There are many glass cockpits where the standby instruments are not in the best position to be easily read. Bring back steam!!!!

There are cons with both systems. I had a double failure with the main and backup vacuum systems in an aircraft before, I've had both the G1000 and Avidyne Entegra die in flight on me. I even have pictures from the Avidyne failure.Notice the altitudes and the airspeeds. Kind of hard to bring it to a stop when you are flying.

Thing i don't like about digital number instruments is that you actually have to read the figure in order to comprehend the value it is displaying, whereas with traditional round dials, you can keep the clock position of the needle in your peripheral vision and when you know the various needle clock positions for all the critical speeds, you merely have to glance at them to know what speed you are at.For example, in a glider when I'm in a thirty degree climb out on a winch launch and I'm laying off the wings with a twenty degree left bank into a crosswind to ensure the cable drops on the field in a safe place, I'm busy watching the wingtip positions on the horizon to maintain the correct bank angle and climb angle and keeping a good lookout too, but at the same time, I know that when the ASI needle is at the eight o'clock position on the dial or above that, I'm good as far as speed is concerned and can come back on the stick. I don't actually have to look at the ASI to read a number in order to do that, I can pick that up from my peripheral vision and know where the needle is pegged, and I can tell the angle of attack from the elevator buffet for those speeds.Al

Dang Chris. Always gets interesting when dealing with these sporadic cells during the summer... At night. I've found Nexrad to be pretty unreliable during the unpredictable summer season.Al, couldn't agree with you more about the digital displays. I love them, but I don't prefer them.

...I don't know the situation of the Air France aircraft like some of you think you do but I can say this was a real eyeopener on how things could really go south fast when you think you are clear of the danger.

Good of you to empathize with the AF crew. Nature is full of surprises!

...I haven't seen where loss of AP would create a sudden out of trim condition,...scott s.

AFAIK the BEA report states the PF was commanding full nose-up joystick down to FL100.

...Notice the altitudes and the airspeeds. Kind of hard to bring it to a stop when you are flying.

Exactly! Can't get both KIAS and VS down to zero at the same time! (No slew mode in your Avidyne? +1 for FSX!)

Thing i don't like about digital number instruments is that you actually have to read the figure in order to comprehend the value it is displaying, whereas with traditional round dials, you can keep the clock position of the needle in your peripheral vision and when you know the various needle clock positions for all the critical speeds, you merely have to glance at them to know what speed you are at...

Absolutely! More brainwatts (CPU cycles for OCR) are needed to interpret numerical display values (and especially trends!) than for analog readouts (GPU cycles), especially with angular indications that are easily discovered and interpreted by optical nerve on-line processing (a needle moving clockwise means "more"). Exceed available brainwatts and you get the brain equivalent of an Error 1202, meaning readouts from your VS indicator are no longer interpreted, you lose enough situational awareness to not realize you are in a stall (never mind how to correct or one) and you end-up falling out of the sky. Add a powerful thunderstorm, blaring alarms, switchings between FBW laws (alternate, direct, regular, unleaded) for good measure and any Accident Borad will have a field day blaming the pilots for incompetence.Cheers,- jahman.

Dang Chris. Always gets interesting when dealing with these sporadic cells during the summer... At night. I've found Nexrad to be pretty unreliable during the unpredictable summer season.Al, couldn't agree with you more about the digital displays. I love them, but I don't prefer them.

You might want to attend one of Dr. Strahle's seminars on nexrad weather (he gives them at Oshkosh and all around the US)-it can be very realiable if read properly.His seminar on its usage (he practically invented datafeed weather ) is best seminar I have ever attended. I have used xm Nexrad extremely well coupled with a stormscope to navigate around thunderstorms very well in the summer season and have lots of pictures to prove it! :-)If you are using xm realize it is giving the composite image vs. Wsi which is using the base. This may be the difference that you are experiencing and many don't realize there is a difference. Apologies if you already knew this but I find many do not.

You might want to attend one of Dr. Strahle's seminars on nexrad weather (he gives them at Oshkosh and all around the US)-it can be very realiable if read properly.His seminar on its usage (he practically invented datafeed weather ) is best seminar I have ever attended. I have used xm Nexrad extremely well coupled with a stormscope to navigate around thunderstorms very well in the summer season and have lots of pictures to prove it! :-)If you are using xm realize it is giving the composite image vs. Wsi which is using the base. This may be the difference that you are experiencing and many don't realize there is a difference. Apologies if you already knew this but I find many do not.

Actually, I could be much more familiar with XMWx than I am. You may have spurred a study session for me! I will say once I found a strike finder in the old Archer I flew pretty useful.In my experience around here (even in the past 2 months of stormy weather), the XM picture can be quite different from what I see out of the window. I was attributing this to the delay of the data. I mostly become weary of the guy(s) I hear around the airport bragging about navigating between powerful cells using not radar, but XMWx... In particular a certain King Air pilot I'll leave unnamed. :( But that's another story.Sorry for the OT post!

I mostly become weary of the guy(s) I hear around the airport bragging about navigating between powerful cells using not radar, but XMWx... In particular a certain King Air pilot I'll leave unnamed. :( But that's another story.Sorry for the OT post!

When the weather is up and running we usually rely more on the XM picture than the radar because of the experience we had a few nights ago. Our Garmin MX200 has been a really pain the last year. First it inverted the image then went completely out, again in a storm. Shipped it off to Garmin to be fixed. Came back working for about a month then back to sporadic fits of craziness. Hopefully a King Air 350 will be in the mix soon! Can't wait for my first type rating if it does come.

When the weather is up and running we usually rely more on the XM picture than the radar because of the experience we had a few nights ago. Our Garmin MX200 has been a really pain the last year. First it inverted the image then went completely out, again in a storm. Shipped it off to Garmin to be fixed. Came back working for about a month then back to sporadic fits of craziness. Hopefully a King Air 350 will be in the mix soon! Can't wait for my first type rating if it does come.

Well I'd have to really explain the story for you to understand just how ignorant the guy is I'm referring to! :( Good luck with the 350. And that type rating!

Interesting letter that was in Avweb's online newsletter from an experienced Airbus pilot, > Letter of the Week: Airbuses Fly "Like a Video Game" I would like to offer my comments and perspective with regard to the Air France Flight 447 accident. I have been a A-330 captain since 2003 and have over 4500 hours in the aircraft. While many A-320 pilots undoubtedly have more series time, I believe this probably makes me one of the most experienced A330 pilots in the world.When asked how I like the aircraft, I tell people that there is likely no easier airplane to take over an ocean, and that the systems design and presentation is superb. That said, the automation is more complex and less intuitive than necessary, and the pilot-aircraft interface is unlike that of a conventional aircraft. Most important with regard to this accident is the fly-by-wire side stick control. The side stick itself has a very limited range of motion, making inadvertent over-control very easy. Of even greater significance, the stick itself provides no "feel" feedback to the pilot. That is, unlike a conventional aircraft, the pilot does not get a sense through pressure of how much input is being sent to the control surfaces. The most important advice I give to pilots new to the Airbus is to treat the aircraft not as an airplane, but as a video game. If you wait for the side stick to tell you what you are doing, you will never get an answer.Taking into consideration that Air France 447 was at FL 350 (where the safe speed envelope is relatively narrow), that they were in the weather at night with no visible horizon, and that they were likely experiencing at least moderate turbulence, it does not surprise me in the least that the pilots lost control of the aircraft shortly after the autopilot and auto thrust disconnected.Let's keep in mind that these are not ideal conditions for maintaining controlled flight manually, especially when faced with a sudden onslaught of warning messages, loss of autofllght, confusing airspeed indications, and reversion to "alternate law" flight control, in which certain flight envelope protections are lost.A very bad Airbus design feature is thrust levers that do not move while in auto thrust. They are instead set in a detent which would equal climb trust in manual mode. If the pilots did not reset the thrust levers to equal the last cruise power setting, they likely eventually ended up in climb power, making it difficult to reset the proper cruise power setting and adding to what was likely already a great deal of confusion.But the real problem probably occurred immediately after the pilot flying grabbed the side stick and took over manually. Unfortunately, airline pilots rarely practice hand-flying at high altitude, and almost never do so without auto thrust engaged. As a result, we forget that the aircraft is very sensitive to control inputs at high altitude, and over control is the usual result. Because the Airbus side stick provides no feedback "feel" to the pilot, this problem is dramatically compounded in this aircraft.I believe the Air France pilot grabbed the side stick, made an immediate input (because as pilots, that's what we tend to do), and quickly became quite confused as to what the aircraft was truly doing. This confusion likely was exacerbated by fixating on airspeed indications that made no sense while trying to find a power setting with no airspeed guidance.When transitioning from autopilot to manual control at altitude in the Airbus, the most important thing to do at first is nothing. Don't move a thing, and then when you do, gently take hold of the sidestick and make very small inputs, concentrating on the flight director (which, in altitude hold, should still have been providing good guidance). Of course, this is much easier said than done with bells and whistles going off all over the place, moderate turbulence and a bunch of thunderstorms in the area. As I said before, treat it like a video game.So why did the Air France pilot find himself at the limits of side stick travel, and then just stay there, maintaining a control input that simply could not logically be correct? When things go really bad and we are under intense pressure, it is human nature to revert to what we know from previous experience. Remember, the Airbus flies like no other aircraft in that the side stick provides no feedback to the pilot. It is a video game, not an airplane.I believe the Air France pilot unintentionally fell back on all of his previous flying experience, in which aircraft controls "talked" to him when he moved them. Distracted by many confusing inputs, he instinctively expected to be able to control the aircraft by "feel" while dividing his attention to address other matters. I've seen it happen in the simulator, and in an Airbus this is a sure way to lose control of the aircraft and is possibly the most dangerous aspect of Airbus design philosophy.One last note: Airbus pilots often claim that the aircraft "can not be stalled." When the flight controls are in "normal law" this is a reasonably true statement. However, in "alternate law," as was the case here, stall protection can be lost. If we ever practiced this in the simulator, I don't remember it.Lest anyone think I am blaming the Air France pilots for this accident, let me be clear. Despite all of my experience in the aircraft, I am not the least bit certain that I would have been able to maintain control under the same circumstances. I do feel certain that were you to spring this scenario on pilots in a simulator without warning less than half of them would have a successful outcome. Safely flying the 320, 330 and 340-series Airbus requires something of a non-pilot mindset.Name WithheldEditor's Note:We have spoken with the writer of this letter to confirm his identity and honored his request for anonymity.

I do feel certain that were you to spring this scenario on pilots in a simulator without warning less than half of them would have a successful outcome. Safely flying the 320, 330 and 340-series Airbus requires something of a non-pilot mindset.

He shares a few of the same views I expressed earlier in this thread. I'm surprised. Thanks for linking this, I haven't checked Avweb's site in a few.

He shares a few of the same views I expressed earlier in this thread. I'm surprised. Thanks for linking this, I haven't checked Avweb's site in a few.

Something doesn’t quite add up with that guy’s post, firstly side stick input commands a load factor, secondly thrust will freeze at the last power setting with an inadvertent disconnect, you should however line up the doughnuts to match the N1/EPR setting when manually disconnecting. Re-reading his post he just doesn’t sound like a 4000+ hour Airbus driver to me.. perhaps a Wilco A330 driver…

Something doesn’t quite add up with that guy’s post, firstly side stick input commands a load factor, secondly thrust will freeze at the last power setting with an inadvertent disconnect, you should however line up the doughnuts to match the N1/EPR setting when manually disconnecting. Re-reading his post he just doesn’t sound like a 4000+ hour Airbus driver to me.. perhaps a Wilco A330 driver…

+1 E.g. at that altitude not even a 767 'talks' anymore and there's absolutely nothing to achieve with 'feel' up there and quite a few other statements don't make sense at all.

Line up the donuts to what EPR/power setting? Have you ever been in an Airbus sim? Trust me when I say the "feel" just isn't there. Lastly, what did he say that made him sound like a "Wilco" driver? Sounds like a Wilco driver accusing a real pilot of being a Wilco driver. :( I've visited Avweb for the last 7 years because of their no non sense, truthful reporting.In any case, it sounds like an Airbus driver bashing an Airbus. Something I hear occasionally having friends that fly for US Air (A few of them really dislike the plane).

Have you ever been in an Airbus sim? Trust me when I say the "feel" just isn't there.

Well, until now I've never came across a 'real' sim that has 'feel'. They are still just procedure trainers and sometimes their behaviour isn't even close to the real plane....You definitely can't compare a 'real'sim with a 'real' plane.

Well, until now I've never came across a 'real' sim that has 'feel'. They are still just procedure trainers and sometimes their behaviour isn't even close to the real plane....You definitely can't compare a 'real'sim with a 'real' plane.

You must be kidding. The full motion FFS level d sims are made to "feel" just like their real world counter parts. That's the point... Come on, man. You said you had thousands of hours at some European airline. :( Surely you've been in a 'real' sim?