Difference between Airbus and Boeing controls

[Possum 15]

GMDS, greetings, you make some interesting observations.
However, I must comment on your reference to the Israeli military. Don’t be fooled. Like the military of many countries they often do not make the correct choices when it comes to flying training. Take my own country. Despite having quite a good home and away record on the field (except for some unacountably disappointing performances in last centuries major matches), they have made some abysmal choices in both flying training equipment and methods. “All through Jet” or ab-initio on piston/turbine, high performance or not, civilian contractors maybe, tandem seating or not, the list of choices chopped and changed is endless. This has normally been due to “committee think” or just plain incompetence. Sometimes though other factors have played a part; think Bofors, or the number of very recently retired senior officers now taking pay packets from companies they have dealt with while serving! These mistakes are normally rectified with public funds. Good old foul ups in this area in the airline industry are normally caused by short-sightedness induced by the growing influence of bean-counters over operational advice. Except in the case of state-run airlines these mistakes, in the long term, are rectified, if the airline is still alive, with losses to shareholders.
As for your assertion that you can process more than one channel of information (visual, aural or sensory) at a time – I will have to take your word for it that you are different. In over twenty years of reading Human Factors/CRM texts I have never found anything to suggest that the rest of us can. This is the cause of information overload. Information overload can often lead to the shutting down of the decision making process or of “fixation”. Why do so many of our simulator transition courses start with fixed base, “motion off”? Why are some manoeuvres easier to fly motion off? Reduced tactile feedback perhaps? Of course tactile feedback, in the real world, is all too much with us so it has to a part of the simulator training environment – and ultimately it is. Why don’t we perform at optimum in a noisy environment, or if aural warnings are not appropriately silenced, or airframe vibration is severe? I would suggest our inability to, or difficulty in, separating and selecting sensory inputs as we would like to, that is in a logical and correct priority.
Tactile feedback can often be counter-intuitive. How so, you may ask? Take the good old basic steep turn training sequence. Good for scan development, or practice. Disengage A/P and go manual thrust, roll into the turn and at around 25° of bank increase pitch and add a couple of points of EPR or N1. You are then, at 45° of bank pulling like hell to maintain attitude. Of course you could trim, but this leads to problems with ballooning on the roll out, unless of course you trim out of the turn – mmmmm, “flying with trim” – not good! Why not develop a system that allows you to set attitude, add thrust and not have to have the arms of a Bulgarian weight lifter (no offence offered) and the scan rate of Chuck Yeager? WAIT A MINUTE, somebody already did!
Once again, you still haven’t told me how you get tactile feedback without hands on the controls, a very disturbing condition for most students, and even more so for fully qualified co-pilots. It often leads to the “F*** it, he can fly it” attitude, or at the very least an inhibition of natural reaction and input. Of course, this is distinct from the “follow me through” instructional technique which can be useful.
I ran a simulator session only yesterday, with circuit training and engine-out work as the main focus. With this discussion in mind I tried to analyse what were the cues I was really using to determine performance; the most critical area being from V1 to early climb, that is rotation rate and pitch attitude control, yaw control and roll control. I found observation of yoke position (yes I do fly Boeing), either from the instructor’s station or the left seat (student in the right) was not an issue. Performance cues were sufficient. However tactile feedback was important in one particular area. This was rudder input. It is much easier to analyse and teach if the feet are monitoring rudder pedal input. Any instability in roll control can be identified as overactive, or incorrect, use of rudder, thus producing yaw, then inducing roll, as the cause of poor roll control rather than incorrect aileron use. As I am sure you know, poor roll control at this stage makes for poor pitch (and thus IAS) control, as dealing with the roll situation as well as maintaining a constant and correct rate of rotation in spite of the confusing tactile feedback from the control column (change of force versus pitch rate in the 10°NU area), is not easy until learned. From the instructors station it is possible to observe rudder input from leg movement, or readout from screen displayed parameters, but much easier from rudder movement tactile feedback. But, wait a minute! Even the Great Satan Airbus has live and linked rudder pedal movement!
Anyway I feel I am preaching to the already converted, and not necessarily of my faith! I hope I haven’t bored you to tears, or death. Good luck and many happy landings!