Originally Posted by
RAT 5
Tools, and their evolution in our modern world e.g. FBW. There have been any wonderful improvements made via technical advances. I wonder if there are some that have, subtly, been less perfect.
In underslung engined basic control a/c you increase umph and the nose rises. You feel this in your backside as well as see it outside or on the PFD. Your stretch your arm and your body gives some feedback that thrust has been applied. This happens without having to apply back elevator. That is done to expedite the change in V/S from -ve to +ve.
There is also the large trim change, usually from nose up on approach to having to take some off during the rotation to GA attitude. This elevator force, plus your backside, inform your senses that thrust has increased. If I understand correctly FBW removes this trim change. Thus, for us older pilots, a physical sensation, and tactile action, of GA has been removed. I appreciate that pilots who've flown only FBW will not miss anything, but I wonder if removing all these various sensations is in fact an improvement. The debate about non-moving thrust levers on AB has been beaten to death with no firm conclusion. Those against that philosophy thought that allowing thrust to change with out any tactile indication, or trim change on the elevator, isolated PF a little from what was going on.
I've never flown FBW or manual approaches with A/T. It disturbed me, and caused a comment, when I watched F/O's as PF on autolands, not follow through on the controls all the way down. On choppy days it was reassuring to feel the control column and A/T doing their thing, and then feel the nose up trim come in <500'. It connected you to the machine. Even more important if it was only a CAT 1 ILS to man land. You were more in tune with the machine and the elements. I wonder if FBW, where it seems you just point the a/c where you want it to go and auto-trim & auto-throttle take care of everything else, is the B's & E's it's all cracked up to be?
Those who've made the transition will have helpful educational comments, I'm sure.
I have had experience of FBW on Mil hi-perf jets, Airbus 330/340, and 777. It is just another tool. What is happening in the real world is crucial and, I'm sorry to say yet again, no different to a C150 no matter what systems are there to 'help'! And, yes, I would expect all my Capts and FOs to be fully conversant with the technical side of their aircraft - it is not a lot to ask as a fare-paying pax. Oh, and I have spent many years on steam-driven 747s as well... an aircraft is an aircraft...