Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

AF447 wreckage found

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

AF447 wreckage found

Old 16th Aug 2011, 13:43
  #2921 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,123
Unsaid, after the part about pilots entering the present, how old is the AB format? Perhaps together then into the present, to embrace the future.

Because right now, there is some seriously qaulified commentating wasting time on defending and indicting?

Sky King had wing levelers and ATT hold on his B18. Penny's 310 had a Strikefinder. 1950's-ish.

Traveling a long way is not a guarantee of "getting There". Tech wise.
Lyman is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 13:58
  #2922 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,182
Originally Posted by CONF iture View Post
And what does it change to the fact that your following statement is plain wrong ?
I meant exactly what I said, "theoretically" - meaning that the system may not necessarily behave that way at present, but it would be a small matter to change the functionality (certification would be another matter though). The fact is that sidestick inputs not following priority switch are summed, so a full left deflection on one and a full right deflection on the other would command a roll rate of 0.

I'm not going to be your monkey and go dig documents up, because I don't have the time.

Initially you state it is :
"all in the CVR traces - down there in black and white (along with red, blue and green in this case)"
but when caught out it is suddenly only :
"pulled from memory" ?
Yes - the second one (which you so charmingly refer to as "catching me out" - I prefer to think of it as reacting to an overly pedantic nitpicking exercise on your behalf), was me going back to the BEA's translation - the first was based on my notes (from discussion of the French report), because I'm a busy guy at the moment and don't have time to go around linking documents.

But the point is, whatever your CVR quotes are, they show one thing :
2 PNF had no idea what PF was doing with its sidestick, at best they were guessing.
Or he could have been looking at his ADI and seeing the path the aircraft was taking (he may even have had FPV enabled prior to Alternate Law).

And it is dishonnest from you to substitute :
"Above all try to touch the lateral controls as little as possible eh"
by :
"Above all, don't make lateral inputs so large"

Very different meaning !
How so? I can't see how there's a major difference other than a slightly different use of the English idiom. What other lateral controls were in the flight deck that were being moved in an excessive manner at that point in time? None - only the PF's sidestick.

The problem is that, like Gretchenfrage, you're coming at this from the preconceived decision that the Airbus control philosophy is bad and less safe than the old yoke, then you try to fit the circumstances of this accident to fit the narrative that you've already arrived at.


No he did not.
Or quote the report reference … ?


There is no such thing as :
"partially disabling the alpha-floor protection".
I told you I'm not going to talk about Habsheim on this thread. I've already tried to open a PM dialogue with you in good faith, but you're insisting on it being in public - if you must, go dig up the AH&N thread that was fairly recent and post in that, but I'm not likely to have the time to look at it often.

That said...

Originally Posted by AF296 accident report
"2.2.3 Flight preparation by the crew ... The training given to the pilots emphasized all the protections from which the A320 benefits with respect to its lift which could have given them the feeling, which indeed is justified, of increased safety. In particular, the demonstration of the activation of the safety features and protection of this aircraft may lead one to consider flight approaching one of the limitations (especially the one related to angle of attack) as a foreseeable flight condition since lift is guaranteed. ... The choice to inhibit the automatic go-around protection (Alpha Floor) resulted from the need to eliminate this protection if flight at 100 feet or above is planned at an angle of attack higher than the one activating this protection. The inhibition in this case can only be achieved in practice by pressing and holding the two switches placed on the throttles. After 30 seconds, inhibition becomes permanent for the rest of the flight. This decision is compatible with the objectives expressed by the Captain to maintain a height of 100 feet and seems to confirm that the incursion below 100 feet was not considered by him at this stage. In effect, below 100 feet, this protection is not active." (page 18, French version)

Last edited by DozyWannabe; 16th Aug 2011 at 14:10.
DozyWannabe is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 14:12
  #2923 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
Posts: 877
Penny's 310 had a Strikefinder.
Nah, not possible. Actually, the Strike Finder was preceded by the Stormscope, as I remember, and they were both a big deal/new invention when I was at Flying Magazine in the mid-1970s. Penny was an old lady by then.
stepwilk is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 14:17
  #2924 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 63
Posts: 1,809
Cool

Hi,

And it is dishonnest from you to substitute :
"Above all try to touch the lateral controls as little as possible eh"
by :
"Above all, don't make lateral inputs so large"

Very different meaning ! How so? I can't see how there's a major difference other than a slightly different use of the English idiom. What other lateral controls were in the flight deck that were being moved in an excessive manner at that point in time? None - only the PF's sidestick.
DW .. you know like me that those two stances translated in french have a very different meaning

Dans le rapport du BEA
Ceci est un conseil donné au PF (préventif)
Surtout essaye de toucher le moins possible les commandes en latéral

DW
Ceci est un conseil donné au PF après avoir constaté une action
Surtout ne donne pas de commandes latérales de si grande amplitudes
jcjeant is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 14:27
  #2925 (permalink)  
RWA
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 180
About the sidestick thing, I'll put an idea on here in case it eventually achieves results where they count........

I mainly flew stuff that had the traditional 'stick between the knees' - only occasionally (when I could afford it) did I fly anything with a yoke. But it just occurred to me that, because of the layout of the other controls, even though I'm left-handed, I worked the stick almost exclusively with my right hand. Using my left hand would have put me on quite a steep learning curve -and it would have been even more difficult for right-handers......

It was even simpler with a yoke. Most of us will have travelled and rented cars in other countries - sure, you can get things like the wipers and the signals mixed up, but at least the steering-wheel and the pedals are arranged the same way whether the car is lefthand or righthand drive......

Occurs to me that Airbus' adoption of the 'sidestick' calls for pilots to learn to fly equally-effectively with either hand. Beyond that, 'first officers' must find themselves doing most, if not all, of their 'learning' flying from the righthand seat. In this case, the PNF was in the seat that he was accustomed to, but the PF was in the one he very possibly hadn't got much experience of at all.........

Add to that the 'visibility' problem. Had the sticks been in the traditional 'between the knees' position, the PNF would have had no difficulty at all in 'reading' the PF's inputs.

Years back, when sidestick Airbuses were 'just coming in,' I had an airline captain as a neighbour and he was 'all for' the sidesticks. Mainly because, for the first time in his career, he reckoned that he was able to eat his meals in a 'civilised' manner, without the yoke getting in the way!

So a suggestion for Airbus. Try putting the sticks back in the central, 'between the knees' position that pilots have been used to for (literally, nowadays) a century or so. I won't even argue for 'feedback' - I know that would cost a lot of money and weight.

But at LEAST it would mean that every hour of hand-flying that pilots can accumulate - not much anyway these days - would count as 'solid' experience, and they wouldn't have to adjust to 'using the other hand' just because they happened one day to find themselves sitting on the other side of the cockpit?

Just MIGHT help?
RWA is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 14:35
  #2926 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,182
Originally Posted by jcjeant View Post
DW .. you know like me that those two stances translated in french have a very different meaning
Actually I can barely speak a word of French, hence making notes and relying on the translation abilities of other posters and Google Translate. I can speak pretty passable German though...

If you could elaborate on what you see as the difference, I'd be grateful - however I'm still convinced that the PNF knew that the PF was overcontrolling, why would he make a reference to lateral controls otherwise?

@RWA - wrong way round. The PF was the one in the RHS - so experience with either hand should not have been an issue. Over and above that, looking at the traces from the PNF's inputs (who was not in his normal seat), his inputs appear to be much more gingerly applied - focused and concise.
DozyWannabe is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 14:38
  #2927 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 516
RWA

When you move to the left seat in a Boeing 737/747/757/767/777 you have to mainly fly the aircraft using your LEFT hand, the right covers the thrust levers, so it is NO different to an Airbus!!Putting it between your knees would not solve anything on having to use your LEFT hand. Are we now to have a major design change because 1 guy could not "fly" the aircraft properly.
iceman50 is online now  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 14:51
  #2928 (permalink)  
RWA
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 180
Quoting DW:-

@RWA - wrong way round. The PF was the one in the RHS...."

Apologies, DozyWannabe, but not so, as far as I can see from the BEA Report.

If you look at the FDR/CVR transcript (Page 111 yet again ) you'll find that the PF's inputs are listed under 'Captain' - meaning that he was on the left.

Quoting iceman50:-

"Are we now to have a major design change because 1 guy could not "fly" the aircraft properly."

Well - just maybe because a few hundred OTHER people got killed......?

But I suppose I broke the first rule of websites - "At your peril, never say anything that may appear to be 'outside the box'........"
RWA is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 14:54
  #2929 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 63
Posts: 1,809
Cool

Hi,

DW .. you know like me that those two stances translated in french have a very different meaning

Dans le rapport du BEA
Ceci est un conseil donné au PF (préventif)
Surtout essaye de toucher le moins possible les commandes en latéral

DW
Ceci est un conseil donné au PF après avoir constaté une action
Surtout ne donne pas de commandes latérales de si grande amplitudes
The BEA stance mean the PNF give a preventive advise to PF

Your stance is that the PNF had seen the stick movements of the PF .. and so the PNF ask PF to don't do large stick lateral inputs

And ...

Or he could have been looking at his ADI and seeing the path the aircraft was taking (he may even have had FPV enabled prior to Alternate Law).
What he maybe seen on the ADI can't be not related to the stick inputs of PF ... the aircraft can roll by itself ...

Hope all this made sens ...

Out for shopping
jcjeant is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 14:55
  #2930 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,182
@RWA - have a look at the traces here:

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/46062...ml#post6643497

There was a misprint in one version of the report, but if you look at the traces from the latest version (link to other thread above), you can see that the large inputs (that we know are coming from the PF) are from the FIRST OFFICER position.

@jcj - The BEA don't give a "stance", they're just giving a literal translation of the words. I'm trying to apply logical thinking to those words. Put it this way - would you give "preventative" advice to a pilot that was the same rank as you unless you thought they might be doing something that didn't seem right? Of course it's "possible" for the aircraft to roll by itself, but wouldn't an instinctive first reaction of the pilot monitoring be to ask the handling pilot if he was responsible for the aircraft trajectory he was seeing?

@franzl, below - You and CONF (and some others) see it one way, I (and some others) see it another. I get tired of being told I'm seeing things like a "computer game" and that I should listen to "real pilots", as though every pilot feels the same way about the Airbus control philosophy (they don't, but to people like CONF those that don't simply don't count). I agree that tactile feedback is a "nice to have", but I don't think it is a necessity - I don't even think it makes things that much safer, especially given that there are far more glaring holes in the cheese far further up the chain. To me it's the "Back to interconnected yokes or bust" crew who are making the unreasonable demands in the face of the fact that it is *not* apparent that the PNF was unaware of what the PF was doing, on top of the fact that UAS incidents have felled aircraft with yokes as well - it is simply not a good situation to be in.

[EDIT : *Here's* the quote of the entire sentence, which CONF helpfully edited :

Originally Posted by DozyWannabe View Post
Double inputs *are* allowed by the system, but they are summed, meaning that in an emergency situation, the pilots can theoretically command twice normal pitch-and-roll rate in an emergency situation if they co-ordinate properly, and that a pilot can counteract the inputs of an incapacitated pilot in the other seat if the situation is recognised. Compare that to the old yoke system whereby whoever was the strongest decided the direction of the aircraft, or the more modern yoke in the 767 when opposite inputs cause the elevators to move in opposite directions (as EgyptAir 990 appeared to prove).
I intended to use the words "theoretically" and "can" to distinguish what might be possible from the actual state-of-the-art. I didn't phrase it well, so my apologies. ]

Last edited by DozyWannabe; 17th Aug 2011 at 00:21.
DozyWannabe is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 15:01
  #2931 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 782
DozyWannabe

[quote]Quote:
Originally Posted by CONF iture
And what does it change to the fact that your following statement is plain wrong ?


DozyWannabe
I meant exactly what I said, "theoretically" - meaning that the system may not necessarily behave that way at present, but it would be a small matter to change the functionality (certification would be another matter though). The fact is that sidestick inputs not following priority switch are summed, so a full left deflection on one and a full right deflection on the other would command a roll rate of 0.

I'm not going to be your monkey and go dig documents up, because I don't have the time.
That is cheap, DozyWannabe,
you are gambling with your credit. What your initial statement told the reader was, that dual SS orders would add up and thus double the flightcontrol input. to achieve better performance. See quote below.

Quote DozyWannabe:
Double inputs *are* allowed by the system, but they are summed, meaning that in an emergency situation, the pilots can theoretically command twice normal pitch-and-roll rate in an emergency situation if they co-ordinate
properly
You should know, that statement is wrong, as the sum of the double input is limited to the amount which one SS could achieve alone. When you dont know it, you should not elaborate about it like knowing.

As you stated it there could be an advantage which would not achievable with a conventional layout, but what it really represents can be achieved with an conventional layout as well. Even better, as one can feel the amount of input from the other pilot. So please do not try to sell us apples for potatoes.

Quote:
But the point is, whatever your CVR quotes are, they show one thing :
2 PNF had no idea what PF was doing with its sidestick, at best they were guessing.


Or he could have been looking at his ADI and seeing the path the aircraft was taking (he may even have had FPV enabled prior to Alternate Law).
The stick input does not move the ADI, but the flightcontrols, and those might move the aircraft which would finally show on the ADI. As during this process other influences like turbulence might take place, what you see on the ADI might not tell you the truth of the actual input. Take as an example the ND inputs, they had been quick and too short, with tactile feedback easy recognizable by PNF. Instead he first had to assume that the PF followed his advise and had to wait on the outcome on the ADI. With a tactile feedback he could have caught that mistake and other erratic stick inputs easyly.

We are not talking about a computer game here, we are talking about flying. Please accept that from people who know.

Quote:
And it is dishonnest from you to substitute :
"Above all try to touch the lateral controls as little as possible eh"
by :
"Above all, don't make lateral inputs so large"


Very different meaning !

How so? I can't see how there's a major difference other than a slightly different use of the English idiom. What other lateral controls were in the flight deck that were being moved in an excessive manner at that point in time? None - only the PF's sidestick.
You dont like to see the difference, because you dont like to be prooved wrong. As mentioned before, you are gambling with your credentials, you should think over it.

Your statement suggests, that the PNF observed large SS inputs in the roll channel and tells the PF to make them smaller,

whereas in reality PNF adresses the PF to touch the lateral controls (in this case those would be ailerons and rudder) as little as possible, meaning to focus on other important things like pitch. That is quite different to your altered terminology.

The problem is that, like Gretchenfrage, you're coming at this from the preconceived decision that the Airbus control philosophy is bad and less safe than the old yoke, then you try to fit the circumstances of this accident to fit the narrative that you've already arrived at.
The problem is, that this horse is hunted over the place again and again, also by yourself and some others. To create opposition you have to side yourself first, what you and some others are permanently practicing in a way like "i´m on this side, so you with your other understanding of things must be on the other side. That behaviour does not represent an argument, it gets boring.


One final word to Habsheim:

I live 20 km from that place, and the flight shouldn´t have taken place at all. It was and still is a small airfield. There is no reason at all to authorize a flyby over such an uncontrolled strip in 100´altitude with paying passengers behind, but it was intended as good PR for AF and AB and was published as higlight in the local media.

It went wrong and all actions later were motivated by damage control.

franzl

Last edited by RetiredF4; 16th Aug 2011 at 15:16.
RetiredF4 is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 15:09
  #2932 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 195
Gretchenfrage,

The quoted paragraph bellow links well with the:

"PostedGraph on Techlog AF 447 Thread #5 Post #1862"

which shows - see the Grayed area - that the Automated (a/c computers controlled) move of the THS from -3 to -13 (to max NU position) took place while the Stall Warning was fully and constantly active.

Originally Posted by Gretchenfrage View Post
from Safety Concerns

Here are a few comment and questions from a recent meeting:
...
THS
As I understand, the THS was following the PFs inputs right up to full aft, even though the stall warning was active. On Boeings the stabilizer is inhibited to move further aft when stall speed is reached.
Why can an Airbus THS?....
Safety Concerns,

Originally Posted by Safety Concerns View Post
Your last post confirmed everything I said about analogue pilots and digital a/c

A lot of pilots criticising Airbus are still in analogue mode and wishing for a return to stick shakers and throttle movement. The safety case to go backwards isn't there.
While I think that the analogue versus digital looks like an interesting wording, or catch, I think that its application in this case is in danger of missing a fundamental point, which is the lack of a direct information channel between the pilots, in regards to the positioning/moving of the active stick, which matters regardless if the information is processed in an analogue, or digital fashion.

This information channel can take different shapes, including the feedback, or a screen with a 3D animation of the stick, or a 3D animation of the a/c and its control surfaces, etc....

Despite your analogue post please correct me if I am wrong. The Lufthansa Frankfurt incident of reverse stick input saw a PNF take control without witnessing any stick feedback or looking over to see what PF was doing. He was digitally minded and in tune with the aircraft.The sad fact in most of these accidents but not all is that the pilots are not in tune with the a/c.
The first officer was as analogue, as a pilot can be, or a human being is: his visual sensors, internal neural network, memory and analysis/decision functional blocks, as well as the analogue motions actuators worked perfectly. But he was in tune with the situation, and the "a/c", as you state in your last sentence.
There may well be a case for a different training approach but there is NOT a safety case to change the technology.
Training always matters, but this seems to be a different matter, which is quite simple:

The presence of two pilots in the cockpit has a rich set of reasons, one of which is that one pilot can take over, if something is wrong with the controls, or the actions of the other pilot which is being in control.

For this to work as intended, and efficiently, the pilots must be in sync at any moment, and there MUST be a DIRECT information channel in whatever shape, regarding the status of the stick, which is one of the main elements of entering commands/controls.

The guessing or inferring stick status/position/actions INDIRECTLY from other elements is simply IMO bellow the level of general logic behind the Airbus controls.

In abstract, as several levels of indirection, and translation/conversion in passing information is introducing delays, unreliability, and/or loss of information, a direct information transfer is the better solution for that system.

Last edited by airtren; 17th Aug 2011 at 14:37.
airtren is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 15:14
  #2933 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 65
Posts: 475
I am sorry but this is now becoming stupid. Reading some comments here you would think aviation safety has just taken a nose dive.

Sorry to wake some of you up but it hasn't. It has never been safer. I don't remember calls for changes when the 727 stalled NW of New York. You know the one where an analogue aircraft full of AOA indicators, stick and throttle feedback and a whole bunch of stuff to fill the eyes and ears of pilots but the pilots still stalled.

F4 you are only doing the opposite of those who oppose your view. Its no different.

The starting point in any discussion like this should be safety. Not one of you has provided a safety case. You have only posted emotive comments.
Safety Concerns is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 15:18
  #2934 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 516
RetiredF4

Whilst I agree with some of what you have said in your post, here you say
Your statement suggests, that the PNF observed large SS inputs in the roll channel and tells the PF to make them smaller,

whereas in reality PNF adresses the PF to touch the lateral controls (in this case those would be ailerons and rudder) as little as possible, meaning to focus on other important things like pitch. That is quite different to your altered terminology.
I think you are making interpretations as from the BEA Interim report, he may have been making the calls due to the roll he was experiencing and seeing on the PFD.
At 2 h 10 min 16, the PNF said “we’ve lost the speeds then” then ”alternate law protections”.
The airplane’s pitch attitude increased progressively beyond 10 degrees and the plane started to climb. The PF made nose-down control inputs and alternately left and right roll inputs. The vertical speed, which had reached 7,000 ft/min, dropped to 700 ft/min and the roll varied between 12 degrees right and 10 degrees left. The speed displayed on the left side increased sharply to 215 kt (Mach 0.68). The airplane was then at an altitude of about 37,500 ft and the recorded angle of attack was around 4 degrees.
At around 2 h 11 min 45, the Captain re-entered the cockpit. During the following seconds, all of the recorded speeds became invalid and the stall warning stopped.
The altitude was then about 35,000 ft, the angle of attack exceeded 40 degrees and the vertical speed was about -10 000 ft/min. The airplane’s pitch attitude did not exceed 15 degrees and the engines’ N1’s were close to 100%. The airplane was subject to roll oscillations that sometimes reached 40 degrees. The PF made an input on the side-stick to the left and nose-up stops, which lasted about 30 seconds.
iceman50 is online now  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 15:22
  #2935 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 516
RWA

Pity you did not quote the rest of my comment about the design change you require, there is no difference in which hand you use to fly the A/C from the LHS or RHS be it a Boeing or an Airbus,so your design change is NOT required. Apologies but that is not thinking outside the box!
iceman50 is online now  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 15:34
  #2936 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 782
Safety Concerns

I am sorry but this is now becoming stupid. Reading some comments here you would think aviation safety has just taken a nose dive.
It is not mine. But in my time we looked at the matter and adressed safety issues wether we lost one aircraft in 10 years or 5. If you get lazy and look at an accident as an acceptable and necessary loss, you will loose more.


F4 you are only doing the opposite of those who oppose your view. Its no different.
As you might have observed, i´m mostly reading. But when things are being posted wrong /like adding up dual SS input and selling that as advantage and at some other occasions i feel the need to contribute. I try not to side with AB or Boing or Fokker or any other manufacturer, i dont care who is building the aircraft. I do exactly what you challenge, its for safety, as my job with the airforce as chief standeval of a wing brought it with.

The starting point in any discussion like this should be safety. Not one of you has provided a safety case. You have only posted emotive comments.
That is your point of view, but you have no emotive motivation?

iceman50

RetiredF4

Whilst I agree with some of what you have said in your post, here you say
Quote:
Your statement suggests, that the PNF observed large SS inputs in the roll channel and tells the PF to make them smaller,

whereas in reality PNF adresses the PF to touch the lateral controls (in this case those would be ailerons and rudder) as little as possible, meaning to focus on other important things like pitch. That is quite different to your altered terminology.

I think you are making interpretations as from the BEA Interim report, he may have been making the calls due to the roll he was experiencing and seeing on the PFD.
You are correct, it is my personal conclusion (like DozyWannabe might have his own), i should have told so. IMHO it makes sense though, PNF primary concern was pitch and altitude and he was looking for the reason why PF was falling way behind this task. And i think we agree that PF was spending too much time with lateral control.

Finally we dont know for sure.

franzl

Last edited by RetiredF4; 16th Aug 2011 at 15:37. Reason: correcting PF to PNF
RetiredF4 is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 15:46
  #2937 (permalink)  
RWA
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 180
Quoting iceman50:-

".....there is no difference in which hand you use to fly the A/C from the LHS or RHS be it a Boeing or an Airbus,so your design change is NOT required."

Sincerely hope we don't fall out, mate. But there clearly IS a difference.

In a conventional 'transport category' aeroplane you will normally have both hands on the yoke. You can take either hand off, to attend to other things if needed - but both hands will be 'in practice.'

In the sort of small stuff I used to fly, the same applied - especially if the sticks for both pilots were between the knees.

In an Airbus, you HAVE to 'work the stick' with whichever hand is on the side of the sidestick. Normally the left hand if you're the captain, the right hand if you're what we used to call the 'co-pilot.' Except, of course, that a lot of the stuff amateurs like me flew had the two cockpits 'in line' rather than side-by-side.......

Sorry, just in terms of flying, I STILL can't see why Airbus put the sidesticks literally 'one side or the other,' rather than between the knees.

As I implied earlier, it seems to me to be a considerable (and, as far as I can see, totally unnecessary) change from a century-long history of 'common controls'?
RWA is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 16:11
  #2938 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 516
RWA

Sincerely hope we don't fall out, mate. But there clearly IS a difference.

In a conventional 'transport category' aeroplane you will normally have both hands on the yoke. You can take either hand off, to attend to other things if needed - but both hands will be 'in practice.'
Sorry, but we will have to fall out as you are wrong. I have actually flown both manufacturers, Boeing B757 / B767 and presently fly the Airbus A340 / A330, you have NOT. If you are "manually" flying your right hand, if you are in the LHS, will be on the thrust levers!! We now have hydraulic systems and do not need the leverage of two hands on the "yoke"!
iceman50 is online now  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 16:17
  #2939 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: VA, USA
Age: 54
Posts: 561
Sorry, just in terms of flying, I STILL can't see why Airbus put the sidesticks literally 'one side or the other,' rather than between the knees.
Assuming you are sitting at a desk, place your right hand directly in front of you, centered on your body. Unless you are deformed, your arm will be at nearly 45 degrees relative to your chest line. Tip your hand forward/back, turn it side to side.... get it? Every axis is 45 degrees off what would be the nose of the (imaginary) aircraft.

Now take your arm and position it at the most natural position on the desk to your right side, probably just about where your mouse sits.... look, everything is now more or less orthogonal with the imaginary aircraft.

Repeat with your left hand... in the center position the axis are now 90 degrees offset from before - i.e. to pulling back on the stick is now operating in an entirely different direction than it was with the right hand...

Now you can argue that the central joystick should be oriented fore-aft/left-right on axis with the aircraft, but now you are inducing a very painful twist to either arm, and the stick movement is no longer in-line with any of the arms natural axis.

That is why. Airbus are not dumb.
GarageYears is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 16:45
  #2940 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 63
Posts: 1,809
Cool

Hi,

I am sorry but this is now becoming stupid. Reading some comments here you would think aviation safety has just taken a nose dive.
The fact is that the aviation safety will (or be feel) taking a nose dive .. when pilots are not good enough for cope with emergency situations.
In the case of AF477 .. my feeling is that the pilots were maybe good .. but not good enough for cope with a unusual ? (the UAS is not a new event BTW) situation
jcjeant is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.