Difference between Airbus and Boeing controls

[Dream Land]

Not looking for agreement, just a little more education, you can't argue with someone that has no training on the beast, on the other side of the coin I would bet that most Airbus captains have plenty of experience on conventional jets.

[DozyWannabe]

GMDS :

Here we go sectarian again. - QED -
"You'v not flow Airbus, Dude, you're not entitled to a opinion."

Make of it what you will, but that's not what was being said. You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, but actual experience of what is being discussed will tend to add weight to it.

747diesel has a point, no-one's disputing that. There are caveats to his argument though. For example, Airbus-style FBW isn't really appropriate for basic flight training, but it was never intended to be used for that. To make up for that in conversion training, a lot more time gets spent in the simulator to get a feel for what the thing will do. Another point is that you are not always at the mercy of the computer. In Direct Law the pilot is not prevented from doing anything, and it is as simple to engage DL as it is to disengage automation on more conventional airliners.

[Clandestino]

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.

On A320 I fly, moving throttles to idle always disconnects the A/THR. Moving throttles to TOGA always gives TOGA. Moving throttles to MCT gives you MCT if your both engines are alive. Also there are two red buttons on throttle levers aptly named 'A/THR instinctive disconnect buttons' and that's what they do. Zee red button on stick (surprise, surprise!) disconnects the autopilot. As far as I'm concerned, that's simple and straight-forward enough override of the automation.

As for battling the A/P, well - DON'T EVER DO THAT!!! Most of the autopilots will disconect after some stick force in pitch is achieved, but before they disconnect they will trim against your input and it may end up very nasty - keywords are CAL and Nagoya. If you're not satisfied with George's performance, red button always comes before the push/pull on the yoke.

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.

Links and other reference please. As an Airboos driver I'd also like to know what kind of unforeseen $h*t can hit my fans.

[Tree]

DozyWannabe;

"and it is as simple to engage DL as it is to disengage automation on more conventional airliners."

Care to let us know the "simple" way to engage DL? The only way I know is to turn off both FAC's and I surely do not recommend doing that.

[fantom]

Dozy:

You are an example of one of the reasons I don't post here any more (as you can see).

Buy a course and get the facts. Please.

[Dream Land]

non believers, rest assured there are ample cues to know what the other pilot is doing with the aircraft, I don't have to have control wheels and thrust levers moving about to indicate this, as an instructor I can assure you that it is very easy to override automatics (no real need normally) and the other pilot, no I haven't been drinking the Airbus koolaid, just very satisfied with the system, just my 2 cents.

[CONF iture]

The worst scenatio on short final is being a little high on the last couple hundred feet. As you dive to regain the GSlope the Autothrust reduces thrust to keep the speed, and so you arrive very near terra firma with a bit of a high sink and the autothrust IS slow in adding power just when you reach the flare. But by all means, avoid the temptation to pull the nose to arrest the sink. Better to arrive like a load of bricks than scrape the tail.

This is an interesting comment from another thread talking about 321 versus 320.

If the guy pulls his sidestick (which Pilot Monitoring will not notice) to pull the nose, there's a good chance that same PM will not be able to prevent that tailstrike ... and you can forget about your red button in such a time constrained situation.

If the guy pulls his control column (which PM will notice) ... there's a good chance he's gonna put his hand to block that undesirable control column aft movement.

... and there are tons of exemples like that :
- ON THE GROUND
- VERY CLOSE FROM THE GROUND
when the margin for error is very thin
when time is very limited

In Direct Law the pilot is not prevented from doing anything, and it is as simple to engage DL as it is to disengage automation on more conventional airliners.

WHAT ???

Disengaging automation is part of every operation.

Now, how do you engage Direct Law in your every day operation ?
How often do you engage Direct Law in your every day operation ?
Is it an Airbus Standard Operation Procedure ?
Does your partner let you do that ?

747dd has never flown the thing but his comments are spot on, simply because it's based on LOGIC.

Originally Posted by clandestino

As an Airboos driver I'd also like to know what kind of unforeseen $h*t can hit my fans.

Usually people who talk like that don't wait too much to be corrected ...
... A touch of reserve and modesty does not hurt.
... but iI is true you have already 100 hours on that thing ...

[DozyWannabe]

Care to let us know the "simple" way to engage DL? The only way I know is to turn off both FAC's and I surely do not recommend doing that.

My bad, I got my nomenclature confused - last time I studied it in depth was about 7 years ago.

You are an example of one of the reasons I don't post here any more (as you can see).

That's a shame. I'm more than willing to admit that I screwed up... still doesn't make a lot of the 'bus bashing sound any less sophomoric though...

[Dream Land]

there's a good chance that same PM will not be able to prevent that tail strike ... and you can forget about your red button in such a time constrained situation.

Simply not true IMO, even if the non flying pilot adds nose down input without pushing red button the actual command output is a blend of the two side stick inputs and the attitude will be reduced, secondly, most left seaters are well aware of problems caused by DUAL INPUTS, thumbs at the ready, especially on final.

Now, how do you engage Direct Law in your every day operation ?

For those of us trained on the Airbus, we realize that Direct Law is not required or desired, the beauty of the airplane is that I can yank the stick in whatever direction I want to get the desired effect, regardless of configuration without causing a stall or hurting the airframe, does it work that way on the 744?

[Possum 15]

You would think, after 69 posts, some resolution to this vexing question would be in sight. Instead, the best we can get is “IMHO”. OK;experience. I have approx. 14500 hrs on “conventional” aircraft, around 4500 on FBW, all A340. A lot of these hours have been instructional, from ab initio to training trainers. I am an “average” pilot. Both types have their “pro and cons” none of which if approached in a professional manner, that is good basic flying skills, systems understanding (rather than “knowledge”) and CRM practice, should lead to disaster. I still enjoy flying both.
I have the feeling that the “If it’s not Boeing I’m not going" types are a lot like supporters of a football club, totally faith based, rather than logical. Good or bad, we love it! This may be an admirable trait for football fans, or even followers of English cricket, but is not the way forward for commercial or military aviation (as opposed to warbirds etc.). There is also, I suspect, even a touch of the Ludite added to the fan club mentality. Surely, new and exciting technology should be embraced, not just with caution (or even denial), but with a desire to look at the best aspects of the new with a view to positive evolvement. If not so then the Wright brothers should have stood despondent because the Flyer was positively dangerous and a ship, train or even a horse could go further and carry more with less hazard. Maybe even propeller technology was best (look at early hull losses for jet transports).
In conclusion, and before another red wine, I must say that large and slow (up to M.96) jet transports were the worst way for aviation technology to develop in the seventies (Thank you Congressmen, Senators and lobby groups). Have you ever traveled long haul in cattle class, in close proximity to children screaming their lungs out with boredom, or even worse, singlet clad yobbos on a drinking spree prior to the sex tour? Or the ultimate horror; have you ever traveled in business or first with an Australian sporting team? If so, you will understand. We should be flying SSTMk3 not mega-liners. Two hours max SIN to LHR, greater frequency, MORE COMMANDS, MORE PAY!!!!!! Yeah yeah yeah, dream on P15.

[Possum 15]

And further to the above “rant”. Yogjakarta. Reports (verbal and unofficial) trickling out of Indonesian authorities are not looking good for the unfortunate crew. Perhaps more “Go around” yoke inputs (from either seat) may have been appropriate. We are in greater danger from ourselves than the aircraft we fly.

[CONF iture]

Simply not true IMO, even if the non flying pilot adds nose down input without pushing red button the actual command output is a blend of the two side stick inputs and the attitude will be reduced, secondly, most left seaters are well aware of problems caused by DUAL INPUTS, thumbs at the ready, especially on final

1- Whatever action will have the PM on his sidestick, he's already one step behind, as his action will be based only on the developping airplane attitude and not knowing what kind of input was requested on the other side.

2- And what happen if at the same time the PF realizes his mistake and decides also to push forward his sidestick ... !?

3- "a blend of 2 sidestick inputs" ... WHAT A MESS !

4- RED BUTTON theory and practice are two very different things.
How many times did you hit that red button in the flare ?
How many times did you hit that red button in the rotation ?
Did you ever think afterwards:
Maybe I should have …
But I didn't get the proper information ...
And I didn't get time ...

For those of us trained on the Airbus, we realize that Direct Law is not required or desired, the beauty of the airplane is that I can yank the stick in whatever direction I want to get the desired effect, regardless of configuration without causing a stall or hurting the airframe, does it work that way on the 744?

It is actually a great feature.
But once again, how many times did you use it ?
What about airmanship (basic training, skills, rules) ?

I will not argue on that point:
It is a great feature,
but still, does not replace a pair of good control columns when most needed.
And I believe all big airplane manufactures understood that ...
probably thanks to that early Airbus move.

[Dream Land]

3- "a blend of 2 side stick inputs" ... WHAT A MESS !

Yes, and was the cause of the only tail strike at my current airline, on short final as you mention.

[Possum 15]

Dream Land, I find it difficult to believe that the cause of the tail strike was dual stick inputs. There are a number of pod strikes lodged against the 744, including a beauty at Kai Tak caught in full technicolour video. Have you a theory that the cause of this was a single yoke input, or did the runway just leap up and bite them?

[DozyWannabe]

What about airmanship (basic training, skills, rules) ?

Just as valid on the Airbus FD as the Boeing one.

but still, does not replace a pair of good control columns when most needed.
And I believe all big airplane manufactures understood that ...
probably thanks to that early Airbus move.

Your opinion...
It could equally be argued that as the only other remaining 'big airplane' manufacturer, Boeing is remaining stubbornly stuck in the past.

* - For the record, I subscribe to neither of these viewpoints, believing strongly that you pays your money and takes your choice.

[Dream Land]

Sorry but the culture here doesn't share all the information, maybe initially a high flare, followed by the LHS trying to save it? Just not privy to all the details except it was a dual input while landing.

[Possum 15]

Dream Land, I apologise for being a tad facetious in my last post. The point I wanted to make is that a dual stick input occurred after an unsafe airplane state had already developed. In my first post on this thread (#13), I referred to one of the less glorious days in my aviation career when I tried to salvage a high nose up attitude with a “dual yoke input”, with limited, but some, success. The real issue is; should I have recognized a low and slow approach could develop into an increasing pitch attitude after touchdown and commanded an early go-around, or corrected the profile with a takeover well above the runway? The answer is, alas, YES! Fortunately the training manager was the understanding (of other factors) type and I was merely told not to do it again. In theory, with the bus takeover button, I would not have had to cope with my strong armed mate pulling harder than I could push - maybe, maybe not. The real issue is timely error and threat recognition. Irrespective of what type we fly that is the most important tool we have in our safety armoury. Once again I agree with Dozy, both types are good, I found the bus no worse than the Boeing in strong crosswind conditions, in particular the geometry of the 340-300 easier to cope with than the 744, roll control being a little less critical. The 340 JNB incident was purely not understanding the correct rotation technique, caused by bad training. It is good, very good, to get paid to fly either type!

So to the original point of this thread. I believe the difference between Airbus and Boeing controls matters much less than the smucks who apply the inputs. Goodnight, and good luck.

[CONF iture]

VHHX
Kai Tak was surely a place on its own

And as you correctly mention :

Perhaps more “Go around” yoke inputs (from either seat) may have been appropriate. We are in greater danger from ourselves than the aircraft we fly

But take the same TWO crew members on an identical situation, on the same aircraft,
and, as a team,
the crew with fully visible coupled control columns
has a better tool
than the crew with fully invisible independent sidesticks.

... Simply because they do share more vital information.


And here is an interesting note on how Airbus sidestick philosophy can keep one guy out of the loop in marginal flight conditions.

This is extracted from a Company Flight Analysis Bulletin
Simultaneous inputs and Go-Around

I did translate some of the FO comments (who was Pilot Monitoring at the time) during that turbulent and windy approach, and the go-around :

... that’s the instant I’ve REALIZED I didn’t know how the CAPT was reacting.
I had no idea of his inputs, I was guessing, ... I had that unpleasant powerless feeling, loneliness and passivity, I could only hear his sidestick reaching mechanical limits, I felt very helpless ...
That was a real paradox to be in the cockpit with a maximum of attention, ready to react, and not having a minimum of information on the PF inputs,

... I imagine I could have had a similar feeling during my 2000 hours as mountain flight instructor on plane and glider if I had not had dual control commands on specific flight phases.

After analysis, the commission came to this somehow revealing conclusion:

As sidestick coupling has not been planed on A-320 and A-340, one must find a solution

Afterwards Airbus made that study I was mentioning earlier, and came to the conclusion that:
Interconnection was operationally not beneficial, and technically not efficient

At the same time Airbus decided to implement the DUAL INPUT WARNING

[Dream Land]

But take the same TWO crew members on an identical situation, on the same aircraft,
and, as a team,
the crew with fully visible coupled control columns
has a better tool
than the crew with fully invisible independent sidesticks.

As a previous check airman I can tell you that your assumption is incorrect, on the Airbus I am in no way limited in knowing what inputs are taking place during the landing, as a matter of fact I feel that I have better control of the situation since all that is needed to be in complete control is a push of the red button.

The point I wanted to make is that a dual stick input occurred after an unsafe airplane state had already developed. by Possum 15

Yes I fully agree, glad things worked out for you, I don't like cheating the other guy out of the landing but I now do not hesitate to push the button.

[CONF iture]

on the Airbus I am in no way limited in knowing what inputs are taking place during the landing

How can you be that sure !?
Do you use something I am not aware of ???

In normal conditions (probably close to 99%), it is a true statement, but only if you slightly modify it :
On the Airbus I am in no way limited in correctly guessing what inputs are taking place during the landing

For the remaining percentage, when things are getting marginal out there, it is a false statement, and you would have to drastically modify it :
On the Airbus I am in no way sure what inputs are taking place during the landing

When you decide to push that red button, maybe the guy was already correcting but you don’t know it (The developing airplane attitude may just be a consequence of these marginal outside conditions) but you’re still in the mind he was not correcting so you might go for a big surprise,
And you will have to go through a complete and new assessment of the situation

Now, that low over the ground, precious seconds have gone before you realize that the only available option was the GO-AROUND

I don't like cheating the other guy out of the landing but I now do not hesitate to push the button

I would say Airbus does not leave many options:

- Either you take control early in the approach as you are the one ultimately in charge for the vessel
- Either you let it go to your limit before you hit the red button, but if you’re low over the ground, you do it because you’ve already decided it was for the go-around