Forgive me if this has already been discussed but I'm curious as to the pilots response to which device they prefer the yoke or the sidestick. While I've not personally flown either I'd think I would prefer the yoke as it's more tangible and hands on. I think I would be able to operate the sidestick better from the right seat as I'm right handed. If you've ever tried to operate a cpu mouse with your left hand you will know what I mean, I'm just not great with my left hand. Clearly I realize this is subjective but I'd be curious to hear from a pilots perspective the preferences.

I've flown both in both seats. It doesn't make any difference, believe it or not, which hand you fly with. Most of my time is with yokes but I currently pay my bills flying a plane with a sidestick and I prefer it over the yoke. I find it more comfortable but that's just me.

Been discussed a lot throughout the years, it's a non issue. Pilots have gone from Airbus to Boeing to Bombardier to Embraer and back to other aircraft. Really doesn't matter what it is the Pilot will adjust. Also I feel the next clean sheet from Boeing will feature linked side sticks instead of the Boeing tradition.

Biggest issue with the sidestick is one pilot's inputs aren't clearly obvious to the other pilot. See Air France disaster.

As the above have mentioned, it is not a problem. A computer mouse requires way finer motor control than a stick or a yoke. We're not using submillimetric movements like brain surgeons.

flyby519 wrote:

Biggest issue with the sidestick is one pilot's inputs aren't clearly obvious to the other pilot. See Air France disaster.

Something of an issue, but if if you follow SOP not really. Clearly know who has control. Call the modes and acknowledge.

The side stick is clearly better! For one reason, and one reason alone. You can eat your meal on the tray table. So much better!

A question for the Airbus pilots out there. Does it affect your ability to control the aircraft if the sidestick is on your right side, but you're left handed, or vice versa? I'm so dominately right handed that I have trouble handling a mouse with my left hand so I'm curious if that affects any of you in some manner. Or, does the computer system compensate for this somehow?

Thank you!

Bob

I have flown both side stick, center stick and yoke in over 150 types of planes from both left and right seat plus forward and aft on a tandem plane. I have also instructed in many and in all honesty it makes no difference as you learn from the seat you will fly the plane from and adapt. It will take one to two landings to really get the feel. Fly by wire, cable or pushrod all feel different but you adapt. My only issue is tactile feel. In a broken down form, I want to be able use my hands without looking to know what the plane is doing or what the other pilot is doing. The CS100/300 manufacture seems to have the brains to do this right as they use the side stick but electricly connect them together and the throttles move. One of either working that way would have incontrovertibly saved Air France 330 and many a few more.

To help the nay Sayers and people without experience with all 3 types of controls, it's training and feel of what the plane is doing that rules over how the plane flies or what control system it flies with. Imagine how an American felt when he got in the cockpit of a French Air Force plane in ww2 and realized his P-38 or King cobra throttles were rigged backwards(French practice). French changed to standard throttle about the mid 60s.

Cool subject. It's not about B vs A but about what feels best, What is logical and what truly is safe.

I prefer the sidestick solely due to the fact that it allows space for a tray table. Yokes are fine too, but the Hawker/Embraer handlebars are awful.

Flying with either hand is pretty much a non-issue. I'm sure you have a dominant hand when driving, and it's probably not a very big deal to switch. I've always had a much tougher time using opposite hands to type on the FMS!

Women just getting up in the morning: "Last night he told me he was a pilot" **** "This morning I found out he flew the Airbus"

Thanks, I appreciate the information. It's nice to hear from actual pilots on something like this and not the nonstop A or B bashing.

I can only concur. I am left-handed, flown side stick with right and left hand, center stick and yoke both from left and right. No problem whatsoever.

I haven't flown as many airplane as Reltney, but still have around 50 types in my logbook. They all handle pretty much the same - a plane is a plane. As Reltney said, you need 1-2 landings to adjust and that's it!

A while ago I had a ride in a 767 full flight simulator and was surprised how similar it was to the A320, which I flew at the time...

Airbus vs Boeing? I don't care. Whoever pays me more and gives me better rosters. I do like the table though...

Aptivaboy wrote:

A question for the Airbus pilots out there. Does it affect your ability to control the aircraft if the sidestick is on your right side, but you're left handed, or vice versa? I'm so dominately right handed that I have trouble handling a mouse with my left hand so I'm curious if that affects any of you in some manner. Or, does the computer system compensate for this somehow?

Thank you!

Bob

Again, handling a computer mouse requires much more precision than handling a sidestick. I'm not saying we're not trying to be accurate, just that moving a large control in four directions is different from hitting an icon and clicking on it. It's not "unbounded" like mouse movement either. More like steering a car or bicycle with your non-dominant hand.

It actually takes longer for FOs to get used to the center console and all the other stuff being on the other side. FOs doing their first sims on the command course have a tendency to do things like try to turn the tiller with their right hand, which is now holding the thrust levers. Or use their left hand for pushbuttons in the middle of the panel.

reltney wrote:

I have flown both side stick, center stick and yoke in over 150 types of planes from both left and right seat plus forward and aft on a tandem plane. I have also instructed in many and in all honesty it makes no difference as you learn from the seat you will fly the plane from and adapt. It will take one to two landings to really get the feel. Fly by wire, cable or pushrod all feel different but you adapt. My only issue is tactile feel. In a broken down form, I want to be able use my hands without looking to know what the plane is doing or what the other pilot is doing. The CS100/300 manufacture seems to have the brains to do this right as they use the side stick but electricly connect them together and the throttles move. One of either working that way would have incontrovertibly saved Air France 330 and many a few more.

To help the nay Sayers and people without experience with all 3 types of controls, it's training and feel of what the plane is doing that rules over how the plane flies or what control system it flies with. Imagine how an American felt when he got in the cockpit of a French Air Force plane in ww2 and realized his P-38 or King cobra throttles were rigged backwards(French practice). French changed to standard throttle about the mid 60s.

Cool subject. It's not about B vs A but about what feels best, What is logical and what truly is safe.

I dunno. The AF447 crew seems to have been very disoriented very soon. Not sure if connected sticks would have saved them.

You can argue the moving controls thing either way. Personally, I think on a FBW aircraft not having moving controls makes sense because a given stick position is not equivalent to a control surface position except in the very rare case where you are in a severely degraded flight control law.

Not having the sticks or thrust levers move forces the pilots to rely on the instruments as they should. A commanded control position by a side stick is not the same as what the aircraft is doing, especially since the FBW compensates for speed and autotrims. Half way back on the sidestick at 300 knots does not give the same elevator position as half way back at 180 knots. However one look at the PFD will show what the aircraft is doing.

On the thrust lever side, the engine can be off with the thrust levers at TOGA. Forcing the pilots to use the engine instruments ensures they get the relevant information on what the engines are doing, instead of possibly being led down a false path by a lever position.

thepinkmachine wrote:

Airbus vs Boeing? I don't care. Whoever pays me more and gives me better rosters. I do like the table though...

That's really how the majority of professional pilots see it. We might prefer one aircraft over another, but given the choice we'll take the one with better salary and lifestyle.

Boeing pilot here - but have spent some time in an A320 sim. There's no real difference in the end; you move the controls and the aeroplane responds. It takes a couple of minutes to get used to the different feel, then you're good to go!

I envy the Airbus guys every time I have a meal inflight...

reltney wrote:

I have flown both side stick, center stick and yoke in over 150 types of planes from both left and right seat plus forward and aft on a tandem plane. I have also instructed in many and in all honesty it makes no difference as you learn from the seat you will fly the plane from and adapt. It will take one to two landings to really get the feel. Fly by wire, cable or pushrod all feel different but you adapt. My only issue is tactile feel. In a broken down form, I want to be able use my hands without looking to know what the plane is doing or what the other pilot is doing. The CS100/300 manufacture seems to have the brains to do this right as they use the side stick but electricly connect them together and the throttles move. One of either working that way would have incontrovertibly saved Air France 330 and many a few more.

To help the nay Sayers and people without experience with all 3 types of controls, it's training and feel of what the plane is doing that rules over how the plane flies or what control system it flies with. Imagine how an American felt when he got in the cockpit of a French Air Force plane in ww2 and realized his P-38 or King cobra throttles were rigged backwards(French practice). French changed to standard throttle about the mid 60s.

Cool subject. It's not about B vs A but about what feels best, What is logical and what truly is safe.

Good points.


However, as good as the CS100/300 is and it's an advance to see backdriven autothrottles I don't believe the side sticks are connected
and / or move simultaneously.


The only civil jet transports I know that have this feature are the new Gulfstream 500 and 600.

Aptivaboy wrote:

Thanks, I appreciate the information. It's nice to hear from actual pilots on something like this and not the nonstop A or B bashing.

Get over yourself and lighten up as this argument has been going on for at least two decades if not longer. Had you used the search function Google could have found volumes on this debate written by test pilots, engineers along with the crews that have flown both.
Maybe the stick like in the C17 is the compromise that is needed?

I assume your not a pilot?

Well, good morning Captain Happy. Nice to see you're up and perky. There was nothing remotely rude in my post so I utterly fail to see why you responded as you have.

And no, I'm not a pilot. I'm a schoolteacher, which means that I'm actually pretty good at detecting a copious lack of reading comprehension - like your's. You know, like when I said, "It's nice to hear from actual pilots on something like this," that was a clear implication that I'm not a pilot, something that you were apparently unable to detect and comprehend. Also, I was not the thread starter, if you really want to yell at someone for not using Google, although he shouldn't be harangued, either. It was and remains a legitimate question and as you have pointed out, one which has been debated and discussed for a long time, hence the interest that many people have in it. I'm personally grateful to the contributors to this thread for sharing their insights with the rest of us who are non-pilots, but aviation aficionados.

United Airlines has learned recently that a tiny fragment of politeness and professionalism can go along way. You could learn that, too.

What can I say, your User name says it all. The Boeing vs Airbus debate has been going on for years so my original joke was just one more jab at the guys at Airbus and certainly had nothing in common with anything that has ever happened at UAL. Why don't read the AF447 accident report and then may you will learn why some of us question the Almighty Airbus technology. About the only this you hear good about the bus is there is place to put your food tray down and the seats are more comfortable than the Boeing seats.

You remain clueless about UAL and suspect you get 100% of your opinionated information from the internet?

Did you know that as we move forward with Extended Envelope Training, (EET) the programs that Airbus uses to predict how there airplanes will handle is all computer generated, where as the Boeing equivalent is actual data taken from real airplane flights conducted by Boeing Flight Test and Evaluation pilots. That probably goes over your head, but it does make a huge difference in the quality materials that Boeing delivers.

There's a lot more to the 'Bus than just the table (and even this one not mainly for eating, but for doing the CFP, plotting etc.) - it is the general ergonomy, which is amazing. I used to be an Airbus skeptic, until I started flying one.

Would AF447 be prevented by moving control columns? Maybe, but we don't know that for sure. Did moving yokes save Asiana 214 and Turkish 1951 - they didn't.

Same for non-moving thrust levers argument. They are actually simpler and more intuitive than the servo-actuated ones. See the latest Emirates crash.

Having said that, both Boeing and Airbus make great planes with *slightly* different operating philosophy. All in all, however, plane is a plane. My favorite one is Extra-330

What is "CFP plotting?" Do you mean a post position plots, and if so pilots have been doing that with ease in Douglas, Lockheed and Boeing airplanes for years without the table. I must admit having table would be nice once and awhile but to let it and other automation scheme, define an airplane is pretty strange and as you must know the lack of flying skills has be attributed to several high visibility accidents in the last decade. One must acknowledge that Airbus has no exclusive on this problem, and when you look at the two big 777 accidents both occurring during the landing phase, you have to ask yourself is this an automation issue or training issue? At this hour I think the jury may still be out. As for AF447 I don't think would have happened in a B777 or any other Boeing airplane for that matter.

What I meant was "filling out the CFP, position plotting on enroute charts etc...". Airbus didn't put this table in just so that we can have our meals more conveniently. (It is a welcome bonus, though). Nor does the table define the A/C.

If people keep mentioning the table as the main difference, compared to other airplanes... It just means that other aspects of operation are pretty much the same...

Both manufacturers' airplanes offer similar level of automation, and loss of flying skills seems to be a similar problem on both types. There's no clear winner here, both have an equal share of 'WTF' accidents involving lack of training and/or loss of skills.

As for flight control laws - my vote would be fully direct law with no autotrim, but with Airbus-style hard envelope protections. None of the manufacturers are offering it now...

I have read the AF447 report, and several others. I'm aware of the feedback issues. However, my question was about whether being right or left handed and the relative position to one's right or left had an impact on their flight abilities.

You remain clueless about UAL and suspect you get 100% of your opinionated information from the internet?

What information? And, where have I offered an opinion? Also, I am a UAL frequent flyer with oodles of flight time with them, so were I to offer an opinion it would be based upon my many experiences with them dating back to 1970s.

Anyway, I still fail to understand your vitriol, and why I have become the target of it. Nevertheless, I do wish you the best. Life is too short to give in to misplaced anger.

God bless.

Wow...UAL, and God Bless all in one post.

Aptivaboy wrote:

I have read the AF447 report, and several others. I'm aware of the feedback issues. However, my question was about whether being right or left handed and the relative position to one's right or left had an impact on their flight abilities.

It would not have had an impact. The level of control required means that the difference between dominant hand and not is irrelevant. Again, like steering a pushbike or a car with your non-dominant hand.

If you're flying in the Red Arrows, the precision required is an order of magnitude higher. But even in the Red Arrows a leftie will be holding the stick with the right hand.

Aptivaboy wrote:

I have read the AF447 report, and several others. I'm aware of the feedback issues. However, my question was about whether being right or left handed and the relative position to one's right or left had an impact on their flight abilities.

No, it wouldn't. I only fly a Cessna 172, but I'm right handed and on takeoff my left hand is on the yoke and my right hand is on the throttle. Obviously no issues at all controlling the aircraft that way - it is a different type of input than, say, attempting to write with a non-dominant hand. Even in level flight I almost always manipulate the yoke exclusively with my left hand. A side stick would not make any difference.

Can't see how non moving thrust levers are 'more intuitive' than backdriven moving levers.


That makes zero sense.

Max Q wrote:

Can't see how non moving thrust levers are 'more intuitive' than backdriven moving levers.

That makes zero sense.

I think the point is to stop pilots from thinking that a thrust lever position always corresponds to a delivered level of thrust. You are forced to always check the engine instruments, meaning you get both commanded and actual engine thrust at a glance from a reliable source.

A bit like you should check the PFD for modes, speed and altitude settings and so forth, not look at the glareshield. The glareshield is what you've told the plane to do. The PFD is what the plane is actually doing.

Funny as your comment regarding the glareshield vs the PFD/FMA is right out of the Boeing playbook. I think thrust leversthat don't move to a corresponding thrust command are pretty lame but I have never flown any Airbus aircraft. Wonder how many here realize that Boeing has done Airbus simulator flight training for years. Not doing it right now, but I would expect it to return as an offering in the future.

BravoOne wrote:

One must acknowledge that Airbus has no exclusive on this problem, and when you look at the two big 777 accidents both occurring during the landing phase, you have to ask yourself is this an automation issue or training issue? At this hour I think the jury may still be out. As for AF447 I don't think would have happened in a B777 or any other Boeing airplane for that matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Alg%C ... light_5017
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulkovo_A ... Flight_612
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Cari ... Flight_708

Granted, not Boeings, but aircraft equipped with interconnected yokes....which is the main difference between A and B as per what is being discussed here

3 pilots in a cockpit, each of them focusing on different things, short term guidance objectives suddenly changed, instruments not showing the precise info needed at the time it is needed, nobody checking the basic flight parameters, no communication except for short excalamations, the aircraft leaves its normal operating envelope, trajectory connot be recovered....
Am I talking about AF447 or OZ214 ?

No big difference, those are both loss of control in flight events. Over 100 such events in the past 25 years, including (or only) 2 on sidestick-equipped buses.

In all these cases, it's not a question of automation OR training. It's a problem of automation & human-machine interface design AND associated appropriate training & SOPs
No design is perfect, no human is perfect. If each one augments the deficiencies of the other, everyone wins. If both are just amplifying each other's faults, everyone loses.
Regardless of whether the big stick is between the legs or on the side.

Max Q wrote:

Can't see how non moving thrust levers are 'more intuitive' than backdriven moving levers.
That makes zero sense.

The throttle lever on my GA plane doesn't move, even though the actual power output varies as I climb or descend at constant speed. Seems perfectly normal to me, I just have to compensate...as I was trained to do.

Nothing about piloting is natural or intuitive. Everything about it has been learned some day, based on whichever design some engineer selected for his aircraft.
There is no natural law stating that throttle levers should move, or stick forward = nose down, or whatever. Those are all conventions which became widely adopted. But there have been variants over time (see the SNCASE S.E.2010 Armagnac for example)
Of course, the more you practice something one way, the more the mind does it automatically...to the point that it feels natural and is difficult to un-learn (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFzDaBzBlL0). Yet it still doesn't mean that that skill is an innate intuition.

Short version : I guess you learned to fly airliners with moving throttles. If you wanted to, I also guess you could learn to fly with non-moving throttles. Same for the sidestick

Max Q wrote:

Can't see how non moving thrust levers are 'more intuitive' than backdriven moving levers.


That makes zero sense.

Thought the same for long time until saw some interesting situations in a Boeing Sim and read about some incidents, eg:

- low speed RTO, with the crew forgetting to disconnect A/T. They release the throttles and one engine goes back to TOGA, resulting in rwy excursion
- CAL 140 crash in Nagoya. Crew inadvertently pushed TOGA and tried to overcome TL's moving forward
- Turkis 737 crash in AMS
- another incident in my previous airline, when a 767 autothrottle servo went bonkers, commanding idle on 1 engine in cruise, unnoticed to the crew, which resulted in stick shaker activation
- last, but not least, the recent EK accident, where the PF pushed TOGA pb on the ground, expecting them to move forward. They didn't, resulting in a crash

All in all, moving Throttles are quite complicated and sometimes 'live their own life' - which can be a potential for mishandling. Of course, you can blame it all on the crews if you want, but the system is not always 'user friendly'

In the Bus it is much simpler. If you want TOGA, you push all the way forward, if you want IDLE, you pull all the way back. Once you do that, they'll stay there and won't move. There's no TOGA push button and you don't need one. The system is very intuitive to use and hardly ever causes problems. It has its own set of drawbacks (like - you can't follow through the A/T with your hand on throttles and make small corrections, disconnecting a/t is a bit more complicated), but in MY OPINION, the simplicity outhweighs those disadvantages.

BravoOne wrote:

Funny as your comment regarding the glareshield vs the PFD/FMA is right out of the Boeing playbook.

I assume all the manufacturers say similar things. The glareshield etc is what you want the airplane to do. The PFD/FMA is what the airplane is doing. "Rumour" vs. "Fact" as some instructors put it.

Some interesting and some valid points, fact is that back driven, moving autothrottles are another, very useful cue, along with linked control yokes
that assist a Pilot in his overall awareness of the Aircraft state.


Sidesticks are ok, if linked.There is no advantage, and several disadvantages in having them isolated.


Autothrottles that do not move in response to engine commands make no sense, once again no advantage.



Any 'advance' in technology that requires a higher level of monitoring on behalf of the Pilot and reduces overall awareness is not an advance.

Search the A.Net archive topics for many side-stick vs. yoke debates and vitriol. Where is Pihero to straighten everybody out?

Alas, I doubt even Boeing will put a yoke in any all-new future aircraft, like MoM. Yoke is a dead-end now that new generation side-sticks are already is use...some with active feedback like on Gulfstream, Embraer. Airbus could also stand to update its side-stick technology. In fact, I doubt any new aircraft won't have an advanced side-stick in the future including small GA aircraft,

Flight decks will be all large displays, maybe touch screens, throttles could even go away...yokes would just get in the way. More good info...

http://aviationweek.com/technology/acti ... cial-debut

...And sorry Boeing old-timers, the sun is setting, have one last look for old-time's sake...

Touch screens are here today in the Max and coming soon to a game boy, er I mean airliner near you soon. Now where di I put that screen cleaner?