Stick Vs Yoke? Airbus Vs Boeing?

[reverserdeployed]

Well what's it to be then?
Have flown an A320 sim as well as a 737-500 and found the stick, well, weird. It's okay for FS2000 or a DH chipmunk but don't you think that a passenger transport should have a yoke?

Or do we prefer having a little tray to pull out for din dins? Does it come down to the old Airbus vs. Boeing debate???

Discuss.

[Beaver]

Yes, it is that old Airbus vs Boeing chestnut!
It takes about 20 minutes to get used to the side-stick and once you ARE used to it you begin to appreciate all the advantages - including the lack of a large, and mostly unnecessary, obstruction between your legs!!! Having a convenient table for "din-dins" and writing your discretion reports on are but two of the many advantages of the side stick. Any opposition to it generally comes from people who have no experience of it and indicates an inflexible approach to the issue. After all, it is only used for a few minutes of every flight (less than 1%) so why inflict yourself with the encumberance of a yoke for the ther 99% when all it does is get in the way?

[Brenoch]

It might get nasty.. :)
For once I´ll stay out of it though..

[Track]

Although I'm flying a Boeing product I have to agree with Beaver. Get rid of that stupid thing and let us have dinner in a normal manner!

-----------------
Track

[atomic]

well, 'reverserdeployed', with that kind of thinking (shouldn't a transport plane ....) we would still fly old clunky pieces of aluminum and enjoy the sound (and oily windows) of a radial engine. It doesn't matter how the flight controls look like, more important is that those things are fly-by-wire. The B777 has it, and it absolutely doesn't make a difference if you tell the computer your idea of the flight path to choose with a stick or that beloved yoke of yours, although it makes you feel like you can better control the plane.

[HugMonster]

With a yoke rather than a sidestick, and moving throttles, you can see both the automatics' and the other pilot's input to the controls. Isn't that also important?

[N2]

HM,

Is it the automatic's that you mistrust (not that they shouldn't be watched), or the lack of movement confirming automatic operation?

[HugMonster]

Not a question necessarily of mistrust - I have to admit that I've never flown an Airbus, so I find it hard to imagine, but I think I would prefer to have an idea of the other pilot's inputs to the controls for one thing.

Also I can imagine several situations in which the first sign of things not being as they should is, say, an unexpected autothrottle movement...

[FlyTheFlag]

This topic always gets everyone going!

First off, I've only flown Boeings so I can't speak with much authority on the differences debate but I thought you might be interested to hear the gist of a recent string on my company forum.

A senior Airbus captain wrote that he was concerned that whilst through the majority of his career he had been posted on conventional control a/c and had very rarely 'reached the stops' with his control inputs, after only a few months on Airbus' he seemed to be doing so on every windy flight he did. The Airbus man wrote back that this was the Captain's fundamental misunderstanding of the flight control laws of his flying computer. Essentially the gist of his reply was that his control stick's position bore no relationship to where his actual flight controls were - the pilot asks for a roll rate and within certain pre-defined limits, the computer decides what to do to effect that roll rate. This entails Airbus pilots having to 'unlearn' how to fly an approach and (when under the additional stress of bad weather, turbulence etc.) fly in a new way (hardly touching the stick at all). Don't worry he was told, it knows what it's doing! As a bluff old traditionalist, I personally would feel happier knowing that I am reaching the limits of control rather than the limit of a computer's percieved 'allowable' rate of roll. If we were all taught to fly on Airbuses perhaps it would be a good thing but the number of pilot induced oscillation incidents on Airbuses (admittedly more on their introduction) seems to indicate that it's quite possible, especially in rough weather for the pilot to get out of synch with the computer - 3 major airlines that I know of have had pod scrapes on A320's for this reason (PIO) - one on an A320 on both engines! The history of aviation disaters, especially with regard to loss of situational awareness shows that the more pilot's are divorced from the reality of what's happening outside, the more likely they are to crash. If automation was the amazing thing it has been trumpeted as, the number of hull losses for Airbuses would be notably less than than for conventional controlled a/c but it is not. Futher, in a large number of these fatal Airbus crashes, the investigating authorities have cited human misunderstanding of the autoflight systems (including the motionless thrust levers) as primary reasons of the accidents. Not a great epitaph fpr their designers. Some would blame the pilot's saying they should have figured out how their planes flew but it's far better to 'suit the machine to the man than the man to the machine'. We all revert to type when under pressure.

Well I imagine that rant will change the minds of the Airbus design team and all you sidestick fans! I look forward to Airbus' retrofit of conventional controls on all their a/c.

Happy Christmas to you all.

[reverserdeployed]

Mmmm. Thought so. Fly the flags comments make much sense.

Being a wannabe I can't comment on this really, as I've only had a couple of hours in a Bus sim, but I did find the lack of autothrottle movement disconcerting, and the fact that I couldn't see what the autopilot was doing with pitch and roll without referring to the AI.

As FTF says, surely the Bus's setup pushes the pilot further from the loop?

[HugMonster]

That's my feeling. I stress that I have never flown an Airbus, and have very little time in Boeings, but it is generally agreed (I think) that the two companies' design philosophies are very different - Boeing tend to design the aircraft around the pilot, bending technology to that, whilst Airbus design around the technology, bending the pilot to it. If true, I know which I would prefer.

[TEMP0+TSRAGR]

I currently fly the A320, but have 6 years previously on conventional types.
The side stick works very well, I too hit the stops in roll in rough conditions but you must be aware that it commands 'rate of roll'. So even at the stops its commanding max rate, the aircraft is still continueing to bank over at its greatest rate.
In pitch its commanding 'g loading', its very natural to fly depsite the sceptics.
I like most had mix feelings converting onto it, the one thing I do miss is the control force feel and trimming. The auto throttles you get used to, but you can still fly manual thrust with a very good speed trend vector.

[atomic]

How does that work differently in the 777. It's a stick but still fly-by-wire. PIO are possible too there !? When I fly, I don't look at the stick , I manipulate it so I get what I'm looking for on my instrument panel. For that reason I don't care much if it moves or not.
And what kind of feedback do you get with conventional controls ?? I can watch them move when the other guy flies, that's it.
Yes, you are correct. If you fly an Airbus, you should understand how it works , what the philosophy is, that much I should expect from every pilot transitioning to this kind of equipment. The auto-throttles not moving?? I have my scan worked out in such a fashion that I watch the engine gauges and the 'trend' indicators there and this predicitve way of engine monitoring seems nicer and more accurate to me than the conventional ,reactive monitoring by watching the throttle levers move. If you move the controls to the stops, then you haven't fully learned to use the fly-by-wire, I really have to say this. Then you fight it, fly it without understanding the underlying principles.Yes, it takes time and effort to get used to it. If you don't like it, don't fly it, just don't get on it and then complain. It's a different philosophy. if you don't like it, fly with a yoke, but don't try to find all those arguments why it would be so bad to have the stick. I wonder what the F-16 guys out there have to say about this subject, maybe the space shuttle should have a yoke too, don't you think so boys ??!

[atomic]

Oooops! B777 : I mean it's a yoke but still FBW.......

[reverserdeployed]

http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/tongue.gif :P

[thermostat]

I have 11,000 + on "wheels" and 3,000 on A320 side-stick. The 'stick' is the winner. Took me about 30 mins to fall in love with it. Disadvantages of the 'wheel'
a. Blocks view of instruments
b. No table to eat/write on
c. With one hand on the wheel and one on the thrust lever your hand tends to pull the stick down as it is off center causing the wing to drop.
d. The new technology is here to stay, may as well learn to like it.

[CONF iture]

This thread may be well from 2000 … but it’s never too late to add a little something, at least my personal view :
Side stick is great, side stick is really great for 99% of the flight time … but what about the remaining 1% … ?!
Here I’m talking on rotation phase and flare phase, these critical phases when you so close from the ground.
If you are the PF, fine, you know what you’re doing or at least what you’re trying to do, but if you’re the PNF, the only thing you know except following your partner on the rudder pedals, is the final result: what the airplane is actually doing.
The PNF or PM for Pilot MONITORING, as the SOP’s like to call him now, has only half the tools to monitor properly, he is more a spectator not to say a passenger than anything else because he does not know which actions his partner has on his side stick, he does not know if an action or a correction has been taken.
If you look at the Emirates 340 incident in JNB, I’m pretty sure that the FO would have realized that the CAPT action to get a rotation was minimal, having a coupled yoke in front of him, he would have known that the displacement requested by his partner was not appropriate to the situation.
Safety in a two crew airplane is based on communication, on exchange of information, the crew must work together in the aim to make one; every action by one of the crew should be known by the other one, using a side stick deprives your partner of crucial information during critical phases, the PM has no choice than to be one step behind.
The Airbus is very nice to fly … but that 1% makes you think …
I think I would prefer to have an idea of the other pilot's inputs to the controls

[vapilot2004]

Since the computer software (VIA control LAWs) is doing most of the 'flying' on a modern Airbus, the side-stick seemed a logical control input method - why use a bulky and what many consider old-fashioned yoke with feedback when it is superflous to the task.

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the boys at Boeing like to keep the guys in the pointy end happy by putting us in a familiar place. Even though the 777 is FBW, commonality with its brethren is what gives us a yoke. Add the fact that in the event of an electrical system failure, the aircraft's manual reversion would not be possible with a stick

I find the Airbus FBW system a rather elegant solution. It makes the Airbus trained pilots job (mostly) easier and protects us from the aircraft's bad manners during excursions near the edges of the flight envelope.

Trust (or should I say responsibility) EDIT >> Responsibility will always remain with the pilots - bad choice of words on my part - I was only trying to soften the word 'trust' << /EDIT.

Trust is shifted away from the pilots abilities and training and more towards the flight computer programmers foresight - this is the heart of the Airbus philosophy regarding flight controls and related systems.

In my few sessions in an A320 sim (CAE), I adapted quickly to the stick, using the courseware data still very fresh in my mind. (much to the consternation of my many-times-more experienced yoke-mates.) :8

[F4F]

My 2 cents...
Airbus:
Sidestick is fantastic (as has been written before on PPRune), but why in hell did the Airbus engineers not link the sticks mechanically?? As an example, small airplane such as the Varieze or Longeze variety have been flying for more than 20 years (... + wearing winglets...) with mechanically linked sidesticks. Airbus could have incorporated all its electronic gadgetry and still link the sticks together.
As for the Autothrottle, well I prefer to refer to as Semi-autothrottle... On most jets of the category you arm the A/T before T/O and, if all works ok, disengage it after landing. Not so on the bus, it is automatic, but you have to juggle it around during climb out and prior to T/D.
On the bus, piloting is more akin to a constant analysis of all presented parameters than real flying. As a pilot I get the feeling just being an invited guest :ugh:
Boeing:
Well I can't help it but have a feeling of "déjà vu" in a Boeing. These ships are old fashionned (the 777 probably being the exception). Let's look at the 737: Starting ouside, you get the nose of the 720 (only short of 50 years old), no main landing gear doors, a tail festonned with VGs (surely no credit for the aerodynamic shape of the rear fuselage), sideways taxiing (good thing they fly more or less straight!). The FDK, well, is also strongly reminiscent of passed times, even in the latest versions. Just look at the lenght of the switches on the overhead or the gear lever: Is this a fine flying craft or a disposed of steam locomotive? The control column itself can only have been crafted by some eager farmer, reminiscent of some cattle horn :{

Now you might ask, what is the solution?
IMHO the better solution (according our macho human considerations) would be something of a cross between Airbus and Boeing, some electronic gadgetry, linked sticks, a full A/T, etc.
Thinking of it what a pity they don't manufacture those Fokker 100... Scaled up that would have been one fine combination of engineering and flying pleasure :D

[Slasher]

Oh god now theres another acro?

If PNF = Pilot Monitoring then whats the PF now then? Pilot Not Monitoring?

Load of crap. :*

[alexban]

PF it's still PF.
Would you say that PM (PNF) it's not flying? Is he/she walking,sleeping,reading (hmm..),driving,...etc.. I think PM it's more appropriate.Just that some of us are more resistant to change..

[eire757]

Been on the bus for more than 3 years. Great piece of kit and the side-stick is not even an issue.....that is until you go base training with brand new pilots-if they dont flair the trainer has no time to react or even to help the landing on its way. As for the autothrust- you get used to levers not moving but there is no benefit from this other than a cost saving (less moving parts). correct me if I'm wrong on that one:confused:
Somebody mentioned that the 737 taxies sideways- Have seen this so many times now while taxying behind them-Is it an illusion or what?

[CaptYanknBank]

wobbly tyres?
high profile tyres?
better vis for pax on side leading?

:}

[greek-freak]

I think to remember an incident where the non-linked sidesticks nearly
lead to a catastrophe. I don't remember it exactly, but an A320 was about to land (or had already touched down) in Sydney when the PNF realized that an aircraft that had landend on the crossing rwy would not come to a stop before the rwy crossing.
He started pulling the stick while the PF who had not anticipated the other aircraft continued pushing it such that the signals from the sticks neutralized each other, since they are additive. They then realized the situation and went around. This would certainly not have happened if the sticks were mechanically linked.

Please don't shoot at me if I did not get the details right, I read about this somewhere several years ago.

I believe to have heard that after that Airbus built in a warning horn which is activated when the sticks receive controversial inputs. Anybody of you Airbus experts know more?

[Clandestino]

Nevermind yokes or sticks, what I want on my next aircraft is
gamepad! Dear Santa...:}

Ummm... I don't fly A320 but I don't think there's warning of sticks being in disagreement. We had similar problem soon after introducing A320. F/O was handling pilot and he flared too high. Capt tried to rectify it by pushing forward on the stick :eek: . By the time wheels hit terra firma, sticks were almost fully deflected in opposite directions. Lesson learned was: if you don't like what your F/O is doing, use the stick priority!

When practising flight crew incapacitation in the sim, the worst case is assumed: that the capt or F/O has fallen on the stick, deflecting it fully forward and outboard so the surviving crewmember has to disconnect other stick by holding A/P disengage buton on top of his stick until the simulated dead is simulated removed by the simulated cabincrew. Besides it, there's at least one occurence (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20010320-0)where non-coupling of the sticks saved the day.

[CONF iture]

Lesson learned was: if you don't like what your F/O is doing, use the stick priority!

... and if you don't like what your CAPT is doing, do as well !
You are absolutely right ... but my point is more that what you don't like, is what is doing the aircraft, because except through the rudder pedals, you just don't have any clue of the PF action on the controls, maybe the guy is very much correcting maybe he's not at all, how would you know ?
So the time you realize, the time you analyze, the time you take the action you think is necessary, the time you analyze again, some valuable time has passed, and when you are so close from the GND, it could make a difference between a tail strike or something worse, and a happy escape.

[Phil Hudson]

[QUOTE=eire757the 737 taxies sideways- Have seen this so many times now while taxying behind them-Is it an illusion or what?[/QUOTE]
It does some times, it's not all that bad once you gets used to it :=

[cap10lobo]

Same same but different. I have come to fancy the side stick. After a couple of sim sessions it feels completely natural, and probably vice versa too.:}