Il est intéressant d'apprendre que les remises de gaz sur A300/A310 entièrement automatisées sont plus que préconisées par les pilotes opérant sur ces machines. le PA fait correctement le travail!
en pilotage manuel, seul un pilote averti saura effectuer correctement une remise de gaz sans aller solliciter les grands angles d'incidence
Les moteurs montés sur les ailes aile donnent une ligne de poussée au-dessous du centre de gravité, le couple cabreur est tellement fort et puissant qu'il faudra de bon bras pour le contrer avec le manche
j'ai lu pas mal de témoignages et d’articles à ce sujet:
je fais quelques copier-coller:
Citation:
Having flown/taught the B75/76 and recently been checked out in the A300-600 let me share some of my observations. First, an automated g/a is a fairly simple manuever under normal situations and the autopilot does a beautiful job. All the pilot has to do is select the g/a lever on the thrust levers and than select the "Lnav/nav" mode at 400ft sit back and enjoy the ride. The autopilot will fly the g/a profile including the missed approach course and hold that's in the FMC data base. This is a very basic explanation as there's alittle more to it but hopefully you get the idea.
Now, the caveats. All four airplanes listed above are very overpowered. Also, with the wing mounted engines (thrust line below the center of gravity), there is a big tendency for the pitch attitude to increase substantially with the application of power.
The nice thing about the B75/76 is that when the g/a button is pressed, the autothrottles will command and give the pilot a power setting that will give him around 2000fpm climb at g/a speed. This is about half of total available power (I said it was overpowered...didn't I!). Keep in mind the pilots can override this at any time, however, it makes for a nice easy transition from the landing phase to the g/a phase. This also keeps the changing pitch attitude more manageable to control.
The A300/310 basically works the same way accept the Airbus gives you max g/a power from the start instead of around half. This tremendous increase in power and associated pitch attitude change has caught more than one pilot alittle off guard. I've found on the A300 that your actually pushing forward on the yoke as power is coming up to counter the natural pitch increase with increasing power.
So, having said that, there was a China Air (I believe that was the airline)A300 accident that comes to mind which, on an attempted g/a the aircraft continued to pitch up until stalling and crashing on or near the runway. The f/o was attempting an autopilot g/a or maybe he accidently push the g/a lever while trying to turn the autothrottles off to land. I've seen that happen. The increase power/increase pitch attitude caught him off guard. He attempted to push the yoke forward to get the nose down. The autopilot simply trimmed against his pressure on the yoke unti it had almost full nose up trim. When they fianally dissconnected the autopilot the plane was severely out of trim/altitude and speed.
Citation:
A310 Aerobatics
"Airliners Magazine", Winter 1992
Following an autopilot-coupled go-around, the pilot attempted to counteract the autopilot's programmed pitch-up by pushing forward on the control column. (In most circumstances pushing on the control column disengages the autopilot but automatic disconnect is inhibited in go-around mode. The autopilot should be disconnected or a mode other than go-around should be engaged through the FCU-Flight Control Unit).
As a result of the control inputs, the autopilot trimmed the stabilizer to 12° (nose up) to maintain the go-around profile, but the elevator was deflected 14° (nose down). After climbing about 600ft (to around 2100ft) the autopilot captured its preselected missed approach altitude and disconnected, as the go around mode was no longer engaged. In the next 30 seconds, the grossly mistrimmed A310 pitched up to 88° and airspeed dropped to less than 30kt. (The stall warning activated then canceled itself as the airspeed fell below usable computed values and the autothrottle system dropped off.) At 4,300ft, the A310 stalled, pitching down to -42° while pilot-applied control inputs showed full up elevator. Airspeed increased to 245kt then the aircraft bottomed out at 1,500ft, pulled + 1.7g, then climbed rapidly.
The second pitch-up reached 70° followed by a stall 50 seconds after the first. The nose dropped to -32° and airspeed rose to 290kt and the aircraft bottomed out at 1,800ft. On the third pitch-up (to 74°), the A310 climbed to 7,000ft then stalled again, about 60 seconds after the second stall. This time airspeed reached 300kt in a -32° nose down attitude before the aircraft leveled off at 3,600ft.
The fourth pitch-up reached 9,000ft but this time the crew's use of thrust and elevator control (and very likely retrimming the stabilizer) prevented a stall and the A310 leveled off at 130kt. Speed then increased accompanied by another milder pitch- up to 11,500ft where control was eventually regained.
All aircraft systems operated in accordance with design specifications. The reaction of ATC (the incident happened at Moscow) or the passengers is not recorded.
Citation:
>>I have experienced a GA at DXB on an EK A300 inbound from MAN-normal GA, landed safely thereafter. No doubt there will be a thorough de-brief for the crew concerned.<<
GA's are not uncommon. I guess I'm alittle confused by the "thorough de-brief for the crew" line in your post. Do you mean the crew involved in the original post or just any crew that has to do a GA? If you mean the crew in the original post, which I believe you did, your right...there probably will be a full review.
Cheers,
Heavyjet (trying not to scrap any tails!)