Chris, if I can add some precision to your post
229
Stick-to-elevator control does not trigger the Sidestick Position Indicator (white cross) which is only visible on the ground and disappears
as soon as the main L/G lifts-off.
Also the different transitions between Normal Law and Direct Law during landing and takeoff phases are more progressive. I would say it is not
after 5 seconds but
during 5 seconds: “The system
blends in ...” in a way that’s almost unnoticeable.
That’s why I pretend Airbus could (and should !) re-introduce the Roll in Direct Law for the flare, and get rid of that undesirable roll rate.
Decrab landing would be ... classic !
Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
The training *makes* it instinctive - it's the whole point of training
I would be interested if
PJ2 could publish some figures from the Flight Data Monitoring regarding “Dual input” ... That would not surprise me if
“Dual input” warnings largely overshadow
“Priority left or right” advisories.
A procedure which request specific training, by definition, is
NOT instinctive.
If, during a flare, a sudden situation erupt and PNF, by sauvegarde, intervenes, his probable first action will be, in an
instinctive way, to simply move his sidestick. Only if he’s properly trained the next move will be to push the Sidestick Takeover Pushbutton, but as we saw in the video, a lot can happen in one single sec.
Data from HAM would say a lot ... Let’s hope we’ll see them ?
Boeing didn't consider changing their flight control input method for financial, not technical reasons
WHAT !???
Money was the culprit ? ... for BOEING ?
Well ... before taking decisions for the 777 I’ve heard some B guys did properly flight test the FBW 320.
Later, for the 787 conception, Boeing widely surveyed pilots, and had many questions specifically aimed to Airbus pilots ...
... 787 will still fly with old yokes.
If they thought sidestick was the way to go, by now they would have gone for it. With present and future fuel cost I’m afraid 757 67 47 will take a rest sooner than later, FBW 737NNG should follow 787 ...
Originally Posted by Alf
A crew should not consider landing above any demonstrated value
I can see your point, but my view is that xwind has a lot to see with pilot
experience, and therefore should not be restricted in a rigid way. If an airplane, a few feet over runway, in a subtle combination of limited but approved crab + low wing, is able to maintain the center line, then he lands, and if not, he just goes around.
For LH044
Wind readings (if information is reliable ...) were in the limits (Gust included)
Even the last windcheck 32G37 was OK for the demonstrated 320 limitation 33G38
There are logical restrictions regarding tailwind.
There are also restrictions regarding xwind for ETOPS alternates (planning purpose)
There are also recommendations regarding xwind on contaminated runways.