U.S. Air Aborted Takeoff PHL

HRDiva said:
My husband was screaming at the TV as the consumer reporter, who is an ex-FA and portrayed as an aviation expert, was proclaiming that it is a 737 and they should have dumped fuel!
Click to expand...

If I would have watched that report I would have been screaming right a long with him.....
 
Pilot Fighter said:
Caught me at my laptop.
hindenberg.jpg
Click to expand...

Your photo made it to the "• pilots say" Facebook page.
 
Airbus peeps (@Derg @Cruise @Kingairer (I think you got the bus?) @Seggy (hahah! BoeingFanBoiWhoUsedToDriveABus) under normal law is the rotation pitch limited to prevent the tail from striking? I know in the 321 it is very easy to do (as every single one I've ever jumpseated on has a big placard that says as much) but does the computer at least attempt to limit the possibility either by limiting pitch or rate of pitch during rotation?
 
BobDDuck said:
Airbus peeps (@Derg @Cruise @Kingairer (I think you got the bus?) @Seggy (hahah! BoeingFanBoiWhoUsedToDriveABus) under normal law is the rotation pitch limited to prevent the tail from striking? I know in the 321 it is very easy to do (as every single one I've ever jumpseated on has a big placard that says as much) but does the computer at least attempt to limit the possibility either by limiting pitch or rate of pitch during rotation?
Click to expand...


I forget.
 
BobDDuck said:
Airbus peeps (@Derg @Cruise @Kingairer (I think you got the bus?) @Seggy (hahah! BoeingFanBoiWhoUsedToDriveABus) under normal law is the rotation pitch limited to prevent the tail from striking? I know in the 321 it is very easy to do (as every single one I've ever jumpseated on has a big placard that says as much) but does the computer at least attempt to limit the possibility either by limiting pitch or rate of pitch during rotation?
Click to expand...
He's asleep, but you didn't ask him so I won't wake him. :)
 
Last edited:
BobDDuck said:
Airbus peeps (@Derg @Cruise @Kingairer (I think you got the bus?) @Seggy (hahah! BoeingFanBoiWhoUsedToDriveABus) under normal law is the rotation pitch limited to prevent the tail from striking? I know in the 321 it is very easy to do (as every single one I've ever jumpseated on has a big placard that says as much) but does the computer at least attempt to limit the possibility either by limiting pitch or rate of pitch during rotation?
Click to expand...

I really don't think so. It "may" but we really focus on rate at that point.

During takeoff, the plane is really in a "blended" mode where it's direct law initially and then as it lifts off, it blends into normal law (flight mode).

The plane will do whatever you tell it to do during the early phases of takeoff, but as you start the initial climb, it goes from a direct relationship with the control surfaces into a roll "rate" and load "request" (pitch).

Strangely, The Taller Derg (@Autothrust Blue) probably has a more scientific explanation than most of us.
 
Derg said:
I really don't think so. It "may" but we really focus on rate at that point.

During takeoff, the plane is really in a "blended" mode where it's direct law initially and then as it lifts off, it blends into normal law (flight mode).

The plane will do whatever you tell it to do during the early phases of takeoff, but as you start the initial climb, it goes from a direct relationship with the control surfaces into a roll "rate" and load "request" (pitch).

Strangely, The Taller Derg (@Autothrust Blue) probably has a more scientific explanation than most of us.
Click to expand...
"Shortly after takeoff" - which is condescending French engineer for "that's not really that important, pilot, pay attention to the shiny pictures." ;)

But yes, you have direct (as in, the movement of the stick is proportional to the deflection of the surface) control of the flight controls on the ground; the load factor order/roll rate order is purely a Normal Law, not-on-ground thing. The transition happens "shortly after takeoff" - with full pitch control transition to normal law taking "about" five seconds. (Roll control is quicker to transition.)

With respect to what @BobDDuck asked, the long A340s (-600) do have a pitch protection, both in terms of an addition to the crew's pitch order and displaying a limit indicator below 400' RA. The thing will holler "PITCH - PITCH" below 14' RA on approach and landing, too, if the pitch attitude becomes excessive; a pitch demand is also added based on rotation rate to help prevent a tailstrike. I don't think there's a similar "derp prevention" feature on the shorter busses, but it's been a long while since my software engineering and human interface classes.
 
BobDDuck said:
Airbus peeps (@Derg @Cruise @Kingairer (I think you got the bus?) @Seggy (hahah! BoeingFanBoiWhoUsedToDriveABus) under normal law is the rotation pitch limited to prevent the tail from striking? I know in the 321 it is very easy to do (as every single one I've ever jumpseated on has a big placard that says as much) but does the computer at least attempt to limit the possibility either by limiting pitch or rate of pitch during rotation?
Click to expand...

Nope... just like any other airplane. When heavy, I use the exact same technique as on the Boeings and rotate to 7.5ish degrees until unstick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top