The Children of Magenta / Rage against the Machine
 

Maybe there is a new concept in flying these FBWs.

You can have much fun on the FCU. You can steer it across the sky or indeed across the approach being vectored by ATC.

You Selected so you are in control, not, it.

Go back to Managed and what you see will be happening soon, just as what you are seeing is happening.

You can sit and watch, observe, as PM and PF and, you get to make the selections.

When Selected its in your hands - why go manual if there are no problems? - think like the platform.

Enjoy the laziness, but you will be working harder than when you are manually flying, at least mentally, because you have to stay so much ahead of events - lest one of the events is unfavourable. You will not have the instantaneous response of direct link with the flying controls, obviously, so you just have to think in a pre-emptive way - you would only want to think like this.

It truly is an x-box AND a real aeroplane, with real pax and engines.

Its just automation and modern technology - but these same problems and queries we face - are the same problems and discussions in other industries where automation is making man/womankind feel as if s/he has just turned up for coffee!

We would not shout across the street if we are talking to the person on our mobile cell phones.

We would not want to keep our loved ones waiting for two weeks while we crossed the Atlantic in a big boat.

Or make a phone call instead of a text, or employ a further ten people, instead of being called by a person on a keyboard, which goes to the server, is fed to an antenna and transmitted to a satt which bounces it back to Earth into a receiver, along the wires, back into the air again and eventually bleeping on your phone it is time to go to work.

The same machine that has ordered all the fuel, planned the flight plan, counted the pax, picked the aircraft, scheduled the crew on leave, and called you for this flight.

We built this to make life easier, and it has. It could never replace human pilots except in an act of extreme folly and even larger insurance bills and fewer passengers plus an eventual shutdown of the aviation industry.

Why is that?

Well, what individual would be insane enough to fly at 35.000 feet with no-one at the controls?

Through years of reading Pprune comments about Airbus versus flying a Boeing 737 for example, it is clear there are those pilots that dislike flying Airbus types and much prefer the Boeing.

On the other hand, there is very little comment from those Air Bus pilots that have gone back to Boeings. I have only flown the various types of 737 and that was decades ago so I am quite out of touch except what I read. Many pilots who thoroughly enjoy the Airbus have difficulty understanding why former Boeing people going to Airbus for the first time either like or loathe it.

Would appreciate readers views in general terms for my own edification.:ok:

I am an Airbus pilot and have never flown Boeing, but I have flown other conventional jet and turboprop types.

My 2p worth is that I like flying Airbus, and found it quite intuitive to learn - as long as you always remember that almost everything is interfaced by a computer, (so remember garbage in = garbage out, and therefore always CHECK THE FMA/PFD, not the FCU!!).

I also like the fact that (unavoidable) design "flaws" of conventional jets such as the power/pitch couple and having to increase back pressure to stay level in a turn are absent in a FBW Airbus thanks to the fly-by-wire system.

There seem to be a lot of "old school" pilots who like to wrestle with the controls, and these tend to be more macho: ("I always go fully manual below 10,000', and I never use the automatics with an engine failure" etc.), and an equal number of "new school" pilots who are happy to control computer systems to conduct a flight, (unless they are flying manually).

Tell the AF447 pilots that...

Autotrim in a turn is merely a gimmick IMO. If you're flying it, you should be flying it, not toggling a joystick.

Exactly the skills that were required over the Atlantic that night...

Well, he did say rage against the machine! :}

I was afraid some of the "old school" might object to that, but I meant no disrespect. However I'll pick up that ball and run with it:

The AF447 crash was a case of gross mishandling, the cause of which has been explored elsewhere, and which would have crashed a Boeing just as easily as it did an Airbus. I posted my thoughts on that thread and there's no point going over it all again here.

Let's take a hypothetical example; Say all the cars we drive veer strongly to the right on acceleration. When we brake, they veer to the left. However, this is how all cars are and we all learn to input left steering wheel pressure when accelerating and right steering wheel pressure when braking. Everybody is happy, nobody thinks it is strange.

Then one day a car is built which has a design which prevents the deviation when accelerating or braking. So, 99% of the time, every driver's job is made much easier and more relaxed, and the cars go straight. However, occasionally, the new cars design system fails and the old skills need to be remembered.

Why exactly? Why not embrace progress? For example, do you still do your clothes washing by hand or do you have a machine to do it?


Well, arguably, wrestling or mishandling the controls was the cause of the AF447 crash.


My 2p worth were my personal answer to the OP - I like the Airbus. I'm sure you have your own opinions, and I defend your right to them.

Uplinker, yes, I understand we've done these topics to death. My post, while sincere, as also a big tongue-in-cheek, hence the :} smiley.

However, you hit the nail on the head with:
The AF guys did not have the skills, or could not remember them. When they hand fly, they don't have to trim. Do you then really think that the need to trim forward to get the A330 un-stalled, to correct what the designers thought was a good idea at the time (autotrim right back into the stall), is going to be second nature to them? Unless this stuff is practiced, either on the line on in the sim often we can't expect a guaranteed safe result every time. The company that makes my aeroplane apparently prides itself in simplicity, with very few Recall times in the QRH. The stall recovery procedure is a whole page, and not a Recall item!

Re washing machines. No problem if mine fails; it'll take me twice or three times as long, and the job won't be as good, but I'm not going to kill someone in the process if I don't do a good job of it.

Continue the rage! :)

Why
 

Natstrackalpha, :ok:

The human-machine interface.
Do not devalue the human in order to justify the machine.
Do not criticize the machine in order to rationalize the human.
Advocate the human–machine system in order to amplify both.

Aretha Franklin principle …

“R.E.S.P.E.C.T... is a very funny thing. I hear many older generations say, respect is not the same as it was in my day. I think I am pretty convinced of that. As technology grows it seems that respect diminishes. Maybe it just has not kept up. When we were younger we were taught things like not to talk with your mouth full, how to address your elders, etc. But where are the rules that cover how to speak on a cell phone... when to answer it, when not to. Do you have to speak with respect to someone when you IM or is it all fair game. Who is producing the new etiquette and where is it published. Respect boils down to one rule, no matter the situation. "Treat others as you would want to be treated yourself." Maybe the Golden rule is a pretty appropriate name for this ethic. The idea works no matter what, where or when.”

We have to respect automation.

Design
“When the situations exceed the capabilities of the automatic equipment, then the inadequate feedback leads to difficulties for the human controllers.
To solve this problem, the automation should either be made less intelligent or more so, … … What is needed is a soft, compliant technology, not a rigid, formal one.” Not over-automation.

IMHO the latter sentence is interpreted as requiring a human for those situations where feedback and interaction are inadequate … we must not expect automation to have the required intelligence; we must use our own.

Training
To train, you must have opportunities to perform.
It’s an empirical fact that for people to perform in complex sociotechnical contexts, they must continually learn new things.
“Human-centered systems do not force a separation between learning and performance.
They integrate them”.

“Cognitive apprenticeship involves activity that extends students slightly beyond their level of competence and engages a gradual transition from peripheral to central activities.
People acquire expertise by abstracting and relating lessons from individual experiences, but a training program should use an explicit organizing framework to connect.
The learning challenge becomes one of discovery and integration versus one of memorization.
Some may feel that course material should be structured to discourage error, but the performance of errors in a safe context helps students learn to recognize the consequences of error as they unfold and to practice error recovery.”

“… errors rarely provide direct evidence of the nature of the underlying knowledge gap or skill deficiency. Errors tell us that something is going wrong, but they don’t inform us directly of the nature of the problem.”Janus Principle.

I think everyone has fallen into Natstrackalpha's clever little game...

While it's true that the Boeing vs. Airbus debate has raged ad nausem on PPrune for years, and it will always be so, since each viewpoint gives a little, but stands firm in their beliefs, (I am a Boeing Guy, BTW, 727 and 737) what has gone unoticed by even the most astute old timers posting on this thread is this:

Natstrackalpha has only recently joined PPrune. His/Her public profile gives little clues as to motivation...

One thing does stand out, however, and that is Natstrackalpha's "home base", BGTL...

If memory serves me correctly, Natstrackalpha is happily sitting in Thule, Greenland...BGTL....where I spent the entire year of 1979 while an ATCO in the USAF...

Furthermore, it is only now becoming daytime at Thule...being 75 or so degrees North graces Thule with 3 months night, then 3 months day...

So, in the cold dark of Thule's long dark 3 month "night", Natstrackalpha really had nothing to do but sit around, surf the net, and see what mischief he/she could stir up...

Lord knows, I did it in 1979, and I had radios and long haul landlines to help me...Natstrackalpha has PPrune...

Airbus vs. Boeing? 1979 vs. 2013? You guys decide...

All the above said tongue in cheek...Boeing guys notice details because we have to...;););)

In answer to Centarus about going from A to B to A to B they both have advantages and disadvantages. I went from 707 to 737-300 and thought it was the neatest thing I ever saw. Then I went to 747-200 and wasn't impressed. Then the 757/767 and was happy again. Then to A320. Steep learning curve but learned to love it. Then to 727 just to say I flew it. Back to A320 and happy again. Then to 777 had to learn the Boeing way again but loved it. The Boeing FMC is much more intuitive and user friendly. I am lazy and really liked not to have to trim in the bus. Also the bus way of pulling to take control and pushing to give control to the computer is very nice. All in all I'd call it a tossup.

Rickallseven's...

I had the opportunity to fly the 737-400 with Istanbul Airlines...In one of the first meetings of us 16 ex-pats only 2 of us were typed in the 727...As it turned out, Istanbul needed 2 B-727 Captains...I jumped at the chance...

However, in hindsight, I probably should have stuck with the 73, because if I had done so, I wouldn't be unemployable now...

Got to love the 727 though...

And it's true...I was in BGTL from 1/04/1979-1/06/1980....There are only 2 days, and 2 nights in a whole year there....

I loved the 727. I always showed up 5 minutes before departure and clicked the seat belt sign, did the checklist and departed on time. The FE did all the hard stuff, the FO did all the clearance stuff and I just showed up. Great job.

Love ya work, Bubbers! :D

I started Boeing (733) then Airbus (320) then Boeing (744) then Airbus (320). I'd take the AB for the narrow body and definitely Boeing for WB.

For me the biggest downfall for Airbus is the ECAM, ECAM is a PITA as is the protocol!

Bubbers...Exactly...Hop in the seat, talk to the ground guy (Ready to start Captain?) look right and say checklist while calling starting 1...Great...and the best flying A/C I've ever flown...especially in the "slow down, go down" mode...

As for ANCPER...We have our initial speak thingy's on the 727 as well...

We have a VOR, an ADF, VSI, ASI, A/P, RADAR, GPWS and lots of other gadgets that are common on Cessna's and Piper's. On the newer ones there's a thingy called TCAS and some other sort of a gizmo that we didn't really need and I never understood how it worked anyway...I remember now, a GPS?

Lots of other bits on the 727 have initials, but it would be boring to go over them now...

Anyway, I hope you take this in fun, cause I've been out of flying a while...The magenta to me defined what altitude controlled airspace started at on a VFR Sectional...:D:D:D

Ned Ludd
 

I wonder what Ned Ludd would have thought of the fly by wire and other complexities of an Airbus ? Would he have seen it as a perceived threat to real aviators ?
Perhaps a little Neo-Luddism (modified of course) might get pilots back to being pilots.

http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/Norman-overautomation.pdf

This thoughtful paper made me understand the situation better than zillions of posts.

Should be compulsory reading for anyone dealing with complex technologies.

Mac, for a more light hearted, but serious approach to the problems, see How To Talk To People.

Automation Surprises provides a more academic look at the problems, but also covers issues that could be addressed in training and operation.

The bedrock of thought about automation is in The Ironies of Automation.

bubbers44:

I never developed that affection for what we at TWA called "Miss Piggy" I suppose part of the problem was the smallest engine option Boeing had.

Now, the 1011 was a different story. Same easy gig for the captain, at least on domestic. And, a real autoflight system instead of the 727 JC Penney thing.

:)

Never got to fly the DC10 even though I could have bid it. We never had any L1011's but kind of liked the dinasour B727 with absolutely nothing automatic. It took me many hours to figure out how to smoothly change the AP pitch because my first job in it was captain. I kept looking back at the engineers panel making him nervous because he was brand new and explained I never really learned what all that stuff back there does. One day I said usually I see 10 KW on each engine, today I see two at 15 KW and one at zero, why is that? He said well, the light is out. I asked him to check the light and it had burned out so we took off on two generators, not good with packs on. Remember the LAX night flight that crashed decades ago? Departing Barbados on a wet runway with 1,000 ft ceiling just before V1 we lost #1 generator so I said it is just one generator so continue. At Vr the FE switched essential from #3 to #1 even though I just calmly said just take care of the problem. I then said he will fix it because he had a FE check airman behind him. Of course he lost all of his instruments for a moment but they got us everything back before entering the clouds. It would have been a close call on an abort with a wet runway. He passed his check ride by the way. My last sim ride my instructor said never say check essential, KW's unless it is #3 because he is spring loaded to select #1 gen, so I didn't.

bubbers44:

That was a UAL 727-100 I believe in 1965. Night, rain fairly low ceilings. I believe they dispatched with one generator inop. I don't recall the switch position specifics but suffice it to say they were suddenly in the dark and the F/E didn't select Standby. I think the F/Es during on the galleys just after takeoff.

TWA paid extra during submission of their order to have the Standby switch on the overhead where all three crewmembers could reach it.