Originally Posted by
CONF iture
Yes dozy, "might" and "may" are of circumstance to signify that the possibility does exit compare to to the unlinked sidesticks where such possibility simply does not.
Through control feedback no, but the instruments and the view out of the window should work just as well. The use of "might" and "may" is also important in another sense, namely that they were unable to prove it one way or another - and based on the historical record it has made far less of a difference than some like to claim. The point the report was making is that taken in isolation, it is unwise to train a pilot on the line in an A320 if that pilot is not yet confident when it comes to approach and landing, and they should have that mastered in the simulator first. The report touches on the possibility of following through with conventional controls, but it does not directly compare the two - probably because even in a conventionally laid out flight deck, there should be no "follow through" necessary when training on the line. In normal operations, only one pilot should have their hands on the PFC in a control sense if going by the book.
As a general aside, I've just had a very entertaining read of Captain Richard de Crespigny's book on QF32. I won't link to it lest I incur the wrath of the moderators, but one of the aspects I found most interesting was this. Capt. de Crespigny is an ex-RAAF pilot who trained in Macchi fast jets, was posted to fly STOL Caribous, thence to Iroquois helicopters and back to Macchis as a training pilot, only missing out on F111s due to his age on transfer. He started his civil career flying 747 Classics, then the 747-400, got his command on the A330 and finally the A380.
Now with a CV like that I don't think it's possible to say anything other than he's a very experienced "pilot's pilot", and if such pilots are usually averse to the sidestick concept, he'd be at or near the head of the queue - especially given what happened over Singapore.
But he isn't. He admits to being a technophile (in fact he ran a software company with his wife in the late '80s and early '90s), but what he seems to be more than anything is a born nuts-and-bolts engineer (from his youth, putting old motorcycle engines back together). Rather than seeing the concept as antagonistic, he seems to have gone above and beyond in trying to understand the reasons behind it from the beginning - not just *how* it works, but *why*. He makes a point of stating that based on his own research the Airbus FBW concept was designed to *help* pilots, not hinder them, and he has nothing but positive things to say about his time on the A330 and A380.
The reason I'm summarising what I've just read is that it just goes to illustrate the dangers of generalisation. Ultimately your aircraft is a tool, and no matter what control setup it has, you'll get the best out of it by taking the time to understand it - and in doing so start (as best you can) with no preconceptions. By which I mean if you go into training or conversion to an Airbus FBW type with the belief that the FBW systems are there to hold you back, ignoring the fact that they're also there to assist you - then you're not going to get the best out of the aircraft you're flying.
EDIT:
Going back to the OP-
Originally Posted by
vinayak
I understand that airbus is the only successful commercial jetplane maker to use side sticks.
True enough, but as alluded to earlier they account for around 50% of the market at this point, because there are only two major civil airliner manufacturers in the West.
What needs to be understood is that even if you restrict your field of comparison to the US from the '60s to the early '80s, you used to have three airliner manufacturers (Boeing, McDonnell-Douglas and Lockheed), and even with all their products of the time having "conventional" control layouts, they all worked slightly differently, and a technique that worked in one type might have disastrous consequences in another.