Having once flown a 707 all the way LHR-BDA with a yaw damper and autopilot that would not engage and encountered light and moderate turbulence several times on the flight, I would never accept a 707/737 without a working yaw damper. The dutch roll (corrected by roll inputs only) was most unpleasant for the pax, these were the days before modern flight recorders, but IIRC we got to 45 bank on several occasions.

Hi Chris, OG, Brian, others;

A thoroughly worthwhile (continuing!) discussion in my view.

Brian I recall the ventral fin "addition" on the B707 when building models (Revell) of the aircraft as a kid. There was a time when it didn't have it. I think too, it was on the B720. I ran across this comment in Tech Log from "411A":

Please accept my most humble apologies A Squared … my intent was not at all intended to say that your information was inaccurate … I was simply pointing out that long before the revision you cited was made to the manual, there was universal understanding among the tanker crews that the barn door on the back was something that deserved the greatest respect! And it’s nice to know that other members of that particular union participate in this forum! Welcome aboard!

Thanks Rabbit, but to be clear, I'm not a gas-passer, not even AF (although I do fly a Herc) I just came across the document while reading the AA587 Report, and posted it because it pretty neatly dismisses the 2 of the fallacies being repeated here. To wit:

That before AA587, nobody imagined you could tear a fin off with rudder reversals.

and

Airbuses are the only planes which are susceptible to this.

This has happend before.

http://www.talkingproud.us/Military/.../b52notail.jpg

I am impressed by so many skills and knowledge together !
Thank you to Machinbird, Owain Glyndwr, Chris Scott, Brian Abraham, Hobo, PJ2, misd-agin, and others. I apologize as I need a littler more time to answer...

It seems that Harper-Cooper scale is generalized with US aircrafts, but nothing else with Airbus unless due certification is done in USA - and it seems it has not been the case with the A300-600R modifications, according to the APA document. A european manufactor test pilot is not independant to rate their own aircrafts' qualities.

A question about Harper-Cooper rating : is it done with and without Yaw Damper on ?

roulis

But they routinely do so in the flight test development programmes to ensure that there are no problems and to sort them out if necessary. Before any aircraft gets certification its handling qualities are checked again independently by one or more of the airworthiness authorities' test pilots. Whether or not they use the Cooper scale is a matter of choice for them really - you don't have to give an aircraft a numerical rating to say whether it is pleasant and safe to fly - subjective judgements are just as valid and in practice a Cooper rating is nothing but a numerical statement of a subjective judgement. APA were just making waves.....

Whatever the test pilot is trying to assess. The Cooper scale is just a numerical scale which can conveniently be used to methodically categorise the relative acceptability of various configurations.

A Squared – hey, a Herc pilot is close enough in my book. I will say that I, too, was surprised at the apparent lack of knowledge evident in the airline industry about the vulnerabilities of airplanes should there ever be an over application of flight controls – particularly control reversals – and most particularly reversals to the stops.

I think that many instructors (usually they were the “older” heads at most airlines) who advocated the use of rudder (like those training at AA for their AAMT -?- training course) were perfectly correct that it was permissible to use rudder in the manner they described – which was not “if you use it, use ALL of it” … but rather, “use it for what it can do,” … and I believe they either didn’t have the time (in a typically limited airline training environment) or they were under the impression that those in their class had a similar background to their own, where it was drummed into your head to “remember where you are and what you are doing – and specifically that cowboys are on horseback, not at 30,000 feet and at 75% the speed of sound.” The portions of the AA course with which I was somewhat familiar, advocated the judicious use of rudder – and use of full rudder WAS acceptable, if it was necessary – but those cases were acknowledged to be few and far between. In fact, the times where rudder use was deemed acceptable in that portion of the course I saw (flew), was when the nose was unacceptably high and the crew could not get it down. The procedure was to roll the airplane and (the word used was “pressure”) then “pressure” the down side rudder to bring the nose back to the horizon.

In fact, my recognizing the fact that knowledge of control applications in transport category airplanes was particularly sparse in the airline community is what put me on a “bent” to increase the requirements for training. I’m not describing merely an increase in the time spent in training, but to train on what is needed to be known and to train to a competent level of performance. I know that many do not like the idea of additional requirements – particularly if they come from a regulatory agency – but, honestly, I don’t know of another way to get where we need to be. That also put me into a frame of mind that says we all should not just take what we are given from “the man,” but that all of us have a right to expect (in fact demand) that the regulators demand every bit the same level of competence in their employees at their jobs as they expect from the industry. There are a few individual regulators I know who feel the same way – and we should be including them in our discussions on the kinds of things this industry needs. And, I may be overly simplistic, but I don’t think the industry can get there without the regulators being involved up to their necks.

Oops – sorry – as you can see, I can get on my soap box pretty easily … I’ll step down now and go about my business. Anyway – thanks for your participation – and your professionalism.

For the benefit of those who don't frequent the Bizjet Forum: The OP appears to be some kind of troll (no surprise, I had that suspicion after his first post on this thread)

Teldorserious,

In case I'm not on your "ignore" list, you may be surprised to see that you're not on mine - yet.

But by including that story from soon after the AF447 acccident you have betrayed your primary motive for starting this thread: as a vehicle for yet another anti-Airbus rant from the west side of the pond.

It seems there is a noisey minority of poorly-informed, pro-Boeing bigots which cannot accept the fact that the Europeans have finally produced a range of airliners that - backed by a first-class marketing organisation - is matching the sales success of America's finest; instead of merely being technically superior, as so often in the past.

Get over it?

A recent thread said the B787 is designed to be able to be flown by equally incompetent Airbus pilots because of it's automation. You don't have to really know how to fly any more, just program the automation. Why even have pilots if they don't have to know how to fly. Make them all automatic with no pilots. Problem solved.

Bubbers, to a certain extent the FAA is forcing us to do that. We've basically being told we have to design for the 3 sigma 'bad' pilot - to take credit for what 99% of pilots would do is considered depending on "usual pilot skill" :ugh:

The rational is that "inappropriate crew action" in response to something else going wrong is a leading cause of crashes. Therefore we need to design to prevent "inappropriate crew action", which sounds reasonable on the surface. But the way it's been implemented, if any dumbass pilot has ever made a mistake, we need to assume that every pilot is a dumbass and will make the same mistake :mad: I'm willing to bet significant money that the Asiana 777 crash at SFO will drive new regulations (or a 'reinterpretation' of an existing regulation) to require automatic protection of airspeed during critical flight phases (never mind that autothrottle/autothrust already do that if the dumbass bothers to turn it on).

Get used to it, it's not going to get any better :sad:. It's also why I think the pilotless (passenger carrying) airplane will eventually happen. When the primary purpose of the airplane avionics becomes preventing the pilot from doing something stupid, it's really not that big of leap to take the pilot out of the equation entirely :uhoh:

tdracer, thanks, even if it is bad news. Keep building those Boeings, I love them, but never thought Boeing would join the AB philosophy of making their product idiot proof.

Chris Scott, don't take any notice whatsoever of Teldorserious. He has a habit of involving himself in things of which he has completely no knowledge. The sciolist note on the bottom of the page was partly in response to his continual wet dreams. He has no aviation background, and has no interest in learning, beyond his own preduces.

Chris,

If you are still wondering about ignore lists you might like to consider extracts from a couple of posts:

Owain, the advice is certainly well-founded - one can very quickly sense someone who's playing with people and into the ignore-list they go! There's too much good stuff to be trifling or fixing those who offer up nonsense.

Brian, Chris;

The B-over-A prejudice most certainly exists. Seen it, heard it, then as now. It's not going to go away because, normal personal preferences aside, it is based upon politics and emotion and not on technical or design fact.

I've flown both A & B manufacturers, plus old Douglas and newer Lockheed products. They all do the job very nicely. Of course, stats-and-facts are anathema and an inconvenience to those who harbour personal attitudes towards one airplane or another. But the Boeing Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents (1959 - 2012) speaks for itself because the numbers are available to anyone.

The key, as we who actually do (or did, :sad:) this work know so well, is in deeply knowing one's airplane, not letting up the studying where one's employer leaves you at the end of your training, not believing one is smarter than the design engineers and test pilots when it comes to operations near, at and outside the envelope, and most important, suspending one's shiny ego in favour of curiosity and life-long learning, which means quiet confidence in one's ability combined with humility - rare these days of adherence to empty personal "branding" habits.

In this profession these are the behaviours that keep one alive in an airplane and out of the office and/or the newspapers. Without animosity, folks like the OP of this fine thread come and go - seen them dozens of times and they're all the same. They eventually fade, tiring of the game, while those who know their stuff carry on in spite of interlopers, to share their valuable knowledge and observations.

Most of the time for the better, one takes the catalyst for discussion where one finds it and what a discussion it remains!, despite our OP's and a couple of others' efforts to take the discussion away from those who have made the thread with their unique contributions while those who for whatever reason(s) pretend to know move on to whatever they're better at. It's the nice thing about "the free marketplace of ideas" and the facts of flight as we know them.

Thanks Brian, Owain and PJ2 (aviator-philosopher!).

Overall, the illuminating side of this discussion has been well worth the comparitively minor hassle of Dozy's "faint, buzzing noise, like an angry wasp banging against a window."

There are many fine contributions here, but one must particularly admire Owain's and AirRabbit's insights into design and certification, and it's good to see Machinbird back. Where are all the other usual suspects?

Presumably not in the Biblical sense though - that would just be wrong! :E

Otherwise I totally agree - and I'm impressed at the knowledge and patience shown in this thread. The one thing that still saddens me is when the old canard about the FBW Airbii (which wasn't even the subject of the thread) being designed for "incompetent pilots" arises, when nothing could be further from the truth. For one because a pilot does not have to be incompetent to make the occasional mistake, and also because that's just a single facet of the envelope protection philosophy, and arguably not even the most prominent one at that!

Dozy, "Presumably not in the Biblical sense though -" LOL.

I've noticed over the years that there are very few pilots who have flown and know the airplane (in the non-Biblical sense), and make statements like, ". . . designed for incompetent pilots".

At the same time, I see that, contrary to what is known thus far by the NTSB, the B777 autothrust system is being blamed by a certain group for the SFO accident.

Chris Scott, I agree in re OG's and Air Rabbit's contributions - particularly helpful on the AF447 threads. Most pilots won't have "Davies" and so sources of fundamental aeronautical knowledge which is rarely if ever taught at the major carriers, are themselves, rare and I think discussions like this on a Tech forum are well worth the effort. One cannot know where this kind of technical discusson will go with new crops of "computer - generation" pilots who, if it is to be more automation as a result of unsubstantiated comments like, 'the throttles didn't work', soon may not know the pleasures of manual flight.

@flyboyike - I'd be out on my ear if there was a screening process! What the forum does provide is a unique and brilliant window into aviation for those who are interested in learning, and unfortunately what comes with that is a degree of baiting from those who aren't interested in learning.

And PJ2 - I'm of the computer generation, not even a pilot, and I own a well-thumbed copy of HTBJ. :8