PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Tech Log (https://www.pprune.org/tech-log-15/)
-   -   777 FLCH getting stall protection (https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/621022-777-flch-getting-stall-protection.html)

punkalouver 30th Apr 2019 04:34

777 FLCH getting stall protection
 
Along with some other modes.....

Older planes in fleet......
Note: The autothrottle will not automatically activate to support stall protection when the pitch mode is FLCH SPD or TO/GA.

Note: The autothrottle will not support stall protection when the A/T mode is HOLD.

Note: During a descent in VNAV SPD with the autothrottle armed and not active, the autothrottle can automatically activate in HOLD mode and will not advance thrust levers to support stall protection.

Newer planes in fleet.....
If the pitch mode is FLCH SPD, VNAV SPD, or VNAV PTH and A/T is in HOLD or THR mode, and speed decreases into the amber band, the A/T will change from HOLD to THR mode. Thrust will increase proportional to amount speed has decreased into the amber band.

If the pitch mode is TOGA during takeoff, and the A/T is in HOLD mode, and thrust has been manually set below the TO thrust reference, and a low speed condition is encountered, then the A/T mode will change from HOLD to THR REF and will advance thrust towards the selected TO thrust reference while airspeed is within 10 kts of stick shaker speed.

Note: During a descent in VNAV SPD or FLCH SPD with the autothrottle armed and not active, the autothrottle automatically activates in THR mode and advances thrust to a throttle position corresponding to the relative distance speed has decreased into the amber band so that if speed continues to decrease, thrust will reach the CLB thrust limit as stick shaker is activated.

PEI_3721 30th Apr 2019 12:36

So is this a Boeing admission that this feature contributed to accidents or incidents ?

A positive view is ‘well done’ Boeing for improving a weak system to enhance safety.
The tacit recognition of the difficulties arising from human factors and the need to change system design opposed to ‘retrain’ pilots.

Fursty Ferret 30th Apr 2019 15:47


A positive view is ‘well done’ Boeing for improving a weak system to enhance safety.
The alternative view is "about bloody time".

Check Airman 30th Apr 2019 20:01


Originally Posted by PEI_3721 (Post 10459729)
So is this a Boeing admission that this feature contributed to accidents or incidents ?

A positive view is ‘well done’ Boeing for improving a weak system to enhance safety.
The tacit recognition of the difficulties arising from human factors and the need to change system design opposed to ‘retrain’ pilots.

Now if only Airbus would follow...

PEI_3721 30th Apr 2019 21:13

Check Airman,
? Specifics ?

So how are the risks with the existing inservice 777 systems to be managed.
Reliance on the fallible human and hope for the best.

Capn Bloggs 1st May 2019 03:08


The tacit recognition of the difficulties arising from human factors and the need to change system design opposed to ‘retrain’ pilots.
It was a stupid system. Period.

Maui, suck it up! :}

vilas 1st May 2019 06:42


Now if only Airbus would follow...
Check Airman what exactly you feel airbus should change to? Alfa floor is available in all modes.

vilas 1st May 2019 07:47


Originally Posted by dctPub (Post 10460291)
What are you talking about. The VNAV descents are miles ahead on the 777 than the 330/320 with their ridiculous level segments.

Can you explain what are these?

ACMS 1st May 2019 09:59

10+ years Boeing
9+ years Airbus

I can say that the Boeing was way simpler and easier.....

AerocatS2A 1st May 2019 11:15


Originally Posted by dctPub (Post 10460291)
What are you talking about. The VNAV descents are miles ahead on the 777 than the 330/320 with their ridiculous level segments.

I believe constant descent is an option. Unfortunately our company doesn’t have it. I agree that the way managed DES flies level segments before and during approaches is ridiculous, along with the coding that puts the decel waypoint AT the level off point instead of slightly before, resulting in a burst of thrust during level off unless the pilot intervenes. It is a system designed by engineers with no thought on how to operate with finesse.

Smooth Airperator 1st May 2019 13:23

Any one of you actually flown a 787 VNAV descent? (I admit not having flown a 777, maybe that is better than the 787). The 787 one is ****e probably because it's a straight port of the 777 one. I.e. Boeing, in what now appears to be a habit, has failed to update the logic which tells VNAV that the 787 is a much more slippery aircraft. This is basic, absolute BASIC QA and in over 5 years of operation, Boeing have not dealt with the issue despite it being reported by numerous airlines. Says a lot really.

Check Airman 1st May 2019 13:52


Originally Posted by vilas (Post 10460267)
Check Airman what exactly you feel airbus should change to? Alfa floor is available in all modes.

Not speaking specifically about stall protection. Airbus does a pretty good job at that. As much as I like the plane, I still feel that the uncoupled sidesticks and stationary thrust levers are design flaws. Granted, that's harder to fix than the FLCH logic on the 777. Unfortunately, if they didn't admit that after AF447, they probably never will.

As to the FINAL APP logic, yes, it's stupid with the level segments. I read on the Honeywell or Thales site that the A330 fmc has an update where it will fly a constant descent using the geometric path used for the rest of the descent. They don't seem to be interested in putting that in the 320 though.

Fursty Ferret 1st May 2019 15:11


Originally Posted by Smooth Airperator (Post 10460515)
Any one of you actually flown a 787 VNAV descent? (I admit not having flown a 777, maybe that is better than the 787). The 787 one is ****e probably because it's a straight port of the 777 one. I.e. Boeing, in what now appears to be a habit, has failed to update the logic which tells VNAV that the 787 is a much more slippery aircraft.

^^yes. What he said. 787 VNAV descent = "DRAG REQUIRED".

jurassicjockey 1st May 2019 16:12


Originally Posted by Fursty Ferret (Post 10460598)
^^yes. What he said. 787 VNAV descent = "DRAG REQUIRED".

That's funny as I was just about to post the same thing

BleedingOn 2nd May 2019 09:56

I have taken to starting the stopwatch at top of drop and accepting bets on how long before we get the drag required message. Often it’s less than two minutes. Some clever F/Os I fly with alter the anti-ice on altitude in the descent winds page of the FMC which allegedly helps but I haven’t worked out how that actually works. Sorry for he thread drift

Capn Bloggs 2nd May 2019 10:47

PROF is King! ;):ok:

punkalouver 16th May 2019 16:24


Originally Posted by vilas (Post 10460267)
Check Airman what exactly you feel airbus should change to? Alfa floor is available in all modes.

Just reading up on this system now for the new course. Not in Alternate Law(if that is considered a mode).

Denti 16th May 2019 16:43


Originally Posted by Check Airman (Post 10460534)
As to the FINAL APP logic, yes, it's stupid with the level segments. I read on the Honeywell or Thales site that the A330 fmc has an update where it will fly a constant descent using the geometric path used for the rest of the descent. They don't seem to be interested in putting that in the 320 though.

It is a customer option for the A320 as well. As so much these days is. There are some of those options that not many airlines choose, like this one, or FLS for example.

Check Airman 16th May 2019 18:59


Originally Posted by Denti (Post 10472784)
It is a customer option for the A320 as well. As so much these days is. There are some of those options that not many airlines choose, like this one, or FLS for example.

Didn't know that. The 2 operators I've flown for decided against that option, it seems. It's endlessly frustrating to watch. :ugh:

Winnerhofer 16th May 2019 21:04

Options Must Be Standard!
 

Originally Posted by Check Airman (Post 10460534)
Not speaking specifically about stall protection. Airbus does a pretty good job at that. As much as I like the plane, I still feel that the uncoupled sidesticks and stationary thrust levers are design flaws. Granted, that's harder to fix than the FLCH logic on the 777. Unfortunately, if they didn't admit that after AF447, they probably never will.

As to the FINAL APP logic, yes, it's stupid with the level segments. I read on the Honeywell or Thales site that the A330 fmc has an update where it will fly a constant descent using the geometric path used for the rest of the descent. They don't seem to be interested in putting that in the 320 though.

Most interesting, Check Airman!
I am sure that airlines and manufacturers in the wake of the Max tragedies will rethink their "Profits Foremost, Savings First, Safety Last" policy.
It is an absolute scandal that contrived "options" are tantamount to safety being optional.



All times are GMT. The time now is 19:10.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.