French Bee A350 ORLY

Cherokee_Cruiser

Cherokee_Cruiser

Bronteroc
Yikes!

So predictive windshear, FO go around. Overshoots G/A altitude of 2,000 ft. Decides to correct problem by pulling altitude for open descent while handflying. FO deploys speedbrakes. Does NOT follow the flight director. You know where this is going. Yikes!

CA takes over. Still in open descend, puts AP 1 on. Speed, speed, speed warning. Never mind pulling the speed knob during open descent and selecting a higher airspeed. (NO!) Disconnecting AP and going TOGA. Speed brakes still extended (CA probably doesn't even know) then re-engages automation to get back to 2,000 ft, but he's already below 2,000 feet and has selected VS down -600 fpm. Yikes!

FO engages AP2 without communicating. Then CA engages AP1. Speed brakes finally retracted. Still going down towards 1,600 ft. AP off again. AT still on, open climb for 2,000 ft altitude, then 3,000 ft selected, and since he's pitching down to maintain the altitude coming up, airspeed goes way up (280 kts).

What a complete crap show. Ugly :(

 
The F/O since got hired at Air France, who is probably now the highest paying airline in the EU. French Bee never really did dumb stuff at SFO like Air France and XL Airways France, though their pilot base is from all over the EU with many from Spain and Italy. I was rather surprised when this happened.

As an aside, French Bee is a real cool carrier and I've made a network of friends who work there. There definitely doesn't seem to be many bad apples in that pilot group, and they are better paid than most EU legacy carriers (including Iberia, Aer Lingus, and British Airways) so they aren't your standard trashy longhaul ULCC. They were very embarrassed by this.

I only say this as the recent circulation of this incident combined with the obscurity of the operator made many think that French Bee is another Norwegian or WOW Air, when it's really more of a long haul jetBlue.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Yikes!

So predictive windshear, FO go around. Overshoots G/A altitude of 2,000 ft. Decides to correct problem by pulling altitude for open descent while handflying. FO deploys speedbrakes. Does NOT follow the flight director. You know where this is going. Yikes!

CA takes over. Still in open descend, puts AP 1 on. Speed, speed, speed warning. Never mind pulling the speed knob during open descent and selecting a higher airspeed. (NO!) Disconnecting AP and going TOGA. Speed brakes still extended (CA probably doesn't even know) then re-engages automation to get back to 2,000 ft, but he's already below 2,000 feet and has selected VS down -600 fpm. Yikes!

FO engages AP2 without communicating. Then CA engages AP1. Speed brakes finally retracted. Still going down towards 1,600 ft. AP off again. AT still on, open climb for 2,000 ft altitude, then 3,000 ft selected, and since he's pitching down to maintain the altitude coming up, airspeed goes way up (280 kts).

What a complete crap show. Ugly :(

Click to expand...

Reasonable doubt in regard to the veracity of any YouTube video notwithstanding,

1. Please. WHOEVER is flying... Fly. And for goddsake, whoever is NOT flying, don't start pushing buttons. Automation is futile; All your control surfaces are belong to us.
2. Sounds like a little, er, "procedural" training might be helpful.
3. To Shear, or Not to Shear? That is the question.
4. These are French people. No one can understand their crazy accents. ;)
 
I will never understand the logic of having thrust levers that don't move in proportion to the uh, you know, thrust. I'm not an Airbus-hater and indeed after having spent some time operating Boeings, there are some problems in my mind with their control philosophy as well, but nothing on the order of the thrust changing but the levers staying right there, mired in concrete, whilst Robot Pepe La Pue gives you what he thinks you need.
 
Boris Badenov said:
I will never understand the logic of having thrust levers that don't move in proportion to the uh, you know, thrust. I'm not an Airbus-hater and indeed after having spent some time operating Boeings, there are some problems in my mind with their control philosophy as well, but nothing on the order of the thrust changing but the levers staying right there, mired in concrete, whilst Robot Pepe La Pue gives you what he thinks you need.
Click to expand...
That's one of the many reasons I questioned the veracity of the vid. SOMETIMES, the little animated hand changed the throttle position, and the sound changed accordingly. OTHER TIMES the sound changed, but no little animated hand and no visually discernible change of the TLP!

@WTF, over?
 
Space Monkey said:
OTHER TIMES the sound changed, but no little animated hand and no visually discernible change of the TLP!

@WTF, over?
Click to expand...

As far as I'm aware, that's how the system works. And it does seem to work, you know, like 99.999% of the time. @DPApilot can operate it without crashing in a way that gets in to the papers, so it can't be THAT difficult. But man it definitely rubs me entirely the wrong way.
 
Boris Badenov said:
As far as I'm aware, that's how the system works. And it does seem to work, you know, like 99.999% of the time. @DPApilot can operate it without crashing in a way that gets in to the papers, so it can't be THAT difficult. But man it definitely rubs me entirely the wrong way.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But when you say, "that's how the system works", to what are you referring? Do the throttle levers actually move? Does a pilot input of TLA change actually change the fuel to the injectors? Can the A/T change the fuel flow without any change in the TLP?

More simply, during power changes, why was the hand on the the throttle levers sometimes, but not always? Is that an artifact of YouTube land, or is that the level of randomness in the actual scairbus?
 
Boris Badenov said:
I will never understand the logic of having thrust levers that don't move in proportion to the uh, you know, thrust. I'm not an Airbus-hater and indeed after having spent some time operating Boeings, there are some problems in my mind with their control philosophy as well, but nothing on the order of the thrust changing but the levers staying right there, mired in concrete, whilst Robot Pepe La Pue gives you what he thinks you need.
Click to expand...
A good scan alleviates much of the tactical feel of the TL moving. That being said, I do like the movement of the current type when in those "max threat" situations. Walking the panel would have helped that crew immensely.
 
Space Monkey said:
Do the throttle levers actually move? Does a pilot input of TLA change actually change the fuel to the injectors? Can the A/T change the fuel flow without any change in the TLP?
Click to expand...

Dunno, dude, don't wanna know. As far as I can discern, they don't move when in some sort of pre-programmed "climb" setting where the aforementioned Robo-Pepe figures out what's uh "optimal". Which, again, probably works just fine most of the time, and maybe even works really well if the dipstick holding the stick understands the logic, but I'm still trying to figure out the finer points of Boeing VNAV, four years on, so I am *definitely* not volunteering to try to figure out wtf Pepe is thinking when the red mist descends. *shrug*
 
Space Monkey said:
More simply, during power changes, why was the hand on the the throttle levers sometimes, but not always?
Click to expand...
The Airbus has detents that stay fixed once set unless a pilot moves them to a different detent, so likely in that video to represent that movement to whatever the pilot selected. The Left FMA shows what its set at.
 
scooter2525 said:
The Airbus has detents that stay fixed once set unless a pilot moves them to a different detent, so likely in that video to represent that movement to whatever the pilot selected. The Left FMA shows what its set at.
Click to expand...
So the actual throttle setting might not actually be represented by the position of the throttle levers? Or, similar to a newer model 172, the flaps go to only three positions but you could place them between detents?
 
Space Monkey said:
So the actual throttle setting might not actually be represented by the position of the throttle levers? Or, similar to a newer model 172, the flaps go to only three positions but you could place them between detents?
Click to expand...
Not sure on the 3in the video of how many settings. 320 has basically 3 modes for flight; and idle. Between the cruise setting and idle one can manually control the N1 (or EPR if you have those garbage Pratt’s.) cruise setting is sorta combined with the speed select on the auto pilot and the FMS.
The whole system works well if you anticipate what it’s supposed to be doing. When you have a lot of “what’s it doing now” moments it can be hard to keep ahead of the plane.

Edit; 350.
 
Last edited:
scooter2525 said:
Not sure on the 330 in the video of how many settings. 320 has basically 3 modes for flight; and idle. Between the cruise setting and idle one can manually control the N1 (or EPR if you have those garbage Pratt’s.) cruise setting is sorta combined with the speed select on the auto pilot and the FMS.
The whole system works well if you anticipate what it’s supposed to be doing. When you have a lot of “what’s it doing now” moments it can be hard to keep ahead of the plane.
Click to expand...
Sounds a like a great plane for newbies. :oops: Lol.
 
@Space Monkey

AT if on is usually left in the CL detent and stays there. If you move it yourself with AT on, think of it as a thrust limiter in regards to where you set the power lever. Meaning, if you manually take it out of CL detent, and leave it at the 70% N1 position, the max possible thrust attainable by the system is 70% N1. AT stays on but you have limited it now.

Going manually all the way to idle will disconnect AT.

Going to TOGA power will always result in TOGA power.


They never clicked the AT off. In white box letters A/THR, autothrottle is engaged. In blue letters, it is armed. Them moving the thrust levers with AT on will limit the thrust limit if below CL detent, and in TOGA of course, get TOGA power.
 
Last edited:
Boris Badenov said:
I will never understand the logic of having thrust levers that don't move in proportion to the uh, you know, thrust. I'm not an Airbus-hater and indeed after having spent some time operating Boeings, there are some problems in my mind with their control philosophy as well, but nothing on the order of the thrust changing but the levers staying right there, mired in concrete, whilst Robot Pepe La Pue gives you what he thinks you need.
Click to expand...

It's still a fine system.

Their eff up started after the FO overshoot the go around altitude. At 2,800 feet he knew he had to get down to 2,000 so he selected open descent (level change in Boeings). That would have worked had he pitched down and followed the flight directors and captured 2,000. Or better yet, use vertical speed (which always forces the AT into speed mode - same as Boeing).

Just like a Boeing, with AP off, open descent (level change) will get you idle power with an altitude set lower than you. If you're hand flying, Boeing or Airbus, you MUST follow the flight director and pitch down. Your power is FIXED at idle for an open descent (level change). That's where the first big screw up happened. He kept the plane relatively level, with power fixed at idle, did not pitch down himself to get to 2,000 ft. Now you're headed into a low energy state.


Watching that video more than once, the airplane did EXACTLY what they "told" it to do. The pilots are clearly confused (FO cognitively incapacitated) in regards to the automation. Waaay too much button pushing to fix their problems.
 
Yeah, I dunno, they could have deployed the emergency backup controls which involve FLYING THE F'ING AIRPLANE like an ACTUAL HUMAN WHO DESERVES A PAYCHECK, but no one asked me. By all means, let's talk more about how the design architecture failed the poor dears. How were they to know? I feel like we're all victims here.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Yeah, I dunno, they could have deployed the emergency backup controls which involve FLYING THE F'ING AIRPLANE like an ACTUAL HUMAN WHO DESERVES A PAYCHECK, but no one asked me. By all means, let's talk more about how the design architecture failed the poor dears. How were they to know? I feel like we're all victims here.
Click to expand...

Well, ok, that too. Hand flying should always be there by clicking it all off.


Still, the scary thing is they didn't know how to use the automation either (to fix their problems).

Both FO (during go around, to descend from 2,800 to 2,000 feet) and CA (to go from 1,600 to 2,000) decided to use level change. In either case, the power goes to fixed idle (descent) or fixed climb power (for climb). No different than a Boeing. For a 400-800 ft fix? No way. Far better to use VS and that keeps the AT into speed mode.

In the FO case, he never pitched down towards the flight directors since the power was fixed at idle. Like a Boeing, the speed WILL bleed off because thrust is fixed at idle and you need to pitch down.

In the CA case, it went to climb power for an altitude higher than him. He should have pitched up and gotten back to 2,000 ft and capturing altitude would have put AT back in speed mode. Since he never pitched up that much at all, the speed ran away because thrust is in climb power and he needs to pitch up.

Level change = Open climb/descent = FIXED thrust setting (either idle or climb) depending on altitude being set higher or lower than your current altitude. Boeings = Airbus in that regard.


At no point did either pilot click off AT altogether and have full manual control of thrust.


It was a crap show, no doubt.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
@Space Monkey

AT if on is usually left in the CL detent and stays there. If you move it yourself with AT on, think of it as a thrust limiter in regards to where you set the power lever. Meaning, if you manually take it out of CL detent, and leave it at the 70% N1 position, the max possible thrust attainable by the system is 70% N1. AT stays on but you have limited it now.

Going manually all the way to idle will disconnect AT.

Going to TOGA power will always result in TOGA power.


They never clicked the AT off. In white box letters A/THR, autothrottle is engaged. In blue letters, it is armed. Them moving the thrust levers with AT on will limit the thrust limit if below CL detent, and in TOGA of course, get TOGA power.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that's helpful.

BTW, if what you say is accurate, I'm reasonably certain that should anyone ever give me the keys to a scairbus, I would instantly become a TERRIBLE pilot. ;)

Aslo....

Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Well, ok, that too. Hand flying should always be there by clicking it all off.

Still, the scary thing is they didn't know how to use the automation either (to fix their problems).
Click to expand...

Hand flying should not just always be available, but should always be a pilot's DEFAULT mode (assuming the pilot is not debilitated).

Which brings me to your... and my second point.

It's not so very scary that the "pilots" didn't know how to use the automation to fix their problems. Lot's of pilots these days don't know that stuff. What's scary is that so many "pilots" default is to try to employ automation as their "savior" mode.

Automation is there to make the airplane go "ta-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa". The pilots are there to save the day when the airplane stops going "ta-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa" and starts to go "SQUEEK!" With all the automation we've got these days, that's really the ONLY reason the pilots are there anymore.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top