A vs. B

[Rockie]

So the resident Canadian numbnuts is once again attributing false statements to "AvCanada Experts" with the thread titled at "B' "AvCanada experts say stick and rudder skill unnecessary" without providing any corroborating evidence. No evidence to support his claim...must take his cues from Donald Trump.

Come on Boyd you moron...use your imagination for crying out loud. You're a Queens graduate aren't you? Don't embarrass your Alma Mater.

[Jack Klumpus]

Case in point, last night I landed in Portland. I retarded the thrust out of the CLB detent at 200' RA, in anticipation of idle thrust 30-50' RA (for non airbus pilots reading this, the auto thrust is still engaged at this range). The Airbus system logic gave us a master warning, "Thrust not in CLB". No shit Airbus, I'm landing. This is the point . was making.

I only have a few thousand hours on the 320, so forgive me for asking the following; is this what your sop calls for? Is this what the Airbus nop calls for? I don't seem to understand why you would operate the aircraft in a manner that contradicts what you were taught, and what is in the books.

If you knew the systems, you'd know that you will get an ECAM alert, therefore why would you do it at 200'? Did you brief it before doing it? Or did you just surprise the captain?

Let me tell you, this sort of thing will land you in the office and probably a sim or ground school for not knowing how to operate the aircraft not knowing your systems or worse yet, for deliberately doing something that makes absolutely no sense.

What you did is like pulling the hand brake slightly while decelerating to a complete stop, in anticipation of engaging it once the car has stopped. You'll get the brake warning annunciator and achieve nothing.

I've worked my way up from instructing, to single pilot IFR in the bush, to regional, to flying the big machines. Hands and feet are but a small part of the equation. Airmanship is another. Knowing the type of aircraft, having an in depth knowledge of its systems, and your operation, all together is what makes a competent pilot. I don't care if you're an f18 pilot nor if you're a cadet. Having sound airmanship and discipline is what will make you succeed in flying the big machines.

[PilotDAR]

It could include 1 hand flown takeoff and landing every quarter

That would seem to me to be less than the minimum regulatory requirement of

(b) within the previous 90 days, has completed at least three take-offs and three landings

,

Which in itself seems low. I once asked my learned insurance agent how little I would have to fly in a year before the insurer would begin to question my currency. He replied that they take notice of pilots who report flying less than ten hours per year. If ten hours a year equated to ten take off and landings a year, three in 90 days is pretty close to that!

Light airplanes to a heavy airplane pilot feel like they shouldn't even be in the air at the speeds they fly. Control feel is also ridiculously light and the airplane feels like it's made out of paper.

I find this to be an over generalization which is not useful. I have found that some more heavy light planes are lighter to fly than some lighter light planes. A Harvard is noticeably lighter to fly than a Cessna 206. I think a pilot's skill must include adaptability. They should be able to recognize the relationship of control input/force applied to effect, and after a few cycles, manage the aircraft adequately. Similar to eye high height. Not important during takeoff, but good to get right for landing. If in doubt, fly an extended flare to feel it down gently. This is only not a big airplane skill. Go from landing a Lake Amphibian in the water to a Beaver on floats in the water, and getting eye height wrong will result in something much more serious than just a firm landing.

If automation is being used to enhance safety, and reduce fatigue, that's great, that's what it's there for. But if over use of automation is allowing skills decay, that's not good. The pilot landing the tundra tire Cub on a goat path understands from the moment the decision to land there is made, that they must apply skill and precision. There is no sudden surprise part way through (goats notwithstanding). I worry that a "culture" of automation dependence creeps in, and some pilots become very accustomed to watching automation do the job for them, and one day it doesn't. On that day, surprise! Pilot, you gotta fly it right now! (and it's not lined up, on the glidepath). Pilot does not realize that their skills are rusty and tries, rather than going around and easing into the skilled hand flying.

I'm a poor person to assert these thoughts, as I have never flown anything that can land itself, so I really don't know how much I would not need to do were I to fly a highly automated plane - I just know what I've read, and some of it worries me! When I use to fly jump seat in the 707's I watched very many skilled hand flown landings, and I never worried that automation was making those pilot complacent. Based upon that, I think that the pursuit of enhanced safety in the guise of automation has lured pilots into thinking that basic hand flying skills are not as necessary - they are every bit as necessary, just not as often....

[Nark]

Not a normal practice of mine however if you comprehend what I wrote, it's a dumb philosophy of Airbus.

Was the thrust reduced? No. Was the energy state of the aircraft changed? No.

In your thousand of hours flying said machine, have you ever disregarded the top of decent stick, or level of stick and intervened?
Do you read the ECAM after selecting flaps 1 on approach? Or do you just clear it?

So maybe, just maybe it's okay to be a pilot once and a while in the flying computer.

[altiplano]

Was the thrust reduced? No. Was the energy state of the aircraft changed? No.

So why did you do it? To get the ecam? Because that's all you apparently accomplished?

[B208]

Case in point, last night I landed in Portland. I retarded the thrust out of the CLB detent at 200' RA, in anticipation of idle thrust 30-50' RA (for non airbus pilots reading this, the auto thrust is still engaged at this range). The Airbus system logic gave us a master warning, "Thrust not in CLB". No shit Airbus, I'm landing. This is the point . was making.

I only have a few thousand hours on the 320, so forgive me for asking the following; is this what your sop calls for? Is this what the Airbus nop calls for? I don't seem to understand why you would operate the aircraft in a manner that contradicts what you were taught, and what is in the books.

Because sometimes the book answer will get your ass burned to a crisp....

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/fli ... t/hky1dmyy

[B208]

... the rudder is not the only flight control surface on the airplane nor is it the only source of precision in flight path control....

True, but it is the one that differentiates pilots from heavy equipment operators.

Really?

Yep, really.

[Rockie]

Not a normal practice of mine however if you comprehend what I wrote, it's a dumb philosophy of Airbus.

Why do you think that ECAM caution is there Nark? It's to alert crews to the fact that the thrust lever is not in the proper position and the engine thrust is inadvertently limited. They didn't design the system to accommodate pilots who don't fly the airplane according to the way Airbus designed it - meaning you. You're supposed to fly it the way they designed it to be flown. All you're doing with that action is introducing an unnecessary distraction just before landing.

I suggest you get in the books a lot more before you attempt an upgrade.

Because sometimes the book answer will get your ass burned to a crisp....

Are you suggesting B208 that procedures should never be followed because they might burn your ass to a crisp?

[GRK2]

B208...
Seriously? SOP's were brought in to standardize and make aviation safer so guys like you don't kill people when you make up your own sh*t!

[Jack Klumpus]

Because sometimes the book answer will get your ass burned to a crisp....

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/fli ... t/hky1dmyy

I was asking Nark why he operated the type he flies in the way he did. Your quote has absolutely no meaning in here.

I guess you're trying to paint me as one who follows anytbing written blindly. This is not the case not what I believe in. Re-read my post about sound airmanship.

[Jack Klumpus]

Not a normal practice of mine however if you comprehend what I wrote, it's a dumb philosophy of Airbus.

Was the thrust reduced? No. Was the energy state of the aircraft changed? No.

In your thousand of hours flying said machine, have you ever disregarded the top of decent stick, or level of stick and intervened?
Do you read the ECAM after selecting flaps 1 on approach? Or do you just clear it?

So maybe, just maybe it's okay to be a pilot once and a while in the flying computer.

Would be nice if we move along step by step. First one being you telling me why you chose to operate the Airbus in a manner that goes against the way it was designed. Just because you think it's a dumb philosophy? Nark, do you think you are smarter than the folks who design this logic?

As for answering your questions;

- it depends on the strategy and on the experience I have with the place I'm flying to. If I have constraints, of course I'll manage everything and let it do its work. If I know I will not be flying the full STAR, then I will disregard it and do an open descent for example. There are a million ways to fly any airplane, especially the Airbus. Some pilots like to be more efficient than others. Some like to be conservative, etc.

- which ECAM are you referring to after flaps 1?

- as for your last comment, a pilot isn't one who just flies manually. A pilot is who operates their aircraft in a professional manner. I'm an airline pilot. My job is to know my aircraft and use every resource I can, in order to conduct the flight safely, and efficiently.
Does this clear things up for you?

[Rockie]

- which ECAM are you referring to after flaps 1?

I think he's talking about the Status Page. You should at least learn the correct terminology Nark before rewriting Airbus's procedures for them. And yes, you read it to make sure there is nothing new on it. That's why it comes up.

[niss]

That's interesting longtimer. The F-18 and probably other aircraft have had an automated deck landing system since they were built but I'm curious how this software is different. Auxbaton would be the guy to ask.

There is a very, very interesting documentary (can't remember where I saw it) on night carrier landings. The seas were really high and the deck was pitching so much that even perfect approaches were victims of chance that the deck would be in the right place when they were. Veteran Navy pilots were literally shaking from the adrenalin when they made it back to the ready room.

PS, This isn't the one I was talking about but intensely interesting just the same. That is not a life for the faint of heart...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4HTXBTkcpg

The new software is called Magic Carpet. On the old Automatic Carrier Landing System (ACLS), the pilot coupled the autopilot to the approach (very similar to the ILS, except your target it moving) and modulated throttles to maintain the on-speed AOA (8.1 degrees).

With Magic Carpet, when you engage it, your four axis are all decoupled: push down and you will go down, but will not accelerate, pull up, your flight path will come up but you will not decelerate, throttle changes will only yield an AOA change. So, the control laws are changed to make the longitudinal stick, lateral stick rate command inceptors and the throttle commands AOA. So, you move the throttle but it also moves your flight controls to keep your flight path where it is. It also give yous a predicted landing point based on the ship's course, speed and wind speed, rather than flying the course bar and glideslope and having to make corrections (always up and to the right as the ship is moving: the deck is angled towards port). It is a revolutionnary system that makes carrier landing much easier and from what I have seen, you get a 3-wire (or 2-wire on the USS Bush) everytime, in any condition. It also corrects its inputs for the "burble" behind the ship, or the area where the airflow is disturbed because of the ship moving through the air. Up to now, it was the pilot's prediction ability that came into play when judging when to increase power to overcome the "burble" and not end up in the back of the ship, yet not miss all 4 wires. Magic Carpet does that for you based on the wind models they developped and put in the aircraft software.

Very interesting!

I'm curious as to how you're so versed in this? Was it x-training? I thought our Hornets weren't carrier rated.

Cheers!

[B208]

Because sometimes the book answer will get your ass burned to a crisp....

Are you suggesting B208 that procedures should never be followed because they might burn your ass to a crisp?

I suggest nothing. I urge you, (and everyone else reading) to consider the following and draw your own conclusion;

The crew of Swiss Air 101 followed their checklists to a T. They and their passengers are now dead.
The Herc driver in the article I referenced used his own judgement of the situation and decided to diverge from the book. He and his crew are all alive. Had he continued that take off, odds are the fire would have either burned through the control cables or cooked of the giant fuel tank in the cargo area.

Procedures are a tool to be used when appropriate. They are not a replacement for judgement or airmanship.

[B208]

B208...
Seriously? SOP's were brought in to standardize and make aviation safer so guys like you don't kill people when you make up your own sh*t!

Piss off.

[B208]

Because sometimes the book answer will get your ass burned to a crisp....

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/fli ... t/hky1dmyy

My 'big picture' point was to show that there are times when 'going off script' isn't bad. If you want to stay 'small picture' and just discuss the exact case at hand that is your option.

[Rockie]

My 'big picture' point was to show that there are times when 'going off script' isn't bad. If you want to stay 'small picture' and just discuss the exact case at hand that is your option.

There are times when going "off script" is necessary to ensure safety (Swissair case in point). Going "off script" just because you feel like it is not professional and can get you in a pile of trouble you lacked the foresight to predict. The situation we're taking about here is moving the A320 thrust levers out of the CLB detent at 200 feet on landing. It is against procedures for a reason and it does nothing except limit the autothrust range and create a distraction at a critical phase of flight. Continuing to defend the practice long after it was explained why it's a terrible idea just proves an inability to learn.

Are you Airbus qualified B208?

[B208]

My 'big picture' point was to show that there are times when 'going off script' isn't bad. If you want to stay 'small picture' and just discuss the exact case at hand that is your option.

There are times when going "off script" is necessary to ensure safety (Swissair case in point). Going "off script" just because you feel like it is not professional and can get you in a pile of trouble you lacked the foresight to predict. The situation we're taking about here is moving the A320 thrust levers out of the CLB detent at 200 feet on landing. It is against procedures for a reason and it does nothing except create a distraction at a critical phase of flight. Continuing to defend the practice long after it was explained why it's a terrible idea just proves an inability to learn.

Are you Airbus qualified B208?

I'm not talking about the Airbus. I'm talking about the over arching concept that procedures and SOPs are no substitute for system knowledge and good judgement. A position that is position that is supported by case studies, (as ceded by you above).

And with that, I'm done on this thread.

[Rockie]

I'm not talking about the Airbus. I'm talking about the over arching concept that procedures and SOPs are no substitute for system knowledge and good judgement.

The only person who suggested they were a substitute was you. Everybody else knows that SOP's, system knowledge and good judgement go hand in hand.

[Jack Klumpus]

- which ECAM are you referring to after flaps 1?

I think he's talking about the Status Page. You should at least learn the correct terminology Nark before rewriting Airbus's procedures for them. And yes, you read it to make sure there is nothing new on it. That's why it comes up.

Rockie, I knew exactly that he's talking about the status page but I was leading him to correct his mistake.

Nark, Rockie's answer is exactly correct and what I would have answered you.

[fixedpitch]

I worry that a "culture" of automation dependence creeps in, and some pilots become very accustomed to watching automation do the job for them, and one day it doesn't. On that day, surprise! Pilot, you gotta fly it right now! (and it's not lined up, on the glidepath).

Interesting point. Is there a "culture of automation" in today's airline cockpits? I know that the Air France incident generated a lot of discussion over this - here's a Vanity Fair article that sums it up. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/business ... -447-crash

I'd be interested in hearing what airline guys have to say about it.

[Nark]

Gets-Zeus Christo
You're getting wrapped around the axle. If you think I'm a detriment to professionalism, cool. Must have been a miracle I've made it this far.

First off Rockie, do you know our SOP's? Mighty presumptive of you to think, knowing Airbus, that two different operators fly the exact same way.

You should be well aware that philosophy isn't regulatory. I spoke with a former US Airways Airbus Capt, that said no FD takeoffs are prohibited.

Lastly, what is the screen called that displays Status?
I guess AC's Airbuses are pristine and don't have spurious indications, which based upon system knowledge are ignored...oops words means things here. "Dealt with accordingly."

Lastly, I didn't ask if you fly a STAR. I asked if you only descend at the descent point on the ND every time or do you intervene? You guys being the high and mighty Airbus experts know exactly where I'm getting to, but you refused to answer it.

Fixed pitch,

Yes, Precisely what Cat was saying, and these two gods to avation are advocating.

[Jack Klumpus]

Nark,

Let me try this again.

You asked me if I fly the airplane the same way every single time. Your question was to the tune of, "do you fly managed according to the FMS's predicted profile every time?". I tried to explain to you that no I don't. It depends on the scenario. Where am I going. Will I get a shortcut. Will I get a hold. With experience, comes judgement and decisions. If I know I will be holding, then why would I hurry up and descend? If I will fly a STAR in Europe, the snake STAR, filled with altitude and speed constraints, I just may follow it and fly it managed. Did this not answer your question?

Are you trying to figure out if I'm one who blindly pushes ALT when the top of descent shows up? I thought I was pretty clear with my answer.

I still do the mental math. My altitude vs. distance. Then I factor the wind (tail vs head), I factor the weight of the airplane, and I factor what my track miles might be.

I hope this time it gets through.

As for you, you don't really like to answer questions do you.

[Nark]

So yes you intervene.

If you're going to harp on me and my use of ECAM vs Status, I'll call you out on your "pushing" ALT. The verb, according to Airbus is Manage.
Perhaps you too should go back to school with me.

[trampbike]

... the rudder is not the only flight control surface on the airplane nor is it the only source of precision in flight path control....

True, but it is the one that differentiates pilots from heavy equipment operators.

Previous aircraft I flew, it was pretty much feet on the floor at all time except for ground ops and a few maneuvers.
As it was a supersonic twin afterburning turbojet aircraft used to train people the basic of air to air combat and basic air to ground weapons delivery, I'm not sure it fits your description.
I can also fly a few taildraggers decently enough. I'll let you guess which one I believe requires the most "piloting" skills to operate safely and efficiently throughout its whole flight enveloppe.