Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
diverdave wrote:Since everything is electronic these days anyway, I wonder if Boeing will first offer the side-stick as an option.
ikolkyo wrote:diverdave wrote:Since everything is electronic these days anyway, I wonder if Boeing will first offer the side-stick as an option.
I don't think that would ever be an option, require different certification/training and production complexities
ikolkyo wrote:I don't think that would ever be an option, require different certification/training and production complexities
par13del wrote:So the downside to the yoke is??????...and the upside to the stick is?????
Okie wrote:Unless the stick is back driven as indicated for the C series there is no pilot to pilot interface to know what inputs are being made. Has been the topic of several fatal accidents, AF447 comes first to mind.
zeke wrote:As instrument rated pilots we are always taught to look to the instruments to figure out what the aircraft is doing, never the position of the controls.
ikolkyo wrote:diverdave wrote:Since everything is electronic these days anyway, I wonder if Boeing will first offer the side-stick as an option.
I don't think that would ever be an option, require different certification/training and production complexities
Okie wrote:zeke wrote:As instrument rated pilots we are always taught to look to the instruments to figure out what the aircraft is doing, never the position of the controls.
There can always be an issue with the seat to control interface.
I think if Boeing goes side stick they will back drive it like the C series, it is just one more safety tool for the pilots to use.
Okie
zeke wrote:Okie wrote:Unless the stick is back driven as indicated for the C series there is no pilot to pilot interface to know what inputs are being made. Has been the topic of several fatal accidents, AF447 comes first to mind.
There have been more than enough accidents with back driven connected controls to illustrate that in critical moments it does not matter what the other pilot is doing, it is always about what the aircraft is doing. In fact that is a common mantra for any aircraft any time.
As instrument rated pilots we are always taught to look to the instruments to figure out what the aircraft is doing, never the position of the controls.
E.g. Tk 737 Ams, oz 777 sfo, ek 777 dxb.
Planetalk wrote:zeke wrote:Okie wrote:Unless the stick is back driven as indicated for the C series there is no pilot to pilot interface to know what inputs are being made. Has been the topic of several fatal accidents, AF447 comes first to mind.
There have been more than enough accidents with back driven connected controls to illustrate that in critical moments it does not matter what the other pilot is doing, it is always about what the aircraft is doing. In fact that is a common mantra for any aircraft any time.
As instrument rated pilots we are always taught to look to the instruments to figure out what the aircraft is doing, never the position of the controls.
E.g. Tk 737 Ams, oz 777 sfo, ek 777 dxb.
Yes but as I'm sure a man of your intellect knows, that in no way proves that backdriven controls would not help prevent some accidents.
The fact that some accidents have occurred with backdriven controls is irrelevant to the argument of 'could they possibly assist in some extreme situations'. Which is of course near impossible to answer empirically because we can't show the accidents that haven't happened because a pilot realised the other guy was making bad inputs. I can't see the harm in allowing this extra information. Which is of course for very rare instances, so it's no use saying that in normal operations pilots shouldn't be looking at the controls, this is for very non-normal occurrances.
Personally I don't have a horse in this race, I know some pilots like to see what inputs the other pilots is making, some aren't worried. I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand though. If it could be added simply, why not do it? Surely there isn't a downside to more information? Unless it's more of an ideological position...
jfklganyc wrote:Airbus stick doesnt move when other pilot is moving it. Big fault. If other guy tries to help in bad situation it sums input...also bad design. Ask Captains about watching a new FO land helplessly. On a Boeing you can grease the controls on your side to lessen the touchdown if necessary. On an Airbus any input results in a "dual input" warning and the inputs in the controls are summed causing a much greater input then wanted or needed.
Also the sidestick lacks something below 30 Feet RA especially in strong cross wind situations.
30 knot xwind...give me a Boeing yolk anyday
jfklganyc wrote:give me a Boeing yolk anyday
Planetalk wrote:Yes but as I'm sure a man of your intellect knows, that in no way proves that backdriven controls would not help prevent some accidents.
chimborazo wrote:These conversations always miss a fundamental point about the philosophy of A & B.
The yoke/stick is not physically connected to the flight controls on either manufacturer's FBW as we know. But saying adding feedback to a yoke and sticking it in a Boeing misses the point: in an Airbus you "can't" get the aeroplane outside its envelope (unless in direct law as I understand it). So feedback adds no value.
In a Boeing, the aeroplane will resist you, but you can take it outside of its programmed envelope (effectiveness of this, why you would/need to etc is a different topic) by exerting a lot of force on the yoke.
Simply putting a side stick with feedback in would completely change that philosophy- it's simply not ergonomic to develop a lot of force from forearm to maintain that same philosophy (even de-rated to stick rather than yoke moment arm). You'd need to be a pro arm-wrestler.
BravoOne wrote:
At Boeing, our unmatched experience, fundamental flight operations beliefs, and clear
design guidelines lead to flight decks that are evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
These flight decks let airlines build further on the safety the industry has already achieved.
They ensure Boeing customers and the traveling public that new technologies will be very
carefully evaluated and, if selected, properly implemented to avoid technology “traps”
and unintended consequences.
BravoOne wrote:Yes I would say Boeing is slightly ahead of AB in the filed of aircraft and aerospace manufacturing. Don't get me wrong AB is a great company that build terrific airplanes many of which I enjoy riding in. Did you know that Boeing even does fight training in the AB for customers that have Boeings and desire Boeing to do the training regardless.
zeke wrote:Planetalk wrote:Yes but as I'm sure a man of your intellect knows, that in no way proves that backdriven controls would not help prevent some accidents.
If that were the case safety investigators and regulators would be able to measure that and quantify that as a safety benefit, there is a lack of facts or evidence to support that statement. If it was actually true, you would see it in every Boeing marketing slide saying they are safer because they have "backdriven controls" just like we have seen in the auto industry use safety features with measurable benefits such as airbags, ABS, crash protection zones etc of ways to sell more vehicles to the market because safety is something people are willing to pay more for.
BravoOne wrote:I have not flown the Bus but I know UAL pilots that would not even admit having flown it. WTF difference does this make any how. If you prefer the side stick so be it just stop bemoaning the fact that Boeing does not see it your way. Seems like every few months someone regurgitates this argument just to piss in the other guys rice bowl.
BTW, I have a TR in the F7X so I'm clueless about the SS concept.. Not a fan of the SS controller but that does not mean anything in the scheme of things.. And yes Boeing is ahead of AB but AB is gaining and that's what keeps them up at night. Surely your not so clueless to think that AB invented runway overrun protection? Yea your right about the Concorde. Really cool airplane. But Boeing has put so many more vehicles in space than AB and so may more airplanes that go faster further. I could go on and on but I don't need to make a fool of you on line. Speaking of fast, ever heard of the XB70 or X15?
BravoOne wrote:BTW, I have a TR in the F7X so I'm clueless about the SS concept.. Not a fan of the SS controller but that does not mean anything in the scheme of things.. And yes Boeing is ahead of AB but AB is gaining and that's what keeps them up at night. Surely your not so clueless to think that AB invented runway overrun protection? Yea your right about the Concorde. Really cool airplane. But Boeing has put so many more vehicles in space than AB and so may more airplanes that go faster further. I could go on and on but I don't need to make a fool of you on line. Speaking of fast, ever heard of the XB70 or X15?
sharles wrote:zeke wrote:Planetalk wrote:Yes but as I'm sure a man of your intellect knows, that in no way proves that backdriven controls would not help prevent some accidents.
If that were the case safety investigators and regulators would be able to measure that and quantify that as a safety benefit, there is a lack of facts or evidence to support that statement. If it was actually true, you would see it in every Boeing marketing slide saying they are safer because they have "backdriven controls" just like we have seen in the auto industry use safety features with measurable benefits such as airbags, ABS, crash protection zones etc of ways to sell more vehicles to the market because safety is something people are willing to pay more for.
The issue is:
yes, in the ideal world, pilots would always read the instruments and there would be no benefit from backdriven controls
however
since people are not perfect, might there be cases where with backdriven and linked controls, there would be a safety gain considering imperfect pilots?
On the other hand, since there is no feedback in the Airbus approach, pilots are FORCED to look at instruments. That may actually be a safety gain, because it creates the instinct to look at instruments instead of using ones senses.
And therefore the question is, which of the tradeoffs is more important... my point being, there is an advantage to the Boeing way, but it may not be important enough or it may bring disadvantages with it.
Also, I think that accidents where "backdriving did not help" are not that important. Yes, they point out that even when backdriven controls could help, they might not.
What is more important is whether there where almost-accidents where backdriven&linked yokes did help.
What is also important is whether there have been cases where there was an accident because of backdriven/linked controls that would have been prevented by the current Airbus approach. Now that would really be a case for the Airbus way.
novarupta wrote:sharles wrote:zeke wrote:
If that were the case safety investigators and regulators would be able to measure that and quantify that as a safety benefit, there is a lack of facts or evidence to support that statement. If it was actually true, you would see it in every Boeing marketing slide saying they are safer because they have "backdriven controls" just like we have seen in the auto industry use safety features with measurable benefits such as airbags, ABS, crash protection zones etc of ways to sell more vehicles to the market because safety is something people are willing to pay more for.
The issue is:
yes, in the ideal world, pilots would always read the instruments and there would be no benefit from backdriven controls
however
since people are not perfect, might there be cases where with backdriven and linked controls, there would be a safety gain considering imperfect pilots?
On the other hand, since there is no feedback in the Airbus approach, pilots are FORCED to look at instruments. That may actually be a safety gain, because it creates the instinct to look at instruments instead of using ones senses.
And therefore the question is, which of the tradeoffs is more important... my point being, there is an advantage to the Boeing way, but it may not be important enough or it may bring disadvantages with it.
Also, I think that accidents where "backdriving did not help" are not that important. Yes, they point out that even when backdriven controls could help, they might not.
What is more important is whether there where almost-accidents where backdriven&linked yokes did help.
What is also important is whether there have been cases where there was an accident because of backdriven/linked controls that would have been prevented by the current Airbus approach. Now that would really be a case for the Airbus way.
Even with all the control feedback/backdriving, two pilots still managed to plant a 777 into the KSFO sea wall. So regardless of whether you have feedback in the controls or not, you still need to pay attention to the instrumentation for proper situational awareness.
novarupta wrote:sharles wrote:zeke wrote:
If that were the case safety investigators and regulators would be able to measure that and quantify that as a safety benefit, there is a lack of facts or evidence to support that statement. If it was actually true, you would see it in every Boeing marketing slide saying they are safer because they have "backdriven controls" just like we have seen in the auto industry use safety features with measurable benefits such as airbags, ABS, crash protection zones etc of ways to sell more vehicles to the market because safety is something people are willing to pay more for.
The issue is:
yes, in the ideal world, pilots would always read the instruments and there would be no benefit from backdriven controls
however
since people are not perfect, might there be cases where with backdriven and linked controls, there would be a safety gain considering imperfect pilots?
On the other hand, since there is no feedback in the Airbus approach, pilots are FORCED to look at instruments. That may actually be a safety gain, because it creates the instinct to look at instruments instead of using ones senses.
And therefore the question is, which of the tradeoffs is more important... my point being, there is an advantage to the Boeing way, but it may not be important enough or it may bring disadvantages with it.
Also, I think that accidents where "backdriving did not help" are not that important. Yes, they point out that even when backdriven controls could help, they might not.
What is more important is whether there where almost-accidents where backdriven&linked yokes did help.
What is also important is whether there have been cases where there was an accident because of backdriven/linked controls that would have been prevented by the current Airbus approach. Now that would really be a case for the Airbus way.
Even with all the control feedback/backdriving, two pilots still managed to plant a 777 into the KSFO sea wall. So regardless of whether you have feedback in the controls or not, you still need to pay attention to the instrumentation for proper situational awareness.
BravoOne wrote:novarupta wrote:sharles wrote:The issue is:
yes, in the ideal world, pilots would always read the instruments and there would be no benefit from backdriven controls
however
since people are not perfect, might there be cases where with backdriven and linked controls, there would be a safety gain considering imperfect pilots?
On the other hand, since there is no feedback in the Airbus approach, pilots are FORCED to look at instruments. That may actually be a safety gain, because it creates the instinct to look at instruments instead of using ones senses.
And therefore the question is, which of the tradeoffs is more important... my point being, there is an advantage to the Boeing way, but it may not be important enough or it may bring disadvantages with it.
Also, I think that accidents where "backdriving did not help" are not that important. Yes, they point out that even when backdriven controls could help, they might not.
What is more important is whether there where almost-accidents where backdriven&linked yokes did help.
What is also important is whether there have been cases where there was an accident because of backdriven/linked controls that would have been prevented by the current Airbus approach. Now that would really be a case for the Airbus way.
Even with all the control feedback/backdriving, two pilots still managed to plant a 777 into the KSFO sea wall. So regardless of whether you have feedback in the controls or not, you still need to pay attention to the instrumentation for proper situational awareness.
Now I'm a liar? Also rated in the GV (550/450) and waiting for a slot for the 8X to open in LFPB next month. The only 8X sim up and running at this hour. Prefer the G550 to the 7X and before you get all excited, yes I know Gulfstream is switching to the SS. When you have as little room as these cockpits have it is a benefit.
BravoOne wrote:
Now I'm a liar? Also rated in the GV (550/450) and waiting for a slot for the 8X to open in LFPB next month. The only 8X sim up and running at this hour. Prefer the G550 to the 7X and before you get all excited, yes I know Gulfstream is switching to the SS. When you have as little room as these cockpits have it is a benefit.
Chaostheory wrote:BravoOne wrote:
Now I'm a liar? Also rated in the GV (550/450) and waiting for a slot for the 8X to open in LFPB next month. The only 8X sim up and running at this hour. Prefer the G550 to the 7X and before you get all excited, yes I know Gulfstream is switching to the SS. When you have as little room as these cockpits have it is a benefit.
Liar? Probably not.
Outlier? Certainly!
I can't personally speak of the newer Gulfstreams but from the ramblings of friends on the corporate side, the Falcons still outclass the G650 with regards to handling and cockpit ergonomics.
I never found the Airbus FBW an issue in x-winds. Our SOPs, both at my current and previous employer, recommend a F3 landing config which gives much better roll response - same for the 777/787 too with F25. You just have to be wary of various nuances such as the flight/ground modes on the Airbus and the related transitions.
Lastly, I was trained to fly the A320 by Boeing. The training was crap though. Funnily enough, I still have the Boeing Alteon flight manuals in their binders on the bookshelf in front of me.
Chaostheory wrote:BravoOne wrote:
Now I'm a liar? Also rated in the GV (550/450) and waiting for a slot for the 8X to open in LFPB next month. The only 8X sim up and running at this hour. Prefer the G550 to the 7X and before you get all excited, yes I know Gulfstream is switching to the SS. When you have as little room as these cockpits have it is a benefit.
Liar? Probably not.
Outlier? Certainly!
I can't personally speak of the newer Gulfstreams but from the ramblings of friends on the corporate side, the Falcons still outclass the G650 with regards to handling and cockpit ergonomics.
I never found the Airbus FBW an issue in x-winds. Our SOPs, both at my current and previous employer, recommend a F3 landing config which gives much better roll response - same for the 777/787 too with F25. You just have to be wary of various nuances such as the flight/ground modes on the Airbus and the related transitions.
Lastly, I was trained to fly the A320 by Boeing. The training was crap though. Funnily enough, I still have the Boeing Alteon flight manuals in their binders on the bookshelf in front of me.
AirPacific747 wrote:BravoOne wrote:Yes I would say Boeing is slightly ahead of AB in the filed of aircraft and aerospace manufacturing. Don't get me wrong AB is a great company that build terrific airplanes many of which I enjoy riding in. Did you know that Boeing even does fight training in the AB for customers that have Boeings and desire Boeing to do the training regardless.
Did you fly both types? I know many ex Boeing pilots now flying Airbus who would never go back to Boeing, particularly the 737. By the way, Boeing is NOT "ahead" of Airbus. Airbus was first with many new inventions, such as first twin engine wide body, first passenger jet with fly by wire and envelope protections, lights out philosophy, ground speed mini, load alleviation function, runway overrun protection, advanced ecam, brake-to-vacate, and so on and on.
Don't forget that the Concorde was designed by what was to become Airbus later on in time. Boeing has never built a supersonic passenger jet.
BravoOne wrote:Chaostheory wrote:BravoOne wrote:
Now I'm a liar? Also rated in the GV (550/450) and waiting for a slot for the 8X to open in LFPB next month. The only 8X sim up and running at this hour. Prefer the G550 to the 7X and before you get all excited, yes I know Gulfstream is switching to the SS. When you have as little room as these cockpits have it is a benefit.
Liar? Probably not.
Outlier? Certainly!
I can't personally speak of the newer Gulfstreams but from the ramblings of friends on the corporate side, the Falcons still outclass the G650 with regards to handling and cockpit ergonomics.
I never found the Airbus FBW an issue in x-winds. Our SOPs, both at my current and previous employer, recommend a F3 landing config which gives much better roll response - same for the 777/787 too with F25. You just have to be wary of various nuances such as the flight/ground modes on the Airbus and the related transitions.
Lastly, I was trained to fly the A320 by Boeing. The training was crap though. Funnily enough, I still have the Boeing Alteon flight manuals in their binders on the bookshelf in front of me.
See my previous post regarding what is required for 8X training. As for the XB70 and X15 I guess you missed the news when Boeing bought NA. Boeing did not build the SST as they were busy building the 1st 747's. Guess which worked out best? The Concorde was an exciting airplane and those involved with it should be proud but never a successful program by any stretch. You have to make money to stay n this game and like the787, the Concorde is/was a failure. Thanks for your flying tips as I need all the help I can get at this age.
BravoOne wrote:See my previous post regarding what is required for 8X training. As for the XB70 and X15 I guess you missed the news when Boeing bought NA. Boeing did not build the SST as they were busy building the 1st 747's. Guess which worked out best? The Concorde was an exciting airplane and those involved with it should be proud but never a successful program by any stretch. You have to make money to stay n this game and like the787, the Concorde is/was a failure. Thanks for your flying tips as I need all the help I can get at this age.