|
Originally Posted by Uplinker
(Post 10863220)
A last example from me. We are in the cruise and PM has gone to the loo. Or we are following vectors in a TMA and PM is getting cabin secure from the CC. Out of the blue ATC says "avoiding action, turn left 30°." I am going to take out the AP and turn immediately by reference to my bank and heading display, and ignore the roll bar of the FD but still follow the FD pitch bar. When I know the aircraft is safe, and/or PM comes back, we can turn the heading bug to realign the FD, and pop the AP back in.
|
Horses for courses. I have also seen people briefly disengage the AP for some transient maneuver and I have done it myself. Not to mention that on the A320 this is the only way to make use of full speedbrake since it can only extend to 1/2 with the AP engaged. However, it's another matter that you shouldn't do it in cruise since you're in RVSM airspace where regulations require automatic FL keeping.
|
Originally Posted by Uplinker
(Post 10863191)
Bloody hell, this is hard work. :ugh: I don't know how to explain it any simpler.
Fine, fly your aircraft with blind adherance to the FD if it makes you happy and you really think that's what you should do. I started my commercial flying on an aircraft with no auto-pilot, no auto-thrust, and no flight directors. I still fly by reference to the pitch and bank indications, the speed tape and the N1/EPR gauges. Everything else on top of that is nice to have, reduces my workload and I use it, but the FD is not my primary reference. I can, and do, ignore one or both axes of it in the short term if I need to in order to fly the plane safely. . |
Because he's never advocated flying against the FDs, only that for short and immediate flight path adjustments a momentary deliberate and controlled runaway is no deadly sin.
That being said, after analysing thoroughly my last deviation from the lateral bar, in retrospective I wish to had shouted FD's OFF while disconnecting the AP and certainly plan to do so the next time. |
Originally Posted by Uplinker
(Post 10863220)
A last example from me. We are in the cruise and PM has gone to the loo. Or we are following vectors in a TMA and PM is getting cabin secure from the CC. Out of the blue ATC says "avoiding action, turn left 30°." I am going to take out the AP and turn immediately by reference to my bank and heading display, and ignore the roll bar of the FD but still follow the FD pitch bar. When I know the aircraft is safe, and/or PM comes back, we can turn the heading bug to realign the FD, and pop the AP back in.
Originally Posted by Uplinker
(Post 10863091)
Pilots should always "fly through" the flight directors - by which I mean you should always be looking at the pitch and roll presentation of the PFD, and any adjustment to the aircraft path should be by reference to this. Pilots must always refer to the pitch and bank presentation, and only regard the FD as a suggestion for guidance. Unusual attitudes? look only at pitch, bank, and speed, ignore all else. This should be instinctive.
The FD is an advisory instrument, and it should never be blindly followed. Doing so has caused accidents, and one must always look through it to confirm the actual pitch and bank of the aircraft, and that the FD is offering sensible guidance. But do you have at your airline some instructors who require "pixel perfect" following of the FDs ? I find that in this debate, this article from an airbus test pilot would be very relevant, especially the quoted part : https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/app/t...df.php?p=25242 It would be interesting to survey pilots as to what they understand by the terms “fl ying manually”. Personally, I have often heard during test, demonstration, acceptance or airline fl ights, colleagues, young or older, airline pilots or test pilots, proudly say that they would do such or such a part of the fl ight - in general a complete approach followed by a landing - “in manual control mode”. I would then observe how they performed and saw that all they did was actually disconnect the AP and servilely follow the Flight Director, leaving the Auto Thrust engaged. And this until start of the flare. [...] Flying in this manner can in no way be considered as “flying manually”. Indeed, the orders given to the flight controls by the pilot consist in setting the Flight Director (FD) bars to zero, which corresponds to the orders generated by the guidance function. These stick inputs are actions done mechanically by the pilot but are in no way elaborated by him/her. [...] In other words, this exercise provides strictly nothing towards the manual flying training for the cases where the pilot would truly have to fly the aircraft manually. |
Originally Posted by Uplinker
(Post 10863220)
A last example from me. We are in the cruise and PM has gone to the loo. Or we are following vectors in a TMA and PM is getting cabin secure from the CC. Out of the blue ATC says "avoiding action, turn left 30°." I am going to take out the AP and turn immediately by reference to my bank and heading display, and ignore the roll bar of the FD but still follow the FD pitch bar. When I know the aircraft is safe, and/or PM comes back, we can turn the heading bug to realign the FD, and pop the AP back in.
If ATC gives You a heading then yes they do expect a prompt acknowledgement/manoeuvre but You are not doing close air combat so left forefinger goes to the PTT and right hand to the HDG knob (or the other way around depends where You sit) and happy days ! |
Originally Posted by KayPam
(Post 10861775)
Hello,
I started flying on the line this february, after having done the multi crew training in october of last year, on the bus. To this date, I still haven't fully understood airbus' philosophy regarding manual flying. I heard, at some point during the mcc, that the industry had kind of changed its mind about automation : aware that manual flying skills erode, airbus and airlines reckoned that pilots need to train regularly in real conditions, not just twice a year in the sim. But then, when it comes to practise, it seems to me that nothing is done to promote the practise of manual flying. Pilots usually ask each other "are you available ?" before turning AP off, because it is commonly agreed that if the PF flies manual, it will increase the PM workload. But does it really have to ? In theory, if the sole difference was that the PF is hand flying, instead of flying through the FCU, and if he's a decent pilot, then the PM would have strictly no increase in workload : he's monitoring the same result, a trajectory that's correctly flown. But, there is an increase in crew workload for the PM because the PM has to select FCU targets, after having been ordered to do so by the PF. - The first increase in crew workload is the manual flying for the PF, and it is the only one that is really necessary (it is also the only one desired since it's training) but there are others : - The PM now has to manipulate the FCU. This is a slight increase in workload and I found that it works very well in the sim and also in the air - But there can be some problems when ATC comes into play. There is constant chatter to listen to, so it can slow down communication. You hear your company name every 5 seconds, you stop for 1 second to ensure it's not you. If it's you, then the PM will have to answer and this is now several seconds during which the PF capacity to modify the FCU is severely impaired, since he's forbidden from doing it himself. I found on many occasions that it would have been much much easier to just rotate myself the FCU, than having to wait several seconds that the conversation was over. Since manual flying is mostly interesting while in the departure and approach phases, in a real environment, there will be much chatter, so this problem can happen quite often in the aircraft. Yes, in many cases it will be completely manageable, but I still find that this is an increase in crew workload, sometimes significant. It seems to me that forbidding the PF to set his FCU himself is actually adding workload. Especially on an Airbus that a very stable flight control laws, it would be completely manageable to take one second to turn a button, then annouce it (just like under AP) The PF could also ask the PM if he finds the situation is appropriate. Just like the lights when entering/exiting a runway, in my airline. To sum up, it looks like forbidding the PF from setting his own FCU at all times does not help, it sometimes increases workload a little, sometimes a lot, and this problem could be solved very easily. So, why is it like this then ? How is it managed on the boeing side : can the PF modify the FCU himself while in manual flying ? Thank you Operator "A" wants You to be AP ON 24/7 ? Do as prescribed in the OM-A. Operator "B" gives You more freedom ? Use common sense, agree with the other CM when/how to disconnect and fly the approach Personal note : remember that in the end You are flying commercially paying pax/freight and first priority is the highest possible level of safety/lowest possible level of threats and errors. If it's a stormy day out, You are in some busy European TMAs on a 4 tiring sectors day (there was a time) and Your colleague is not in his best day too, think twice before "do you mind if I go manual below 10'000 ft ? My OPC is coming up next week". Common sense, that's it. |
You know, for all the debate here about terminology (flaps vs flap, positive rate vs positive climb, autothurust vs autothrottle) and how the name affects it’s use, I’m surprised nobody’s brought up that “Flight Director” is a poorly chosen term.
I guess some here have taken the term “director” quite literally. A more appropriate term would be “Flight Guidance Mode Pitch and Roll Solution Indicator”, but FGMPRSI doesn’t roll off the tongue quite as easily. Uplinker has provided many examples of where the FGMPRSI should not be followed. If all you’re doing is keeping the FGMPRSI perfectly centred, how are you effectively scanning the instruments? Are you aware of your speed, altitude and heading, or were you aware that for a second there, you were 2 pixels below the FGMPRSI bar? |
Originally Posted by KayPam
(Post 10863319)
Why not turning the heading bug yourself ? Because you know you can follow a heading without the need for the bug ?
I fully agree with you. But do you have at your airline some instructors who require "pixel perfect" following of the FDs ? I find that in this debate, this article from an airbus test pilot would be very relevant, especially the quoted part : https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/app/t...df.php?p=25242 The terms “flying manually” in this article imply that the guidance functions have become unavailable, possibly with the flight control laws in a degraded mode. In this configuration, pilots must be able to correctly perform, at any altitude, all the maneuvers required to manually control the aircraft and land it under satisfactory safety conditions. These safety conditions would not be met if a pilot is not at ease when performing, under all flight control conditions which may be encountered following failures, manual flying without the FD, without the ATHR and without speed vector, from the cruise ceiling of the aircraft to instrument landing under CAT1 weather conditions. The type certifications of all the commercial aircraft in the world are established by the Authorities on the fundamental hypothesis that any qualified pilot is capable of meeting this requirement. I’ve long thought that part of the problem in AF447 was the PF was trying desperately to centre the FD bars. |
Visual approaches are to be flown using outside references. Programming the FMS is a big no no by Airbus. I remember reading it in one of the Airbus Safety First Mags. Why would you do that anyway... Flying visual is easy.
|
Originally Posted by pineteam
(Post 10863493)
Visual approaches are to be flown using outside references. Programming the FMS is a big no no by Airbus. I remember reading it in one of the Airbus Safety First Mags. Why would you do that anyway... Flying visual is easy.
|
Originally Posted by pineteam
(Post 10863493)
Visual approaches are to be flown using outside references. Programming the FMS is a big no no by Airbus. I remember reading it in one of the Airbus Safety First Mags. Why would you do that anyway... Flying visual is easy.
If you look at the fcom, visual approach, you will notice they ask you to activate secondary. Why is that ? If you're on final on rwy 27R, you can't perform a sidestep onto 27L except if it was briefed and prepared in secondary. Whereas for other aircraft it would not pose any problem. One captain told me a valid reason : our operator (but not airbus) requires us to have at least one instrumental way of checking glide path (papi, or the CF on the a320, or glide, or any other means) and mainly because if there was a glide and you go for a runway that is closer, you may get spurrious too low glide alarm. |
Originally Posted by KayPam
(Post 10863542)
Yes, but one must reckon that having the right runway for landing is mandatory.
If you look at the fcom, visual approach, you will notice they ask you to activate secondary. Why is that ? If you're on final on rwy 27R, you can't perform a sidestep onto 27L except if it was briefed and prepared in secondary. Whereas for other aircraft it would not pose any problem. One captain told me a valid reason : our operator (but not airbus) requires us to have at least one instrumental way of checking glide path (papi, or the CF on the a320, or glide, or any other means) and mainly because if there was a glide and you go for a runway that is closer, you may get spurrious too low glide alarm. |
Originally Posted by KayPam
(Post 10863542)
Yes, but one must reckon that having the right runway for landing is mandatory.
If you look at the fcom, visual approach, you will notice they ask you to activate secondary. Why is that ? If you're on final on rwy 27R, you can't perform a sidestep onto 27L except if it was briefed and prepared in secondary. Whereas for other aircraft it would not pose any problem. One captain told me a valid reason : our operator (but not airbus) requires us to have at least one instrumental way of checking glide path (papi, or the CF on the a320, or glide, or any other means) and mainly because if there was a glide and you go for a runway that is closer, you may get spurrious too low glide alarm. If you're circling fron 27 to 09 and the wind is gusty 090/30G45 then if the aircraft thought it was a tailwind (when you finally get round to finals 09) it would add no GSmini delta and just sit at the standard Vapp. By activating the secondary with 09 in and the correct wind 090/30, it will give you the correct additional energy via GSmini. Those winds are obviously exagurated to make the point, circlign with 45kts up your chuff is probably a poor choice! If you sidestep from 27L to 27R, apart from perhaps turning the GPWS G/S off and the usual FD's off, the wind will still be valid. Ok it might be SLIGHTLY different from one to the other, but not enough to really get that excited about.
Originally Posted by pineteam
(Post 10863493)
Visual approaches are to be flown using outside references. Programming the FMS is a big no no by Airbus. I remember reading it in one of the Airbus Safety First Mags. Why would you do that anyway... Flying visual is easy.
|
Absolutely correct that building a visual pattern isn’t illegal, but from what I’ve read here, it seems people are using it as a crutch. As nice as I’m sure the guidance is, I can’t see myself ever being bothered to do that.
|
Basic manual flying is easy because it's intuitive. Even more so with all the fly by wire assistance. Operating an airliner and continuously fully comprehending it's state and various modes is a whole different story. For this reason I'm not totally sold on encouraging the distraction of manual flying beyond the takeoff and landing phases. It does polish skills but in practice they only need to be at a certain basic level. In my opinion it's an emotionally appealing argument but in reality the risk vs reward doesn't stack up.
|
I am not so sure I would agree with your statement.
When I started I flew a lot with the FD until one day I decided to fly raw data because the TRI I was flying with did one on the previous sector. Shambles:{ Scanning has to be practised regularly. And I do it quite often now, sometimes from above FL100 if the overall workload and airspace allows, and my overall confidence in handling the aircraft in a multi-crew environment increased a lot. |
It all boils down to one basic concept: confidence and proficiency in operating the aircraft with any level of automation, including manual flight, as deemed appropriate in the situation. Good manual flying skills are no excuse for not being able to use managed guidance properly. And vice versa. Think of the whole spectrum of automation, including manual flight, as of your toolbox. You need to be able to use all the tools safely and efficiently - and, with practice, develop a judgement for which one is appropriate to which situation. The same goes for pretty much anything which involves some variation from flight to flight. If you can do all instrument approaches smoothly but can't do a proper visual, that's one tool less to your avail. If you struggle with flaps 3 landings, here's another tool gone. If you always land with autobrake and struggle to keep the aircraft straight and achieve a smooth stop with a reasonable brake temperature when braking manually - that's again one tool less. And, the more tools you master, the better your chances of solving any random problem safely for yourself and those behind you.
|
Originally Posted by Check Airman
(Post 10861945)
Respectfully disagree. Is the FD there to help me, or am I there to follow the FD? At my home base, we often have that scenario come up. In busy airspace, we don’t wait for the PM to search through the pages to find the fix. The PF will start heading in the right direction. The FD will eventually catch up.
quite the surprise. If you need to; call ‘set heading xxx and point the jet at the fIx. outsmart the FD, especially before ALT* and you’ll be reaching for the thrust levers below 10k.. |
4 scary words
Originally Posted by pineteam
(Post 10863493)
Visual approaches are to be flown using outside references. Programming the FMS is a big no no by Airbus. I remember reading it in one of the Airbus Safety First Mags. Why would you do that anyway... Flying visual is easy.
’cleared for the visual...’ 😷 |
Originally Posted by neilki
(Post 10863734)
try that in an Airbus and you could be in for
quite the surprise. If you need to; call ‘set heading xxx and point the jet at the fIx. outsmart the FD, especially before ALT* and you’ll be reaching for the thrust levers below 10k.. What’s wrong with reaching for the thrust levers below 10k? |
Originally Posted by Check Airman
(Post 10863770)
I do that in an Airbus all the time. There’s no need for me to ask the PM for a heading. I have a rough idea of where I need to go.
What’s wrong with reaching for the thrust levers below 10k? I appreciate that on a lateral movement, flying the FDs isn’t critical, I just don’t see what the rush is. If the airspace is that busy that you turning 2 seconds earlier is going to make ALL the difference, ATC wouldn’t put you there in the first place. Vertical separation is slightly more critical, although neither is really a situation where you should be routinely disregarding the FD pitch bar as it will catch you out one day. It also fuels practical drift and other may not be so competent. The benefit of ‘doing it properly like Airbus asked’ is that the PM identifies the fix before you confirming it. It traps a potential error when rushing wasn’t necessary. If ATC want you to turn in a hurry, they’ll issue a heading instruction which is easily achieved via the FCU in as little as a second. Once a year, when you get ‘turn left heading xxx IMMEDIATELY, go nuts! |
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....5d3a73c05.jpeg
From Safety First #12 July 2011 available for free to download. |
Originally Posted by giggitygiggity
(Post 10863784)
What’s the rush though?
I appreciate that on a lateral movement, flying the FDs isn’t critical, I just don’t see what the rush is. If the airspace is that busy that you turning 2 seconds earlier is going to make ALL the difference, ATC wouldn’t put you there in the first place. Vertical separation is slightly more critical, although neither is really a situation where you should be routinely disregarding the FD pitch bar as it will catch you out one day. It also fuels practical drift and other may not be so competent. The benefit of ‘doing it properly like Airbus asked’ is that the PM identifies the fix before you confirming it. It traps a potential error when rushing wasn’t necessary. If ATC want you to turn in a hurry, they’ll issue a heading instruction which is easily achieved via the FCU in as little as a second. Once a year, when you get ‘turn left heading xxx IMMEDIATELY, go nuts! How about another scenario? You're in the climb, and just as ALT* engages, ATC gives a further climb and a direct. The PM reads it back, gets into the FMS to attend to the direct clearance, meanwhile the FD bar is now commanding a pitch for level flight. What would your reaction be? |
Crew workload in manual flying
Guys guys guys, if this is what’s occupying your mind these days, consider yourself VERY lucky indeed. |
Originally Posted by pineteam
(Post 10863838)
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....5d3a73c05.jpeg
From Safety First #12 July 2011 available for free to download. |
How about another scenario? You're in the climb, and just as ALT* engages, ATC gives a further climb and a direct. |
I reckon that I haven't read the whole thread, just the OP, but here is my question: since when following the FD bars is considered manual flying? I remember when I once asked a 4.000 hours FO "would you like to do a visual?", he said "yes, why not?" and I had to take the controls merely minutes after I switched off the FD because his pitch attitude was swinging from almost 8 degrees nose up to below the horizon. And that was with A/T ON.
Manual flying is not about workload, or just exercising the wrist muscles (yup, we use those for something entirely different), is about not needing a third party to know what is the proper pitch attitude, the right thrust setting, and the variations of both when banking the plane to maintain the desired trajectory. Any other thing is just an aiming exercise that will actually absorb the focus of the pilot. Or maybe I am missing something here... |
Originally Posted by iggy
(Post 10864172)
I reckon that I haven't read the whole thread, just the OP, but here is my question: since when following the FD bars is considered manual flying?
in EASA land one of the exercises flown during the LPC is a manually flown 3D approach with OEI - FD stays ON. |
Originally Posted by bringbackthe80s
(Post 10863857)
Crew workload in manual flying
Guys guys guys, if this is what’s occupying your mind these days, consider yourself VERY lucky indeed. (While it's not particularly 'occupying my mind', I do "... consider [my]self VERY lucky indeed"!) Back to the topic: Of course 'manual flying' increases workload. Autopilots were 'invented' to reduce workload. But the workload increases when the pilot(s) are out of practice with hand flying. What is the saying? "Practice makes perfect". Airlines that are discouraging the practice are increasing a potential safety risk for one day when the automatics fail. (I heard an airline's Flight Op Director once say "If I hear of any captain saying we don't hand fly in this airline, I need to put him right" -- that practice is important.) Many years ago I flew with someone who was hand-flying entire sectors regularly (OK, only about an hour length each...) and this prompted me to 'reciprocate'; after a short while we were both very proficient and accurate with our workloads coming down to near the levels of automated flight. "Practice makes perfect"! (It was a bit more tiring though, those autopilots were invented for a good reason!) |
Let's understand one thing that it not possible to fly more accurately without FD than with FD. It's not only easy to center them, FD also anticipates coming out of turn, LOC*(which incidentally comes before LOC becomes alive), GS* etc, To become proficient in flying without FD you switch them off that doesn't mean when FD is on its ok not center them. Looking beyond FD is something different. That is after centering FD one should also check the pitch is appx. OK for the situation. In UAS when speed is increasing if one blindly only follows FD then FD pitch will keep rising till the aircraft stalls. So if pitch should be 5° and FD is centred on 10° then one needs to check other references like the other FD, speed to confirm and if FDs are suspect then a proper announcement should be made about not following FD and they should be switched off or other FD is followed. But randomly now I follow FD now I don't is going to confuse the other guy and is not a smart way to fly. FDs are there to be followed unless they are switched off.
|
Originally Posted by Check Airman
(Post 10863851)
How about another scenario? You're in the climb, and just as ALT* engages, ATC gives a further climb and a direct. The PM reads it back, gets into the FMS to attend to the direct clearance, meanwhile the FD bar is now commanding a pitch for level flight. What would your reaction be?
1 - Wait for the PM to readback the instruction (if we got it wrong/it was not for us in ALT* we are in for a level bust) 2 - After readback from the PM, the PF dials the new ALTITUDE in the FCU and calls it XXX BLUE - PM checks. 3 - PF selects an appropriate vertical mode. If the aircraft ended up in ALT in the mean time so be it. 4 - PF or PM (depending on airline SOPs) sets a direct to wherever. The whole procedure in an orderly and disciplined way will probably take less than 10 seconds or so. |
Originally Posted by HPSOV L
(Post 10863685)
Basic manual flying is easy because it's intuitive. Even more so with all the fly by wire assistance. Operating an airliner and continuously fully comprehending it's state and various modes is a whole different story. For this reason I'm not totally sold on encouraging the distraction of manual flying beyond the takeoff and landing phases. It does polish skills but in practice they only need to be at a certain basic level. In my opinion it's an emotionally appealing argument but in reality the risk vs reward doesn't stack up.
Originally Posted by iggy
(Post 10864172)
I remember when I once asked a 4.000 hours FO "would you like to do a visual?", he said "yes, why not?" and I had to take the controls merely minutes after I switched off the FD because his pitch attitude was swinging from almost 8 degrees nose up to below the horizon. And that was with A/T ON.
|
It's not an isolated incident, sadly. In the sim I have seen someone with a five-digit number of jet hours almost stall in alternate law with no AP and manual thrust. Very close to stall speed and pulling some stupid G when abruptly levelling off from descent. And what about Air France, where a crew of three couldn't recognise a stall and not even one of them took over control and performed the recovery memory items? What about Air Asia, where the FO achieved some crazy four-digit rate of climb at FL370 and eventually stalled the aircraft because of literally not being able to fly straight and level?
Back when I did my line training, one of the training Captains had the habit of disconnecting the autopilot for a moment at random times during flight, just so that you hear the sound and get your head round the fact that it can happen and it won't result in the aircraft crashing. And, when you do this to many people, their startle in the beginning is great. Precisely what happened with Air Asia. The overly fast and jerky reactions of the FO which put the aircraft into a steep climb ending with a stall were largely due to startle and stress. So, flying manually can also be seen as the sort of confidence booster reminding you that it's ultimately you in charge and not the autopilot. The autopilot is a fantastic tool, very convenient and making life a whole lot easier - but it's there to serve you and implement your decisions, not to do its own thing. The better people understand that, the smaller the chance of incidents and accidents related to loss of control in flight. |
Where's the like button?
|
We really do need a like button. To be clear, nobody’s advocating routinely ignoring the FD. When I’m not using it, it’s off. The points I’m trying to make are that it’s not unsafe to momentarily deviate from what the FD wants until the FCU can catch up, and that turning off all the automation is not some sort of emergency or abnormal procedure.
|
Originally Posted by Check Airman
(Post 10863770)
I do that in an Airbus all the time. There’s no need for me to ask the PM for a heading. I have a rough idea of where I need to go.
What’s wrong with reaching for the thrust levers below 10k? whats wrong is to fly away from FD commands, fail to notice A/T not transitioning from Thrust Mode to Speed Mode and wondering why the IAS trend line is heading to 350!! |
Originally Posted by pineteam
(Post 10863838)
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....5d3a73c05.jpeg
From Safety First #12 July 2011 available for free to download. I still think if someone wants to, there is no decent reason why they can't put in a few PBDs and few lines on there. I draw an MSA ring (or maybe even an MRC ring) on the fix page when going to somewhere with an unusual terrain profile. Doesn't mean I am going to fly it. For me it just enhances my SA.
Originally Posted by Check Airman
(Post 10863851)
How about another scenario? You're in the climb, and just as ALT* engages, ATC gives a further climb and a direct. The PM reads it back, gets into the FMS to attend to the direct clearance, meanwhile the FD bar is now commanding a pitch for level flight. What would your reaction be?
Originally Posted by neilki
(Post 10864428)
there’s nothing at all wrong with reaching for the thrust levers.
whats wrong is to fly away from FD commands, fail to notice A/T not transitioning from Thrust Mode to Speed Mode and wondering why the IAS trend line is heading to 350!! The aircraft will quite happily overspeed and look after itself. I guess we get conditioned by the drama of a low speed event in the sim and via incident reports, that any airbus protection activation results in either a serious reprimand, or dismissal. Apart from a tiny bit of paperwork, nothing more than perhaps a little bit of speedbrake and an FCU adjustment is required. The guy impressed me when he said that he flies the A320 quite happily at 30-35kts above VMO all day and no damage will occur - he even eats his lunch at that speed! He said that never in the history of the company, has an Airbus ever been damaged due to a highspeed event. On the contrary, the mess that occurs due to an overreaction to a highspeed event is incredible. People see the red tape on the speed scale as the point at which the wings will fall off (the inverse of the stall strip being the point where the aircraft is no longer flying) and that it is really not a big deal. Overreacting will put the aircraft into alpha-prot and alpha-floor quicker than you can imagine when the stick is yanked back by some unsuspecting pilot. The big take-away was to leave the autopilot in as it is better at flying at high altitude than you are and an overspeed is no big deal. |
Of course 'manual flying' increases workload. Autopilots were 'invented' to reduce workload. But the workload increases when the pilot(s) are out of practice with hand flying. What is the saying? "Practice makes perfect". Airlines that are discouraging the practice are increasing a potential safety risk for one day when the automatics fail. (I heard an airline's Flight Op Director once say "If I hear of any captain saying we don't hand fly in this airline, I need to put him right" -- that practice is important.) Many years ago I flew with someone who was hand-flying entire sectors regularly (OK, only about an hour length each...) and this prompted me to 'reciprocate'; after a short while we were both very proficient and accurate with our workloads coming down to near the levels of automated flight. "Practice makes perfect"! (It was a bit more tiring though, those autopilots were invented for a good reason!)
(My bolding) Or, as a very pragmatic DAME once observed during a renewal, when I jokingly queried why he was putting me through the (cold) stethoscope thing, ... "if I don't practice them, I lose the skillset elements". l think the comments from the previous post are extremely relevant to the philosophy of things. I am not suggesting that one should necessarily do this or that - for such is the province of regulatory oversight and operator SOP, especially for routine operations. However, it is a lemma that those who practice intelligently and regularly generally get good at what it might be that they practice. Those who don't practice, often get very bad at what it might be that they don't practice .. especially when Murphy conspires to put them in a situation where they have no option but to demonstrate either their competence or lack thereof. Most will be aware of the longstanding aphorism, variously attributed to a variety of folk including Gary Player, Charles Goren, and others - when asked how it is that they are so routinely lucky in their chosen activity, the response is along the lines of "the more I practice, the luckier I get". The guy impressed me when he said that he flies the A320 quite happily at 30-35kts above VMO all day .. but probably displays a lack of certification knowledge and regulatory compliance discipline. I would have been more impressed had his observation been along the lines of "it isn't going to cause a problem if Vmo is exceeded for a short period, but I won't intentionally permit it to occur unless specifically authorised". I am presuming that the Airbus is aligned with the usual Vmo/Mmo requirements as, for example, in FAR 25.1505 (https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...11505&rgn=div8) |
Originally Posted by john_tullamarine
(Post 10864646)
The guy impressed me when he said that he flies the A320 quite happily at 30-35kts above VMO all day
.. but probably displays a lack of certification knowledge and regulatory compliance discipline. I would have been more impressed had his observation been along the lines of "it isn't going to cause a problem if Vmo is exceeded for a short period, but I won't intentionally permit it to occur unless specifically authorised". I am presuming that the Airbus is aligned with the usual Vmo/Mmo requirements as, for example, in FAR 25.1505 (https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...11505&rgn=div8) He discussed flying the A320 as a test aircraft rather than a certificated aircraft - sitting at that speed for 30mins towards 2hrs for certification purposes. That's a very different situation than commercial ops; so any of your FAA regs go out the window. He explained that Airbus flew at that speed to calculate a regulatory VMO. I recall poorly - as half of it was going well over my simple head, but it was along the lines of that if they can prove the aircraft can recover from a dive where max speed reaches 385kts without damage (VMO+35kts), then via regulatory requirements, that aircraft can be certificated upto 350kts; tested speed -10% or whatever the regulator required - I'm sure the FAA or EASA has buried that requirement far deeper than you have found. To satisfy the FAA regs, I imagine that they'd need a big sticker saying "Experimental Aircraft" above the door or something as equally pointless to keep the fed from blushing. I don't know FAA regs but I would have thought something similar would be amongst the rules over there? How is a VMO calculated under FAA regs? 350kts is a nice round number, but I'm pretty sure there is a little more too it than that?! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 21:30. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.