Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Use Of Autoflight In Emergencies  
User currently offlineFaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1545 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3973 times:

In one of the IITV DVD's, an engine failure on T/O is practiced in an A320 simulator. On reaching stabilised level flight after T/O, the pilot then engaged the autopilot. Is this usual? I would have thought that any emergency situation is flown manually.

Faro


The chalice not my son
11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDescendVia From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (5 years 3 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3933 times:

Quoting Faro (Thread starter):
Is this usual? I would have thought that any emergency situation is flown manually.

Nope....... its actually strongly suggested (mandatory at some airlines maybe?) since it allows both pilots to work the problem while someone is always flying the aircraft. When the blank hits the fan it comes fast and furious.

Now remember you always got to have someone flying the airplane, since most crashes ultimately stem from failure to do so, but the autopilot lessons the work load and allows for better handling of the emergency.

Our engine out profile "recommends" autopilot on at E/O accel height after the plane is trimmed out and then the pilots pull out the QRC/FM and work the problem together, unless in a very desperate situation where the QRC could be run prior to E/O accel. Granted its says "recommend" but your going to be told to do it if you don't when flying the sim during recurrent.

[Edited 2009-06-18 07:18:57]

User currently offlineBellerophon From United Kingdom, joined May 2002, 583 posts, RR: 58
Reply 2, posted (5 years 3 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3921 times:

Faro

...In one of the IITV DVD's, an engine failure on T/O is practiced in an A320 simulator. On reaching stabilised level flight after T/O, the pilot then engaged the autopilot. Is this usual?...

Yes, in general.

Different airlines have different SOPs, and some aircraft have type specific requirements, so it is not universal, but I would say that it is usual.

As an example, in my company, on the B747-400, following an EFATO; provided the aircraft is stable in pitch, roll and yaw; it is SOP to engage an autopilot at 250 feet on climb out.


...I would have thought that any emergency situation is flown manually...

I would say that the most common fault in dealing with an emergency is rarely poor aircraft handling but rather an inadequate or over-hasty diagnosis of the problem, followed by an incorrect or sub-optimal solution being applied. Frequently this is caused by a pilot who is also hand-flying his aircraft, and thus not having as much spare mental capacity to devote to diagnosing the problem and selecting the appropriate solution as he might have.

Modern teaching is generally that, once the immediate safety of the aircraft is assured and where appropriate, you reduce your workload by engaging an autopilot and then handing over the flying to the co-pilot.

You now have a greater mental capacity with which to discuss and analyse, along with the co-pilot, exactly what has happened, diagnose the problem, select the correct solution, speak to ATC, cabin crew and passengers etc. than if you were physically flying the aircraft yourself.

Some pilots are more than capable of doing it all themselves, however most will find it safer and much easier this way.

Modern autopilots (when working properly) are extremely capable, let them do what they do better than pilots, which is fly the aircraft.

That leaves the pilots to do what they do better than auto-pilots, which is thinking and problem solving!


Best Regards

Bellerophon


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17040 posts, RR: 66
Reply 3, posted (5 years 3 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3906 times:



Quoting Bellerophon (Reply 2):
That leaves the pilots to do what they do better than auto-pilots, which is thinking and problem solving!

If I may interpret this it means "leave the knuckle-head stuff to the chimps while we evolved upright human beings deal with the real threat".  Wink



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (5 years 3 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3812 times:

We would engaged the A/P at 500' in the MD-11.

User currently offlineFaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1545 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 3 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3751 times:



Quoting Bellerophon (Reply 2):
I would say that the most common fault in dealing with an emergency is rarely poor aircraft handling but rather an inadequate or over-hasty diagnosis of the problem, followed by an incorrect or sub-optimal solution being applied. Frequently this is caused by a pilot who is also hand-flying his aircraft, and thus not having as much spare mental capacity to devote to diagnosing the problem and selecting the appropriate solution as he might have.

Modern teaching is generally that, once the immediate safety of the aircraft is assured and where appropriate, you reduce your workload by engaging an autopilot and then handing over the flying to the co-pilot.

Thanx for the feedback, quite logical and actually make one wonder whether the regulators will one day impose this modern teaching as mandatory, standard operating practice for all operators.

Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlineAirbus_A340 From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2000, 1560 posts, RR: 19
Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3730 times:

Engaging the autopilot as soon as possible to reduce immediate workload in order to better deal with the problem.

In my company, use of Autopilot is "strongly recommended in the case of engine failure, without any restriction including autoland".



People. They make an airline. www.cathaypacific.com
User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9032 posts, RR: 75
Reply 7, posted (5 years 3 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3688 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting Airbus_A340 (Reply 6):
Engaging the autopilot as soon as possible to reduce immediate workload in order to better deal with the problem.

Exactly. Company policy here as well. Maximum use of Autoflight System.

Back on the 737 it wasn't too easy as the AP was not allowed to be engaged below 1000' AGL. So you had to fly quite a bit until you could use the autopilot.

Now on the MD11F it is different. Above 400' AGL Autopilot on and 'Otto' does a good job Big grin

wilco737



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineSudden From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 4130 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3293 times:



Quoting Bellerophon (Reply 2):
As an example, in my company, on the B747-400, following an EFATO; provided the aircraft is stable in pitch, roll and yaw; it is SOP to engage an autopilot at 250 feet on climb out.

Interesting fact.
Just out of curiosity, was the AP on the Concorde able to handle an EFATO as well?

Aim for the sky!
Sudden



When in doubt, flat out!
User currently offlineAirbuster From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3105 times:

on a n-1 after v1, the first call is GEAR UP - SET AUTOPILOT on our fokkers....and it frees up a lot of mental thinking space as stated above


FLY FOKKER JET LINE!
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 59
Reply 10, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3080 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR



Quoting WILCO737 (Reply 7):
Back on the 737 it wasn't too easy as the AP was not allowed to be engaged below 1000' AGL.

What are the reasons for the variance in min altitudes for AP use? If I'm not mistaken, you flew the 737 for the same company as your current ride, so this suggests the limitations are manufacturer-specific. Is this true? And if so, is this indicative of the MD-11 somehow having a superior AP, in that it may be engaged at lower altitudes?

2H4



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9032 posts, RR: 75
Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3077 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting 2H4 (Reply 10):
What are the reasons for the variance in min altitudes for AP use? If I'm not mistaken, you flew the 737 for the same company as your current ride, so this suggests the limitations are manufacturer-specific. Is this true? And if so, is this indicative of the MD-11 somehow having a superior AP, in that it may be engaged at lower altitudes?

It has something to do with the manufactor. For the 737 we had the rule not to engage the autopilot below 1000' AGL. On the MD11F we can do that above 400' AGL.
Where this exactly comes from, I don't know. From what I've been told there was some trouble with the autopilot which could occur if engaged below 1000' AGL (on the 737).

wilco737



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Use Of Autoflight In Emergencies
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Use Of Metric System In Aviation posted Sun Apr 27 2008 10:40:02 by DocLightning
Use Of Speed Brakes In Icing Conditions? posted Fri Jan 30 2004 23:20:41 by Mr Spaceman
Package Freight Carriers Use Of Bulk Cargo posted Mon May 11 2009 09:57:23 by OldAeroGuy
Use Of Life Rafts? posted Mon Dec 1 2008 01:40:05 by Longhornmaniac
Purpose Of Gascolator In Cessna Aircraft posted Sat Oct 25 2008 20:06:42 by A346Dude
Status Of ATC In Australia posted Wed Oct 22 2008 23:59:15 by Ryu2
Use Of The Rudder posted Mon Sep 8 2008 06:31:53 by LY777
Where Are The Six Pieces Of Wood In A 727? posted Thu Aug 28 2008 16:27:03 by Falstaff
Technique Of Options In The Airline Industry posted Mon Feb 11 2008 12:36:53 by Pilotboi
0° Angle Of Attack In The Cruise posted Thu Sep 6 2007 19:49:57 by Faro

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format