With all the talk of the MOM/NSA a key aspect I'm interested in is the cockpit. Recent clean sheet designs (CSeries, C919, MC-21) and all Airbus aircraft after the A300/A310 have a side-stick. Do these upcoming aircraft from Boeing get a straight up 787 cockpit put into them for commonality or do they receive a modified version of the 787 cockpit with linked side-sticks? Curious as to what you all think of this, honestly I don't think Boeing jumps ship from the yoke just yet. If the MOM happens it could provide excellent commonality with existing 787/777 fleets today. I see them switching over with the 737 replacement possibly.

I think the new "MoM" will get a 787 cockpit with yokes, for commonality issues. I believe a sidestick in some form is better than a yoke, but I think they'll keep the yoke for commonality.

I think that your assessment is most likely to be correct. I am 95% sure that the 797/MOM will have a yoke. Boeing is not ready to leave it yet because it does not want to eat its words. I think that if the 737 replacement is related to the 797/MOM it will also feature a yoke however, if it is not highly related to the MOM it is likely that they will switch to a stick. I can see Boeing using a center stick instead of a sidestick when they do make the jump. Eventually all trainer aircraft will have sticks (its already happening with the SR22 and DA40 getting popular in training) and once that happens it will not make sense for Boeing to continue to use the yoke.

Since everything is electronic these days anyway, I wonder if Boeing will first offer the side-stick as an option.

diverdave wrote:

Since everything is electronic these days anyway, I wonder if Boeing will first offer the side-stick as an option.

I don't think that would ever be an option, require different certification/training and production complexities

I suppose it will be yoke always, as there will be loss of commonality if a stick is introduced in MoM (to 787) or NSA (to MOM).

ikolkyo wrote:

diverdave wrote:

Since everything is electronic these days anyway, I wonder if Boeing will first offer the side-stick as an option.

I don't think that would ever be an option, require different certification/training and production complexities

It would only matter if they want type commonality between the new model and an older model.

And production complexities? Not exactly. Boeing has smart people. I think they can figure out how to make it work.

ikolkyo wrote:

I don't think that would ever be an option, require different certification/training and production complexities

It does not matter really whether it is a joy stick or a yoke when dealing with fly by wire. It is just an interface between the human and a machine.

********

The yoke that Boeing uses is seriously and I mean seriously more complex than a Joystick. The input is the same the major complexity issue is back driving the yokes.

********

My personal opinion will be that Boeing will eventually go with the Joystick but it will be back driven so the non flying pilot will know what the flying pilot is doing.
Most likely be the major marketing tool.



Okie

I worked in Americans training department when the 777 showed up. I remember the side stick and folding wings were an option as the plane was developed. I don't remember if Boeing changed their mind or no one ordered it with the option. How many remember Fly By Wire (FBW)has been around since the late 50s and North American used it in the F-107 and X-15.

As for preference, I have flown yoke in left hand, yoke in right, stick in left hand, stick in right hand, side stick in left hand, side stick in right, FBW right hand. It all is the same. Only thing that bothered me is when the stick was not hooked together. Beyond comprehension an airliner could ever be certified like that. The F-16 was almost acceptable because it was an odd thing to fly the family model but I did loose a friend who's back seater g-suit inflated which caused his knee to push the stick from the back seat and they hit the ground in Fort Worth. It became a briefing item when giving rides..

C series builders at least had the common sense to link the sticks. They took the best from both the B and A companies. Not trying to put the B and A pilots and non pilots fighting as this is a good discussion. I wish Boeing would use the stick.. A side stick to be accurate. I believe the C-17 has a FBW center stick FYI .

Great

So the downside to the yoke is??????
...and the upside to the stick is?????

As mentioned, they are now mostly ergonomic since the computers do all the heavy lifting, so what makes one better than the other?
Do we have car OEM's experimenting with sticks?

par13del wrote:

So the downside to the yoke is??????...and the upside to the stick is?????

Lets try a reverse of that.

The upside of a back driven yoke is the pilot to pilot interface so that both pilots know what inputs are being made.
Unless the stick is back driven as indicated for the C series there is no pilot to pilot interface to know what inputs are being made. Has been the topic of several fatal accidents, AF447 comes first to mind.

Okie

Okie wrote:

Unless the stick is back driven as indicated for the C series there is no pilot to pilot interface to know what inputs are being made. Has been the topic of several fatal accidents, AF447 comes first to mind.

There have been more than enough accidents with back driven connected controls to illustrate that in critical moments it does not matter what the other pilot is doing, it is always about what the aircraft is doing. In fact that is a common mantra for any aircraft any time.

As instrument rated pilots we are always taught to look to the instruments to figure out what the aircraft is doing, never the position of the controls.

E.g. Tk 737 Ams, oz 777 sfo, ek 777 dxb.

zeke wrote:

As instrument rated pilots we are always taught to look to the instruments to figure out what the aircraft is doing, never the position of the controls.

There can always be an issue with the seat to control interface.

I think if Boeing goes side stick they will back drive it like the C series, it is just one more safety tool for the pilots to use.


Okie

ikolkyo wrote:

diverdave wrote:

Since everything is electronic these days anyway, I wonder if Boeing will first offer the side-stick as an option.

I don't think that would ever be an option, require different certification/training and production complexities

I don't know why not. They originally offered the 767 with a 3 man cockpit option, because of Union issues around the time it was introduced. As long as an airline only orders the plane one way, they only have to certify pilots one way.

Okie wrote:

zeke wrote:

As instrument rated pilots we are always taught to look to the instruments to figure out what the aircraft is doing, never the position of the controls.

There can always be an issue with the seat to control interface.

I think if Boeing goes side stick they will back drive it like the C series, it is just one more safety tool for the pilots to use.


Okie

Gulfstream has back driven side sticks on the new G500/G600. It's a BAE system design so it could be used elsewhere (Embraer is using it on the KC-390).

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

My question is, why should they change? For more leg room? Thats about it.

I'm for sticks and please make those backdriven and connected. Maybe even standardized between A and B. (The FBW-chip by BAE Systems is the same behind the scenes)
A central keyboard is nice to have today, a yoke takes too much space.

zeke wrote:

Okie wrote:

Unless the stick is back driven as indicated for the C series there is no pilot to pilot interface to know what inputs are being made. Has been the topic of several fatal accidents, AF447 comes first to mind.

There have been more than enough accidents with back driven connected controls to illustrate that in critical moments it does not matter what the other pilot is doing, it is always about what the aircraft is doing. In fact that is a common mantra for any aircraft any time.

As instrument rated pilots we are always taught to look to the instruments to figure out what the aircraft is doing, never the position of the controls.

E.g. Tk 737 Ams, oz 777 sfo, ek 777 dxb.

Yes but as I'm sure a man of your intellect knows, that in no way proves that backdriven controls would not help prevent some accidents.

The fact that some accidents have occurred with backdriven controls is irrelevant to the argument of 'could they possibly assist in some extreme situations'. Which is of course near impossible to answer empirically because we can't show the accidents that haven't happened because a pilot realised the other guy was making bad inputs. I can't see the harm in allowing this extra information. Which is of course for very rare instances, so it's no use saying that in normal operations pilots shouldn't be looking at the controls, this is for very non-normal occurrances.

Personally I don't have a horse in this race, I know some pilots like to see what inputs the other pilots is making, some aren't worried. I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand though. If it could be added simply, why not do it? Surely there isn't a downside to more information? Unless it's more of an ideological position...

Planetalk wrote:

zeke wrote:

Okie wrote:

Unless the stick is back driven as indicated for the C series there is no pilot to pilot interface to know what inputs are being made. Has been the topic of several fatal accidents, AF447 comes first to mind.

There have been more than enough accidents with back driven connected controls to illustrate that in critical moments it does not matter what the other pilot is doing, it is always about what the aircraft is doing. In fact that is a common mantra for any aircraft any time.

As instrument rated pilots we are always taught to look to the instruments to figure out what the aircraft is doing, never the position of the controls.

E.g. Tk 737 Ams, oz 777 sfo, ek 777 dxb.

Yes but as I'm sure a man of your intellect knows, that in no way proves that backdriven controls would not help prevent some accidents.

The fact that some accidents have occurred with backdriven controls is irrelevant to the argument of 'could they possibly assist in some extreme situations'. Which is of course near impossible to answer empirically because we can't show the accidents that haven't happened because a pilot realised the other guy was making bad inputs. I can't see the harm in allowing this extra information. Which is of course for very rare instances, so it's no use saying that in normal operations pilots shouldn't be looking at the controls, this is for very non-normal occurrances.

Personally I don't have a horse in this race, I know some pilots like to see what inputs the other pilots is making, some aren't worried. I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand though. If it could be added simply, why not do it? Surely there isn't a downside to more information? Unless it's more of an ideological position...

I think the point he was trying to make is that there can be accidents attributed to either approach. The implication of the post he was responding to was that unlinked are inherently more unsafe.

Having flown the A319/A320/A321 with more than 3000 hours on Airbus and now flying the Boeing 787, I can say that I found the Airbus cockpit more comfortable generally speaking, and from a common sense point of view, the side stick makes more sense, but as an aviator, I enjoy hand flying the Boeing much more, since there's just something more engaging about flying with a yoke in my humble opinion. But the Airbus cockpit is generally more logical I think... so it's a tie in the end I guess.

Airbus stick doesnt move when other pilot is moving it. Big fault. If other guy tries to help in bad situation it sums input...also bad design. Ask Captains about watching a new FO land helplessly. On a Boeing you can grease the controls on your side to lessen the touchdown if necessary. On an Airbus any input results in a "dual input" warning and the inputs in the controls are summed causing a much greater input then wanted or needed.

Also the sidestick lacks something below 30 Feet RA especially in strong cross wind situations.

30 knot xwind...give me a Boeing yolk anyday

I figure we will see a yoke in the cockpit until they install a robot in the right seat, which they are working on as I write this.

jfklganyc wrote:

Airbus stick doesnt move when other pilot is moving it. Big fault. If other guy tries to help in bad situation it sums input...also bad design. Ask Captains about watching a new FO land helplessly. On a Boeing you can grease the controls on your side to lessen the touchdown if necessary. On an Airbus any input results in a "dual input" warning and the inputs in the controls are summed causing a much greater input then wanted or needed.

Also the sidestick lacks something below 30 Feet RA especially in strong cross wind situations.

30 knot xwind...give me a Boeing yolk anyday

Did you actually ever fly an Airbus? Because what you said about a captain "helplessly watching a new FO land" is a false statement. The red button on the side stick doesn't just disengage the autopilot. It's also a takeover push button temporarily/permanently disabling the other side stick depending on how long you press it for. A voice will say "priority left" or "priority right" if it's pushed.

Also please be more specific in what you think the side stick 'lacks' below 30ft RA.

jfklganyc wrote:

give me a Boeing yolk anyday

Be careful, you may get egg on your face

V/F

I think a yoke is good because it allows the robot's strong, metal hands to grip it

Planetalk wrote:

Yes but as I'm sure a man of your intellect knows, that in no way proves that backdriven controls would not help prevent some accidents.

If that were the case safety investigators and regulators would be able to measure that and quantify that as a safety benefit, there is a lack of facts or evidence to support that statement. If it was actually true, you would see it in every Boeing marketing slide saying they are safer because they have "backdriven controls" just like we have seen in the auto industry use safety features with measurable benefits such as airbags, ABS, crash protection zones etc of ways to sell more vehicles to the market because safety is something people are willing to pay more for.

These conversations always miss a fundamental point about the philosophy of A & B.

The yoke/stick is not physically connected to the flight controls on either manufacturer's FBW as we know. But saying adding feedback to a yoke and sticking it in a Boeing misses the point: in an Airbus you "can't" get the aeroplane outside its envelope (unless in direct law as I understand it). So feedback adds no value.

In a Boeing, the aeroplane will resist you, but you can take it outside of its programmed envelope (effectiveness of this, why you would/need to etc is a different topic) by exerting a lot of force on the yoke.

Simply putting a side stick with feedback in would completely change that philosophy- it's simply not ergonomic to develop a lot of force from forearm to maintain that same philosophy (even de-rated to stick rather than yoke moment arm). You'd need to be a pro arm-wrestler.

The issues being discussed here did indeed feature prominently in the investigation of the the AF 447 loss of control accident. Who knows what might have happened had the captain, after arriving back on the flight deck, had the visual sight of the FO with the (non-existent) yoke pulled all the back? It may have clued him in much sooner that the instruments were lying to them. Would back driven side sticks have been enough of a visual clue? We will never know.

I am a 65 year old pilot. I have only flown aircraft with yokes. Except on my PC simulators!

True, but maybe that is an issue of pilot training too. If he didn't know where to look, future pilots will know.

chimborazo wrote:

These conversations always miss a fundamental point about the philosophy of A & B.

The yoke/stick is not physically connected to the flight controls on either manufacturer's FBW as we know. But saying adding feedback to a yoke and sticking it in a Boeing misses the point: in an Airbus you "can't" get the aeroplane outside its envelope (unless in direct law as I understand it). So feedback adds no value.

In a Boeing, the aeroplane will resist you, but you can take it outside of its programmed envelope (effectiveness of this, why you would/need to etc is a different topic) by exerting a lot of force on the yoke.

Simply putting a side stick with feedback in would completely change that philosophy- it's simply not ergonomic to develop a lot of force from forearm to maintain that same philosophy (even de-rated to stick rather than yoke moment arm). You'd need to be a pro arm-wrestler.

chimborazo, the Airbus can indeed be taken outside its envelope even in alternate law.

Food for the debate:

Pilot-to-pilot relationship—the controls of all Boeing commercial airplanes
are linked so pilots:

• Are aware of each other’s control inputs.
• Can assist each other quickly, with less reliance on time-consuming
verbal coordination.

Airplane-to-pilot relationship—the controls and throttles of all Boeing jetliners (including
the fly-by-wire 777) are “backdriven,” which means they move during automated flight to
provide feedback of autopilot and autothrottle inputs. Boeing believes these visual- and
tactile-motion cues reinforce situational awareness to help keep flight crews “in the loop.”

Pilot-to-airplane relationship—Boeing flight decks also keep pilots “in the loop” by:

• Ensuring full, uncompromised ability to command the operation of the airplane.

• Having wheel-and-column controllers that allow airlines to continue using proven,
intuitive piloting techniques and crew coordination practices evolved over many
decades.

At Boeing, our unmatched experience, fundamental flight operations beliefs, and clear
design guidelines lead to flight decks that are evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
These flight decks let airlines build further on the safety the industry has already achieved.
They ensure Boeing customers and the traveling public that new technologies will be very
carefully evaluated and, if selected, properly implemented to avoid technology “traps”
and unintended consequences.

BravoOne wrote:

At Boeing, our unmatched experience, fundamental flight operations beliefs, and clear
design guidelines lead to flight decks that are evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
These flight decks let airlines build further on the safety the industry has already achieved.
They ensure Boeing customers and the traveling public that new technologies will be very
carefully evaluated and, if selected, properly implemented to avoid technology “traps”
and unintended consequences.

"Boeing" as in every manufacturer on the planet? Or as in "we are somehow superior because we are. Despite statistics not giving any hint in that direction"?

Yes I would say Boeing is slightly ahead of AB in the filed of aircraft and aerospace manufacturing. Don't get me wrong AB is a great company that build terrific airplanes many of which I enjoy riding in. Did you know that Boeing even does fight training in the AB for customers that have Boeings and desire Boeing to do the training regardless.

BravoOne wrote:

Yes I would say Boeing is slightly ahead of AB in the filed of aircraft and aerospace manufacturing. Don't get me wrong AB is a great company that build terrific airplanes many of which I enjoy riding in. Did you know that Boeing even does fight training in the AB for customers that have Boeings and desire Boeing to do the training regardless.

Did you fly both types? I know many ex Boeing pilots now flying Airbus who would never go back to Boeing, particularly the 737. By the way, Boeing is NOT "ahead" of Airbus. Airbus was first with many new inventions, such as first twin engine wide body, first passenger jet with fly by wire and envelope protections, lights out philosophy, ground speed mini, load alleviation function, runway overrun protection, advanced ecam, brake-to-vacate, and so on and on.
Don't forget that the Concorde was designed by what was to become Airbus later on in time. Boeing has never built a supersonic passenger jet.

I have not flown the Bus but I know UAL pilots that would not even admit having flown it. WTF difference does this make any how. If you prefer the side stick so be it just stop bemoaning the fact that Boeing does not see it your way. Seems like every few months someone regurgitates this argument just to piss in the other guys rice bowl.

BTW, I have a TR in the F7X so I'm clueless about the SS concept.. Not a fan of the SS controller but that does not mean anything in the scheme of things.. And yes Boeing is ahead of AB but AB is gaining and that's what keeps them up at night. Surely your not so clueless to think that AB invented runway overrun protection? Yea your right about the Concorde. Really cool airplane. But Boeing has put so many more vehicles in space than AB and so may more airplanes that go faster further. I could go on and on but I don't need to make a fool of you on line. Speaking of fast, ever heard of the XB70 or X15?

zeke wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

Yes but as I'm sure a man of your intellect knows, that in no way proves that backdriven controls would not help prevent some accidents.

If that were the case safety investigators and regulators would be able to measure that and quantify that as a safety benefit, there is a lack of facts or evidence to support that statement. If it was actually true, you would see it in every Boeing marketing slide saying they are safer because they have "backdriven controls" just like we have seen in the auto industry use safety features with measurable benefits such as airbags, ABS, crash protection zones etc of ways to sell more vehicles to the market because safety is something people are willing to pay more for.

The issue is:
yes, in the ideal world, pilots would always read the instruments and there would be no benefit from backdriven controls
however
since people are not perfect, might there be cases where with backdriven and linked controls, there would be a safety gain considering imperfect pilots?

On the other hand, since there is no feedback in the Airbus approach, pilots are FORCED to look at instruments. That may actually be a safety gain, because it creates the instinct to look at instruments instead of using ones senses.

And therefore the question is, which of the tradeoffs is more important... my point being, there is an advantage to the Boeing way, but it may not be important enough or it may bring disadvantages with it.

Also, I think that accidents where "backdriving did not help" are not that important. Yes, they point out that even when backdriven controls could help, they might not.
What is more important is whether there where almost-accidents where backdriven&linked yokes did help.
What is also important is whether there have been cases where there was an accident because of backdriven/linked controls that would have been prevented by the current Airbus approach. Now that would really be a case for the Airbus way.

BravoOne wrote:

I have not flown the Bus but I know UAL pilots that would not even admit having flown it. WTF difference does this make any how. If you prefer the side stick so be it just stop bemoaning the fact that Boeing does not see it your way. Seems like every few months someone regurgitates this argument just to piss in the other guys rice bowl.

BTW, I have a TR in the F7X so I'm clueless about the SS concept.. Not a fan of the SS controller but that does not mean anything in the scheme of things.. And yes Boeing is ahead of AB but AB is gaining and that's what keeps them up at night. Surely your not so clueless to think that AB invented runway overrun protection? Yea your right about the Concorde. Really cool airplane. But Boeing has put so many more vehicles in space than AB and so may more airplanes that go faster further. I could go on and on but I don't need to make a fool of you on line. Speaking of fast, ever heard of the XB70 or X15?

lol whatever you say
Also, if you go further up, you can see that I wrote that for manual flying I prefer the yoke that's in the 787 that I am flying now, but in many ways the A320 that I flew before was maybe even simpler to operate than the 787, especially the FCU and the logic behind it is much better than the Boeing MCP in my opinion. Also the CDU in the 'bus was more intuitive compared to the Boeing the way I see it and that says a lot about how brilliant the Airbus is since it was designed two decades before the 787. But again, the 787 has its advantages as well, such as all the digital checklists including the non normal checklists.

And no Boeing is not "ahead" of Airbus. Please specify what you mean by it since you're sticking to that statement.

BravoOne wrote:

BTW, I have a TR in the F7X so I'm clueless about the SS concept.. Not a fan of the SS controller but that does not mean anything in the scheme of things.. And yes Boeing is ahead of AB but AB is gaining and that's what keeps them up at night. Surely your not so clueless to think that AB invented runway overrun protection? Yea your right about the Concorde. Really cool airplane. But Boeing has put so many more vehicles in space than AB and so may more airplanes that go faster further. I could go on and on but I don't need to make a fool of you on line. Speaking of fast, ever heard of the XB70 or X15?

There is no possible way you'd be TR'd in the Falcon 7X and be saying that...

sharles wrote:

zeke wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

Yes but as I'm sure a man of your intellect knows, that in no way proves that backdriven controls would not help prevent some accidents.

If that were the case safety investigators and regulators would be able to measure that and quantify that as a safety benefit, there is a lack of facts or evidence to support that statement. If it was actually true, you would see it in every Boeing marketing slide saying they are safer because they have "backdriven controls" just like we have seen in the auto industry use safety features with measurable benefits such as airbags, ABS, crash protection zones etc of ways to sell more vehicles to the market because safety is something people are willing to pay more for.

The issue is:
yes, in the ideal world, pilots would always read the instruments and there would be no benefit from backdriven controls
however
since people are not perfect, might there be cases where with backdriven and linked controls, there would be a safety gain considering imperfect pilots?

On the other hand, since there is no feedback in the Airbus approach, pilots are FORCED to look at instruments. That may actually be a safety gain, because it creates the instinct to look at instruments instead of using ones senses.

And therefore the question is, which of the tradeoffs is more important... my point being, there is an advantage to the Boeing way, but it may not be important enough or it may bring disadvantages with it.

Also, I think that accidents where "backdriving did not help" are not that important. Yes, they point out that even when backdriven controls could help, they might not.
What is more important is whether there where almost-accidents where backdriven&linked yokes did help.
What is also important is whether there have been cases where there was an accident because of backdriven/linked controls that would have been prevented by the current Airbus approach. Now that would really be a case for the Airbus way.

Even with all the control feedback/backdriving, two pilots still managed to plant a 777 into the KSFO sea wall. So regardless of whether you have feedback in the controls or not, you still need to pay attention to the instrumentation for proper situational awareness.

novarupta wrote:

sharles wrote:

zeke wrote:

If that were the case safety investigators and regulators would be able to measure that and quantify that as a safety benefit, there is a lack of facts or evidence to support that statement. If it was actually true, you would see it in every Boeing marketing slide saying they are safer because they have "backdriven controls" just like we have seen in the auto industry use safety features with measurable benefits such as airbags, ABS, crash protection zones etc of ways to sell more vehicles to the market because safety is something people are willing to pay more for.

The issue is:
yes, in the ideal world, pilots would always read the instruments and there would be no benefit from backdriven controls
however
since people are not perfect, might there be cases where with backdriven and linked controls, there would be a safety gain considering imperfect pilots?

On the other hand, since there is no feedback in the Airbus approach, pilots are FORCED to look at instruments. That may actually be a safety gain, because it creates the instinct to look at instruments instead of using ones senses.

And therefore the question is, which of the tradeoffs is more important... my point being, there is an advantage to the Boeing way, but it may not be important enough or it may bring disadvantages with it.

Also, I think that accidents where "backdriving did not help" are not that important. Yes, they point out that even when backdriven controls could help, they might not.
What is more important is whether there where almost-accidents where backdriven&linked yokes did help.
What is also important is whether there have been cases where there was an accident because of backdriven/linked controls that would have been prevented by the current Airbus approach. Now that would really be a case for the Airbus way.

Even with all the control feedback/backdriving, two pilots still managed to plant a 777 into the KSFO sea wall. So regardless of whether you have feedback in the controls or not, you still need to pay attention to the instrumentation for proper situational awareness.

+1 - well said.

novarupta wrote:

sharles wrote:

zeke wrote:

If that were the case safety investigators and regulators would be able to measure that and quantify that as a safety benefit, there is a lack of facts or evidence to support that statement. If it was actually true, you would see it in every Boeing marketing slide saying they are safer because they have "backdriven controls" just like we have seen in the auto industry use safety features with measurable benefits such as airbags, ABS, crash protection zones etc of ways to sell more vehicles to the market because safety is something people are willing to pay more for.

The issue is:
yes, in the ideal world, pilots would always read the instruments and there would be no benefit from backdriven controls
however
since people are not perfect, might there be cases where with backdriven and linked controls, there would be a safety gain considering imperfect pilots?

On the other hand, since there is no feedback in the Airbus approach, pilots are FORCED to look at instruments. That may actually be a safety gain, because it creates the instinct to look at instruments instead of using ones senses.

And therefore the question is, which of the tradeoffs is more important... my point being, there is an advantage to the Boeing way, but it may not be important enough or it may bring disadvantages with it.

Also, I think that accidents where "backdriving did not help" are not that important. Yes, they point out that even when backdriven controls could help, they might not.
What is more important is whether there where almost-accidents where backdriven&linked yokes did help.
What is also important is whether there have been cases where there was an accident because of backdriven/linked controls that would have been prevented by the current Airbus approach. Now that would really be a case for the Airbus way.

Even with all the control feedback/backdriving, two pilots still managed to plant a 777 into the KSFO sea wall. So regardless of whether you have feedback in the controls or not, you still need to pay attention to the instrumentation for proper situational awareness.

Now I'm a liar? Also rated in the GV (550/450) and waiting for a slot for the 8X to open in LFPB next month. The only 8X sim up and running at this hour. Prefer the G550 to the 7X and before you get all excited, yes I know Gulfstream is switching to the SS. When you have as little room as these cockpits have it is a benefit.

Even with all the control feedback/backdriving, two pilots still managed to plant a 777 into the KSFO sea wall. So regardless of whether you have feedback in the controls or not, you still need to pay attention to the instrumentation for proper situational awareness

Well at least you got one thing right!

BravoOne wrote:

novarupta wrote:

sharles wrote:

The issue is:
yes, in the ideal world, pilots would always read the instruments and there would be no benefit from backdriven controls
however
since people are not perfect, might there be cases where with backdriven and linked controls, there would be a safety gain considering imperfect pilots?

On the other hand, since there is no feedback in the Airbus approach, pilots are FORCED to look at instruments. That may actually be a safety gain, because it creates the instinct to look at instruments instead of using ones senses.

And therefore the question is, which of the tradeoffs is more important... my point being, there is an advantage to the Boeing way, but it may not be important enough or it may bring disadvantages with it.

Also, I think that accidents where "backdriving did not help" are not that important. Yes, they point out that even when backdriven controls could help, they might not.
What is more important is whether there where almost-accidents where backdriven&linked yokes did help.
What is also important is whether there have been cases where there was an accident because of backdriven/linked controls that would have been prevented by the current Airbus approach. Now that would really be a case for the Airbus way.

Even with all the control feedback/backdriving, two pilots still managed to plant a 777 into the KSFO sea wall. So regardless of whether you have feedback in the controls or not, you still need to pay attention to the instrumentation for proper situational awareness.

Now I'm a liar? Also rated in the GV (550/450) and waiting for a slot for the 8X to open in LFPB next month. The only 8X sim up and running at this hour. Prefer the G550 to the 7X and before you get all excited, yes I know Gulfstream is switching to the SS. When you have as little room as these cockpits have it is a benefit.

You should read carefully what you posted again...very carefully...as part of your TR course in the 7X would include a bit of background regarding use of the sidestick...furthermore the FA7X and 8X only needs a very short (~2-3 day) differences course to be able to fly both types concurrently - basic TR is the same between the two IIRC (like the A330/340/350). Gulfstream isn't "switching" to sidesticks, they already have for all their new models, they're just not changing the layout for the older models in production (yet?).

Also, the XB-70 and X-15 are North American...not Boeing (no point in listing company pre-merger air or spacecraft).

BravoOne wrote:

Now I'm a liar? Also rated in the GV (550/450) and waiting for a slot for the 8X to open in LFPB next month. The only 8X sim up and running at this hour. Prefer the G550 to the 7X and before you get all excited, yes I know Gulfstream is switching to the SS. When you have as little room as these cockpits have it is a benefit.

Liar? Probably not.

Outlier? Certainly!

I can't personally speak of the newer Gulfstreams but from the ramblings of friends on the corporate side, the Falcons still outclass the G650 with regards to handling and cockpit ergonomics.

I never found the Airbus FBW an issue in x-winds. Our SOPs, both at my current and previous employer, recommend a F3 landing config which gives much better roll response - same for the 777/787 too with F25. You just have to be wary of various nuances such as the flight/ground modes on the Airbus and the related transitions.

Lastly, I was trained to fly the A320 by Boeing. The training was crap though. Funnily enough, I still have the Boeing Alteon flight manuals in their binders on the bookshelf in front of me.

Chaostheory wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

Now I'm a liar? Also rated in the GV (550/450) and waiting for a slot for the 8X to open in LFPB next month. The only 8X sim up and running at this hour. Prefer the G550 to the 7X and before you get all excited, yes I know Gulfstream is switching to the SS. When you have as little room as these cockpits have it is a benefit.

Liar? Probably not.

Outlier? Certainly!

I can't personally speak of the newer Gulfstreams but from the ramblings of friends on the corporate side, the Falcons still outclass the G650 with regards to handling and cockpit ergonomics.

I never found the Airbus FBW an issue in x-winds. Our SOPs, both at my current and previous employer, recommend a F3 landing config which gives much better roll response - same for the 777/787 too with F25. You just have to be wary of various nuances such as the flight/ground modes on the Airbus and the related transitions.

Lastly, I was trained to fly the A320 by Boeing. The training was crap though. Funnily enough, I still have the Boeing Alteon flight manuals in their binders on the bookshelf in front of me.

Actually its a 3 day 7X rec and another 2 days for the 8X HUD. One day of GS+ another sim. Are you happy now???? Have not heard many good things about the 650 other than it's fast and goes along ways. A lot of 650's here in the NW.

Chaostheory wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

Now I'm a liar? Also rated in the GV (550/450) and waiting for a slot for the 8X to open in LFPB next month. The only 8X sim up and running at this hour. Prefer the G550 to the 7X and before you get all excited, yes I know Gulfstream is switching to the SS. When you have as little room as these cockpits have it is a benefit.

Liar? Probably not.

Outlier? Certainly!

I can't personally speak of the newer Gulfstreams but from the ramblings of friends on the corporate side, the Falcons still outclass the G650 with regards to handling and cockpit ergonomics.

I never found the Airbus FBW an issue in x-winds. Our SOPs, both at my current and previous employer, recommend a F3 landing config which gives much better roll response - same for the 777/787 too with F25. You just have to be wary of various nuances such as the flight/ground modes on the Airbus and the related transitions.

Lastly, I was trained to fly the A320 by Boeing. The training was crap though. Funnily enough, I still have the Boeing Alteon flight manuals in their binders on the bookshelf in front of me.

See my previous post regarding what is required for 8X training. As for the XB70 and X15 I guess you missed the news when Boeing bought NA. Boeing did not build the SST as they were busy building the 1st 747's. Guess which worked out best? The Concorde was an exciting airplane and those involved with it should be proud but never a successful program by any stretch. You have to make money to stay n this game and like the787, the Concorde is/was a failure. Thanks for your flying tips as I need all the help I can get at this age.

AirPacific747 wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

Yes I would say Boeing is slightly ahead of AB in the filed of aircraft and aerospace manufacturing. Don't get me wrong AB is a great company that build terrific airplanes many of which I enjoy riding in. Did you know that Boeing even does fight training in the AB for customers that have Boeings and desire Boeing to do the training regardless.

Did you fly both types? I know many ex Boeing pilots now flying Airbus who would never go back to Boeing, particularly the 737. By the way, Boeing is NOT "ahead" of Airbus. Airbus was first with many new inventions, such as first twin engine wide body, first passenger jet with fly by wire and envelope protections, lights out philosophy, ground speed mini, load alleviation function, runway overrun protection, advanced ecam, brake-to-vacate, and so on and on.
Don't forget that the Concorde was designed by what was to become Airbus later on in time. Boeing has never built a supersonic passenger jet.

Ahhh the good old A vs B pissing contest, never gets old

BravoOne wrote:

Chaostheory wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

Now I'm a liar? Also rated in the GV (550/450) and waiting for a slot for the 8X to open in LFPB next month. The only 8X sim up and running at this hour. Prefer the G550 to the 7X and before you get all excited, yes I know Gulfstream is switching to the SS. When you have as little room as these cockpits have it is a benefit.

Liar? Probably not.

Outlier? Certainly!

I can't personally speak of the newer Gulfstreams but from the ramblings of friends on the corporate side, the Falcons still outclass the G650 with regards to handling and cockpit ergonomics.

I never found the Airbus FBW an issue in x-winds. Our SOPs, both at my current and previous employer, recommend a F3 landing config which gives much better roll response - same for the 777/787 too with F25. You just have to be wary of various nuances such as the flight/ground modes on the Airbus and the related transitions.

Lastly, I was trained to fly the A320 by Boeing. The training was crap though. Funnily enough, I still have the Boeing Alteon flight manuals in their binders on the bookshelf in front of me.

See my previous post regarding what is required for 8X training. As for the XB70 and X15 I guess you missed the news when Boeing bought NA. Boeing did not build the SST as they were busy building the 1st 747's. Guess which worked out best? The Concorde was an exciting airplane and those involved with it should be proud but never a successful program by any stretch. You have to make money to stay n this game and like the787, the Concorde is/was a failure. Thanks for your flying tips as I need all the help I can get at this age.

How does the future of the Boeing yoke equate to making money?

Concorde did have a yoke, but it also adopted the side stick controls for WTSB. Either system works adequately well.

As for someone above saying that Boeing does "fight training" - that much we can see by the robust defense of Boeing by some on here whenever their favourite brand is up for discussion.

BravoOne wrote:

See my previous post regarding what is required for 8X training. As for the XB70 and X15 I guess you missed the news when Boeing bought NA. Boeing did not build the SST as they were busy building the 1st 747's. Guess which worked out best? The Concorde was an exciting airplane and those involved with it should be proud but never a successful program by any stretch. You have to make money to stay n this game and like the787, the Concorde is/was a failure. Thanks for your flying tips as I need all the help I can get at this age.

You're quoting the wrong dude. I haven't mentioned Concorde or the x model whatever anywhere in my posts. Novarupta is the guy/gal to aim for.

Having flown B727-200, B747-400, A319, A330 (200 & 300) & A340 (200, 300 & 600) I can honestly say that there is little advantage to the yoke philosophy. Once you UNDERSTAND the FBW logic of the type you fly, should easily be able to deal with any flight control event that comes your way. Having said that, I would quite happily fly a yoke again should my company require me to do so. As a professional pilot, it's my job to be proficient on whatever aircraft I'm required to fly.