Page 2 of 2

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Posted: Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:38 am
by Francoflier
TTailedTiger wrote:
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.


Much to the US' and Canada's credit...
I'm very much with you on this one and I wish it was the same around the World... Alas, Airlines hungry for rapid expansion and faced with a shortage of qualified pilots, helped by compliant regulators, have seen to it that experience levels in cockpits are far from what, in my personal opinion, they should be.
But that's another debate.

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Posted: Tue Sep 03, 2019 9:14 am
by TSS
vikkyvik wrote:
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.


Absolutely true. My cousin who flew them said in early versions the stick didn't move at all and test pilots hated it, complaining of hand and arm cramps after each flight. Once a little bit of "give" was added to the stick, the test pilots were fine with it.

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Posted: Tue Sep 03, 2019 10:06 am
by WIederling
TSS wrote:
My cousin who flew them said in early versions the stick didn't move at all and test pilots hated it, complaining of hand and arm cramps after each flight. Once a little bit of "give" was added to the stick, the test pilots were fine with it.


the Citroen DS (1955) had fully hydraulic operated brakes ( being fed by the hydro part of the hydropneumatic suspension and its pump. Quite the intricate design.)
The brake "pedal" was a little nearly unmoving knob.
Took quite a bit to get used to.

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2019 8:43 pm
by Nicoeddf
Francoflier wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
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.


Much to the US' and Canada's credit...
I'm very much with you on this one and I wish it was the same around the World... Alas, Airlines hungry for rapid expansion and faced with a shortage of qualified pilots, helped by compliant regulators, have seen to it that experience levels in cockpits are far from what, in my personal opinion, they should be.
But that's another debate.


Don't follow you guys here.

You neither learn flying an airliner in a C172 cockpit, nor do you get the skill of being an "assertive pilot" by towing banners for 1500hrs.

Delivering a competent, assertive, mature and generally qualified pilot is a matter of a competent assessment followed by a high quality training, both in flying and personal competence.
The 1500hrs rule in the US and Canada is not delivering any higher degree of safety compared with fully integrated training programs of European flying schools. Numbers don't lie,

1500hrs of banner towing is not delivering any skill a competent and well assessed pilot wouldn't have after 200hrs.

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:22 am
by Starlionblue
vikkyvik wrote:
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?.


On the A330, Alternate Law 1 is the same regarding stick inputs. In Alternate Law 2 you go to direct law in roll, but pitch stays the same.

Direct Law is, heh, direct stick to surface relationship. But you'd know you are in direct law and adjust control inputs accordingly. The main difference I found when trying it in the sim is that you are constantly making small corrections like in a "conventional" aircraft, since the plane doesn't stay put where you pointed it like in normal law.

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:22 pm
by ferren
force feedback is not a correct name. i think that the most people talking about the need of the feedback are really talking about movement feedback (feel the movement from the second pilot).
there is no need to feel the control force.

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 4:05 pm
by WIederling
ferren wrote:
force feedback is not a correct name. i think that the most people talking about the need of the feedback are really talking about movement feedback (feel the movement from the second pilot).
there is no need to feel the control force.

read:
https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/app/them ... inputs.pdf

ESPECIALLY item 6 on page 5

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:47 pm
by Starlionblue
WIederling wrote:
ferren wrote:
force feedback is not a correct name. i think that the most people talking about the need of the feedback are really talking about movement feedback (feel the movement from the second pilot).
there is no need to feel the control force.

read:
https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/app/them ... inputs.pdf

ESPECIALLY item 6 on page 5


"Dual input" is indeed a rather assertive warning. And IMHO all that is needed. Proper handover of control is essential, of course.

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 3:20 pm
by ferren
Starlionblue wrote:
WIederling wrote:
ferren wrote:
force feedback is not a correct name. i think that the most people talking about the need of the feedback are really talking about movement feedback (feel the movement from the second pilot).
there is no need to feel the control force.

read:
https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/app/them ... inputs.pdf

ESPECIALLY item 6 on page 5


"Dual input" is indeed a rather assertive warning. And IMHO all that is needed. Proper handover of control is essential, of course.


dual input is only a warning that crm failed, but i still think that to see and feel what exactly is the second pilot doing, by simply observing the movment of the stick or following it by touch can be useful. typically when dealing with control problems, bad weather etc.

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 3:53 pm
by WIederling
ferren wrote:
.......... but i still think that to see and feel what exactly is the second pilot doing, by simply observing the movement of the stick or following it by touch can be useful. typically when dealing with control problems, bad weather etc.


isn't this ignoring the paradigm disparity of
flying the plane(by the seat of your pants) vs commanding the plane(+FBW)
?

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:03 pm
by ferren
WIederling wrote:
ferren wrote:
.......... but i still think that to see and feel what exactly is the second pilot doing, by simply observing the movement of the stick or following it by touch can be useful. typically when dealing with control problems, bad weather etc.


isn't this ignoring the paradigm disparity of
flying the plane(by the seat of your pants) vs commanding the plane(+FBW)
?


not sure that i understand your question, but lets extend it, it would be also nice to see what an autopilot is doing in the same way.

for example, i have no problem to use car with "autopilot" feature in the near future, but i will never buy car that is designed in a way, that steering wheel is not moving when computer controls it. no way, bad design

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:31 pm
by WIederling
ferren wrote:
for example, i have no problem to use car with "autopilot" feature in the near future, but i will never buy car that is designed in a way, that steering wheel is not moving when computer controls it. no way, bad design


bad design? no
Moving wheel is "A Stoker on a Diesel engine".

Very few autopilots on ships and about half on recreational boats have "visible" steering.
( i.e. those were the AP works on the mechanically linked steering. )

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:31 pm
by Erebus
ferren wrote:
for example, i have no problem to use car with "autopilot" feature in the near future, but i will never buy car that is designed in a way, that steering wheel is not moving when computer controls it. no way, bad design


Autopilot computer also controls acceleration and braking. Would you take issue with non-moving pedals? Or would you rely on other instruments for those...

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:37 pm
by ferren
Erebus wrote:
ferren wrote:
for example, i have no problem to use car with "autopilot" feature in the near future, but i will never buy car that is designed in a way, that steering wheel is not moving when computer controls it. no way, bad design


Autopilot computer also controls acceleration and braking. Would you take issue with non-moving pedals? Or would you rely on other instruments for those...


some actions cannot be directly mapped. maybe i extended it too far. but it is still valid for the PF monitoring.
but probably valid for some actions, that can me directly mapped from the flying computer to pilot controls (throttle levers movement etc)

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:44 pm
by ferren
WIederling wrote:
ferren wrote:
for example, i have no problem to use car with "autopilot" feature in the near future, but i will never buy car that is designed in a way, that steering wheel is not moving when computer controls it. no way, bad design


bad design? no
Moving wheel is "A Stoker on a Diesel engine".

Very few autopilots on ships and about half on recreational boats have "visible" steering.
( i.e. those were the AP works on the mechanically linked steering. )



but these are very slow reacting machines without doubled controls (or tripled human/human/computer). anyway it was probably not the best example, but still valid for the second human monitoring :-)

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:49 pm
by WIederling
ferren wrote:
Erebus wrote:
ferren wrote:
for example, i have no problem to use car with "autopilot" feature in the near future, but i will never buy car that is designed in a way, that steering wheel is not moving when computer controls it. no way, bad design


Autopilot computer also controls acceleration and braking. Would you take issue with non-moving pedals? Or would you rely on other instruments for those...


some actions cannot be directly mapped. maybe i extended it too far. but it is still valid for the PF monitoring.
but probably valid for some actions, that can me directly mapped from the flying computer to pilot controls (throttle levers movement etc)


You'd get it for cars ( at the moment ) for the same reason it made initial sense on airplanes.
mechanical linkage between control device ( wheel, stick, yoke, accellerator, ... ) and execution device ( axle, rudder, .. throttle valve.
Here in Germany beyond a certain speed capability mechanical linkage is still required for steering.

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 5:04 pm
by ferren
WIederling wrote:
ferren wrote:
Erebus wrote:

Autopilot computer also controls acceleration and braking. Would you take issue with non-moving pedals? Or would you rely on other instruments for those...


some actions cannot be directly mapped. maybe i extended it too far. but it is still valid for the PF monitoring.
but probably valid for some actions, that can me directly mapped from the flying computer to pilot controls (throttle levers movement etc)


You'd get it for cars ( at the moment ) for the same reason it made initial sense on airplanes.
mechanical linkage between control device ( wheel, stick, yoke, accellerator, ... ) and execution device ( axle, rudder, .. throttle valve.
Here in Germany beyond a certain speed capability mechanical linkage is still required for steering.



i know that in some military planes flight computers may use any control surface for the commanded action, sometimes there are not classic control surfaces (x tail, canards etc). lets move back to the pf monitoring, because he can do exactly the same actions as you, and you can monitor him with the same controls as he is using.
i know that it currently works, i like Airbus controls, but i still think that the joystick implementation is based on the price/complexity and not that it is actually better that joystick with movement feedback

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 5:31 pm
by WIederling
ferren wrote:
i know that in some military planes flight computers may use any control surface for the commanded action, sometimes there are not classic control surfaces (x tail, canards etc). lets move back to the pf monitoring, because he can do exactly the same actions as you, and you can monitor him with the same controls as he is using.
i know that it currently works, i like Airbus controls, but i still think that the joystick implementation is based on the price/complexity and not that it is actually better that joystick with movement feedback


do any of the mil fully FBW planes have linked sticks?

afaik you have "synergistic use of of control surfaces" on an Airbus for example for doing a coordinated turn.

Re: Telescoping Control Columns

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 11:28 pm
by Starlionblue
ferren wrote:
WIederling wrote:
ferren wrote:

some actions cannot be directly mapped. maybe i extended it too far. but it is still valid for the PF monitoring.
but probably valid for some actions, that can me directly mapped from the flying computer to pilot controls (throttle levers movement etc)


You'd get it for cars ( at the moment ) for the same reason it made initial sense on airplanes.
mechanical linkage between control device ( wheel, stick, yoke, accellerator, ... ) and execution device ( axle, rudder, .. throttle valve.
Here in Germany beyond a certain speed capability mechanical linkage is still required for steering.



i know that in some military planes flight computers may use any control surface for the commanded action, sometimes there are not classic control surfaces (x tail, canards etc). lets move back to the pf monitoring, because he can do exactly the same actions as you, and you can monitor him with the same controls as he is using.
i know that it currently works, i like Airbus controls, but i still think that the joystick implementation is based on the price/complexity and not that it is actually better that joystick with movement feedback


Same for Airbus. The control system uses surfaces as required, and not necessarily in proportion to stick/yoke movement.

In other words, any feedback through the sticks would be entirely artificial. In order to know what the aircraft is doing, the instruments should be used. If the PM wants to monitor the PF, he should monitor the the movement of the aircraft, not stick inputs.

A non-moving stick is certainly not a cost-saving measure. Those things are very costly either way. It has to do with the Airbus control philosophy.

BTW we also never touch the pedals except on the ground, on landing and during an engine out. The rudder moves automatically to coordinate turns, with no feedback to the pedals. And yet no one complains about lack of feedback.