For the Pros - A/P Utilization

[seagull]

Doug

Clean min maneuver speed at max TOGW is 289kts indicated, so that is what we are doing until 10000, where we accelerate to 355 indicated to cruise mach for our normal econ climb.

The MD-11 is the most challenging due to the high operating speeds and the weight. Large widebodies have a challenging aspect due to the high inertia, geometry and cockpit height. The -11 is faster than the 747 in approach and departure. Handling qualities have been improved in it. It is also the most automated commercial transport flying, bar none -- a distinction that doesn't appear likely to be changed anytime soon.

Adding to that, at my company we operate a truly global system with more international destinations than any other airline on the planet, so that adds to the workload, even though not aircraft specific.

It is made

 

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
Doug

Clean min maneuver speed at max TOGW is 289kts indicated, so that is what we are doing until 10000, where we accelerate to 355 indicated to cruise mach for our normal econ climb.

The MD-11 is the most challenging due to the high operating speeds and the weight. Large widebodies have a challenging aspect due to the high inertia, geometry and cockpit height. The -11 is faster than the 747 in approach and departure. Handling qualities have been improved in it. It is also the most automated commercial transport flying, bar none -- a distinction that doesn't appear likely to be changed anytime soon.

Adding to that, at my company we operate a truly global system with more international destinations than any other airline on the planet, so that adds to the workload, even though not aircraft specific.

It is made

[/ QUOTE ]

Why was the MD-11 not so popular in pax service? Only one I'd seen in pax was a World MD-11 I rode on.

 

[mtsu_av8er]

[ QUOTE ]
Why was the MD-11 not so popular in pax service? Only one I'd seen in pax was a World MD-11 I rode on.

[/ QUOTE ]

HAs anyone in the military NOT rode on a World MD-11??

 

[derg]

We had about 15 at Delta, but it didn't match the performance that we wanted it to have apparently.

Perhaps if Clint Van Hoy (The ALO that covers the military page) could chime in, he flew it for Delta before we retired the fleet.

I guess if you just fly pax, it's alright, if you just fly freight, it does well, but if you're doing the typical passenger-airline mission where you've got a boatload of pax and a boatload of freight, it doesn't perform as well as they'd have liked it to.

Plus, there were lots of guys having to "land short" in the CONUS before continuing across the pacific to China from Atlanta.

 

[Maximilian_Jenius]

[ QUOTE ]




Flaps 30 or 40 with the gear NOT down will give you a very loud, unsilenceable, warning horn to be followed later with the voice saying "to low, flaps"....neither warning is considered good form....

[/ QUOTE ]


Well it could have in fact flaps 25 or something. How knows those triple slotted fowlers are so huge I never really know what setting there at.

But I figured that they were at 40 degree's cause the PF never adjusted there settings anymore after that and shortly after that we touched down in CVG.

Who knows maybe we had a strong headwind that day coming into CVG and there was no need for a full flap setting.


Matthew

 

[A300Capt]

[ QUOTE ]
It is also the most automated commercial transport flying, bar none -- a distinction that doesn't appear likely to be changed anytime soon.


[/ QUOTE ]

Seagull,

You've peaked my curiosity about this statement. I, like you, have an extensive background in automated, glass cockpits. I've been on our MD11 jumpseat a few times and while it's a very nice aircraft and I hope to fly it one day, I'm having a hard time believing it's more automated than a 744, A330/340 aircraft.

Care to expound on this?

 

[derg]

Might be all of tha strange fuel migration that goes on in flight?!

 

[seagull]

The MD-11's problem was mroe due to the Boeing marketing pushing the 777 directly on the public than anything else. The MD-11 has a higher payload capacity than the 777, but not as much range.

A300, the MD-11 systems are more automated. AvWeek outlined it fairly well a while back. Essentially, the MD-11 systems will normally run themselves completely, handling virtually all malfunctions and just letting the crew know what happened. There was some discussion on this when I was in Toulouse for the A-380 presentation, and AI stated that they felt the MD-11 went too far in that regard, while the Boeing products don't go far enough, so their place was more in the middle. Whether that was for actual operational reasons or just to keep commonality with the other newer AI aircraft, I don't know, but I think (based on the Boeing philosophy of even less automation than AI) that we've seen a peak with the MD-11 -- at least for now.

In a nutshell, you can summarize the difference like this (following borrowed from John Miller, project pilot MD-11 for MD):

Boeing = light comes on, pilot pulls out checklist to fix it.

Airbus = light comes on, aircraft displays checklist and shows you what has been accomplished as you run the checklist..

MD= light comes on, (British accent here) "well, if it can know enough to show what needs to be done and if it's accomplished, why not just have the bloody thing do it, and tell you when it's finished, if it can't get it done, it'll tell you that too."

 

[C650CPT]

Tower Air 747

 

[A300Capt]

Thanks Seagull.

I like the idea of problems fix'n themselves automatically without my intervention!

The Scarebus displays checklist on the ECAM screen which takes precedence over the QRH as the ECAM is more problem specific. That is one item I do prefer over the B75/76. I hear the new generation Boeings (B777/B744) incorporate normal/non-normal checklists on the EICAS screens much like the Airbuses. Unfortunately, I seem to need it alot more on the A300 than I ever did on the Boeings.

Doug,

The A300's auto-fuel system also migrates fuel around to the tail in order to optimize the CG much like the MD11's system. I suppose it's all accomplished using gerbils, magic dust and mirrors since it seems to have a mind of it's own at times.

 

[seagull]

A300

Yes, the Airbus displays the checklist and also shows what has been accomplished. The Douglas thinking was that if it knows all that, why not just go the next step and have it actually accomplish the stuff? That it does, and usually it is done so fast that all you notice is the message that something is inop as a "level 1" (informational) alert. Obviously, there could be consequences to what ever failed, for example, if it shuts down a hydraulic system or a generator, and it displays those consequences. All that remains is, when you have a chance, going to a written checklist and just putting the switches to agree with the new valve (or what ever) position, so they match, but the stuff has already been accomplished, and many times you don't even have to do anything as the push switches already show it done.

 

[Ecl!pse]

A300 Capt., I have a question...

Say you had an inflight emergency, and you had to hand fly the rest of the flight...how easy is it to fly with the side-stick, opposed to the wheel/stick?


and back to the A/P utilization, in an Airbus aircraft, do you usually use autoland, or hand fly?

Thanks!

 

[N9103M]

[ QUOTE ]
A300 Capt., I have a question...

Say you had an inflight emergency, and you had to hand fly the rest of the flight...how easy is it to fly with the side-stick, opposed to the wheel/stick?


and back to the A/P utilization, in an Airbus aircraft, do you usually use autoland, or hand fly?

Thanks!

[/ QUOTE ]

The A300/310 uses a conventional Yoke setup....

UPS A-300-600R Cockpit

The A320 series and up uses the sidestick setup...

Air France A-320 Cockpit

 

[seagull]

Also, the FBW control is almost like an A/P anyway, so it would make it easier in that airplane, unless the failure were so severe as to take it down to direct law, in which case a divert would be the plan!

The control stick in the AI (same with the 777 with a minor difference) uses a control law called C* (777 is C*U), and it is essentially a rate controller. An input = a certain amount of rate of change in the given axis. Different than the conventional setup where the control input is moving the surface a set amount (although that is diluted in large aircraft by FCCs which can also make it a bit more like C*).

Incidentally, the MD-11 is sort of a hybrid, in that in pitch it always has computer input, and the A/P uses FBW control only, where former designs had the A/P just manipulating the flight controls the same way the pilot did it.

 

[FL410]

I've heard the -11 is a bear on landing, any truth to that?

 

[Ecl!pse]

Oops!, I have just seen a few pics of Airbus flight decks, and assumed they all had the side stick...Thanks N190 and Seagull for the pics and info

 

[A300Capt]

[ QUOTE ]
Say you had an inflight emergency, and you had to hand fly the rest of the flight...how easy is it to fly with the side-stick, opposed to the wheel/stick?


and back to the A/P utilization, in an Airbus aircraft, do you usually use autoland, or hand fly?


[/ QUOTE ]

As already stated, the A300/310 have the conventional yoke on either side.

The landing is the only fun part of flying! So why would I let a machine do it for me?

Seriously, I don't autoland unless I absolutely have to. The only time it's a requirement is during CATII/III weather conditions.

 

[seagull]

The MD-11 has a reputation, gained mostly early on. The speed is a big part of it -- it has the fastest approach speeds of any commercial jet operating, with a min approach speed of 167kts indicated at max landing weight with flaps 35, and that is WITHOUT any wind additives, which can total another 15 kts!

Before the latest FCC load, the aircraft had less static stability than most other types out there. This wasn't bad if you flew like a test pilot, very precise, anticipatory handling. I used to say that is was easy to fly if you flew it well, which is another way of saying you were very precise, a "low gain" pilot. Those who are more reactionary in their technique, i.e., a high gain type of pilot, could get into trouble. Incidentally, the same is true in any aircraft type, it's the higher gain that will bring out any problems in handling qualities.

 

[Ecl!pse]

Sorry A300 Capt. i was refering to the 'side-stick' airbus aircraft, as they seem to be more automated. I know you would! I am just curious as to the different feels of the side stick, and if its harder. Thanks again!

 

[seagull]

wannabe,

My post above on FBW probably answers your question on the Airbus sidesticks.