Stumpy 256 #26 December 13, 2006 Thanks - that makes senseNever try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC208B 0 #27 December 13, 2006 If it aint Boeing, I aint going...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 256 #28 December 13, 2006 when you book your flight do you ask what plane it is? do Airbus have a statistically significantly worse safety record than boeing?Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #29 December 13, 2006 QuoteIf it aint Boeing, I aint going...... Hmmm...gotta figure out rhymey slogans for: Piper Cessna Antonov Shorts DeHavilandIllinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #30 December 13, 2006 Quotewhen you book your flight do you ask what plane it is? do Airbus have a statistically significantly worse safety record than boeing? I doubt it, but they do smell of Brie and Guinness...Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #31 December 13, 2006 Quotewhen you book your flight do you ask what plane it is? I book my own and if you look on there you will see the type aircraft it is.. especially when selecting your seat... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 93 #32 December 13, 2006 QuoteThere are other things to worry about: http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/systemsafety/newsletters/tp3658/PDF/2_2004.pdf I love the part that says they changed the wiring diagram one serial number to another. Wow, I hadn't heard of that incident. The pilots actually need to reach out to push a button on the glareshield (dashboard) in order to change which sidestick controller is operating. Both Boeing and Airbus fly by wire planes have a switch on the overhead panel that changes the flight controls to a "direct mode". That means that a simpler and completely independent set of computers are used to interpret the commands of the pilot and turn it into a resulting flight control surface movements. I've previously described my objections to the Airbus pilot interface/design philosophy. I'll repeat them here... The following applies to all of their fly-by-wire planes A320/A330/A340/A380 series. These are things that I think are a bad idea for a commercial airliner: 1) The sidestick controllers They give no feedback when the autopilot is flying - no movement. I think that seeing the control column/wheel move is a great way for the pilot to know what the autopilot is trying to do. There is also no force feedback as you try to make the plane do more severe maneuvers. When a pilot moves from right to left seat, they have to 'train' their other arm/hand to use the sidestick controller (it is on the outboard side). I think this is inherently a bad idea, for a commercial airliner. The sidestick controllers are not linked, so when one pilot is flying, the other stick does not move. So what happens if both are trying to fly? There is software logic that decides this, and it is indicated which side is in control with an indicator light, and the pilots can override/take command on their side with the push of a switch. The thought of the logic not working and the pilots pushing buttons to take command is not comforting to me. 2) The autothrottle They do not move in the normal mode, meaning that as the autopilot adjusts power, the handles stay in one position. You can see by instruments what it is trying to do, but not by movement of the big handles. In the normal mode, it is just a big rotary switch. Again, I think seeing the throttles move is a great way for the pilot to know what the autopilot/autothrottle system is trying to do. 3) Envelope protection/limiting (fancy term for the computer doesn't let you do stupid maneuvers or overstress the plane) I don't think it is a good idea to have the fly-by-wire system prevent the pilot from putting too much stress on the plane. We are talking about a airliner, not a fighter. The pilots will never overstress it just for practice. If they need to go beyond the design structural limits to try to get out of a dive, for instance, then I say they should be allowed to try. Airbus was so confident of their 'envelope protection' that it caused a crash of an A330 many years ago. An airline CEO and top pilot were being treated to a demonstration flight. Airbus decided to impress them with how the plane could not be made to stall, so they planned to take off very aggressively and immediately idle one engine and turn off one of the hydraulic systems. However the flight control engineers had never figured on such an aggressive, very high pitch rate climb being combined with the other 'failures', and the plane could not stop the stall. They ran out of altitude. The investigation found fault in how the Airbus pilots decided to create their own scenario during the pre flight briefing that would impress the customer, completely confident that the plane could not be stalled (as they had been claiming). This incident received much less attention than the crash of the A320 at the Paris air show because no normal passengers were on board. The Boeing fly by wire system on the 777 still uses a traditional control column/wheel. There are some distinct advantages to the sidesticks, such as reduced weight, and much more room in front of the pilot for a worktable to use maps/manuals/etc, It was tempting, however Boeing decided that it was a bad tradeoff overall. Boeing also decided that strict envelope protection was a bad idea, and that increasing force feedback (it is 'artificial') was a better way of preventing pilots from doing stupid things while not limiting their ability to fly the plane how they see fit. Both Boeing and Airbus have a switch on the overhead console that puts them into a 'direct' mode that cuts out the complex flight control logic and uses separate/simpler software that results in a less 'refined' feeling for the pilot. This requires time to activate it, and I would rather the pilots have complete control to try what they want without having to look up and back to activate a switch first. It probably will not surprise you to learn that I used to be an engineer for Boeing in their flight deck group during the development of the 777, hence the 777 in my username. Of couse Boeing has had problems, such as 737 rudder reversals, 747 cargo door latches, and uncommanded 767 thrust reversals. However, I think their choice on the column over the sidestick controller, and the flight control logic are examples of interesting, and important points of discussion.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cloudseeker2001 0 #33 December 25, 2006 Airbus takes the approach that the computer should do more "work" to help out the pilot. For example, when you push a rudder pedal on a regular aircraft, you get a combined turn and slip. On an A380, you just get a slip; the computer figures you don't want to turn and uses the ailerons to counter the turn. Many pilots don't like this because it feels like someone is 'second guessing' them. Legend has it that the most often-overheard phrase during pilot training on newer Airbuses is "what's it doing now?" Yea, you know.....this is kinda like using Word or Exel and the program keeps "helping" you by putting all kids of crap in you document that you don't want.......same idea, right?! "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #34 December 25, 2006 QuoteQuoteIf it aint Boeing, I aint going...... Hmmm...gotta figure out rhymey slogans for: Piper Cessna Antonov Shorts DeHaviland Here are some: "Throw a viper on that Piper!" "There ain't no messin-with-a Cessna." --subset for Cessna Caravan: "It take a man to jump a Caravan." "If it's an Antonov you better be jumping off." "Shorts are great for jump sports!" "DeHaviland is heaven to land" --subset for the Otter: "Twin Otters are for jumping fodder." How's that? So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #35 December 25, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteIf it aint Boeing, I aint going...... Hmmm...gotta figure out rhymey slogans for: Piper Cessna Antonov Shorts DeHaviland Here are some: "Throw a viper on that Piper!" "There ain't no messin-with-a Cessna." --subset for Cessna Caravan: "It take a man to jump a Caravan." "If it's an Antonov you better be jumping off." "Shorts are great for jump sports!" "DeHaviland is heaven to land" --subset for the Otter: "Twin Otters are for jumping fodder." How's that? Don't be loony - fly a Mooney.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
