The Airbus can easily be hand flown BUT it's a tad trickier than "conventional" aircraft (meaning aircraft that you can trim) because you cannot "trim a speed".

Here's a way to visualize the difference between an Airbus and a plane you can trim:

Airplane you can trim: Straight and level, 250 knots, AP, FD, ATHR off, you retard the the thrust to idle, hands off, the airplane descends at 250 knots.

Airbus: Same scenario, you retard the thrust to idle, hands off, the airplane continues straight and level and starts slowing down, increasing pitch attitude to maintain the flight path.

You can think of the side-stick as a "flight path selector". Whatever flight path you have when you release the stick is what flight path the aircraft will maintain (until you exceed the flight envelope but that's another subject).

So, for example, when you're flying around in the terminal area getting vectors for an approach and they tell you descend from FL 100 to FL 60, you have to retard the thrust levers to idle AND make a DEFINITE nose down push on the sidestick to make the airplane go down.

In my MD-80 days all I had to do was pull the power off.

So you make your nose down input, now you have to pay a lot of attention to the speed to make sure you have EXACTLY set the correct pitch attitude to maintain your 250 knots or whatever (the odds of which are slim to none) so WATCH THAT SPEED and KEEP watching it because you will never actually set this theoretical EXACT pitch attitude to maintain the correct speed for anything longer than about a minute or two if you're lucky.

The reverse is also true in that when you add power, you better PULL that nose up, it won't go up by itself like in a "conventional" airplane that is always trying to maintain its trimmed speed.

There have already been at least 2 Airbus crashes during go arounds where the guys failed to adequately increase the pitch attitude and the airplane just went downhill faster and faster when they pushed the thrust levers to TOGA. (There was more to it than that obviously, but it was a major factor.)

One was a Gulf Air in Bahrain like about 10 years ago and the was only a few years ago somewhere in the Black Sea or some inland lake in Eastern Europe or where ever.

Those 2 crashes most likely would not have happened had they been flying airplanes that you can trim because after setting TOGA thrust, the airplane would have pitched up mightily to maintain the trimmed approach speed with TOGA thrust. They would have had to push the control column forward HARD and even trimmed nose down to achieve those flight paths into the water that those guys achieved effortlessly in their Airbuses.

Another thing: the thrust lever travel is shorter than on other airplanes so the thrust appears appears a bit more sensitive but it's not a big deal, you get used to it pretty quick.

So, once you understand the subtle but important differences between flying an airplane that is always trying to fly the last selected flight path versus an airplane that is always trying to fly the last speed you've trimmed it for, hand flying an Airbus, while not quite as easy as hand flying a trimmable airplane, is nothing to fear. Just scan the hell out of your speed all the time.

And that's my 2 cents worth.

aviatorhi - Sorry but you are talking rubbish. Are you one of those characters that ignores SOPs? You certainly sound it. Just what is your experience that you have reached these astonishing conclusions? How much airline flying, light, medium and heavy and what routes, much USA experience?

John,

There are no situations where it is inappropriate to hand fly.

And in all fairness there are 3 I can think of, CAT II and CATIII ops as well as cruising in RVSM. Though we all well know that's not what we're talking about here.

Parabellum,

I've watched the procedures of other carriers, like the prohibition on the PF setting bugs, and find them pointless, we have no such prohibition, and I have no interest in flying for carriers that turn pilots into drones rather than airmen.

DozyWannabe: >"Airbus FBW Normal Law augmentations ... it's not really anything more than an evolution of the artificial feel technology that airliners have been using for over half a century"

With the greatest respect, I disagree vehemently. I actually think the belief quoted above was a factor in many if not most [thankfully not very numerous] Airbus accidents to date.

Just the fact you can drop out of Normal into Alternate into Direct makes things very different.

So what about CAT II on aircraft with no autoland?

Why not?

reading this thread how privileged am I that for ten years, approx 6000 hours and roughly 10000 landings I hand flew every sector, it was in an Islander mind you!

I'm obviously missing something here. Why on Earth would anyone choose to deliberately use reduced automation in marginal conditions?

I'm a pilot and it's my job, that's why.

Would I be correct in surmising that the first time you'd want to hand fly a raw data NDB to minima in a 35 knot crosswind would be when you're forced to, possibly by a surprising technical problem half way down the approach? Or maybe you think practicing once in a blue moon in benign weather is adequate preparation?

You are absolutely full of :mad: Spandex.

Which bit? I'm a pilot or its my job?

What about cat3 with no autopilot...

Indeed, so the only time you shouldn't hand fly is in RVSM.

FC - CRJ or EMB, or something else?

Well, regarding RVSM...
The regulation actually tells you that you need to have autopilot AVAILABLE:E

Indeed, so the only time you shouldn't hand fly is...never!

Glad we got that cleared up.

We are forced to hand fly our CATIII approaches.

You love your automation... I get it.

I have hardly any use for it besides altitude hold (we don't have CAT II or CAT III anyway).

I don't think you need to be in actual IMC to practice an instrument approach. You can practice just fine in VMC. Just don't look outside.

If I'm doing it in IMC I don't think that counts as "practice" I think I'm actually doing it. Not so?

Unless the A/P F/D are of no help at all, I would feel much better sitting in the back of someone's airplane if they would use them in actual conditions.

As an intermediate step, new guys can learn A LOT about hand flying their airplanes with the flight directors on but the auto-thrust should be off for it to be really effective. With auto-thrust on it's almost pointless.

(Edited to fix the font size. Sorry Sabena, didn't know I was shouting. As time passes I have to tilt my head further and further back to get more and more magnification from my progressive lenses... also, I thought ALL CAPS was shouting... also I'm new to posting and I didn't know how it would look... I'm full of excuses and can keep going if need be... stop me before I excuse again!:) )

There's a time and place for everything. If you read through my posts, you can easily see that I'm a big fan of manual flight. In the A320, I only use auto thrust for automated cat II or III landings and I switch off the A/P and F/D on almost all approaches. The important word is "almost".

I'm absolutely, positively sure that I can get my A320 down to cat I ils minima with 550 m vis in a 35 kts gusty crosswind with A/P, F/D, A/T and one engine off with the needles centered. I even believe that I can land the A320 in actual cat III minima without A/P, F/D or A/T. (Done it in the sim) But, I do think that anybody who fails to see that there are sometimes conditions where using some or all of the autoflight systems is the most appropriate thing to do, are even more dangerous then the guys who always fly through the A/P.. (Unless your flying old equipment, without a modern, reliable autoflight system of course)

There's nothing wrong in using the A/P because it makes your life and work easier in certain conditions, as long as you don't need the A/P to fly the plane, because you're not good enough at flying it yourself. :ok:

Oh, and please, when ATC offers you do a visual approach in Corfu in ideal conditions, don't turn the offer down! :rolleyes:

(Ultra Glide? why are you shouting?)

Why? If it means that you're going to be extended, stuck into the hold or whatever and use a load more gas then I shall make sure that happens. No skin off my nose as I won't be using anymore fuel than planned, but you will. If its a company aircraft following me then I'll do my absolute best to make sure they don't have to fly any further than necessary.

Do I really need to explain to you how the 737 could have saved fuel and time by flying a nice visual instead of flying the aprox 22 miles after GAR during the full VOR procedure in the given conditions?

No, but you can tell me how much extra fuel they used by doing so. You can tell me why we should give a damn how much extra fuel you used. Maybe they did it just to wind you up and make you burn your extra 200 kilos. I do that sometimes.

We're they low enough to shorten their approach and not screw it up? Maybe they'd have had to fly the exact same track miles on a visual approach in which case what would be the point?

It's also possible to fly that whole procedure at flight idle, that'll still save fuel over the planned burn, maybe even over a visual approach which most people tend to fly flatter and with a bit of power on.

Oh, what a nice professional and collegial attitude! Keep up the good work! :D

As I said, it takes some piloting skills to do a nice visual approach, but it's not that difficult. A little bit of airmanship suffices! I guess that's getting rare. :rolleyes:

But you haven't said how much extra fuel they used by flying the procedure! Of course, they may have had to burn off that extra fuel to get under MLW, who knows? Not you.

It's like this you see. I could save 50 kilos by shortening my approach. This might allow you to save 50 kilos too. Or I can fly what I've planned to fly, but more efficiently saving perhaps 40 kilos, which might make you use 2 or 300 kilos more. Net result - your lot spend more money. That's competition.

Or I could fly a bit faster, get in front of you and save myself 2 or 300 kilos by using a little bit more than planned and not having to extend miles downwind while you happily fly around in circles using up your reserves. Maybe you should've done that into Corfu.

Why, you think I should be bullied into a visual approach to save your airline some fuel? You think I'm not perfectly entitled to fly my flight planned route? If it causes you to use a bit more fuel why does that make me any less professional?

It can't be moronic if it's a fact. Which it is.

Maybe if you don't want your airline to spend more money try and be more flexible and proactive when it comes to the tactical situation that you should see developing ahead of you. I'm not going to help you out. In fact I'm going to go out of my way to ensure that my airline benefits.

John Smith is of the opinion that,,,

As a line trainer I feel it most important to expose my students to all forms of manual flight, regardless of weather, and traffic situations. It gives the student confidence during line training, and the learning process. Not every Captain, nor Line Trainer has the same threshhold of pain.

Lets assume you are in cruise with EGLL is your destination. The Wx at EGLL is RVR 600 in BR. The Wx at EGSS is CAVOK. Just prior to TOD, all the automatics are T/U, is one to declare a "Pan Pan" and divert to EGSS? Pax would be peeved to say the least. That would be a rather interesting conversation with the C/P.

That's why the need for as much hand flying without automatics, in the Jet, ( not the simulator twice a year) for those who wish to maintain their proficiency.

John, you keep quoting different things. I don't plan it but if the opportunity appears, usually because some idiot has got his head stuck up his :mad:, then I'll take it.

Let me give you a real life example.

Cruising merrily down to Spain and gradually overhauling an orange Airbus 2000 above us. Said orange Airbus starts weaving all over the sky, unnecessarily, to avoid some clouds. We start catching him up quite quickly now. After a while he requests descent and is cleared on the same arrival as we are. It's a procedural approach at destination and requires large spacing because they would only allow one aircraft at a time on the approach. At this point we also realise ATC are in no way interested in forward planning and have allowed us to get too close. Anyway, said orange airbus, now back at 245kts or so has descended through our level and is only 5 miles ahead of us. Not enough spacing and I can see us getting a hold or two, or three. So I elect to increase our speed all round and eventually get in front, then we request descent. We are first to the IAF whereupon ATC wake up and tell him to go around the hold at 7000' twice before he can start the approach. Que very unprofessional comment from said orange Airbus and much mirth in our flight deck.

So dear John you think I should've come back to min clean and let him go first, thereby screwing up our schedule and fuel plan or would you have done what I did, annoy them a bit and waste a few hundred kilos of their gas?

You or me pal.

Quite sure I have never before heard of quite such unprofessional conduct throughout my entire flying career. John Smith is correct at every level.

Oh yes, and by electing to increase your speed all round sufficient to get ahead in such a short timescale do you really think you saved any fuel?
Not a drop.:mad:

I always get slightly worried reading through these threads knowing I share airspace quite frequently with some posters on here.

All this adversarial language, speaking in terms of "your" and "my" airline, cutting people off, deliberately trying to screw over other pilots, etc...

Remember, you're all just one interview away from becoming actual colleagues in the same company, perhaps even from sitting next to each other in the flight deck.

Relax, go have a cup of tea and enjoy the weather. Most of us only get a few weeks of summer ;)

Absolutely right. ATC should have seen this situation developing much earlier. They even knew we were both going to the same destination from the time we entered their airspace. Awful behaviour indeed.

Yes. Let me explain for you. The extra time at high speed in the cruise used about 80 kilos more than expected. A high speed, flight idle descent used no more and not flying around the hold twice at 7000' used close to 400 kilos less than we would have used. Got it? :mad: indeed.

I guess you'd have been back at min clean over 100 miles out and a couple of holds? Good thinking Mr Efficiency:ok:

We weren't trying to screw anyone over deliberately, an opportunity presented itself and we took it, that's all. Is there any reason I shouldn't try and save money for my airline? It's my job after all. What you do for yours is up to you but don't expect me to follow you around at the speeds you fly, if I can get ahead and be more expeditious I will.

That's ok, it's nothing personal.

High speed overtakes, min speed clean from 100nm out...

How many sectors do you blokes handfly again? :hmm:

Lord Spandex Masher
 

What else do you do? Occupy the runway after landing to force the competition to go around?

What a disgusting creature you are!

Not yet, but thanks for the tip.

Maybe you could explain exactly what is so unprofessional and disgusting about flying faster than another aircraft? If your explanation is reasonable I will ask our flight planners to ensure that we never fly faster than anybody else.

Maybe you'd like to explain what you'd do in the situation I described.

LMS:
Intentionally causing inefficiencies, even to the competition, hurts the industry as a whole.