Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What is it doing now?

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

  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

    Irrelevant. 18000 ft and below is not RVSM airspace.
    Exactly. If it makes sense above 18,000ft, why doesn't it make sense below 18,000ft?

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    Since RVSM requirements are .....
    Irrelevant. 18000 ft and below is not RVSM airspace.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by kent olsen View Post
    He says "did you turn off the autopilot?" I said yes. Then he says "are going to hand fly the airplane in the clouds?" I said "yes". Then he says "but that means I have to watch you and everything". I said yes that's what it means PM, pilot monitoring.
    Didn't you explain to him that he has to watch you and the instruments even if the automation is flying the plane?

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by kent olsen View Post
    "The hero was the Aircraft"? I guess Airbus designed the aircraft to be flown by idiots..
    Yes, as they should. Is not that pilots are idiots, but idiot pilots, or pilots that are in general good but have one particularly idiot day, do exist.

    Would you rather have an airplane designed for the average pilot and let the 50% that is below average crash them on a daily basis? Because there will be ALWAYS ro% of pilots that are below the average, that's the very definition of "average" (actually, it is de definition of median, but I digress).

    So yes, designing a plane to be flown by the worst pilots that will ever fly them (or for good pilots in their worst day) is the way to go.
    Now, we can discuss, agree, or disagree with how it was implemented. But again I digress.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by kent olsen View Post
    "The hero was the Aircraft"? I guess Airbus designed the aircraft to be flown by idiots.
    That's just the thing, they didn't design it to be flown by idiots. They designed it to catch the errors of competent pilots. So, in this case, the PF would observe, "The minimum safe airspeed is rising very oddly for the current configuration" but the airplane has prevented the situation from becoming critical while he reacts appropriately. It keeps the airplane in the safe envelope when competent pilots make the occasional error. The design does not make the aircraft idiot-proof. You put incompetent people in there and anything can happen.

    One of my last trips in the Citation X descending into Las Vegas, 1500 overcast, tops about 15,000. I turned off the autopilot at FL180 as I usually did, to hand fly to the airport. My new, young, FO says "what was that, what was that". I asked "what did you see?" He says "did you turn off the autopilot?" I said yes. Then he says "are going to hand fly the airplane in the clouds?" I said "yes". Then he says "but that means I have to watch you and everything". I said yes that's what it means PM, pilot monitoring. Not to long after that I retired.
    Since RVSM requirements are based on the fact that modern avionics are far less fallible than human behavior, I can see his point. Monitoring a human pilot could be more difficult and stressful than monitoring automation. But if he actually lacked the confidence and skill to hand-fly in IMC I think that would be a good time to retire.

    But I'm talking about monitoring automation. We have seen too many incidents caused by pilots with plenty of skill and confidence in manual flying who have failed to monitor their automation.

    Leave a comment:


  • kent olsen
    replied
    "The hero was the Aircraft"? I guess Airbus designed the aircraft to be flown by idiots.

    One of my last trips in the Citation X descending into Las Vegas, 1500 overcast, tops about 15,000. I turned off the autopilot at FL180 as I usually did, to hand fly to the airport. My new, young, FO says "what was that, what was that". I asked "what did you see?" He says "did you turn off the autopilot?" I said yes. Then he says "are going to hand fly the airplane in the clouds?" I said "yes". Then he says "but that means I have to watch you and everything". I said yes that's what it means PM, pilot monitoring. Not to long after that I retired.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    1st act: What is the Pilot Monitoring doing now?
    2nd act: What is the A320 doing now?
    3rd act: What is the Pilot Flying doing now?

    Poor passengers....

    In the end, the PF eventually succeeded to control the plane in a very confusing situation, my sympathies for that.
    But apparently they only understood "why the plane was doing that" only after everything went back to normal. Which is fine in principle.
    But, in hindsight, the pilots should have FULLY clicked-clacked it (AP off, AT off, FD off) the instant that they started to wonder "what is it doing now". If you don't understand what the automation is doing, remove the automation, control the plane manually, fully stabilize the situation, and only then analyze "why was it doing that".

    http://avherald.com/h?article=49de3dbc&opt=234
    What a fabulous sh*tshow! I might have to add Wizz Air to my no fly list.

    Continuous, detailed overviewing and full understanding of the operation of such heavily automated systems like an Airbus A320 aircraft typically exceeds the possibilities of an average operator.
    Nonsense! In this situation, any confusion over "What's it doing now?" could have been instantly answered by glancing at the FMA, located as we all know on the Primary Flight Display, which is called 'Primary' for a reason. Because it's right in front of you and gives you a continuous, detailed overviewing and full understanding of the operation of the automated systems on the Airbus A320.

    If you aren't monitoring the FMA, you might as well let go of the other controls as well. You are no longer flying the plane.


    Upon initiating a go-around on the A320, both the PF and the PM must verify that the modes are MAN TOGA/SRS/GA-TRK. That's the job in 2021. If they aren't MAN TOGA/SRS/GA-TRK (and you've confirmed that the thrust levers are fully in the TOGA detent), then click-clack the automation off (not armed) until you understand why they aren't.

    And EVERY A320 pilot must know instinctively that returning the thrust levers into the A/T range with the A/T armed will engage the A/T to follow the current AP vertical mode, which is displayed in the FMA right TF in front of you!

    And yet the IC (whois the IC?) wants to blame the aircraft. The hero of this story is the aircraft, which ignored the command to retract slats below a safe airspeed, thank god.


    FMA____ANNOUNCE:

    Click image for larger version  Name:	Screen Shot 2021-03-23 at 5.37.51 PM.png Views:	0 Size:	131.2 KB ID:	1112315

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    started a topic What is it doing now?

    What is it doing now?

    1st act: What is the Pilot Monitoring doing now?
    2nd act: What is the A320 doing now?
    3rd act: What is the Pilot Flying doing now?

    Poor passengers....

    In the end, the PF eventually succeeded to control the plane in a very confusing situation, my sympathies for that.
    But apparently they only understood "why the plane was doing that" only after everything went back to normal. Which is fine in principle.
    But, in hindsight, the pilots should have FULLY clicked-clacked it (AP off, AT off, FD off) the instant that they started to wonder "what is it doing now". If you don't understand what the automation is doing, remove the automation, control the plane manually, fully stabilize the situation, and only then analyze "why was it doing that".

    http://avherald.com/h?article=49de3dbc&opt=234
Working...
X