If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Can we all agree that the definition of "fat dumb and happy" is "matching and mashing to put the nose back where is was" whilst contending with turbulence and roll in manual flight after a sudden loss of autoflight, the loss of airspeeds and an urgently developing failure cascade?
At least in the short term, sure.
How sustainable is 5deg and CLB in the long term starting from 35000ft ISA+20?
A simple calculation tells me that they would have had an initial climb of 2800 fpm. The speed was going to go down.
Affirmative. Even if we're in a gentle descent, that's still FDnH.
Can we all agree that the definition of "fat dumb and happy" is "matching and mashing to put the nose back where is was" whilst contending with turbulence and roll in manual flight after a sudden loss of autoflight, the loss of airspeeds and an urgently developing failure cascade?
Who said anything about maintaining the altitude? Will 5 deg + CLB maintain the altitude?
Leave the throttle alone, keep the pitch, and you will be fine.
Or try to keep the altitude if you want. If you do that and you need increasing pitch to keep it, you need to add more thrust. It is written in the UAS PROCEDURE!
Let me be more specific: Can an A330-200 at this weight/altitude with power set at 83% N1 not descend and still fly well below alpha prot AoA?
We always lose context with these arguments. So let me remind you of the context:
Pierre Bonin, PF, was clearly concerned about the weather situation and the altitude prior to the event. He repeatedly asked the captain about RECMAX and indicated that he wanted to climb above the weather. The Captain did not give him an answer before retiring. He continued to mention this with the relief FO who replaced the previous one in the left seat. He wanted to climb. HE DEFINITELY DID NOT WANT TO DESCEND. When the event happened, due to the role of Mach in calculating altitude, the altimeter began to display a negative rate, a descent. He reacted by adding pitch, but overcontrolled, probably due to a lack of experience hand-flying at high altitude where manual inputs are amplified (and he was also contending with on onset of roll at that moment). Add to this his now urgent desire to climb over the storm (RECMAX was about FL380). And now add to that the fact that the N1 is locked at 83%.
That's the context.
Now imagine that he didn't continuously pull up into a stall, but rather leveled out, with FDnH pitch, intent on NOT DESCENDING and with a desire to then climb steadily to FL370 (instead of following the memory procedure and CRM/QRH procedure).
Is that not a bit unsafe? Or should I say, is that not more dangerous than following the procedure?
Q: The N1 was previously at 100% Pitch was at 0° (1.8° was the FDnH value 10 secs earlier, before the selected guidance). Can an A330-200 at this weight/altitude maintain 35,000 ft with power set at 83% N1 and still fly well below alpha prot AoA?
I don't know (I'm thinking it should), but if not, you match and mash and put the nose back where it was. It's not hard, really.
Q: The N1 was previously at 100% Pitch was at 0° (1.8° was the FDnH value 10 secs earlier, before the selected guidance). Can an A330-200 at this weight/altitude maintain 35,000 ft with power set at 83% N1 and still fly well below alpha prot AoA?
Who said anything about maintaining the altitude? Will 5 deg + CLB maintain the altitude?
Leave the throttle alone, keep the pitch, and you will be fine.
Or try to keep the altitude if you want. If you do that and you need increasing pitch to keep it, you need to add more thrust. It is written in the UAS PROCEDURE!
Q: The N1 was previously at 100% Pitch was at 0° (1.8° was the FDnH value 10 secs earlier, before the selected guidance). Can an A330-200 at this weight/altitude maintain 35,000 ft with power set at 83% N1 and still fly well below alpha prot AoA? Q: Does the sudden loss of autoflight and reversion to alternate law impact the safe conduct of the flight?
The document Gabriel linked is actually from 2006 (before AF447) which is why the memory item there reads differently than it does now. Now it OPENS with "If safety of flight is impacted".
Actually, yes, the document is from 2006 and AF was in 2009, but this document IS the change when they added the "I the safe conduct of the flight is impacted ==> [memory items]".
You have the old version (where you had in instruction that told you when to apply the ADR check procedure and when the UAS procedure that lacked the "If..." sentence) and the new UAS+ADR unified procedure with the "If..." sentence (in page 17).
Bottom line (hasn't changed): If the crew of AF447 (and every other instance of high-altitude UAS) had applied the standard memory item pitch and power values, nothing bad would have happened, whereas when left to individual pilot improvisation, anything can happen. Why do pilots (and apparently now, the industry itself) continue to resist that hard lesson and that self-evident truth?
Because that's the bottom line only in your mind. The memory item was not applicable in this case. You disagree, and that's fine, that's your business. The document Gabriel linked is actually from 2006 (before AF447) which is why the memory item there reads differently than it does now. Now it OPENS with "If safety of flight is impacted". Why? Because Airbus wants us to initially do NOTHING. Not improvise, not do memory items, nothing. Just breathe. Keep breathing. Call for ECAM actions. Keep breathing. If the thrust is not where you want it, match and mash. If you got no IAS, but everything else jives, keep breathing.
I'm not paid to regurgitate memory items, I'm paid to know my airplane, which includes when NOT to use memory items. Why do you continue to resist that self-evident truth?
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Leave a comment: