Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Changing Feel Of An Aircraft: Pilots Perspective?  
User currently offlineHypersonic From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 149 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 4 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3881 times:

From a pilots perspective....

During the normal course of your jobs, I'd imagine that when you're flying a particular aircraft type on your routes, that, even though the aircraft type may stay the same... 757-200 for example, I'm sure that the actual physical aircraft you fly changes frequently.

My question simply is, as you go from operating one 747-400 to the next 747-400 etc etc/, are the aircraft so precisely made & so well maintained, that the actual 'handling' & 'feel' from plane to plane is the SAME?
OR... due to differences in age, prior handling behaviour of other pilots, different maintence issues over time & so on, make each plane of the same make & model actually feel quite different handling-wise, performance & so on.

I guess this can also apply to air aircraft type..
Many thanks
Hyper

52 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17030 posts, RR: 67
Reply 1, posted (6 years 4 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3869 times:

As I understand it:
- On Boeings and pre-FBW Airbi, feel changes all the time even on the same aircraft due to weight changes, altitude changes, flex take-off, etc...
- On post-FBW Airbi, feel is regulated by computers to compensate for differences. For example 318-321 all feel the same to the pilot.

I'm not a pilot, but I imagine the feel thing is a bit like different cars of the same model. Sure, you might notice the differences, but it's hardly going to impair your driving and you will adjust quickly and more or less subconsciously.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (6 years 4 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3857 times:



Quoting Hypersonic (Thread starter):
My question simply is, as you go from operating one 747-400 to the next 747-400 etc etc/, are the aircraft so precisely made & so well maintained, that the actual 'handling' & 'feel' from plane to plane is the SAME?

Surprisingly, two different aircraft, both at roughly the same weights do fly just about the same. You do really notice the difference between a lightly loaded 400, vs a 400 at MTOW. But similar aircraft, as similar weights/CG do feel the same.


User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (6 years 4 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3850 times:



Quoting Hypersonic (Thread starter):
My question simply is, as you go from operating one 747-400 to the next 747-400 etc etc/, are the aircraft so precisely made & so well maintained, that the actual 'handling' & 'feel' from plane to plane is the SAME?

I've always noticed some jets may differ in feel. One may be a little stiffer or "heavier" on the elevators or ailerons but nothing that's very significant. The time or two I thought it was I made a maint write up.


User currently offlinePoint8six From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2008, 94 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3752 times:

As Phil Squares states, there is a difference between light and heavy performances, but the variation across the fleet is hardly noticeable. What is noticeable is that if the fleet consists of hulls originally delivered to different customers, then the location of various switches and CRT/LCD information is often very different - and can be quite demanding at times of high workload.  Confused

User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 5, posted (6 years 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3744 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR



Quoting Point8six (Reply 4):
What is noticeable is that if the fleet consists of hulls originally delivered to different customers, then the location of various switches and CRT/LCD information is often very different

I've always found it amazing that aircraft manufacturers ever even allowed their (transport-category) aircraft to leave the factory with such differing flight decks.

It seems pretty obvious that, at some point in their lifespan, the aircraft fleets will split and combine with one another. The resulting dissimilar fleets will have less standardization and more potential for confusion and errors on the flight decks.

I suppose flight deck standardization might have been undervalued in the past. It seems as though current-production aircraft have far less variation when it comes to panel/cockpit layout.

2H4



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2754 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (6 years 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3720 times:

Feel does change a slightly from aircraft to aircraft. Some might require rudder or aileron trim in one direction or another, while others fly perfect at the neutral setting. Eventually you get it trimmed out nicely and it feels like every other aircraft in the fleet.


It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently offlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4679 posts, RR: 50
Reply 7, posted (6 years 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3690 times:



Quoting 2H4 (Reply 5):

I suppose flight deck standardization might have been undervalued in the past. It seems as though current-production aircraft have far less variation when it comes to panel/cockpit layout.

Keep in mind that an operator often already has a certain layout (say from previous 737's when ordering the NG) and wants to keep it that way. I remember a tv show about the acceptance and delivery of a KLM 737-800 where the test pilots made Boeing (per the contract) change the colour of the needle of the standby airspeed gauge. It's that precise.



For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
User currently offlinePoint8six From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2008, 94 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3685 times:

Should an operator decide to standardise the cockpit layout of the same type of aircraft originally delivered to different customers, I'm sure the manufacturer and the various suppliers would undertake the work. However, it would cost and I think that is why it is cheaper to issue the crews with "difference notes" rather than pay for the conversions. Different engine types require different upper and lower EICAS presentations e.g the RR has N1,N2 and N3 read-outs and the GE has no EPR read-out, whereas the PW has N1 and N2 and EPR. In particular, Boeing offer the basic aircraft and the airline 'customises' it's choice.Some -400's have a stab tank and some (including freighters, do not). Some NDs display TAS and some do not. etc.etc..  Smile

User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31679 posts, RR: 56
Reply 9, posted (6 years 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3623 times:

There can be occassions when the Artifical feel of each type of an Aircraft in the fleet would vary.Thats when Mx is informed & same can be corrected.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 10, posted (6 years 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3622 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR



Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 9):
There can be occassions when the Artifical feel of each type of an Aircraft in the fleet would vary.

Here's a rather extreme example:

Cross-wired controls almost bring down Lufthansa A320

Tim van Beveren/MIAMI

A Lufthansa Airbus A320 almost crashed shortly after take-off because of reversed wiring in the captain's sidestick flight control. Quick action by the co-pilot, whose sidestick was not faulty, prevented a crash.

The 20 March Frankfurt-Paris schedule service hit turbulence just after rotate and the left wing dipped. The captain responded with a slight sidestick input to the right but the aircraft banked further left. The pilot followed up with a stronger right input. The aircraft responded with more left bank, reaching 21í. Realising the problem, the copilot switched his sidestick to priority and recovered the aircraft.

According to sources close to the investigation, the flight data recorder revealed that the left wing dipped to within 0.5m (1.6ft) of the ground. "If this had continued for 5s more, the aircraft would have definitely crashed," says the source. A full report by the German BFU aircraft accident investigation board is expected shortly. Airbus declines to comment and Lufthansa would not make anyone available for comment.


 Wink

2H4



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 11, posted (6 years 4 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3569 times:



Quoting 2H4 (Reply 5):
I've always found it amazing that aircraft manufacturers ever even allowed their (transport-category) aircraft to leave the factory with such differing flight decks.

Although it's obvious that the fleets will eventually get mixed, the OEM is only dealing with the original purchaser. All the second/third/forth/etc. hand trades are between airlines (or leasors and airlines). The manufacturer will do what the original purchaser wants.

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 5):
I suppose flight deck standardization might have been undervalued in the past. It seems as though current-production aircraft have far less variation when it comes to panel/cockpit layout.

This is being strongly driven by the rise of the leasing companies. When most airplanes were owned by their airline the value proposition to the buyer was to have that aircraft aligned as closely as possible to your operation. As a result, specialization for different operators and little pressure for commonality. For a leasor, where the aircraft is likely to change hands several times over its life, portability is a much greater value proposition. And, as leassors became a bigger and bigger piece of the purchasing pie, their needs floated higher on the list requirements. This phenomenon is the direct cause of the much higher number of "standard options" and ability to swap engines on the 787.

Tom.


User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 12, posted (6 years 4 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3543 times:

The only time I've ever experienced this in transport category aircraft was when there was something wrong with the tail number in question. As to how they 'feel' or how they 'fly' they are remarkably similar at any given weight, configuration and speed. There are types where I've had a pretty good sampling. For example I've flown over a hundred different airframe number 737s and over a hundred different A-320 series as well. I couldn't identify a nickel's worth of individuality in any one of them.

On the other hand, that was not unheard of among small airplanes. I have felt rather out-of-sorts when flying one particular single after having flown a different tail number exclusively for about a year. Jumped in a stablemate just as identical as metalcrafters know how to make them and it felt very different. Had I been jumping from one to another to another all year long, however, I doubt that I'd ever have noticed anything.

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 5):
at some point in their lifespan, the aircraft fleets will split and combine with one another. The resulting dissimilar fleets will have less standardization

Long-since addressed by FAR Part 121 training requirements. Any "differences" no matter how insignificant they may seem to you must be taught and otherwise presented to the pilots. So an all-GPS airline merges with a partly- or non-GPS airline and the non-standard planes must be conspicuously placarded. In more extreme cases an airline might have three different models of the same type, with four or five different engine possibilities and with still further variances in avionics and accessories, all of which might necessitate a full day of "differences" training in the initial checkout.

One particular plane I flew happened to be the last remaining one in US registry that had a certain overhead panel configuration. All others, including all the simulators had the switches operate in the opposite direction. No "differences" training required there because there was no public safety issue. We flew our plane as it was configured and if we crashed the simulator no one got hurt. Motivated you to be pretty careful on the overhead during a checkride, though.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31679 posts, RR: 56
Reply 13, posted (6 years 4 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3488 times:



Quoting 2H4 (Reply 10):
Here's a rather extreme example

That was one serious snag.Surprising it was not detected on Ground check though.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 14, posted (6 years 4 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3449 times:



Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 13):
Surprising it was not detected on Ground check though.

I don't know what checks were performed by maintenance but it shouldn't surprise anyone that it could be missed by the first officer when the captain did his flight control check before takeoff.

The flight control check for the 320 typically has the captain take his sidestick:

Full aft. - The 'flight control' page pops up on the lower ECAM screen and the first officer observes correct control movement and replies "full up"

Full forward. - The first officer observes full nose down on the ECAM and replies "full down"

Full left. - The first officer observes left aileron up, right aileron down, roll spoilers on left wing up. and replies "full left"

Full right. - The first officer observes right aileron up, left aileron down, roll spoilers on right wing up. and replies "full right"

And the same thing with the rudder.

Simple enough but this is not the sort of thing humans do reliably. What he saw when the captain moved the sidestick laterally was "correct" indications but reversed as to left/right. We have a natural tendency to see what we expect to see. This is why airport screeners frequently allow something shaped exactly like a pistol pass right on by. Had a couple of the roll spoilers not extended he undoubtedly would have caught that. Had no flight controls moved at all he would almost certainly caught that. But what he saw was exactly right - just opposite. Unless it just happens to jump out at you, in a complacent moment it is easy to slip reversals past you.

How easy? Well, there is a famous photograph of the outlaw "Billy the Kid" and for fifty years or more people saw his holster rig and concluded that Billy Bonney was left handed. Finally, after a million or more people had stared at the photograph someone suddenly noticed that the loading port for the Winchester rifle in his hands was on the WRONG SIDE. The negative had been reversed when the picture was printed and no one had ever caught that.

Of all the things Airbus could automate how about that one. If the microswitches detect either sidestick full in one directon and the flight controls moving in the opposite you get a WARNING message? Doesn't that seem pretty easy to fix? After all the movement/position sensors are already installed! Just add a line of program to a flight control computer.

Yes, it was a human error, a total no-brainer. But that Airbus itself doesn't make a miniscule change to their product and absolutely prevent this sort of thing forever is pretty hard to defend. I mean the rest of the world freely admits that we humans are (a.) error-prone and (b.) very hard to re-engineer. This is one of the big arguments for automation in the first place. I love the Airbus but shame on them for not fixing this one.

Oh, and fly-by-wire is not to blame. This sort of design flaw goes at least back to the DC-3 which had its aileron cables exactly the same length. It was possible to connect them backwards at a bellcrank and it has happened.

Sometimes humans catch the mistakes. Sometimes they die.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineBAe146QT From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2006, 996 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 4 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3415 times:



Quoting 2H4 (Reply 5):
I've always found it amazing that aircraft manufacturers ever even allowed their (transport-category) aircraft to leave the factory with such differing flight decks.



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 11):
Although it's obvious that the fleets will eventually get mixed, the OEM is only dealing with the original purchaser. All the second/third/forth/etc. hand trades are between airlines (or leasors and airlines). The manufacturer will do what the original purchaser wants.

Maybe this is excessively cynical, but I reckon that Tdscanuck is right at the nub of the situation. Where practical, the supplier accedes to the demands of the customer. And if a future owner wants things different, well that's not the supplier's problem. Might even work out well for the supplier if the new customer brings the bird to them for modification.

The question you might ask is, why do the various regulatory bodies allow it to happen?

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 12):
I couldn't identify a nickel's worth of individuality in any one of them.

I guess if they're all the same, you don't have the safety issue of a pilot being distracted by getting used to an aircraft which handles differently. The psychology behind this is obvious, but recent experiments with cars (of the same model) seem to suggest that even they don't differ that much, despite (supposedly) being shoddily-built, everyday consumer items.

Manufacturing tolerances and quality assurance have improved so much and I wonder what DC2 pilots would think of it.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 12):
In more extreme cases an airline might have three different models of the same type, with four or five different engine possibilities and with still further variances in avionics and accessories, all of which might necessitate a full day of "differences" training in the initial checkout.

Apologies for being Anglo-centic, (since all manner of large airlines are in this situation), but I imagine this must be a huge headache for BA*.




* That's "British Airways" not Mr. T.



Todos mis dominós son totalmente pegajosos
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 16, posted (6 years 4 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3408 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR



Quoting BAe146QT (Reply 15):
* That's "British Airways" not Mr. T.

Any kind of flying is a huge headache for Mr. T...

2H4



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (6 years 4 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3394 times:

I think it is easier to detect a difference in aircraft with cable or push rod controls verses hydraulic controls. Even that difference has been more attributable to being a different version (ex a -200 vs. a -300) or having different engines or props. I haven't flown anything that is Fly By Wire (though I suppose you could say the cable controls count as Fly By Wires). The biggest difference I notice on the current fleet is the rigging of the thrust levers. Some match up at identical settings and others aren't even in the same zip code.


Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8997 posts, RR: 76
Reply 18, posted (6 years 4 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3393 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 3):
I've always noticed some jets may differ in feel. One may be a little stiffer or "heavier" on the elevators or ailerons but nothing that's very significant. The time or two I thought it was I made a maint write up.

Yeah I thought the same! but just slightly different! the biggest difference - as said before - is with different weight! Today I had a landing weight of 200 tons (222.9 is maximum) and the other day we had only 130 tons... And with only 130 tons she is not so stable, every little disturbance in the air affects the aircraft! not with 220 tons! Then she is stable and not so easy to be tossed around (and easier to land as well)...

WILCO737 (MD11F)
 airplane 



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 19, posted (6 years 4 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3392 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR



Quoting Lowrider (Reply 17):
The biggest difference I notice on the current fleet is the rigging of the thrust levers. Some match up at identical settings and others aren't even in the same zip code.

I propose a Tech/Ops photo contest for the most out-of-rig thrust levers in cruise. The engine instruments and thrust levers must both be visible in the shot. Let's see what you guys can come up with...  biggrin 

2H4



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 20, posted (6 years 4 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3333 times:



Quoting Lowrider (Reply 17):
I think it is easier to detect a difference in aircraft with cable or push rod controls verses hydraulic controls.

I agree with you on that. However, I can think of a couple of early examples where, very subjectively, I felt that the pilot seat was just a bit to the left of where I'm used to , or something like that. That is an actual example I referred to above: The planes are identical except the pilot eyeball position in this one example seems just a bit off-center. Every time I reach for something with hand or eye it turns out to be not quite where I expected it. Not a difference in control feel, but in ambiance if you will, and that is vaguely disorienting.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2546 posts, RR: 24
Reply 21, posted (6 years 4 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3317 times:



Quoting BAe146QT (Reply 15):
Apologies for being Anglo-centic, (since all manner of large airlines are in this situation), but I imagine this must be a huge headache for BA*.

BA certainly used to make an effort to standardise their fleets, if only because BA used to have some unusual options installed. The problem is much worse for cargo airlines which pick up aircraft from all sorts of sources and usually make little or no effort to standardise on one configuration. Especially a problem for 747 classic operators, since there are so many variations possible. The only way to ensure a reasonably common configuration is to source all aircraft from one airline which bought theirs from new, not usually possible.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineSaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1610 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (6 years 4 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3315 times:

FWIW, a heavy aircraft of one type flies much nicer than a light aircraft of the same type. I fly the CRJ and when we are at Max Gross T/O weight the performance is lame and the runway length used is ridiculous, but it does fly better. Less affected by gusts, etc. And landings when at MLW at the nicest.


smrtrthnu
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 23, posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3285 times:



Quoting SlamClick (Reply 14):
Of all the things Airbus could automate how about that one. If the microswitches detect either sidestick full in one directon and the flight controls moving in the opposite you get a WARNING message? Doesn't that seem pretty easy to fix? After all the movement/position sensors are already installed! Just add a line of program to a flight control computer.

It's relatively rare to have fault detection for mis-wiring. Most fault detection assumes that everything is hooked up right and is just looking for missing or invalid signals.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 14):
But that Airbus itself doesn't make a miniscule change to their product and absolutely prevent this sort of thing forever is pretty hard to defend.

It's very easy to defend. A piece of code to pick up that exact error is trivial. However, you'd have to know in advance that that was the wiring error that would get made. The average airliner has thousands (probably tens of thousands) of individual wires. The number of possible mis-wirings is astronomical. You'd need tens of millions of lines of code to catch all the potential mis-wirings alone, which is more than the entire aircraft software suite typically employs.

It's *far* more efficient to assume that the mechanics will do it right and then do a functional check to make sure they actually did. The real question is how did this not get picked up during the maintenance action, not how did the flight crew miss it.

Tom.


User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 24, posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3282 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 23):
It's *far* more efficient to assume that the mechanics will do it right and then do a functional check to make sure they actually did.

The power cord on my flatbed scanner has a connector that can only be plugged in the correct way. Due to the shape of the plug, it's physically impossible to plug it in backward. Given that humans are prone to error, such as in the above example, it seems to me the prudent solution would be to equip the most critical (ie: flight control) connections with similarly idiot-proof connectors.

If this is, for whatever reason, impossible, I would investigate the possibility of simple IF/THEN sensors that would detect abnormal relationships between the yoke/pedals and control surfaces. For example, IF the yoke is moved left and the left aileron moves upward, THEN all is ok. But IF the yoke is moved left and the left aileron moves downward, THEN a warning illuminates. The physical positions would be compared, and reversed flight-control takeoffs will never happen again. No need for millions of lines of code or faultless humans.

2H4

[Edited 2008-04-29 22:37:39]


Intentionally Left Blank
25 SlamClick : I'm not talking about fault detection for mis-wiring. > The airplane has sensors that know where the sidesticks are positioned. > The airplane has se
26 Tdscanuck : The major difference is that your power cord can't be repinned. Most aircraft connectors are keyed...they only go together the right way. However, th
27 SlamClick : On the ground, with weight on the wheels it sure as hell is. I'm just not buying it. Sorry, easy fix. Important fix. It will kill a load of people so
28 2H4 : Ah, good point. I bet those A320 pilots would argue otherwise.... 2H4
29 Tdscanuck : I'm not suggesting that this exact error is non-trivial to diagnose on the ground...as you correctly note, it's really easy. However, continuous moni
30 CosmicCruiser : Your right this jet was made to fly at a heavier wgt. Light landings are always the biggest challenge. What i was referring to in my first post was s
31 Jetlagged : The answer surely is to limit the automatic cross check to on ground only, while the ECAM system "knows" the check is required (i.e. while the FLT CT
32 SlamClick : Well here's the problem. NO ONE is talking about continuous monitoring in flight. That aspect of Airbus flight controls is fine as far as I can tell.
33 SlamClick : An afterthought to the above: The cost of the software change would be nil. All they have to do is pad the bill of the next personal A-380 they build
34 Jetlagged : As I said here, the ECAM already is aware the test is going on, because it automatically displays the FLT CTLS page when the stick or pedals are move
35 SlamClick : Just be advised that a mediocre attorney could absolutely shred your argument in front of a jury. It is preposterous. They can make two hundred and f
36 WILCO737 : Agreed! Pilots error is always the easiest explanation for a crash! And everybody has it's bad guy! Yeah, almost And in my opinion it's a MUST to cha
37 2H4 : Airbus, take note - when such changes are implemented, compensation in the form of type-ratings may be made to the proponents participating in this t
38 BAe146QT : To reinforce the point, this is true of many automated processes. Take it from someone with 1st-hand experience in that field. Automation is - depend
39 SlamClick : Hey, I have a couple I'll give ya. World's second most perishable commodity right behind Christmas trees. No further use to me.
40 Tdscanuck : You completely skipped the fact that all aircraft maintenance procedures are supposed to be followed by a functional check. I'm sure they would...whi
41 Jetlagged : Hang on, I was supporting your suggestion. I said it would NOT be difficult. Please read my post again and reconsider your reply. Supporting your ide
42 PITIngres : Also, and this is something not often appreciated, software is discontinuous in a sense. A trivial change can have entirely unpredictable effects on
43 SlamClick : My airline pays Airbus for upgrades to flight control computer and other software ALREADY. Always has, probably always will. There are data loading p
44 Tdscanuck : That's exactly what I was trying to get across. Thank you! Tom.
45 SlamClick : Are you now saying that there was ONLY ONE WAY to have the flight controls respond incorrectly and it's been found and fixed? I don't think that is th
46 Tdscanuck : Well, you, obviously. Me too, although I suspect you don't believe me. That's because you don't understand my point. I'm not arguing against the chan
47 Jetlagged : Accepted, I understand. This is true, however, Slamclick's original point is valid, the crew will often see what they expect to see. Adding an automa
48 PITIngres : I certainly don't argue with this, and I don't think anyone else is either. The change would be easy, as such things go, and would add a useful layer
49 SlamClick : Perhaps I should be more clear about my position. I was talking about two things so maybe I can't be more clear. Actually, I was referring to this on
50 2H4 : In the case of reversed ailerons, more than one...causing at least one crash.... 2H4
51 Jetlagged : You could apply the same argument to the changes as a result of the Air Transat incident. Purely reactive to an isolated incident, which should have
52 SEPilot : Read my signature. As to the original issue, I can attest that light airplanes can "feel" very different between different examples of the same type.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Changing Feel Of An Aircraft: Pilots Perspective?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Types Of Light On An Aircraft posted Mon Dec 5 2005 16:39:36 by ArcticTern
Can An Aircraft Use 2 Different Types Of Engines? posted Sun Apr 17 2005 09:57:47 by 9V-SVC
? For Pilots Of 4 Engined Aircraft posted Sat Feb 26 2005 12:03:35 by Undies737
Paint Peeling Off The Tail Of An A/c? posted Fri Mar 21 2008 06:49:42 by Deaphen
Altitude Of Approaching Aircraft posted Thu Jan 10 2008 16:28:09 by NathanR
Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus posted Sat Dec 1 2007 15:01:17 by BlueSkys
Steel As An Aircraft Material posted Mon Nov 19 2007 08:48:24 by Superstring
Man Survives 55m Flight In Wheel Well Of An SQ 772 posted Mon Oct 15 2007 03:33:19 by Thesandbender
Landing (Stopping) Distance Of Small Aircraft posted Tue Aug 28 2007 21:56:15 by Flexo
Maintencance Standards Of Light Aircraft posted Sat Aug 18 2007 18:58:09 by TupolevTu154

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format