"hand flying" boeing and airbus aircraft......

[brent p h]

Just to get more clarity and insight how difficult is it to operate a large heavily laden airbus or boeing without the automation? I have heard the 767/777 are comparable with a large luxury sedan;but I can't seem to fathom the difference between my LS-430 and a 2-300k lbs airliner with powerful thrust.From my understanding FAA regs/airline specs dictate that hand flying is only permitted below ?10k ft? .could someone please give me an example or some of their experience with this!

 

[DE727UPS]

You can hand fly at any altitude below RVSM altitudes.

They hand fly just fine.

 

[meritflyer]

Hand flying below 10,000 feet? Huh?

Dang, take me to jail. I am guilty.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

As i've gotten older i've changed my position on this. I used to disengage the autopilot and autothrottles on the 737 below 10,000. Now the 737-300/400 isn't exactly a "big" airplane, but it flew nicely -- well, as nicely as a dump-truck with artificial feel can fly. The DC9 handflew beautifully and didn't need any fancy hydraulics or artificial feel. (except for rudder)

Now, that being said, as I've gotten older i've come to realize that the automation flies the airplane a heck of a lot better than I can. And since i'm not paid to get my jollies by moving the controls, but rather as the manager of a complex machine and crew, I tend to let the automation do its job a lot more than some of my peers.

 

[OldTownPilot]

It can even be hand flown across the atlantic. Its been done before. Lets not start an argument like last time

The 757 guys at my dads airline would routinely fly the DUB-SNN leg without an autopilot, It was really the only chance they had. (except when the autopilots crap out on a trans-atlantic crossing)

 

[meritflyer]

As i've gotten older i've changed my position on this. I used to disengage the autopilot and autothrottles on the 737 below 10,000. Now the 737-300/400 isn't exactly a "big" airplane, but it flew nicely -- well, as nicely as a dump-truck with artificial feel can fly. The DC9 handflew beautifully and didn't need any fancy hydraulics or artificial feel. (except for rudder)

Now, that being said, as I've gotten older i've come to realize that the automation flies the airplane a heck of a lot better than I can. And since i'm not paid to get my jollies by moving the controls, but rather as the manager of a complex machine and crew, I tend to let the automation do its job a lot more than some of my peers.

My airline encourages hand flying since the inability of pilots to do so on PC's has become an issue. There was a great article in ALPA's magazine. It essentially said pilots need to learn to manage the automation and use it as a tool rather than let the automation manage them.

I hand fly as much as possible, work load permitting.

 

[brent p h]

As i've gotten older i've changed my position on this. I used to disengage the autopilot and autothrottles on the 737 below 10,000. Now the 737-300/400 isn't exactly a "big" airplane, but it flew nicely -- well, as nicely as a dump-truck with artificial feel can fly. The DC9 handflew beautifully and didn't need any fancy hydraulics or artificial feel. (except for rudder)

Now, that being said, as I've gotten older i've come to realize that the automation flies the airplane a heck of a lot better than I can. And since i'm not paid to get my jollies by moving the controls, but rather as the manager of a complex machine and crew, I tend to let the automation do its job a lot more than some of my peers.

Wow! "A dumptruck with artificial feel" .I can relate too that! I was speaking with a retired female 757/767 captain that equated the "feel" of hand flying the mid sized boeings too more of a caddy=767,and a Corvette=757...personally the largest vehicle that I have operated is a Penske truck! LOL! But yea I think a truck would probably be a more accurate comparison.

 

[NC_BE300]

I spoke to an A320 crew and they mentioned that when on final for example-a gust of wind may pick up the wing, and of course the crew's natural reaction is to put in a correction with the side stick- but the computer should correct already, and then the added input for the turn makes the airplane to continue with the extra input in the correction.

Crew called this: "Stirring the pot".

Do alot of the sidestick airbus planes have this effect? Or did i misunderstand something?

 

[BobDDuck]

You can hand fly at any altitude below RVSM altitudes.

Our book reads you can hand fly any time except LEVEL in RVSM airspace. So in theory we could handfly from takeoff to level off and then put George on.

Do alot of the sidestick airbus planes have this effect? Or did i misunderstand something?

I think all Airbus (except maybe the 300/310 which sometimes has a yoke) have this control logic. Basically (and I simplifying greatly, so all ya'll 'bus drivers don't yell too much) the Airbus flight control logic system works as a big wing leveler. push the stick left or right and it rolls the wings a proportional amount. The stick is then centered and the computer will keep the wings at that bank until you put some other control input in, either more in the same direction or roll the bank out the other way. So, if you have the wings set to "level" on final and the wind picks up a wing, the computer is going to try to bring the wings back to that "level" config they were in before the wind gust.

My understanding anyways.

 

[seagull]

The control law for the Airbus FBW (does not apply to the conventional controlled A300/310), is C*, which is the same law that Boeing, Lockheed and MD use on most of their airplanes. The 777 uses C*U, which is the exact same thing, except that you have to trim it in pitch, for some inane reason.

The control law, in normal law, is a rate command, so a neutral input will hold a constant bank angle (or level), and will automatically correct for any changes in rate. This can lead to a PIO if the pilot is attempting to correct for things when "hand flying".

 

[NC_BE300]

Interesting. Thanks for the posts guys.

 

[brent p h]

The control law for the Airbus FBW (does not apply to the conventional controlled A300/310), is C*, which is the same law that Boeing, Lockheed and MD use on most of their airplanes. The 777 uses C*U, which is the exact same thing, except that you have to trim it in pitch, for some inane reason.

The control law, in normal law, is a rate command, so a neutral input will hold a constant bank angle (or level), and will automatically correct for any changes in rate. This can lead to a PIO if the pilot is attempting to correct for things when "hand flying".

Seagull. You are very well versed in the differentiation on the comparison between airbus and boeing. One could almost deduce that you are a current operator on. The Airbus platform! I have heard that the Airbus automation is quite a bit more "automated" LO L than boeing's ideology. Just for curiosity's sake; (do you personally have any experience with small to medium size boeing's)?

 

[SteveC]

Helpful hints abound!

[/G.P.]

 

[BobDDuck]

Seagull. You are very well versed in the differentiation on the comparison between airbus and boeing. One could almost deduce that you are a current operator on. The Airbus platform! I have heard that the Airbus automation is quite a bit more "automated" LO L than boeing's ideology. Just for curiosity's sake; (do you personally have any experience with small to medium size boeing's)?

Holy crap....


Superfriends Form Of ... JC Grammar Goon Squad!

 

[brent p h]

Holy crap....


Superfriends Form Of ... JC Grammar Goon Squad!

Yea you guys can give me #*+! About the punctuation but I do this forum on my Blackberry for chrissakes! LOL (with one hand all the while yelling at my secretary via speakerphone)! So take that! LOL! Please excuse the errors I do know better I just have Paul Bunyon size fingers! LOL!

 

[SteveC]

"Preview Post" is our friend.

 

[B767Driver]

Just to get more clarity and insight how difficult is it to operate a large heavily laden airbus or boeing without the automation? I have heard the 767/777 are comparable with a large luxury sedan;but I can't seem to fathom the difference between my LS-430 and a 2-300k lbs airliner with powerful thrust.From my understanding FAA regs/airline specs dictate that hand flying is only permitted below ?10k ft? .could someone please give me an example or some of their experience with this!

It's hard to believe...but you fly the 757/767 with your fingertips and trim. More so with the 767. It has two pairs of hydraulically powered ailerons on each wing. Any abrupt control inputs into the machine and it will bite back.

Heavy handedness during gusty conditions on landing will intitate a PIO that will scare the folks in back.

So basically, a soft touch to guide the machine along, lots of anticipatory control inputs for manuevers and you'll get along with the airplane just fine.


So the 767 gets the "luxury" car tag because it has a big flight deck and a great ride...but you have to use caution while maneuvering because of the PIO tendencies.

The 757 you can yank and bank without the PIO feedback. So it get the "sports" car tag because you can be a little more aggressive while maneuvering.

From the standpoint of performance...they are both great...lots of power.

The 767 at domestic weights is just plain awesome. I"ve seen 5000 to 6000 fpm climb rates in the FL's.

 

[brent p h]

It's hard to believe...but you fly the 757/767 with your fingertips and trim. More so with the 767. It has two pairs of hydraulically powered ailerons on each wing. Any abrupt control inputs into the machine and it will bite back.

Heavy handedness during gusty conditions on landing will intitate a PIO that will scare the folks in back.

So basically, a soft touch to guide the machine along, lots of anticipatory control inputs for manuevers and you'll get along with the airplane just fine.


So the 767 gets the "luxury" car tag because it has a big flight deck and a great ride...but you have to use caution while maneuvering because of the PIO tendencies.

The 757 you can yank and bank without the PIO feedback. So it get the "sports" car tag because you can be a little more aggressive while maneuvering.

From the standpoint of performance...they are both great...lots of power.

The 767 at domestic weights is just plain awesome. I"ve seen 5000 to 6000 fpm climb rates in the FL's.

5-6000 fpm at FL? Holy crotch rocket batman! LOL! That's very impressive for a large boeing!

 

[seagull]

Seagull. You are very well versed in the differentiation on the comparison between airbus and boeing. One could almost deduce that you are a current operator on. The Airbus platform! I have heard that the Airbus automation is quite a bit more "automated" LO L than boeing's ideology. Just for curiosity's sake; (do you personally have any experience with small to medium size boeing's)?

The smallest jet I have been trained and have flown is a B727, the largest is the 747. I did fly a Lear, but it was Calspan's for upset recovery training. I have flown several Douglas/MD products. I have never been trained or flown any Airbus products, but am somewhat familiar with FBW and the degree of automation.

Airbus is not much more automated than Boeing. They incorporate more "hard" limits to prevent pilots from losing control of the aircraft than Boeing does -- the latter against the recommendations of the entire Industry. Actually, Boeing's Safety Engineers said that Boeing was going to incorporate Airbus style limits in future designs. I do not know if they followed through, though.

In terms of automation, it can be summed up in a fairly basic way:

Boeing: Alert light comes on, you pull out a checklist and follow it to address the problem;

Airbus: Alert light comes on, ECAM displays checklist items to accomplish to address the problem, the system is aware as each item is accomplished and lets the crew know if something is missed;

MD11: Alert light comes on. System knows what needs to be accomplished, and the auto controller just performs the items. Crew is alerted that the items have been accomplished and the outcome of that, plus any consequences of the failure.

5-6000 fpm at FL? Holy crotch rocket batman! LOL! That's very impressive for a large boeing!)?

Not really, especially for a twin. Twin's are way over powered (compared to tri's or quads) with both engines running, as they need to meet min performance specs with the loss of half of their power, as opposed to just a quarter or third. Also, any of the jets will climb pretty well when light with all the engines running.