Ask The Pilot

[Strategic Aviation]

Interview: Would Air France F447 have happened with Boeing? - Aerotime Team

Opinions on the anonymous pilot's concluding comment?

Computers in aircraft are a good thing, as long as they serve pilots and not the opposite. Maybe I am wrong, but I feel safer in a Boeing, which is like a big solid truck with Apple computers you can disconnect, than in an Airbus, which is like a Space Shuttle with PC computers that have the last word. With Boeing, average or tired pilots will do the job, with Airbus you need the best, it’s not optional.

 

[PJF]

And what goes on in the coughpit differs....



No. There are periodic calls for video monitoring of coughpits, as part of the flight recorder system. I presume that one of the surveillance states will eventually mandate it. The idea of recorders that can be accessed only by the accident investigation people isn't too bad. But, once installed, you'll find that certain police jurisdictions will love the idea of using them for prosecutions. There is no way there would ever be support for any system that gave airline companies access. The upshot is that cameras would be the place to hang your hat.

Eye tracking. Well, if you want to prove that pilots get tired, go to sleep etc, then that would be a good way to prove it. I suspect that the outcomes might prove that existing fatigue rules don't work, so neither regulators nor companies would want that.

The upshot though, is that this is intrusive. It does nothing for safety and would never be supported by the pilots.

IMO I would think that a camera on you all the time would be a distraction. Consider if you had one watching your every move while driving your car.

 

[jb747]

And since when have intrusive systems that do nothing for safety needed the support of the people it's being foisted upon?

Very true. You only have to look at the knee jerk reactions that came after 9/11 and the Germanwings events to see poorly thought out procedures that are theatre, but little else.

 

[jb747]

Interview: Would Air France F447 have happened with Boeing? - Aerotime Team

Opinions on the anonymous pilot's concluding comment?

AF447 would not have happened if the pilot doing the flying had actually been a pilot. There is no world in which the control inputs he made, and sustained, make any sense. I see his being there as a result of the decision by airlines to dumb down the entire piloting world...largely so that they can pay less.

But, Airbus are hugely complicit in this. The lead designer of the A320 was quoted as saying that his aircraft is so easy to fly that his milk man could fly it (or words to that effect). So, he's quite happy with the idea of flying becoming a video game, and pilots becoming gamers, and not pilots.

His aircraft show lots of signs of being designed by the engineers, for the engineers, with the pilots' desires being discounted. Deliberately removing as much tactile feedback as possible (you don't need it, you can look at the gauges), is something an engineer might like, but never a pilot. Switch layouts that look tidy, but place many identical, dangerous, switches in close proximity is something else that shows the lack of pilot input...or even thought.

Basically, I see Airbus as incredibly arrogant. They've tried to engineer the pilots out of the equation as much as possible, and in so doing have made aircraft that are, in some circumstances, much more difficult to fly than needs to be the case.

The auto trimming in alternate law is unnecessary, but goes with what seems to be their philosophy of removing trimming as a pilot function. You cannot trim pitch in normal or alternate laws...but, in direct you need to. But, in no case can you access any roll trim functions. The sidestick actually has a flat portion on top, where a 'coughed hat' trim control could be installed, which could give access to both roll and pitch trim...but no, pitch trim, if needed is on a hard to find button on the central console. You don't normally need access to roll trim, but in some failures the aircraft will be substantially out of roll trim, and you won't have any way to reasonably correct that. That goes back to the Airbus engineering motto which I suspect is "it will not happen".

So, sidesticks that give no feedback, and are designed so that they actively hide the control inputs being made by the autopilot or other pilot. Thrust levers that don't move with the auto thrust, and so have the effect of disconnecting the thrust lever position as a control in pilots' minds.

There is much that I like about the Airbus, but all of that is outside of the coughpit. I think that their man-machine interface is appalling...but it is intentionally so.

What would I like to see:
1. Interconnected sidesticks, that move with either pilot or autopilot input.
2. A thrust lever servo, so that the levers move in accordance with auto throttle commands
3. Proper access to trim, in all axes.
4. Flight directors that work in other than normal law.

None of these will ever happen. I'll bet that there was an engineering meeting early in the design stage of the A320, in which all of those items were specifically selected as not being wanted!

 

[I love to travel]

Just a quick question re turbulence. Had the worst I have ever experienced in hundreds of flight last night from Sin to Bne on EK 432. Wine glasses and other objects were flying through the cabin at one stage. What I was surprised about was location the really uncomfortable stuff started somewhere around Katherine till about an hour out of Brisbane. Is this a unusual location? We also didn't change altitude much until the end which seemed to suggest we couldn't fly around it.

 

[QF WP]

An airline isn’t required to have it’s own simulator. Virgin have 2 of their own 737 sims plus a Boeing owned 737 sim in BNE. The 777 Sim is also in BNE as was the Ejet which has now been dismantled. In MEL we go to the Ansett sim centre for the 737, while the A330 guys actually use the sim at QF because we currently don’t have an A330 simulator.

One of my neighbours is a VA Sim Captain - better find out which one he operates.

 

[jb747]

Just a quick question re turbulence. Had the worst I have ever experienced in hundreds of flight last night from Sin to Bne on EK 432. Wine glasses and other objects were flying through the cabin at one stage. What I was surprised about was location the really uncomfortable stuff started somewhere around Katherine till about an hour out of Brisbane. Is this a unusual location?

Turbulence can happen anywhere. Looking at the wind charts, you would have been crossing a jet stream (at about 90º) at about the western Qld border. That fits in with a short term descent from the aircraft, where, over a period of about 7 minutes, it has descended to FL350, and then gone back to FL370. To get out of the jet, you'd probably need to go down to, possibly even below FL300. Sometimes higher works, but as often as not you end up with no performance margin. So, I think they've had a quick look for smoother, but then given up.

We also didn't change altitude much until the end which seemed to suggest we couldn't fly around it.

As a general rule, you fly around weather. Vertical changes may get you out of the mixing layers, but there is no guarantee that it will. The smooth air might be higher than you can reach, or lower than you can afford the fuel for. All changes are also restricted by the presence of other traffic.

 

[flyer89]

On a recent JNB-SYD flight the turbulence was fairly bad for long periods. As a geek I was impressed by QFs use of the seatbelt sign during. It was almost never on and only on when it absolutely needed to be (at one point the crew were told to be seated). From memory I think we were riding a jetstream for a portion of it. 13:30 to JNB and 10:45 home. It was quite a difference.

 

[jb747]

On a recent JNB-SYD flight the turbulence was fairly bad for long periods. As a geek I was impressed by QFs use of the seatbelt sign during. It was almost never on and only on when it absolutely needed to be (at one point the crew were told to be seated).

Any time that we select the seat belt sign on, there will be a PA given. 99.9 times out of a hundred, that PA will be "Passengers and crew, be seated, fasten seat belts". If the turbulence is sudden, and we didn't see it coming, the word "immediately" will be added. The only time that there isn't a PA, is when the system selects it automatically...generally with the first flap selection. The cabin crew must be seated within one minute of the normal seat belt PA, and the flight deck is called to confirm that. Immediately means just that, in the nearest seat. No time allowed.

 

[Forg]

Are smaller, newer long-haul aircraft more affected by turbulence than older larger aircraft?

My experience is limited, but having just spent 24-odd hours in a pair of A350’s it seems to me that they bounce around a bit more than I recall an A380, 747 or even a 777 does. I don’t mean major 9-seat scenic aircraft flying over a mountain-range bouncing-around, but there did seem to be more of the continuing minor shakes & jostles than I remember in a 747.

But as I said, my experience is limited.

 

[Strategic Aviation]

They've tried to engineer the pilots out of the equation as much as possible, and in so doing have made aircraft that are, in some circumstances, much more difficult to fly than needs to be the case.

In terms of the anonymous (AF B777) pilot's concluding comment, your reply implies that you likewise feel safer in a Boeing. What is your opinion regarding "with Airbus you need the best, it’s not optional"?

Your quote above could be taken to imply that pilots need to be above average to deal with some circumstances when Airbus systems aren't working as intended. Alternatively it could mean that such problematic circumstances involve more complexity, risk and effort in an Airbus, but still remain within baseline pilot competency to handle.

 

[Major]

Do these weather patterns suddenly appear or are they just too large to go around ? What sort of warning would the flight crew have received ?

Incident: American A319 near El Paso on Jun 3rd 2018, severe hail strike

 

[jb747]

Are smaller, newer long-haul aircraft more affected by turbulence than older larger aircraft?

My experience is limited, but having just spent 24-odd hours in a pair of A350’s it seems to me that they bounce around a bit more than I recall an A380, 747 or even a 777 does. I don’t mean major 9-seat scenic aircraft flying over a mountain-range bouncing-around, but there did seem to be more of the continuing minor shakes & jostles than I remember in a 747.

One of the factors that affects an aircraft's ride is the wing loading...the weight born by each square foot of wing area. The higher (heavier) the better. I suspect that tends to give the benefit to Boeing, as they generally seem to have smaller wings than the opposition. There are negatives to that too...they normally can't get up high early (and perhaps above the bumps), nor can they use shorter runways (perhaps meaning longer taxi and flight times).

Our perception of the bumps is also affected by the rigidity of the aircraft structure. Wings that flex a lot seem to ride better than those that don't. Fuselage rigidity also comes into it. I could feel the 747 flexing, whereas the 767 and A380 seem much more rigid.

The more recent aircraft have active systems that attempt to reduce the gust loadings on the aircraft, and whilst that doesn't make the ride any worse, it does change the feel.

The overall take though...I don't think it makes much difference at all. The feel may be a bit different, but the amount of movement is pretty much the same.

 

[jb747]

In terms of the anonymous (AF B777) pilot's concluding comment, your reply implies that you likewise feel safer in a Boeing.

Not really. I could start another thread with the things I'd change on their aircraft. The perfect aircraft would have features from both makers, but we aren't likely to get that. Here's an example of a couple of quite major accidents that were in part caused by the interface between the pilots and the Boeing autothrottle....
Asiana Airlines Flight 214 - Wikipedia
Turkish Airlines Flight 1951 - Wikipedia

I don't care which brand it is, or how old it is, as long as the pilots are actually pilots. That requirement rules out a lot of airlines around the world.

What is your opinion regarding "with Airbus you need the best, it’s not optional"?

Well it implies that you can use your worst pilots on Boeing. Basically the comment is an oversimplification.

Your quote above could be taken to imply that pilots need to be above average to deal with some circumstances when Airbus systems aren't working as intended. Alternatively it could mean that such problematic circumstances involve more complexity, risk and effort in an Airbus, but still remain within baseline pilot competency to handle.

The Airbus is easier to fly and operate than the Boeing when everything is working. Sadly it can be appreciably more difficult once you get a few failures. But, it should still be within what a line pilot can handle. The issue is that Airbus, and airlines, have been working for years at dumbing down the access and skill levels for the people flying you around. This goes back to the airlines that I won't fly with.... AF447 required precisely zero pilot response for a good outcome. Air Asia was lost from a relatively minor roll excursion coupled with a law change...it needed nothing more than a roll input...but the FO immediately lost control of the aircraft.

 

[jb747]

Do these weather patterns suddenly appear or are they just too large to go around ? What sort of warning would the flight crew have received ?

Incident: American A319 near El Paso on Jun 3rd 2018, severe hail strike

Hail has a nasty habit of not being visible on radar. Rain yes, hail no. On the other hand, hail is not common at cruising altitudes...quite the opposite. If you are going to be smashed by it, you'd expect it on climb or descent.

The weather image that is on AVHerald is deceptive. It seems to show one huge mass of cloud over the entire western side of Texas. At altitude there probably was a layer that big, but the nasty, coughuliform clouds would not have been continuous, and there would have been passages through them. The radar image would likely have looked quite different.

I expect that the had no warning about the hail at all...that wouldn't have been something that they would try to go through. Most likely though, they were seeing cloud that they considered acceptable (even if it was going to be rough). Because hail gives such a poor return, it's even possible that they saw it as a 'safe' area. It's the reason that you always try to pass CBs on the upwind side, if given a choice.

 

[lastrow]

Is it true that Rolls Royce have a continuous telemetry link with all RR engines in service, and that they are able to monitor the performance of every engine and warn of any potential problem they detect . If this is so, what sort of parameters do they monitor?

 

[opusman]

With reference to the discussion in another thread, if they felt like a career change would pilots necessarily make especially good air traffic controllers?

 

[Quickstatus]

It's the reason that you always try to pass CBs on the upwind side, if given a choice.

Which is the downwind side?. The anvil side?

 

[jb747]

Is it true that Rolls Royce have a continuous telemetry link with all RR engines in service, and that they are able to monitor the performance of every engine and warn of any potential problem they detect . If this is so, what sort of parameters do they monitor?

Not all by any means. They do monitor the engines that are operating on 'power by the hour', so that they can send a bill for each selection of extra thrust. We don't have any information on their monitoring, but I do know that it's a one way street. They pass no information back about engines that are in the air...presumably for liability reasons. As we don't have continuous data link comms, I expect that they collect data in bursts, or if the on board monitoring starts to see something happening. No idea what parameters they monitor.

 

[jb747]

Which is the downwind side?. The anvil side?

The side that the wind is blowing to...and the anvil is cloud that's blown downwind.