Not_Delta 191

[Evan]

Incorrect.

...or so I've read.

Applying full back stick on Airbus fly-by-wire aircraft, or flying close to the stick shaker / stall warning Angle-Of-Attack (AOA) on aircraft models that do not have full flight envelope protection, may be necessary to prevent the aircraft from sinking down;

And we are talking about Delta 191-level microburst here, so I think that applies.

I assume the standard escape procedure is to follow the FD / SRS order. But we are talking about the worst case scenario where you are fighting a 2000-4000fpm downburst in ground proximity.

f a/c keeps on sinking, pull up to full aft sidestick.

Could you share your company procedure with the forum?

[3WE]

***Incorrect***

***Could you share your company procedure with the forum?***

Remember- we’re talking Airbus.

1. Push a cryptic coded button (WR(weather response)5.2).

2. Inform ATC.

3. Request a fancy caffeinated beverage and croissant from hosties.

4. Complete go-around report for submission to the PR and weenie management to address any social media flare ups and to pilots demerit bucket at HR and send via ACARS.

5. Check aircraft instrumentation to assure that the AI isn’t hallucinating.

[BoeingBobby]

Remember- we’re talking Airbus.

1. Push a cryptic coded button (WR(weather response)5.2).

2. Inform ATC.

3. Request a fancy caffeinated beverage and croissant from hosties.

4. Complete go-around report for submission to the PR and weenie management to address any social media flare ups and to pilots demerit bucket at HR and send via ACARS.

5. Check aircraft instrumentation to assure that the AI isn’t hallucinating.

Now THAT is funny!

[Evan]

ENV A318/A319/A320/A321 FLEET FCTM
FLIGHT CREW TRAINING MANUAL
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
ADVERSE WEATHER
04.010 JAN 11/07
. The PF must fly SRS pitch orders rapidly and smoothly, but not aggressively, and must consider the use of full backstick, if necessary, to minimize height loss.
. The PNF should call wind variation from the ND and V/S and, when clear of the shear, report the encounter to ATC.

Predictive windshear
In case the "GO AROUND WINDSHEAR AHEAD" message is triggered, the PF must set TOGA for go-around. The aircraft configuration can be changed,
provided that the windshear is not entered. Full back stick should be applied, if required, to follow the SRS or minimize loss of height.

Reactive windshear
In case of the "WINDSHEAR WINDSHEAR WINDSHEAR" aural warning, the PF must set TOGA for go-around. However, the configuration (slats/flaps, gear) must not be changed until out of the shear. The flight crew must closely monitor the flight path and speed.

The thing I don't get here is the line 'provided that windshear is not entered'. As it is predictive, I think that needs to be 'provided windshear will not be entered' and how are you going to determine that, especially when the systems are predicting that windshear could be entered?

[Gabriel]

ENV A318/A319/A320/A321 FLEET FCTM
FLIGHT CREW TRAINING MANUAL
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
ADVERSE WEATHER
04.010 JAN 11/07
. The PF must fly SRS pitch orders rapidly and smoothly, but not aggressively, and must consider the use of full backstick, if necessary, to minimize height loss.
. The PNF should call wind variation from the ND and V/S and, when clear of the shear, report the encounter to ATC.

Predictive windshear
In case the "GO AROUND WINDSHEAR AHEAD" message is triggered, the PF must set TOGA for go-around. The aircraft configuration can be changed,
provided that the windshear is not entered. Full back stick should be applied, if required, to follow the SRS or minimize loss of height.

Reactive windshear
In case of the "WINDSHEAR WINDSHEAR WINDSHEAR" aural warning, the PF must set TOGA for go-around. However, the configuration (slats/flaps, gear) must not be changed until out of the shear. The flight crew must closely monitor the flight path and speed.

The thing I don't get here is the line 'provided that windshear is not entered'. As it is predictive, I think that needs to be 'provided windshear will not be entered' and how are you going to determine that, especially when the systems are predicting that windshear could be entered?

2 thoughts:

1- This seems to be written by lawyers for shareholeder (liability limitation), not by engineers and test pilots for pilots.

2- Appreciate that the crew of this accident didn't have a predictive widshear warning, a reactive windshear warning, or a windshear advisory from ATC. In this context, once again, I totally see the pilots in a go-around mindset and noting that the plane is flying like in a normal go around except that look, we have 15 degrees pitch, we are climbing like a rocket, but speed is a tad too low and decaying especially since we have just retracted the flaps to 15, why don't you go ahead and push down a bit. And suddenly bahm, lost 30 knots of airspeed and entered a 2500 fpm downdraft (both of which probably caused most of the nose-down motion). By the time they recognized and reacted to that it was too late to avoid the crash, but at least it saved some lives.

[Evan]

2 thoughts:

1- This seems to be written by lawyers for shareholeder (liability limitation), not by engineers and test pilots for pilots.

2- Appreciate that the crew of this accident didn't have a predictive widshear warning, a reactive windshear warning, or a windshear advisory from ATC. In this context, once again, I totally see the pilots in a go-around mindset and noting that the plane is flying like in a normal go around except that look, we have 15 degrees pitch, we are climbing like a rocket, but speed is a tad too low and decaying especially since we have just retracted the flaps to 15, why don't you go ahead and push down a bit. And suddenly bahm, lost 30 knots of airspeed and entered a 2500 fpm downdraft (both of which probably caused most of the nose-down motion). By the time they recognized and reacted to that it was too late to avoid the crash, but at least it saved some lives.

3- Appreciate that the crew of this accident were concerned about windshear and were expecting windshear, though not necessarily microburst. In this context, when the speeds shifted by 20kts while entering a wall of heavy precipitation, they instantly abandoned the approach and flew what amounted to a standard go-around. If the speed looked a bit slow to the captain, he would have done well to confirm the power setting, which was well shy of the TOGA he had requested. If the climb seemed a bit steep, well, it was all in his head.

Both of the critical errors made here were the result of a flawed situational awareness and the crew did nothing to cause that flawed situational awareness. The controller failed to alert them. The plane failed to alert them. And perhaps the encouraging PIREP led them to continue when they should have held off. The actions taken to strengthen windshear detection and to discourage flying into such weather has been enough to prevent any further downburst accidents. But I still want to see pilots taking a more aggressive than complacent response to windshear alerts.

[ATLcrew]

Could you share your company procedure with the forum?

I could not. My point was your absolute statement was, as usual, incorrect.

[Evan]

I could not. My point was your absolute statement was, as usual, incorrect.

Here, again, is my “absolute statement”:

Certainly you don't stall, so we stop that topic of conversation. You respect the stickshaker. But gaining or at least preserving altitude is your primary focus here, at the expense of airspeed right down to stall warning if need be.

In the Airbus (in Normal Law) the procedure is to pull full aft stick, let the alpha protect decide from there.

Notice the use of a conditional phrase. We were discussing the procedure for worst case microburst where the maximum sustainable pitch is needed to preserve altitude and the procedure is to fly up to stickshaker. In the Bus, in this situation, everything I have read instructs to fly full aft stick and rely on the Alpha Protect, if need be. If that is not correct, please correct my error.

[ATLcrew]

Here, again, is my “absolute statement”:



Notice the use of a conditional phrase. We were discussing the procedure for worst case microburst where the maximum sustainable pitch is needed to preserve altitude and the procedure is to fly up to stickshaker. In the Bus, in this situation, everything I have read instructs to fly full aft stick and rely on the Alpha Protect, if need be. If that is not correct, please correct my error.

The "conditional statement" came BEFORE you switched to the context of Airbus, thus your post implied that in the Bus it's aft stick or bust. This is incorrect.

You're welcome.

[3WE]

The "conditional statement" came BEFORE you switched to the context of Airbus, thus your post implied that in the Bus it's aft stick or bust. This is incorrect.

You're welcome.

As long as we can throw the pilots under the Bus, we are good!

[Evan]

The "conditional statement" came BEFORE you switched to the context of Airbus, thus your post implied that in the Bus it's aft stick or bust. This is incorrect.

You're welcome.

Well, that and the context of the conversation. We were having a bit of a row about the danger of stall vs the danger of smashing into the Earth when battling a microburst. I was pointing out that the primary objective in this context was to preserve altitude (or at least minimize rate-of-descent), so I used that to illustrate the point. The crew of this accident flight had failed to prioritize altitude over airspeed but were almost certainly unaware of the true situation.

An additional benefit is that full aft stick automatically retracts the speedbrakes if they are out. But I realize that, in general, the SRS order is your target (which may require full aft stick).

[ATLcrew]

An additional benefit is that full aft stick automatically retracts the speedbrakes if they are out.

So close! Try again, you need another conditional statement here.

[Evan]

So close! Try again, you need another conditional statement here.

An additional benefit is that, in Alpha PROT, full aft stick automatically retracts the speedbrakes if they are out.

Is that it? Did the context not make that clear? Or is this a configuration thing I'm not aware of?

[3WE]

While you guys have fun with your ‘Bus automations, is anyone (Evan in particular) thinking about how the DC-9-31 doesn’t have cryptic protections and contexts and engine protection, and apparently it can be a bit of an ankle-biter around stalls.

https://youtu.be/L2CsO-Vu7oc?si=YqzLza4MbRk-GhF0

Man, this sounds kind of type specific, too.

[Evan]

While you guys have fun with your ‘Bus automations, is anyone (Evan in particular) thinking about how the DC-9-31 doesn’t have cryptic protections and contexts and engine protection, and apparently it can be a bit of an ankle-biter around stalls.

Man, this sounds kind of type specific, too.

It's also bit of an ankle biter at 0 AGL and -1000fpm entering a two-story home. So you have to consider that as well. Whattayagonnado.

Oh, I know: fly the stickshaker, give it all it's got, pray, and promise yourself never to fly into this mess again.