Hello Apollo,
I am a current A330 pilot. Hope the following might be of some help.
From observation in the sim, I'd agree that most experienced airbus pilots separate their longitudinal and lateral control inputs. I know that it is certainly a feature of my control strategy. Given the nature of Normal Law, the aircraft is best suited to pilots with a very 'open loop' approach. My personal view is that it is very difficult for pilots used to conventionally controlled aircraft to make the transition to Airbus FBW. There is a significant tendency to overcontrol, particularly when asymmetric. Many trainers introduce the concept of single channel control inputs into training to assist the student in going open loop i.e. 'put in the roll input on its own, and look how the pitch attitude looks after itself!'
Also, there are relatively infrequent occasions where parallel control inputs are required if the aircraft is being flown correctly. The nature of FBW means that the pilot is generally setting a target, rather than correcting a disturbance.
That said, there is no official guidance on the matter within the Airbus Flight Crew Training Manual.
Have you seen Matt Ebbatson's phd dissertation on the loss of manual flying skills in the pilots of highly automated airliners? His hypothesis might be very different to yours, but I'd suspect that the methods that he used to conduct analysis would be of some use. (simulator data, time series analysis, fournier transforms etc).
Send me a personal message if you would like to discuss further - or would like a copy of Matt's phd thesis.
Andy
Wiggy, Piltdown Man, 212 Man,
I'm afraid your comments largely indicate a lack of familiarity with Airbus FBW. The general principles of handling an aircraft are universal, but the specifics of technique and control strategy vary dramatically with type and role. I can think of several examples from previous types that I've flown. Puma and Chinook cyclic versus collective climb is an obvious one. E-2 pilots waggle their ailerons to correct vertical deviations on approach, rather than moving the yoke forward. In both cases, there are sound technical reasons why the pilots are applying this compensation to overcome aircraft handling deficiencies. The techniques are not 'wrong', just different.
+TSRA,
Originally Posted by +TSRA
Any pilot who actually flies or teaches like that deserves the bottom of the barrel pay they are no doubt getting.
If you're going to post from the high moral ground, it helps to be sure of your facts first.
Originally Posted by +TSRA
In fact, to answer your question of "some reasons...against the separation of axes" my answer would be the secondary effects of controls. Plain and simple as that. To do anything else is to forget and ignore the very basic principles of flight.
The Airbus in Normal Law has no secondary effects of controls.
Originally Posted by +TSRA
I would suggest those instructors go rent a Cessna and re-learn how to fly because that is the most useless statement on training I have ever heard. I agree with PM's sentiment of "muppet trainers."
Maybe an hour or two in an Airbus sim might help?
