Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pakistan plane crash: Jet carrying 107 people crashes into houses near airport

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 3WE
    replied
    Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post

    Or get rid of the automation altogether.
    What?

    Leave a comment:


  • ATLcrew
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    Not surprisingly...


    Thank you.
    And if you manually move the levers out of CLB or idle, will they automatically return to CLB and idle? (always with the AT on)
    Affirmative.

    Leave a comment:


  • ATLcrew
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post

    AFIAK, there are only two ways to get out of OP DES/idle thrust on the A320:

    - arrive at the selected altitude entered in the FCU (assuming it's not 0, as sometimes has been the case).
    - manually select another vertical mode.

    Is this correct?
    Or get rid of the automation altogether.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post

    I'm afraid you're incorrect. For LVL CHG climb thrust will go to CLB, for LVL CHG descend thrust will go to idle. Provided A/T is on, of course.
    AFIAK, there are only two ways to get out of OP DES/idle thrust on the A320:

    - arrive at the selected altitude entered in the FCU (assuming it's not 0, as sometimes has been the case).
    - manually select another vertical mode.

    Is this correct?

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
    I'm afraid you're incorrect.
    Not surprisingly...

    For LVL CHG climb thrust will go to CLB, for LVL CHG descend thrust will go to idle. Provided A/T is on, of course.
    Thank you.
    And if you manually move the levers out of CLB or idle, will they automatically return to CLB and idle? (always with the AT on)

    I need to go back to my manuals of the Mad Dog add-on for Flight Simulator (half-joking)... I think it was different in the MD-80. If I remember correctly selecting IAS/MACH in the vertical mode would do nothing with the thrust. And even if you select a descent the plane would climb if you select more thrust that what is required to hold the altitude at the speed selected in the IAS/MACH vertical mode. I think that the AT mode went to CLMP (clamp, the AT will stop moving the levers), and from there you can manually set the levers where you want or you can select an EPR hold AT mode and select CR, CLB, MCT, or TOGA. If you select a speed hold mode in the AT it would disconnect the IAS/MACH vertical mode and change to a vertical speed mode with the current altitude target and current actual vertical speed.

    So, for example, if you are crusing at FL330 and want to climb to FL350 at the current Mach, you would select 35000 in the altitude window, select IAS/MACH (the IAS/MACH window, which is the same as the vertical speed window, will show the current Mach), and then select CLB thrust rating computer and EPR hold in the AT.

    If you want to descent from cruise, you would select say 10000 ft, IAS/MACH mode, manually idle the throttles, and select the desired IAS/Mach value. In the meantime you would select (but not activate) 250kts in the AT window so when the plane reaches 10000 ft it will level off and slow down to 250 kts and hold it.

    But it has been many years since I last used this add-on so my memory may be off.

    Leave a comment:


  • ATLcrew
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

    but in the Boeing when you select what I think is called LVL CHG (IAS/MACH altitude mode in the MD-80) the thrust levers just stop being managed and they will stay put wherever you put them.
    I'm afraid you're incorrect. For LVL CHG climb thrust will go to CLB, for LVL CHG descend thrust will go to idle. Provided A/T is on, of course.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
    I don’t give a rats ass how they get down to 1000 feet...AT THAT POINT, get things on target and maybe run a landing checklist...
    Maybe...?

    Well, fortunately for us, most non-Pakistani airlines do give a rat's ass. So we have managed guidance and a descent mode on the A320 that maintains a speed range around the best fuel-economy speed while taking into account altitude constrictions and brings you down to the glideslope where you can make a nice, passenger-friendly, life-sustaining transistion to final. Why not use this? Why not respect the value of human life over your own ego? Why be a cowboy when cowboys are a thing of the past?

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
    I don’t give a rats ass how they get down to 1000 feet...AT THAT POINT, get things on target and maybe run a landing checklist...
    Well, it seems we are finally starting to converge here (you and me, maybe not Evan).

    But this is not what happened. Then never got things on target, gear or no gear.

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    Please keep dismissing folks that had fake licenses (and the lack of gear) and violated all sorts of stuff and get your descent procedures written so the airline can resume flying.

    Crews get rushed all the time...go arounds even happen...

    I don’t give a rats ass how they get down to 1000 feet...AT THAT POINT, get things on target and maybe run a landing checklist...

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
    Ok Evan, you win. If they had made a conservative descent and forgotten the gear, they would not have crashed.
    If they had made a proper descent (i.e. conservative of human life), it would have been impossible to forget the gear, so there would not have been a crash.

    What made forgetting the gear possible are the conditions arising from the rushed, overspeeding descent that they did make.

    Plus everything Gabriel just said about going around after touching down without gear.

    You can't win this one. TIme to give up.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
    Ok Evan, you win. If they had made a conservative descent and forgotten the gear, they would not have crashed.
    If they had done a conservative approach and used stabilized approach criteria they would have been much more unlikely to raise he gear after lowering it and not notice or ignore the warnings. For once, they would not have had other GPWS warnings like sink rate and pull up, only too low gear, and they would not have had the flaps overspend warning. And then, they would have had much less workload and would have followed a more standard flow of actions that would have reduced the likelihood of the mistake in the first place.

    AND if they still landed with the gear up, they would have been much less likely to initiate a go around. You'll see, they didn't initiate the go around the second they touched down on the engines. They bounced at least 3 times barely losing speed in the process. They were too fast and overspending the flaps, so lots of lift still and little weight-on-engines and hence little friction. Now, combine touching down way too far down the runway, way too fast, and not slowing down. Compare with crossing the threshold at 35 ft and Vref, retarding, flaring and bleeding off some speed before touching down (still on the engines) in the first 2000 ft of the runway with 30 knots less of speed. They would have not bounced. The plane would have firmly settled on the runway. Starting the landing roll with much less speed, no bounces, much more friction, decelerating fairly and with a whole runway ahead would have reduced a lot of motivation to attempt the go-around. And even if they tried, at that low speed it would have likely been impossible to achieve the high AoA required to make lift = weight again.

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    Ok Evan, you win. If they had made a conservative descent and forgotten the gear, they would not have crashed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
    Your point also does not change the fact that someone might chop the power, use draggy things (like proper use of landing gear) and a little airmanship and maybe arrive at the runway in decent shape...
    Be my guest.

    But if the plan fails and you are not stabilized by 500ft (which includes being in lading configuration, on track, on slope, on speed and landing checklist complete), go around.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post

    Good. And, for this case, had they ‘put’ the gear down, no crash, regardless of “your point”.

    The problem is not the steep approach.

    I’ll give you:

    1. Forgetting the gear.
    2. Crossing the threshold at 200+ knots.
    3. Dudes with fake pilots licenses being widespread.

    Indeed,#3 could be said to be “an accident waiting to happen”, and might be grounds for more oversight and public beatings.

    Your point also does not change the fact that someone might chop the power, use draggy things (like proper use of landing gear) and a little airmanship and maybe arrive at the runway in decent shape...
    Man, are you serious or just trolling? As I said earlier, aviation safety is not about what you can't pull off on a good day, it's about defending against what can go wrong on a bad one. And sooner or later that bad day will arrive. This crash might be a perfect demonstration of that fact.

    The following is true of all pilot error crashes:

    And, for this case, had they____________, no crash.
    For many of them, this also:

    Had they not improvised themselves into a situation conducive to error, no crash.

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    My point, again and for the last time ...They had already had repeated incidents this year associated with this kind of hasty approaches.
    Good. And, for this case, had they ‘put’ the gear down, no crash, regardless of “your point”.

    The problem is not the steep approach.

    I’ll give you:

    1. Forgetting the gear.
    2. Crossing the threshold at 200+ knots.
    3. Dudes with fake pilots licenses being widespread.

    Indeed,#3 could be said to be “an accident waiting to happen”, and might be grounds for more oversight and public beatings.

    Your point also does not change the fact that someone might chop the power, use draggy things (like proper use of landing gear) and a little airmanship and maybe arrive at the runway in decent shape...

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X