A320 C-GTDK tail scrape in UK

[Vickers vanguard]

Allright boys&girls..... here's my first posting in this forum,

Came across this accident report from the british AAIB* concerning a canadian registred A320....in England. Date is june 2003 and the Airplane is on lease with the crew. captain with a good experience on type( 1500 pic A320) and the F/O undergoing IOE* being a new hire.
Given the F/O lack of experience on the A320, the captain decides that as soon as the opportunity arises(weather&traffic), the F/O will conducts...........GOD forbids....a manual landing without the autopilot,autothrust or the flight director......usually this is a setup for a mishap. Forgive me all of you out there, FBW drivers making numerous........hum!..manual landings every day between DH and touchdown zone.
So, surely enough, our helpless F/O managed to scrap the tail with little help from the captain, who realized at some point that the a/c started to deviate and decided during the flare to make an input with his sidestick without informing his F/O and without really taking control. On Airbus FBW, sidestick is spring loaded and there is no feedback from the flight controls. Even an input from one of the pilot is not sensed by the other crew member. 2 inputs from both pilots at the same time, will be sumed(algebraic sum) by the flight control computers and then fed to the PCUs.
If you want to take control, you have to use the priority button on the sidestick controller otherwise the crew will be fighting for control.
Going through the report, one thing gets your attention right away....at the least the people who are familiar with aviation in Canada.....the F/O has a total flight experience of ......800 hours!!!!!!....the number of zeros is correct, don't worry.
Now, this is where it becomes interesting. Our F/O had some experience flying BA31 and that is it. The airline's approved ops manual specifies that new hire would undergo 50 hours of LOFT* following the type rating which is already double the amount required by TC. But that good, more training is always safer right! However, our F/O didn't receive 50 hours as stipulated but.......325 hours instead!!!! and he was still in training at the time of the incident. that is more than six time what other F/Os received for the same position. In other words, the F/O was hired when his logbook showed a total flight experience of barely 500 hours ??????
Don't get wrong here but I'm just curious, was this guy the son of the Airline's CEO or something????? or maybe he bought shares in the company?
I'm really curious and that is it.....how did he make it flying A320 in Canada with 500 hours?
The british blasted the company for retaining him when they knew they had to allocated way more training time.
For those of you interested in reading the full report, here is the address:
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk
click on bulletins and then on November 2004, you'll then find it.
By the way, if you are still wondering who's the operator and you haven't already guessed it. Well, there are only two companies in Canada that operate A320........it's Sk.......Ser.
*IOE: initial operating experience

[. .]

Doesn't Skyservice take on British crews at some point of the year, then use Canadian crews over to the UK at another point? Was the FO in question holder of a UK or Canadian license?

[.80@410]

Careful where u tread Nazim.
This fellow is well liked in the SS company, and is a great guy. I chill with him often. He realizes it wasn't such a great idea by the company to offer him such a position and that he should have had more time, but don't insult my intelligence by stating you wouldn't take an airbus type if it was offered to you at 500 hours.

He had many years with the company, and had saved them hundreds of thousands of $$ with his ideas. Understand that a monkey can fly an airbus- or any other kind of aircraft...it is the personality that counts on the longest of days..and this guy is top-notch.

He will be back in the R/S in approx 1 year, with his seniority and pay intact.

.80

[CLguy]

Going through the report, one thing gets your attention right away....at the least the people who are familiar with aviation in Canada.....the F/O has a total flight experience of ......800 hours!!!!!!....the number of zeros is correct, don't worry.

Only in Canada do we have the mentality that you need at least 5 lunar landings in order to be PIC on a 180. I was in the cockpit of a Malaysian Airlines DC-10 and at that time I had over twice the total time as the whole cockpit crew combined and that was in the mid 80's.

[flyincanuck]

LOL, lunar landings!

SSV used to have UK crews operate that 757 ships here in the winter, and Canadian crews head over to Europe during the summer season. I think each pilot is given the option of staying for two weeks, but you can stay longer if you want. They give you a house, etc...

Just what I heard from a former SSV pilot...but he's been out of the loop for a while. Don't know how accurate that info is.

Cheers

PS: there are 3 Canadian operators flying the 320. AC, SSV and Air Transat

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/525412/M/

[hz2p]

I met a couple of United States Navy pilots over the holidays. They're PIC, landing on an aircraft carrier in 100 & 1/4 with - get this - 400 TT.

Too bad we're so stupid in Canada, as compared to the rest of the world. Because our brains are frozen and the blood moves slowly, if at all, we need ten times as much experience to learn to perform the same task as anyone else in the world.

[skyhigh]

Whoa, easy there .80, I dont think Nazin was out to slam the 500 hour guy. From what I read, he is trying to figure out how a 500 hour pilot gets into an Airbus in this country. Although it happens all the time in every other country in the world.

[Vickers vanguard]

hi everybody!

...it is the personality that counts on the longest of days..and this guy is top-notch. I have no doubt regarding the guy's personality if you say so! but is it the only thing that counts?....I have to desagree with you on that.
.80, I have nothing and nothing against this Airline or against this pilot in particular. I might have been too harsh when I questioned his links with the company, but given the minimums usually required by such companies, here in Canada, you can't blame me for asking the question!
....A monkey can fly an A320 or any other airplane....? .....any other airplane? I'm not sure, try a monkey on a big bore radial!....let see, how about a connie!...well it might be too big for our monkey, what about a C46...see where I'm going with that. However, jetliners with highly automated flight control systems, yes if given the proper training. However, flight crews of such airplanes are paid premiums not just to fly from A to B, but more to handle any emmergency and/or abnormal situations, and that is why flight crews' pay has seen a gradual decrease during the last two decades. It's just safer to fly transport category airplanes now than it was 20 years ago...and the workload is less, although this last point could be argued by some...
I don't fly for a living, but I used to hate the north american system of requiring thousands of hours of flight experience before you can qualify for an airline job. Majors airlines in Europe have had their own AB inito programs for years now and it's been working fine so far. But the reason for that has more to do with the kind of aircrafts they use today, and less with the abilities of their pilots.
new recruits would usually undergo an extensive and lenghty period of training before they're allowed on the line. And even then, take British airways for example, the new hire will often start flying regional routes on regional airplanes for at least a year or two. Once ready, new F\Os are paired with very experienced captains and that is the key strategy.

Airbus FBW models are airplanes designed to make money! these airplanes have a very very complex flight control system, which I have to admit is a marvel of technology. The key in safely flying or I should say safely using these airplanes, is an excellent understanding of the Auto-flight system( modes, capabilities, limitations etc....).Once you master that, you'll be pretty safe flying the...oh sorry....taking the airplane around. These new breed of airplanes are just too tricky to fly manually!!
And that is why new hires in Europe have been doing quite good flying these machines.... minimum of manual flying + captains with good experience on type.
I've read hundreds of accident/incident reports during the last 15 years, when it comes to FBW models, of all the incidents during the landing/flare portion of the flight, in 95% of the cases, it was the result of a manual approach and landing.
In other words, FBW airplanes need excellent manual handling techniques and a good deal of flight experience. If you don't have that, stick with the automation....I'm not going after Airbus here, the Air Transat incident in the Azores had proven that these airplanes could be flown......I mean could glide without the use of electronics!
The Airbus fleet number has seen a tremendous increase in the last decade, thanks to the FBW models. The economics for the airlines is just incredible.....common cockpits, common philosophy and so on...
Training pilots has never been so easier, thanks to the digital nature of the flight controls which enable the extensive use of flight simulators.....at the expense of real flight experience!

I'll post more on this issue later on, it's already getting too long!
Regarding Air Transat A320!....I believe the A320 they had was on lease and If I'm not mistaken, they do not own A320 nor do they operate them on a regular basis.

[flyincanuck]

Regarding Air Transat A320!....I believe the A320 they had was on lease and If I'm not mistaken, they do not own A320 nor do they operate them on a regular basis.

You're right, it's leased, hence the F-**** registration, but non the less, there were 3 carriers that 'operated' the -320.

Cheers!

[mantogasrsrwy]

These new breed of airplanes are just too tricky to fly manually!!

cough cough ...bullsh** It's just an airplane....turn off the magic and it's an airplane without the magic.

[Vickers vanguard]

bs....turn the magic off and it's an airplane !!!!
not so fast boy! ...modern airplane have usually poor natural stability by having their CG very close to the CL to reduce trim drag and reduce fuel consumption(relaxed static stability). They make use of sophisticated flight control system to make up for that.....the MD11 is one of them for example.
Sorry, I forgot!..they don't teach that in those advanced flight schools you might have been to , and it's not part of the super commercial pilot licence curiculum!

[flyincanuck]

Do I detect a Seneca grad?

modern airplane have usually poor natural stability by having their CG very close to the CL to reduce trim drag and reduce fuel consumption

Define "close to the CL". I'm assuming you mean the plane's c of g is trimmed to achieve CL MAX, thus reducing drag??

And even if it's trimmed to CL Max, you're getting a heck of a lot of induced drag.

[Vickers vanguard]

hi lads!

sorry if some of you felt insulted, I was just trying to point out to the fact some young fellows who learned to fly in today's flight schools, are still far from possessing all the technical knowledge they would need in the future if they aspire to fly anything more complex than a big C172 with a turbine.
It's a continuous learning process and there's a lot to learn!
No, I'm not a graduate of Seneca and I'm just trying to share some of my technical Knowledge hardly learned after more than a decade in aviation, with fellow aviation fans! .......and trying to learn from you guys because there's always something to learn..everybody has his own area of interest in this Business.
As to the meaning of CL, I meant center of lift, and yes it does have different locations depending on the AOA and the G loading of the A/C. But what I was talking about was 1G cruise flight, CG designed to be close to the Center of Lift to reduce the download required by the horizontal stabilizer and thus reducing drag from the tail(i.e. trim drag).
Airbus does it by moving fuel back and forth from the tail plane to the wings...relocating weight....it was done in the concorde years ago!

[mantogasrsrwy]

Sorry buddy....it's still just a airplane, no bs. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to fly it. It is much easier to fly in most respects than a steam jet. Obviuosly any big jet is going to be less forgiving in many respects than a 172, it is still a airplane and flys like one.

[mantogasrsrwy]

PS

Sorry, I forgot!..they don't teach that in those advanced flight schools you might have been to

sorry, but they did.....

[Mitch Cronin]

...modern airplane have usually poor natural stability by having their CG very close to the CL to reduce trim drag and reduce fuel consumption(relaxed static stability). They make use of sophisticated flight control system to make up for that.....the MD11 is one of them for example.

You're joking, right? ....Please, someone tell me the man is joking?

[TTJJ]

I have 3,125 hrs on MD-11's. I used to hand fly them all the time.

The factory even recomended hand flying the things below 10,000ft. just to keep sharp.

It was simple enough that even I managed to do it.

Yes, the systems are sofphisticated, but they are not hard to use.

[tripleseven]

Is the MD-11 fly-by-wire? Is that what Nazim.B meant by "it makes use of a sophisticated flight control system."

[Mitch Cronin]

Fly by wire?.... ya, thick stuff, all wound together and pulled tight with a "sophisticated" and simple variable tension method of control rather than the old use of electron flow.

[Vickers vanguard]

LJ, I only used the MD11 example to point at the stablity characteristics of that airplane and i said.....1G cruise flight..... the relaxed longt stabilty of the MD11 is famous......the reduced longit stability and the associated light control forces in cruise flight have led to many upsets with violent pitch oscilliations.
The MD11 is not a FBW aircraft and does not have the flight envellope protection airbus models have and therefore, the FCCs do not have the authority that exists on Airbus A/Cs.
Having said that, I'll post more on the matter togive more info on the MD11 FCCs roles in stability augmentation in manual flight......if you can call that manual flight....autothrust and Flight director a must most of the time.
Do not jump to any conclusion regarding the last comments, it's the design of the modern A/Cs that I question here !

[TTJJ]

I guess that I'll have to explain more.

Nazim.B:

You seem to mixing apples and oranges here lad. You are talking about Flight Control Systems and then go on about Fuel Systems.

The MD-11 uses fuel in the tail, as a fuel consumption measure, to maintain as far an aft cg as possible. It is set by the company to between 2% and 5% of the aft limit in .5% increments. That in of itself does nothing to effect flight controllability as the fuel is no longer in the tail when you get down to landing weights.

To further reduce fuel consumption, a smaller horizontal stabilizer (25% smaller) is used that on the DC-10 (on which I have 500 hours). To compensate for the smaller surface, a Longitudinal Stability Augmentation System (LSAS) is used. It is nothing more than an "Auto Trim" and permanent CWS (Control Wheel Steering) system. LSAS kicks off at 100ft agl for landing

In short, the autopilot is always engaged to some extent even when you click it off. It is sort of a pain in the butt as there is no real feedback through the column, but you get used to it.

I would recommend that pilots do indeed fly the beast manually as often a possible so that in the event that everything went for a dump the pilot would just "ho-hum, yawn" the aircraft down to a safe landing.

[Mitch Cronin]

Thanks for some sanity TJ.

...other than what you've mentioned.... I reckon if you tear off the -50's and replace with fadec -80's, add some winglets and a redesigned trailing edge, throw in some computers and crt's for systems monitoring and display so you can dispose of the third man.... what you have is a dear old, sweet old "sophisticated" Diesel Dixie with upgrades.

Does it handle/feel at all like a DC10?

[TTJJ]

Not at all.

The 10 felt like a real airplane to fly. You wanted CWS, you selected CWS. Otherwise autopilot off meant....OFF.

Great machine...bad rap.

[Vickers vanguard]

dear tj,

I never used the word Fuel or did I mention anything about it when I talked about the MD11, I was then talking about Airbus models whe I mentioned the Fuel business. when I said FCC I was refering to flight control computer and not Fuel contr comp...but may be you already knew what I meant.

Your input on the augmentation system is right and as you may have noticed that in my previous message, I was refering to that when I said the following:" ....I will post more on the role of the FCC in stability augmentation when in manual flight......."

My whole point regarding the MD11 and other new design....yes, I still consider that a new design.....is to point at the fact that even when the autopilot is off, there is always a subsystem of the flight control system that works in the background. This was to answer another's member suggestion that those airplanes will behave just business as usual if the above system were to fail.
A guy who has been flying Airbus FBW for some time, will have a hard awkening in the unlikely( the word manufacturers like to use) failure of the 5 FCC's and you will have to revert to the direct mode(i.e.Sidestick movement proportional to flight control surfaces movement). NO
auto trim, no turn coordination, different handling characteristic and not to mention no feedback.....but now, without the flight envellope protection.

and no, I still see apples and oranges as separate

[Vickers vanguard]

hey Tj,

did you fly for Korean...Eva..or.....Cal ?