to Airbus. It is an ideal aircraft for low time pilots because it demands minimum flying skills. More procedural but not complicated. However it is not a good idea to keep switching between the two and I don't think it is permitted. At least some DGCAs don't permit it.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes; I was not alluding to either being better, just very different philosophies: and mishandling of some modes can cause undesirable consequences. B737 has, I believe. more pilot direct input and in a simpler manner.
My only thought was because of the subtle and quite significant differences swapping between the 2 in close proximity might not be wise. Imagine you are more experienced on one than the other, and on a dark bad-hair monstrous night you react instinctively to the wrong a/c.
Only those who've flown both can, perhaps not in close proximity duties, educate us if this is indeed a problem, or a perception of a problem. I'm just curious. Considering B737 & B767 were considered too different to operate together, the Boeing AB difference is much wider.
I'll be interested in comments of the focused question.
My only thought was because of the subtle and quite significant differences swapping between the 2 in close proximity might not be wise. Imagine you are more experienced on one than the other, and on a dark bad-hair monstrous night you react instinctively to the wrong a/c.
Only those who've flown both can, perhaps not in close proximity duties, educate us if this is indeed a problem, or a perception of a problem. I'm just curious. Considering B737 & B767 were considered too different to operate together, the Boeing AB difference is much wider.
I'll be interested in comments of the focused question.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have flown A300b4 and A310 they are conventional like B737. If you fly AB FBW for long you will have to start all over again to fly conventional aircraft. Because Airbus FBW is flight path stable and not speed stable. B737 NG and B777 although FBW both are speed stable and may be similar to fly. But not 320 and 737. Hands off AB maintains 1g through speed and power changes. It holds bank and angle of attack no holding off bank required. You make change and leave it alone. Any time you move the stick you are giving a command to either roll or pitch. If you fly 320 you can fly 330 or 380 it behaves same way. Only differences a five day or ten day course. With it's protections and ECAM life is very simple. When something fails in may be 737 you grab the yoke but in Airbus leave the stick first then think. AF447 they didn't do that. It would have held the flight path.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The complexity of the autothrust system by virtue of the fact that the thrust levers don't move, is a major design flaw and a big downside.
It's still a great airplane to fly, but I wish that in the heat of the moment, I didn't have to stop to think about how to add power.
To add to the debate, if faced with that warning, you could push the instinctive disconnect button, and manually control thrust.
It's still a great airplane to fly, but I wish that in the heat of the moment, I didn't have to stop to think about how to add power.
To add to the debate, if faced with that warning, you could push the instinctive disconnect button, and manually control thrust.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said it is different and once the adjustments are made it is an easy and forgiving aeroplane. Static Thrust levers come from design philosophy of using available automation. Moving thrust levers or the tactile feedback is not as instinctive as imagined. B777 SFO, DUBAI accidents thrust levers were static at idle. Nobody saw anything, nobody felt anything till they crashed. So it is not a design advantage without aware piloting. The real problem is through your licensing, commuter aircraft and may be another jet then you get into Airbus is a bit of a culture shock. Anyway I like what Eric Park says "Welcome to Airbus. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated". Indeed!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I disagree that moving thrust levers are not instinctive. They're very instinctive, and provide valuable tactile cues as to what the plane is trying to do.
My current plane has moving levers, and I find that approach superior. If the AT isn't behaving, I simply override it. No deep systems knowledge required.
That said, I agree that resistance is futile. I also realise that Airbus probably won't ever link the sidesticks or make the thrust levers move. Perhaps one day they'll concede that when selecting a radio transmitter, the receiver should also be selected.
My current plane has moving levers, and I find that approach superior. If the AT isn't behaving, I simply override it. No deep systems knowledge required.
That said, I agree that resistance is futile. I also realise that Airbus probably won't ever link the sidesticks or make the thrust levers move. Perhaps one day they'll concede that when selecting a radio transmitter, the receiver should also be selected.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see how auto throttle could be an advantage in case you want to overrride the Auto throttle; Would probably be faster and more accurate than on Airbus. But I don’t see how it can be more instinctive. When you fly you look ahead at your instruments/outside; Not at your thrust levers. Like the FCTM says itself: « The flight crew can easily and intuitively monitor the energy of the aircraft via current energy cues ( speed, speed trend, HUD chrevrons, engines parameters), and not via ambiguous thrust levers movement. » I like the last part.. A wink to Boeing? Lol.
And I could not agree more. The day I stopped worrying about levers position and just use the speed/ Speed trend and a quick glitch at the N1 for fine tuning, my flying with A/THR off has become much more accurate.
And I could not agree more. The day I stopped worrying about levers position and just use the speed/ Speed trend and a quick glitch at the N1 for fine tuning, my flying with A/THR off has become much more accurate.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: somewhere hot and sticky
Age: 44
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I can see, you need to add energy into the aircraft... if in thr idle then adding 10kt doesn't achieve the aim, but if you are in speed mode it will give you a boot full of thrust which surly is what you want?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the time you make it to the sim, you should already have an effective scan. I've seen first hand the sort of training that 3rd party sim companies provide.
"AP AP AP"
"Keep it managed as long as possible"
That's not building anything more than another automation dependent monkey.
"AP AP AP"
"Keep it managed as long as possible"
That's not building anything more than another automation dependent monkey.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Auto throttle is more natural.
Disconnecting or reconnecting the A/THR on airbus requires more thinking.
On the other hand, to simply have to push the thrust levers all the way when it's time to activate the go-around phase, is a clever thing.
No difference with a 737, leave the yoke first then think.
Unsubstantiated.
To get back your scan takes time, and whatever the type, that time remains the same.
Disconnecting or reconnecting the A/THR on airbus requires more thinking.
On the other hand, to simply have to push the thrust levers all the way when it's time to activate the go-around phase, is a clever thing.
Originally Posted by vilas
When something fails in may be 737 you grab the yoke but in Airbus leave the stick first then think.
Same way as they get it in 737. But 50% of that is enough in airbus.
To get back your scan takes time, and whatever the type, that time remains the same.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've seen first hand the sort of training that 3rd party sim companies provide.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to seem uninformed, but why is this so clearly the wrong response?
As I can see, you need to add energy into the aircraft... if in thr idle then adding 10kt doesn't achieve the aim, but if you are in speed mode it will give you a boot full of thrust which surly is what you want?
As I can see, you need to add energy into the aircraft... if in thr idle then adding 10kt doesn't achieve the aim, but if you are in speed mode it will give you a boot full of thrust which surly is what you want?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vessbot
I am not denying that but that is theory part. Practical part it is a warning only in approach configurations to attract attention to speed. With this warning in ATHR it would already be CLB thrust. You need to change flight path otherwise it will trigger alpha floor. If thrust is manual you need to increase thrust, change flight path or both as the case may be.
I am not denying that but that is theory part. Practical part it is a warning only in approach configurations to attract attention to speed. With this warning in ATHR it would already be CLB thrust. You need to change flight path otherwise it will trigger alpha floor. If thrust is manual you need to increase thrust, change flight path or both as the case may be.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are in ATHR and change the speed that's a bad reaction to the warning because the ATHR is already reacting but it's not fast enough at the moment of the warning to cancel out the speed loss.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not necessarily, if you increase the speed just by a couple of knots, yes, the A/THR might be a bit sluggish to respond. But if you increase the speed by like 10/15 kts at least, the engines will spool up pretty quickly without delay. This technique is often used to get climb power quicker when clear to climb for instance.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: 5° above the Equator, 75° left of Greenwich
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems unintuitive to me the whole SPEED warning (with ATHR on). Never have heard it in the airplane fortunately. I remember seeing someone using thrust bump/phase advance in the past, but it's been a couple of times I've seen now that is not recommended anymore, with quite a good reasoning mind you! I've seen the aircraft pitch up quite fiercely when ATHR adds massive loads of thrust for a loss of airspeed, I can imagine if one misjudges the phase advance thing, it's a non stabilised approach straight away. This adding energy thing with ATHR on... Dunno, the pitching down thing is unintuitive, and even taking manual thrust is unintuitive because you initially have to pull back the levers...!
If it pops up to me one time my best guess is that I'll just disconnect ATHR and fly it manual and that'll be the end of it.
As far as the initial thread goes, I reckon it's a proper call, it will direct you instinctively to the speed scale, which is what you need in that scenario
If it pops up to me one time my best guess is that I'll just disconnect ATHR and fly it manual and that'll be the end of it.
As far as the initial thread goes, I reckon it's a proper call, it will direct you instinctively to the speed scale, which is what you need in that scenario