Originally Posted by vinayak
I understand that airbus is the only successful commercial jetplane maker to use side sticks.
Airbus is the only successful producer of widebody and mid range commercial jet transports in the world that equips its planes with sidesticks.
"The only one" in this context actually represents 50% of world's successful commercial jetplane makers.
Originally Posted by LouthGirl
what's the whole point of them being asynchronous on the bus anyways?
Airbus mechanically independent sidesticks enable people with scant knowledge and understanding of: a) flying in general b) way passenger aeroplanes are flown and operated c) Airbus FBW to provide some low quality entertainment by airing their unsubstantiated and wrong opinion on uncoupled sidesticks as if it were factual.
Originally Posted by gums
I only know that the jet should fly about as can be compared to what we were used to and what the average light plane pilot would expect. Basic flight laws that Wilbur and Orville figured out over a hundred years ago.
I suspected that replacement of wing warping with ailerons and body cradle with roll-articulated stick was first sign of decadence!
Seriously; there are folks who know quite a lot about how the jet transport should behave and their views are regarded most solemnly; we call them certification test pilots. They have taken a hard look at Airbus FBW and pronounced it airworthy. Lo and behold! A couple of decades and a couple of million flight hours later, their judgement has been vindicated by reality.
Except virtual one, prospering on anonymous internet fora.
Originally Posted by gums
Imagine a situation where the troop who has a good awareness of what the jet is doing and the other troop is clueless. Think AF447.
Nope. Both troops were pretty clueless there. Rather think DLH incident where captain as PF was unaware his sidestick was reversed in roll polarity and unwittingly exacerbated the initial roll. Alert F/O did not know or had any reason to care what was capt doing to his stick; he has seen way too much roll way too low and taken the control as taught and trained. No damage, no injuries and it could have easily ended up with A320 cartwheeling through forest just off EDDF18. Think NOAR at Recife where conventional controls didn't make pilot aware what was wrong to stop pleas to clueless PF and take over so ended tragically just like Airblue at Islamabad.
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
Same as happens with conventional joined controls: you work out which one's working and use that.
Similar but far from same. Splitting the "conventional" control either through breakout mechanism or dedicated handle leaves you with half the control - the one that is not stuck. It gets interesting when uncoupling was unwarranted and you get each wheel driving its controls independently (Egyptair 990). OTOH, getting other stick out of equation through stick priority button leaves you with full control authority.
Originally Posted by capn Bloggs
Asynchronous sticks are merely an engineer's preference.
So what if they are. They are certified and in widespread use. No unsubstantiated anonymous opinion can change that.
Originally Posted by vinayak
They have taken the pain of having the 'Dual Input' call outs and the take over push button as well, wonder what is the school of thought that has gone in.
Pretty reasonable and knowledgeable, I'd say. Please spare me going into long essay and just substantiate your opinions why you think "Dual input" and takeover button are unusual or unnecessary so I can deal with it shortly and precisely, provided you are taking TechLog seriously, which I estimate to be the case with about fifty PPRuNers.