Difference between Airbus and Boeing controls
Reading that report, I was amazed not to find the sidestick use as a contributing factor in that very serious incident ... !??
1) on the day of Johannesburg incident, and every day since it, FBW Airbuses, from 318 to 346, made a couple of thousands of normal rotations and lift-offs. If the problem was sidestick related, one would expect at least some of take-offs to end up like J'burg one. Well, they didn't.
2) insufficient rotation for lift-off can be also easily achieved with yoke; all you have to do is pull-but-not-quite-enough. Even PA-28 is capable of performing it.
Problem was that capt, as PF of the flight, used undocumented and inapropriate procedure for rotating the A343 without even suspecting it was wrong. Trainning fault, I guess.
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.
As English is not my native language, would you please confirm if I understood you correctly that you advocate fiddling with throttle levers while keeping the autothrottle on. Thank you.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If tomorrow, the 380 or the next supersonic generation is single pilot certified, put whatever flight controls you like, as that single pilot will be the only one in need to know what he is doing with these flight controls, in the attempt to get what he would like to !
But as long there are 2 souls up front, my belief is it is much better if they share what I consider vital information.
And you exactly make my point here:
If, as PF, you do not realize you are not pulling enough, the PM, at least, will have a chance to SEE or to FEEL you are not pulling enough.
Maybe he will not get it either ... but as the team you will get more cards in your game.
JNB could have ended up with a complete disaster, but you do not need to reach that level to realize how the sidesticks philosophy can be insidious.
Time on the bird teaches a bit ...
I can see two critical areas, or let's say uncomfortable:
- For any reason, get it badly wrong on your CG, and PM will go for a double surprise during take-off roll.
- Everything below 500 AGL by turbulent gusty cross wind.
As mentioned by "GMDS", manually overiding Boeing A/THR in a very limited period of time is common practice.
Simple, easy, NATURAL !
Not much to see with the technic and sequence to follow for Airbus A/THR disconnection or reconnection.
Not to mention the FCOM BULLETIN:
A/C HANDLING IN FINAL APPROACH
- A/THR is recommended even in turbulent conditions
- BUT if SPEED decreases, move temporarily T/LVRS slightly above CLIMB detent to reduce A/THR response time.
- BUT do that carrefully, as not to trigger GO-AROUND mode.
- REMEMBER not to do that below 100 feet Radar Altimeter as it will result in A/THR disconnection and you will get CLIMB THR when placing back THR/LVRS in CLIMB detent, ... which is great above threshold.
- OF COURSE, if PF is not satisfied, he may take over thrust manually.
- ALSO, FCOM says that PF should disconnect A/THR above 1000 AGL, if he plans to do so.
But as long there are 2 souls up front, my belief is it is much better if they share what I consider vital information.
2) insufficient rotation for lift-off can be also easily achieved with yoke; all you have to do is pull-but-not-quite-enough. Even PA-28 is capable of performing it.
If, as PF, you do not realize you are not pulling enough, the PM, at least, will have a chance to SEE or to FEEL you are not pulling enough.
Maybe he will not get it either ... but as the team you will get more cards in your game.
JNB could have ended up with a complete disaster, but you do not need to reach that level to realize how the sidesticks philosophy can be insidious.
Time on the bird teaches a bit ...
I can see two critical areas, or let's say uncomfortable:
- For any reason, get it badly wrong on your CG, and PM will go for a double surprise during take-off roll.
- Everything below 500 AGL by turbulent gusty cross wind.
As mentioned by "GMDS", manually overiding Boeing A/THR in a very limited period of time is common practice.
Simple, easy, NATURAL !
Not much to see with the technic and sequence to follow for Airbus A/THR disconnection or reconnection.
Not to mention the FCOM BULLETIN:
A/C HANDLING IN FINAL APPROACH
- A/THR is recommended even in turbulent conditions
- BUT if SPEED decreases, move temporarily T/LVRS slightly above CLIMB detent to reduce A/THR response time.
- BUT do that carrefully, as not to trigger GO-AROUND mode.
- REMEMBER not to do that below 100 feet Radar Altimeter as it will result in A/THR disconnection and you will get CLIMB THR when placing back THR/LVRS in CLIMB detent, ... which is great above threshold.
- OF COURSE, if PF is not satisfied, he may take over thrust manually.
- ALSO, FCOM says that PF should disconnect A/THR above 1000 AGL, if he plans to do so.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: i don't know
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clandestino posts:
Switching off the autothrust does not take away any of the protections. Holding AT disconect for 15 seconds disables ATHR for the rest of the flight and disables alpha floor only.
As English is not my native language, would you please confirm if I understood you correctly that you advocate fiddling with throttle levers while keeping the autothrottle on. Thank you.
Switching off the AT takes away Vgroundmini, allthough i don't like it, it's still a form of protection. More importantly it takes away the very original action of the AT, meaning that it wants to fly the manged/selected speed or Vls and intervenes BEFORE Aprot. I would also call this a form of protection.
As to your "fiddling" coment. I suspect you have never flown a modern moving AT/throttle system i.e. on a 744, 777, MD11. The characteristic of a Heavy, beeing basically more stable in terms of speed, however beeing slightly more vulnerable once in a speed deficit (harder to get out), you would appreciate the coordinated effort of a AT with the pilot. At least i would not call this symbiose "fiddling". The AT has different sensors to mine, the latter sometimes superior to his and vice versa.
What i said is that having the AT engaged, it will aim to fly the managed/selected Va, switched off it will only prevent the aircraft to go below Vs (minus some design tolerance) or A prot. So with AT engaged, flight is slightly safer and more comfortable. I further stated that beeing capable of intervening, or overriding a engaged AT, leaves more options to the pilot as either having to rely solely on the AT or, in case of performance doubts, disengage it. He can momentarely intervene, just to let the AT continue once the intervention is over.
You may call it fiddling, but i strongly believe that, with the same protections and performance, a moving AT where the pilot can assist or interfere, is safer than a fixed one where he can either only observe or disconnect.
GMDS
Switching off the autothrust does not take away any of the protections. Holding AT disconect for 15 seconds disables ATHR for the rest of the flight and disables alpha floor only.
As English is not my native language, would you please confirm if I understood you correctly that you advocate fiddling with throttle levers while keeping the autothrottle on. Thank you.
Switching off the AT takes away Vgroundmini, allthough i don't like it, it's still a form of protection. More importantly it takes away the very original action of the AT, meaning that it wants to fly the manged/selected speed or Vls and intervenes BEFORE Aprot. I would also call this a form of protection.
As to your "fiddling" coment. I suspect you have never flown a modern moving AT/throttle system i.e. on a 744, 777, MD11. The characteristic of a Heavy, beeing basically more stable in terms of speed, however beeing slightly more vulnerable once in a speed deficit (harder to get out), you would appreciate the coordinated effort of a AT with the pilot. At least i would not call this symbiose "fiddling". The AT has different sensors to mine, the latter sometimes superior to his and vice versa.
What i said is that having the AT engaged, it will aim to fly the managed/selected Va, switched off it will only prevent the aircraft to go below Vs (minus some design tolerance) or A prot. So with AT engaged, flight is slightly safer and more comfortable. I further stated that beeing capable of intervening, or overriding a engaged AT, leaves more options to the pilot as either having to rely solely on the AT or, in case of performance doubts, disengage it. He can momentarely intervene, just to let the AT continue once the intervention is over.
You may call it fiddling, but i strongly believe that, with the same protections and performance, a moving AT where the pilot can assist or interfere, is safer than a fixed one where he can either only observe or disconnect.
GMDS
Last edited by GMDS; 25th Mar 2007 at 07:42.
Thank you for the info, your suspicion was correct. My previous airplane was ATR-42 and it had no autothrust (or autotorque for that matter).
However, sometimes I feel we're talking about slightly different aircraft when we are talking about Airbus.
On A320 I fly, GSmini is available as long as you fly with managed speed. A/THR or no A/THR. If you fly manually, then it's your turn to move thrust levers in order to match magenta triangle on the speed tape.
On A320 I fly, moving thrust levers above CLB gives you MCT as long as both engines are alive and kicking. It definitively can't be used to reduce A/THR response time.
On A320 I fly, there's pitch ladder on PFD atitude display, very convenient to check your rotation rate and pitch, once runway dissapears below nose (as a result of rotation, that is, and not the impending overrun)
On A320 I fly, sidestick inputs are arithmetically added up to maximum value and there's nice red stick priority button that enables you to put your significant cockpit other out of the control loop if you're not a) satisfied with what airplane does and b) suspect that airplane's behaviour is result of your companion's control inputs. And that was something that was rehearsed a lot during my type rating sim trainning. Probably it's a consequence of DLH incident. Granted, you can't see what your buddy is doing with sidestick, you have to deduct it yourself from airplane behavior, but whether this is safety critical, remains open to debate.
Just my 2 fils worth.
However, sometimes I feel we're talking about slightly different aircraft when we are talking about Airbus.
On A320 I fly, GSmini is available as long as you fly with managed speed. A/THR or no A/THR. If you fly manually, then it's your turn to move thrust levers in order to match magenta triangle on the speed tape.
On A320 I fly, moving thrust levers above CLB gives you MCT as long as both engines are alive and kicking. It definitively can't be used to reduce A/THR response time.
On A320 I fly, there's pitch ladder on PFD atitude display, very convenient to check your rotation rate and pitch, once runway dissapears below nose (as a result of rotation, that is, and not the impending overrun)
On A320 I fly, sidestick inputs are arithmetically added up to maximum value and there's nice red stick priority button that enables you to put your significant cockpit other out of the control loop if you're not a) satisfied with what airplane does and b) suspect that airplane's behaviour is result of your companion's control inputs. And that was something that was rehearsed a lot during my type rating sim trainning. Probably it's a consequence of DLH incident. Granted, you can't see what your buddy is doing with sidestick, you have to deduct it yourself from airplane behavior, but whether this is safety critical, remains open to debate.
Just my 2 fils worth.
It does seem Airbus control philosophy has taken a whipping on this site in recent times. I do feel there should be an absolute requirement, in all planes! i.e for a artificial feel and force-feedback system---I know it isn't the case.
Not having ever flown Airbus planes myself and only having superficial knowledge of it's flight controls or systems I can only respond based on the inputs of the pilots on that type who've commneted in recent postings---that having been said- here are some thoughts/concerns I have based on my observations of the above pilots comments and concerns.
1. Some of the items described are very counterintuitive to the majority of pilots on 'conventional planes' for instance the fact that back pressure isn't required for turns and that roll rates are commanded instead of bank angles by control stick deflection, but it also seems these particular items cause little relative concern and are easily adapted too.
2. The second item, the one that causes me most concern---although it is hopefully adressed in training and OpSpecs--- is the lack of a artificial feel/feed back system, that philosophy is truly opposed to natural flying sense for a two-crew aircraft [actually all aircraft]. I don't feel 'takeover-procedures' as printed OpSpecs could ever adequately adress an issue that may take fractions of a second to execute.
3. Those thrust levers also leave me with some obvious concern for the same reasons aforementioned by others.
It seems that Airbus attempts to circumvent years of honed senses and that they present a drastically different way to fly an airplane-physically shielded and insulated from the very aerodynamic laws that sustain flight.
lastly, it does seem that the Airbuses are always climb limited compared to Boeing? no matter what!!!
In my book Airbus should be more conformist with the rest of aviation and 103 years of developed airsense
For this pilot- if it ain't Boeing, I ain't going---Sorry!
Not having ever flown Airbus planes myself and only having superficial knowledge of it's flight controls or systems I can only respond based on the inputs of the pilots on that type who've commneted in recent postings---that having been said- here are some thoughts/concerns I have based on my observations of the above pilots comments and concerns.
1. Some of the items described are very counterintuitive to the majority of pilots on 'conventional planes' for instance the fact that back pressure isn't required for turns and that roll rates are commanded instead of bank angles by control stick deflection, but it also seems these particular items cause little relative concern and are easily adapted too.
2. The second item, the one that causes me most concern---although it is hopefully adressed in training and OpSpecs--- is the lack of a artificial feel/feed back system, that philosophy is truly opposed to natural flying sense for a two-crew aircraft [actually all aircraft]. I don't feel 'takeover-procedures' as printed OpSpecs could ever adequately adress an issue that may take fractions of a second to execute.
3. Those thrust levers also leave me with some obvious concern for the same reasons aforementioned by others.
It seems that Airbus attempts to circumvent years of honed senses and that they present a drastically different way to fly an airplane-physically shielded and insulated from the very aerodynamic laws that sustain flight.
lastly, it does seem that the Airbuses are always climb limited compared to Boeing? no matter what!!!
In my book Airbus should be more conformist with the rest of aviation and 103 years of developed airsense
For this pilot- if it ain't Boeing, I ain't going---Sorry!
Last edited by Pugilistic Animus; 28th Mar 2007 at 15:14. Reason: posted early because I was interrupted
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In response to the last post, I will admit that I am an airbus pilot and therefore lean towards the bus technology however before arguing against a system perhaps it is worth understanding the big differences.
The side stick is not a control column, it is a g selector, rather than having a direct relationship it will give a rate of turn as you have mentioned which is very different to a conventional powered flying control. The movement required to initiate a turn is quite small and once the attitude is set the control can be released and it will return to neutral but the aircraft will continue the turn so with a system that is designed to operate as such how do provide feedback? Do you make the other side stick harder to nudge? We are talking about very small inputs here that generate quite large reactions. There is no slack in the controls and big inputs mean bigger outputs. PIO for new bus pilots is not unheard of remember the aircraft is pitch stable and so it will fly the trajectory you set, which is different to a conventional aircraft. Often it is better to wait before adding another input as this can increase an effect rather than decreasing it.
The airbus FBW control is a sea change in concept as was jet engines to pistons, some people get over it sooner than others. Its different, it has its pros and cons as do all systems. Will it change, I doubt it as it has many advantages that far outweigh the negatives. The biggest problem that the bus has is changing peoples attitudes to the way things have always been done. If we didnt embrace change then aviation wouldnt be where it is today.
It is also true that the airbus is a visual aircraft - there is a lot of information that must be scanned in but you learn to scan important things during different phases of flight.
As for thrust levers Airbus at one stage in the design process didnt even want to have thrust levers merely switches, so you can see how 'different' the design philosophy is. The debate will go on between Airbus and Boeing but until you have tried it and understand fully what the aircraft is designed to do and how the pilot is to 'operate' it, then you will have preconceptions against it. If you want stick and rudder stuff - go and find a sligsby or vans and have some fun on the weekend, the airbus is an accountants money making machine - it just happens to fly and needs pilots to operate it, they are even talking about pilotless aircraft, how do you feel about that? The reality of flying an airliner, is that it is mainly operated with the AP in and in a controlled environment. For me having a table and space to do the 'other' parts of my job makes sitting on the flight deck for 8+ hours much more comfortable. For the 10 mins max that I spend in manual flight each time we get airborne, using the side stick seems so natural and intuitive I now would find it difficult wrestling with a control column. In a cross wind on a short runway with an Airbus it still requires pilot technique and skill, a different skill but still the same principles as a boeing. The interface might be slightly different but the result is the same. As for monitoring pilots there are sufficient cues to replace tactile feedback and you get a good feel for what amount of pitch is too much. You can still follow through with the rudders and covering the controls is always good airmanship, with the priority button on the stick control can be taken over in an instance.
Its just different - please get over it!
Technology will move on - Boeing aircraft will all be flyby wire soon, and all plastic (CFRP) - does that mean you wont fly on a plastic aircraft? There will be bugs for them to sort out as much as Airbus has its problems at the moment. But the number of Airbus in worldwide fleets must say something that they are doing something right.
This debate always boils down to whos team are you on - I like both, for different reasons, I get paid to fly the bus and so thats what I do. If I had a choice I would probably stick with the bus because the ergonomics and noise level on the bus is better. Perhaps the 787 will be a sea change but both aircraft still do the same job - just with a different philosphy.
The side stick is not a control column, it is a g selector, rather than having a direct relationship it will give a rate of turn as you have mentioned which is very different to a conventional powered flying control. The movement required to initiate a turn is quite small and once the attitude is set the control can be released and it will return to neutral but the aircraft will continue the turn so with a system that is designed to operate as such how do provide feedback? Do you make the other side stick harder to nudge? We are talking about very small inputs here that generate quite large reactions. There is no slack in the controls and big inputs mean bigger outputs. PIO for new bus pilots is not unheard of remember the aircraft is pitch stable and so it will fly the trajectory you set, which is different to a conventional aircraft. Often it is better to wait before adding another input as this can increase an effect rather than decreasing it.
The airbus FBW control is a sea change in concept as was jet engines to pistons, some people get over it sooner than others. Its different, it has its pros and cons as do all systems. Will it change, I doubt it as it has many advantages that far outweigh the negatives. The biggest problem that the bus has is changing peoples attitudes to the way things have always been done. If we didnt embrace change then aviation wouldnt be where it is today.
It is also true that the airbus is a visual aircraft - there is a lot of information that must be scanned in but you learn to scan important things during different phases of flight.
As for thrust levers Airbus at one stage in the design process didnt even want to have thrust levers merely switches, so you can see how 'different' the design philosophy is. The debate will go on between Airbus and Boeing but until you have tried it and understand fully what the aircraft is designed to do and how the pilot is to 'operate' it, then you will have preconceptions against it. If you want stick and rudder stuff - go and find a sligsby or vans and have some fun on the weekend, the airbus is an accountants money making machine - it just happens to fly and needs pilots to operate it, they are even talking about pilotless aircraft, how do you feel about that? The reality of flying an airliner, is that it is mainly operated with the AP in and in a controlled environment. For me having a table and space to do the 'other' parts of my job makes sitting on the flight deck for 8+ hours much more comfortable. For the 10 mins max that I spend in manual flight each time we get airborne, using the side stick seems so natural and intuitive I now would find it difficult wrestling with a control column. In a cross wind on a short runway with an Airbus it still requires pilot technique and skill, a different skill but still the same principles as a boeing. The interface might be slightly different but the result is the same. As for monitoring pilots there are sufficient cues to replace tactile feedback and you get a good feel for what amount of pitch is too much. You can still follow through with the rudders and covering the controls is always good airmanship, with the priority button on the stick control can be taken over in an instance.
Its just different - please get over it!
Technology will move on - Boeing aircraft will all be flyby wire soon, and all plastic (CFRP) - does that mean you wont fly on a plastic aircraft? There will be bugs for them to sort out as much as Airbus has its problems at the moment. But the number of Airbus in worldwide fleets must say something that they are doing something right.
This debate always boils down to whos team are you on - I like both, for different reasons, I get paid to fly the bus and so thats what I do. If I had a choice I would probably stick with the bus because the ergonomics and noise level on the bus is better. Perhaps the 787 will be a sea change but both aircraft still do the same job - just with a different philosphy.
togaroo, my first response did not go through too long???, but basically in a extremely short version of my original post I don't think its an airmanship difference, and certain facts of the air planes functioning are squarely on the engineer's back but reinventing the wheel is not always best, side stick is great ergonomically, those ten minutes you mention before are the most critical minutes T.o. and ldg?---- hours and hours of 'coventional flying' will not completely extinguish with 50 hrs of initial sim training
i'm sure i would enjoy a sim ride on the airbus but in a critical condition I'd want sensory redundancy too.
as a professional one learns too live the pros and cons and love their ship no matter what
no I woundn't want pilotless aircraft because I don't think it would know when to abort AFTER V1 overrun destroy itself and save as many as possible... or how too ditch in a fifty knot double swell and not hit the face by all means.
but,
I have no trouble with innovation electric pressurization bring it---a fair and square engineering problem of no concern to pilots, unlike flying qualities?
and lastly Boeing have a stable stick force v. 'g' gradient in the longitudinal sense
they also have a normal 'g' v. bank angle even the freaking engineers agree that the airbus follows g=1/cos[bank angle] rule?
so why if I had to jigger around in the winds with wing tips and engines near to the ground I want to command a bank angle--- the appropriate to the g's they will follow automatically? but I don't want roll rate in that situation.
I wish my prior more elegant post wasn't lost to cyberspace
i'm sure i would enjoy a sim ride on the airbus but in a critical condition I'd want sensory redundancy too.
as a professional one learns too live the pros and cons and love their ship no matter what
no I woundn't want pilotless aircraft because I don't think it would know when to abort AFTER V1 overrun destroy itself and save as many as possible... or how too ditch in a fifty knot double swell and not hit the face by all means.
but,
I have no trouble with innovation electric pressurization bring it---a fair and square engineering problem of no concern to pilots, unlike flying qualities?
and lastly Boeing have a stable stick force v. 'g' gradient in the longitudinal sense
they also have a normal 'g' v. bank angle even the freaking engineers agree that the airbus follows g=1/cos[bank angle] rule?
so why if I had to jigger around in the winds with wing tips and engines near to the ground I want to command a bank angle--- the appropriate to the g's they will follow automatically? but I don't want roll rate in that situation.
I wish my prior more elegant post wasn't lost to cyberspace
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vancouver
Age: 43
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as a bystander, i have a question
from this i understand that the airbus fbw system doens't provide any feedback to the PM. That's just how the sidestick is setup
What about 777's FBW? i know that in addition to the FBW there is a redundant hydrulic system. Can the PM feel what the PF has input?
e.
from this i understand that the airbus fbw system doens't provide any feedback to the PM. That's just how the sidestick is setup
What about 777's FBW? i know that in addition to the FBW there is a redundant hydrulic system. Can the PM feel what the PF has input?
e.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: i don't know
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Togaroo wrote:
“The airbus FBW control is a sea change in concept as was jet engines to pistons, some people get over it sooner than others.”
“The biggest problem that the bus has is changing peoples attitudes to the way things have always been done. If we didn’t embrace change then aviation wouldn’t be where it is today.”
“The debate will go on between Airbus and Boeing but until you have tried it and understand fully what the aircraft is designed to do and how the pilot is to 'operate' it, then you will have preconceptions against it.”
The sea of change is not as big as that. If you’ve flown a DC10, you would know that the 60ies technology CWS was on a similar track already and, believe me, much better to interact with. What bothers me, are your following remarks, shared by the AB-fan committee, about how some are “AB-enlightened” a little earlier than others. It reminds me of the only argument of the street-harassing religious freaks: “…. I thought the same, but then enlightenment struck me …”
I agree with change, but not EVERY change brings us forward and if critics are dismissed with the enlightening factor and not with down to earth arguments, then it gets sectarian.
I am still waiting for a VALUABLE argument as to why “dead” controls enhance safety as opposed to my arguments in previous post trying to deduct why they are not.
Simple “you will get used to it, you will see, we shall overcome….” is insufficient to me for a professional debate. I have tried both prevailing technologies and find the one less adapted to us humans, the other being at least just as safe.
“It’s just different - please get over it!”
Simply: No. I would like the best and safest aircraft today’s technology can build, with the best acceptance of its jockeys as well.
Your last argument is somewhat naïve. Would you say the same if they took away the second pilot, or the side-stick for good? - It would be different ….
GMDS
“The airbus FBW control is a sea change in concept as was jet engines to pistons, some people get over it sooner than others.”
“The biggest problem that the bus has is changing peoples attitudes to the way things have always been done. If we didn’t embrace change then aviation wouldn’t be where it is today.”
“The debate will go on between Airbus and Boeing but until you have tried it and understand fully what the aircraft is designed to do and how the pilot is to 'operate' it, then you will have preconceptions against it.”
The sea of change is not as big as that. If you’ve flown a DC10, you would know that the 60ies technology CWS was on a similar track already and, believe me, much better to interact with. What bothers me, are your following remarks, shared by the AB-fan committee, about how some are “AB-enlightened” a little earlier than others. It reminds me of the only argument of the street-harassing religious freaks: “…. I thought the same, but then enlightenment struck me …”
I agree with change, but not EVERY change brings us forward and if critics are dismissed with the enlightening factor and not with down to earth arguments, then it gets sectarian.
I am still waiting for a VALUABLE argument as to why “dead” controls enhance safety as opposed to my arguments in previous post trying to deduct why they are not.
Simple “you will get used to it, you will see, we shall overcome….” is insufficient to me for a professional debate. I have tried both prevailing technologies and find the one less adapted to us humans, the other being at least just as safe.
“It’s just different - please get over it!”
Simply: No. I would like the best and safest aircraft today’s technology can build, with the best acceptance of its jockeys as well.
Your last argument is somewhat naïve. Would you say the same if they took away the second pilot, or the side-stick for good? - It would be different ….
GMDS
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
energie:
777's FBW force feedback is entirely artificial and computer-controlled, i.e. no less susceptible to computer failure than any part of the Airbus system. Some see it as an innovative way to retain comfort and familiarity for the pilot, others see it as a crutch. It's a shame everyone's so polarised about it.
GMDS:
Sounds like you decided to dislike the Airbus system before you even tried it to me. Non-active controls neither enhance nor detract from safety as long as a viable form of feedback is supplied, be it visual, aural, tactile or otherwise.
What gets me is that we're getting the tired old 'ain't Boeing, ain't going' canards coming up again, fortified by the same old misinformation that's been around for the last 20 years. The primary anti-Airbus rant was that they were taking the third cockpit crewmember away, even though Boeing had done this in the old 737 25 years previously. Another was that 'the computer was doing away with direct control by the pilot', something that had been around since the 757 in the early 80s - as far as the FMS was concerned anyway. As for sidestick-oriented FBW, you didn't hear F-16 pilots complaining that the old column was done away with in the late '70s. It not only made the aircraft more agile than it otherwise may have been, but made it a more comfortable work environment than other similar aircraft (the original F/A-18 for example).
Of course, a lot of this was thinly disguised 'NIH'-phobia from the US (even though the initial FBW production aircraft was indeed theirs), plus a desire to counter a percieved 'downgrading' of the pilot's responsibility with the new computer-assisted control architecture. Airbus didn't help the latter initially, their training could be on the patronising side and they did put too much faith in the computer's ability to out-think a pilot making a mistake. The loss of Nick Warner did show them the error of their ways, and now the operative word is that the Airbus is a 'different' piloting experience rather than 'easier'.
I did laugh at the '103 years' of doing it the Boeing way though - I didn't realise that wing warping was controlled by a heavy column with a wheel in the middle of the Wright Flyer... The truth of the matter is that controls have evolved throughout the brief history of aviation, it's just that they remained static for the longest period between WWII and the late 1980s, with innovation coming within other areas (propulsion, cabin comfort, pressurisation) during that period. What gets me is that the same people on this thread dissing the Airbus controls are leaving out that the 777 FBW feedback is entirely artificial, and like I said above - if you don't trust computers to the extent that you refuse to fly Airbus, you probably shouldn't trust what the 777 column tells you either!
It boils down to what you want from your job I suppose - if you're more into your stick-and-rudder flying and like the older office layout then you're probably going to prefer to fly the Boeing line. If you like a more neatly laid-out office that helps you get the other aspects of piloting done more easily, then you're more likely to enjoy the Airbus experience.
777's FBW force feedback is entirely artificial and computer-controlled, i.e. no less susceptible to computer failure than any part of the Airbus system. Some see it as an innovative way to retain comfort and familiarity for the pilot, others see it as a crutch. It's a shame everyone's so polarised about it.
GMDS:
Sounds like you decided to dislike the Airbus system before you even tried it to me. Non-active controls neither enhance nor detract from safety as long as a viable form of feedback is supplied, be it visual, aural, tactile or otherwise.
What gets me is that we're getting the tired old 'ain't Boeing, ain't going' canards coming up again, fortified by the same old misinformation that's been around for the last 20 years. The primary anti-Airbus rant was that they were taking the third cockpit crewmember away, even though Boeing had done this in the old 737 25 years previously. Another was that 'the computer was doing away with direct control by the pilot', something that had been around since the 757 in the early 80s - as far as the FMS was concerned anyway. As for sidestick-oriented FBW, you didn't hear F-16 pilots complaining that the old column was done away with in the late '70s. It not only made the aircraft more agile than it otherwise may have been, but made it a more comfortable work environment than other similar aircraft (the original F/A-18 for example).
Of course, a lot of this was thinly disguised 'NIH'-phobia from the US (even though the initial FBW production aircraft was indeed theirs), plus a desire to counter a percieved 'downgrading' of the pilot's responsibility with the new computer-assisted control architecture. Airbus didn't help the latter initially, their training could be on the patronising side and they did put too much faith in the computer's ability to out-think a pilot making a mistake. The loss of Nick Warner did show them the error of their ways, and now the operative word is that the Airbus is a 'different' piloting experience rather than 'easier'.
I did laugh at the '103 years' of doing it the Boeing way though - I didn't realise that wing warping was controlled by a heavy column with a wheel in the middle of the Wright Flyer... The truth of the matter is that controls have evolved throughout the brief history of aviation, it's just that they remained static for the longest period between WWII and the late 1980s, with innovation coming within other areas (propulsion, cabin comfort, pressurisation) during that period. What gets me is that the same people on this thread dissing the Airbus controls are leaving out that the 777 FBW feedback is entirely artificial, and like I said above - if you don't trust computers to the extent that you refuse to fly Airbus, you probably shouldn't trust what the 777 column tells you either!
It boils down to what you want from your job I suppose - if you're more into your stick-and-rudder flying and like the older office layout then you're probably going to prefer to fly the Boeing line. If you like a more neatly laid-out office that helps you get the other aspects of piloting done more easily, then you're more likely to enjoy the Airbus experience.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: i don't know
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wannabe
I can agree with a lot of your thoughts.
You miss the point though. Read my previous posts, please, especially the points about artificial feedback.
You will also see first that i have AB experience and i do not just dislike it,
this thread is about difference in controls.
GMDS
I can agree with a lot of your thoughts.
You miss the point though. Read my previous posts, please, especially the points about artificial feedback.
You will also see first that i have AB experience and i do not just dislike it,
this thread is about difference in controls.
GMDS
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't worry, I got your point - it was the more sophomoric stuff on this thread I was taking issue with.
My counterpoint to your argument is that artificial feedback is precisely that - artificial. It is provided by a computer based on what it thinks the pilot should be feeling, not directly from resistance from the cable or hydraulic system as was the case in the past. It may subjectively 'feel' more natural to a pilot that has come from older airliners, and that in itself is a laudable goal - but it is objectively no safer, because like any electro-mechanical system it can go wrong.
Practical example - the incident mentioned by FlightDetent where the Captain's sidestick was cross-wired (something that can be done just as easily in the 777 cockpit, remember). The FO's stick was correctly wired, so he took control and performed the landing. Artificial feedback in that instance would have pushed the FO's stick in the opposite direction and he may not have been able to recover the aircraft as easily, or (god forbid) at all.
My counterpoint to your argument is that artificial feedback is precisely that - artificial. It is provided by a computer based on what it thinks the pilot should be feeling, not directly from resistance from the cable or hydraulic system as was the case in the past. It may subjectively 'feel' more natural to a pilot that has come from older airliners, and that in itself is a laudable goal - but it is objectively no safer, because like any electro-mechanical system it can go wrong.
Practical example - the incident mentioned by FlightDetent where the Captain's sidestick was cross-wired (something that can be done just as easily in the 777 cockpit, remember). The FO's stick was correctly wired, so he took control and performed the landing. Artificial feedback in that instance would have pushed the FO's stick in the opposite direction and he may not have been able to recover the aircraft as easily, or (god forbid) at all.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: i don't know
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your practical examle (crosswiring):
Let's assume it would have happened on a 777. After take-off, in the very first turn the crosswiring would have produced such a awkward feeling and looking situation (Captains yoke turns one way, Copilots the other) that any crew would have picked it up. On a Airbus, with dead sticks, only if the Captain would have done this first turn manually. Apparently this was not the case and they only picked it up at landing.
I will stop by now, not wanting a A vs. B match, but this example very nicely sustains my argument.
Off to a nice flight with my Airbus!
Let's assume it would have happened on a 777. After take-off, in the very first turn the crosswiring would have produced such a awkward feeling and looking situation (Captains yoke turns one way, Copilots the other) that any crew would have picked it up. On a Airbus, with dead sticks, only if the Captain would have done this first turn manually. Apparently this was not the case and they only picked it up at landing.
I will stop by now, not wanting a A vs. B match, but this example very nicely sustains my argument.
Off to a nice flight with my Airbus!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wasn't talking about what would (or might) happen on the 777, I was talking about your suggestion that Airbus use force feedback. In that case you'd have the force feedback working against the FO's input for as long as the Captain deflected his stick - it would have been physically harder to right the aircraft until the crew realised what was happening, which can be a long time depending on the crew.
Your training obviously taught you to watch/feel the yoke to see what's happening, but not everyone's does and I'd wager that in the 777 not *every* crew would work out what was going on as quickly as you might assume.
At the end of the day, people have their own opinions of which 'office environment' they prefer and they will defend that choice - it's only human. But to then state that one system is empirically safer than the other based solely on that opinion (and occasionally cherry-picked research to support it) is a step too far.
Your training obviously taught you to watch/feel the yoke to see what's happening, but not everyone's does and I'd wager that in the 777 not *every* crew would work out what was going on as quickly as you might assume.
At the end of the day, people have their own opinions of which 'office environment' they prefer and they will defend that choice - it's only human. But to then state that one system is empirically safer than the other based solely on that opinion (and occasionally cherry-picked research to support it) is a step too far.
DozyWannabee,
Well put. I couldn't agree with you more. After 8 years on A340 and now flying Boeing again I look back fondly to the comfort, ergonomics and aerodynamic "balance" of the Bus. Unfortunately the 744 is not the same technology generation as the 340 so direct comparison is unfair. Would love to get my hands on a 787 but, alas, this is unlikely.
Cheers.
Well put. I couldn't agree with you more. After 8 years on A340 and now flying Boeing again I look back fondly to the comfort, ergonomics and aerodynamic "balance" of the Bus. Unfortunately the 744 is not the same technology generation as the 340 so direct comparison is unfair. Would love to get my hands on a 787 but, alas, this is unlikely.
Cheers.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: South of the border
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There has been the odd comment here that there a customers aplenty are buying the 'bus product, so they must have it right.
I'm afraid the decisions made by the been counters as to which manufacturer they will go with when buying airframes has nothing at all to do with pilot preference...the $$ is king in these decisions.
As lowly drivers, our job is to merely go and steer the thing - no matter what they put our arses into. End of story.
I'm afraid the decisions made by the been counters as to which manufacturer they will go with when buying airframes has nothing at all to do with pilot preference...the $$ is king in these decisions.
As lowly drivers, our job is to merely go and steer the thing - no matter what they put our arses into. End of story.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: TLV
Age: 50
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a feeling this discussion could go on for ever.
However, I would like to put in my two cents. I have never flown an Airbus, and know its systems only from reading.
I don't have anything against FBW. The protections it has are welcome, and the ease it seems to bring into hand-flying is also welcome. I don't even care if it's a "g-keeping" or a "rate-keeping" system, and most important, I don't care if it's a yoke, stick or track-ball operated (In fact, a small table up front would be welcome). I guess you could get used to any control device or laws, and it will feel natural after some time.
And I don't care in which continent it is made and what language are the manuals written in.
But, as many before me has written, I do believe that as long as the airplane is a TWO-c/m airplane, there should be active, tactile feedback on what the other c/m is doing. It can be interconnected, it can be artificial (I am not afraid of computer failures, or cross wiring - cross controls have happened on conventional airplanes too, you know...) but I want to know, damn it, I HAVE to know what the other c/m is doing. Sometimes it's just not enough to wait and see what the aircraft is doing.
More important, during training, I want to know what the student is doing. I understand the airplane sums up the control inputs. How would I know if the result was what I did, or what he/she did, and just how wrong did he/she did it?
And as a student, I would want to know just what the instructor did to correct the situation, and what should I do next time? Just rely on my other c/m to provide his/her half of the summed input?
I expect to hear stuff in the debriefing like "you pulled too early" or "use smaller corrections next time". How would my instructor know what I did? Was it a gust that blew the wing down, or was it me?
Further, and here we get to the non-moving throttles, every airplane with a pilot (now we're talking even single-pilot), has to have the option for a quick, simple, straight-forward override of it's automation.
Meaning, if the A/P is connected, you can pull on the yoke/stick, and the airplane will pitch up. You retard the throttles, and the engines spool down. You push them forward, and the engines spool up. Without having to disconnect anything first.
To put it simple - if you are battling the A/P or A/T, you should win. Always.
From what I've been reading on Airbus, it seems that day-to-day operation is a lot easier and simpler than other brands. However, when the **** hits the fan, you never see it coming.
However, I would like to put in my two cents. I have never flown an Airbus, and know its systems only from reading.
I don't have anything against FBW. The protections it has are welcome, and the ease it seems to bring into hand-flying is also welcome. I don't even care if it's a "g-keeping" or a "rate-keeping" system, and most important, I don't care if it's a yoke, stick or track-ball operated (In fact, a small table up front would be welcome). I guess you could get used to any control device or laws, and it will feel natural after some time.
And I don't care in which continent it is made and what language are the manuals written in.
But, as many before me has written, I do believe that as long as the airplane is a TWO-c/m airplane, there should be active, tactile feedback on what the other c/m is doing. It can be interconnected, it can be artificial (I am not afraid of computer failures, or cross wiring - cross controls have happened on conventional airplanes too, you know...) but I want to know, damn it, I HAVE to know what the other c/m is doing. Sometimes it's just not enough to wait and see what the aircraft is doing.
More important, during training, I want to know what the student is doing. I understand the airplane sums up the control inputs. How would I know if the result was what I did, or what he/she did, and just how wrong did he/she did it?
And as a student, I would want to know just what the instructor did to correct the situation, and what should I do next time? Just rely on my other c/m to provide his/her half of the summed input?
I expect to hear stuff in the debriefing like "you pulled too early" or "use smaller corrections next time". How would my instructor know what I did? Was it a gust that blew the wing down, or was it me?
Further, and here we get to the non-moving throttles, every airplane with a pilot (now we're talking even single-pilot), has to have the option for a quick, simple, straight-forward override of it's automation.
Meaning, if the A/P is connected, you can pull on the yoke/stick, and the airplane will pitch up. You retard the throttles, and the engines spool down. You push them forward, and the engines spool up. Without having to disconnect anything first.
To put it simple - if you are battling the A/P or A/T, you should win. Always.
From what I've been reading on Airbus, it seems that day-to-day operation is a lot easier and simpler than other brands. However, when the **** hits the fan, you never see it coming.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: i don't know
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here we go sectarian again. - QED -
"You'v not flow Airbus, Dude, you're not entitled to a opinion."
747 dieseldude makes some sound arguments and gets a bashing.
How many of the Airbus advocates bring in theirs without having flown a 744 or 777? Are they not entitled to their opinion either?
We will probably never agree, but leave every pro his opinion. It's entertaining, interesting and everybody can learn something without necessarily getting fully converted.
GMDS
"You'v not flow Airbus, Dude, you're not entitled to a opinion."
747 dieseldude makes some sound arguments and gets a bashing.
How many of the Airbus advocates bring in theirs without having flown a 744 or 777? Are they not entitled to their opinion either?
We will probably never agree, but leave every pro his opinion. It's entertaining, interesting and everybody can learn something without necessarily getting fully converted.
GMDS