Hand on Sidestick

[rbhojwani]

In my airline students are taught to keep their hands on the sidesticks until 10,000ft AGL regardless of whether the AP is ON/OFF.

However its just a habit and we have no sources to validate this procedure. I was wondering when do the other Airbus drivers take their hands off the sidestick? (Is it once you’ve engaged AP?)

Happy flying!

[Australopithecus]

Originally Posted by rbhojwani

In my airline we teach students to keep their hands on the sidesticks until 10,000ft AGL regardless of whether the AP is ON/OFF.

However its just a habit and we have no sources to validate this procedure. I was wondering when do the other Airbus drivers take their hands off the sidestick? (Is it once you’ve engaged AP?)

Happy flying!

So what do you employ to control the aircraft with the A/P off?

[Fly3]

I used to rest my hand on the base plate of the sidestick all the time.

[vilas]

Minimum height you must have your hand on the side stick during approach is 1000ft. Now you can work backwards. AB is flight path stable aircraft. So when AP goes off it will continue to maintain the flight path. That's true even in alternate law except roll. More problem can be caused by grabbing the stick e.g. AF447(for heaven's sake not again)

[goeasy]

I quite agree. You could say keep it there all flight but what is the point? Having anything near the sidestick during AP operation increases the chance of unintentional disconnects.

[Pugilistic Animus]

Never flown an Airbus but it seems to be a bad idea in general

[Goldenrivett]

In my airline we teach students to keep their hands on the sidesticks until 10,000ft AGL regardless of whether the AP is ON/OFF.

I think that's an excellent idea when the AP is OFF, but counter-productive when AP is ON. By the same logic do you also teach students to keep their hands on the TLs when the autothrust is engaged up to 10.000 ft? I mean just think what would happen if the Auto Thrust suddenly disengaged!

[FlightDetent]

Why would you say counter-productive, G'rvt? Genuine question.

[vilas]

Airbus design philosophy is different it requires use of different sensory organs. Since Thrust levers provide no info about the present thrust it is pointless to keep a hand there. It requires a glance now and then on the N1 needle and the fan opening to confirm increase/decrease in thrust taking place. As long as the hand dealing with the side stick is resting on the hand rest it is good enough unless on the takeoff run. Because flight path stability rarely requires instant inputs. Sometimes habits from other aircraft are carried over to keep oneself in the comfort zone but serve no useful purpose.

[Meikleour]

Perhaps non - Airbus pilots may not realise that with the A/P engaged then the side-stick is "locked" in position. It requires a breakout force to disengage the A/P, thus using the PTT switch is catered for. One of the best arguements (in my opinion) for keeping the hand on the S/S during flight critical regimes is to be able to use the non-intuitive side-stick take-over button. This is especially important for the P1 should he intend to intervene. Dual inputs have a nasty habit of spoiling one's day This is one area where the Airbus really does differ from other types and needs a self disciplined approach from crews new to the type.

[Goldenrivett]

Hi FD,

Why would you say counter-productive

For the same reasons vilas states about lack of sensory feed back through the Thrust Levers, similarly there is no feed back through the side stick from either the other pilot nor the autopilot. If intervention is necessary, then it will be from the null position which is always found exactly in the same place.

[AQIS Boigu]

On several occasions in the past, immediate intervention after an AP disengagement has resulted in either a disaster or injured cabin crew and passengers.

There is a reason why nowadays we are taught to sit on our hands (literally) and think before rushing into any action.
(Ie. attitude/stall I have control, push, roll, thrust, stabilized).

An Airbus is not an F16 at Mach2 upside down 50ft over the water.

[misd-agin]

The plane flies just fine if you let go of the side stick with the a/p off.

[LW20]

Originally Posted by rbhojwani

In my airline we teach students to keep their hands on the sidesticks until 10,000ft AGL regardless of whether the AP is ON/OFF.

What is the reason for this? Is there a chance for an airbus aircraft to roll upside down in the timeframe of let's say 2 seconds it takes to get your hand back on the stick?

What reason did you thought about when you "invented" this procedure?

[iceman50]

Because we are PILOTS, NOT button pushers! The stick does not have to beheld tightly and it is a natural position for the hand to rest. It does no move like the Boeing yoke so NOT a problem.

[Vessbot]

Hands on the controls in readiness to take over, is a good practice. However, up to 10K is too much IMO. I find myself doing it to about 1500 whenever I use the AP. Both up and down.

Never flown an Airbus, and I don't see why this would be different on that type vs. others.

Originally Posted by AQIS Boigu

On several occasions in the past, immediate intervention after an AP disengagement has resulted in either a disaster or injured cabin crew and passengers.

​​​​​
That's kind of a facile observation. It's like saying that having your hands on the steering wheel has resulted in car crashes.

Much more meaningfully, it can be said that pilots' failure to be engaged with control of the airplane (engaged mentally, with the AP on, and engaged physically, with the AP off) has caused disasters.

[Australopithecus]

The Airbus normal fly-by-wire behaviour is pretty much like other types in control wheel steering: it wants to keep flying the last commanded attitude. The problem that I can see is that, with the A/P off the pilot with his hand off the side stick may easily let his attention be diverted to other tasks (as can typically occur with the A/P engaged). As the total energy state and flight path divergence may no longer be appreciated by that pilot his reaction time may be impaired because his CONTROL hand isn't guarding the @##&$#@-$ CONTROL stick.

How basic can you get, FFS?

[Check Airman]

What exactly are you guarding it from?

[vilas]

The Airbus normal fly-by-wire behaviour is pretty much like other types in control wheel steering: it wants to keep flying the last commanded attitude

No! It doesn't keep flying the last commanded attitude. Airbus flies the last commanded flight path. It is not same. It may change the last attitude if required to maintain the flight path.

[SloppyJoe]

(Ie. attitude/stall I have control, push, roll, thrust, stabilized).

This is something I find deeply troubling. Why are pilots being taught this? By the time you get into the front of an A320/330/340/350/380 you should not have to be doing this sort of training, you should already know how to recover from an unusual attitude!

Nose low, excessive bank? How does it go? Attitude, I have control, disengage, push? errrr no, pull?, errrr no, not that either, roll? yeap good idea. OK so now we have to go back a step to push? nope, pull? yeah lets do that. FFS, this training item shows what the standards have become, it's scary!

Here is an idea, if an airline finds themselves having to train this why not allocate more sim time to those who need it and get them to a point of instinctive recovery from any attitude? Rhetorical, I know the answer.