Airbus shock
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 'round here
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LEM, I don't quite understand what you are getting at. If you want a little more power on the approach while autothrust is engaged in the Airbus then you simply move the levers a touch forward out of the detent and the autothrust system gives it to you. You put the levers back in the detent and autothrust automatically reengages (til 100 ft) . And I am a big fan of trend vectors, they are a very simple way of allowing you to set power to maintain speed stability, you move the levers until the trend arrow disappears - I don't know what could be easier.
My only experience of the A320 is a 30 minute sim assessment for a job. At the time, I was on glass Boeings. My impression was that it had very clear and logical displays, and precise handling. Liked it a lot!
Ironically, the job assessment was for a classic Boeing.
Ironically, the job assessment was for a classic Boeing.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bookworm, that's exactly my point: why did it take so long to visually recognise the situation was bad?
I believe in the air, and especially in some situations, our brain is somehow blinded by the confusion, emotion and whatever, like having smoke in front of our eyes.
Now, with smoke in front of our eyes, it's like being sitting at some distance from the instruments.
Look at a glass cockpit picture on a magazine or on the net and tell me if the airplane is going fast or slow: impossible to tell!
while you can still immediately tell the position of the analogue dials. (BTW 18 wheeler I love your cockpit!!!!).
To me , the worste pilot in the world, it seems I can recognise immediately if my descent rate is too big on a classic analogue display, than on that narrow VSI; and if I'm distracted, when I look back at the speed, I immediately know that I have vref with the dial at (let's say) 3 o'clock, while on a tape I must first read the number to translate it in a fast /slow value.
I have nothing against trend vectors, I think they help a lot, but we could have them on an analogue display on a CRT.
And they help if accelerating/decelerating: if maintaining a stable speed, you have no trend, but you might be well below the intended value.
Once again, with the needle at 6 0'clock, I know immediately I have minimum clean, in a fraction of a second, without reading the number.
Once you have figured out the situation, no doubt you know what to do.
The problem is how long it takes to understand you are in deep sh#it.
And on a Boeing you can look at the ovhd panel and feel with your hand if the thrust is at idle.
Not so with the Airbus autothrust (tell me if I'm wrong)....
I believe in the air, and especially in some situations, our brain is somehow blinded by the confusion, emotion and whatever, like having smoke in front of our eyes.
Now, with smoke in front of our eyes, it's like being sitting at some distance from the instruments.
Look at a glass cockpit picture on a magazine or on the net and tell me if the airplane is going fast or slow: impossible to tell!
while you can still immediately tell the position of the analogue dials. (BTW 18 wheeler I love your cockpit!!!!).
To me , the worste pilot in the world, it seems I can recognise immediately if my descent rate is too big on a classic analogue display, than on that narrow VSI; and if I'm distracted, when I look back at the speed, I immediately know that I have vref with the dial at (let's say) 3 o'clock, while on a tape I must first read the number to translate it in a fast /slow value.
I have nothing against trend vectors, I think they help a lot, but we could have them on an analogue display on a CRT.
And they help if accelerating/decelerating: if maintaining a stable speed, you have no trend, but you might be well below the intended value.
Once again, with the needle at 6 0'clock, I know immediately I have minimum clean, in a fraction of a second, without reading the number.
Once you have figured out the situation, no doubt you know what to do.
The problem is how long it takes to understand you are in deep sh#it.
And on a Boeing you can look at the ovhd panel and feel with your hand if the thrust is at idle.
Not so with the Airbus autothrust (tell me if I'm wrong)....
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 'round here
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But you have a magenta diamond that's popped up at your Vref that is a lot bigger than the bugs you set on the conventional ASI. So how can that be more difficult? And the engine parimeters are an analogue style readout, with trend and a boxed number below. With the benefit of flashing or changing colour for anything out of the ordinary. What could be easier?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of the myths and legends about the ‘Scarebus’ are just that – myths. They are usually spread around by those who either don’t understand the machine, or find their monopoly on selling airliners under threat. If flown according to the recommended techniques, the aeroplane is very straightforward to operate, and frees up considerable extra capacity to manage the flight effectively. By the use of advanced flight control software, the use of GS mini and alpha protection, it has been certified to 1.23 Vs allowing flexible approaches in all weathers and wind conditions.
There is still psychosematic feedback, and you can still feel trim changes on flap selections etc. The sidestick concept is readily embraced by fighter pilots, and once you've eaten your lunch unencumbered by the yoke you'll never look back. Apart from anything else, the controls on a conventional aeroplane have 'artificial feel' to restore some of the feedback lost by the use of power controls. I've had an aileron jam in a 767 before, you have to lose a lot of redundancy in an Airbus before you lose roll control - think of that!
Having said that, any fool can crash an aeroplane, and it simply won’t wash to blame the manufacturers. It is simply a system that has protocols and methods, which by virtue of your command you have accepted your responsibility to know inside out. I flew Boeings for many years, and didn’t find the transition that difficult. If you fly a descent and approach properly in the 767, the thrust levers shouldn’t move till 1000’ anyway, they should be at idle!!
If I could change anything at all in the Airbus, I would have Normal Law wash out at 50’ during the flare to enhance roll control but that’s it.
There is still psychosematic feedback, and you can still feel trim changes on flap selections etc. The sidestick concept is readily embraced by fighter pilots, and once you've eaten your lunch unencumbered by the yoke you'll never look back. Apart from anything else, the controls on a conventional aeroplane have 'artificial feel' to restore some of the feedback lost by the use of power controls. I've had an aileron jam in a 767 before, you have to lose a lot of redundancy in an Airbus before you lose roll control - think of that!
Having said that, any fool can crash an aeroplane, and it simply won’t wash to blame the manufacturers. It is simply a system that has protocols and methods, which by virtue of your command you have accepted your responsibility to know inside out. I flew Boeings for many years, and didn’t find the transition that difficult. If you fly a descent and approach properly in the 767, the thrust levers shouldn’t move till 1000’ anyway, they should be at idle!!
If I could change anything at all in the Airbus, I would have Normal Law wash out at 50’ during the flare to enhance roll control but that’s it.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you fly a descent and approach properly in the 767, the thrust levers shouldn’t move till 1000’ anyway, they should be at idle!!
This feel may reach your brain well before your eyes do so.
I think this contributed a lot to the indian crash.
Yes, I'd love to eat my meal on a tray!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: MiddleEast
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heh guys and gals, LEM said in his opening thread that he was not rated on any airbus type yet he continues to push his one-sided view with commendable gusto. However, one of the things that a good human factors course will convey to an EXPERIENCED pilot is to "LISTEN", maybe there are smarter/more experienced/more qualified/etc pilots around or even beside you in the cockpit. I think both of the above key words are missing here.
As I said earlier, if you don't know don't comment. Here is a perfect case in point - he only thinks he knows yet he talks as if with actual knowledge/experience which he himself admits he does not.
Therefore LEM please listen, everyone but you so far has had positive comment, therefore just maybe your ideas just might be out of step with reality. I myself have20000+ hrs, 6000+ hrs on the 320 and a few more thousand on the A340. With more than 7000 on various Boeings both glass and round dial. I can tell you from ACTUAL experience that round dials on any aircraft do not compare with any glass cockpit. The glass cockpit concept is far superior by any assessment. The A320 was but just one step in the evolution of the aircraft cockpit. This concept has been refined as time goes on and the latest concept for the A380 is simply awesome. The 777 cockpit is also Boeings best yet but you can bet that what they are cooking up will not be that much different to the best that Airbus puts forward.
Therefore LEM its time for you to come out of the dark ages and upgrade your thinking. Its time to LISTEN.
Have a nice day
As I said earlier, if you don't know don't comment. Here is a perfect case in point - he only thinks he knows yet he talks as if with actual knowledge/experience which he himself admits he does not.
Therefore LEM please listen, everyone but you so far has had positive comment, therefore just maybe your ideas just might be out of step with reality. I myself have20000+ hrs, 6000+ hrs on the 320 and a few more thousand on the A340. With more than 7000 on various Boeings both glass and round dial. I can tell you from ACTUAL experience that round dials on any aircraft do not compare with any glass cockpit. The glass cockpit concept is far superior by any assessment. The A320 was but just one step in the evolution of the aircraft cockpit. This concept has been refined as time goes on and the latest concept for the A380 is simply awesome. The 777 cockpit is also Boeings best yet but you can bet that what they are cooking up will not be that much different to the best that Airbus puts forward.
Therefore LEM its time for you to come out of the dark ages and upgrade your thinking. Its time to LISTEN.
Have a nice day
Join Date: May 2003
Location: *Not* 5 AEF, Chris :)
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From my Airbus notes (loaned by a mate)
Airbus Inertial Guidance Systems
The aircraft knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is the greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation. The Inertial Reference System uses deviations to generate error signal commands which instruct the aircraft to move from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, arriving at a position where it wasn't, or now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position where it wasn't; thus, it follows logically that the position where it was is the position where it isn't. In the event that the position where the aircraft now is, is not the position where it wasn't, the Inertial Reference System has acquired a variation. Variations are caused by external factors, the discussions of which are beyond the scope of this report.
A variation is the difference between where the aircraft is and where the aircraft wasn't. If the variation is considered to be a factor of significant magnitude, a correction may be applied by the use of the autopilot system. However, use of this correction requires that the aircraft now knows where it was because the variation has modified some of the information which the aircraft has, so it is sure where it isn't.
Nevertheless, the aircraft is sure where it isn't (within reason) and it knows where it was. It now subtracts where it should be from where it isn't, where it ought to be from where it wasn't (or vice versa) and integrates the difference with the product of where it shouldn't be and where it was; thus obtaining the difference between its deviation and its variation, which is variable constant called "error".
The aircraft knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is the greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation. The Inertial Reference System uses deviations to generate error signal commands which instruct the aircraft to move from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, arriving at a position where it wasn't, or now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position where it wasn't; thus, it follows logically that the position where it was is the position where it isn't. In the event that the position where the aircraft now is, is not the position where it wasn't, the Inertial Reference System has acquired a variation. Variations are caused by external factors, the discussions of which are beyond the scope of this report.
A variation is the difference between where the aircraft is and where the aircraft wasn't. If the variation is considered to be a factor of significant magnitude, a correction may be applied by the use of the autopilot system. However, use of this correction requires that the aircraft now knows where it was because the variation has modified some of the information which the aircraft has, so it is sure where it isn't.
Nevertheless, the aircraft is sure where it isn't (within reason) and it knows where it was. It now subtracts where it should be from where it isn't, where it ought to be from where it wasn't (or vice versa) and integrates the difference with the product of where it shouldn't be and where it was; thus obtaining the difference between its deviation and its variation, which is variable constant called "error".
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rabbit, first I want to tell you that I respect a lot your experience,
which no doubt is impressive and comprehensive.
But unfortunately your attitude, which here is not unlike that of the KLM captain in Tenerife, makes my reply even too easy to make:
His majesty the EXPERIENCED pilot wants people to religiously LISTEN to his word because he is
.
Listen to what?
Have you answered my points? Have you explained in a logical and, I might say, scientifically way why my criticism in wrong?
Your only answer is: you have to LISTEN, LEM, because I'm God and you are nothing!
And you talk about a good human factor course!
You could also be God, I don't care, you have to answer my points in the details; putting forward your prestige won't work with me.
If my points are so wrong, it should be very easy to explain
why, but all you do is trying to impress people ( Heh guys and gals...) with your curriculum.
Absolutely, my thoughts are mine , they are the product of my brain, they are not precooked mass opinions.
You should at least read my posts more attentively: I said-admitted, if you like- I'm not rated on the Airbus, but the Airbus is not the only airplane with glass cockpit: I have some thousand hours on a glass cockpit virtually identical to the bus, so when I'm criticising speed tapes for example, I know what I mean.
Once again, you are so blinded by your 20000 hours that you purposely forgot L337's post, who is an Airbus pilot.
It's not sufficient to say that, but explain why.
BTW if you had read my posts more carefully, you would have understood that my criticism is very radical and idealistic, and that round- or analog- dials are not opposed to glass cockpit, we could very well design round dials on CRT. (and, as already I've said, the 737NG option is there to proove it can be done)
Dark ages or modern ages.... still, we are human beings!
Listen to what?
I cant't hear nothing, but the sound of empty words...
Have a good night!
which no doubt is impressive and comprehensive.
But unfortunately your attitude, which here is not unlike that of the KLM captain in Tenerife, makes my reply even too easy to make:
His majesty the EXPERIENCED pilot wants people to religiously LISTEN to his word because he is
smarter/more experienced/more qualified/etc
Listen to what?
Have you answered my points? Have you explained in a logical and, I might say, scientifically way why my criticism in wrong?
Your only answer is: you have to LISTEN, LEM, because I'm God and you are nothing!
And you talk about a good human factor course!
You could also be God, I don't care, you have to answer my points in the details; putting forward your prestige won't work with me.
If my points are so wrong, it should be very easy to explain
why, but all you do is trying to impress people ( Heh guys and gals...) with your curriculum.
yet he continues to push his one-sided view
As I said earlier, if you don't know don't comment. Here is a perfect case in point - he only thinks he knows yet he talks as if with actual knowledge/experience which he himself admits he does not.
Therefore LEM please listen, everyone but you so far has had positive comment,
I can tell you from ACTUAL experience that round dials on any aircraft do not compare with any glass cockpit.
BTW if you had read my posts more carefully, you would have understood that my criticism is very radical and idealistic, and that round- or analog- dials are not opposed to glass cockpit, we could very well design round dials on CRT. (and, as already I've said, the 737NG option is there to proove it can be done)
Therefore LEM its time for you to come out of the dark ages and upgrade your thinking.
Its time to LISTEN.
I cant't hear nothing, but the sound of empty words...
Have a good night!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: up north
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LEM would you give us a quick overview of Airbus FBW problems over the last 7/8/9 years it seems that most of us are getting the hang of it.
So my advise is to calm down get yourself on an airbus course very soon and then come back and apologise to Rabbit.
Who knows you might change your view when you have knowledge of what you are talking about, until then it would seem to me that you are more the one heading for TFN2.
So my advise is to calm down get yourself on an airbus course very soon and then come back and apologise to Rabbit.
Who knows you might change your view when you have knowledge of what you are talking about, until then it would seem to me that you are more the one heading for TFN2.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I might, who knows!...
But if I change my view I'm pretty sure I'll explain why , in the details, instead of talking about my curriculum.
Better to write your autobiography if you want to impress people.
Btw, excuse my ignorance, but would you explain me what TFN2 stands for, please.
Truly yours.
LEM
But if I change my view I'm pretty sure I'll explain why , in the details, instead of talking about my curriculum.
Better to write your autobiography if you want to impress people.
Btw, excuse my ignorance, but would you explain me what TFN2 stands for, please.
Truly yours.
LEM
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Canada
Age: 43
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi All,
While reading through all the responses so far, Im inclined to ask how many hours LEM has on ANY Airbus type. I'm quite happy to start out by saying I have only 5 hours, all SIM time and all while with a friends dad way back when in the mid 90's. I also point out that I also have this "experience" (for lack of a better word) on 747, 767 and DC-9. Even though I am in no way ready, able or willing to discuss the flight characteristics in detail, I do have to say that the Airbus was the easiest out of all 4 aircraft to read AND understand what was being given to you. At the time I was doing my PPL (so again WAY BACK WHEN) so I had a half decent understanding of systems. I too also have an A320 poster in my study, but I do have to ask...who in the heck sits 3 meters from the cockpit itself. I dont ever remember sitting that far back! Again it was long ago, but I do believe that a properly trained Airbus pilot should have NO problems understanding their aircraft. An airbus pilot once told me "...if you're not careful and airbus will bite you in the ass when you least expect it.". Funny then that I also got this quote from the same man who now flies the 767.
While reading through all the responses so far, Im inclined to ask how many hours LEM has on ANY Airbus type. I'm quite happy to start out by saying I have only 5 hours, all SIM time and all while with a friends dad way back when in the mid 90's. I also point out that I also have this "experience" (for lack of a better word) on 747, 767 and DC-9. Even though I am in no way ready, able or willing to discuss the flight characteristics in detail, I do have to say that the Airbus was the easiest out of all 4 aircraft to read AND understand what was being given to you. At the time I was doing my PPL (so again WAY BACK WHEN) so I had a half decent understanding of systems. I too also have an A320 poster in my study, but I do have to ask...who in the heck sits 3 meters from the cockpit itself. I dont ever remember sitting that far back! Again it was long ago, but I do believe that a properly trained Airbus pilot should have NO problems understanding their aircraft. An airbus pilot once told me "...if you're not careful and airbus will bite you in the ass when you least expect it.". Funny then that I also got this quote from the same man who now flies the 767.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... so move your seat forward 3 meters, get close to a good dictionary, and open it at the "metaphor" page!
It should explain you, in simple words, what a metaphor is.
Amazing to see how many people fly modern airplanes but have retained a dark age mentality;
we are now in the age of information: do you really need to have an Airbus rating to express an opinion on speed tapes and fixed thrust levers, when you are a professional with **** hours glass cockpit, when you can buy and watch dozens of line and sim videocassettes, when you can access the world with internet, when you have friends flying the bus, when you have flown on the jumpseat yourself, when you have read bus manuals, studyguides, various books and accidents reports in three different languages etc etc etc?
And I say again, all this is to just express an opinion and doubt, which are ready to accept any concrete confutation.
It should explain you, in simple words, what a metaphor is.
Amazing to see how many people fly modern airplanes but have retained a dark age mentality;
we are now in the age of information: do you really need to have an Airbus rating to express an opinion on speed tapes and fixed thrust levers, when you are a professional with **** hours glass cockpit, when you can buy and watch dozens of line and sim videocassettes, when you can access the world with internet, when you have friends flying the bus, when you have flown on the jumpseat yourself, when you have read bus manuals, studyguides, various books and accidents reports in three different languages etc etc etc?
And I say again, all this is to just express an opinion and doubt, which are ready to accept any concrete confutation.
