Airbus trepidation... convince me otherwise!
 

Airbus trepidation... convince me otherwise!
OK Folks this question has been a long time coming. I know I'm gonna hear a lot of good and bad from both camps... that's fine.

With the A319 only 1.5 years away from arriving here at AA, I'm trying to erase a long running hesitation in someday flying this bird. For years I strongly disliked the Airbus cockpit philosophy and was rather glad that AA chose to stay true to Boeing.

I've had the opportunity to j/s on United and USAir Airbus cockpits and I must say..... I'm still hesitant.

There is no doubt in my mind that this is one of the most comfy cockpits I have ever sat in. The ergonomics are spectacular. Everything flows nicely.

But... I still question: Are the pilots REALLY in control? I had a lot of difficulty watching the engine instruments register changes without the throttles moving. I never quite knew what the engines were doing. Why are the throttles locked at Climb Thrust with the engines back at idle? This stuff really conflicts with my "Boeing-warped" mind.

I also had a tough time comparing aircraft pitch/roll commands without seeing a corresponding stick movement. Why, because the other stick doesn't move. How does the other pilot know what the flying pilot is doing?

Lastly: I understand that the stick commands a RATE, not simply a control surface movement. So if you bang in left stick and center it, the aircraft will continue rolling left until you bang in right stick. VERY disconcerting to me: I expect that, if you bang in left stick and center it, the aircraft would stop rolling, not increase it.

As I understand it, the 777, while still FBW, maintained the Boeing philosophy of keeping it a pilot's airplane.

As you can see, I have serious issues with this philosophy, not to mention the fact that this "pilot out of the loop" philosophy may have contributed to the lack of SA exhibited with Air France 447. I want to feel comfortable with the Airbus as this aircraft may very well be my first CA upgrade at AA. Please give me the pros and cons and help convince me that this aircraft will not "go computer psycho" without anything I can do about it.

Posted on APC and FI.com as well.

Thanks for any responses.
73

Just to clarify - when you apply left stick you are commanding a roll rate. As soon as you centre the stick the FBW will attempt to hold that bank.

Regards

There is no such thing as "banging the stick left, center it and the a/c continuing on the roll". What the bus do, and it works wonderfully once you fully understand the "how" is that once you reach the bank angle you commanded it will "autotrim" to keep that bank angle and fly it.

aa73, to my knowledge in over 20 years of operation, no FBW Airbus (AF447 could be argued) has fallen out of the sky because the FBW failed. That's a nice thing to dwell on.

In general, the biggest difference between the computer flown bus and the human brain flown McBoeing is pitch trim. The Bus auto trims and it does not trim for speed. Other than that, and here comes a BIG IF, IF the automation is all operable, the airplane pretty much flies like any other transport category swept wing jet. You want to turn left, you deflect SS left until you get the bank you want and let off, it just stays where you put it. Steep turns are easy as pie. Pitch appears at first glance to be normal, if you want to raise the nose, pull back and the nose comes up.
You will find that the SS and the FBW take about a hour on your first sim session to get used to and after that you will only think about it when you start reading AF447 threads. :eek:

Thanks for the correction regarding roll rate.

But why does Airbus "auto-trim"? As a pilot I **WANT** to trim out the forces myself - so that I am in concert with what I want the airplane to do. When I put my 757 in a bank, I trim slightly nose up and it's exactly how I've flown for 20+ years.

I don't **WANT** autotrim, as it removes me from control that much more. I want to know where my trim is at all times. Is there any way to disconnect the autotrim and keep 100% "hands on" operation?

edit: in response to TTex: understood about the FBW not failing in AF447. But - and this is a big but - do you Airbus folks believe that the lack of "cues" (sticks not moving together, throttles not moving) contributed to the lack of the pilots' SA?

Hi,
The way to disable autotrim would be to turn off a few flight control computers and put the aircraft in direct law .The message USE MAN PITCH TRIM would appear on PFD and you would use the trim wheel. There is no artificial feel on the stick so it is difficult to fly smoothly (in the sim, never tried it for real) in direct law. This is not an approved procedure, flying in direct law is only ever done as as abnormal procedure.
The lack of thrust lever movement can lead to lack of awareness, if you get behind the plane, it can get a bit confusing. AB say, always know your FMA, this way you should have an idea what the plane is doing. AB also say that you have the option to disconnect and fly like a conventional plane though, as lots of us don't practise this enough, it sometimes causes more problems.
After a few years on the 73, I would say, the bus is generally has less work load and is more comfortable and takes care of pilots errors more. When it goes wrong though, it can get quite complicated, eg the BMI A321 which had a generator problem leading to flickering screens, uncommanded rudder trim, and caused the plane to turn and go 10 miles off course while the poor crew try to work out what is going on. Have fun

OK, excluding my mil (very) fast types, and having only flown the 320; 321 and 330, and having only forty-two years' experience and having been an examiner on Airbus types for only the last twenty years or so, I can tell you it was the best flying in civil aircraft I had.

Pure magic; wait and see.

Post a notice here when you agree...waiting.

f

Do the course and see for yourself what the 'bus is all about.

Used to be the non-Airbus guys and gals knew all the reasons why the 'bus was substandard but after some time on type the tune usually changes.

The 777 has auotrim now as well so that is something you have to get used to in the future.

No, it doesn't.

That being said, I have never flown an Airbus, don't care to as I'm to old to learn BUT- know plenty of guys who do and are perfectly happy doing so.

Honestly, differences in the flight controls are a minuscule fraction of what it means to be a pilot.

You are responsible for safely conducting the flight and putting the aircraft where it needs to be, in one piece with everyone breathing.

The Airbi do this JUST as well as the Boeing's, even if by a different philosophy re flight controls.

Go for it, enjoy the table (yeah, I DO wish I had one) and get used to the differences in FBW architecture.

Oh- and cash the paycheck and go home!!

Sooooo much better than anything else! Would never want to go back now.

aa, This site has a large number of engineers/programmers/techies who can tell you why it autotrims. I only know that it does. I agree, I want an airplane to stay on trim speed when I put it there, I hate having to chase airspeed when hand flying.

You can not disconnect auto trim, and contrary to the flight manual, you can't trim like a normal aircraft. Even if you attempt to manually trim, the system will fight you and remove your input as soon as you release the trim wheel. This is because the trim trims for "g" and for flightpath, unless you train your brain to trim for flightpath or "g", you will never get it in trim.

The AF447 discussion has about a million responses on at least seven threads, so I'll let you dig through them regarding the FBW failing. FWIW, my opinion on AF447 is this: everything contributed to the accident. In no particular order, I think poor training and procedures (based upon some utopian claim that the airbus flys like any other airplane), combined with auto trim that trimmed nose up well past the stall angle of attack, combined with the FP's limited experience (outside of the AB world and in manual flight), combined with the PM's lack of CRM, combined with bad pitot tubes, combined with flat glass/tape style displays, combined with non-linked SS's, all caused the accident. Oh yeah, had the crew been trained in cruise level Unreliable Air Speed drills, or how to properly take the controls, they would likely be drinking wine on the beach at Rio today.

For your future line flying, many of us have developed our own personal procedure for indication anomalies at cruise. It goes something like this.....ANY possible discrepancy of A/S, etc, leads to A/P off, Auto Thrust off, Flight Directors OFF, set 80% N1 and hold 2.5 degrees nose up and ignore all else until you are absolutely certain that you have it under complete control. You have to trust something, attitude and power are the most reliable instruments so we go with them.

Hey Wiz, have you ever noticed that bank angles up to 30 degrees do not require back pressure on the 777? Can you explain how that works?

"PFC's automatically control pitch to maintain a relatively constant flight path".

Is auto trim by any other name still as sweet?

No, it is not auto trim.

In Normal Flight Control Mode the 777 is trimmed by means of the Stabilizer. That does not move in response to the turn bias system. The 777 has a speed trim system.

If you change the ATTITUDE of the Airbus, it trims for that attitude- THAT is an Autotrim system.

It is not an autotrim system by another name- it is quite simply not an autotrim system.

So to clarify, PFC's automatically positioning the elevator and stabilizer is not auto trim?

Thanks for the replies to all... and yes I look forward to commending the Bus on this site once I start flying it!

@Extreme P

777 has autotrim?

I was of the impression that Boeings only trim for speed, if that?

The problem OP is talking about is that the Buses fly counter-intuitively, and take away command authority in ways he isn't comfortable with. As a pilot I think what he is saying is that he wants the responsibility to actually command the inputs - even many of them - all of them - to the ship - because then he knows what he has or has not commanded.

AF447 has been a runaway story in the MSM about this, the genie isn't going back into the bottle. The public are interested (and wary?) of the Airbus voodoo, much like engineers, architects etc who use PCs are wary of the so called Apple Mac voodoo.

What's so special about Airbus, except it gives you less work (all possible detriments aside for the minute)?

No need for trepidation the bus can be treated more or less like any other aircraft, most of the peope who have been bitten by the bus simply failed to disengage ALL the automatics and take full manual control of the aircraft.

If you want an easy life then as long as you fall in love with the FMC you will like the bus, what it won't do as well as the Boeing is ride turbulence or crosswinds.

I personally prefer the Boeing but this is just a matter of taste, others on this forum will no doubt disagree......but at the end of the day I prefer to be connected to the controls with a large steel cable rather than a bunch of wiggly amps !

C212

A small correction, that Airbus FBW (at least the 320 series) does not maintain a bank angle, it maintains a zero roll-rate when stick is at neutral.

Only two years flying on it and it is beyond what I hoped for in ergonomics and systems. Of course some things could be improved, but the magic is, they do get improved! Fully upgradable airplane in my opinion.

Flex

Hey Flytiger,

The 777 trims for speed. My point is if you are manually flying the airplane and it automatically trims for your control inputs to produce a "maneuver" that is auto trim. In my mind no back pressure or trim input required for bank angles up to 30 degrees means auto trim. It also auto trims for gear and flap selections. I don't see the difference between auto trimming for attitude or speed. It's still auto trim.

How do you "take full manual control" of the stab trim?

Seriously, all of this "the bus can be treated more or less like any other aircraft" is getting old. It isn't any other aircraft and Airbus pilots need to recognize such. Not that it's bad, it isn't; in it's own way it works very well but it demands techniques not demanded by other aircraft and that fact needs to be both understood and trained for. Bad grammar, I know, sorry.

The Airbus cockpit is a dream and systems management is just about as simple as it can get. Coming into the type course from Boeing and McDonnell Douglas experience, I was skeptical of the Airbus fly by wire system, but came to appreciate the sophisticated and elegant implementation.

There will be times you'll be asking yourself "what the hell is it doing now?". Any long-time driver (not I) can attest to this being an occasional annoyance. It is something I've been told you adjust to. I have also been advised one eventually learns to "trust, but verify" the automatics.

The only areas the A320 comes up somewhat short of the competition from a piloting perspective would be moderate to strong crosswind landings, manual flight in moderate to heavy turbulence and when things electronic go wobbly, all situations best avoided if possible on any type, naturally.

From a trainee perspective, systems coverage is overly simplified and often limited to black-box level breakdowns, heavy on logic flow charts and light on engineering details, but this is an industry-wide dumbing down of recent times and not limited to the Airbus.

I'm not a fan of the unlinked sidesticks or the non-moving throttles that Airbus provides. Visual cues are part of your regular scan. That said I'd fly the Airbus, without hesitation, if it made sense for my seniority.

777, as some posters have said, produces trim changes on it's own(gear, flaps). Talk about nice. 777-300ER and 787-9 will be the same. Every time you click the trim it immediately resets to that speed. One click 'on speed' trim. :D

If you require having cables, as one poster mentioned, don't bid the 777-200ER, 777-300ER, or 787-9 that AA has on order. FBW.

F-16, F-18, F-22, F-35, etc, etc all have auto trim. Before your time but guys that hadn't flown F-16's bitched about it back then. It's not an issue today.

Years ago people used to bitch about putting ABS in cars. Next-door neighbor testified in Congress back in the early/mid 1970's trying to get them mandatory. Too much opposition. Trying buying a car without ABS today... And what would they have said about VSC, were the brakes work on their own when they feel like it!?!?

And the pull out table? :ok::ok: Also heard AA has received their first STC approval from the FAA for the Airbus a/c....160 lbs table limit instead of the standard 120 lbs. :)

misd-agin

Clearly, AA F/As are heavier than French engineers had anticipated! :E :E

GF

No, unless you make that call to switch a few flight control computers off ...

Thrust levers not moving is ok, information is taken directly from the instruments. The thing is that the A/THR disconnect and A/THR re-engagement is less natural and needs practice, regular practice.

Sticks not moving together is definitely a way to lose valuable information for the PNF.

Sorry for the disturbing image, OK465. But, I'm trying figure out why they need to be stressed for 120 lbs; let alone 160. Only explanation I could come up with.

While most pilots want backfeeding of the sidesticks, the engineers I have talked with say that the failure modes are too numerous for certification.

GF

Maybe OK for you, but "information taken directly from the instruments" is one of my biggest points of concern when flying the Bus.

Quite simply, the eyes can only take in so much at once. The Bus puts far too much emphasis on visual clues at the expense of tactile clues. I spent the better part of the last 25 years flying with moving throttles. I don't have to look at a screen to tell my approximate power setting with moving throttles; with the Bus, I have to consciously focus on the engine instruments. In my opinion and experience, that philosophy forces me to overload my visual receptors and under-uses everything else. At least the Airbus engineers gave us round dials for engine parameters, that helps a bit.

During manual flight the PFCs do NOT move the stabilizer in turns.. They temporarily bias the elevators so you don't need back pressure in a turn.

If you hold constant back pressure on the column of a 777, does the aircraft trim that pressure out? If you are using manual thrust and let go of the controls, does it keep the current attitude, which would be the case for Auto trim, or return to it's original trim speed- which would be a speed trim.

It's a matter of definition, but what the 777 has is completely different to the auto trim on an Airbus.

aa73. As one who's done over 6,000 hours on Scarebus 320s
after cutting one's career teeth on 727s 737s and 747s, all I
can say is - stick to Boeings!

I for one can't wait to get back on 'em.

Why? Number of reasons -

I don't like the philosphy

I want a prong I can grab hold of, not a bloody gamestick

I don't like its confusing dog-dinner manuals (which are still
confusing despite the latest revision).

When everything's honky-dory a Airbus is fine. When the ****
hits the fan though...

I don't like French mechanical thinking. French women booze
and food yes but not Airbuses or French cars.

Boeings are built by geniuses to be flown by idiots. Airbuses
are built by idiots to be flown by geniuses. QED.

I also have 6000 hours or so on the 320 and I loved it. I have types is all the Boeings from 707 to 777 except the 737 and I have 1000 or so hours in the right seat of it. I have the opposite opinion of slasher. The 320 was designed for third world pilots. That is why they tried to take the pilot out of the loop as much as possible. Slasher is right though in that when things go wrong on the Airbus they really get interesting.
As for the 777, regardless of what you call it, the only time you have to manually trim is for speed changes. About one good click per knot seems to work. The plane takes care of everything else.

I have heard that before and it is nonsense 'Airbus are designed for 3rd world Pilots'


If First world Pilots cannot understand them, how can those from more 'primitive lands'



It seems like a good fair weather Aircraft, as long as nothing goes wrong.


On the Other hand, in over 20,000 hours of flying around the world in Boeing, and to a lesser extent Douglas products I have never had a moment where I lacked confidence in the Aircraft or were totally confused as to what it was doing.


Boeing simply makes a better product, far more rugged, intuitive and Pilot friendly.

third world pilot
 

You guys are hilarious with your new concept of " third world and first world pilots "

pilot from Primitives lands !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

give me a break

I don't disagree.
In the meantime, it is not because one, two, three, or four throttles will move into a given position (under auto or not) that the output will be what we could expect ... better have a quick glimpse to the dials for confirmation of the normal operation for all.

Yep stilt dead right. One I forgot to include.

Roger that!

I don't know who the Airbus FBW "protected" aircraft were designed for, but I'll speculate that it was designed for the European trained pilot. That is, minimal flight time (flight time is expensive and highly regulated) combined with maximum book learning and knowledge examination. The American way is just the opposite, you have to prove you could fly the airplane with extensive training and checking, but the book learning was minimal. I once flew with a pilot who took every written exam after taking a weekend "here's the answers" ground school .......but he could fly with the best of us. (Qualification: the US used to be that way, after hearing more and more about the training received by the guy who crashed his Q400 in Buffalo, NY, I have to wonder)

I think the "third world" pilot perception likely came from airline managers who misread the intent of the design.

BTW, I think most of us understand it only as well as we were trained. Someone else posted earlier that the manuals were bad. I concur. The manuals provided to pilots are minimal at best.

If all hell is breaking lose, why must I divert me attention from the primary flight displays to re focus my over 40 eyes on the engine instruments. When my brain is 100% focused on maintaining control, why must I break that mental focus to redirect my eyes at the engine instruments? In any other airplane I know of, in the same situation, I know without thinking or redirecting my mental focus approximately what power the engines are producing.

There's a solution for that as well: Disconnect A/T and move the throttles yourself, just like you would on a Boeing.

aa73: Oh no!!! .................not this old chestnut again!!

It reminds me of the furore the invention of the "aileron" caused old Wilber and Orville who were absolutely convinced of the superiority of their "wing warping" system!! (hint: I think "aileron" may be a French term!)

TTex600
 

By taking manual control I was refering to disengaging the autopilot and autothrust (rather than letting the aircraft fly its self into the ground while wondering what the automatics were doing)

I will grant all the Bus fans on the forum that this has recently been done on a Boeing but the crew had to work very hard at it.

already answered before

4400hrs A320/21/330

2500hrs 757/767

1500hrs 777

A few years ago in the process of collecting a new build A320, I had the chance to speak with an airbus flight acceptance pilot in Toulouse over a particularly fine glass of Merlot. I can confirm that his view was that the FBW family of aircraft started with the A320 was borne out of a desire to mitigate the need for thousands of hours of experience, and was in essence the VW beetle for cheap short haul travel.
Nothing I've seen in the time I flew the Aeer Boos changed my mind.
It is an aircraft built to a lower specification in terms of durability and required build quality, it is an aircraft designed to operate with less human input and is thus from the engineers who designed it safer.
It's also worth noting that many of these same very clever engineers were heavily involved with technical response to the Air Inter incident, most allegedly refuse to this day too accept that their clever machine human interface was as fallible as it has proved to be.
In my opinion the 320 family and siblings IS designed for the third world in the sense that it removes the aviating from aviating and so is suitable for low houred, low experienced and less thoroughly trained pilots.
Standing by for in coming :uhoh: