asynchronous sidestick
Originally Posted by Clandestino
Grabbing the wheel from your cockpit significant other or "helping" him/her is not an usual, approved procedure (there is good reason for it) and can be used only in extremis and for very limited period of time. Also algebraic sum of sticks nicely replaces the rigid coupling; as simple spring makes displacement proportional to force the effect is the same as if two pilots were fighting over coupled controls.
What's all this Dozy and Clandestino codswallop about the horrors of grabbing the (real) stick off the FO if he can't cope?? So what if I take over? If I was flying with 200hr FOs, I would expect to occasionally.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Clandestino,
Since the autopilot was engaged during that approach, why do you think the crew could "feel" the speed deviation through the wheel with the AP trimming the stab?
From AAIB http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...9%20G-THOF.pdf" Within 1.5 seconds the stick-shaker (stall warning) activated and in the following two seconds the thrust levers were advanced to the full forward position. The autopilot mode changed from localiser and glideslope to Control Wheel Steer (CWS) pitch and CWS roll."
Do you mean "uncoupled sticks"?
Why do Airbus still fit coupled rudder pedals? Why not save weight and complexity with uncoupled rudder bars?
No need for a lot of imagination to understand what happens to pilot firmly believing he can feel speed deviation through wheel. Thomsonfly at Bournemouth might provide some clue.
From AAIB http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...9%20G-THOF.pdf" Within 1.5 seconds the stick-shaker (stall warning) activated and in the following two seconds the thrust levers were advanced to the full forward position. The autopilot mode changed from localiser and glideslope to Control Wheel Steer (CWS) pitch and CWS roll."
Both AAIB and BEA noted it is not possible for assisting pilot to know what inputs the handling pilot makes with coupled sticks.
Why do Airbus still fit coupled rudder pedals? Why not save weight and complexity with uncoupled rudder bars?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Clandestino
Also algebraic sum of sticks nicely replaces the rigid coupling
Should never take place.
Anything but nice.
Where have you been ?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As with conventional types, the coupling of the rudder and trim controls is a side-effect of the electro-mechanical implementation - and it's the one aspect of control in which combined muscle power might still have an effect in terms of expediting the required control input.
True, but it's also true in conventional-layout ops. Unannounced manipulation of the controls from the opposite side is risky, as I said above - and you must know that when going by the book, "follow-through" has no place in line ops, even line training. It should not be necessary in anything other than trainers and the simulator.
Originally Posted by Dozy
Er - neither Dozy nor Clandestino argued against taking control from an FO out of their depth, or anyone else for that matter.
Originally Posted by Dozy
I suspect that if, say, a landing was performed in which a follow-through became necessary, then both the training Captain and trainee would be summoned for tea and biscuits, with the former being required to explain why they let the trainee proceed to that point.
Originally Posted by Dozy
with "I have control/My aircraft" etc., in conjunction with a "Go Around" call if necessary. Simply yanking on the primary flight control without warning is a very risky thing to do with any type of control layout - as I'm sure you well know - because it runs the risk of startling the pilot in the opposite seat which in turn risks an unpredictable outcome.
and you must know that when going by the book, "follow-through" has no place in line ops, even line training.
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 16th Aug 2013 at 15:11.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dozy
True, but it's also true in conventional-layout ops. Unannounced manipulation of the controls from the opposite side is risky, as I said above - and you must know that when going by the book, "follow-through" has no place in line ops, even line training.
Tying the THS and rudder control into the digital flight control system exclusively would remove that last fail-safe.
Originally Posted by rudderrudderrat
Since the autopilot was engaged during that approach, why do you think the crew could "feel" the speed deviation through the wheel with the AP trimming the stab?
Do you mean "uncoupled sticks"?
Why do Airbus still fit coupled rudder pedals? Why not save weight and complexity with uncoupled rudder bars?
Originally Posted by Dozy Wannabe
I suspect that if, say, a landing was performed in which a follow-through became necessary, then both the training Captain and trainee would be summoned for tea and biscuits, with the former being required to explain why they let the trainee proceed to that point.
It is worth noting that fight over controls does not leave a trace on QAR until it gets so extreme breakout mechanism gives up (if aeroplane is so equipped) and yokes go their separate ways while "Dual input" gets recorded and might get capt into trouble if it is discovered he made no attempt to elaborate the circumstances of it through ASR/CR. Darned Airbus. Darned.
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
You'd realise it normally doesn't work like that in the scenario the discussion is alluding to.
Originally Posted by CONF iture
Why you keep making such statements on things you absolutely have no experience on is a mystery to me ...
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Clandestino,
It's a bit more complicated than that as DozyWannabe pointed out.
In the event of a total loss of electrical power to the flight control computers, the only way to keep the aircraft level will be by using slip. When was the last time anyone practiced that on Airbus?
Boeing 777 has cable connection to spoilers 4 and 11 to maintain wings level. 11.5.2
http://www.davi.ws/avionics/TheAvion...ook_Cap_11.pdf
Whether mechanical or electronic, rudder is just rudder, it's used for decrab and engine failures so no need to have sideslip protections as long as the pilot has some idea what he should be doing
In the event of a total loss of electrical power to the flight control computers, the only way to keep the aircraft level will be by using slip. When was the last time anyone practiced that on Airbus?
Boeing 777 has cable connection to spoilers 4 and 11 to maintain wings level. 11.5.2
http://www.davi.ws/avionics/TheAvion...ook_Cap_11.pdf
Last edited by rudderrudderrat; 17th Aug 2013 at 12:19. Reason: 777 reference
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"asynchronous"
Any time I am reading the Tech-log threads list, I am asking me if "asynchronous" is a false-friend from "asynchrone" in French.. My dictionary says no.
In FBW, both controls use the same clock and the same timer ! They are everything but asynchronous, and specially during dual inputs when they do an addition using the same processor!
The words "coupled" or "uncoupled" [sticks] is not much clearer in the deep of our discussion, and Clandestino himself tied his feet in that carpet
Thanks to Rudderuderrrat and gums who maintain the heading along the thread toward the only goal of pilot piloting : put the plane on the wanted path, and so never land before the threeshold (They don't fly Asiana" ,they both are automation addict, and, like Bubbers44 and all the old-timers and younger hand-flying, don't put their eyes in their pockets )
In FBW, both controls use the same clock and the same timer ! They are everything but asynchronous, and specially during dual inputs when they do an addition using the same processor!
The words "coupled" or "uncoupled" [sticks] is not much clearer in the deep of our discussion, and Clandestino himself tied his feet in that carpet
Thanks to Rudderuderrrat and gums who maintain the heading along the thread toward the only goal of pilot piloting : put the plane on the wanted path, and so never land before the threeshold (They don't fly Asiana" ,they both are automation addict, and, like Bubbers44 and all the old-timers and younger hand-flying, don't put their eyes in their pockets )
Last edited by roulishollandais; 17th Aug 2013 at 14:02. Reason: spelling
Connected?
I guess we have to define terms.
The digital FBW systems have a basic time frame/sample rate. So dual controls that feed the inputs to HAL are sampled at "x" rate, then used by the system.
The pioneer system I flew back in 1979 was analog. The force inputs on our controls was used by four computers, and the most benign output was used to command actual surface movement/rate/etc.
In our family models, the control signals were "summed", so I could equal the force that the nugget in the front seat was exerting. The FBW used the resulting electrical signal to command control surfaces.
So I would prefer the term "mechanically-coupled" to discuss those planes with dual controls, regardless of whether they are FBW or the "conventional" implentation many of us grew up with. out,
The digital FBW systems have a basic time frame/sample rate. So dual controls that feed the inputs to HAL are sampled at "x" rate, then used by the system.
The pioneer system I flew back in 1979 was analog. The force inputs on our controls was used by four computers, and the most benign output was used to command actual surface movement/rate/etc.
In our family models, the control signals were "summed", so I could equal the force that the nugget in the front seat was exerting. The FBW used the resulting electrical signal to command control surfaces.
So I would prefer the term "mechanically-coupled" to discuss those planes with dual controls, regardless of whether they are FBW or the "conventional" implentation many of us grew up with. out,
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: somewhere
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@RRR:
Boeing 777 has cable connection to spoilers 4 and 11 to maintain wings
level.
level.
or is a total power failure to the flight control computers - up to HOT BAT BUSSES (Airbii)- such a remote event it will probably never happen?