Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Wayfarer515
Topic Author
Posts: 810
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:56 pm

MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Thu Apr 23, 2015 2:51 pm

MS-21 is set to become the first airliner of its size to get active sidestick control. This means both pilots will be able to know exactly what the other's inputs are, and prevent unfortunate situations such as AF447.

(Please use Google Translate)

http://www.ato.ru/content/ms-21-stan...nymi-bokovymi-ruchkami-upravleniya


So finally someone seems to settle the score between A and B. Kudos to the MS-21, can't wait for its rollout by the end of the year.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Thu Apr 23, 2015 9:25 pm

I like that idea. AF447 shows that knowing what the other pilot is doing isn't intuitive. Neither pilot knew what inputs the other pilot was making, even though they were both manipulating the sticks.

It is instinctive to know exactly what inputs are occurring by feeling what the stick is doing. That's much more intuitive than having to analyse data...and faster.
What the...?
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7547
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Thu Apr 23, 2015 11:39 pm

Great news!!!

Does that mean one pilot can overpower the other one in an unfortunate event or is it just yp help maintain situational awareness?
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
Wayfarer515
Topic Author
Posts: 810
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:56 pm

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Fri Apr 24, 2015 7:09 am

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 2):
Great news!!!

Does that mean one pilot can overpower the other one in an unfortunate event or is it just yp help maintain situational awareness?

According to the article, it seems it will be oriented to keep situational awareness, rather than overpower one pilot over another.
 
travelavnut
Posts: 1327
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 1:35 pm

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Fri Apr 24, 2015 8:04 am

Quoting Wayfarer515 (Thread starter):
and prevent unfortunate situations such as AF447.

This beaten horse again. How did connected yokes help the pilots in the Colgan crash again?
Live From Amsterdam!
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5106
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Fri Apr 24, 2015 8:07 am

Too Bad it's not going to be faa Certified. Could have been a good competitor airplane...
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Fri Apr 24, 2015 8:53 am

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 4):

There is no magic bullet that will solve every issue. Besides, linked controls was the least of the issues with Colgan.

If a relatively simple mod can make things somewhat safer, it might be a good idea to use it.
What the...?
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Fri Apr 24, 2015 8:57 am

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 5):
Too Bad it's not going to be faa Certified. Could have been a good competitor airplane...

Is there any possibility it will be? Is it JAA certified?

If it is not FAA certified, does that mean than it cannot operate in US, or just that american carriers can't buy it?

Anway glad to see a newcomer in this segment, A320 and B737 are great planes, but old, newer models have just new engines.
 
travelavnut
Posts: 1327
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 1:35 pm

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Fri Apr 24, 2015 9:17 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 6):
Besides, linked controls was the least of the issues with Colgan.

The same with AF447.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 6):
If a relatively simple mod can make things somewhat safer, it might be a good idea to use it.

Oh I agree, I was responding to the OP´s assertion that AF447 could have been prevented with linked controls.
Live From Amsterdam!
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Fri Apr 24, 2015 10:13 am

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 8):
The same with AF447.

   Of course, it depends whether we believe the comprehensive accident report or the internet version - a few sentences taken out of context, a couple of "facts" that aren't supported by the report and complete dismissal of the other 98% of that report.  
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 6):
There is no magic bullet that will solve every issue

Exactly.
 
AIRWALK
Posts: 241
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 9:33 am

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Fri Apr 24, 2015 2:48 pm

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 8):
The same with AF447

  

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 8):
Oh I agree, I was responding to the OP´s assertion that AF447 could have been prevented with linked controls.

The ever present anet myth, along with the pilot holding the stick fully aft the entire time.
I'm sure this thread will take off soon
 
Wayfarer515
Topic Author
Posts: 810
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:56 pm

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Sat Apr 25, 2015 6:03 am

Meh, it will reduce the risk of stupidity taking over inside the cockpit, whether it is intended or not.

Chill out with the AF447 tinfoils, anyone can screw up, and screw up they did.
 
Part147
Posts: 386
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 3:13 pm

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Sat Apr 25, 2015 6:43 am

Says the OP whilst mentioning AF447, again... I think this thread had a selection of tinfoils hats all ready for distribution right from the OP's very first post  
It's better to ask a stupid question during training, rather than make a REALLY stupid mistake later on!
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Sat Apr 25, 2015 6:50 am

Quoting AIRWALK (Reply 10):
The ever present anet myth, along with the pilot holding the stick fully aft the entire time.

That doesn't take away from the fact that, for a time at least, neither pilot knew what inputs the other was making, and at times they were making different inputs. At one point, the pilot in the left seat was trying to lower the nose by pushing forward on his stick while the pilot in the right seat was raising the nose by pulling back on the stick.

With linked controls, one pilot would know instantly and intuitively what the other pilot was doing, though not necessarily what he was thinking.

Whether or not linking the controls would have made a difference is impossible to know.
What the...?
 
MD88CLE
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:16 am

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Sat Apr 25, 2015 7:14 am

Back on the topic of the active sidesticks, there are (at least in theory) many advantages as far as tactile (and visual) information available to the pilot with this, not just as far as what the copilot is doing but with regards to the forces on the control surfaces, what the autopilot is doing, etc.

I just wonder how different the experience is from a passive sidestick or traditional control column. Hopefully the human factor issues don't present a problem and the additional tactile information proves useful more often that not.
 
sharles
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:29 pm

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Sat Apr 25, 2015 7:48 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 13):
With linked controls, one pilot would know instantly and intuitively what the other pilot was doing, though not necessarily what he was thinking.

So some pilots may learn to feel the sidesticks instead of watching their instruments and miss that flight controls are not actually responding the way the pilot expects.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5106
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Sat Apr 25, 2015 8:03 am

Quoting cobra27 (Reply 7):

Is there any possibility it will be? Is it JAA certified?

If it is not FAA certified, does that mean than it cannot operate in US, or just that american carriers can't buy it?

Anway glad to see a newcomer in this segment, A320 and B737 are great planes, but old, newer models have just new engines.

At present there are no plans to FAA certify the airplane though it has sought EASA certification, Honeywell and substrand build
Major systems for the airplane and right now cannot repair and certify the parts in the USA and might have to open shops in ?Europe to complete and certify the components. (I'm almost CERTAIN this is all political and utterly worthless. But?? it is what it is.)
 
Max Q
Posts: 8716
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Sat Apr 25, 2015 8:19 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 13):
With linked controls, one pilot would know instantly and intuitively what the other pilot was doing, though not necessarily what he was thinking.

Couldn't agree more, this is a big step forward and a big advantage over the Airbus 'non feedback' design.


Gulfstream has gone the same way.


Fully active linked sidesticks with force feedback and backdriven autothrottles are the way forward, it's such an advance
I could even see Boeing considering it.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Sat Apr 25, 2015 9:44 am

Quoting sharles (Reply 15):
So some pilots may learn to feel the sidesticks instead of watching their instruments and miss that flight controls are not actually responding the way the pilot expects.

It wouldn't change the way a pilot flies an aircraft in the least because there would be no difference in how the controls worked or felt. It won't necessarily feedback differently than the current sidestick setup. All it would do is move the other guy's controls to match the one being used to fly the aircraft...that's it.

The result would be an instant tactile and visual realization of what inputs the pilot flying is using. It could be a handy bit of information if the pilots haven't exactly been clear about who actually is the pilot flying. Sometimes pilots forget or are too busy to think to say, "I have control".

It won't be a magic bullet for safety...it's just one more tool that may help in some situations. If, for some reason, they had to, I'm sure a way to unlink the controls could be installed.

[Edited 2015-04-25 03:04:48]

[Edited 2015-04-25 03:05:59]
What the...?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15775
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Sat Apr 25, 2015 9:56 am

No reason why the MS21 could not get EASA and FAA certification down the track. At the moment what they are doing is prudent considering the current customer base.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
Wayfarer515
Topic Author
Posts: 810
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:56 pm

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Sun Apr 26, 2015 3:48 am

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 16):
At present there are no plans to FAA certify the airplane though it has sought EASA certification, Honeywell and substrand build
Major systems for the airplane and right now cannot repair and certify the parts in the USA and might have to open shops in ?Europe to complete and certify the components. (I'm almost CERTAIN this is all political and utterly worthless. But?? it is what it is.)
Quoting zeke (Reply 19):
No reason why the MS21 could not get EASA and FAA certification down the track. At the moment what they are doing is prudent considering the current customer base.

Hence why the SSJ100 was a major stepping stone before the advent of the MS-21, right now the SSJ100 is going exactly through these hassles, so the MS-21 probably won't. I read recently in AEX.RU there would be a way to circumvent the repairs of US components without them being FAA certified, can't remember exactly how they'd do it but it is already in process.

As for the FAA certification, it would just take a US customer to make it worthwhile, maybe in the near future we will have SSJ-NG's and MS-21's flying through the American skies. I'd imagine airlines like Spirit getting great deals from UAC just to crack open into that market.
 
User avatar
thekorean
Posts: 1798
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:05 pm

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Sun Apr 26, 2015 4:40 am

Quoting Wayfarer515 (Reply 20):

At this stage I would say US carriers buying Russian jets would bring too much heat, right or wrong.

Not the publicity they want even with a steep discount.
 
brindabella
Posts: 711
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Sun Apr 26, 2015 12:32 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 18):
It won't be a magic bullet for safety...it's just one more tool that may help in some situations. If, for some reason, they had to, I'm sure a way to unlink the controls could be installed.

I rush to say ... very very rarely ... but a few times I have had to say "I have control".

To my extreme surprise, on a couple of occasions, I have looked across to see that the other pilot is continuing to manipulate the controls (EG has not released the sidestick).

And even more rarely, is clearly resentful at being overriden.

Clearly a situation with extreme risks to flight safety, as the only way that I was aware of what was going-on was that I physically looked-across the cockpit.

I love the Airbus automation.

But at times the development shows.

It was done by software guys; they were in charge.

cheers Bill.
Billy
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Sun Apr 26, 2015 12:59 pm

Quoting brindabella (Reply 22):
Clearly a situation with extreme risks to flight safety, as the only way that I was aware of what was going-on was that I physically looked-across the cockpit.

Haven't you forgotten that there is a *Dual Input* voice message in t-hat case ?
haven't you forgotten that taking over, as per Airbus SOPs, is both anoouncing " I have control", to which the FO should respond by :"You have control" and pressing on your priority button, with the *Priority Left* message and the green arrow ?


BTW, *active sidesticks* is quite a bit of a misnomer : they move the flight control surfaces, hence they are "active" all the time.

[Edited 2015-04-26 06:04:53]
Contrail designer
 
PGNCS
Posts: 2265
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:07 am

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Sun Apr 26, 2015 4:24 pm

Quoting Wayfarer515 (Thread starter):
This means both pilots will be able to know exactly what the other's inputs are, and prevent unfortunate situations such as AF447.

I have no issue with sidesticks incorporating feedback, though I am perfectly happy with the current Airbus FBW, but there is no basis for your conclusion that this would prevent AF447 or similar. It did nothing for Asiana 214, and there are FAR more loss of control accidents in the history books involving yoke-equipped aircraft than Airbus FBW aircraft. Of course more yoke-equipped aircraft have been built, but the point is that yokes and active feedback don't solve accidents related to crew errors, a category most accidents fall into.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 1):
It is instinctive to know exactly what inputs are occurring by feeling what the stick is doing. That's much more intuitive than having to analyse data...and faster.

Your opinion. I've flown airliners from Boeing, Airbus, McD, and Lockheed and find the Airbus FBW to have more pros than cons in relation to any of them (except some features of the L-1011.) It made no difference for Asiana in SFO and in myriads of other accidents.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 4):
Quoting Wayfarer515 (Thread starter):and prevent unfortunate situations such as AF447.
This beaten horse again. How did connected yokes help the pilots in the Colgan crash again?

Thank you. Correct. Oh that's right, crew errors can happen in any airliner, especially one in which dynamic events are occurring very rapidly.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 13):
That doesn't take away from the fact that, for a time at least, neither pilot knew what inputs the other was making, and at times they were making different inputs. At one point, the pilot in the left seat was trying to lower the nose by pushing forward on his stick while the pilot in the right seat was raising the nose by pulling back on the stick.

With linked controls, one pilot would know instantly and intuitively what the other pilot was doing, though not necessarily what he was thinking.

Then why didn't the crew of the Asiana aircraft realize their decaying speed situation given the huge yoke back in their laps?

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 13):
Whether or not linking the controls would have made a difference is impossible to know.

It is indeed.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 18):
The result would be an instant tactile and visual realization of what inputs the pilot flying is using. It could be a handy bit of information if the pilots haven't exactly been clear about who actually is the pilot flying. Sometimes pilots forget or are too busy to think to say, "I have control".

I would buy your argument if no planes with yokes had ever crashed due to gross pilot manipulation errors.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 18):
It won't be a magic bullet for safety...it's just one more tool that may help in some situations. If, for some reason, they had to, I'm sure a way to unlink the controls could be installed.

So wait...it may help in some situations, but then you are willing to casually make the design tradeoff to add complexity with a disconnect or override system that can induce a whole slew of new failure modes and unintended consequences?

Quoting Pihero (Reply 23):
Quoting brindabella (Reply 22):Clearly a situation with extreme risks to flight safety, as the only way that I was aware of what was going-on was that I physically looked-across the cockpit.
Haven't you forgotten that there is a *Dual Input* voice message in t-hat case ?
haven't you forgotten that taking over, as per Airbus SOPs, is both anoouncing " I have control", to which the FO should respond by :"You have control" and pressing on your priority button, with the *Priority Left* message and the green arrow ?

Exactly my thought, Pihero, but many people who don't want to listen on this issue simply won't, even when people with a lot of experience in the machines are doing the talking. (Note: this is NOT in any way directed at a specific person, and I understand brindabella's comments though I don't agree with them all.) I really have no issues with any of the design concepts involved, though I personally prefer the Airbus system as the benefits have always outweighed the disadvantages in my years of experience on the plane. Every time I have left the Airbus I have missed the SSC and Airbus FBW philosophy, without exception. Since I think it's unlikely at this point that I will be accumulating any more L-1011 hours in my logbook, I expect that to remain a constant for the remainder of my career.

[Edited for clarity of thought.]

[Edited 2015-04-26 09:28:30]

[Edited 2015-04-26 09:29:21]
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15775
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Sun Apr 26, 2015 6:08 pm

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 24):

     

Control inputs are an indication of what may happen in the future, it does not tell you what is happening in the present. The trajectory of the aircraft is at all times a function of the environmental and of the control inputs, I use a single source of information for the combined effect of both of those on the aircraft, and it is not from the control inputs if I am PF or PM.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14009
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Sun Apr 26, 2015 10:20 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 13):
That doesn't take away from the fact that, for a time at least, neither pilot knew what inputs the other was making, and at times they were making different inputs. At one point, the pilot in the left seat was trying to lower the nose by pushing forward on his stick while the pilot in the right seat was raising the nose by pulling back on the stick.

With linked controls, one pilot would know instantly and intuitively what the other pilot was doing, though not necessarily what he was thinking.

Whether or not linking the controls would have made a difference is impossible to know.

But it's a CRM problem, not a design problem. Pilots aren't supposed to be both manipulating the controls at the same time, be they a stick, a yoke, the throttles or the rudder.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Sun Apr 26, 2015 11:12 pm

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 24):
Then why didn't the crew of the Asiana aircraft realize their decaying speed situation given the huge yoke back in their laps?

I never said it would work every time...but nothing does. The stickshaker didn't help Colgan, but it's still a safety feature and another level of complexity, etc. The same goes for myriad safety features on anything; AOA indicators, TCAS, seatbelts, evacuation lights, and basically every safety feature in existence can be overridden, missed or ignored, yet they still exist. Every part of an aircraft is made with a safety component, and not all of them are needed all of the time.

Besides, only one pilot was manipulating the controls of Asiana, so whether or not the controls were linked wasn't an issue. There was not a situation where both pilots were attempting to make different inputs.

It would only be of some use if both pilots are attempting to control the aircraft at the same time, each without knowing that the other was.

Besides, all we're doing is talking about it.

At least one Airbus pilot thought there might be some use in linked controls. You don't. C'est la vie.

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 24):
So wait...it may help in some situations, but then you are willing to casually make the design tradeoff to add complexity with a disconnect or override system that can induce a whole slew of new failure modes and unintended consequences?

Perhaps I'm reading you wrong, but you seem to be under the misconception that I'm trying to change your world without asking. All I did was express my ideas on the subject of the thread. I'm not "willing to casually tradeoff" anything...I'm expressing an opinion.

I never claimed it would be a panacea to cure all ills. I'm not making a spiteful attack on Airbus and/or their sidesticks and/or FBW, and/or the people who fly them. Really...I'm not. If I'm in a plane and it's not a 172, I'm sitting in the back and I don't know or care if it's controlled by yoke, sidestick or telekinesis. From my position in the cheap seats, I have never been able to notice the difference in the flying experience between an A320 and a737, or a 767 and an A330.

But regardless of whether or not it might ever make a difference in outcome, specifically with AF447, it is a fact that there were times where both pilots were simultaneously making independent and different inputs with their respective sticks so they obviously were unaware of the other pilot's inputs. It seems they didn't look at the other's stick, neither said, "I have control", either both ignored or didn't notice the DUAL INPUT message, and the priority left/right button wasn't pressed. None of the safety devices including lights and aural warnings were used, noticed or creating awareness of the other pilot's control manipulations.

Whether or not linked inputs would have increased the awareness of what the other pilot was doing is impossible to know, (as is, if that knowledge may have changing the outcome), but it would have been practically impossible to ignore what the other pilot was doing.

If you don't agree, that's fine...that's what discussions are all about.

Quoting zeke (Reply 25):
Control inputs are an indication of what may happen in the future, it does not tell you what is happening in the present.

Except for one thing; if the controls are linked, they are an instant indication in the present of what inputs the other pilot is making...and that's it. Linked controls do little or nothing to help with the awareness of what the aircraft is doing, all it does is tell you what the other pilot is doing.

Whether or not that information could ever be useful, is the point of conjecture.
What the...?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15775
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Mon Apr 27, 2015 1:27 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 27):

On approach a pilot may put in aileron input at the same time as a gust of wind, what is important ?

A) being able to physically see the gust of wind
B) being able to physically feel the gust of wind
C) being able to physically see the control input
D) being able to physically feel the control input
E) what the aircraft is doing

Only one item is important in my book.

Pilots of all types do not rely on the human touch, feel, balance, smell, I.e. human physical sensors for aircraft performance, the human body is not built for that. Every pilot from early in their training is taught to trust their instrument scanning over what their body is telling them.

By using human sensors, in unusual circumstances may lead to a false confirmation, it might not also. Problem with false confirmations, is that once a pilot has developed a mindset (and they do that thousands of times a day) it takes at times a fair bit of convincing they have it wrong. This maybe as simple as two pilots not agreeing on ATC instruction, setting the wrong altitude in the window, or even reading the correct number back and writing them down, and then setting the wrong transponder code. Invariably one of the pilots is going to say to the other, they thought x/y/z, they already had a midset that they had it correct as they are correct most of the time.

I will give you another example, a simple flight control check prior to flight. If the control colums are linked, is there a need to actually confirm the movement of the control surfaces from both sets of control inputs, or does the movement of one of them alone guatentee both pilot controls inputs are moving the surfaces with full travel, normal speed, and in the correct sense ?

Is the aim of a control check to make sure the cockpit controls inputs are moving in the same direction at the same time, or if the control surfaces are moving to full deflection, in the correct sense to the control inputs ?

The issue is that pilots encounter unusual situations so few times in their career, that their past performace does not predict the future outcome. Mathematicians call this the random walk theory.

What we are talking about here is design philosophy, as with all such discussions, it comes down to a choice, what you choose to believe. Some people given a very low stress evrironment, with no time pressure have developded beliefs which are contrary to scientific evidence, it is being suggested that pilots in stressful time critical situations will develop better midsets based upon human sensors, which is contrary to what we are taught to do. Physics, mathematics and the sciences often clash with people's beliefs in choice of philosophy.

The aim of this post is to demonstrate I have now challenged your mindset, your philosophy. As you will invariably think you are correct most of the time, what "justifications" is your mindset going to develop in response to being challenged to maintain its prior mindset ?

This is zero g, zero airspeed, non time critical, and even now your mind will play tricks on you.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
PGNCS
Posts: 2265
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:07 am

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Mon Apr 27, 2015 1:37 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 27):
Except for one thing; if the controls are linked, they are an instant indication in the present of what inputs the other pilot is making...and that's it. Linked controls do little or nothing to help with the awareness of what the aircraft is doing, all it does is tell you what the other pilot is doing.

So on one hand you say the control positions provide an "instant indication in the present of what inputs the other pilot is making" but then you say this:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 27):
Besides, only one pilot was manipulating the controls of Asiana, so whether or not the controls were linked wasn't an issue. There was not a situation where both pilots were attempting to make different inputs. It would only be of some use if both pilots are attempting to control the aircraft at the same time, each without knowing that the other was.

So what? If you are looking at control position as an "instant indication" it doesn't matter that there weren't dual inputs on the SFO 777, the yoke is huge and predominant, yet it was totally missed by the other pilots on the flight deck. If you argument is that both pilots need to physically have their hands on the controls at the same time to detect inputs (which is what I'm getting from your above quote) we never fly like this way; like Aesma points out, one guy flys at a time, period (I will exclude some instructional flight, which hasn't been a consideration in any of the discussed accidents.)

Quoting Aesma (Reply 26):
But it's a CRM problem, not a design problem. Pilots aren't supposed to be both manipulating the controls at the same time, be they a stick, a yoke, the throttles or the rudder.

Absolutely correct. This was a basic training and airmanship accident, just like Asiana was.

Quoting zeke (Reply 25):
Control inputs are an indication of what may happen in the future, it does not tell you what is happening in the present. The trajectory of the aircraft is at all times a function of the environmental and of the control inputs, I use a single source of information for the combined effect of both of those on the aircraft, and it is not from the control inputs if I am PF or PM.

Thank you zeke; correct and true in any type.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 27):
I never said it would work every time...but nothing does. The stickshaker didn't help Colgan, but it's still a safety feature and another level of complexity, etc. The same goes for myriad safety features on anything; AOA indicators, TCAS, seatbelts, evacuation lights, and basically every safety feature in existence can be overridden, missed or ignored, yet they still exist. Every part of an aircraft is made with a safety component, and not all of them are needed all of the time.

Yes, and? The point is that your proposed solution makes for a far more complex solution and there is no evidence it would in any way materially improve safety and could have the opposite effect. If you want to call it an opinion, that's fine.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 27):
None of the safety devices including lights and aural warnings were used, noticed or creating awareness of the other pilot's control manipulations.

Just like they didn't prevent the SFO accident on the 777, and I will make the point again that the yoke on that aircraft is VERY prominent and its position is very apparent, but just like in other aircraft accidents in yoke-equipped aircraft, the PM totally didn't notice it. Having a sidestick with feedback doesn't help if the PM isn't paying attention to it. If you aren't going to pay attention to a huge, intrusive, space-hogging yoke, you won't be paying attention to an SSC.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 27):
Whether or not linked inputs would have increased the awareness of what the other pilot was doing is impossible to know, (as is, if that knowledge may have changing the outcome), but it would have been practically impossible to ignore what the other pilot was doing.

I agree, there is no way to know as you can't prove a negative so there is no way to determine if linked controls would have raised the SA on the flight deck of AF447, just like it's impossible to predict what the results of the SFO accident would have been with the Airbus FBW protections/modes available (the A/T and FLCH interactions ARE a noteworthy issue in Boeing aircraft.) The key point is that your assertion that "it would have been practically impossible to ignore what the other pilot was doing" is demonstrably false given the huge number of loss of control accidents over the decades in yoke-equipped aircraft. The truth is that it's NOT "practically impossible to ignore what the other pilot [is] doing" in a fast-developing confusing emergency like happened to Air France, Colgan, Asiana, or scores of other accidents over the years, and that's why experience, professionalism, training, and CRM count and are the biggest influencer of results regardless of what type aircraft is being flown.
 
Wayfarer515
Topic Author
Posts: 810
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:56 pm

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Mon Apr 27, 2015 3:50 am

As mentioned by others, and without any of the A vrs B rubbish we are used to see in here, the crux of the matter is if this will be an additional safety net in what sometimes can be a stressful environment, and the answer is yes.

Heck, even Sukhoi has different control laws to those of Airbus even though Thales is also its avionics provider. I guess that after more than 20 years of watching the Airbus control laws in action, and sometimes even see them fail, it is time to reconsider some aspects that can be improved. For example, Sukhoi developed quite a fast way to get their SSJ100 into direct law, though it also has similar alpha protection to that of Airbus, but the SSJ100 lets the pilot fly in direct law with the touch of a single button. Nothing is ever developed perfectly at once, and some other aircraft manufacturers are beginning to drift away from the A and B way of doing things and somehow bringing some convergence, and I think that is a good thing in the end. Dogmas are never a good thing, specially in the aviation industry.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15775
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Mon Apr 27, 2015 4:58 am

Quoting Wayfarer515 (Reply 30):
the crux of the matter is if this will be an additional safety net in what sometimes can be a stressful environment, and the answer is yes.

No evidence of that at all, its a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one.

Quoting Wayfarer515 (Reply 30):
Thales is also its avionics provider. I guess that after more than 20 years of watching the Airbus control laws in action, and sometimes even see them fail, it is time to reconsider some aspects that can be improved.

"laws" is an engineering term used in any control system, be it mechanical or electronic. A simple control law would be for example a microwave oven, open door, insert item, close door, set time, press start, when start is pressed, start the control law, feedback, monitor, at time is complete/or failure stop, make beep. There is a microprocessor in the microwave controlling the timing, type of heating, lights, fan, rotary, monitoring etc. Lots of different manufacturers on the market, many different control laws, it does not really change the outcome, cooking and reheat. Consumer choice I have never seen been based upon the control laws. Price, features, size, color for sure.

Many lay people associate the word law to their common usage, ie a legal one. Every aircraft design has different flight control laws as they different control surfaces and different geometry. The way the control systems are designed these days are the same, it is a mathematical model usually designed with something like MATRIXx or Matlab. Code is generated by those applications, and loaded onto embedded industrial computers we call flight control computers.

I am much more confident with a control system with a long history, than a new one. It takes a long time to get things sorted out. Mathematical models used in the design process make assumptions that only come to light with in service experience in the non-linear real world environment..

The role of Thales in the process is to build and supply the flight control computer, the actual control system software, and interface specification is done by the airframe manufacturer.

Quoting Wayfarer515 (Reply 30):
rol laws in action, and sometimes even see them fail, it is time to reconsider some aspects that can be improved. For example, Sukhoi developed quite a fast way to get their SSJ100 into direct law, though it also has similar alpha protection to that of Airbus, but the SSJ100 lets the pilot fly in direct law with the touch of a single button.

It is two push buttons on the Airbus, so the amazing advance you see is going from two push buttons to one ?
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
b747400erf
Posts: 3177
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:33 am

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:06 am

Quoting Part147 (Reply 12):


Says the OP whilst mentioning AF447, again... I think this thread had a selection of tinfoils hats all ready for distribution right from the OP's very first post

The OP posts anti US and pro Russia rhetoric Now he is repeating a myth and trying to add anti western comments. It is the only tactic the mind of an infowars and rt.com kid understands.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7299
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:27 am

Quoting Wayfarer515 (Thread starter):
This means both pilots will be able to know exactly what the other's inputs are, and prevent unfortunate situations such as AF447

Best way can think of to turn this into a thread about AF447 rather than a thread about the MS21 (which deserves far more coverage than it gets on here)

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 1):
AF447 shows that knowing what the other pilot is doing isn't intuitive. Neither pilot knew what inputs the other pilot was making

The issue with AF447 is that neither pilot knew what the aircraft was doing. Linked sidesticks would make zero difference to that

Quoting Wayfarer515 (Reply 30):
As mentioned by others, and without any of the A vrs B rubbish we are used to see in here

So which idiot introduced A vs B into the thread?

Quoting Wayfarer515 (Thread starter):
So finally someone seems to settle the score between A and B.

Reply 0 .................

Quoting Aesma (Reply 26):
But it's a CRM problem, not a design problem. Pilots aren't supposed to be both manipulating the controls at the same time, be they a stick, a yoke, the throttles or the rudder.

   Bottom line

Rgds
 
NAV30
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:16 am

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Mon Apr 27, 2015 6:21 am

Reading around the subject, I found an account that suggested that if one of the sticks is pushed forward on an Airbus, the elevators move to a 'down' position, as you'd expect. But that they then REMAIN there when the stick is released - unlike conventional controls, which would 'centre' the elevators once the stick is released. Is this correct - that in an Airbus the nose down 'instruction' remains in force until the stick is used a second time to 'centre things up'?
 
Wayfarer515
Topic Author
Posts: 810
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:56 pm

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Mon Apr 27, 2015 6:24 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 31):
It is two push buttons on the Airbus, so the amazing advance you see is going from two push buttons to one ?

Do you mean the procedure of turning off two ADR units? AFAIK only the A400M is currently the only Airbus aircraft with a push button for getting direct law.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 33):
So which idiot introduced A vs B into the thread?

I am not that idiot, I only mentioned the AF447 as an example where the active sidestick could have mad a difference, nothing related to A vrs. B.

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 32):
The OP posts anti US and pro Russia rhetoric Now he is repeating a myth and trying to add anti western comments. It is the only tactic the mind of an infowars and rt.com kid understands.

You forgot to mention sputniknews.com,aljazeera, and zerohedge.com you dork. Maybe it was Putin who made the decision of the MS-21 having active sidesticks (provided by a US manufacturer btw) in order to screw up A and B, what an evil mastermind he must be, that bad bad Putin, bad.
 
Max Q
Posts: 8716
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Mon Apr 27, 2015 8:27 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 28):
Pilots of all types do not rely on the human touch, feel, balance, smell, I.e. human physical sensors for aircraft performance, the human body is not built for that

Don't know about smell unless Airbus has introduced a new feature but I couldn't disagree more.


Pilots have relied on their touch, feel and balance since the Wright brothers, it is not and should not be the primary reference when flying jet transports, as you say that should be done by reference to instruments however the feedback provided in a conventional control yoke and moving autothrottles is extremely helpful for your overall awareness of the Aircraft state.


That's why Boeing, MD, Lockheed etc designed in 'artificial feel'


'A through D' are extremely important still and always will be.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Mon Apr 27, 2015 9:00 am

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 34):
I found an account that suggested that if one of the sticks is pushed forward on an Airbus, the elevators move to a 'down' position, as you'd expect. But that they then REMAIN there when the stick is released

No! When the stick is centred a 1g load is targeted. In effect, it's the attitude that remains as it is when the stick is centred.

You've been involved in quite a few discussions here on this topic over the years.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 33):
The issue with AF447 is that neither pilot knew what the aircraft was doing

   According to the report, each seemed to have a much better idea of what the other was doing than of why the aircraft was doing what it was doing, e.g. "you're going up", "you need to go down". The "dual-inputs" were relatively brief and, more importantly, shortly after the PNF started applying stick inputs the PF said something along the lines of "OK, you try it" and released his stick. It was a sloppy, uncooperative handover rather than sustained, inadvertent dual-input. It didn't help that there was already a bit of an "atmosphere" between them before the loss of airspeed indication. They didn't trust any of the instruments and they didn't trust each other.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Mon Apr 27, 2015 10:01 am

Quoting Aesma (Reply 26):
But it's a CRM problem, not a design problem. Pilots aren't supposed to be both manipulating the controls at the same time, be they a stick, a yoke, the throttles or the rudder.

I totally agree...proper CRM would have taken care of everything. I think CRM techniques getting pilots working together as a team has probably been the biggest breakthrough in aviation....ever.

Quoting zeke (Reply 28):
The aim of this post is to demonstrate I have now challenged your mindset, your philosophy. As you will invariably think you are correct most of the time, what "justifications" is your mindset going to develop in response to being challenged to maintain its prior mindset ?



I was merely asking questions and presenting ideas. I don't have a mindset about linked controls. This thread is about linked controls and I was adding my 2 cents. It's not a philosophy, and I don't need to be right. I personally don't care. I will never be in a position where I will ever have to deal with it. I have zero emotional stake either way.

I thought it was an interesting topic, worthy of discussing. That's it.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 33):
The issue with AF447 is that neither pilot knew what the aircraft was doing. Linked sidesticks would make zero difference to that


Of course it's a CRM issue...but even CRM can fail.

Hey...I give. It's a stupid idea...I take it all back. You win, I fold.

[Edited 2015-04-27 03:05:55]
What the...?
 
NAV30
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:16 am

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Mon Apr 27, 2015 12:57 pm

Quoting David L (Reply 37):
No! When the stick is centred a 1g load is targeted. In effect, it's the attitude that remains as it is when the stick is centred.

Thanks for the clarification, David L. But what are the implications of a '1g load'?

I've only flown sailplanes, singles, and the odd small twin. If properly trimmed, in any 'hands off' situation they pretty well reverted to level flight.

Are you saying that because this aeroplane was descending when the 'pilot flying' centred the stick, it remained in a descent instead of levelling off?

If so, that sounds pretty dangerous to me. And, quite possibly, if the pilots didn't 'twig,' a possible primary cause of the accident?
 
r2rho
Posts: 3096
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Mon Apr 27, 2015 1:07 pm

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 5):
Too Bad it's not going to be faa Certified. Could have been a good competitor airplane...

I would not make that assumption. I expect a similar approach to the SSJ. Russian certification, EASA to gain access to Western markets, and, if a US customer steps up, FAA.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 33):
Best way can think of to turn this into a thread about AF447 rather than a thread about the MS21 (which deserves far more coverage than it gets on here)

Agree, I was hoping to learn a bit more about MS21, we've had enough AF447 threads.
I still think it is an interesting feature that will make the MS21 at least gain some attention, even if it would not have prevented an AF447 type accident.
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Mon Apr 27, 2015 1:26 pm

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 39):
Are you saying that because this aeroplane was descending when the 'pilot flying' centred the stick, it remained in a descent instead of levelling off?

   Of course. How many civil aircraft will automatically level off from a climb or descent just because the controls are centred?

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 39):
that sounds pretty dangerous to me.

It seems to have worked reasonably well for over a century.  
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Mon Apr 27, 2015 1:35 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 18):
It wouldn't change the way a pilot flies an aircraft in the least because there would be no difference in how the controls worked or felt. It won't necessarily feedback differently than the current sidestick setup. All it would do is move the other guy's controls to match the one being used to fly the aircraft...that's it.

That's not correct. The sidesticks will deliver feedback depending on the stress on the airframe, on the maneuvers you try to make and so on. Very much like the yokes in fly-by-wire Boeing aircraft like the 777. It will feel like the sidesticks are actually directly connected to the control surfaces. At least that's their intention and I don't see any reason they wouldn't be able to achieve that.
 
wingman
Posts: 4044
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Mon Apr 27, 2015 2:29 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 38):
Of course it's a CRM issue...but even CRM can fail.

Hey...I give. It's a stupid idea...I take it all back. You win, I fold.

You learn at last young Canuck, there are zero problems with Airbus aircraft and as such, any attempt to discuss improvements in Airbus aircraft are to be scoffed at. You are a laughing matter.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14378
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Mon Apr 27, 2015 3:12 pm

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 39):
But what are the implications of a '1g load'?
Quoting David L (Reply 37):
In effect, it's the attitude that remains as it is when the stick is centred.

try reading the next sentence in the same post...

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:27 pm

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 39):
I've only flown sailplanes, singles, and the odd small twin. If properly trimmed, in any 'hands off' situation they pretty well reverted to level flight.

... therefore your trimming technique is dead wrong.
You trim for the phase of flight you are : if in descent, you'd trim the aircraft to keep descending / climbing / maintain level at the speed and attitude you were at

Quoting Max Q (Reply 36):
Pilots have relied on their touch, feel and balance since the Wright brothers,

Problem is when out of balance, humans tend to disregard the secondary cues given by haptic feedbacks.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 36):
That's why Boeing, MD, Lockheed etc designed in 'artificial feel'

It just lures you into thinking you're still flying a DC-3. Nothing else.
As for the Airbus sidestick, the laws are for a G-demand, whatever your airspeed. Hence, a loaded spring is sufficient to give the pilot a very good feel for his/her inputs... One of the beauties of it.
No more Mach trim, artificial feel, CWS... etc... in a lot of ways, the set up is a lot less complicated.

I have flown quite a few types of aircraft and I always have had a very cynical wariness of engineering solutions : I do not take anything for granted... I've also spent a lot of time on flight safety subjects.
My conclusion is that I do not think I have lost any SA in a 'Bus cockpit.... on the contrary.
The reason is that I have a better, simpler awareness of the plane trajectory, without cues from the flight controls or the throttle position ( which could be / have been proven erratic / misleading...)
If I'm not satisfied with the geometry of the trajectory, it's very easy : " I have control " and "Priority Left"... as the last thing I'd want in this situation would be to backseat-drive my FO.
Contrail designer
 
airtechy
Posts: 808
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 7:35 am

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Mon Apr 27, 2015 6:44 pm

This whole deal with the slaved sidesticks remains me of the arguments the Harley guys make for not needing helmets...we just won't get in an accident where they are quite useful. Right. Unfortunately, the arguments for the "status quo" come from pilots that are able to use a keyboard. Those that could say slaved controls might have helped during upsets and unforeseen flying conditions are ....unfortunately ....dead.

Regardless of how you feel about the issue, if you believe the link in the top post one manufacturer has now decided that linked controls are beneficial and that fact can't be argued away. Because Airbus was claimed to have had pilot feedback in their selection of flight controls setups, I would assume pilot input was factored into this decision also. Interesting because these pilots....and the company obviously..... will have had years of Airbus control history to look at in reaching their decision to go with slaved controls. Included in this history would of course be how the controls worked in accident sequences. That they decided "slaved is better" is telling.

I am a pilot with lots of hours who has...however... never flown a plane with sidesticks so I guess that means I can't have an opinion. Having said that, I find the idea put forth here by some that pilots "don't need to know what control inputs the other pilot is commanding" to be astonishing. I'm quite sure that if my plane were "falling out of the sky" I would want to know that.
 
User avatar
enilria
Posts: 10410
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Mon Apr 27, 2015 6:58 pm

Quoting Wayfarer515 (Thread starter):
MS-21 is set to become the first airliner of its size to get active sidestick control. This means both pilots will be able to know exactly what the other's inputs are, and prevent unfortunate situations such as AF447.

So this is the advanced technology from the Microsoft Flight Simulator Force Feedback Joystick, circa 1995?  
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Mon Apr 27, 2015 7:25 pm

Quoting enilria (Reply 47):

I assume you're joking but that is a valid point. Linking the controls doesn't need to change any of the feel or sensitivity or anything about the sticks. If they wanted to, they could mimic the airbus approach exactly, in every way but one;

-one stick mirrors the other.

If the pilot flying didn't look over to the other side of the cockpit, or if the other pilot wasn't trying to manipulate his controls, he would never know he wasn't flying an Airbus.

If they wanted to add haptic feedback, or variable resistance based on various flight scenarios or they wanted it to sparkle in the moonlight, they could add those too, but my interpretation of the article is that all they plan on doing differently than Airbus is linking them.

Airbus has been using side sticks forever and the way they do it works for them and pilots that fly them. I have no doubt that the folks designing the MS-21 put Airbus's decades of experience to use, but I can see why the people designing the MS-21 think slaving the sidesticks might be a good idea.

I don't think they will be better or worse than Airbus's...just different. Sidesticks work for Airbus, yokes work for Boeing, and linked sidesticks will probably work just fine for the MS-21.

Ok...now I really give up...I promise this time.
What the...?
 
Max Q
Posts: 8716
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: MS-21 Will Feature Active Sidesticks

Mon Apr 27, 2015 9:25 pm

Quoting Pihero (Reply 45):
Quoting Max Q (Reply 36):
Pilots have relied on their touch, feel and balance since the Wright brothers,

Problem is when out of balance, humans tend to disregard the secondary cues given by haptic feedbacks.

Not quite sure of the point you're trying to make here but mine is those extra 'cues' help you to remain 'in balance' in the first place.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 45):
Quoting Max Q (Reply 36):
That's why Boeing, MD, Lockheed etc designed in 'artificial feel'


It just lures you into thinking you're still flying a DC-3. Nothing else.

I haven't flown any jets that make me feel like i'm flying a DC3.


Artificial feel is considered important by every manufacturer with the exception of Airbus and for good reason, it allows consistent, linear control response across a wide speed range and with careful 'tailoring' to the individual type can bestow ideal, even delightful control characteristics.


A good example was the B727.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos