Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/333429/

Topic: Tail-Strikes: Carrier-Style Automated Lift-Off?
Username: faro
Posted 2013-05-04 03:10:57 and read 4172 times.

Following on the recent -and spectacular- Aeromexico 762 tail-strike in MAD, would an automated lift-off system as installed on certain carrier-based fighters be one solution?

With a hands-off lift-off, a computer would control the rate of rotation and pitch to preclude any chance of tail-strikes. With sufficiently precise pitch/roll/yaw rate sensors, a high sampling frequency and low system reaction times, such a system may conceivably be competent enough to handle strong gusts and crosswinds too.


Faro

Topic: RE: Tail-Strikes: Carrier-Style Automated Lift-Off?
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2013-05-04 03:26:41 and read 4165 times.

There is no need to make it that complex. Airliners like the 346 and 773 already incorporate tailstrike protection without automatic lift-off. The aircraft is "simply" stopped from pitching up further.

Topic: RE: Tail-Strikes: Carrier-Style Automated Lift-Off?
Username: bueb0g
Posted 2013-05-04 05:44:04 and read 4101 times.

As already stated, that system simply isn't needed. There's no impetus for automatic takeoffs, and relatively simple tail-strike protection systems are common on newer aircraft that limit pitch angles. With this system installed (like on the 787), you can pull the yoke all the way back on takeoff and the tail won't hit the deck - which obviously means less airframe damage, and also the best climb rate if the crew needs to suddenly lift off due to an obstruction (scraping your tail along the runway is not the best way to lift up quickly)

[Edited 2013-05-04 05:46:17]

[Edited 2013-05-04 05:51:35]

Topic: RE: Tail-Strikes: Carrier-Style Automated Lift-Off?
Username: vikkyvik
Posted 2013-05-04 09:50:38 and read 4014 times.

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 2):
and also the best climb rate if the crew needs to suddenly lift off due to an obstruction

That would be best climb angle. Nitpicky, but different than best climb rate, and if you have an obstruction you need to clear, you probably want to maximize your angle of climb rather than your rate.

Best climb angle occurs at the minimum drag speed (max excess thrust). Best climb rate occurs at minimum power speed (max excess power, usually a higher speed than min drag/max excess thrust).

Topic: RE: Tail-Strikes: Carrier-Style Automated Lift-Off?
Username: bueb0g
Posted 2013-05-04 10:39:33 and read 4000 times.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 3):
That would be best climb angle. Nitpicky, but different than best climb rate, and if you have an obstruction you need to clear, you probably want to maximize your angle of climb rather than your rate.

You're right of course, I was (wrongly) using generic terms. Although I'm not sure "best angle" conveys this either, as my point was about tail-strike protection reducing energy lost to friction with the runway, rather than climb performance itself.

Topic: RE: Tail-Strikes: Carrier-Style Automated Lift-Off?
Username: ecbomberman
Posted 2013-05-04 13:24:59 and read 3949 times.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
Airliners like the 346 and 773 already incorporate tailstrike protection without automatic lift-off. The aircraft is "simply" stopped from pitching up further.

I don't think that 773 and 346 have automatic protection.

If I remember correctly, they are only passive protection, I.E.: Cues on the PDF for the pilots to follow. Correct me if I am wrong.

Please correct me if I am wrong  

Topic: RE: Tail-Strikes: Carrier-Style Automated Lift-Off?
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2013-05-04 17:30:40 and read 3878 times.

Quoting ecbomberman (Reply 5):
I don't think that 773 and 346 have automatic protection.

If I remember correctly, they are only passive protection, I.E.: Cues on the PDF for the pilots to follow. Correct me if I am wrong.

You can read about the 777-300ER system here. If the rotation rate is too high, the computers will input a pitch down command to prevent a tailstrike: http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2003/q4/nr_031016g.html

Can't find similar info on the 346 but I'm pretty sure it has a similar system. Second longest airliner in the world and all that.

Topic: RE: Tail-Strikes: Carrier-Style Automated Lift-Off?
Username: BoeingGuy
Posted 2013-05-06 12:28:50 and read 3530 times.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 6):
You can read about the 777-300ER system here. If the rotation rate is too high, the computers will input a pitch down command to prevent a tailstrike: http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/....html

The 777-200LR has it as baseline also. It's called TSP for Tail Strike Protection. From what I understand, the pilots could still have a tail strike if they really tried hard enough, but the system would prevent most or all unintentional tail strikes.

It was originally called SETS for Supplemental Electronic Tail Skid. However, people started making fun about the fact that SETS sounds like "sex". Guys were making jokes during flight test like, "Did you have SETS last night?". So Boeing wisely changed the name to TSP.

Quoting faro (Thread starter):
With a hands-off lift-off, a computer would control the rate of rotation and pitch to preclude any chance of tail-strikes.

Automatic takeoffs are prohibited by regulation. It has to be hands on. The minimum legal altitude to engage the autopilot after takeoff is 200 feet for the 777 and 787; 400 feet for the 747, 757 and 767 and 500 feet for the 737 and MD-80.

Topic: RE: Tail-Strikes: Carrier-Style Automated Lift-Off?
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2013-05-06 12:50:37 and read 3516 times.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 7):
The 777-200LR has it as baseline also. It's called TSP for Tail Strike Protection. From what I understand, the pilots could still have a tail strike if they really tried hard enough, but the system would prevent most or all unintentional tail strikes.

It is on all the 777s. The 777-300ER has the latest and greatest software, and the number of in service 777-300ER tail strikes has been very low. The previous generation of TSP on the 777-300 wasn’t as good and there are consequently more tail strikes.

As always, a pilot can override it and set the tail on the ground. I’m not sure how much force is required, but it takes 70lbs of force to stall a 777, so I assume it would be similar.

Topic: RE: Tail-Strikes: Carrier-Style Automated Lift-Off?
Username: prebennorholm
Posted 2013-05-06 16:56:57 and read 3427 times.

Tail strike protection is in principle an extra gimmick built into the FBW envelope protection.

Envelope protection defines maximum pitch up (and pitch down) angles. When the radio altimeter indicates a value less than not many feet, then it feeds a relevant (lower) maximum pitch up angle into the FBW software.

It is something which will be very hard to replicate on non-FBW planes like that unlucky Aeromexico B762.

And yes, on Boeing FBW planes you can override that with very strong arms.

Topic: RE: Tail-Strikes: Carrier-Style Automated Lift-Off?
Username: vikkyvik
Posted 2013-05-06 19:53:20 and read 3386 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 8):
As always, a pilot can override it and set the tail on the ground. I’m not sure how much force is required, but it takes 70lbs of force to stall a 777, so I assume it would be similar.

Not sure how to ask this, but is 70lbs (or whatever) more force than it would otherwise take to achieve such an attitude? Meaning, is there extra protection built in by an artificially high force?

Topic: RE: Tail-Strikes: Carrier-Style Automated Lift-Off?
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2013-05-06 20:11:27 and read 3381 times.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 10):
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 8):
As always, a pilot can override it and set the tail on the ground. I’m not sure how much force is required, but it takes 70lbs of force to stall a 777, so I assume it would be similar.

Not sure how to ask this, but is 70lbs (or whatever) more force than it would otherwise take to achieve such an attitude? Meaning, is there extra protection built in by an artificially high force?

The column is hooked up to force transducers and servos. It doesn't physically connect to anything other than a computer, protection is built in by requiring very high input forces to do things you shouldn't normally be doing,

Topic: RE: Tail-Strikes: Carrier-Style Automated Lift-Off?
Username: vikkyvik
Posted 2013-05-06 21:14:06 and read 3358 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 11):
The column is hooked up to force transducers and servos. It doesn't physically connect to anything other than a computer, protection is built in by requiring very high input forces to do things you shouldn't normally be doing,

Right, I know that, but I assume (yeah, yeah) it tries to replicate typical forces you'd feel through the range of motion of the yoke. But when you get to tailstrike and/or stall regime, does it increase them artificially even more?

Thanks for the reply.

Topic: RE: Tail-Strikes: Carrier-Style Automated Lift-Off?
Username: bueb0g
Posted 2013-05-07 02:19:26 and read 3295 times.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 12):
But when you get to tailstrike and/or stall regime, does it increase them artificially even more?

Yes. That's the way Boeing's FBW envelope protection works - the force required to move the control column is artificially increased as you near and pass the edges of the normal flight envelope, but you can break any limit (stall protection, bank protection etc) provided you keep exerting pressure. So unlike an Airbus you can roll a 777 or a 787 upside down in normal law, and if you let go of the yoke it will roll itself back to 30 degrees bank or so.

Topic: RE: Tail-Strikes: Carrier-Style Automated Lift-Off?
Username: OldAeroGuy
Posted 2013-05-10 16:08:19 and read 3008 times.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 7):
From what I understand, the pilots could still have a tail strike if they really tried hard enough, but the system would prevent most or all unintentional tail strikes.

True. If it was impossible for the aft body to contact the runway, the Vmu speed would be invalid since it assumes a max. rotation with the main gear still in contact with the runway.

Topic: RE: Tail-Strikes: Carrier-Style Automated Lift-Off?
Username: Max Q
Posted 2013-05-10 22:10:18 and read 2949 times.

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 13):

Yes. That's the way Boeing's FBW envelope protection works - the force required to move the control column is artificially increased as you near and pass the edges of the normal flight envelope, but you can break any limit (stall protection, bank protection etc) provided you keep exerting pressure. So unlike an Airbus you can roll a 777 or a 787 upside down in normal law, and if you let go of the yoke it will roll itself back to 30 degrees bank or so.

Classic Boeing design, full, unlimited and unambiguous control of the Aircraft is available to the Pilots if they need it.


And that's the way it should be.

Topic: RE: Tail-Strikes: Carrier-Style Automated Lift-Off?
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2013-05-10 22:43:30 and read 2944 times.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 15):
Classic Boeing design, full, unlimited and unambiguous control of the Aircraft is available to the Pilots if they need it.

And that's the way it should be.

Can of worms, opening. But ok, I'll bite.

I agree that if pilots are competent and at their best (fully rested and sans domestic stress), giving them the full capabilities of the aircraft works. How many airliner pilots in the world are fully rested, more than adequately trained, devoid of stress?

There are arguments both ways and if you think about it most accidents are mostly "pilot caused". In many cases, manageable malfunctions were mismanaged, for example AF447. Thus it would seem logical not to give these pilots the full capabilities of the aircraft. Can you name one accident where the Airbus envelope protection limits prevented a better outcome?

[Edited 2013-05-10 22:44:27]

[Edited 2013-05-10 22:47:44]

[Edited 2013-05-10 22:48:10]

Topic: RE: Tail-Strikes: Carrier-Style Automated Lift-Off?
Username: Max Q
Posted 2013-05-10 22:56:07 and read 2939 times.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 16):
How many pilots in the world are fully rested, more than adequately trained, devoid of stress?

Very few.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 16):
. Can you name one accident where the Airbus envelope protection limits prevented a better outcome?

Yes AF447, the Airbus design philosophy contributed to the deterioration of basic flying skills due to the over reliance on an 'all encompassing Pilot proof' design and one that significantly removes Pilots from the loop due to lack of obvious feedback.


'Protections' don't protect if they atrophy and degrade a Pilots skills so extensively that when they fail these same Pilots cannot recover manually.

[Edited 2013-05-10 22:57:04]

Topic: RE: Tail-Strikes: Carrier-Style Automated Lift-Off?
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2013-05-11 00:51:52 and read 2918 times.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 17):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 16):
. Can you name one accident where the Airbus envelope protection limits prevented a better outcome?

Yes AF447, the Airbus design philosophy contributed to the deterioration of basic flying skills due to the over reliance on an 'all encompassing Pilot proof' design and one that significantly removes Pilots from the loop due to lack of obvious feedback.


'Protections' don't protect if they atrophy and degrade a Pilots skills so extensively that when they fail these same Pilots cannot recover manually.

Very good points and well put. However you could argue that a modern Boeing, without hard protections but with many soft ones, contributes to the same kind of complacency, if not to the same degree.

All in all, I think that whatever the capabilities of the aircraft the lesson is that nothing substitutes for good situational awareness and good training. Both FAA and EASA syllabuses in the past decade have adapted to increase awareness of automation overdependence and loss of basic flying skills, and combat them. For example, the stall recovery methods I learned are subtly different from those taught ten years ago, with an emphasis on real aerodynamics regardless of aircraft capabilities.

Topic: RE: Tail-Strikes: Carrier-Style Automated Lift-Off?
Username: bueb0g
Posted 2013-05-11 03:13:31 and read 2897 times.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 15):
Classic Boeing design, full, unlimited and unambiguous control of the Aircraft is available to the Pilots if they need it.


And that's the way it should be.

Agreed entirely. Bombardier has also adopted this approach on the Cseries.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 16):
There are arguments both ways and if you think about it most accidents are mostly "pilot caused".

While this is undeniably true (it stands to reason - pilots are the biggest safety benefit but they can also be the biggest safety detriment; a good crew will be able to fly and land just about anything, whereas a badly functioning crew will find a way to crash a perfectly good aircraft) there are many more accidents and potential accidents that do not occur due to pilot intervention (often in a way that a computer would be incapable). Therefore to say that hard protections are necessary because pilots are the leading cause of accidents requires severe cherry-picking of data.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 16):
Can you name one accident where the Airbus envelope protection limits prevented a better outcome?

No, but I don't see that as making the point invalid. Aviation safety is about (among other things) being best prepared for that inevitable unforeseen situation, and they happen often, whether it's a loss of all hydraulics (UA 232 etc) or slats retracting on takeoff with no cockpit indications (BA 747 at Joburg), or a complete loss of thrust. The danger of the unforseen situation is that it cannot (or has not) been specifically targeted, trained for, and had a procedure been created for because it was not foreseen. These situations can only be targeted in a broad sense and that is a major reason why pilots are so important, because unlike a computer, humans can think outside of the box and put into practice things that they have never learned before, but just came up with when faced with a new situation, without experimentation.

With that in mind - that unforeseen situations occur and that they have not been specifically planned for, and that the crew and only the crew can rectify or engineer the best outcome for that situation, does it not only make sense that a crew should have *total* control over their aircraft if they feel they need it? Now, I know that you can just turn the FAC's off on the Airbus and then you have a conventionally controlled aircraft in direct law, but there is no denying that it is easier in the 777 and 787 for the crew to do what they may feel they have to. In addition, the fact that the Boeing FBW aircraft remain in their "normal laws" outside of the normal flight envelope means that, no matter the orientation, the pilots will keep getting cues from the aircraft (due to artificial pressure on the yoke) as to where they are, what they are doing and what the aircraft would like them to do. Those soft protections don't go away just because you've passed them - they keep helping you. In an Airbus, go outside the safe envelope and you lose everything and are suddenly getting no more help from the aircraft.

However, I would like to also propose a counter argument to that, on the topic of "help" - I think that the Airbus FBW philosophy makes more sense if you view it from a position of "help" rather than "constraint". For example, you have a spatially disoriented crew in danger of flying outside the safe envelope. Which system gives them more help - the one that ratchets up the pressure on the yoke but can be pressed through (and might well be by a disoriented crew), or the one that stops them at the safe limit, saving their lives and the aircraft?

And again, imagine windshear escape or ground proximity escape. In an Airbus, you put the throttles in TOGA telling the aircraft "I want all the power you have", and you pull the stick all the way back telling the aircraft "I want all the lift you have" and the Airbus says "right away sir" and does it. So it can be said that this system of help given by the aircraft makes silly manual error crashes less likely and assists when it is needed, leaving the crew to focus on commanding the flight. Not sure I totally agree with that interpretation but it's interesting.

Sorry about the massive text wall, but this is something I've been thinking about for a while. And to the OP: Sorry for the thread hijack :P

Topic: RE: Tail-Strikes: Carrier-Style Automated Lift-Off?
Username: Pihero
Posted 2013-05-11 07:48:59 and read 2844 times.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 18):
All in all, I think that whatever the capabilities of the aircraft the lesson is that nothing substitutes for good situational awareness and good training. Both FAA and EASA syllabuses in the past decade have adapted to increase awareness of automation overdependence and loss of basic flying skills, and combat them

   So true !

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 19):
I would like to also propose a counter argument to that, on the topic of "help" - I think that the Airbus FBW philosophy makes more sense if you view it from a position of "help" rather than "constraint". For example, you have a spatially disoriented crew in danger of flying outside the safe envelope. Which system gives them more help - the one that ratchets up the pressure on the yoke but can be pressed through (and might well be by a disoriented crew), or the one that stops them at the safe limit, saving their lives and the aircraft?

That is, as far as I'm concerned the nicest compliment you could give the 'Bus... and after all, what is automation about if not for its helping the flight deck crew in their duties... whatever the condions of the flight ?

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 19):
And again, imagine windshear escape or ground proximity escape. In an Airbus, you put the throttles in TOGA telling the aircraft "I want all the power you have", and you pull the stick all the way back telling the aircraft "I want all the lift you have" and the Airbus says "right away sir" and does it. So it can be said that this system of help given by the aircraft makes silly manual error crashes less likely and assists when it is needed, leaving the crew to focus on commanding the flight.

It probably new here on A.net, but it's been published elsewhere and it's been confirmed to me by one training captain on the 787 intro. Consider it a scoop here : The 787 has some hard protections !!!
Those who have known me for some time also know my very strong ideas about windshear protection A vs B.
As it is now revealed ( boy ! hasn't it been kept secret ! ) by some articles, windshear escape close to stall is **pull the yoke aft**, you will achieve max Cl and whatever your strength or your desire, you won't go any further the best performance your aircraft is capable of... no more of the " I'm a hairy flyer and I can make this kite go where I want it " stuff.
Has Airbus in this respect been right all along ?
Don't know about you, but I know my answer.

Topic: RE: Tail-Strikes: Carrier-Style Automated Lift-Off?
Username: bueb0g
Posted 2013-05-11 08:02:09 and read 2841 times.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 20):
As it is now revealed ( boy ! hasn't it been kept secret ! ) by some articles, windshear escape close to stall is **pull the yoke aft**, you will achieve max Cl and whatever your strength or your desire, you won't go any further the best performance your aircraft is capable of... no more of the " I'm a hairy flyer and I can make this kite go where I want it " stuff.
Has Airbus in this respect been right all along ?
Don't know about you, but I know my answer.

Very interesting. A kind of selective hard protection approach, then? Can you source that, as I'd like to learn more. Does it activate once the Wind-shear alert goes off? Is there any way to override or turn off the protection?

Topic: RE: Tail-Strikes: Carrier-Style Automated Lift-Off?
Username: mandala499
Posted 2013-05-12 05:14:53 and read 2713 times.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 17):
Yes AF447, the Airbus design philosophy contributed to the deterioration of basic flying skills due to the over reliance on an 'all encompassing Pilot proof' design and one that significantly removes Pilots from the loop due to lack of obvious feedback.

That does not answer the question. The case of AF447 was a total disregard of airmanship. Such a case of total screw up happened on a 727 where upon the stall warning, the crew just continued to pull on the yoke to their deaths...

Protection for Boeing and Airbus works when you have people still using their brains flying the aircraft or use their brains managing the aircraft system. Once the basic principles fail or elude the crew... Boeing, Airbus, Tupolev, MD, Sukhoi, Bombardier, or Embraer... don't matter...

Gimme a bus on a frontal gusty day with its GSmini and simple windshear escape anytime... but side gusts... well, gimme a Boeing...

*ducks and runs*

There is more to the Airbus and Boeing FBW protection philosophy than can be discussed here... especially the why and actual basic philosphy (which usually gets missed/misconstrued by both parties).

Mandala499

Topic: RE: Tail-Strikes: Carrier-Style Automated Lift-Off?
Username: David L
Posted 2013-05-13 01:57:23 and read 2618 times.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 17):
Yes AF447, the Airbus design philosophy contributed to the deterioration of basic flying skills due to the over reliance on an 'all encompassing Pilot proof' design and one that significantly removes Pilots from the loop due to lack of obvious feedback.

And yet modern airliners are significantly safer than those of yesteryear. A quarter of a century on, the offerings from Airbus still don't seem to be crashing any more often than those from other manufacturers. At least 30 other crews managed perfectly well in the same circumstances in the same type of aircraft. Similar circumstances have brought down other types.

Yes, there are claims that overuse of automation can lead to a deterioration in basic flying skills but that applies to all modern airliners, e.g. relying too much on the autopilot and flight directors ("children of the magenta"). You make it sound as though Airbus pilots are routinely throwing their aircraft around the skies and letting the protections do all the work. In reality, how often do Airbus pilots ever experience the protections kicking in?

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 22):
The case of AF447 was a total disregard of airmanship.

   A dysfunctional, uncooperative crew that threw CRM out the window, did not put their personal gripes aside and did not follow procedures. If they had done what they had been trained to do, even in their "over-protected" Airbus world, they would have lived to tell the tale.

If you cherry-pick from any accident report you can turn the conclusions upside-down.

Topic: RE: Tail-Strikes: Carrier-Style Automated Lift-Off?
Username: mandala499
Posted 2013-05-13 02:27:44 and read 2614 times.

Quoting David L (Reply 23):
You make it sound as though Airbus pilots are routinely throwing their aircraft around the skies and letting the protections do all the work. In reality, how often do Airbus pilots ever experience the protections kicking in?

On one airline here, having the FBW protection kick in will trigger the FOQA alert, QAR and sometimes the full FDR&CVR gets downloaded to determine why. The operational quality assurance, flight standards, and flight training philosophy is, "if you need the protection to kick in, it needs a looooong look at it!" And it usually means a talk with Chief Flight Standard, Training, or Chief Pilot... do it habitually, it'll be biscuits with the Director of Flight Operations accompanied by someone in HR with a termination notice.

FBW Envelope Protection is there to help you regain control of the aircraft... it is not there to protect you from crashing if you're reckless... If you're the latter, you will not pass your type rating course! Why? If you cannot fly the airplane without protections, then you don't deserve to sit there and enjoy it... and when the "sh1t hits the fan", in a lot of cases, you won't have protections... and only a miniscule proportion of the flights losing protections due to failures crashed...

And oh, if you have to rely on protection to prevent you from crashing... well, you won't even pass a type rating on a Boeing   

I guess a minority of people will continue to do anything to distrust the Bus...

Mandala499

Topic: RE: Tail-Strikes: Carrier-Style Automated Lift-Off?
Username: airmagnac
Posted 2013-05-13 03:59:53 and read 2622 times.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 15):
And that's the way it should be.

   
Are you saying that pilots must in all cases be given the possibility to scrape the tail of their aircraft ? just so that they can fool themselves into believing they have "full, unlimited and unambiguous control of the Aircraft" ?

And yes, I say "fool themselves", because on no aircraft, be it an Airbus, a Boeing, a DC-3 or a Wright Flyer, does a pilot have full, unlimited and unambiguous control in all possible flight conditions. He only has control inside the envelope. By definition, the outside of the envelope is the domain of non-linear, intricately coupled, complex phenomena, so that it is difficult or outright impossible to predict the reaction of a machine or a pilot to a given set of circumstances. For example you cannot be sure of what will happen if you deflect your ailerons : bank left ? right ? nothing at all ? stall/spin and rapidly lose altitude ?
And if you cannot predict the reaction corresponding to a control input, then by definition you have no control. Whatsoever. Certainly not "full, unlimited and unambiguous control"

Due to this, every single aircraft in history, be it an Airbus, a Boeing, a DC-3 or a Wright Flyer, has always had "hard protections". It's just that traditionnally, the hard protection was programmed in an "organic computer" : the pilot's brain ! As a pilot I'm pretty sure you are trained to avoid crossing the limits of the envelope. I'm pretty certain you'd work very hard to avoid scraping your tail.
The only difference with an Airbus is that the protection control is hosted by a dedicated digital computer. The advantage is that such a computer is much better suited at identifying the limits and flying near them, activities which require much calculation ressources.
On the other hand, as mentioned above, it is not a free pass for Tom Cruise wannabes to play Top Gun. Like any other automatic function, it is merely a helping tool, that must be used wisely and with competence. Airbus requires competent pilots in their machines, just like any other OEM. That's why every FBW Airbus including the latest A350, are designed with 2 seats in the front office. Not 0.
Actually I think no one in the industry would disagree with your signature : "The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot". It's just that a pilot, even the most competent one, cannot do everything perfectly on his own. The point is to determine which piloting activities a human mind is best suited for, and which activities can be better served by automatics. And no, there is no single, simple, universal answer.

Topic: RE: Tail-Strikes: Carrier-Style Automated Lift-Off?
Username: David L
Posted 2013-05-13 11:36:19 and read 2526 times.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 24):

   Thank you - the voice of reason! And I'm sure that airline is not unique.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/