Ask The Pilot

[welltravelled]

So if I understand correctly, in the Air Algerie incident the aircraft would have been losing altitude, but presumably because the autopilot was in charge nothing looked out of the ordinary, except if one of the pilot had looked at the altimeter reading? Or once the probes are frozen it is difficult for the pilots to correct thrust even though they are aware of the loss in altitude?

If the aircraft was engaged in cruise, the aircraft "should" not have been losing altitude. The speed would decrease and approach the stall, if the altitude hold function was engaged.
I have not flown MD aircraft so not familiar with their systems but typically there are 3 altimeters each with an independent sources for pressure.
This would give you an indication something was not right first up. Modern aircraft also give warnings of errors occurring between various instruments like altimeters and speed.
Auto thrust/throttle uses various inputs atmospheric and computer inputs but can be disconnected - and still get TOGA {max} power.

Another consideration if it was extreme icing they had encountered, apart from the impact this had on the flight instruments etc, the aerodynamics of the airframe could also be affected, so whilst you have the thrust available the wing may not be clean to develop the required lift for that altitude, or the increased weight of the aircraft may not allow it to fly at that altitude any longer.
The MU2 crashes in WA in the late 80's are classic examples of this, that is the initial icing of the aircraft, the spin which resulted is another story.

 

[jb747]

So true.

Coming from a Boeing, the Airbus take on many things is quite surprising....or perhaps the Boeing is far more automated that you realise. In a Boeing, if you are cleared to a lower altitude approaching your descent point, and you wind that altitude on to the MCP (the mode control panel...glareshield), the aircraft will start the descent all by itself when it gets to the appropriate point. AB you have to specifically tell to descend. Boeing still gives managed vertical navigation when you're in a heading mode...Airbus takes it away.

In many ways I think Airbus show signs of being locked into 1985. The A320 was extremely advance when it was introduced, and having made the 'best' coughpit in the world, they haven't seen the need to move on. How can you improve upon 'best'? Every iteration of Boeing moves ahead, but without losing that family feel. As companies, they have quite different philosophies.

 

[michaele]

In many ways I think Airbus show signs of being locked into 1985. The A320 was extremely advance when it was introduced, and having made the 'best' coughpit in the world, they haven't seen the need to move on. How can you improve upon 'best'? Every iteration of Boeing moves ahead, but without losing that family feel. As companies, they have quite different philosophies.

Do you think culture of the country of origin has an impact on that?

 

[jb747]

Do you think culture of the country of origin has an impact on that?

I don't know. In many ways an aircraft is a product of many nations, so which culture to pick? It isn't necessary wrong either, as it does keep the standardisation at a maximum. Actually, I expect that even now, the engineers would argue that the methods they have chosen are the best...the issue is those damn pilots.

 

[por930]

I don't know. In many ways an aircraft is a product of many nations, so which culture to pick? It isn't necessary wrong either, as it does keep the standardisation at a maximum. Actually, I expect that even now, the engineers would argue that the methods they have chosen are the best...the issue is those damn pilots.

JB, as a professional pilot, do you feel you could swap between 2 different A380 aircraft during the course of say QF1 and QF2, if one of them had different systems on board. I realise you could and would train for the different aircraft. When you look at FR24, there are hundreds of A320's flying every day. While I think Airbus should strive to improve their aircraft over several years as technology moves on, I wonder if they are frozen at 1985, because they fear causing greater issues with pilots becoming confused as to which aircraft they are in?

Though saying this, Boeing seem to have several variants of their 737 flying together. Are crews segregated to one variant or another, or they just see it as part of the job to be aware?

 

[welltravelled]

As a Boeing pilot I could fly any combination of -300/400/500/600/700/800 in any given day. It is a common endorsement, and whilst Boeing have maintained the overhead panel in the B737 from the earlier 100/200 series, with a couple of enhancements the actual systems are quite different. Big ones like fuel, air conditioning, hydraulics etc.
The other thing depends on where the aircraft came from. A lot of options are available and depends what is installed. I was flying 737 in the 90's with equipment eg ACARS yet only recently has this been part of the fitout of 737 at current operator.
With the Airbus, until about 6 months ago we operated 2 variants of the A330, legacy and enhanced.
From an operational point of view the only difference to us was the standby flight instruments, in the old aircraft they were dials, in the enhanced it is a single a screen. Also the old aircraft had CRT screens as opposed to LCD for the newer variants.
There are a few system differences with flight management computer, rudder and flight laws, but the end result is the same - especially if you end up in that backup regime!

 

[moa999]

Whilst browsing YouTube the other day I found some videos on British pilots working in places like Indonesia, ...

Worst place to be a pilot.. Has recently been on Aus TV.

Think the question is with the recent growth in high pax jet aircraft (particularly in Asia) versus military spending an less availability of smaller aircraft, what aircraft will the pilots of the future train on.

From what I understand for example there are limited new types in the 30-50 pax aircraft (eg that Rex uses)

 

[por930]

As a Boeing pilot I could fly any combination of -300/400/500/600/700/800 in any given day. It is a common endorsement, and whilst Boeing have maintained the overhead panel in the B737 from the earlier 100/200 series, with a couple of enhancements the actual systems are quite different. Big ones like fuel, air conditioning, hydraulics etc.
The other thing depends on where the aircraft came from. A lot of options are available and depends what is installed. I was flying 737 in the 90's with equipment eg ACARS yet only recently has this been part of the fitout of 737 at current operator.
With the Airbus, until about 6 months ago we operated 2 variants of the A330, legacy and enhanced.
From an operational point of view the only difference to us was the standby flight instruments, in the old aircraft they were dials, in the enhanced it is a single a screen. Also the old aircraft had CRT screens as opposed to LCD for the newer variants.
There are a few system differences with flight management computer, rudder and flight laws, but the end result is the same - especially if you end up in that backup regime!

Hi wt, So this says that a suitably trained pilot can fly several variants of the same aircraft equipped with different systems in a safe manner on any given day.

Because you have an endorsement on the A330, and Airbus are quite big into similar coughpit commonality layout for all their aircraft, does this allow you to convert over to the other Airbus types, eg, the 320,350 or even the 340 (while 4 engined, it shares several features with the 330?)quite readily? as compared say to converting from a 737-800 to a 777-200, etc...or are conversions times similar for both Airbus and Boeing?

 

[jb747]

JB, as a professional pilot, do you feel you could swap between 2 different A380 aircraft during the course of say QF1 and QF2, if one of them had different systems on board. I realise you could and would train for the different aircraft. When you look at FR24, there are hundreds of A320's flying every day. While I think Airbus should strive to improve their aircraft over several years as technology moves on, I wonder if they are frozen at 1985, because they fear causing greater issues with pilots becoming confused as to which aircraft they are in?

Commonality is one thing, but I for one, am glad that Henry Ford didn't get to freeze the car interface when he did the T model...and yet that was his best effort....at the time. I expect that it's partially a cost they won't bear, in part a refusal to listen to any critics, and partially a desire for commonality. Apply percentages as you wish.

Though saying this, Boeing seem to have several variants of their 737 flying together. Are crews segregated to one variant or another, or they just see it as part of the job to be aware?

Variants of the same aircraft model may be very different, or they might just be details. The QF 767s had three different engines, all of which had quite different limits, and behaviour. The 200 model flew quite differently to the 300s. But they were all close enough that you just jumped from one to the other. In airlines that also used the 757, you could also fly that and its variants. The 737 had had a very large range of models flying in Oz, and at the extreme ends were quite different. Nevertheless, they were treated as one aircraft, and flown by all of the pilots. On the other hand, the 747 Classic and the 747-400 were treated as different aircraft, and coming from the Classic there was a short(ish) conversion course. I would expect the conversion to a 747-8 from the -400 would be in the order of a week or two.

Looking at the Airbus family, whilst the coughpits are similar (though I think the A380 would manage to confuse many), the ancillary systems are quite different. The weights, energy levels, and overall behaviour, even though moderated by FBW are all quite different. So, flying any variant of A319 - 322 would be simple. Same with A330 and A340. But I doubt that anyone mixes A320 and A330...other than the AB factory pilots. Flying (say) an Emirates A380 from the QF one would be a simple change...with only engines and a few accessories being different. The cabins, on the other hand, are totally different.

Boeing have made the HUDs a mandatory fitting in the 787s, simply to keep their (787) coughpits reasonably standard...otherwise the penny pinchers would leave them out.

 

[jb747]

Worst place to be a pilot.. Has recently been on Aus TV.

On the other hand, time spent in such regions (PNG was the Australian equivalent) produces very good pilots, who actually are fliers, not systems operators. Of course, those who aren't good enough, end up dead...an effective culling mechanism.

Think the question is with the recent growth in high pax jet aircraft (particularly in Asia) versus military spending an less availability of smaller aircraft, what aircraft will the pilots of the future train on.

That is, of course, the million dollar question. The answer so far has been to lower the standards. In years past airlines would not even answer a letter if you had less than 1,000 hours. Now you can be sitting in the right hand seat of a 777 with half of that. Systems operators are not pilots...though I now find that people seem to think that's what we need.

From what I understand for example there are limited new types in the 30-50 pax aircraft (eg that Rex uses)

In that perfect world, we'd really want people getting 500-1,000 hours in something much smaller. Say a 6-10 seater flying around NT. Why...because then they operate single pilot, and literally have to learn to make decisions for themselves, and secondly, the cost of their getting things wrong isn't so great.

Operations like Rex might be a lower tier, but they are very demanding. Plus, any time you operate with a low hour person in the right hand seat, it tends to load up the other pilot...and we aren't talking about training people here, but the line drivers. Rex and its ilk would be the second step on the ladder, though I suspect that the companies would actually prefer to keep their pilots rather than having them all move on.

 

[tgh]

We had a nice day out of Broome a few years back .
An aging 210 was flown very competently by a young fellow who planned and executed the flight with detail and precision.
He was, of course, flying his hours up ; and the ride was a little different to the approach of many bush pilots.
I would be entirely pleased if he was up front in some future long haul flight.

 

[jb747]

We had a nice day out of Broome a few years back .
An aging 210 was flown very competently by a young fellow who planned and executed the flight with detail and precision.
He was, of course, flying his hours up ; and the ride was a little different to the approach of many bush pilots.
I would be entirely pleased if he was up front in some future long haul flight.

I did much the same with young pilots out of Kununurra, William Creek (Lake Eyre), and the Flinders. One was excellent and ready to move to something bigger. But, only one of the others had potential.

 

[welltravelled]

Yes exactly, that was the Airbus philosophy when they designed the A320. The 330/330/340 all have a common flight deck and Cross Crew Qualification (CCQ) can be achieved in minimal time.
When I was in Toulouse, the simulator we used had another centre console hanging on the back wall and they could inter change it with the 330 config and with the flick of a couple of buttons was a 340.

There is also a CCQ to the 380 and 350 types also, but there are differences with systems and layouts of these types. But typically is an abbreviated transition as you already speak Airbus, as opposed to an initial conversion.

When I was in Seattle in 2001 doing my 737NG conversion from Classic (300/400), back then Boeing were stating a 3 day conversion to the 777, not sure how true that is today.

Cathay have CCQ pilots on 330/340 fleets, Lufthansa initially had 320/340 CCQ, they now have 330 so may have streamlined this to narrow and wide body?
757/767 is also a common endorsement.

 

[jb747]

There is also a CCQ to the 380 and 350 types also, but there are differences with systems and layouts of these types. But typically is an abbreviated transition as you already speak Airbus, as opposed to an initial conversion.

When I was in Seattle in 2001 doing my 737NG conversion from Classic (300/400), back then Boeing were stating a 3 day conversion to the 777, not sure how true that is today.

Remember that Boeing and Airbus are trying to sell aircraft, and telling an accountant that the course is only 3 days is probably a great sales feature. The QF 380 course was designed for 330 pilots, and it lasts months. Just doing the nuts and bolts course, on line, takes an entire week. I guess you could do the sims in 3 days if you were in the box for 13 hours per day. It took me 3 days to work out out the Airbus phone system worked...they'd designed it to be 'like your mobile', but I keep swiping, and nothing happens.

 

[Awesom Andy]

they'd designed it to be 'like your mobile', but I keep swiping, and nothing happens.

If we take account of the above discussion of what the Airbus coughpit is like, the phone system would be like a 1980/90s mobile?

 

[Altair]

Lufthansa initially had 320/340 CCQ, they now have 330 so may have streamlined this to narrow and wide body?

LH may have changed but LX as it is a smaller operation has its long haul pilots flying A32S sectors, new hires start on the A32S before going to the wide body fleet.

 

[welltravelled]

So true JB, and that is very apparent when you compare a manufacturer rating to a third party rating, eg CAE etc, there is no way they would give you a 777 in 3 days, because a. they have to ensure the candidate meets the standard, and b. they are able to make some money out of it.

A comment made recently to me was airbus are made to a price not a standard, and it is very obvious in France that it is an accountants aircraft. You cant even change cruise Mach no in the FMGC, unlike Team B! In fact in the legacy aircraft you couldnt modify any descent info once commenced either, had to be all selected as no way to modify.

 

[jb747]

A comment made recently to me was airbus are made to a price not a standard, and it is very obvious in France that it is an accountants aircraft. You cant even change cruise Mach no in the FMGC, unlike Team B! In fact in the legacy aircraft you couldnt modify any descent info once commenced either, had to be all selected as no way to modify.

Certainly not a pilot anyway. In the 380 you can't change the descent speed either, so you end up pulling speed, and then off the ideal profile...so not efficient either. Basically it was very easy to make changes at any stage in B, but in A the pilots have come up with lots of work arounds..

i see it as designed by engineer, with little pilot input....unless they were tame A ones.

 

[welltravelled]

Certainly not a pilot anyway. In the 380 you can't change the descent speed either, so you end up pulling speed, and then off the ideal profile...so not efficient either. Basically it was very easy to make changes at any stage in B, but in A the pilots have come up with lots of work arounds..

i see it as designed by engineer, with little pilot input....unless they were tame A ones.

Yes, and the French manuals were shipped to China for translation to English!
The Enhanced 330 we can actually change the MN/IAS on descent, even after descent has commenced

And now I have to go and create some work arounds! later

 

[cambriamarsh]

Dear JB, Boris and WT,

Any thoughts on this story from the NZ Herald today:

A pilot saved his passengers with just seven seconds to spare after his plane was struck by lightning and went into a steep dive.
The aircraft fell to just 1,100ft before its commander wrestled back control and applied full power moments with moments to spare before it crashed into the icy North Sea.
The near-disaster occurred as the Loganair flight from Aberdeen, carrying 30 passengers and three crew members, approached its destination at Sumburgh Airport, Shetland.
Passengers aboard the island-hopping Saab 2000 sat in terror as the aircraft ignored the crew's commands to climb - and instead sent itself into a nosedive.
Thunderstorms, snow, hail and 70mph winds meant that the 42-year-old pilot had decided to abort his approach when he was still seven miles away.

An interim report by the Air Accident Investigation Branch said that just moments later, a ball of lightning appeared in the coughpit and a bolt struck its nose, travelling the full length of the plane before leaving at its tail.
But a misunderstanding involving the autopilot system meant that the commander and co-pilot then struggled to regain control of the aircraft as it descended at high speed.
The report said that they wrongly believed the system had disengaged. As the co-pilot declared a Mayday, they aggressively tried to gain height, whilst every move was countered by the autopilot.
The more aggressive his movements on the control column, the less effect it had.
When it reached 4,000ft, the plane suddenly pitched nose down and started falling at 9,500ft a minute, giving the crew barely 20 seconds to act.
At 1,100ft, as "pull up" alarms sounded in the cabin, the captain applied full power and the aircraft finally started to climb.
The plane diverted to Aberdeen where it landed safely, with only minor damage, and shaken passengers disembarked.
The report said the crew may have thought the lighting strike had disabled the autopilot because it had knocked out some of the other controls.
But in fact, it was still operating and trying to adjust in order to fly at the level it has been instructed.
Only when the computers became overloaded with faulty data during the plunge did it disengage itself and give the pilot seconds to save the flight.
After the incident, which occurred on the evening of December 14, passenger Shona Manson said it was only after they landed in Aberdeen, when the shaken captain came out of the coughpit to speak to passengers, that she realised how potentially serious the incident could have been.
"It was really, really bumpy," she said. "If it was someone who's a bad flyer, it'd be their worst nightmare.
"We were on descent and I said to my partner, we're going back up again, and just as we started to go up again there was an almighty bang and a flash that went over the left wing.
"Then we were really ascending, and at that point there were a few folk looking around going 'oh my God, what's happening?' The poor guy across the aisle from me just had eyes like rabbits in headlights."
She said that one Glaswegian man was so shaken that he decided not to get back on the plane the next day and headed home instead.
The AAIB report said: "Although the pilots' actions suggested that they were under the impression the autopilot had disengaged at the moment of the lightning strike, recorded data showed that it had remained engaged."
The report said no technical problems were found with the plane, which is now back in service, and that pilot training now included simulations of this incident.
The AAIB investigation is continuing, looking at crew training, autopilot design, and any "human factors".

cheers