Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Cockpits: Flying Wheel VS Joystick..  
User currently offlinervA340 From Mexico, joined Jan 2006, 69 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 10113 times:

Hi everybody, Im not a pilot and probably I might be a bit ignorant obout this subject, but I was wondering, how efficient or how good idea is to control big commercial airplanes with joysticks.

I was Reading a report about af447 accident and at one crucial point, both, Captain an First Oficer where flying the A330 at the same time at opposite directions, with no visual reference between them of who was acctually flying the plane and in what direction, leading to confussion and no control. Something that I believe might not happened on a Boeing(Flying Wheel).
On other subject I imagine flying the A380 with only one hand.. really..? I cant even imagine myself driving on the freeway at 180Km/h with a joystick..instead of a driving wheel.. so, lately when im starting to preffer flying on a Boeing jet rather tan on an Airbus jet.. Waht do you think.

Greetings!

116 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 2949 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9980 times:

Quoting rvA340 (Thread starter):
Hi everybody, Im not a pilot and probably I might be a bit ignorant obout this subject, but I was wondering, how efficient or how good idea is to control big commercial airplanes with joysticks.

I was Reading a report about af447 accident and at one crucial point, both, Captain an First Oficer where flying the A330 at the same time at opposite directions, with no visual reference between them of who was acctually flying the plane and in what direction, leading to confussion and no control. Something that I believe might not happened on a Boeing(Flying Wheel).
On other subject I imagine flying the A380 with only one hand.. really..? I cant even imagine myself driving on the freeway at 180Km/h with a joystick..instead of a driving wheel.. so, lately when im starting to preffer flying on a Boeing jet rather tan on an Airbus jet.. Waht do you think.

Oh boy! This one opens a big can of worms.

Actually, quite frequently the pilot of a Boeing airplane will only have one hand on the control wheel also, especially if the autothrottle is off. So the argument for only having one hand flying an A380 is not valid. You hand fly a 747-8 or 777-300ER with one hand frequently also.

Bottom line is that Airbus and Boeing have many different flight deck philosophies, of which many of us could probably describe in detail. Both have good points. There are valid arguments for preferring either. Obviously each manufacturer thinks theirs are superior, but recognizes the other guys make excellent airplanes too.


User currently onlineSOBHI51 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jun 2003, 3406 posts, RR: 17
Reply 2, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9912 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I once asked an American pilot friend that same question his respond was (if i don't have a long driving wheel between my legs i will never fly that plane) Those are his words.   


I am against any terrorist acts committed under the name of Islam
User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 2949 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9835 times:

Quoting SOBHI51 (Reply 2):
I once asked an American pilot friend that same question his respond was (if i don't have a long driving wheel between my legs i will never fly that plane) Those are his words.

Yep, a former US Air pilot told me the same thing. Likes having a nice big long thing between his legs when he flies.

That person clearly had a strong preference for which type of airplane he preferred, having flown both A and B.  


User currently offlinecbphoto From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1550 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9819 times:

It honestly depends on who you ask! To address the flying with one hand part, every pilot flies their airplane with one hand, as to always keep one hand on the throttle/power levers, regardless of the control wheel in front of them.

Many pilots prefer the control wheel, because generally speaking, while the airplane in on autopilot the pilot can get feedback through the control wheel. A joystick generally however cannot get feedback of what the airplane is doing and many pilots don't like that. However, from an ergonomics point of view, the joystick frees up a lot of much needed space in the flight deck and makes those long flights that much more enjoyable for the pilot. I have talked to many pilots who say they will never bid off of a Boeing aircraft, to guys who absolutely love the Airbus. So it really depends on the pilot and their preference. Is the control wheel safer then the joystick? Absolutely not, they just require slightly different techniques that all the pilots will get in training!

Boeing even explored the idea of putting a joystick in the 777 when they were designing it, but United said keep the control wheel in, as they were the launch customer of it. Who knows what Boeings line would be like today if United had said yes to the joystick??

Quoting SOBHI51 (Reply 2):
I once asked an American pilot friend that same question his respond was (if i don't have a long driving wheel between my legs i will never fly that plane) Those are his words.



Well, wish your American pilot friend the best of luck making it to the major airlines. What is he going to tell United or American if they put him in the Airbus? Thanks for the job offer at my dream airline, but I don't fly planes with joysticks??    



ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 2949 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 9649 times:

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 4):
every pilot flies their airplane with one hand, as to always keep one hand on the throttle/power levers, regardless of the control wheel in front of them.

This isn't entirely true. A lot of pilots take their hands off the throttles at V1 and put both on the yoke for rotation and climbout, until the engage the autopilot. That's with the autothrottle engaged, of course. Likewise, if the F/O is the pilot flying a takeoff, they'll usually have both hands on the yoke the entire time because the Captain's hand is on the throttle until V1.


User currently offlinecbphoto From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1550 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 9421 times:

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 5):
This isn't entirely true. A lot of pilots take their hands off the throttles at V1 and put both on the yoke for rotation and climbout, until the engage the autopilot. That's with the autothrottle engaged, of course. Likewise, if the F/O is the pilot flying a takeoff, they'll usually have both hands on the yoke the entire time because the Captain's hand is on the throttle until V1.

You are correct and I should have emphasized during the arrival and landing phase, the pilot flying's hand is always on the throttle, that's where I was going with that comment! Most Airbus drivers I have observed during the takeoff, instead of putting their other hand on the yoke (which of course there is non) end up putting their other hand on there lap or knee after V1. I guess there really is no other use for that hand until the autopilot is engaged!



ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8182 posts, RR: 24
Reply 7, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 9372 times:

Quoting rvA340 (Thread starter):
n other subject I imagine flying the A380 with only one hand.. really..? I cant even imagine myself driving on the freeway at 180Km/h with a joystick..instead of a driving wheel.. so, lately when im starting to preffer flying on a Boeing jet rather tan on an Airbus jet.. Waht do you think.

You often only fly a traditional yoke with 1 hand (the other's on the throttles), so a sidestick isn't REALLY a big difference, and I don't have a problem with it, per se. My issue is, as you mentioned, that Airbus' physical cockpit controls, the stick, the throttles, etc, don't react commensurately with the operation of a system. If the autothrottle changes throttle setting, the throttle levers don't move, for example. Or, as you stated, the Captain and F/O have essentially completely independent sidesticks. This is an issue for me, because I think you should have as much tactile, easily-discernable information available to you as possible, especially in an emergency when you're not thinking straight. If you reach for the throttle levers, and they're full forward, the airplane SHOULD be at 100%+ power. On an Airbus, that may not be so, and so you're required to verify with your eyes and the instruments, and that's a very "heads-down" philosophy that a LOT of pilots have a problem with, myself included.

In a Boeing, you can close your eyes and put your hands on any button, switch, or knob and know what it's doing. On an Airbus, you generally have to look at something. Boeing uses a lot more toggle/rocker switches, Airbus uses those push-in switches that feel the same regardless of the setting. Other manufacturers are somewhere in between. I think the better choice is obvious, but that's just my opinion. Boeing tends to build pilot's airplanes, Airbus tends to build engineer's airplanes. It's all about philosophy.



This Website Censors Me
User currently offlinepilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3143 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9255 times:

Nothing is being said about the bicycle yoke. What about those?  

I have way too much time in Embraer products.

[Edited 2013-05-17 18:13:42]


DMI
User currently offlinepilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3143 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9248 times:

Quoting rvA340 (Thread starter):
I cant even imagine myself driving on the freeway at 180Km/h with a joystick..instead of a driving wheel

Bet you wouldn't imagine steering at that speed with your feet, either. But that's what you're doing in an airplane regardless of the manufacturer.



DMI
User currently offlinefreeze3192 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 164 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 9227 times:

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 5):

This isn't entirely true. A lot of pilots take their hands off the throttles at V1 and put both on the yoke for rotation and climbout, until the engage the autopilot. That's with the autothrottle engaged, of course.

That's a company required item. At V1 you're committed to going flying no matter what happens so you remove your hands from the throttles to remove the itch to abort if an abnormal situation develops.

Some airplanes are so heavy on the controls (especially at higher speeds) that you almost need two hands on the yoke to put the airplane where you want it.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 5):

Likewise, if the F/O is the pilot flying a takeoff, they'll usually have both hands on the yoke the entire time because the Captain's hand is on the throttle until V1.

That's not entirely true either. It's company specific. At my company the FO keeps their hand on the power levers throughout the takeoff until V1. If there's an abort, they're expected to execute after the CA calls for it.



"A passenger bets his life that his pilot is a worthy heir to an ancient tradition of excellence and professionalism."
User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16975 posts, RR: 67
Reply 11, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 9222 times:

Quoting rvA340 (Thread starter):
On other subject I imagine flying the A380 with only one hand.. really..? I cant even imagine myself driving on the freeway at 180Km/h with a joystick..instead of a driving wheel.

Flying a plane and driving a car are very different when it comes to the feel and response of the controls. Just like most cars, airliners have augmented controls, meaning you're not using muscle force to move the surfaces. Muscles are used to move the yoke or stick, and these inputs are either carried via cables and rods, but hydraulically augmented, or transmitted electronically. So the amount of force required is limited and you can be very subtle. It is actually more physical work to fly a light twin than a 747 because in a light twin your muscles are moving the surfaces without augmentation. Anyone who has done a multi checkride will remember how much muscle it takes to keep the thing going straight with an engine out.

Another big difference is that in a car, especially in traffic, you are continually changing direction and often making quite large inputs. In an airplane, it is much more about gentle manipulation. The King Private Pilot course says in one of the first lessons that "flying is a series of small corrections". Seldom do you make large inputs, and if you do they should be smooth. You can be remarkably subtle with one hand, even the off-hand. Making corrections of a degree or two to a heading, or ten feet to your altitude, takes practice but it is something which all pilots must be able to do if they expect to pass their instrument checkride.

Finally, unlike cars, planes want to go straight ahead very badly. In a car, especially one not built for high speeds, you get a lot of instability as you go faster and a small input can lead to loss of control. In a plane, if you make even a large input, the plane will want to go back to where it was. This resistance to input makes fine control easier.

Quoting pilotpip (Reply 9):
Bet you wouldn't imagine steering at that speed with your feet, either. But that's what you're doing in an airplane regardless of the manufacturer.

:D Then again planes aren't the most agile on the ground.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2816 posts, RR: 45
Reply 12, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 9198 times:

Quoting SOBHI51 (Reply 2):
I once asked an American pilot friend that same question his respond was (if i don't have a long driving wheel between my legs i will never fly that plane) Those are his words.

Is his nationality or airline American? If he is an American Airlines pilot I am sure he prefers the yoke because I feel confident he has no experience operating a FBW Airbus. (Very few current AMR pilots have time in the FBW Airbus.)

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 3):
Yep, a former US Air pilot told me the same thing. Likes having a nice big long thing between his legs when he flies.

That person clearly had a strong preference for which type of airplane he preferred, having flown both A and B

Fine. I've flown both extensively (Airbus, Boeing, Lockheed, and McD products) and would never fly with a yoke again given the choice.

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 4):
It honestly depends on who you ask!

Exactly. It's normally (not always) the people who have never flown the FBW Airbus products that feel most strongly about the yoke I find.

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 4):
To address the flying with one hand part, every pilot flies their airplane with one hand, as to always keep one hand on the throttle/power levers, regardless of the control wheel in front of them.

Exactly. While sometimes pilots end up with both hands on the yoke, there are times when we all must fly with one hand on the yoke of SSC. It's irrelevant to discuss that skill.


User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 639 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 9103 times:

Quoting rvA340 (Thread starter):
Captain an First Oficer where flying the A330 at the same time at opposite directions

This is actually a very overblown fact and not quite true. A lot of people act as if the person in the RHS on AF 447 was pulling all the way back, while the person in the LHS was pushing all the way forward and the aircraft therefore took the median and stayed in the stall. This isn't true - the entire crew was confused, none of them realised they were stalled until it was too late.

There were one or two simultaneous inputs but these were mainly with relation to roll, rather than pitch. Indeed, for much of the descent, the other pilots were calling for the PF to "go up!", so I think the contribution of the sidesticks has been massively overstated by a lot of people when it comes to AF 447.

If they had been in a 777 it's quite possible that the capt and the PM would still have thought that the PF was doing the right thing. I mean it's not as if a Boeing has never stalled before...



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently offlineairmagnac From Germany, joined Apr 2012, 303 posts, RR: 44
Reply 14, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 8979 times:

Quoting N766UA (Reply 7):
If you reach for the throttle levers, and they're full forward, the airplane SHOULD be at 100%+ power.

And the Airbus will, as IIRC the autothrust will be disconnected if one lever is beyond MCT detent or both beyond CLIMB. So if both levers are full forward, there is no ambiguity on what thrust is being commanded.

Quoting N766UA (Reply 7):
In a Boeing, you can close your eyes and put your hands on any button, switch, or knob


Apart from not being too sure about the difference between comparable A and B aircraft (say, 777 and A330), I kind of wonder how you can reliably "feel" the position of a knob or switch which is significantly smaller than your hand (and thus does not require much muscular movement to hold and move), and which is positioned on the overhead panel (so you have to extend your arm in a not-very-comfortable position to reach). But as a non-pilot, I'll take your word for it !  



Anyway the crux of the matter is, the position of the switches/knobs/throttle levers/yoke/side-stick only gives you information on what commands are being sent to the various aircraft systems, in particular the flight controls (yoke/SSC) and engines (thrust levers). They do not indicate what the actual setting is. And therein lies the issue.

A decision loop should be something on the lines of
1) Gathering information on your current, real situation, and establish an assessment of said situation
2) Compare the situation to what you want it to be, and determine whether a correction is required
3) Decide on the best strategy to make that correction
4) Compute the necessary command(s) and sent them to the machine
5) Verify that real situation evolves as expected in response to the command, and start loop again

Note the emphasis on "real situation" not "commanded situation" in step 1). If all is well, both should be the same. But in case of a problem with the system (engine failure for example), they will diverge. Actually that is how you would detect the problem, by noticing a divergence between command and actual behaviour.

So what's important is to asses what the plane is actually doing ; if you base your decisions on what you asked it to do, you may be lured into a false sense of security. Because even though you can "feel" that everything is positioned properly, there may be an issue that prevents the machine from answering properly.
Obviously, no one makes decisions based only on throttle position/yoke position ; it may be subconscious, but I'm pretty sure you work on real data, even if you do "augment" it with lever/yoke/switch positions. The Airbus layout just forces you to make your decisions based on the real situation, and not based on the commands, and this eliminates the potential ambiguities.
As an illustration, in the case of the flight controls on FBW aircraft, what is important is not what attitude your colleague is commanding with his yoke/side-stick, but what is the current actual attitude of the airplane. Which you obtain by looking outside, or by checking the big screen that is staring you in the face, otherwise known as a PFD.
[which the PNF of AF447 was obviously looking at between 2:10'25'' and 2:10'40'', as he reacted 3 times to improper control inputs by his colleague. So he did know what was going on IMO. Why he remained passive afterwards remains a mystery, but I will not elaborate here. The point is, the thesis that he did not know what PF was doing because of the Airbus layout does not hold ]

Now, there is a valid objection to all this. In my explanation above, I completely separated the "commands" from the "situational feedback". Actually, it is arguable that the commands are also useful "feedback" when making a decision. Knowing what commands are being sent to the airplane would allow you to predict how the plane will react, and thus predict the future situation and prevent a possible future problem.
Thus it might be interesting to have linked yokes/side-sticks to know what attitude is being commanded by the other pilot, and if he is making a mistake you can react much sooner than if you waited for the situation to evolve and be displayed on the PFD. Same for knowledge of what is being commanded by the AP (moving yoke/stick) or by the ATHR (moving levers)
Except that in the case of the attitude control loop (pilot/AP + control-augmented flight controls + feedback via PFD or Mk1 eyeball) or the thrust control loop (pilot/ATHR + FADEC + feedback via the engine display), the time constant of the loops (= the time it takes to complete one full decision loop) is very short, on the order of a few tenths of a second. At the most, maybe a couple of seconds. The worst case is the full change from IDLE to TOGA thrust in 5 to 8 seconds, as seen at Habsheim, but that is a relatively exceptional case.
In parallel, you need time to notice a movement of your yoke or thrust levers, compute what the reaction will be and understand that something will go wrong. The human brain is a wonderful thing, but it still needs a couple seconds accomplish all that. Which is the same order of time as the control loop.
So by the time you are ready to take action based on your predicitons, the situation might have already evolved and you could have just reacted to the observed evolution. Which would be much more reliable than acting based on quick predictions. Therefore, the predictive loop is kind of useless, and in particular, all the moving parts and engineering required to provide that feedback are useless.
Then again, as I said, the time constants are just about the same, so you could also consider that in some cases it will be useful to have the predictive capacity. And therefore install means to provide feedback of the commands.

So what I'm saying is : there is no clear-cut best solution, we're at a limit. Both Airbus and Boeing ways are acceptable.
And no, the better choice is not obvious at all  

And I now realize what a long, abstract post I just wrote...



Quoting N766UA (Reply 7):
Boeing tends to build pilot's airplanes, Airbus tends to build engineer's airplanes

Could be, it all depends on how you define "pilot" and engineer". Using typical Hollywood stereotypes, am I to understand that people flying a Boeing will always be wearing Ray-Bans, a silk scarf and a beautiful uniform and have a stewardess sitting on their lap the whole flight (i.e. "pilots"), while Airbus requires slobs with an open shirt, sandals, a bushy beard and curly hair, who play World of Warcraft whenever they have a spare minute (i.e. "engineers") ?     



One "oh shit" can erase a thousand "attaboys".
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4383 posts, RR: 76
Reply 15, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 8973 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SOBHI51 (Reply 2):

I once asked an American pilot friend that same question his respond was (if i don't have a long driving wheel between my legs i will never fly that plane)

Another proof that being an airline pilot is not proof of intelligence...   

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 3):
Yep, a former US Air pilot told me the same thing. Likes having a nice big long thing between his legs when he flies.

... or sexual happiness in one's life ...   

Quoting N766UA (Reply 7):
If you reach for the throttle levers, and they're full forward, the airplane SHOULD be at 100%+ power.

...and with one or more failed engine in this case, where is your famous tactile feedback ?
If your statement was always true, why did - Kegworth comes to mind, but there plenty more axamples - some crews shut down the wrong engine ?
And, BTW, if you push the T/Ls fully forward, you have full TOGA thrust on an Airbus.

Quoting N766UA (Reply 7):
In a Boeing, you can close your eyes and put your hands on any button, switch, or knob and know what it's doing.

That's one of the best ways to fail a check ride : Standard practice demands that one always checks the result - generally on the forward instrument panel - of one's action on *any* switch, button, knob... whatever.
BTW, the "Dark Cockpit" concept, with switchlights does partly away with the above requirement : Depressing one switchlight causes its illumination into the status it has gone into : *OFF* / *ON* / *ARMED* etc...

Quoting N766UA (Reply 7):
Boeing tends to build pilot's airplanes, Airbus tends to build engineer's airplanes. It's all about philosophy

Ah ! The big hairy American pilot concept, flying big American areoplanes tailored to his ego !.. Another falsity... See below.

Quoting rvA340 (Thread starter):
On other subject I imagine flying the A380 with only one hand.. really..?

Yes, really and it's quite easy and natural.
As a matter of fact, pilots have been flying all sorts of jets with only their fingers. People seem to have forgotten that, starting with the Boeing 707, nearly sixty years ago, with A/P on, they had on the pedestal a set of two little wheels each dide of a big knob : the wheels for pitch control, the knob for roll ( actually it was for VS and HDG change, but it amounts to the same )... you wouldn't be driving your car with those controls either, I bet, but all pilots on the 707 /727 did and later generations still did, with even smaller wheels and buttons.
See here on the pedestal :


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Braccini Riccardo - Aviopress



and on the A/P panel :


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Robert Domandl



[Edited 2013-05-18 07:57:28]

[Edited 2013-05-18 08:37:24]


Contrail designer
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9523 posts, RR: 42
Reply 16, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 8920 times:

Quoting N766UA (Reply 7):
Boeing tends to build pilot's airplanes, Airbus tends to build engineer's airplanes. It's all about philosophy.

That one always irks me. It's a nice catch-phrase but, just once, I'd like to see it backed up by some credible evidence. Everything I've seen, read and heard about the way Airbus designs its aircraft indicates that there's just as much input from pilots than with any other manufacturer.

Quoting N766UA (Reply 7):
If the autothrottle changes throttle setting, the throttle levers don't move

But if you want to compare commanded thrust to actual thrust, and any other engine parameter, you only need to look in one place.

If no-one moved the boundaries, we'd still be living in caves and walking everywhere and there would be no A.net where we could discuss such matters.  
Quoting PGNCS (Reply 12):
It's normally (not always) the people who have never flown the FBW Airbus products that feel most strongly about the yoke I find.

   Without a doubt.


User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 2949 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 8760 times:

Quoting freeze3192 (Reply 10):
That's not entirely true either. It's company specific. At my company the FO keeps their hand on the power levers throughout the takeoff until V1. If there's an abort, they're expected to execute after the CA calls for it.

Really? I knew that it varies with who sets power for takeoff - at some airlines the Captain always does it and the F/O never touches TO/GA or the throttles; at others the F/O sets takeoff power and then the captain reaches over and puts his/her hands on the throttles.

Quoting freeze3192 (Reply 10):


That's a company required item. At V1 you're committed to going flying no matter what happens so you remove your hands from the throttles to remove the itch to abort if an abnormal situation develops.

Yep. There's one exception though. The Captain is allowed to abort above V1 if in his/her opinion the airplane simply is not capable of safe flight.


User currently offlinecobra27 From Slovenia, joined May 2001, 1008 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 8695 times:

I think you can get accustomed really quickly, if it is classic Yoke, Embraer yoke or Joystick, fighter yoke.

I don't like the Airbus yoke because you fly right or left handed depending where you are seating


User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 639 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 8694 times:

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 17):
Really? I knew that it varies with who sets power for takeoff - at some airlines the Captain always does it and the F/O never touches TO/GA or the throttles; at others the F/O sets takeoff power and then the captain reaches over and puts his/her hands on the throttles.

As at yet others, the Capt sets the throttles and then the FO takes them once thrust is set. There are a select few however that allow FO's to have the throttle throughout the whole takeoff, although I think there are many more that mandate some kind of Captain's input.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 17):
Yep. There's one exception though. The Captain is allowed to abort above V1 if in his/her opinion the airplane simply is not capable of safe flight

  

Or if he/she deems there is enough runway remaining, such as if you're flying a small aircraft on a big runway, or are a positioning flight and can easily stop/land on the runway remaining.

There was a BMI Baby 737 that rejected a takeoff in the UK a few years back, at about 20 knots over V1. The FO was flying and couldn't get the nose off the ground with normal back pressure, the Capt took control and found he couldn't either and judging that they had sufficient runway remaining, rejected and stopped the a/c safety, making some weaving S-turns down the runway as they decelerated. AAIB later concluded that it was a trim problem that they could have overcome with enough pressure on the yoke but, at the time, the crew considered it unflybable.



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16975 posts, RR: 67
Reply 20, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8648 times:

Quoting cobra27 (Reply 18):

I think you can get accustomed really quickly, if it is classic Yoke, Embraer yoke or Joystick, fighter yoke.

I don't like the Airbus yoke because you fly right or left handed depending where you are seating

Same on Embraer, Boeing, Cessna or Piper. You fly with your left hand in the left seat, right hand in the right seat.

This is only a big deal for people who have not tried it.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offline9VSIO From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 706 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8624 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 20):
You fly with your left hand in the left seat, right hand in the right seat.

That leaves you no hands to fly with! :P



Me: (Lining up on final) I shall now select an aiming point. || Instructor: Well, I hope it's the runway...
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4383 posts, RR: 76
Reply 22, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8601 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I find it amusing, more than 25 years after the A320, people still bashing the *Airbus* sidestick.
Fact is that there is a definite trend away from the yoke which will be soon a solution for the minority : Except Boeing and Embraer, all new designs incorporate sidesticks : Bombardier, Dassault, COMAC, Sukhoi... have gone to the sidestick.

American hairy pilots and their aéroplanes will be soon in the minority.

How about that ?

I for one think that the era of the Ford Trimotor and the Junkers G-38 is long time passed.

After all, in most parts of the world, we are in the year 2013 in flight control design.   



Contrail designer
User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6751 posts, RR: 76
Reply 23, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8589 times:

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 12):
Exactly. It's normally (not always) the people who have never flown the FBW Airbus products that feel most strongly about the yoke I find.

I guess they'll just go nuts when they meet pilots here who moved from the yoke to the sidestick...

And interestingly, sidestick aircraft here have a much lower accident or incident rate per 10,000 departures than yoke equipped aircraft (limited to part 121 airlines only).

Quoting cobra27 (Reply 18):
I don't like the Airbus yoke because you fly right or left handed depending where you are seating

But you don't fly it... so how do you know what it's like? It's just your prejudice right?



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlinepilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3143 posts, RR: 11
Reply 24, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 8584 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 22):
Except Boeing and Embraer, all new designs incorporate sidesticks

Embraer's bizjets have gone to a side stick as well. The Legacy 450 will incorporate one.



DMI
25 Pihero : Didn't know that. Thanks for the info,Pp. Cheers ! So, of course, when you're a captain and right handed, you fly the aircraft with your right hand a
26 bueb0g : Huh? Not true, Mitsubishi's MRJ has a yoke. That's a fallacious point and you know it. There's much more at play than the control column, which has n
27 Starlionblue : He was making a joke based on what I said. If you take what I said literally, the left hand would be IN the left seat and the right hand IN the right
28 BoeingGuy : And your point is? All yoke driven aircraft are exactly the same. You know which of A vs. B I favor, but your argument is incorrect. Airbus joystick
29 JoeCanuck : Ok...I'm going to add my two cents in here. I've flown piston singles with yokes and gliders with sticks and the monkey part of the human brain, (at l
30 Post contains images BoeingGuy : Or people prefer the manufacturer's philosophies that help pay our mortgage and grocery bills.
31 SmittyOne : I would like to see that!
32 Post contains links airmagnac : I had done some research last year on control device choices for FBW aircraft, for a small project. Here's what I found at the time (I can't guarante
33 Post contains images mandala499 : Let me put another one then... All sidestick aircraft vs all the 737NGs in the Indonesian register... still, the sidestick has lower accident and inc
34 BoeingGuy : Again, that wasn't my point. Newer airplanes, with newer training methods and newer safety equipment have better safety records. All airplanes prior
35 Post contains images vikkyvik : Hmmm. I probably shouldn't drive automatic transmission cars then. I always end up slamming my left foot into the floorboard! This reminds me of a fr
36 JoeCanuck : That's pretty much it in a nutshell.
37 PGNCS : Just like in an aircraft with a yoke... Correct, BoeingGuy. I was for a while current on both the DC-9 and A-320 at the same time, and would sometime
38 Post contains images BoeingGuy : Yep, I relate to that. Even though the functionality is mostly the same for the autothrottle and autopilots, the 757/767 mode annunciations are somew
39 Post contains images mandala499 : The A320 entered our registry some 10 yrs ago temporarily, and only came back in 2005... The NG entered our registry in 2005, and in much larger numb
40 Post contains images PGNCS : Oh I never say, but I have been on multiple certificates for multiple operators...I like to keep the mystery alive! My best always you two!
41 Post contains images BoeingGuy : Hmmm, when I think of a carrier who flew DC-9s and A320s in recent past, one comes to mind. The 757/767 and 747-400 wouldn't be the same carrier sinc
42 PGNCS : I doubt you are considering that my DC-9 experience was years ago and my A-320 experience started in the early 1990s; you also seem to have forgotten
43 rcair1 : I don't think it is arguable at all. The sense of touch and tactile feedback is a useful sense. I think most of the posters here are missing the poin
44 David L : No and, to be honest, I'm not sure how you inferred that from what I said. I'm saying you can't take a particular methodology at a particular point i
45 airmagnac : You make it sound like haptic feedback must always be provided, even if it's just for the heck of it, because it's a good thing. I do not disagree wi
46 SmittyOne : Even so, well written post! What interests me is the relative level of difficulty/workload presented by "hand flying" say a 757 vs. an A320. Seems to
47 rcair1 : I think haptic feedback should be provided. Obviously not must - since there are many aircraft flying that don't have it. As for what info - there ar
48 PITrules : I think what airmagnac is saying is that tactile feedback is fine, but should not be relied upon as a final confirmation of a commanded change; and I
49 rcair1 : And so would I. However, the fact that it is not the only cue does not mean it is not a valuable cue. Try assembling something small and fine with ta
50 pilotpip : I quoted both of these for a couple reasons. First, while the fundamentals of flying an airplane remain the same regardless of size, there are a coup
51 PITrules : What about them? Great airplanes, but just because they have been doing it for years does not mean they are better at it from a health and comfort st
52 SmittyOne : I understand all of this. What I'm asking is, if you are flying a visual approach by hand (pilots still do that, right?) - what is it like in the Air
53 Post contains images bikerthai : Unlike popular perception even hairy Americans do evolve and not devolve My two cents from my knot hole? The stick is the way of the future. Even mod
54 Post contains images airmagnac : Spot on. I was concentrating on normal flight parameters feedback, as that is the usual point of debate. But if I understand right, you are suggestin
55 Post contains images rcair1 : And you did not. I was just anticipating somebody (not particularly you) taking me to task for supposedly relating the Challenger and Columbia disast
56 Post contains links Klaus : (Speaking from a non-aviation systems/automation background.) That's the thing – Airbus FBW is designed in a way that the spring in fact already rep
57 Post contains images David L : Yes, that and the thrust levers not being back-driven (which is actually what prompted my remark). Anyway, my remark seems a little redundant after y
58 bueb0g : The A320 will handle exactly like any conventionally controlled aircraft in direct law. It's broadly similar - because of the nature of the implement
59 Post contains images bikerthai : I must have missed the wheel when watching that Discovery Chanel about a large catamaran ferry bt
60 Post contains images Klaus : Oops!
61 BoeingGuy : Have you ever seen the Boeing Stick Shaker? I would very much disagree with your assessment. It's pretty hard to miss. It's very loud and the control
62 SmittyOne : Thanks! Makes sense to me...
63 Post contains images David L : Fine, except I didn't make an assessment that it's not hard to miss. I don't seem to be coping very well with the old "common-language barrier" in th
64 Pihero : That "Boeing" stick shaker has been going on since the 707 came into service, 55 yeras ago... I would have thought that there could be some progress
65 Klaus : The problem with AF447 was not that the pilots missed the stall warning but that they didn't know what to do about it, even though that would have be
66 Post contains images David L : In my haste to point out the misinterpretation of what I said, I managed to miss this. All I can say is that I think we have very different ideas of
67 packsonflight : The AF447 report 3 or 4 similar previous crashes. The aircrafts involved where B757 B707 and DC9. Last time I checked those aircrafts had no FBW syst
68 SmittyOne : Interesting, thanks! So one final question (again, coming from a guy with the most basic understanding of flight via Cessna 172...). If you are in le
69 Pihero : With the stick free, the aircraft will decelerate, keeping your attitude... you'll get a warning *SPEED SPEED SPEED !*, that advises you that you're
70 Post contains images SmittyOne : That's pretty slick! I've read the book "Fly By Wire" but it obviously left me with some questions Thank you for taking the time to school me up on t
71 Pihero : Yes, up to the A380. Don't know about the A350, but I'd doubt there would be any major changes.
72 BoeingGuy : On a Boeing airplane it would depend on which pitch mode is selected. Several pitch modes are "Speed through Elevators" modes, meaning the autothrott
73 bueb0g : I said normally. Most modern ships retain a conventional style helm or tiller while also incorporating various back-up or manoeuvring controllers, wh
74 XFSUgimpLB41X : Not in V/S mode. If you V/S mode up, the A/T will go to climb power trying to maintain speed, but eventually it will take you to the shaker.
75 BoeingGuy : Not that I'm aware of. What model are you referring to? I don't know the 737 very well, but I'm pretty sure it's not true on the 767, 777 and 787. It
76 XFSUgimpLB41X : It will go to the limit of whatever phase you're in. Regardless, it will take you to the shaker was my point.
77 Post contains images vikkyvik : Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you're commanding zero roll rate, rather than zero roll. If you already have a bank angle, and you return the
78 bueb0g : Correct, that's what I meant, thanks for spotting it.
79 Post contains links barney captain : Sully apparently has concerns about the side sticks role in AF 447. Captain Sullenberger has a valid point and one that I've often speculated on-a sid
80 rcair1 : The RA feeding the information to the A/T had failed and was telling the a/c it was at ground level. That means, the a/c systems 'thought' they were
81 Post contains links barney captain : The video link below show Captain Sullenberger's take on how the side stick may have played a roll in AF447. This is something I've long speculated on
82 barney captain : The video link below show Captain Sullenberger's take on how the side stick may have played a roll in AF447. This is something I've long speculated on
83 David L : It's often claimed that the PF was holding the stick full aft from early on - I don't know if you're going from that or from the sidestick traces of
84 barney captain : ..All, I apologize for the multiple posts. The forum wasn't behaving correctly and for a few days, none of those posts were showing up. I've alerted t
85 Pihero : ...and Captain Sullenberger conveniently forgets that aircraft with yokes have crashed in similar situations. A list that's certainly not exhaustive
86 barney captain : Of course - and that (unfortunately) will always be a possibility. But even Sully - an ex-AB driver - acknowledges the issue of not seeing what input
87 rcair1 : No - he did not say it caused the crash - he said it may have contributed. Cactus 1549 was a marvelous aircraft flown by a marvelous pilot - but some
88 Pihero : They had a completely intact electrical power generation. And the RAT can be deployed manually. He could also have said that the yokes on the acciden
89 Post contains images David L : Then I'm still puzzled as to why the Captain and PNF kept telling the PF to stop doing something if they didn't know he was doing it and why the PNF
90 Post contains images Starlionblue : Very well put. I think a lot of people, consciously or not, associate "computer control" with the unreliability of a PC. The stigma of computers as u
91 David L : To be fair, the main bone of contention here seems to be the Airbus side-sticks and thrust levers versus back-driven, interconnected yokes and thrott
92 rcair1 : Thanks Pihero - I'll have to go back and see if I can find what the issue was. I know I read a discussion where he could not achieve the ideal angle.
93 David L : Well, by "Airbus side-sticks and thrust levers" I mean specifically the side-stick and thrust lever systems used by Airbus. A lot of the argument hin
94 Klaus : Is there really any modern aircraft with manual engine control reversion, overriding the FADECs? I had assumed so far that the FADECs would only reve
95 BoeingGuy : On the 777 and 787, the APU also starts automatically if both engines fail, in addition to the RAT automatically deploying. If it had been a 777 or 7
96 barney captain : VERY cool. When we did this in the 737NG sim, it was a handful. Assuming the first thing you did was reach for the APU, the start-up time is in exces
97 Pihero : I think you're incorrect : The engines were running but not delivering a significant amount of thrust. It's only after they tried a relight on both t
98 BoeingGuy : I'm certainly not incorrect about what I stated about the 777 and 787 APUs starting automatically if both engines fail. I may have been incorrect in
99 Post contains images airmagnac : Probably none. If you look closely at the first 30s of the voice recording, when the aircraft was still inside its envelope, and therefore flyable :
100 Starlionblue : You said it. When I read Handing the Big Jets I had that same realization. Look at all that immense mechanical complexity in, say, a 747-100. Now a M
101 Pihero : ...and subsequently mine : Had it been a 777 or a 787, the APU would not - repeat NOT - have started automatically, because both engines were still r
102 BoeingGuy : I am fully aware of that. I stated that. I'm well familiar with how that feature works on the 777 and 787. I was stating that I mis-understood what h
103 rcair1 : No - I wasn't stating there was. I was offering the hypothesis that others had postulated that it may have made a difference. As I said - I think the
104 Pihero : About *Haptic Feedback* : It is just science jargon that exactly describes what we call *Tactile Feedback*, i.e. related to the sense of touch. - Hapt
105 Post contains images Klaus : Good points. It seems as if both pilots' situational awareness derailed and disconnected when their recognition patterns failed to cope with the comb
106 BoeingGuy : That's not correct. On both the 777 and 787 TAC (Thrust Asymmetry Compensation) backdrives the rudder pedals and displays on the Rudder Trim Indicato
107 Post contains images Pihero : ... and that, of course is the Boeing / Airbus idea of a haptic feedback. (OK for the TAC, but only if one has one's feet on the pedals, which is not
108 BoeingGuy : The 777 TAC only gets inputs from the engines and activates if there is a certain percentage assymetry between engine thrusts. The 787 is called ETAC
109 Post contains images airmagnac : To be honest, it's not quite so black and white. If you ever get to see one pulled outside of its usual emplacement in the cockpit, the sidestick is
110 rcair1 : With all due respect Pihero - you characterization of Haptic feedback, while long and detailed is based on a flawed viewpoint in my opinion. You are
111 Post contains images Pihero : Oh ! No ! Not my thinking at all ; just the argument of all the Airbus haters on this site. I was just pointing at quite a few drawbacks on relying o
112 Post contains images David L : Should we really be comparing the flying of an airliner to racing a car in competition? The rules, objectives and risk acceptance are quite different
113 Post contains links Pihero : The sidestick : Here is one Could a nice soul please insert this image in a post as I've lost my photobucket details ?
114 Post contains images Klaus : This is another version of the schematic: Apart from some mechanical redundancy and an extremely sturdy design, it's pretty much as simple as I'd have
115 Post contains links hivue : There was a wing tip flutter problem on the 747-8 that was damped by a clever software-only fix: 747-8 Wing Flutter Solution...the Engineer (by bhill
116 Post contains links and images eisenbach : I have to admit, that I was very sceptical how it would feel to fly an aeroplane with a sidestick, especially with my left ("wrong") hand. It is no pr
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Cockpits: Flying Wheel VS Joystick..
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...
Returning To College Vs Academy For Flying posted Mon Nov 19 2007 10:12:02 by KLM672
Airplane Vs. Helicopter Flying posted Sat Dec 30 2006 08:39:39 by Jawed
Cargo Vs. Pax Flying posted Tue Sep 20 2005 21:23:58 by Frequentflyer
Flying An Aeroplane By Joystick posted Sat May 21 2005 10:40:55 by Welwitschia
Logbook Entry Vs Duty Time/Actual Flying Time. posted Sun Jul 20 2003 22:31:07 by Gordonsmall
Safety Of Flying Vs. Driving posted Thu Aug 15 2002 01:05:40 by Jhooper
747 Cargo Operating Costs - Flying Vs. Trucking posted Thu Apr 26 2001 02:52:56 by Mcomess
Rudder Vs. Nose Wheel Steer posted Sun Dec 17 2000 07:40:27 by Modesto2
Nose Wheel Design On 717 posted Thu May 16 2013 22:40:08 by harrystanhope
Canadair Challengers Vs. Birds posted Thu May 16 2013 01:59:00 by NASCARAirforce

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format