TTailedTiger
Topic Author
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Telescoping Control Columns

Thu Aug 29, 2019 3:25 am

With Boeing and Embraer getting together, I would assume any future models would include as much communality as possible. Would reliability be good enough to introduce an adjustable control column that can be adjusted vertically and tilted forward and backward? Implementing it shouldn't be any issue on a FBW aircraft. And much like modern steering wheels in cars, this would give the user the ability to find a more comfortable position with being able to adjust both the seat and control column. It could also be pushed out of the way when eating or needing to use a laptop, etc.
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 6836
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Thu Aug 29, 2019 6:32 am

I always thought that the IL62 column was pretty cool. Comes out from the panel which allows more pilot comfort and the tiller is integrated to the column. You could taxi the plane like driving a car in essence.

See it here at 3:30:
http://youtu.be/oW5aC5PSydc
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 3058
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Thu Aug 29, 2019 9:21 am

Embraer has already transitioned to sidesticks, like Airbus, Bombardier, UAC and COMAC. The KC-390 and latest business jets reflect this move. The E2 obviously retains the yoke to maintain commonality with the E-jet, but otherwise it is clear that Embraer is going sidestick for all future clean-sheet designs.
Last edited by VSMUT on Thu Aug 29, 2019 9:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
TTailedTiger
Topic Author
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Thu Aug 29, 2019 9:25 am

VSMUT wrote:
Embraer has already transitioned to sidesticks, like Airbus, UAC and COMAC. The KC-390 and latest business jets reflect this move. The E2 obviously retains the yoke to maintain commonality with the E-jet, but otherwise it is clear that Embraer is going sidestick for all future clean-sheet designs.


You seem to be ignoring the fact that Boeing will have input on any future commercial designs.

And we're not here to debate control column vs sidestick.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 3058
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Thu Aug 29, 2019 9:29 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
Embraer has already transitioned to sidesticks, like Airbus, UAC and COMAC. The KC-390 and latest business jets reflect this move. The E2 obviously retains the yoke to maintain commonality with the E-jet, but otherwise it is clear that Embraer is going sidestick for all future clean-sheet designs.


You seem to be ignoring the fact that Boeing will have input on any future commercial designs.


As does Embraer.

Everybody is moving towards sidesticks. It is only a matter of time before Boeing does too. Certainly a much better solution than telescoping yokes.
 
TTailedTiger
Topic Author
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Thu Aug 29, 2019 9:55 am

VSMUT wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
Embraer has already transitioned to sidesticks, like Airbus, UAC and COMAC. The KC-390 and latest business jets reflect this move. The E2 obviously retains the yoke to maintain commonality with the E-jet, but otherwise it is clear that Embraer is going sidestick for all future clean-sheet designs.


You seem to be ignoring the fact that Boeing will have input on any future commercial designs.


As does Embraer.

Everybody is moving towards sidesticks. It is only a matter of time before Boeing does too. Certainly a much better solution than telescoping yokes.


Again, this is not a stick vs control column debate. I asked if it was feasible to implement an adjustable control column. You've offered nothing on that subject.
 
Zeke2517
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:29 pm

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Thu Aug 29, 2019 1:04 pm

I think he’s saying that an adjustable column would be pointless, because they will be skipped in favor of sidesticks.

There is something on the subject.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3733
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Thu Aug 29, 2019 1:43 pm

Possibly, but I’ve never even heard it discussed by pilots or engineers. Seat adjustments suffice.

GF
 
kabq737
Moderator
Posts: 696
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2015 3:06 am

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Thu Aug 29, 2019 1:47 pm

I don’t think we will see anything with the Boeing name on it carry a sidestick for a long time. Boeing has put so much effort into telling everyone how much better the yoke is that I don’t think they can go back for a long time now.

That being said I can definitely see them switching to some sort of panel mount design. The Airbus offers cockpit comfort that the Boeing simply can’t match with the current setup. I feel that Boeing will probably go panel mounted to free up some leg room for the pilots.

Just speculation though.
Been on: 320, 321, 333, 733, 73G, 738, 739, 744, 752, 763, 764, 772, 789, C208, CR7, CR9, BE20, MD83, MD88, MD90, E70, E75, E90, TRIM
Flown: SEEKER, C150M C172N, C172R, C172S, C182RG, DA40, PA-46
Airliners.net Forum Moderator
 
zuckie13
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:23 pm

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Thu Aug 29, 2019 2:14 pm

The main advantage of a yoke is having leverage to exert more force if manual reversion is needed. Since all new designs are fully fly by wire, that is not needed, so I don't know what Boeing's argument will be (and I'm a Boeing fan usually).
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19394
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Thu Aug 29, 2019 2:28 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Possibly, but I’ve never even heard it discussed by pilots or engineers. Seat adjustments suffice.

GF


Agreed. In a fighter jet, I can see where arm placement must be quite precise given you're making precise maneuvers under heavy G loads. In an airliner, seat and armrest adjustment is more than good enough to cater for differrent people.

Telescoping so that it can come in and out giving more space in the cruise is an option, but it seems simpler to just use a stick.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
TTailedTiger
Topic Author
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Thu Aug 29, 2019 6:54 pm

zuckie13 wrote:
The main advantage of a yoke is having leverage to exert more force if manual reversion is needed. Since all new designs are fully fly by wire, that is not needed, so I don't know what Boeing's argument will be (and I'm a Boeing fan usually).


Boeing incorporates force feedback in their FBW aircraft. It's going to feel like a traditional non-FBW jet. Boeing polled pilots when designing the 777 on whether they wanted a stick or control column. We see what won out. If Boeing were to ever move to a sidestick it would be an active sidestick like Gulfsfream uses. They would be linked and have force feedback.
 
User avatar
Horstroad
Posts: 494
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 8:19 pm

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Thu Aug 29, 2019 7:26 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
zuckie13 wrote:
The main advantage of a yoke is having leverage to exert more force if manual reversion is needed. Since all new designs are fully fly by wire, that is not needed, so I don't know what Boeing's argument will be (and I'm a Boeing fan usually).


Boeing incorporates force feedback in their FBW aircraft. It's going to feel like a traditional non-FBW jet. Boeing polled pilots when designing the 777 on whether they wanted a stick or control column. We see what won out. If Boeing were to ever move to a sidestick it would be an active sidestick like Gulfsfream uses. They would be linked and have force feedback.

Well, the 777 is 25 years old by now. Things have changed. As said above, others have moved on from the old design as well.

But I would support the second claim. Not having force feedback and independent side sticks is a huge disadvantage of the Airbus approach to the problem (though Airbus lovers will probably say otherwise). But I don't think they would necessarily be linked physically. It could be done electronically.
 
zuckie13
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:23 pm

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Thu Aug 29, 2019 7:51 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
zuckie13 wrote:
The main advantage of a yoke is having leverage to exert more force if manual reversion is needed. Since all new designs are fully fly by wire, that is not needed, so I don't know what Boeing's argument will be (and I'm a Boeing fan usually).


Boeing incorporates force feedback in their FBW aircraft. It's going to feel like a traditional non-FBW jet. Boeing polled pilots when designing the 777 on whether they wanted a stick or control column. We see what won out. If Boeing were to ever move to a sidestick it would be an active sidestick like Gulfsfream uses. They would be linked and have force feedback.


I absolutely agree that force feedback is important. It's also a technology that has been available for computer joysticks for decades now. Obviously aviation manufacturers have to make sure it will hold up to the usage/standards of a commercial airplane (though I think gamers probably abuse them more than pilots would).
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3733
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Thu Aug 29, 2019 8:11 pm

zuckie13 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
zuckie13 wrote:
The main advantage of a yoke is having leverage to exert more force if manual reversion is needed. Since all new designs are fully fly by wire, that is not needed, so I don't know what Boeing's argument will be (and I'm a Boeing fan usually).


Boeing incorporates force feedback in their FBW aircraft. It's going to feel like a traditional non-FBW jet. Boeing polled pilots when designing the 777 on whether they wanted a stick or control column. We see what won out. If Boeing were to ever move to a sidestick it would be an active sidestick like Gulfsfream uses. They would be linked and have force feedback.


I absolutely agree that force feedback is important. It's also a technology that has been available for computer joysticks for decades now. Obviously aviation manufacturers have to make sure it will hold up to the usage/standards of a commercial airplane (though I think gamers probably abuse them more than pilots would).


10,000 Airbuses and 5,000 F-16 say otherwise.

GF
 
kabq737
Moderator
Posts: 696
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2015 3:06 am

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Thu Aug 29, 2019 8:14 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
zuckie13 wrote:
The main advantage of a yoke is having leverage to exert more force if manual reversion is needed. Since all new designs are fully fly by wire, that is not needed, so I don't know what Boeing's argument will be (and I'm a Boeing fan usually).


Boeing incorporates force feedback in their FBW aircraft. It's going to feel like a traditional non-FBW jet. Boeing polled pilots when designing the 777 on whether they wanted a stick or control column. We see what won out. If Boeing were to ever move to a sidestick it would be an active sidestick like Gulfsfream uses. They would be linked and have force feedback.


I think that the active sidestick is the future. As a pilot (granted I only fly small aircraft) I would take a stick any day over a yoke however, I still think that feedback is really beneficial. Feedback makes me feel much more in touch with the aircraft and gives some good tactile cues on what the aircraft is doing and what I need to do next.
Been on: 320, 321, 333, 733, 73G, 738, 739, 744, 752, 763, 764, 772, 789, C208, CR7, CR9, BE20, MD83, MD88, MD90, E70, E75, E90, TRIM
Flown: SEEKER, C150M C172N, C172R, C172S, C182RG, DA40, PA-46
Airliners.net Forum Moderator
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Thu Aug 29, 2019 8:49 pm

Joystick?
Murphy is an optimist
 
TTailedTiger
Topic Author
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Thu Aug 29, 2019 8:49 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
zuckie13 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:

Boeing incorporates force feedback in their FBW aircraft. It's going to feel like a traditional non-FBW jet. Boeing polled pilots when designing the 777 on whether they wanted a stick or control column. We see what won out. If Boeing were to ever move to a sidestick it would be an active sidestick like Gulfsfream uses. They would be linked and have force feedback.


I absolutely agree that force feedback is important. It's also a technology that has been available for computer joysticks for decades now. Obviously aviation manufacturers have to make sure it will hold up to the usage/standards of a commercial airplane (though I think gamers probably abuse them more than pilots would).


10,000 Airbuses and 5,000 F-16 say otherwise.

GF


So you are claiming there is no need for improvements?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3733
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Thu Aug 29, 2019 9:15 pm

If by improvement you mean telescoping, force feedback, moving side-sticks, probably not. Thousands upon thousands of pilots flying thousands of plane without force feedback or moving sticks very safely and successfully should be evidence enough to support that position. The F-16 is now almost forty years in service, thirty years of Airbus service. Do you have any idea how many millions of flight-hours that is?

This “improvement” might make things different, but it’s hard to see it as an improvement. .BTW, I’m old fashioned enough to be quite happy with a yoke.

GF
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19394
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Thu Aug 29, 2019 11:14 pm

kabq737 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
zuckie13 wrote:
The main advantage of a yoke is having leverage to exert more force if manual reversion is needed. Since all new designs are fully fly by wire, that is not needed, so I don't know what Boeing's argument will be (and I'm a Boeing fan usually).


Boeing incorporates force feedback in their FBW aircraft. It's going to feel like a traditional non-FBW jet. Boeing polled pilots when designing the 777 on whether they wanted a stick or control column. We see what won out. If Boeing were to ever move to a sidestick it would be an active sidestick like Gulfsfream uses. They would be linked and have force feedback.


I think that the active sidestick is the future. As a pilot (granted I only fly small aircraft) I would take a stick any day over a yoke however, I still think that feedback is really beneficial. Feedback makes me feel much more in touch with the aircraft and gives some good tactile cues on what the aircraft is doing and what I need to do next.


In light aircraft the surfaces are direclly connected to the controls. As speed increases, you get more resistance, which tells you to make smaller movements, but because of that higher speed a smaller movement gives the same attitude change. Effective force feedback.

In an Airbus, speed is compensated for by the FBW system. A given stick deflection in pitch a given load factor, regardless of speed. A given stick deflection in roll gives a given roll rate, regardless of speed. So force feeedback doesn't really tell you anything.

Thought experiment: If you implemented force feedback on the Airbus stick and made it "heavier" at higher speeds, this would make the pilots move it less to less at higher speeds. Given how the system is designed they'd constantly be undercontrolling at higher speed and overcontrolling at lower speed.

As I see it, force feedback goes counter to the Airbus control system phlosophy in a fundamental way. However, if Boeing implemented a side stick, their FBW might be designed differently, and force feedback might make sense. That being said, force feedback is not an end unto itself. Aircraft are operated perfectly well without it.

I can only speak for myself, but controlling an Airbus doesn't feel different at all, even coming from a light aircraft. "Pull, houses become smaller. Push, houses become bigger." Just like any other aircraft.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
spacecadet
Posts: 3464
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Fri Aug 30, 2019 5:40 am

zuckie13 wrote:
I absolutely agree that force feedback is important. It's also a technology that has been available for computer joysticks for decades now. Obviously aviation manufacturers have to make sure it will hold up to the usage/standards of a commercial airplane (though I think gamers probably abuse them more than pilots would).


"Force feedback" is tremendously unreliable in both technical terms as well as in relaying what the airplane is actually doing. It's another layer of hardware and software that has to be designed and written by humans trying to anticipate what the plane might do and how to relay that to the pilots. An engineer would just call it another failure point in the chain of both technical and human factors.

I say this as both a gamer who has used force feedback, and a licensed pilot. I'm used to flying planes with real aerodynamic feedback through the controls. No force feedback I've ever used has come close to replicating those real-world forces, and given that fidelity can never be 100% accurate, it's better to not even try in a real-life situation. Even if it's perfect 99% of the time, that means it's giving inaccurate or outright false feedback 1% of the time, and that's enough to cause spatial disorientation for 1 minute out of every 100. Imagine if the attitude indicator was accurate 99% of the time; that would be totally unacceptable. Yet no force feedback system I've ever used even comes close to that.

Leave force feedback to gamers, if they even want it, which judging by the number of force feedback products on the market these days, they don't seem to. In a home sim, force feedback is better than nothing. In a plane, it can be absolutely dangerous if it's not giving you feedback that's correct 100% of the time, in every way possible. It's better to not have it at all, which is obviously the judgment aircraft manufacturers have made too.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
 
TTailedTiger
Topic Author
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Fri Aug 30, 2019 6:18 am

spacecadet wrote:
zuckie13 wrote:
I absolutely agree that force feedback is important. It's also a technology that has been available for computer joysticks for decades now. Obviously aviation manufacturers have to make sure it will hold up to the usage/standards of a commercial airplane (though I think gamers probably abuse them more than pilots would).


"Force feedback" is tremendously unreliable in both technical terms as well as in relaying what the airplane is actually doing. It's another layer of hardware and software that has to be designed and written by humans trying to anticipate what the plane might do and how to relay that to the pilots. An engineer would just call it another failure point in the chain of both technical and human factors.

I say this as both a gamer who has used force feedback, and a licensed pilot. I'm used to flying planes with real aerodynamic feedback through the controls. No force feedback I've ever used has come close to replicating those real-world forces, and given that fidelity can never be 100% accurate, it's better to not even try in a real-life situation. Even if it's perfect 99% of the time, that means it's giving inaccurate or outright false feedback 1% of the time, and that's enough to cause spatial disorientation for 1 minute out of every 100. Imagine if the attitude indicator was accurate 99% of the time; that would be totally unacceptable. Yet no force feedback system I've ever used even comes close to that.

Leave force feedback to gamers, if they even want it, which judging by the number of force feedback products on the market these days, they don't seem to. In a home sim, force feedback is better than nothing. In a plane, it can be absolutely dangerous if it's not giving you feedback that's correct 100% of the time, in every way possible. It's better to not have it at all, which is obviously the judgment aircraft manufacturers have made too.


So you're saying Boeing (777 and 787) and Gulfstream (G500) don't know what they're doing and made dangerous airplanes?
 
426Shadow
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:13 am

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Fri Aug 30, 2019 6:52 am

I think a center stick like the C-17 would be a good fit for Boeing commercial planes. More room and visibility than a yoke and still have the leverage for maximum force during manual revisions.
Do it on three, One.....THREEEEEEE! Just got the nuts hangin out.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3733
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Fri Aug 30, 2019 2:05 pm

The only current production airliner (and likely last) to have manual reversion is the 737, so center stick is a dead end.

GF
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12491
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Fri Aug 30, 2019 2:31 pm

Starlionblue wrote:
In an Airbus, speed is compensated for by the FBW system. A given stick deflection in pitch a given load factor, regardless of speed. A given stick deflection in roll gives a given roll rate, regardless of speed. So force feeedback doesn't really tell you anything.


Is that the way it works in Alternate and Direct Law, as well?

kabq737 wrote:
I don’t think we will see anything with the Boeing name on it carry a sidestick for a long time. Boeing has put so much effort into telling everyone how much better the yoke is that I don’t think they can go back for a long time now.


Of course they can. If they design it, and the airlines like the airplane, I truly doubt sidestick vs. yoke will even be an issue.

Wasn't it Airbus that used to claim "4 engines 4 long haul"?

TTailedTiger wrote:
Boeing polled pilots when designing the 777 on whether they wanted a stick or control column. We see what won out.


Did the poll actually include pilots who had time on both yokes and sidesticks? Given that the A320 was first delivered in 1988, I tend to doubt it.

Horstroad wrote:
Not having force feedback...is a huge disadvantage of the Airbus approach to the problem (though Airbus lovers will probably say otherwise).


Why is not having force feedback a huge disadvantage?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
5,000 F-16 say otherwise


I seem to recall reading that the F-16 stick was originally not even going to move. It would just sense the force that the pilot was putting on it.

Not sure if that's true or not.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 4903
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:00 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
spacecadet wrote:
So you're saying Boeing (777 and 787) and Gulfstream (G500) don't know what they're doing and made dangerous airplanes?


Neither of these have force feedback. At least not in the sense that the poster you replied to meant.

The only thing that 'feeds back' into the control column or stick is the other pilot's inputs or the autopilot's inputs.
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3733
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:10 pm

True on the original F-16, it was just a stick without any movement, later a small bit of movement was added.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 3617
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:11 pm

FWIW: There are a number of Boeing pilots with previous Airbus backrounds and flight experience.
 
User avatar
Horstroad
Posts: 494
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 8:19 pm

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:16 pm

spacecadet wrote:
zuckie13 wrote:
I absolutely agree that force feedback is important. It's also a technology that has been available for computer joysticks for decades now. Obviously aviation manufacturers have to make sure it will hold up to the usage/standards of a commercial airplane (though I think gamers probably abuse them more than pilots would).


"Force feedback" is tremendously unreliable in both technical terms as well as in relaying what the airplane is actually doing. It's another layer of hardware and software that has to be designed and written by humans trying to anticipate what the plane might do and how to relay that to the pilots.

"force feedback" on FBW aircraft is actually already a thing. But it doesn't work like on a PC joystick.
There are also load feel systems on cable controlled aircraft. It's a mechanical system with springs though.



Here are two examples. One is FBW, one is ... I would call it semi-FBW. Both use a feedback system.


The MD11 is in general a classic cable controlled aircraft. Yet normally elevator and aileron input signals are picked up by sensors on the control wheel / column. These signals are sent to the Flight Control Computers which then sends an electric signal to the hydraulic actuators. There are two FCC with two channels each. Each of the four FCC channels is linked to one of the four aileron/elevator actuators (L/H outboard, L/H inboard, R/H inboard, R/H outboard). Depending on which of the four channels is active, only that one actuator is controlled electronically. The input signal then travels mechanically through push rods and control cables to the other three actuators and back to the control wheel / column. This is how the pilots get a position feedback even when the auto pilot is active.
When the FCC fail, the actuators are controlled directly by the cables that are connected to the control wheel / column.
You can actually feel a difference on the control wheel when the input signal is sent purely mechanical via the cables to the control valves versus the normal mode when you get the feedback from the electronic control.

Then there is the load feel system which gives a sense of airspeed on the control column / wheel. The FCC send a speed signal to an electro-mechanical actuator which puts more or less tension on system of springs in the control cable system. This gives the impression of aerodynamic loads and makes it harder to move the control wheel / column. When the FCC fail, the pilots can manually control the elevator load feel actuator with a knob.

Both position feedback and load feel are purely mechanical systems.



The B777 is fully FBW. Analog signals from position transducers on the control wheel / column are digitized in the Actuator Control Electronics. These digital signals are sent to the Primary Flight Computers which "enhance" the signals. They apply protection functions (for example thrust asymmetry compensation), stability augmentation (for example gust suppression) and basic control law functions (for example rudder ratio) to the signals and send them back to the ACE. There the digital signal is converted back to analog and sent to the control surfaces.
The autopilot does the same, but it sends digital inputs directly to the PFC.
When the PFC have an internal fault or some air data are missing, they revert to secondary mode. The PFC will continue to calculate control surface commands but some functions like autopilot, envelope protection or tail strike protection are no longer available.
When all PFC fail, the flight control system reverts to direct mode where the analog signals from the position transducers are sent directly through the ACE to the actuators.
When there is a complete electrical failure, the pilots are left with one spoiler on either side and horizontal stabilizer trim. Good look then.

The PFC also sends backdrive commands to the Autopilot Flight Director Computer which causes the backdrive actuators, which are connected directly to the mechanical linkage of the control column / wheel, to move the yoke.
Through the backdrive actuators the pilots get load feedback (for example elevator feel), envelope protection (for example bank angle protection) and position feedback (when the autopilot is active).



All the above functions on the MD11 and B777 I would call force feedback as they act as a force on the yoke to give feedback to what the aircraft is doing. It doesn't quite work like the force feedback I experienced when I was playing Microsoft FSX.



This is what I think all FBW aircraft should have. Even though some people say otherwise, like Starlionblue. I'm not a pilot, but if one gives a control input and the aircraft says nope because of envelope protection, the pilot should be informed through a feedback. When the other pilot does something to the control surfaces, their colleague should be informed through a feedback. Lack of feedback was a contributing factor to the AF447 crash.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Fri Aug 30, 2019 4:51 pm

Horstroad wrote:
Lack of feedback was a contributing factor to the AF447 crash.


Was it?
( and the other reason was "pilot pulling up all the time" )

Neither is true afaik.
Try again.
Murphy is an optimist
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3733
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Fri Aug 30, 2019 5:03 pm

Again, 10,000 Airbus say different. While control position is a clue, pilots fly by aircraft performance indicators. You put in a control inputs, measure the aircraft performance and make needed changes. Feedback is nice, yokes make the feedback much more apparent, but not essential. Sidesticks make feedback much less apparent, they are out of normal view, have far less movements and have been found largely unnecessary.
 
N353SK
Posts: 1016
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 5:08 am

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Fri Aug 30, 2019 5:11 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
Boeing polled pilots when designing the 777 on whether they wanted a stick or control column. We see what won out.


This may be urban legend, but apparently when Embraer was designing the 170/190 they polled pilots who flew the 145. The pilots apparently overwhelmingly said they didn't like the "jet ski handlebars" yoke design but Embraer decided it was their trademark and used it anyways.
 
426Shadow
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:13 am

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Fri Aug 30, 2019 5:26 pm

At the end of the day, you touch the controls for what 20 minutes max of a flight? Does it really matter that much? You pilots will be lucky to touch the controls at all in 20 years.
Do it on three, One.....THREEEEEEE! Just got the nuts hangin out.
 
kabq737
Moderator
Posts: 696
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2015 3:06 am

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Sat Aug 31, 2019 2:23 pm

vikkyvik wrote:
kabq737 wrote:
I don’t think we will see anything with the Boeing name on it carry a sidestick for a long time. Boeing has put so much effort into telling everyone how much better the yoke is that I don’t think they can go back for a long time now.


Of course they can. If they design it, and the airlines like the airplane, I truly doubt sidestick vs. yoke will even be an issue.

Wasn't it Airbus that used to claim "4 engines 4 long haul"?


I’m not saying that Boeing technically can’t I’m saying it would look pretty bad if they spent decades preaching the yoke as the almighty perfect method for aircraft control and then suddenly turned their backs on it.

Also it was VS not Airbus that said “4 engines 4 long haul”
Been on: 320, 321, 333, 733, 73G, 738, 739, 744, 752, 763, 764, 772, 789, C208, CR7, CR9, BE20, MD83, MD88, MD90, E70, E75, E90, TRIM
Flown: SEEKER, C150M C172N, C172R, C172S, C182RG, DA40, PA-46
Airliners.net Forum Moderator
 
TTailedTiger
Topic Author
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Mon Sep 02, 2019 4:53 pm

BravoOne wrote:
FWIW: There are a number of Boeing pilots with previous Airbus backrounds and flight experience.


Well that certainly goes against what some of our Airbus pilots here have claimed. Most of them say once someone has a taste of the superior Airbus they will never want to fly anything else. But those of us with any knowledge of the industry know better. An airline pilot will fly the highest paying aircraft they can bid.
 
TTailedTiger
Topic Author
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Mon Sep 02, 2019 4:54 pm

kabq737 wrote:
vikkyvik wrote:
kabq737 wrote:
I don’t think we will see anything with the Boeing name on it carry a sidestick for a long time. Boeing has put so much effort into telling everyone how much better the yoke is that I don’t think they can go back for a long time now.


Of course they can. If they design it, and the airlines like the airplane, I truly doubt sidestick vs. yoke will even be an issue.

Wasn't it Airbus that used to claim "4 engines 4 long haul"?


I’m not saying that Boeing technically can’t I’m saying it would look pretty bad if they spent decades preaching the yoke as the almighty perfect method for aircraft control and then suddenly turned their backs on it.

Also it was VS not Airbus that said “4 engines 4 long haul”


Airbus put out a nasty ad campaign in the 90's claiming four engines were safer.

https://m.seattlepi.com/business/articl ... 092134.php
 
BravoOne
Posts: 3617
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Mon Sep 02, 2019 5:19 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
FWIW: There are a number of Boeing pilots with previous Airbus backrounds and flight experience.


Well that certainly goes against what some of our Airbus pilots here have claimed. Most of them say once someone has a taste of the superior Airbus they will never want to fly anything else. But those of us with any knowledge of the industry know better. An airline pilot will fly the highest paying aircraft they can bid.


So, what have your Airbus pilots claimed??
 
BravoOne
Posts: 3617
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Mon Sep 02, 2019 5:22 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
FWIW: There are a number of Boeing pilots with previous Airbus backrounds and flight experience.


Well that certainly goes against what some of our Airbus pilots here have claimed. Most of them say once someone has a taste of the superior Airbus they will never want to fly anything else. But those of us with any knowledge of the industry know better. An airline pilot will fly the highest paying aircraft they can bid.


So, what have your Airbus pilots claimed?? I suspect that the Airbus has a significantly more comfortable flight deck, as Boeing has really never stepped up and done there best regarding pilot comfort, especially for ULR aircraft IMO.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Mon Sep 02, 2019 5:32 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
Airbus put out a nasty ad campaign in the 90's claiming four engines were safer.

https://m.seattlepi.com/business/articl ... 092134.php


What is "nasty" about it beyond clashing with your personal opinion/agenda?
Murphy is an optimist
 
TTailedTiger
Topic Author
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Mon Sep 02, 2019 6:36 pm

WIederling wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
Airbus put out a nasty ad campaign in the 90's claiming four engines were safer.

https://m.seattlepi.com/business/articl ... 092134.php


What is "nasty" about it beyond clashing with your personal opinion/agenda?


They were insinuating Boeing's new 777 wasn't fit to cross the ocean since it only had two engines. They screwed up with the A340 and were digging their heels into the ground as best they could.
Last edited by TTailedTiger on Mon Sep 02, 2019 6:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
TTailedTiger
Topic Author
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Mon Sep 02, 2019 6:40 pm

BravoOne wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
FWIW: There are a number of Boeing pilots with previous Airbus backrounds and flight experience.


Well that certainly goes against what some of our Airbus pilots here have claimed. Most of them say once someone has a taste of the superior Airbus they will never want to fly anything else. But those of us with any knowledge of the industry know better. An airline pilot will fly the highest paying aircraft they can bid.


So, what have your Airbus pilots claimed?? I suspect that the Airbus has a significantly more comfortable flight deck, as Boeing has really never stepped up and done there best regarding pilot comfort, especially for ULR aircraft IMO.


I have yet to hear any pilots complain about the 787 flight deck. Quite the opposite. You'll find many threads on the pilot forums going on about how much they enjoy it. And the older pilots are still going on about how much they loved the L-1011 flight deck. A control column doesn't seem to be as big of a problem as some pilots like to carry on about. I've had no issue finding a comfortable position in either the c172 or SR22. I enjoy flying them both.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 3617
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Mon Sep 02, 2019 6:57 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:

Well that certainly goes against what some of our Airbus pilots here have claimed. Most of them say once someone has a taste of the superior Airbus they will never want to fly anything else. But those of us with any knowledge of the industry know better. An airline pilot will fly the highest paying aircraft they can bid.


So, what have your Airbus pilots claimed?? I suspect that the Airbus has a significantly more comfortable flight deck, as Boeing has really never stepped up and done there best regarding pilot comfort, especially for ULR aircraft IMO.


I have yet to hear any pilots complain about the 787 flight deck. Quite the opposite. You'll find many threads on the pilot forums going on about how much they enjoy it. And the older pilots are still going on about how much they loved the L-1011 flight deck. A control column doesn't seem to be as big of a problem as some pilots like to carry on about. I've had no issue finding a comfortable position in either the c172 or SR22. I enjoy flying them both.


What is your point? I was asking about Airbus pilots, and what you say they have "claimed." Claimed what? I could care less about the SS vs CW issue as both have their supporters and detractors. Are you taking some official surveys regarding flight deck comfort or just stirring the pot again?
 
TTailedTiger
Topic Author
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Mon Sep 02, 2019 7:19 pm

BravoOne wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
BravoOne wrote:

So, what have your Airbus pilots claimed?? I suspect that the Airbus has a significantly more comfortable flight deck, as Boeing has really never stepped up and done there best regarding pilot comfort, especially for ULR aircraft IMO.


I have yet to hear any pilots complain about the 787 flight deck. Quite the opposite. You'll find many threads on the pilot forums going on about how much they enjoy it. And the older pilots are still going on about how much they loved the L-1011 flight deck. A control column doesn't seem to be as big of a problem as some pilots like to carry on about. I've had no issue finding a comfortable position in either the c172 or SR22. I enjoy flying them both.


What is your point? I was asking about Airbus pilots, and what you say they have "claimed." Claimed what? I could care less about the SS vs CW issue as both have their supporters and detractors. Are you taking some official surveys regarding flight deck comfort or just stirring the pot again?


You're the only one getting upset. There are plenty of examples of Airbus pilots claiming that their flight decks have better ergonomics and a better layout. My my only issue is that they make it sound like it's a fact. It isn't. It's a preference. I really don't know why they care so much.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 3617
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Mon Sep 02, 2019 7:29 pm

Okay whatever.
 
kabq737
Moderator
Posts: 696
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2015 3:06 am

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Mon Sep 02, 2019 10:44 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
kabq737 wrote:
vikkyvik wrote:


Of course they can. If they design it, and the airlines like the airplane, I truly doubt sidestick vs. yoke will even be an issue.

Wasn't it Airbus that used to claim "4 engines 4 long haul"?


I’m not saying that Boeing technically can’t I’m saying it would look pretty bad if they spent decades preaching the yoke as the almighty perfect method for aircraft control and then suddenly turned their backs on it.

Also it was VS not Airbus that said “4 engines 4 long haul”


Airbus put out a nasty ad campaign in the 90's claiming four engines were safer.

https://m.seattlepi.com/business/articl ... 092134.php


Ok I stand corrected. That one is from before my time! My apologies.
Been on: 320, 321, 333, 733, 73G, 738, 739, 744, 752, 763, 764, 772, 789, C208, CR7, CR9, BE20, MD83, MD88, MD90, E70, E75, E90, TRIM
Flown: SEEKER, C150M C172N, C172R, C172S, C182RG, DA40, PA-46
Airliners.net Forum Moderator
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 4903
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Tue Sep 03, 2019 4:11 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
You're the only one getting upset. There are plenty of examples of Airbus pilots claiming that their flight decks have better ergonomics and a better layout. My my only issue is that they make it sound like it's a fact. It isn't. It's a preference. I really don't know why they care so much.


That's hardly up for debate in my opinion. I have yet to meet a pilot who doesn't like the comfort of an Airbus cockpit (or any other sidestick cockpit), the space afforded by the lack of a control column and the table. Even those who hate everything else about it will tell you that it's a comfortable office, especially after eating their first cockpit chow on a proper table...

And to come back to the topic of your own thread, yes, control columns are going the way of the dodo. They were kept to satisfy generations of pilots who knew nothing else. In a modern World where a student pilot will spend less than 200 hours flying GA airplanes now designed to mimic airliners and then be propelled straight into the right seat of an A320 or 737, it matters little.

The sidestick is the way of the future, regardless of what FBW architecture it's plugged into. All the way until there aren't cockpits in airliners anymore.
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
TTailedTiger
Topic Author
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Tue Sep 03, 2019 5:56 am

Francoflier wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
You're the only one getting upset. There are plenty of examples of Airbus pilots claiming that their flight decks have better ergonomics and a better layout. My my only issue is that they make it sound like it's a fact. It isn't. It's a preference. I really don't know why they care so much.


That's hardly up for debate in my opinion. I have yet to meet a pilot who doesn't like the comfort of an Airbus cockpit (or any other sidestick cockpit), the space afforded by the lack of a control column and the table. Even those who hate everything else about it will tell you that it's a comfortable office, especially after eating their first cockpit chow on a proper table...

And to come back to the topic of your own thread, yes, control columns are going the way of the dodo. They were kept to satisfy generations of pilots who knew nothing else. In a modern World where a student pilot will spend less than 200 hours flying GA airplanes now designed to mimic airliners and then be propelled straight into the right seat of an A320 or 737, it matters little.

The sidestick is the way of the future, regardless of what FBW architecture it's plugged into. All the way until there aren't cockpits in airliners anymore.


Only 200 hours? Not in the US and Canada. We're not really cool with 200 hour pilots on a 737. A transport category aircraft is no place for on the job training. I want both pilots having a say in the operation of the aircraft and both should be capable of safely getting it on the ground should the other become incapacitated. A 200 hour FO is looked upon as subservient and that is not what you want. He/she needs to be assertive. It's disappointing that some modern and some not so modern countries turn a blind eye to CRM.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Tue Sep 03, 2019 7:49 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
Only 200 hours? Not in the US and Canada.


If you have only "new monkey watch old monkey, monkey do" kind of teaching on the job
that is a good position to take.

But there are other path to achieving good pilot qualification.
Airlines away from the US like Lufthansa really invest in such schemes.

The 1500 hours rule in the US appears to be a jobs program for mil pilots.
Murphy is an optimist
 
TTailedTiger
Topic Author
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:15 am

WIederling wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
Only 200 hours? Not in the US and Canada.


If you have only "new monkey watch old monkey, monkey do" kind of teaching on the job
that is a good position to take.

But there are other path to achieving good pilot qualification.
Airlines away from the US like Lufthansa really invest in such schemes.

The 1500 hours rule in the US appears to be a jobs program for mil pilots.


Hardly. Flight schools in the US are steadily raking in the business. My buddy is a Navy transport pilot and doesn't have anywhere near the hours one might imagine. He got stuck ground instructing for much of his career. He is doing his minimum and getting out. He would not have enough hours to go to a major airline like UA or WN.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:22 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
WIederling wrote:
The 1500 hours rule in the US appears to be a jobs program for mil pilots.


Hardly. Flight schools in the US are steadily raking in the business. My buddy is a Navy transport pilot and doesn't have anywhere near the hours one might imagine. He got stuck ground instructing for much of his career. He is doing his minimum and getting out. He would not have enough hours to go to a major airline like UA or WN.


Mil pilots have reduced flight hour requirements, don't they?

https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases ... wsId=14838
Murphy is an optimist

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Teganuma and 26 guests

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