Originally Posted by GoldenRivett
Better tell BAE they are wasting their time then.
"The biggest drawback of the “passive” sidesticks now used in civil aircraft is the lack of control feedback from the aircraft or the other pilot."
"This ensures both sidesticks move together in response to both pilot and autopilot commands, providing crew situational awareness equivalent to conventional pilot controls, says BAE."
I don"t and have never intended to. If technology in 2010s can render force feedback sidesticks as useful and reliable as artificial feel systems of 1960ies or no-feel sidesticks of 1980ies - good for everybody. That they will provide better SA is marketing hype as much as "My concierge can fly it" or "Our aeroplanes feel natural to pilots" were.
Originally Posted by GoldenRivett
Do you have any idea about multi-crew operations?
I am not subject of this thread. Do you have any relevant question?
Originally Posted by Confiture
Originally Posted by Clandestino
I made it pretty clear who originally posted it so I object your misattribution.
Originally Posted by CONFiture
What happens on PFD is not necessarily the consequence of a control input.
Ah, we are getting somewhere. So why would F-GZCP first follow the stick inputs, then abruptly stop following them?
Originally Posted by wiggy
FDR trace examined by various interested parties. PIO most definitely diagnosed.
Were interested parties interested enough to provide report?
Originally Posted by CONFiture
Except that there is no panic pull in AF447,
Originally Posted by BEA
After autopilot disconnection the nose-up inputs produced a load factor of up to
1.6 g, that’s to say 1.4 g if the turbulence component is excluded. Maintaining a
high pitch attitude first resulted, when the aeroplane had sufficient speed, in a fast
climb speed (up to 7,000 ft/min) and then in a rapid increase in the angle of attack.
There are couple of videos with stick positions around, if someone finds graph-reading too strenuous.
Originally Posted by Lonewolf 50
As to your bit about manuals, you can't have it both ways.
Either is it "too complicated to explain" or it isn't. Make up your mind.
That's not the way things work in the real world. Whether message is understood largely depends on receiving side too. Manual explains it very adequately for someone who will later go on and try it in aeroplane. Whoever tries to malign Airbus FCS without ever experiencing it must indulge in proclaiming the manual incomprehensible because its content do not support the claim that FBW really is dangerous per se.
Originally Posted by roullisholandais
As already said in a AF447 thread, I'm interested by degenerating dutch roll since 1979, and was creating only in 1992 a method to stop it with greater efficiency than just put hand off the stick and feet on the floor. I recovered with bank never more than 30°, lost less than 1000 Ft, in less than 30 seconds (MD83 Sim in Helsinki).
Before that, the other crew -6000 hours on type- lost 11000 Ft, understood nothing, flying right and left on the back, with overspeed, alarms and tutti quanti. The instructor -in flight instructor too- was not able to comment, and rejected the idea to ask me how I had done, himself had many thousands hours flying Learjet....
I never found an editor to publish my method
Sorry to disappoint you, you can get no patent on this one. DP Davies was here before.
Originally Posted by Machinbird
I would like to echo that comment. Until you have experienced a PIO/APC event, you cannot imagine the impact it can have on your ability to control the aircraft.
And if you read about PIO in relevant publications, you can see that your interpretation of roll disturbances after AP threw the towel in as serious PIO are extreme exaggerations.
Originally Posted by Jimmy Hoffa Rocks
Interesting to note that the FAA places more emphasis on jet upset recovery than in the EASA and in Europe.
Because you say so or you have references?
Originally Posted by Jimmy Hoffa Rocks
Airbus does little training on recovery from unusual attitudes, re PIO, etc, in their Type Rating as well.
Airbus does type ratings?!? Will I be asked again if I know something about airline ops?
Originally Posted by gums
Not sure if we all understand the "feel" of the roll/pitch commands in most FBW implementations
I am sure you all don't. See examples:
Originally Posted by gums
The best I can find is the majority of FBW jets command roll rate with yokes or sticks or sidesticks. Not bank angle, but roll rate.
Every aeroplane commands roll rate with lateral yoke/stick displacement. Difference on FBW Airbi is that it is constant with displacement and independent of speed/config/loading.
Originally Posted by gums
The 'bus also stops you at certain bank angles if in the various laws above "direct".
"Alternate", not "direct".
Originally Posted by gums
Airbus appears to be pure roll rate for lateral stick and the gee command is corrected for pitch with fore/aft stick( and you can't trim for roll rate or gee).
Gee command in Airbus is also corrected for roll up to 33 deg bank.
Originally Posted by gums
You only get into trouble trying to deal with unusual roll rates ( and maybe some yaw back and forth). We saw that with the 'bus outta JFK when the tail came off and the KC-135 in one of the 'stans.
Could you please explain how can one manage to find unusual roll rates in the accidents of AA587 and Reach 806? Before airframe failures, that is.
Originally Posted by gums
The Viper roll rate could be trimmed, as could the gee command for pitch.
Originally Posted by roullishollandais
Wonderful Viper's systems ! And, of course, pilots were trained to use these trims Airbus may Copy better and learn from our dear old farts
G trim is useful as one can trim it to 1 for patrol and 0 to achieve instant unloading during ACM by letting go of stick. Roll trim is nice to have when your external stores get asymmetric. Lack of these features will surely prevent Airbus 330 from ever getting accepted as an air superiority fighter.