Airbus shock
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dirty Sands
Age: 62
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus shock
Having come from a fairly conventional type, I found the transition to the bus a tough cathartic ordeal. Even many years of Boeing glass offered little support as I sweated through the new parlance and exotic practices.
A few months down the line and I'm a convert. And like most converts, a devout one. Misgivings vanished into thin air to be replaced by a sense of lull and overconfidence that should worry me.
Now gentlemen fellow Ppruners who've walked this avenue before, did my naïveté cause me too short a stride, am I through a typical bout and can still consider myself "normal" or should I give it up altogether?
Your comments, please.
A few months down the line and I'm a convert. And like most converts, a devout one. Misgivings vanished into thin air to be replaced by a sense of lull and overconfidence that should worry me.
Now gentlemen fellow Ppruners who've walked this avenue before, did my naïveté cause me too short a stride, am I through a typical bout and can still consider myself "normal" or should I give it up altogether?
Your comments, please.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: MiddleEast
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sound normal to me.
I too went through the same ordeal in 92'. After 17 years on Boeings/various I switched to the A320. It was hard work I aggree and gave me a few sleepless nights especially the first few sim checks. However 6000hrs on A320's and another few thousand on the A340 later I think I have a reasonable grip on things. Of all the aircraft I have flown in my 38 yr career I have no hesitation in saying that the A340 is by far the easiest aircraft I have ever flown by far.
Now as I have said on many occasions, both Boeing and Airbus make fine aircraft but going into the future I believe airbus has the winning formula at the moment. Its time for Boeing to spend the bucks as Airbus have and start a completely new line up of aircraft to replace most of there ageing retread dinosaurs(777 excepted). That said, if my company wanted me to fly a boeing next week I wouldn't say no.
Have a nice day
I too went through the same ordeal in 92'. After 17 years on Boeings/various I switched to the A320. It was hard work I aggree and gave me a few sleepless nights especially the first few sim checks. However 6000hrs on A320's and another few thousand on the A340 later I think I have a reasonable grip on things. Of all the aircraft I have flown in my 38 yr career I have no hesitation in saying that the A340 is by far the easiest aircraft I have ever flown by far.
Now as I have said on many occasions, both Boeing and Airbus make fine aircraft but going into the future I believe airbus has the winning formula at the moment. Its time for Boeing to spend the bucks as Airbus have and start a completely new line up of aircraft to replace most of there ageing retread dinosaurs(777 excepted). That said, if my company wanted me to fly a boeing next week I wouldn't say no.
Have a nice day
the lunatic fringe
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 67
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After 2000 hours on the A320/ 319 at crosswind central, BHX. The aeroplane is an absolute pig in high winds. In a strong turbulent crosswind it is a real handful.
The fact that the thrust levers do not move, causes huge problems. For instance, by the time you have looked at the cyan arc, worked out the FMAs, too often the situation is out of control.
The whole design of the aeroplane is dedicated to keeping the pilot out of the loop. And that is not a good thing.
When all is going well it is a brilliant place to work. When it starts to unravel, it goes to worms horribly quickly.
All in my opinion.
L33t
The fact that the thrust levers do not move, causes huge problems. For instance, by the time you have looked at the cyan arc, worked out the FMAs, too often the situation is out of control.
The whole design of the aeroplane is dedicated to keeping the pilot out of the loop. And that is not a good thing.
When all is going well it is a brilliant place to work. When it starts to unravel, it goes to worms horribly quickly.
All in my opinion.
L33t
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I strongly agree, although not rated on the Airbus!
It's a shame they've removed the sensorial feedback.
The design, which is really putting the pilot out of the loop, is advertised as an improvement, but actually saving money is the real reason!
Who has invented speed tapes, for example?
Is it easier to know your airspeed looking with the tip of the eye at the position of the needle, or if you absolutely have to read the small number?
Try telling me what time it is from 3 meters on a digital watch!
On an analog display it's still possible.
Is this an improvement?
I think modern human beings are blindly fascinated by what is less and less ergonomic and straightforward.
And I don't believe landing with fixed, full forward thrust levers!
Like people in the contemporary society, pilots too are getting more and more ALIENATED.
It's a shame!
We could still have all the Airbus protections, but in a HUMAN cockpit!
and cockpits must be designed around the pilots, not pilots be
genetically modified to adapt to their cockpits!
WE are the users, and our opinion IS the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
L337's opinion IS the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's a shame they've removed the sensorial feedback.
The design, which is really putting the pilot out of the loop, is advertised as an improvement, but actually saving money is the real reason!
Who has invented speed tapes, for example?
Is it easier to know your airspeed looking with the tip of the eye at the position of the needle, or if you absolutely have to read the small number?
Try telling me what time it is from 3 meters on a digital watch!
On an analog display it's still possible.
Is this an improvement?
I think modern human beings are blindly fascinated by what is less and less ergonomic and straightforward.
And I don't believe landing with fixed, full forward thrust levers!
Like people in the contemporary society, pilots too are getting more and more ALIENATED.
It's a shame!
We could still have all the Airbus protections, but in a HUMAN cockpit!
and cockpits must be designed around the pilots, not pilots be
genetically modified to adapt to their cockpits!
WE are the users, and our opinion IS the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
L337's opinion IS the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Over the horizon
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got about 4k on it, great airplane, not really that tricky. I came from the DC-8 and had no real problems, other than understanding Frenglish.
The biggest problem I see with crosswinds, is over controlling, other than that pretty easy.
Enjoy,
D8
The biggest problem I see with crosswinds, is over controlling, other than that pretty easy.
Enjoy,
D8
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 'round here
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with Diesel8, has a few things that could be better but overall pretty easy to fly and live with and if you want to feel the thrust levers move then disconnect the autothrust and do it yourself. Also find the 340 a lot quieter than the 747-400 but no doubt Boeing have a logical explanation for this. Boeing could spend a lot more on development and have far greater resources but why bother when they can flog a 40 year old design that plenty still think is cutting edge. And USD$300 million for a 767, no wonder Senator McCain thought Boeing was ripping off the taxpayer bigtime. Other problem from talking to engineers is Boeing really screw you on parts prices after you paid plenty to buy their aircraft in the first place.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: MiddleEast
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re the comments regarding crosswind difficulties. I have been training on the type since 93 and the only time I found problems were as previously illuded to and that is overcontrolling.
Remember the inbuilt stability is such that if you can make yourself leave it alone it will return to where you had it after an external disturbance. If you are to quick as is possible and correct a disturbance, then you have introduced a new datum for the computer to which it will fly to and this I have found almost always leads to overcontrolling. So the answer is to train yourself to letting the aircraft do its thing first and then if necessary apply a correction.
As for landing in crosswind I have found it quite literally the easiest by far using one if the Airbus preferred techniques. Which is the wing down into wind method. You can get yourself set up early in strong x-wind situations by removing the drift early and just using aileron to maintain the certreline to touchdown. Those who prefer the decrab method, thats OK but if you misjudge the touchdown in strong x-wind then it usually turns rapidly to a bag of worms.
Now don't get me wrong here as I believe that Boeing produces good aircraft be they somewhat dated but I always harken back to a comon saying of a friend who by the way flies Boeings - "You can't make strawberry jam from pig sh#t". I also believe that Boeing in due course will modernise and who knows what new cockpit concept they will come up with.
Have a nice day
Remember the inbuilt stability is such that if you can make yourself leave it alone it will return to where you had it after an external disturbance. If you are to quick as is possible and correct a disturbance, then you have introduced a new datum for the computer to which it will fly to and this I have found almost always leads to overcontrolling. So the answer is to train yourself to letting the aircraft do its thing first and then if necessary apply a correction.
As for landing in crosswind I have found it quite literally the easiest by far using one if the Airbus preferred techniques. Which is the wing down into wind method. You can get yourself set up early in strong x-wind situations by removing the drift early and just using aileron to maintain the certreline to touchdown. Those who prefer the decrab method, thats OK but if you misjudge the touchdown in strong x-wind then it usually turns rapidly to a bag of worms.
Now don't get me wrong here as I believe that Boeing produces good aircraft be they somewhat dated but I always harken back to a comon saying of a friend who by the way flies Boeings - "You can't make strawberry jam from pig sh#t". I also believe that Boeing in due course will modernise and who knows what new cockpit concept they will come up with.
Have a nice day
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
re: disconnecting the autothrust, I have heard from folks at some US carriers this actually constitutes an emergency procedure on the Airbus according to their procedures.
Is this true elsewhere as well??
Is this true elsewhere as well??
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 'round here
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dunno what they read, the Airbus manual just says the pilot should use autothrust but can disconnect if they want to. The aircraft still appears pretty stable and straightforward on the approach even with a bit of wind. Nothing about it constituting an emergency procedure and unlike say, a 737, it doesn't seem to have a tendancy to throw in rudder, roll on it's back and dig a big hole in the ground.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...Out of the loop...
Apart from landing techniques, I'm really concerned with the design putting the pilot out of the loop.
Of course it's an exaggeration to say "out of the loop".
I think we should say "alienated from the loop".
The Airbus pilot is not seated at half a meter from his instruments anymore, but at a few meters away, and I don't think it's an improvement.
Let's take an example:
In 1990 an Indian Airlines crashed on the ILS in good weather, because they let the speed decay so much that by the time they realised it, it was too late.
How come?
My answer is: because they were sitting 3 meters away from their cockpit!
Of course these two guys (two Captains btw!) were not the best pilots in the world, but:
1) they were denied the analog display of the airspeed indicator, and as I've already said, it's much more difficult to have an awareness of your speed if you only have a small number to look at;
2)they were denied the same display of the VSI, which is ridiculously small;
3)they were denied the physical sensorial feedback of those fixed thrust levers, so they didn't realise their IDLE power.
You can say these guys were poorly trained, but is this new ,modern design a step forward or a step back?
People died.
We are not talking about CFIT, about altitude bust, about turning in the wrong direction toward a mountain, but about alienated pilots lacking an awareness of what the airplane is doing, like in the Air France crash in Strasbourg, in which the pilots didn't realise their 3300ft/min rate of descent in the VOR DME approach!
Of course it's an exaggeration to say "out of the loop".
I think we should say "alienated from the loop".
The Airbus pilot is not seated at half a meter from his instruments anymore, but at a few meters away, and I don't think it's an improvement.
Let's take an example:
In 1990 an Indian Airlines crashed on the ILS in good weather, because they let the speed decay so much that by the time they realised it, it was too late.
How come?
My answer is: because they were sitting 3 meters away from their cockpit!
Of course these two guys (two Captains btw!) were not the best pilots in the world, but:
1) they were denied the analog display of the airspeed indicator, and as I've already said, it's much more difficult to have an awareness of your speed if you only have a small number to look at;
2)they were denied the same display of the VSI, which is ridiculously small;
3)they were denied the physical sensorial feedback of those fixed thrust levers, so they didn't realise their IDLE power.
You can say these guys were poorly trained, but is this new ,modern design a step forward or a step back?
People died.
We are not talking about CFIT, about altitude bust, about turning in the wrong direction toward a mountain, but about alienated pilots lacking an awareness of what the airplane is doing, like in the Air France crash in Strasbourg, in which the pilots didn't realise their 3300ft/min rate of descent in the VOR DME approach!
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Overseas
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^ Ummm "3 meters"???? Where did that come from 
I could have sworn that last night I had to clean my PFD cos some grubby fingered FO had decided to point something out in close up. Must have had very long arms eh? Oh, and by the way, ive yet to see an easier way of monitoring airspeed than a trend arrow. Bit tricky to put those on an analogue dial.
Ridiculously small VSI? Is that the VSI that takes up the whole right hand side of the PFD, rather than another bloody dial somewhere on the cluttered fascia.
To prevent these errors I propose 3 rules for this thread in the spirit of the first post
1) Only Airbus rated/experienced posters
2) No discussion of xwind landings unless youve operated out of BHX
3) Only Airbus fans to post
That should solve my blood pressure problem
PS I love airbus (except in strong winds at BHX)
I could have sworn that last night I had to clean my PFD cos some grubby fingered FO had decided to point something out in close up. Must have had very long arms eh? Oh, and by the way, ive yet to see an easier way of monitoring airspeed than a trend arrow. Bit tricky to put those on an analogue dial.Ridiculously small VSI? Is that the VSI that takes up the whole right hand side of the PFD, rather than another bloody dial somewhere on the cluttered fascia.
To prevent these errors I propose 3 rules for this thread in the spirit of the first post
1) Only Airbus rated/experienced posters
2) No discussion of xwind landings unless youve operated out of BHX
3) Only Airbus fans to post
That should solve my blood pressure problem
PS I love airbus (except in strong winds at BHX)
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: MiddleEast
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LEM
I don't know where you get your info from but as you stated you were not rated on an airbus I believe you should get your facts right before you comment further. In fact there is no digital type speed display on the PFD. If you check the display is not unlike an annalog display just straightened out. The numbers are not small in fact they are larger than those on the Boeing (or any)annalog ASI. In fact as with all "Glass Displays"(Boeing & Airbus), the speed appreciation is far superior to that of a conventional annalog display due mainly to the use of colours. See for yourself, check it on: http://www.meriweather.com/320/320_main.html
Just click on the PFD and see what I mean.
As for your reasoning for the Indian Airlines accident back in 1990, Well it had nothing to do with speed decay or being on an ILS. It was quite simply lack of understanding of the system with a new operator of the type and an attempt to utilize procedures from an older aircraft. Quite simply when you select "OPEN DESCENT" it is precisely that. It is procedure to select a capture altitude that is above the ground not "ZERO" as they did according to their Company procedures at the time. So the aircraft did precicely as it was told to but when the pilots realised their problem it was to late. The aircraft just descended to "ZERO" altitude, unfortunately the ground level was above that. Also if they had had the ILS selected then the aircraft would have captured the G/S thus saving the day as well.
Your comment re the VSI is also unjustified as at the time as any experienced pilot would probably not even be considering it at the time as you are descending and there are more important factors to be monitoring.
As for "they were denied the physical sensorial feedback of those fixed thrust levers, so they didn't realise their IDLE power." Well they had "OPN DES" selected which means idle power which will be clearly dieplayed on the PFD, so I once again think you need to get your facts correct.
How can you say "these two guys (two Captains btw!) were not the best pilots in the world" or "these guys were poorly trained", do you Know them? Have you checked them? or are you just being a little superior.
As for the design, well it has been around noe more than 15 years and the safety record has been exceptional. Sure there has been a few hull losses but compare it with other types. Also see as how these new "modern" designs are out selling everything else then I believe you have your answer.
You might think I am using strong language in these comments - well you are correct. Nothing personal here but lets be professional here. If you don't know the facts - DON'T SPEAK. If you havn't flown Airbus or Boeings, don't comment on things you know nothing about. Sure ask questions - no prob's.
Have a nice day
I don't know where you get your info from but as you stated you were not rated on an airbus I believe you should get your facts right before you comment further. In fact there is no digital type speed display on the PFD. If you check the display is not unlike an annalog display just straightened out. The numbers are not small in fact they are larger than those on the Boeing (or any)annalog ASI. In fact as with all "Glass Displays"(Boeing & Airbus), the speed appreciation is far superior to that of a conventional annalog display due mainly to the use of colours. See for yourself, check it on: http://www.meriweather.com/320/320_main.html
Just click on the PFD and see what I mean.
As for your reasoning for the Indian Airlines accident back in 1990, Well it had nothing to do with speed decay or being on an ILS. It was quite simply lack of understanding of the system with a new operator of the type and an attempt to utilize procedures from an older aircraft. Quite simply when you select "OPEN DESCENT" it is precisely that. It is procedure to select a capture altitude that is above the ground not "ZERO" as they did according to their Company procedures at the time. So the aircraft did precicely as it was told to but when the pilots realised their problem it was to late. The aircraft just descended to "ZERO" altitude, unfortunately the ground level was above that. Also if they had had the ILS selected then the aircraft would have captured the G/S thus saving the day as well.
Your comment re the VSI is also unjustified as at the time as any experienced pilot would probably not even be considering it at the time as you are descending and there are more important factors to be monitoring.
As for "they were denied the physical sensorial feedback of those fixed thrust levers, so they didn't realise their IDLE power." Well they had "OPN DES" selected which means idle power which will be clearly dieplayed on the PFD, so I once again think you need to get your facts correct.
How can you say "these two guys (two Captains btw!) were not the best pilots in the world" or "these guys were poorly trained", do you Know them? Have you checked them? or are you just being a little superior.
As for the design, well it has been around noe more than 15 years and the safety record has been exceptional. Sure there has been a few hull losses but compare it with other types. Also see as how these new "modern" designs are out selling everything else then I believe you have your answer.
You might think I am using strong language in these comments - well you are correct. Nothing personal here but lets be professional here. If you don't know the facts - DON'T SPEAK. If you havn't flown Airbus or Boeings, don't comment on things you know nothing about. Sure ask questions - no prob's.
Have a nice day
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rabbit and 52049er, I don't have any problems with strong language, and here it's me who starded with it. On the contrary, I like that!
I'm not rated on the Airbus, but I've got some thousands hours on glass cockpit, and a big A320 poster on my wall (once I was fascinated by it), so my opinion is not completely misplaced, and even if it were, it's the freedom of talking which brings intelligent and wise comments from experienced people - which I think is one of the goals of this forum - so please, don't even talk about RULES here - unless you want to negate one of the great and revolutionary aspects of the internet.
So I'll continue to say what I think and even to ask stupid questions, with the awareness that sometimes it can be wrong, too strong or wathever.
I hope your blood pressure can cope with it.
Very funny comments on cleaning PFD's and long arms! You really got my point.
Maybe you don't know that in the very early stages of design trend arrows didn't even exist. But when they noticed how difficult it was to fly with the new display, they added them.
They were an afterthought to try to solve a problem.
BTW 737ng can have the traditional display, glass cockpit yes, but with analog instruments and trend vectors on it (on a crt you can draw whatever you like).
My criticism here is against various tapes (speed and so on), not against CRT, which lack the information described in my previous exaple of the distant watch.
I'm criticising this new philosohy rather than Airbus, apart from being the inventor (I might be wrong) of this new trend.
BTW the " bloody VSI dial somewhere on the cluttered fascia" was so easy to use, even only with your peripheral field of view....
Regarding my being superior to the pilots who crashed that way in good weather on final, well, yes, I hope I'm superior to that.
Of course I was not there, my information comes from usual sources (books and whatever): after reading of an accident like that, MY blood pressure has got a problem!
To me the selling of something doesn't mean it's good, it's only proof that money comes first in our world!
In this case they've advertised the concentration of various instruments in only one CRT as an improvement for the pilots, but the true reason is, I think, saving money ! (one CRT costs much much less that 5 mechanical ones).
I maintain the result is a step back, not forward, to the pilot: on a tape you must read the number to know your speed, while on analog a quick look gives immediately the awareness of the situation.
You can do the experiment on pictures, posters and so on: is the airplane of your site going fast or slow?
And with conventional thrust levers I know the amount of power
even without looking at the intrument.
Now you are gonna tell me I'm supposed to look!
Of course, but with the dozen things I'm supposed to look at, the information coming through my hand is a valuable one, isn'it?
I'd like to discuss in depth of the joystick with you, but it would take too long.
So, nice day to you also!
I'm not rated on the Airbus, but I've got some thousands hours on glass cockpit, and a big A320 poster on my wall (once I was fascinated by it), so my opinion is not completely misplaced, and even if it were, it's the freedom of talking which brings intelligent and wise comments from experienced people - which I think is one of the goals of this forum - so please, don't even talk about RULES here - unless you want to negate one of the great and revolutionary aspects of the internet.
So I'll continue to say what I think and even to ask stupid questions, with the awareness that sometimes it can be wrong, too strong or wathever.
I hope your blood pressure can cope with it.
Very funny comments on cleaning PFD's and long arms! You really got my point.
Maybe you don't know that in the very early stages of design trend arrows didn't even exist. But when they noticed how difficult it was to fly with the new display, they added them.
They were an afterthought to try to solve a problem.
BTW 737ng can have the traditional display, glass cockpit yes, but with analog instruments and trend vectors on it (on a crt you can draw whatever you like).
My criticism here is against various tapes (speed and so on), not against CRT, which lack the information described in my previous exaple of the distant watch.
I'm criticising this new philosohy rather than Airbus, apart from being the inventor (I might be wrong) of this new trend.
BTW the " bloody VSI dial somewhere on the cluttered fascia" was so easy to use, even only with your peripheral field of view....
Regarding my being superior to the pilots who crashed that way in good weather on final, well, yes, I hope I'm superior to that.
Of course I was not there, my information comes from usual sources (books and whatever): after reading of an accident like that, MY blood pressure has got a problem!
To me the selling of something doesn't mean it's good, it's only proof that money comes first in our world!
In this case they've advertised the concentration of various instruments in only one CRT as an improvement for the pilots, but the true reason is, I think, saving money ! (one CRT costs much much less that 5 mechanical ones).
I maintain the result is a step back, not forward, to the pilot: on a tape you must read the number to know your speed, while on analog a quick look gives immediately the awareness of the situation.
You can do the experiment on pictures, posters and so on: is the airplane of your site going fast or slow?
And with conventional thrust levers I know the amount of power
even without looking at the intrument.
Now you are gonna tell me I'm supposed to look!
Of course, but with the dozen things I'm supposed to look at, the information coming through my hand is a valuable one, isn'it?
I'd like to discuss in depth of the joystick with you, but it would take too long.
So, nice day to you also!
Metrosexual
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be interested to hear what it is like to fly the Airbus' without the 'traditional' sensory feedback from 'the yoke'.
How different is it going through computers as opposed to conventional cable or hydraulic/q feel operated controls with regard to control input etc and lack of 'feel'.
Is it more difficult/easier to be using predominantly the 'optic' senses as a ameans of garnering info as to what the aircraft is doing?
How different is it going through computers as opposed to conventional cable or hydraulic/q feel operated controls with regard to control input etc and lack of 'feel'.
Is it more difficult/easier to be using predominantly the 'optic' senses as a ameans of garnering info as to what the aircraft is doing?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Using only "optic" senses is definitely worse, in my opinion, than using optic and sensory feedback.
And this is one of my points in criticising Airbus and typical glass cockpits (whether Airbus or Boeing or whatever).
I'd like to add something to my previous post Re Rabbit & 52049er.
Regarding the Indian crash I've used the expression "not the best pilots in the world": First of all because they killed 92 persons because of mishandling in good weather, and second because of this: (cited from "Aviation Disasters" by David Gero):
"As noted in the accident report, the Indian Directorate General of Civil Aviation had previously advised the carrier that the pilot who was in command of Flight 605 be 'positively monitored' in such areas as operation of the flight management and guidance system (FMGS) used on the Airbus 320. His instructors noted '...numerous small errors and omissions...' with the FMGS and mishandling of the aircraft's power controls."
Also, and this pertains too to my criticising fixed thrust levers:
"During the approach to Runway 09, made in conditions of good visibility, the crew inadvertantly placed the flight director in the open descent mode by selecting an altitude on the flight control unit that was lower than the aircraft's actual height. This in turn changed the autothrottle setting to idle engine thrust. The airspeed, which was not being properly monitored ,then began to decay, and the twin jet transport deviated below the glide path. Meanwhile, the aircraft's nose pitched up as the pilot tried to maintain the correct flight path , unable to do so at idle power ." (italic is mine).
Don't tell me a good pilot forgets to monitor his airspeed on final, please!
But what is worse is that when he realised the problem he pulled up on the stick, but did not add power with his hand.
It comes instinctively to a traditional pilot to add power when pulling the nose up. Not so on the Airbus. His hand was already full forward, but he had idle power!
This design has removed one of the most precious instincts from the pilot's background!!
If your attention gets focused on something else, you don't look at the EPR, and the one thing that could save the day, your hand, is lost and dead.
As others have said, as long as all goes well it can be nice and easy to operate , but too many pilots have just about forgotten how to fly an airplane.
Regarding speed tapes, I'm sorry but they are not like an analog display straightened out. The pictorial geometric position of the needle is lost.
Why don't we straighten out the ADI too?
We could have a U5 R15 display, instead of blue sky and brown earth, where U5 stands for UP 5 degrees and R15 for Right 15 degrees! Thanks God, in this case at least they've recognised the graphic display is invaluable and cannot be replaced by a tape!
I believe cockpits should be fool proofs; that would be an improvement. But we don't like to think WE, the great pilots, need something foolproof, do we?
I think the ideal cockpit is like the 737 NG with ANALOG displays, glass, trend vectors, colours, but bigger (and of course more expensive) CRTs. Thrust levers must move - thanks God it's been the choice of Boeing on the 777. All the Airbus protections are good and wellcome.
I'm now very accustomed to fly standard glass cockpits, but ideally I cannot come to a different conclusion.
LEM
And this is one of my points in criticising Airbus and typical glass cockpits (whether Airbus or Boeing or whatever).
I'd like to add something to my previous post Re Rabbit & 52049er.
Regarding the Indian crash I've used the expression "not the best pilots in the world": First of all because they killed 92 persons because of mishandling in good weather, and second because of this: (cited from "Aviation Disasters" by David Gero):
"As noted in the accident report, the Indian Directorate General of Civil Aviation had previously advised the carrier that the pilot who was in command of Flight 605 be 'positively monitored' in such areas as operation of the flight management and guidance system (FMGS) used on the Airbus 320. His instructors noted '...numerous small errors and omissions...' with the FMGS and mishandling of the aircraft's power controls."
Also, and this pertains too to my criticising fixed thrust levers:
"During the approach to Runway 09, made in conditions of good visibility, the crew inadvertantly placed the flight director in the open descent mode by selecting an altitude on the flight control unit that was lower than the aircraft's actual height. This in turn changed the autothrottle setting to idle engine thrust. The airspeed, which was not being properly monitored ,then began to decay, and the twin jet transport deviated below the glide path. Meanwhile, the aircraft's nose pitched up as the pilot tried to maintain the correct flight path , unable to do so at idle power ." (italic is mine).
Don't tell me a good pilot forgets to monitor his airspeed on final, please!
But what is worse is that when he realised the problem he pulled up on the stick, but did not add power with his hand.
It comes instinctively to a traditional pilot to add power when pulling the nose up. Not so on the Airbus. His hand was already full forward, but he had idle power!
This design has removed one of the most precious instincts from the pilot's background!!
If your attention gets focused on something else, you don't look at the EPR, and the one thing that could save the day, your hand, is lost and dead.
As others have said, as long as all goes well it can be nice and easy to operate , but too many pilots have just about forgotten how to fly an airplane.
Regarding speed tapes, I'm sorry but they are not like an analog display straightened out. The pictorial geometric position of the needle is lost.
Why don't we straighten out the ADI too?
We could have a U5 R15 display, instead of blue sky and brown earth, where U5 stands for UP 5 degrees and R15 for Right 15 degrees! Thanks God, in this case at least they've recognised the graphic display is invaluable and cannot be replaced by a tape!
I believe cockpits should be fool proofs; that would be an improvement. But we don't like to think WE, the great pilots, need something foolproof, do we?
I think the ideal cockpit is like the 737 NG with ANALOG displays, glass, trend vectors, colours, but bigger (and of course more expensive) CRTs. Thrust levers must move - thanks God it's been the choice of Boeing on the 777. All the Airbus protections are good and wellcome.
I'm now very accustomed to fly standard glass cockpits, but ideally I cannot come to a different conclusion.
LEM
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,833
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually LEM if the Indian Airlines guys had shoved the thrustlevers FULLY forward to the TOGA gate they would have got full thrust...and go-around mode !!
I have to say I'm a fairly new 'bus pilot but I like it a lot
I have to say I'm a fairly new 'bus pilot but I like it a lot
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is that a go around is the extreme solution, and often you want to simply add the required power, not to go around.
No doubt you can like it, but I hope some Airbus (or even glass cockpit Boeing) pilots will answer my criticism in the details.
If I'm wrong I'll be ready and pleased to admit it, but you don't need to be a scientist to observe the reality in a logical manner.
No doubt you can like it, but I hope some Airbus (or even glass cockpit Boeing) pilots will answer my criticism in the details.
If I'm wrong I'll be ready and pleased to admit it, but you don't need to be a scientist to observe the reality in a logical manner.
But what is worse is that when he realised the problem he pulled up on the stick, but did not add power with his hand.
It comes instinctively to a traditional pilot to add power when pulling the nose up. Not so on the Airbus. His hand was already full forward, but he had idle power!
It comes instinctively to a traditional pilot to add power when pulling the nose up. Not so on the Airbus. His hand was already full forward, but he had idle power!
When the trainee captain finally realised the gravity of the situation at 140 ft, he pushed the thrust levers to TOGA. In fact, he didn't need to, as the Alpha Floor protection had activated and the engines were already spooling up.
Both crew then pulled and held sidestick full back, which gave the Airbus a chance to optimise its escape at maximum lift coefficient -- a conventional aircraft it would have just stalled. But it was too late to arrest the descent into terrain.
This appears to have been a case of the crew being too late in recognising that their trajectory was wrong. That's something that comes from not monitoring the instruments, which has to be done visually, regardless of aircraft type. Their actions after recognition of the problem were optimal but insufficient to avoid the crash.
