Airbus Spoilers Deployed...

Here's a pretty cool video of L-1011 DLC operation. I left out that spoilers extend slightly with flap extension allowing spoilers to increase or decrease lift with elevator input. Spoilers still function with aileron input, too.
 
GlennAB1 said:
The L-1011 was pretty cool, viewed as ahead of it's time. It was also unique in that it had a full time horizontal stabilizer (not just for trim), like most fighter aircraft.
Click to expand...

The guy I did my intro to aerobatics with was a former A-4/F-4 Naval Aviator who then flew the 727 and then L1011 after his service years. He had well over 10,000 hours, and said the L1011 was an incredible aircraft. Decades ahead of it's time and a real joy to fly.
 
GlennAB1 said:
The L-1011 was pretty cool, viewed as ahead of it's time. It was also unique in that it had a full time horizontal stabilizer (not just for trim), like most fighter aircraft.
Click to expand...

I worked on the L-1011 a time or two. :D
 
denverpilot said:
Reviving the thread for a comment for @redtail ...

The reason they're used with the ailerons in many of these aircraft is a spoiler roll control will generate a LOT less adverse yaw than ailerons big enough to roll a big aircraft like that. And less overall drag if you don't need a lifting force on the other wing. Plus less drag from the rudder to counteract the adverse yaw.

Works on smaller lighter stuff too, of course. MU-2 for the ultimate incarnation of that. Less drag, more go, if you can just pop one up on the side you want to kill some lift on.

Various aircraft types play different games with it. Some can split the ailerons and only stick one up instead of moving both, at certain speeds...

Just one example of aerodynamic "fun" possible when the surfaces are not interlinked with something physical and computers are driving.
Click to expand...
Makes good sense.

Although I've observed the wing on many flights and noticed the roll inputs, this was the first time seeing it during the takeoff roll and rotation. Still don't know why it didn't occur to me that it was a roll input.

My mind told me that both wings had the spoilers upo_O
 
Don't ya just love a plane that feels smarter than the pilot? How many have they killed to date?
 
flyingriki said:
Don't ya just love a plane that feels smarter than the pilot? How many have they killed to date?
Click to expand...


A post like this is painful to read. Can you flip over your certificate and show us your A320 type? You know, so we know where you're coming from regarding your opinion on the aircraft.
 
GlennAB1 said:
Yeah, doesn't make you feel better knowing the aircraft is smarter than you, when you're saying "what's it doing now?"
Click to expand...

The bus is a very nice flying plane. It will do anything you tell it to do as long as you don't want to stall it, overspeed it, roll it, or over g it.
 
redtail said:
...during the takeoff roll!

I don't fly the airlines that often but when I do, I usually get a window seat because I enjoy the view. Two days ago while departing SFO runway 1L, on an A320 enroute to JFK, I noticed something that I have never seen before and it had me a little concerned. The spoilers were up during the takeoff roll and for a brief moment after liftoff. My son was sitting next to me as I was recording the takeoff.

My first thought (which honestly freaked me out a little) was, that there was a takeoff configuration mistake. However, after we successfully took off and I observed them retract, that thought dissipated and I convinced myself that everything was ok.

I know the Airbus is FBW, so my question is: Is that normal? Can someone explain what was going on?

Thanks.
By the way, I have no real world jet experience and my flightsim experience has been primarily Boeing aircraft (PMDG 737, 747 and Level-D Simulations 767).;)
Click to expand...
I just remembered that I shot this video for you a few weeks ago. Just as we pulled onto the runway I remembered this thread and thought I would be in the perfect position. Is this what you saw? The video was taken from 1R at KSFO and is in a 737, not an Airbus. After I had started shooting I realized that there was another airplane rolling on 1L.

 
Everskyward said:
I just remembered that I shot this video for you a few weeks ago. Just as we pulled onto the runway I remembered this thread and thought I would be in the perfect position. Is this what you saw? The video was taken from 1R at KSFO and is in a 737, not an Airbus. After I had started shooting I realized that there was another airplane rolling on 1L.

Click to expand...
Thanks.
Yes that is what I saw. I was sitting a few seats behind where you are, so from my view they appeared to be up even more than in your video.
Appreciate you guys clearing up my confusion on the topic. You even flew took the time to go to SFO and investigate this for me. Thank you ma'am :)
 
Rex Kramer said:
The bus is a very nice flying plane. It will do anything you tell it to do as long as you don't want to stall it, overspeed it, roll it, or over g it.
Click to expand...

Or just a simple fly by....CAN'T HAVE THAT!

 
flyingriki said:
Or just a simple fly by....CAN'T HAVE THAT!
Click to expand...
If you don't know what your full-up-and-operating airplane is doing the problem is not necessarily with the airplane.

Nauga,
and the leading cause of crashes
 
Rex Kramer said:
The pilot flew a perfectly good airplane into the trees. The plane did EXACTLY what the pilot told it to do.
Click to expand...

Sure he did....airbust had nothing to do with it....! Sure....
 
flyingriki said:
Sure he did....airbust had nothing to do with it....! Sure....
Click to expand...


He flew over the grass runway lower than planned and briefed. So low, in fact, that the Alpha Floor protection he was going to show off for the crowd was deactivated, as it should be at such a low altitude. So instead of getting full power as the plane slowed, the engines remained at idle. Again, like they are supposed to at such a low RA. When the pilot realized they weren't coming up on their own, he shoved the thrust levers forward. Guess what, the engines promptly responded. It was, unfortunately, too late and the plane went into the trees.
 
What a bunch of crap. You can keep your airbust and floor protection and engines that should "come up" by themselves. Prefer not to fly in video game mentality aircraft.

By the way, you might want to open your eyes and quit adding to the whitewashing of airbust:
"Christian Roger is a professional pilot. He was leader of the French air force's aerobatics team
and, later, a Boeing 747 Flight Captain with Air France.
He was President of the leading French pilots' union, the SNPL, at the time an Airbus A320
crashed into trees at Habsheim in Eastern France in June 1988.
The pilot, Michel Asseline, stumbled out of the blazing wreck saying the engines failed to
pick up. The SNPL supported the pilot then gradually stood back and let things happen, when
expert examination of the black boxes produced overwhelming evidence showing the A320 to
be perfect. The pilot was sentenced to prison on this evidence.
Christian Roger retired and watched from the side-lines. One day he realised that some of
crash data just released was rubbish. He looked closer at other crash data and that did not
stand up to scrutiny either. He undertook a mammoth scrutiny of all the crash data supplied
by the witnesses and aeronautical experts in two commissions of enquiries, one judicial
enquiry and three court cases.
He exposed multiple anomalies, not to say lies, in the experts' evidence and in the data of the
crash all of which pointed to a very high level, state inspired plot to whitewash the aircraft in
the crash and confirmed what the pilot had been saying all along. He joined the pilot's defence
team..."
 
Last edited:
flyingriki said:
Prefer not to fly in video game mentality aircraft.
Click to expand...
You're in luck as no one's going to force you to pilot one, but you'll probably find commercial travel becoming more and more difficult as, coincidentally, the safety record improves.

As for the Airbus conspiracy, that one's been pretty well rebutted, but carry on.

Nauga,
who understands spoolup time
 
nauga said:
You're in luck as no one's going to force you to pilot one, but you'll probably find commercial travel becoming more and more difficult as, coincidentally, the safety record improves.

As for the Airbus conspiracy, that one's been pretty well rebutted, but carry on.

Nauga,
who understands spoolup time
Click to expand...


Pretty well rebutted by the government whitewash. Can't say anything bad about airbust....but carry on.
 
as it has been said, lets see your bus type rating. every bus pilot knows that alpha prot is de-activated at 50 ft when it goes into flair mode, when it memorized pitch attitude and starts to reduce pitch to give a normal flair feel to the aircraft. I was anti- bus for years, until i started flying it. it has its quirks, but it is a very well thought out system and does exactly what you tell it to do within its limits. however, you need to understand why and when it does things. it is not a plane for people that do not like pay attention to what the automation is telling you.
bob
 
There was a lot of experience in that cockpit for such a mistake.

Captain Michel Asseline, 44, had been an airline pilot with Air France for almost 20 years and had the following endorsements: Caravelle, Boeing 707,727 and 737, and Airbus A300 and A310. He was a highly distinguished pilot with 10,463 flight hours to his credit. A training captain since 1979, he was appointed to head the company's A320 training subdivision at the end of 1987. As Air France's technical pilot, he had been heavily involved in test flying the A320 type and had carried out maneuvers beyond normal operational limitations. He had total confidence in the aircraft's computer systems.

First Officer Pierre Mazières, 45, had been flying with the company since 1969 and had been a training captain for six years. He was endorsed on Caravelle, Boeing 707 and 737, and had qualified as an A320 captain three months before the accident. He had 10,853 hours of flight time under his belt.
 
Greg you must be looking in the mirror. Do some research, know-it-all and you'll see your airbust loving crap is not supported by facts. Maybe you ought to go somewhere else to spout your "beliefs" and get out of the controlling of this forum.
 
Last edited:
unsafervguy said:
as it has been said, lets see your bus type rating. every bus pilot knows that alpha prot is de-activated at 50 ft when it goes into flair mode, when it memorized pitch attitude and starts to reduce pitch to give a normal flair feel to the aircraft. I was anti- bus for years, until i started flying it. it has its quirks, but it is a very well thought out system and does exactly what you tell it to do within its limits. however, you need to understand why and when it does things. it is not a plane for people that do not like pay attention to what the automation is telling you.
bob
Click to expand...

Do you types of "pilots" even remember how to fly an airplane without a bunch of automated crap? How old are you guys anyway? How much REAL stick and rudder time do you have versus sitting behind an autopilot paying video games? You are scary!
I've seen airline pilots check out in real airplanes then ground loop them the next time out. I've watched several "professional" corporate CREWS land at the wrong airport and wonder why 3200' felt shorter than the 6100' they were expecting. You know it all goofs don't realize how much you've forgotten in your absurdly electronic focussed world of flying a video game. Wake up and quit being so impressed with automated crap.
 
Last edited:
flyingriki said:
Do you types of "pilots" even remember how to fly an airplane without a bunch of automated crap? How old are you guys anyway? How much REAL stick and rudder time do you have versus sitting behind an autopilot paying video games? You are scary!
I've seen airline pilots check out in real airplanes then ground loop them the next time out. I've watched several "professional" corporate CREWS land at the wrong airport and wonder why 3200' felt shorter than the 6100' they were expecting. You know it all goofs don't realize how much you've forgotten in your absurdly electronic focussed world of flying a video game. Wake up and quit being so impressed with automated crap.
Click to expand...

im going to guess a whole lot more than you do.
 
Always enjoyed seeing the L-1011 disappear in a cloud of smoke on startup from oil leaks in the three spool RR engines.

Cheers
 
flyingriki said:
Do you types of "pilots" even remember how to fly an airplane without a bunch of automated crap? How old are you guys anyway? How much REAL stick and rudder time do you have versus sitting behind an autopilot paying video games? You are scary!
Click to expand...

Hey pops, you're the one who's scary. You couldn't even figure out how to fly 6 hours a day, 5 days a week if you had to. You couldn't figure out how to even get my airplane started I'd bet. And god forbid you get on the same radio frequencies as us, you're the ones who end up congesting the radio, simply because you can't open your ears and listen to what ATC says to you. So do us all a favor, stay in Indian Territory
 
Yep, bunch of high time (all behind otto, sipping coffee and wondering what attendant to hustle after landing) know-it-alls that equate those hours with real piloting skills. Bites a few on the butt every year. Good luck clowns. By the way, something to think about....

We’ve seen, in the Buffalo commuter accident and the Air France 447 tragedy over the Atlantic, situations in which flight crews were trained from the beginning on and “flying” only sophisticated, glass-cockpit airplanes that depend on autopilots. In modern, preprogrammed, fly-by-wire airliners, hand-flying is not only discouraged but also prohibited. A recent statistic put the average hand-flying time per leg of a commuter flight at 80 seconds.
 
Last edited:
Everskyward said:
Do you know what type of airplane Greg owns? I'll add the R&W smiley. :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

Could care less. The stupidity of his comment says enough.

And, by the way, consider this:
It’s also worth considering that, despite all the automation, humans still manually perform the takeoff, landing, taxi phases, as well as fly the airplane when the computers get confused or take the day off. These are the areas where most accidents happen. Air France 447 stalled up in the flight levels and remained in that state until reaching the ocean. Colgan 3407 was another stall accident. Asiana 214 was a visual approach gone wrong. Better manual flying skill might very well have made the difference in at least some of these accidents.

Glenn Pew asked, “How much of flying the airplane is flying the avionics?”, and Panosian replied that “the greatest innovation was the moving map”, giving an example of synthetic vision showing terrain at night. In my experience, a moving map is no guarantee of situational awareness. I’ve trained many pilots to fly VFR and IFR in glass panel Cirruses, DiamondStars, experimentals, and so on. I can’t tell you how many of them had no idea where they were, even with a 10″ full color moving map directly in front of them. When asked the simple question, “Where are we right now?”, you’d be surprised how many have a tough time coming up with an answer.

Does that seem odd to you? It shouldn’t. Situational awareness is not about the map in front of your eyes, it’s about the moving map inside your head. If you want evidence of that, look at the 2007 CFIT crash of a CAP Flight 2793, a C-182T Skylane which ran into high terrain near Las Vegas. That flight was piloted by two HIGHLY EXPERIENCED PILOTS who were familiar with the area, had a G1000 PANEL in front of them, and still managed to fly into Mt. Potosi.

Panosian made the point that the Airbus was designed to be flown on autopilot “all the time — it was not designed to be flown by hand. It was designed so that it’s a hassle to be flown by hand”. Some business jets have similar characteristics. Who would want to hand fly the airplane straight and level for hours on end anyway? The light GA arena has an equivalent as well, the Cirrus SR20 and SR22. I enjoy hand flying them, actually, but the airplane has a somewhat artificial feel due to the springs in the flight control system. It was purposefully designed to fly long distances on autopilot. It’s very good at that mission. It’s well equipped, and has plenty of safety equipment aboard. TAWS, traffic, CAPS, a solid autopilot, good avionics… and yet the Cirrus’s accident rate is not better than average.

NOT BETTER THAN AVERAGE. Since you "pros" including admin censors, know it all, I have no interest in continuing the discussion. And for the ass that called me pops...you answered your own question kid. Young and dumb. Nothing new, seen it many times before....sayonara smart guy.
 
flyingriki said:
We’ve seen, in the Buffalo commuter accident and the Air France 447 tragedy over the Atlantic, situations in which flight crews were trained from the beginning on and “flying” only sophisticated, glass-cockpit airplanes that depend on autopilots. In modern, preprogrammed, fly-by-wire airliners, hand-flying is not only discouraged but also prohibited. A recent statistic put the average hand-flying time per leg of a commuter flight at 80 seconds.
Click to expand...

That's BS, you know it, I know it, we all know it. Show me one single airline in the US which outright prohibits handflying the airplane. I've yet to see a flight occur where there is less than 80 seconds of actual handflying. But hey, you would know better, because you've so much time in the 121 world.
 
Having flown the A320, when you shut off the a/p and a/t, it flies like a dream. It's an airplane, despite all the ******** you read on the internet about it.

As far as autopilot usage, you damn well better know how to use it. No one wants to, nor is it safer to, hand fly for 8hrs or longer at a time. That is where the machine is better than the man.

Same goes for the 757, 767, 777 and a few other transport cat aircraft I'm familiar with.
 
X3 Skier said:
Always enjoyed seeing the L-1011 disappear in a cloud of smoke on startup from oil leaks in the three spool RR engines.

Cheers
Click to expand...
You'd think the RB211 combustors and turbine sections would be all coked/carboned up, but after routinely borescoping them for nearly 30 years and knowing that's not the case, the smoke must be primarily from something else, like fuel.
 
Rex Kramer said:
Having flown the A320, when you shut off the a/p and a/t, it flies like a dream. It's an airplane, despite all the ******** you read on the internet about it.

As far as autopilot usage, you damn well better know how to use it. No one wants to, nor is it safer to, hand fly for 8hrs or longer at a time. That is where the machine is better than the man.

Same goes for the 757, 767, 777 and a few other transport cat aircraft I'm familiar with.
Click to expand...
With RVSM, you sure have to like to have autopilot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top