Update On A/c 700

[A320 Driver]

Traveler said:
A flap/slat failure is included on the Type Ride, I think, because it tests the Pilots knowledge and understanding of Computer integration as much, or more, than his airmanship skills.

A320 Driver:
It's on the Type ride because it is required by the FAA Pratical Test Standards. It is a carry-over from the pre-Airbus time frame. We would eliminate it from the checkride today if we could, but continue to train it.


Taveler said:
The AB seems to be sensitive to Flap Limits and costly to repair.

A320 Driver:
Only to the degree that every limit exceeded is reported automatically by the aircraft. The Boeing does not make automatic reports so overspeeds usually go undetected or unreported. I was told by the FAA last year that they were not sure if ANY of our B-737s made it to a Q check without a flap overhaul someplace. AOG knows more about this than I do.

Traveler said:
The Primary electronic flight display for a no-flap approach must be programmed differently changing standard computer generated performance parameters to correctly reflect the non-standard configuration.


A320 Driver:
It's not dificult. You enter one number such as "180" in one field in the computer. On the Boeing you might set a "bug" or marker on the airspeed indicator. Same difference.

Traveler said:
Another fun part is the landing distance procedures. Here you must determine the multiplier for the various system failures then multiply the multipliers together taking the product of those multipliers and multiplying it times the landing distance unless one of the multipliers have an asterisk in which case you take the highest multiplier of the multipliers with asterisks and multiply this multiplier by the landing distance to arrive at the landing distance requirements... It’s a long story and a time consuming distraction of a manual mental exercise which is a gross contradiction to the advanced automation of the Aircraft.

A320 Driver:
I've never seen anyone take more than a minute or so to do this in the simulator. The charts were simplified last year to eliminate confusion.

My point here is not to dispute Traveler but to put this in the proper perspective. This is not a dangerous or complicated maneuver, but one that requires a little added care during the approach and landing phase just the same as for a Boeing or any other aircraft. Also the Airbus has the advantage of providing the pilots with vertical guidance for ANY approach. Unlike some aircraft which require aground based signal, the Airbus will generate it's own "glidepath" to a runway. All we have to do is follow the "dot" on our instruments.

Ain't technology WONDERFUL!!!

A320 Driver

 

[robbedagain]

A320: Could an airbus take of with no flaps/slats? Or is it vital that they have it?
I know that a Delta 727 tried to take off once at dfw but I think it crashed or something but I am not sure if the flaps were down or not?

 

[delldude]

lots of power and a very long runway.

 

[A320 Driver]

lots of power and a very long runway.

Good one Delldude!

Only jet I ever flew that you could takeoff with no flaps was the F-100. Probably are a couple of others but very few if any transport category airplanes.

A320 Driver

 

[robbedagain]

Does the length of runway have a lot to do with a no flap landing? I remember the UAL DC-10-30 that crash-landed in Souix City IA in 89 had no flaps but does that also includ the slats?

 

[Schwanker]

Does the length of runway have a lot to do with a no flap landing? I remember the UAL DC-10-30 that crash-landed in Souix City IA in 89 had no flaps but does that also includ the slats?

The DC-10 that Capt Al Haines "landed" at Sioux City was much more complicated than just a no flap landing. They had a catatrosphic engine failure (number 2 engine) which severed hydraulic lines on all 3 hydraulic systems. This forced the crew to alternate extend the gear (gear dropped and locked via gravity) and land in a clean configuration (no flaps or slats). This also cut off all control to the hydraulically powered flight controls. The aircraft was controlled by power inputs to the number 1 and 3 engines to create assymetric thrust for directional control as well as speed control. The aircraft control about the pitch axis was only controllable via stabilizer trim inputs.

In short, it is absolutely amazing anyone survived. Great job by the crew!!!

 

[delldude]

The DC-10 that Capt Al Haines "landed" at Sioux City was much more complicated than just a no flap landing. They had a catatrosphic engine failure (number 2 engine) which severed hydraulic lines on all 3 hydraulic systems. This forced the crew to alternate extend the gear (gear dropped and locked via gravity) and land in a clean configuration (no flaps or slats). This also cut off all control to the hydraulically powered flight controls. The aircraft was controlled by power inputs to the number 1 and 3 engines to create assymetric thrust for directional control as well as speed control. The aircraft control about the pitch axis was only controllable via stabilizer trim inputs.

In short, it is absolutely amazing anyone survived. Great job by the crew!!!

things were going better than expected with that flight,but the right wing,i believe dipped and tore into the corn field and then everything went to hell.

 

[Traveler]

Robbedagain,

WOW, I stand corrected by overriding sensitivities.

I thought Roddedagain’s question was about “training†and “differences – not a perspective leap of “Dangersâ€.

320 said:

Does the airbus require special training for a no flaps landing compared to the boeing? No
what is the difference between the two when it comes to that? Both similar.

Traveler:

Sorry, I misunderstood you Robbedagain. 320 is right.

Should you accept training on the Airbus, don’t anticipate emphasis on automation as it applies to transitions from a conventional aircraft to the Airbus next generation technology. As 320 states both are similar.


“Also, most of the differences I’ve seen between the Airbus vs. other A/Cs is the extensive interface with computers.â€

I perhaps overstated that a little here – there is very little difference between the 737 and the Airbus next generation aircraft with respect to Man-Machine-Computer interface. As 320 states, “it is similarâ€.

“A flap/slat failure is included on the Type Ride, I think, because it tests the Pilots knowledge and understanding of Computer integration as much, or more, than his airmanship skills.â€

I apologize for the frivolous sentimentality of FAA antiquated Type Rating criteria. A320 states correctly that FAA Examiners at USAirways would prefer to leave such maneuvers out of the type rating check. It has no purpose in evaluating an examinee’s airmanship nor does the Airbus program place any special emphasis on examinee knowledge and understanding of Automation of these next generation Aircraft. The automation is similar, you see.

“Computers are usually the ones that first sense a problem with the Flaps and/or Slats. Depending on the phase of flight, whether the Plane is being cleaned up after T/O or configured for landing, there could be a GOTCHA on performing the ECAM actions using the computer generated electronic checklist. The Gotcha could result in an overspeed if absently performed thus inducing an inadvertent Wing Tip Brake (WTB) actuation preventing further movement.â€

Apologize again. There are no differences in systems automation between the two aircraft. For a “GOTCHAâ€, I incorrectly stated that the Airbus sensing and systems are different from Boeing. They are similar.

“The AB seems to be sensitive to Flap Limits and costly to repair. All the other problems on the Boeing such as asymmetry, hydraulic failure, actuator failure, jamming and uncommanded actuation will lock the flaps and/or slats the same way.â€

Sorry I didn’t mention that AB Flap overspeeds are equal in repair cost to the Boeing. And I am especially sorry that I didn’t mention that, as a routine, most Boeings you fly are frequently flown outside safety parameters by your pilots requiring nearly routine overhaul exceeding appropriate scheduled necessities. I should have mentioned that because of your direct question pertaining to the “DANGERS†with respect to the nature of the two aircraft.

“Another thing uncommon to the Boeing are the various Flight Control Laws on the Airbus. Normal flight control inputs might be consistent for aircraft maneuvering on the Boeing. The Airbus, however, might transition through three phases of degradation affecting methods of aircraft control differently in each phase, as the crew sets up for landing.â€

Don’t worry about that... It’s similar. Both aircraft have similar, “directâ€, and consistent control theory in all phases of abnormal flight.

“Another point about the automation on the Airbus vs some Boeing aircraft is the computer generated performance displays. The Primary electronic flight display for a no-flap approach must be programmed differently changing standard computer generated performance parameters to correctly reflect the non-standard configuration.â€

I was wrong, there is no difference here. The Boeing will not automatically generate a “bug†setting and neither will the airbus. I miss-spoke with errant use of the word “correctlyâ€. In other words the Airbus will not incorrectly display a non relevant “bug†setting on the PFD airspeed indicator which must then be programmed for correct indications.

“Another fun part is the landing distance procedures. USAirways Pilots should have laptops to quickly and efficiently handle these performance calculations.â€

I apologize for insensitive jest of a procedure which apparently underwent language modification because it was more confusing to read than to do. And it was certainly a mistake to suggest emulating the versatility of what works effectively at other carriers.

I especially apologize for the tone of my post. I believe it addressed questions of difference rather than Dangers. It was inappropriate to express an overall tone which suggested that the airbus might be a little different in concept with respect to Pilot-Machine-Computer interface.

320 is right the most correct answer to your questions concerning training are “no†and “similarâ€. I will defer to 320 for all future qestions for in depth informal discussion of Airbus' industry generic systems and training.

 

[robbedagain]

Ok so basically there really is no differences between the boeing and airbus then?
just a matter of the one being mostly computer-operated type? Thanks for the answers.

 

[Traveler]

Ok so basically there really is no differences between the boeing and airbus then?

Exactly.

Don't believe all that next generation stuff airbus drivers try to sell you. It's simply a generic airplane with conventional systems, requiring no new mindsets to flying.

Rather, a booring and routine transition.

 

[A320 Driver]

Exactly.

Don't believe all that next generation stuff airbus drivers try to sell you. It's simply a generic airplane with conventional systems, requiring no new mindsets to flying.

Rather, a booring and routine transition.

I'm sorry I stepped on your toes Traveler. I felt there was some inference in the questions that the Airbus required some extra degree of care or even that there was some added jepardy flying the no-flap in the bus vs the Boeing. I just don't feel that there is. My goal was to show the bus just as safe as the Boeing in this situation and as usual, I got carried away.

Once again, my apologies to Traveler.

A320 Driver

 

[Traveler]

My goal was to show the bus just as safe as the Boeing in this situation and as usual, I got carried away.

Sorry, my bad!

Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, you'll be a mile from them, and you'll have their shoes.
--Jack Handey Deep Thoughts

 

[Light Years]

LOL!

Jack Handey "And now deep thoughts, by Jack Handey..."

Late 80s/Early 80s SNL was great!

 

[A320 Driver]

Sorry, my bad!

Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, you'll be a mile from them, and you'll have their shoes.
--Jack Handey Deep Thoughts

Most people I know have enough integrity to accept an apology, but there are exeptions to everything I guess.

A320 Driver :down:

 

[Traveler]

Traveler said:

Sorry, my bad!

Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, you'll be a mile from them, and you'll have their shoes.
--Jack Handey Deep Thoughts

320 said:

Most people I know have enough integrity to accept an apology, but there are exeptions to everything I guess.

A320 Driver .

Jesszzzz... 320. Do you filter all posts with such negative perceptive intonation? It was a light-hearted, “feeling’s-mutualâ€￾, apology by me. Do I have to hold you finger on the line as we move down the page, reading out loud, together?



Let me be more clear for you. "SORRY, MY BAD!"
“My badâ€￾ is a favorite colloquial of my kids. It means “sorry, for my mistake. In case it's still not clear let me further translate... -- Mr 320, I apologize for over reacting as well. I perhaps misunderstood the honorable intentions of perceived criticisms, by you, of my post. I sincerely appreciate your apology but perhaps I am a party to blame as well. It was a mistake by me, in responding to your perceived criticisms, with such sarcasm. Thank you.

That's what that meant. Now let’s move our finger down the page a little.

Here... do you see it? Yes... the proverb. This is a little humorous proverb by some SNL comedian. The “by-lineâ€￾ means is WAS NOT written by me. This part of the message was an attempt to lighten up the gentle rift going on here. A proverb is a lesson in life generally written by wise ones. The author here is not wise and the proverb about “criticismsâ€￾ is literately misinterpreted. I thought it was wryly appropriate. It was intended in a self-depreciating (self – meaning myself so as not to further confuse) irony of light hearted humor.

I apologize better with humor. But I suppose, I broke the maxim of “know your audienceâ€￾.


The gods too are fond of a joke.
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.)

Ummmm... Please don’t take this last proverb to mean that I am calling you a God... I just wanted to be sure you – understood.

Back on topic... I agree with all the pundits here in this thread for keeping maintenance in house. I’ve had occasion to visit the hangars and meet with some of these true professionals. Regardless of the economic or political tumult, these guys are professionals in the sense that their specialized discipline is blind to all else when at their job making things work the right way. I find it hard to believe these guys in Alabama aren’t being shut down while Federal Standards conducts an investigation.

I think it’s a gross mistake to discount the cost effectiveness of doing the job right the first time with the veteran mechanics on property – as has been done consistently in the past with the rest of our fleet. Not to mention the safety issues as it might pertain to the continuity and quality of work by an “in-houseâ€￾ specialized team intimately familiar with the particulars of each aircraft’s history. Sometimes management fails to see “valueâ€￾ while blindly absorbed, to distraction, with “costâ€￾!

-- My deep thoughts...