[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by CONF iture
And what does it change to the fact that your following statement is plain wrong ?
DozyWannabe
I meant exactly what I said, "theoretically" - meaning that the system may not necessarily behave that way at present, but it would be a small matter to change the functionality (certification would be another matter though). The fact is that sidestick inputs not following priority switch are summed, so a full left deflection on one and a full right deflection on the other would command a roll rate of 0.
I'm not going to be your monkey and go dig documents up, because I don't have the time.
That is cheap, DozyWannabe,
you are gambling with your credit. What your initial statement told the reader was, that dual SS orders would add up and thus double the flightcontrol input. to achieve better performance. See quote below.
Quote DozyWannabe:
Double inputs *are* allowed by the system, but they are summed, meaning that in an emergency situation, the pilots can theoretically command twice normal pitch-and-roll rate in an emergency situation if they co-ordinate
properly
You should know, that statement is wrong, as the sum of the double input is limited to the amount which one SS could achieve alone. When you dont know it, you should not elaborate about it like knowing.
As you stated it there could be an advantage which would not achievable with a conventional layout, but what it really represents can be achieved with an conventional layout as well. Even better, as one can feel the amount of input from the other pilot. So please do not try to sell us apples for potatoes.
Quote:
But the point is, whatever your CVR quotes are, they show one thing :
2 PNF had no idea what PF was doing with its sidestick, at best they were guessing.
Or he could have been looking at his ADI and seeing the path the aircraft was taking (he may even have had FPV enabled prior to Alternate Law).
The stick input does not move the ADI, but the flightcontrols, and those might move the aircraft which would finally show on the ADI. As during this process other influences like turbulence might take place, what you see on the ADI might not tell you the truth of the actual input. Take as an example the ND inputs, they had been quick and too short, with tactile feedback easy recognizable by PNF. Instead he first had to assume that the PF followed his advise and had to wait on the outcome on the ADI. With a tactile feedback he could have caught that mistake and other erratic stick inputs easyly.
We are not talking about a computer game here, we are talking about flying. Please accept that from people who know.
Quote:
And it is dishonnest from you to substitute :
"Above all try to touch the lateral controls as little as possible eh"
by :
"Above all, don't make lateral inputs so large"
Very different meaning !
How so? I can't see how there's a major difference other than a slightly different use of the English idiom. What other lateral controls were in the flight deck that were being moved in an excessive manner at that point in time? None - only the PF's sidestick.
You dont like to see the difference, because you dont like to be prooved wrong. As mentioned before, you are gambling with your credentials, you should think over it.
Your statement suggests, that the PNF observed large SS inputs in the roll channel and tells the PF to make them smaller,
whereas in reality PNF adresses the PF to touch the lateral controls (in this case those would be ailerons and rudder) as little as possible, meaning to focus on other important things like pitch. That is quite different to your altered terminology.
The problem is that, like Gretchenfrage, you're coming at this from the preconceived decision that the Airbus control philosophy is bad and less safe than the old yoke, then you try to fit the circumstances of this accident to fit the narrative that you've already arrived at.
The problem is, that this horse is hunted over the place again and again, also by yourself and some others. To create opposition you have to side yourself first, what you and some others are permanently practicing in a way like "i´m on this side, so you with your other understanding of things must be on the other side. That behaviour does not represent an argument, it gets boring.
One final word to Habsheim:
I live 20 km from that place, and the flight shouldn´t have taken place at all. It was and still is a small airfield. There is no reason at all to authorize a flyby over such an uncontrolled strip in 100´altitude with paying passengers behind, but it was intended as good
PR for AF and AB and was published as higlight in the local media.
It went wrong and all actions later were motivated by damage control.
franzl