B787-9

AAPalmTree said:
It's not a issue of being outgunned. This discussion (which I find very interesting) started by debating how the movement of thrust levers could have helped the AF296 pilots. The FO was manually manipulating the thrust. He knew where the thrust levers were. That's where Typhoon pilot was wrong.
Click to expand...

When the first officer in this crash purportedly moved the thrust levers where did he move them from and to?

There seems to be a lot of controversy in what state the engines were in. You say there was "no spool" on the engines. Were they in flight idle or approach idle prior to the thrust being moved up? Wouldn't they be in approach idle with gear down and flaps in a landing configuration? They would be in a Boeing, and if that is the case, would they not respond faster if the thrust levers were moved forward? In a Boeing there is no mistaking where to move them to for a Go-Around.

AAPalmTree said:
I also know (although a Boeing would never go there purposefully) if a Boeing was that close to the a-max or critical AOA with no spool on the engines and the pilot pulled back on the yoke... It would stall. That's where I also think TP is wrong.
Click to expand...

I never said a Boeing would not stall in that condition. What I said is it would never intentionally be put in that condition. From above, with gear down and flaps in a landing position, it would be in approach idle, not flight idle so there would be "spool" on the engines. Further, in a Boeing I believe you have a lot more feedback as to the energy state off the aircraft via the need to trim for airspeed, the position of the yoke in your hands, and the position of the thrust levers ( also hopefully in your hands at that low of an altitude ). Which all adds up to being able to react faster and with more certainty to a developing situation. Just a few seconds faster that might have made a difference in the AF 296 accident.

Have you flown any jets other than an Airbus?



Typhoonpilot
 
Only difference between Boeing and Airbus design philosophies I've ever experienced are the following:

Airbus: Start a new project, no one knows anything but they pretend they do and become irrational and nearly foam at the mouth when told something won't work. Often you will hear repeating phrases like, "This is important you listen," or "This is important because it's important," or "Don't joke around, this is serious!" After it doesn't work that idiot won't be on the phone anymore but his clone will and you will repeat the process over and over again until the plane is flying. Only break in the cycle is the 2 months in the summer when the whole place shuts down for vacation time with the kids.

Boeing: Start a new project, no one knows anything and they don't pretend to. They take a couple classes on said problem, taught by experts, and suddenly the Boeing guys know everything- more than the experts. After being told something won't work, the Boeing fan club of engineers guzzle management cool-aid who says something like, "We just gotta work hard and innovate and make the impossible possible!" Months later the impossible is still impossible but like a George Orwellian nightmare the entire engineer core forgets the past and moves onto the experts fix and claim they were moving that way all the time. There are no breaks - ever - and those who haven't died from stress are thanked by watching the airplane fly at Boeing field on Saturday, followed by sandwiches in the museum, and told to get back to work tomorrow early because they are already behind on the next project.
 
TP,
A few things.. There is much more controversy than just the state of the engines. There is missing time on the FDR/CVR in the crash. The black boxes brought to the trial were not the boxes from the accident. I believe there is a lot more to that crash than we know.

It's impossible for me to tell where the thrust was if it was in manual mode. I'm not sure what you mean by there is no question where to move the thrust levers for a go around. There has never been any question where to put them on a go around in any jet I have flown.

I full heartedly agree with you on the feel. I wish airbus had tactial feedback on the side stick and pitch trim.

The airbus is the sixth jet type I have been on (no Boeing). Have you been on the airbus?

Good discussion.
 
AAPalmTree said:
TP,
A few things.. There is much more controversy than just the state of the engines. There is missing time on the FDR/CVR in the crash. The black boxes brought to the trial were not the boxes from the accident. I believe there is a lot more to that crash than we know.

It's impossible for me to tell where the thrust was if it was in manual mode. I'm not sure what you mean by there is no question where to move the thrust levers for a go around. There has never been any question where to put them on a go around in any jet I have flown.

I full heartedly agree with you on the feel. I wish airbus had tactial feedback on the side stick and pitch trim.

The airbus is the sixth jet type I have been on (no Boeing). Have you been on the airbus?

Good discussion.
Click to expand...

It is a good discussion and I have learned a few things from this. I am aware of the controversy on the FDR/CVR. Sort of a conspiracy theory going on there.

For FBW Airbus I have flown the A330 sim a little, but not in line operations.

What I meant by knowing where the thrust lever position is basically is there are pretty hard detents in the Airbus, correct. I vaguely remember something about the F.O. placing the thrust in the Flex detent and not all the way to TOGA. It just seems to be there is a lot of room for error in and misunderstanding in that design. In a Boeing you get the thrust based on the thrust lever position, never anything different. So there is far less possibility of a mistake being made based on lack of understanding on mode/detent/position of the thrust levers. If you want TOGA or full thrust you just press the TOGA switches or push them full forward.


TP
 
typhoonpilot said:
It is a good discussion and I have learned a few things from this. I am aware of the controversy on the FDR/CVR. Sort of a conspiracy theory going on there.

For FBW Airbus I have flown the A330 sim a little, but not in line operations.

What I meant by knowing where the thrust lever position is basically is there are pretty hard detents in the Airbus, correct. I vaguely remember something about the F.O. placing the thrust in the Flex detent and not all the way to TOGA. It just seems to be there is a lot of room for error in and misunderstanding in that design. In a Boeing you get the thrust based on the thrust lever position, never anything different. So there is far less possibility of a mistake being made based on lack of understanding on mode/detent/position of the thrust levers. If you want TOGA or full thrust you just press the TOGA switches or push them full forward.


TP
Click to expand...

I am learning things as well. Question for you.. If authothrust is off and the Boeing is in approach mode/phase will thrust levers in idle give you approach or flight idle?

If that was a question: yes, there are hard detents. Not to open a can of worms (and support your case) not selecting/achieving toga has been issues elsewhere as well.
 
AAPalmTree said:
I am learning things as well. Question for you.. If authothrust is off and the Boeing is in approach mode/phase will thrust levers in idle give you approach or flight idle?

If that was a question: yes, there are hard detents. Not to open a can of worms (and support your case) not selecting/achieving toga has been issues elsewhere as well.
Click to expand...



Oh, I like opening cans of worms :D

How about if one thrust reverser is MELed and not pulled into the reverse thrust detent after touchdown?

In regards to the Boeing. Does not matter what phase of flight or autothrottle mode. If the flaps are in a landing configuration (B777) or in the B787 ( flaps in landing configuration or gear down ) the thrust will go to approach idle. There are other times it will as well, engine anti-ice on while airborne for instance.


TP
 
typhoonpilot said:
Oh, I like opening cans of worms :D

How about if one thrust reverser is MELed and not pulled into the reverse thrust detent after touchdown?


TP
Click to expand...

If you are talking about TAM... Those guys earned that accident. Who could possibly think it would be wise to leave an engine in the climb detent after landing? The plane is automated... But not that automated.

The flight crew has to be on top of aircraft management. Boeing, Airbus or Cub. Outside those parameters is anyone's guess. I enjoy the airbus and think its an extremely safe aircraft if managed correctly. I am looking forward to flying the Boeing. (TP is probably thinking that's when I'll come to my senses :))
 
AAPalmTree said:
If you are talking about TAM... Those guys earned that accident. Who could possibly think it would be wise to leave an engine in the climb detent after landing? The plane is automated... But not that automated.
Click to expand...

Yes, TAM and a few others apparently:

"The pilots had only retarded the left engine to idle because they thought that without thrust reverser, the right engine did not need to be retarded as well. Airbus autothrust logic dictates that when one or more of the thrust levers is pulled to the idle position, the autothrust is automatically disengaged. Thus, when the pilot pulled the left engine thrust lever to idle it disconnected the autothrust system. Since the right engine thrust lever was still in the "climb" detent, the right engine accelerated to climb power while the left engine deployed its thrust reverser. The resulting asymmetric thrust condition resulted in a loss of control and a crash ensued."

Again, something that would not happen under Boeing's philosophy. A Boeing lands with the thrust levers at idle, whether they retard automatically with autothrottle engaged or the pilot pulls them back manually. A pilot would clearly see if the thrust levers were not at, or near, idle and position them properly. No surprises as to what the commanded engine thrust will do that way.

Glad you'll have the chance to fly the B777. I guarantee you'll like it.


TP
 
AAPalmTree said:
No problem! No offense taken.
I grew up in Seattle and I fly an Airbus... I am probably laughed at behind my back on a regular basis.
Click to expand...
That would be a ridiculous reason to laugh at somebody for. Now, if you've got a phone clip on your belt........:)
 
tonyw said:
I see that if I was to have gotten into aviation, I'd have to deal with an Airbus/Boeing fanboi contest as bad as anything you get between Android and iOS.

They're airplanes, guys. You fly them from point a to point b and get paid to do it. Sometimes there's people in the back, sometimes there are boxes in the back.

Ain't no reason to get all "oh yeah, well, the airplane manufacturer I'm a fanboi of is better and if you don't agree you're stupid" about it.
Click to expand...
Their is nothing fanboi about In-n-out, however. That IS the standard.
 
typhoonpilot said:
One of the major problems with the Asiana crash is the pilot flying was coming off of an Airbus. He had lost the ability to be aware of tactile cues because he was used to the non-moving thrust levers in the Airbus. He clearly lost, or never had, more airmanship skills than that since he did not even scan his airspeed indication properly.

I could not disagree more in the assertion that a Boeing would have been flown into the trees doing a low pass the same way the A320 was.

Here is what they were attempting to do:

"The Captain would slow the aircraft to its minimum flying speed with maximum angle of attack (nose-up attitude), disable the "Alpha Floor" (the function that would otherwise automatically increase engine thrust when the angle of attack reached 15°) and rely on the First Officer to adjust the engine thrust manually to maintain 100 feet."

The Boeing doesn't have "Alpha Floor" protections so you wouldn't have anything to disable. Nor would you try to do a maximum angle of attack pass relying on automation to prevent a stall. It just wouldn't happen in a Boeing. They might do a low pass at low speed, but it would be flown by pilots using much more conservative techniques. Back when that accident happened the Airbus mantra was basically, "you can pull the stick all the way back and it will never stall". That never has been, nor ever will be the mantra in a Boeing.

Airbus's design philosophy, and resultant decrease in piloting skills, has led to many accidents and AF296 was one of the first in that vain.


Typhoonpilot
Click to expand...

Your understanding of disabling alpha floor is incorrect and of the incident overall. All they did was fly below 100 feet. They were utilizing manual thrust, so the thrust levers were moving. Given the spool time, they were obviously well behind the curve in their hot dogging. The protection of alpha floor is nearly identical in design to autothrottle wakeup. They flew too low and too slow, waited too late and literally pulled back into the equivalent of a stick pusher.

I've got lots of hours in both. Boeing builds great airplanes. Airbus builds great airplanes. You can "turn it all off" and be a pilot in either. You can become a slave to automation in either.

The rest is as asinine as a Ford/Chevy argument.

Oh, and that 789 demo was freaking fantastic!
 
Maximillian_Jenius said:
Actually hamburgers are German. Hamburg. Duh! ;)

But then you knew that! :)
Click to expand...

Not if it's got American Beef!
BeefUSAlogo.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top