Dual Input Airbus
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
From: Asia
Dual Input Airbus
I've come across a number of pilots who claim that during a late flare from the F/O and in order to save a potentially hard or firm landing, pump the side-stick at short intervals in a way that the dual input doesn't sound.
I have never done it, just keep my finger in the red button hoping i don't have to use it.
my understanding according to the algebraic design, is that it would be necessary to deflect ones sidestick beyond the other's deflected amount, to cause an additional elevator response.
what do you think about this underdog common practice?
I have never done it, just keep my finger in the red button hoping i don't have to use it.
my understanding according to the algebraic design, is that it would be necessary to deflect ones sidestick beyond the other's deflected amount, to cause an additional elevator response.
what do you think about this underdog common practice?
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
From: blue planet
It is true that the dual input warning in the cockpit is not triggered if the PM deflects his sidestick within a certain limit. But even without an aural warning it will be recognized by your flightsafety department.
I am sayin BS as well.
I am sayin BS as well.
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 478
Likes: 87
From: Aust
I've come across a number of pilots who claim that during a late flare from the F/O and in order to save a potentially hard or firm landing, pump the side-stick at short intervals in a way that the dual input doesn't sound.
I have never done it, just keep my finger in the red button hoping i don't have to use it.
my understanding according to the algebraic design, is that it would be necessary to deflect ones sidestick beyond the other's deflected amount, to cause an additional elevator response.
what do you think about this underdog common practice?
I have never done it, just keep my finger in the red button hoping i don't have to use it.
my understanding according to the algebraic design, is that it would be necessary to deflect ones sidestick beyond the other's deflected amount, to cause an additional elevator response.
what do you think about this underdog common practice?
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,633
Likes: 137
From: USA
I've come across a number of pilots who claim that during a late flare from the F/O and in order to save a potentially hard or firm landing, pump the side-stick at short intervals in a way that the dual input doesn't sound.
I have never done it, just keep my finger in the red button hoping i don't have to use it.
my understanding according to the algebraic design, is that it would be necessary to deflect ones sidestick beyond the other's deflected amount, to cause an additional elevator response.
what do you think about this underdog common practice?
I have never done it, just keep my finger in the red button hoping i don't have to use it.
my understanding according to the algebraic design, is that it would be necessary to deflect ones sidestick beyond the other's deflected amount, to cause an additional elevator response.
what do you think about this underdog common practice?
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 478
Likes: 87
From: Aust
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 39
From: Wanderlust
I've come across a number of pilots who claim that during a late flare from the F/O and in order to save a potentially hard or firm landing, pump the side-stick at short intervals in a way that the dual input doesn't sound.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 508
Likes: 4
From: World
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 39
From: Wanderlust
It can be called nervous twitch because it doesn't do any GOOD. If it did Airbus instructors would have suggested it. Pilots allowed to give takeoff and landing should be given a practice of take over with the button. It's a tricky part. Instead of fiddling with the stick you need your thumb on the button to quickly take over. As it happened in the Jetstar Australia incident the guy yanked the stick to raise pitch 21° the trainer was unable to intervene resulting in bad tail strike.
Last edited by vilas; 23rd September 2019 at 04:09.
Only half a speed-brake
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,459
Likes: 136
From: Commuting not home
my understanding according to the algebraic design, is that it would be necessary to deflect ones sidestick beyond the other's deflected amount, to cause an additional elevator response.
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,605
Likes: 154
From: Having a margarita on the beach
A very important aspect is to properly brief new trainees FO/Captains/Instructors on the fact that, unlike other "conventional" aircrafts where a little help is given to avoid digging a hole and spending the turn around with paperwork, on the Airbus FBW family there will be a takeover from the Captain/Training Captain should the need arise, that this is perfectly normal and there is no other way around. In my experience spending a few words with the trainees prior to their first flights and emphasising this aspect has proven beneficial in order to avoid potential demotivation and drop in performances following a low height takeover. It is then up to the trainer/captain to set their own threshold to what is acceptable and what is not according to each own's level of experience, but a takeover is always the right and only option if we are not happy with anything. It is better to have a takeover when it was not really needed than the opposite, and with time everybody can adjust their own tolerance.
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 720
Likes: 1
From: N5109.2W10.5
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 39
From: Wanderlust
My understanding is significantly different. The individual deflections are added up, and the sum then fed to the F/CTL computer. Any deflection will have an effect
Last edited by vilas; 24th September 2019 at 11:34.
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 478
Likes: 87
From: Aust
But...Isn't that dangerous? Whatever happened to "I have control." I forget how long the take-over button takes, 5 seconds maybe