A330 hard landing in September

[pilothouse]

I haven't flown a bus in a long while, but close to the ground doesn't the sidestick directly control the ailerons?

[Cosmo]

No. My understanding is that the sidestick commands roll rate all the way until touch down, after which the system blends with ground mode. In pitch, however, there is a direct stick-to-elevator relationship once flare mode engages (50ft RA).

[CONF iture]

Originally Posted by Sitting Bull

the boeings are way behind in precision (also the B777), yet they take more abuse on the controls by the pilots, which makes them easier to handle in gusty winds on landing.

How is it on the 777 ?
Same obscure roll rate demand than Airbus or more conventional and readable direct control wheel to ailerons command ?

[avionic type]

Seems the French unlike Boeing [different type of computers different locating pins at the rear of the mounting tray ]or the Daddy of them all the Trident [if 1 computer didn't agree with the other 2 it was discarded by the system]but as I don't know the Airbus flt system I may be missing a point.but surly it must at least be a Triplex system

[forget]

..... if 1 computer didn't agree with the other 2 it was discarded by the system.

I thought that was the basis of any triplex system. Something is far from right here.

EASA has warned operators to ensure that parts are mixed only in accordance with established guidelines from the airframer. "To prevent an uncertified configuration that may result in unexpected operation of the aircraft systems owners and operators should adhere to the interchangeability and mixability rules given in Airbus type certificate holder documentation," it states.

Surely Airbus computers compare software versions/up-dates with each other before they are allowed to control an aircraft. Apparently not! But that means Airbus relies on engineers checking software status of same Part Number boxes before plugging them in. That can't be right either.

[pool]

How is it on the 777 ?
Same obscure roll rate demand than Airbus or more conventional and readable direct control wheel to ailerons command ?

The T7 gets a more or less unprocessed command given by the 3 Primary Flight Computers. Input via yoke, output via Actuator Control Electronics. The PFCs have a programmed envelope that can be overridden with force. Once the input processed, the PFCs trim the given attitude to 0. During a landing, with multiple and fast inputs, this becomes obsolete, the aircraft handles similar to a conventional one. Combined with a Auto Thrust with throttles that move (sometimes a little slow ...) and allows pilots intervention/override, the T7 is widely regarded as easier to control and land in gusty crosswind conditions than the big busses.

As to wrong computer configurations. Sh#t happens all over the world and in any aircraft. The question is, considering this, if a concept that does not allow manual override/intervention, is an adequate one. The incident in question, as the Qantas one, might have been a non issue, if the trying to recover sidestick inputs by the pilots would have had authority.