Ask The Pilot

[TomVexille]

What's the reason for HBA not using aerobridges....

Privatisation

 

[RooFlyer]

What's the reason for HBA not using aerobridges....

The owners don’t want to spend the capital cost and the ongoing operating cost when the peasants have been used to walking across the apron in the wind in the rain for decades.

 

[JessicaTam]

[mod hat]
A reminder that this thread is specifically for pilots to answer questions. Not general discussion.
[/mod hat]

 

[RSD]

As a kid (mid 1970's - early 1980's) in the pre-aerobridge era I remember walking from the terminal across the tarmac to the aircraft steps in Singapore, KL, Auckland, Wellington, Hong Kong (Kai Tak), Papeete, etc.

Walking across to the plane from the terminal was always a delight in Cairo in the early 90's... in the midday sun... in the middle of summer!

@jb747 - what things did we get wrong with the A380? It would be interesting to get some feedback from someone who has obviously used what we created.

 

[jb747]

@jb747 - what things did we get wrong with the A380? It would be interesting to get some feedback from someone who has obviously used what we created.

The 380 is now a relatively old aircraft in terms of systems, but overall it was well thought out. In particular the way the flight controls worked with a mix of hydraulic and electric actuation was very impressive (and safe). Some systems that should have been simple (like the chillers) seemed to be designed in hell, but I expect that was a lesson learnt.

One thing that always bugged me (and I expect it's across all Airbus) is the way the flight controls behaved in the flare. At 100' it would switch to 'flare law', which was basically direct law in pitch, but it remained in normal law in roll. The upshot of that was that whilst you could get nice linear pitch control, making small roll corrections was difficult, with it seemingly giving a minimum change of about 2º. I'd have preferred it to be in direct for roll too. This is relevant to landings in crosswinds, especially.

 

[AviatorInsight]

One thing that always bugged me (and I expect it's across all Airbus) is the way the flight controls behaved in the flare. At 100' it would switch to 'flare law', which was basically direct law in pitch, but it remained in normal law in roll. The upshot of that was that whilst you could get nice linear pitch control, making small roll corrections was difficult, with it seemingly giving a minimum change of about 2º. I'd have preferred it to be in direct for roll too. This is relevant to landings in crosswinds, especially.

Is this why you see the “stirring of the pot”?

 

[jb747]

Is this why you see the “stirring of the pot”?

No. That's actually something you see on Boeing videos too. Basically putting an input in, but either not giving the aircraft a chance to actually react, or getting out of phase with the required inputs. The longer the wing, the more of an issue the apparent delay in any roll response becomes.

Airbus pilots who stir the stick haven't taken on the concept of moving it, and then letting go. It will make all those little changes necessary to maintain a profile all by itself, if you give it a chance to do so. Stirring the stick means you continually change the targets you're giving the aircraft.

Once you get very low, it stops holding the attitude by itself and starts giving a control response that equates to a non FBW aircraft, which you really need for a manual flare. But, it only changes mode in pitch, which means that any roll inputs are still handled by normal law. That means than any roll of less than 2º will be cancelled out, if you give it the chance to do so. So that little tweak of bank in a crosswind landing has to be greater than 2º. It makes roll inputs feel granular.