Difference between Airbus and Boeing controls
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Asia
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting !! So you have never seen the bundle of Airbus FCOMS??? ummm
I have come to realise the airbus has some fantastic bits of info that bites you in the backside, that are only printed in the FCOM!!
I do much prefer the Boeing to be honest.
Regards
by the way, who you with??
I have come to realise the airbus has some fantastic bits of info that bites you in the backside, that are only printed in the FCOM!!
I do much prefer the Boeing to be honest.
Regards
by the way, who you with??
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have flown both the 737 and 320 and quite frankly its horses for courses. the bus is very easy to fly with the sidestick and I find the 737 a much more stable aircraft in inclement weather but thats to do with aerodynamics rather than having "real" controls.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Asia
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
shark Bait spot on fellow, thats it in a nutshell.
Coffee Black None, you might be EZY??? My operator has the old FCOMS in paper version !!
Either way folks its just a way of earning a living !!
Take Care, safe flying
Coffee Black None, you might be EZY??? My operator has the old FCOMS in paper version !!
Either way folks its just a way of earning a living !!
Take Care, safe flying
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there any evidence to prove that the side stick option leads to more unsafe landings. I used to fly B727-200 and am now on the A319. Whilst on the Boeing I never noticed the PNF staring at the Control Column during landing. If anyone has any statistics to prove that stick feedback reduces unsafe landing incidences could they please share them with us.
Control column + yoke are perfectly well positioned and big enough to be naturally in your view even if you don't stare at them.
Landing is one thing
Take-off is as interesting :
Emirates A-340 in JNB
http://www.iasa.com.au/A6ERN.htm
Reading that report, I was amazed not to find the sidestick use as a contributing factor in that very serious incident ... !??
Having a control column in his face, that Pilot Monitoring would have had a much better chance to monitor that the PF was just not pulling adequately on the damn controls to get that bird airborne.
Nowadays, Accident Report do not stick to the simple facts, but look more inclined in protecting such or such interest ... (Pilot not being one of them)
... so it's hard to prove anything, but looking at the rate of 321 tailstrikes, it could be interesting to closer analyse that aspect ...
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: South of the border
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I first went onto the 'bus technology, discovered what you are discussing on my very first sim ride...it'll stick with me forever.
-First sim session, at altitude, me PNF and the sim had a spastic and suddenly we rolled and went into a nose down attitude, loss of control.
-We continued trying to fly it not knowing at that point is was a sim fault.
-steep nose down attitude, nose not coming up. I was calling "pitch up pitch up" and realised the only way to assertain if my colleague was making the correct inputs was to look up and over to his stick/hand to see what he was doing!! I was not very impressed with airbus philosophy at that point! quite sobering.
Amittedly, if it were happening for real, and there was any doubt as to the correct/sufficient input being made, one would hit the little red takeover button and do his thing. ALL a bit messy however, when compared to seeing the yoke move in your periphery and being instantly satisfied that your mate is on the job.
That being said, the stick concept and FBW control laws have some very nice features.
-First sim session, at altitude, me PNF and the sim had a spastic and suddenly we rolled and went into a nose down attitude, loss of control.
-We continued trying to fly it not knowing at that point is was a sim fault.
-steep nose down attitude, nose not coming up. I was calling "pitch up pitch up" and realised the only way to assertain if my colleague was making the correct inputs was to look up and over to his stick/hand to see what he was doing!! I was not very impressed with airbus philosophy at that point! quite sobering.
Amittedly, if it were happening for real, and there was any doubt as to the correct/sufficient input being made, one would hit the little red takeover button and do his thing. ALL a bit messy however, when compared to seeing the yoke move in your periphery and being instantly satisfied that your mate is on the job.
That being said, the stick concept and FBW control laws have some very nice features.
Only half a speed-brake
There are two sides to every story. You all rememer the Lufthansa incident where CP sidestick was re-wired incorrectly. FO took over and investigators concluded that left wingtip was 15 something from ground impact.
Months later Turkish AF lost an aircraft because of cross-linked controls. I believe that separated control interface (sidestick) in fact saved lives.
Months later Turkish AF lost an aircraft because of cross-linked controls. I believe that separated control interface (sidestick) in fact saved lives.
CONF; you are correct, if the JNB aircraft had not been fitted with sidesticks the incident (accident) would not have happened! Remove all sidesticks, and control columns, and accident rates would drop to zero.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a few reasons regulation still requests 2 fellows in a flight deck
and one of them is mutual monitoring:
- You check me
- I check you
Is not it something you could or should say in your takeoff briefing ?
So why not giving these fellows the proper tools to monitor each other ...
Now, why Boeing did not switch to the sidestick on 787 ?
- Is it only to protect their ego ...
- Is it only for the 777 common rating ...
I do not have the answer, but what I know is, on a regular base, we receive from Boeing ... surveys !
And they are probably especially interested hearing from ... Airbus crews !
That one was for EICAS / ECAM / ...
But I especially remember one on Flight Controls.
BTW ... I'm still waiting for my first survey from Airbus !?
and one of them is mutual monitoring:
- You check me
- I check you
Is not it something you could or should say in your takeoff briefing ?
So why not giving these fellows the proper tools to monitor each other ...
Now, why Boeing did not switch to the sidestick on 787 ?
- Is it only to protect their ego ...
- Is it only for the 777 common rating ...
I do not have the answer, but what I know is, on a regular base, we receive from Boeing ... surveys !
And they are probably especially interested hearing from ... Airbus crews !
The Boeing Company is constantly looking for new ways to improve flight decks for their users. As part of the manufacturer's ongoing efforts to collect feedback from the flight operations community, its human factors researchers are collecting information from line pilots and flight engineers on the subject of flight deck indications and alerting.
Boeing greatly values the perspectives and operational experiences of the world’s flight crews and is inviting all of ALPA's members to participate in this worldwide research effort.
Boeing greatly values the perspectives and operational experiences of the world’s flight crews and is inviting all of ALPA's members to participate in this worldwide research effort.
But I especially remember one on Flight Controls.
BTW ... I'm still waiting for my first survey from Airbus !?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now, why Boeing did not switch to the sidestick on 787 ?
- Is it only to protect their ego ...
- Is it only for the 777 common rating ...
- Is it only to protect their ego ...
- Is it only for the 777 common rating ...
There is no 'right' or 'wrong' way to do it, and as with most industries where there is a choice, some will perfer one way of doing it and some will prefer another.
BTW ... I'm still waiting for my first survey from Airbus !?
http://www.aatl.net/publications/airbus.htm
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: i don't know
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. You don't have to stare at a stick or column. Ever heard of something like a tactile feedback? Research has proven that this kind of feedback is something like 10 times faster than intellectual (visual) feedback. I rather like a faster feedback, don't you?
2. It doesn't matter if it's a stick or a yoke/column. Both can/could provide a feedback of input by the collegue or AP. It might even be a artificial one, not even symetric, but it is a FEEDBACK. I think with a feedback some cross-wirings might have been detected before it was too late, or the JNB co would have felt the old man releasing the stick when he should have pulled. Anyway, i have not heard or came across any argument who would prove any advantage of controls without feedback compared to ones with such a feature. Especially if such a feedback is a lot faster than others.
3. The same applies to the fixed throttle. There is not one valid reason not to install moving throttles. You can retain all the protections and features in any design, it does not impede the installation of movement of the throttles to give this tactile feedback of system performance. On aircraft with moving throttles the switching off of AT is far less frequent than on Airbus. Why? Because you still have full authority over the thrust. You can hold back, increase, decrease as required, retaining ALL the fancy AT protections. This is especially handy in strong and gusty wind conditions. With Airbus, if the performance of the AT is not as desired, the AOM recommends to switch it off. Now this is not dangerous, but it takes away some protections, leaving basically only Alpha Prot. I prefer the AT helping me and me helping him, both protecting each other in a certain way to the sole alternative as to let the AT do the thrust setting alone or do it only by myself. Again, i have still to hear one advantage of a AT system with dead throttles to the one with them moving.
Two very sound principals of professional aviation have been "best practice" or "optimum use of equipment". Not installing even the simplest feedback on either yoke/stick or AT does definitely not fit these principals, therefore the Airbus layout is not optimal.
GMDS
2. It doesn't matter if it's a stick or a yoke/column. Both can/could provide a feedback of input by the collegue or AP. It might even be a artificial one, not even symetric, but it is a FEEDBACK. I think with a feedback some cross-wirings might have been detected before it was too late, or the JNB co would have felt the old man releasing the stick when he should have pulled. Anyway, i have not heard or came across any argument who would prove any advantage of controls without feedback compared to ones with such a feature. Especially if such a feedback is a lot faster than others.
3. The same applies to the fixed throttle. There is not one valid reason not to install moving throttles. You can retain all the protections and features in any design, it does not impede the installation of movement of the throttles to give this tactile feedback of system performance. On aircraft with moving throttles the switching off of AT is far less frequent than on Airbus. Why? Because you still have full authority over the thrust. You can hold back, increase, decrease as required, retaining ALL the fancy AT protections. This is especially handy in strong and gusty wind conditions. With Airbus, if the performance of the AT is not as desired, the AOM recommends to switch it off. Now this is not dangerous, but it takes away some protections, leaving basically only Alpha Prot. I prefer the AT helping me and me helping him, both protecting each other in a certain way to the sole alternative as to let the AT do the thrust setting alone or do it only by myself. Again, i have still to hear one advantage of a AT system with dead throttles to the one with them moving.
Two very sound principals of professional aviation have been "best practice" or "optimum use of equipment". Not installing even the simplest feedback on either yoke/stick or AT does definitely not fit these principals, therefore the Airbus layout is not optimal.
GMDS
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: South of the border
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the common point here is not the merits of the INPUT medium, ie stick vs yoke..
The key difference is the OUTPUT.
Airbus - monitoring is done by the result or the performance only.
Boeing - monitoring is acheived by virtue of both awareness of the input AND monitoring of the performance.
As a note, Airbus have seen fit to allow monitoring of sidestick position on the ground only, by the means of an indicator on the PFD. Again, on ground only.
I'm sure this thread would not exist if Airbus programmed feedback into the stick, ie the thing moved. Why they didn't/don't do this I have no idea?
The key difference is the OUTPUT.
Airbus - monitoring is done by the result or the performance only.
Boeing - monitoring is acheived by virtue of both awareness of the input AND monitoring of the performance.
As a note, Airbus have seen fit to allow monitoring of sidestick position on the ground only, by the means of an indicator on the PFD. Again, on ground only.
I'm sure this thread would not exist if Airbus programmed feedback into the stick, ie the thing moved. Why they didn't/don't do this I have no idea?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chigwell, Essex
Age: 48
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you imagine what the pilot must of been trying to do in this vid then!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbLRTy5a7fo
Could not of been easy using Airbus controls in this inclement weather.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbLRTy5a7fo
Could not of been easy using Airbus controls in this inclement weather.
Having a control column in his face, that Pilot Monitoring would have had a much better chance to monitor that the PF was just not pulling adequately on the damn controls to get that bird airborne.
I think with a feedback some cross-wirings might have been detected before it was too late, or the JNB co would have felt the old man releasing the stick when he should have pulled.
Absolutely horrible. With such a lousily designed flight controls, I'm afraid that FBW Airbi have much greater incidence of busted nosewheels/collapsed maingear than Boeings. Also I'm pretty certain that our master of statistics, CONFiture, can gleefuly provide us with some table confirming my fears. We should really write to mr Airboos and demand some stick feedback immediatelly. But first we have to agree on what should mr A use as feedback input. You know, in normal law stick commands roll rate and g, and not control positions. To have your stick shaking like mad while elevators and ailerons are working their hearts out trying to give you smooth ride through the chop would be a bit disconcerting, wouldn't it.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dixons Cider
I'm sure this thread would not exist if Airbus programmed feedback into the stick, ie the thing moved. Why they didn't/don't do this I have no idea?
but I doubt they've been through a serious study before.
So after a time of operation, experiences, anecdotes, and ... incidents (?), people raised concern about sidestick philosophy ...
So Airbus had to look at it
And here is what they had to say :
In Line Feedback
The side stick operation, initially, raised 2 issues in the pilot community :
- No mechanic (or other) interconnection between sticks was a matter actually discussed.
- Sidestick dual inputs, from both pilots simultaneously, were actually experienced in line operation.
No interconnection between sidesticks
In the first years of sidestick operation, the interconnection issue was raised by certain pilots :
- new feature as compared to yoke mechanization
- potentially less feedback of PF actions on stick, for PNF
After several years of stick operation, pilots do agree that :
- tactile feedback is only beneficial with large enough deflections
- visual feedback is nil with side mounted sticks and small deflections
- interconnection might degrade present sensitivity and accuracy of stick inputs
- during instruction, feedback to the instructor provided by A/C response.
Interconnection
operationally not beneficial
technically not efficient
Note : Autopilot back-drive of stick would be a mere simulation of a stick movement.
The side stick operation, initially, raised 2 issues in the pilot community :
- No mechanic (or other) interconnection between sticks was a matter actually discussed.
- Sidestick dual inputs, from both pilots simultaneously, were actually experienced in line operation.
No interconnection between sidesticks
In the first years of sidestick operation, the interconnection issue was raised by certain pilots :
- new feature as compared to yoke mechanization
- potentially less feedback of PF actions on stick, for PNF
After several years of stick operation, pilots do agree that :
- tactile feedback is only beneficial with large enough deflections
- visual feedback is nil with side mounted sticks and small deflections
- interconnection might degrade present sensitivity and accuracy of stick inputs
- during instruction, feedback to the instructor provided by A/C response.
Interconnection
operationally not beneficial
technically not efficient
Note : Autopilot back-drive of stick would be a mere simulation of a stick movement.
- Pilots have concerns
- But it's too late to do anything about that
- Pilots should adapt to technology
- And live with it
But I think DUAL INPUT WARNING came at that time ... people will confirm.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: i don't know
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look, fellow Pro’s: Sarcasm and making fun of critics is a poor argument in this thread. It’s about differences in control philosophy, I thought.
Feedback is a essential tool in safe aviation. You can get it by audio, visual or tactile means. There’s the printed version (often after some landings…) but it’s as slow as the never used feedback through scents, as the human is not well equipped to take them in.
My point was, that the tactile feedback is faster than the visual one and that it’s absence represents the main concern/criticism of pilots regarding the Airbus philosophy. Following that, my quest was to bring up ANY argument as to why such absence (and reluctance to reintroduce it) should represent a increase of safety. Generally this should be our main concern. Technically there’s no obstacle as any Nintendo-Joystick can produce such a feedback. It would not take away ANY gimmick Airbus has added to it’s flight protection envelope and i already stated that the feedback could be artificial and non symmetric. All it should give us is IF there’s a input and in WHAT DIRECTION it is done.
So again, please, give me any valuable and professional reason as to why the absence of tactile feedback should increase safety.
Feedback is a essential tool in safe aviation. You can get it by audio, visual or tactile means. There’s the printed version (often after some landings…) but it’s as slow as the never used feedback through scents, as the human is not well equipped to take them in.
My point was, that the tactile feedback is faster than the visual one and that it’s absence represents the main concern/criticism of pilots regarding the Airbus philosophy. Following that, my quest was to bring up ANY argument as to why such absence (and reluctance to reintroduce it) should represent a increase of safety. Generally this should be our main concern. Technically there’s no obstacle as any Nintendo-Joystick can produce such a feedback. It would not take away ANY gimmick Airbus has added to it’s flight protection envelope and i already stated that the feedback could be artificial and non symmetric. All it should give us is IF there’s a input and in WHAT DIRECTION it is done.
So again, please, give me any valuable and professional reason as to why the absence of tactile feedback should increase safety.
I would have thought that the lack of force-feedback plus coupling in the sidesticks and the non-moving thrust levers probably have a common cause: They cost money to implement & certify and these "pilot convenience" items were not deemed important enough to get on the budget.
CONF iture is providing some good HF/CRM/cockpit ergonomics pointers and I have to say I agree with pretty much all he's been saying, especially of the non-rotating A340. On an aircraft with linked flight controls (doesn't matter who makes it) it is obvious what sort of inputs (if any) are being made on a attempted rotation. If you're still on the ground a long time after Vr, you don't need to check the instruments to confirm this...
CONF iture is providing some good HF/CRM/cockpit ergonomics pointers and I have to say I agree with pretty much all he's been saying, especially of the non-rotating A340. On an aircraft with linked flight controls (doesn't matter who makes it) it is obvious what sort of inputs (if any) are being made on a attempted rotation. If you're still on the ground a long time after Vr, you don't need to check the instruments to confirm this...