Airbus Safety Officer on Reliance on Automation

With all due respect, I disagree. I'll always advocate a purely mechanical bottom line, because stuff always ends up not working. As complicated as these systems are becoming they are more prone to failure in my opinion. Murphy is a jerk, but his law somehow has persisted and been proven.

I think we've seen our last "pure mechanical" aircraft and I'm afraid those days aren't going to return for those same reasons plus economics.

If you look at the Airbus fly-by-wire system, there's actually more redundancy than a standard "cables and pulleys" airplane by far.
 
With all due respect, I disagree. I'll always advocate a purely mechanical bottom line, because stuff always ends up not working. As complicated as these systems are becoming they are more prone to failure in my opinion. Murphy is a jerk, but his law somehow has persisted and been proven.
Manual reversion is an iffy proposition. For instance: The Brasilia yoke is the size and shape it is because, if they had used a conventional yoke instead of ram's horns, roll control forces would have exceeded the certification limits, and this was on a 26,000lb turboprop with a Vmo of 272 knots (.56 Mach, Mmo). I would rather have a third hydraulic system. (I don't remember enough about the -145 to comment precisely about what my experience in sim with manual reversion was like, but I remember being tired.)

Oh wait, I do (EMB-175), and so do they (le Bus). Everything is fly-by-wire on my airplane except, for inexplicable reasons, the ailerons; the airplane is only sort of capable of overriding a pilot input; and the fly by wire gives us some neat features that makes the airplane REALLY easy to fly.

I'm inclined to agree with @ATN_Pilot on it. What is left unsaid is that the major handling errors that have happened in Airbus airplanes recently have all happened at an altitude and speed regime where full time use of the autopilot is required (RVSM). Due to a loss of trim indication the other day, I got to hand-fly the BroBus at 37,000'; even with fly-by-wire, handling up there is not the same as at speeds and altitudes down low. I kept it well within PTS, but it rapidly becomes a boring exercise that really is best relegated to Otto.

I have some empathy for the Air Fronzz 447 crew. They were placed into a situation that they were not adequately prepared for, with confusing/mutually exclusive warnings going off, at night, IMC, in a flight control configuration that is rarely seen outside of the simulator (and maybe not even done at recurrent - and even then probably not done at that altitude and speed), the Captain was in the bunk, and so on. And they had a DOWNRIGHT LOUSY human-computer interface to boot, that masked what one pilot was doing while the other was doing the Right Thing. I feel like the industry failed them just as much as they failed us.
 
I don't mind the automation, it's more efficient. I'd prefer the people in the pointy end have some capability to influence the situation in the rare but inevitable situation that every system has failed. I'm not a luddite, trust but verify.
 
I don't think there is any increased chance of failure with fly by wire over cables. My problem with the plastic french airplanes is that they aren't just fly by wire, they're programmed with these different "laws" that behave differently than a real airplane behaves.

Think of protections and stabilities. There's not really much, if anything, you'd really want to do in a non-FBW aircraft that the Airbus, in Normal Law, will restrict you from doing. You can make it do all sorts of crazy things you'd never really want to do, but it will attempt to protect you.
 
I don't mind the automation, it's more efficient. I'd prefer the people in the pointy end have some capability to influence the situation in the rare but inevitable situation that every system has failed. I'm not a luddite, trust but verify.

If every system has failed, you have mechanical backup in an Airbus. It's not pretty, but it's there.
 
I don't mind the automation, it's more efficient. I'd prefer the people in the pointy end have some capability to influence the situation in the rare but inevitable situation that every system has failed. I'm not a luddite, trust but verify.
It's not hard to put the Bus out of Normal and into Alternate, should the need arise. If memory serves, that procedure is a memory item now, due to an emergency AD regarding one of the flight envelope protections misbehaving.
 
It's not hard to put the Bus out of Normal and into Alternate, should the need arise. If memory serves, that procedure is a memory item now, due to an emergency AD regarding one of the flight envelope protections misbehaving.

Two ADR's off, leave one on. Voila. Push buttons, not the twisties.

It's a new memory action for us now.
 
Two ADR's off, leave one on. Voila. Push buttons, not the twisties.

It's a new memory action for us now.
Mine's even easier - I have three red-guarded pushbuttons labeled "FLIGHT CONTROLS MODE - ELEVATOR - SPOILER - RUDDER." Suddenly, it's an airplane again.
 
Mine's even easier - I have three red-guarded pushbuttons labeled "FLIGHT CONTROLS MODE - ELEVATOR - SPOILER - RUDDER." Suddenly, it's an airplane again.

Yup, wishing that we'll continue to build hydromechanical airplanes is like hoping that the new MacBook Pro will have a floppy disk drive.
 
At WotGNW, we do a half day at Ops for GS, then 3 days in the sim for AQP. Day 1 is instructor time, Day 2 is MV, Day 3 is LOE. I dig it
 
I watch the airplanes taxi out and try to convince myself that I've done everything I can to ensure that the guys up front won't have any suprises. If the fecal matter hits the spinny thing I want those guys to be able to control the airplane, regardless of engines, hydraulics or electrical systems. My opinion isn't popular and I don't care. Let Pilots pilot.
 
Derg said:
Think of protections and stabilities. There's not really much, if anything, you'd really want to do in a non-FBW aircraft that the Airbus, in Normal Law, will restrict you from doing. You can make it do all sorts of crazy things you'd never really want to do, but it will attempt to protect you.

When one stick moves, the other doesn't. When the thrust is being adjusted, the throttles don't move. Sorry, but you're never getting me past those items. They should be prohibited by Part 25. Completely nuts.
 
Last edited:
I derive intense satisfaction from doing that, and blanking the FMA, on clear days.

Incidentally, I'm told our new SOPM states that we are to use the autothrottles the whole time. :confused:

We use them the whole time as well, but if I'm seeing OVRD a ton, I don't mind hearing "THROTTLE THROTTLE" :)

"click-click" "click-click" Fly the airplane!
 
When one stick moves, the other doesn't. When the thrust is being adjusted, the throttles don't move. Sorry, but you're never getting me passed those items. They should be prohibited by Part 25. Completely nuts.

That's cool. My only interest is bridging the gap between what people think the Airbus design and control philosophy is and what it actually is.

No desire to convince anyone of anything because it wouldn't be the most efficient use of time.
 
I'm inclined to agree with @ATN_Pilot on it. What is left unsaid is that the major handling errors that have happened in Airbus airplanes recently have all happened at an altitude and speed regime where full time use of the autopilot is required (RVSM). Due to a loss of trim indication the other day, I got to hand-fly the BroBus at 37,000'; even with fly-by-wire, handling up there is not the same as at speeds and altitudes down low. I kept it well within PTS, but it rapidly becomes a boring exercise that really is best relegated to Otto.

.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but autopilots aren't required to be on in RVSM, they just have to be operable (not MELed), correct? Maybe your company requires it, but I'm fairly sure that's not universal.

I'll dig into our books in a bit to check our procedures.
 
When one stick moves, the other doesn't. When the thrust is being adjusted, the throttles don't move. Sorry, but you're never getting me passed those items. They should be prohibited by Part 25. Completely nuts.


In case you missed it, Gulfstream is finally the first commercial manufacturer to do what needed to be done with the sidesticks:

Gulfstream achieves another flight deck breakthrough with the Symmetry Flight Deck™. As business aviation’s leading innovator, Gulfstream debuts two revolutionary technologies in the all-new Gulfstream G500. The immersive, intelligent integration of the new flight systems enhances efficiency and further improves safety.

Active control sidesticks replace the control columns, creating more space and better comfort for pilots. The sidesticks are digitally linked to provide the same response and control of a traditional pedestal-mounted yoke to ensure that both pilots see and feel every maneuver and control input the other pilot makes.

Ten integrated touch screens eliminate the majority of flight deck switches to reduce workload and improve how pilots interact with onboard systems. Using Gulfstream’s immersive Phase-of-Flight™ intelligence, the touch screens display a structured task list and selection options needed for a specific phase of flight.


Maybe Airbus will follow suit with future models.


Typhoonpilot
 
Back
Top