Air France 447 crash.....possibly found after 2 years

[KBayDog]

You're right I know very little about Airbus, but it doesn't take an expert to see they've had some pretty serious design flaws.

I agree: Airbus has serious design flaws. So does Boeing, Cessna, Lockheed, Sikorsky, Eurocopter, etc.

However, have you stopped to think who has the greatest design flaws in the history of aviation? I'll give you a hint...it's these people:

If humans were designed to fly, we wouldn't have these:

...we'd have these:

Human beings are a stubborn lot, though. Since apparently we haven't heard, we invented these:

...which are pretty good, pretty reliable, designed by some smart sons-of-guns, and have allowed us to slip the surly bonds for over a century.

However, the biggest limitation in our attempt to successfully replicate what our pet parakeets can do is, and will always be, this:

 

[phrogpilot73]

From what I've seen, everything with a yoke/control column has both sides moving together.

Which then gets my enginerd/work at Pax brain going... Do they connect with a rod/tube then put in inputs to the FBW system? Or are there servos that move the other control yoke?

 

[wink]

Which then gets my enginerd/work at Pax brain going... Do they connect with a rod/tube then put in inputs to the FBW system? Or are there servos that move the other control yoke?

Based on my years of jumpseat riding in Airbuses, each control stick, flap or gear lever is an independant electrical switch/input of some sort. The power levers don't even move when the auto throttles are engaged. Airbus pilots please clarify.

 

[Catmando]

The sidestick controllers are totally separate. Each one sends a separate electronic signal to each of the flight controller computers.
In the case of disagreement or opposite control input, the Captain's sidestick has the authority to override the First Officer's.

FWIW, the sidestick is rarely used and even discouraged, except for T.O. and landing. Even "autoland" was supposed to be done at least once a day.
It is not an airplane. It is a flying computer.

[Edit: Upon furtheer review, the article says the cross-contols average out. So maybe the 330 is different.... or I need to go back to ground school.]

 

[eas7888]

It is not an airplane. It is a flying computer.

Aren't most new transport category aircraft like that? Jumpseating in the cockpit of the 777 made me feel like I was in a video game, not the cockpit of an airliner.

 

[HAL Pilot]

The sidestick controllers are totally separate. Each one sends a separate electronic signal to each of the flight controller computers.
In the case of disagreement or opposite control input, the Captain's sidestick has the authority to override the First Officer's.

FWIW, the sidestick is rarely used and even discouraged, except for T.O. and landing. Even "autoland" was supposed to be done at least once a day.
It is not an airplane. It is a flying computer.

[Edit: Upon furtheer review, the article says the cross-contols average out. So maybe the 330 is different.... or I need to go back to ground school.]

The A330 is the same. The sidesticks are independent and the Captain can override the FO. I'm not sure if his has a priority or an override button, but he can do it.

Our A330 guys typically handfly up at least to 10,000 before selcecting the autopilot on and many go up to FL180 or even cruise (unless it is an RNAV departure which then is FAA required autopilot on by 1000 ft.). Somewhere on the approach they click it off and hand fly the landing. Most will click off the autothrottles in gusty or crosswinds to reduce thepitch oscillations. We only autoland if the weather calls for it. So in otherwords, they hand fly the planes about the same as we do in the 767.

What are pilots initially complain about then get used too is the lack of feel in the sidestick and the autothrottles not moving the power levers. After a couple of hundered hours in the plane, they most like it.

 

[usmarinemike]

I agree: Airbus has serious design flaws. So does Boeing, Cessna, Lockheed, Sikorsky, Eurocopter, etc.

However, have you stopped to think who has the greatest design flaws in the history of aviation? I'll give you a hint...it's these people:

The Global War on Error in 1 Airwarriors post. Genius.

BTW, where's your Vitruvian Man's weiner?

 

[nittany03]

So this is, sadly, another case study in failed CRM. And though we can all sit back and chuck spears, "there are days when you're the ace of the base, and days when you can't find your ass with both hands and a flashlight," to quote my first on-wing in VT-3. But even though we've beaten that to death, one question for the engineers and ATPs in the crowd:

Not to imply that the Airbus series are "suffering from insurmountable design flaws, etc." But who thought it was a good idea to build an airplane where you AVERAGE the inputs from two sets of flight controls and send that to the computers? Either you have the controls or you don't. If you don't have the controls, and you take the controls, it's usually because you believe the other guy is terminally AFU, and you intend to save him from himself, be he a student or whoever. There are right control inputs and wrong control inputs in any given situation. Say, for the sake of argument, I am trimmed up on-speed in the landing pattern in the front seat of a T-45. Notionally, I get a wild hair and decide to plant the stick in my lap. This is heinously wrong, and will afford me less than 15 seconds to live if uncorrected. My theoretical backseater screams like a little girl and yells "Nittany, you f***ing idiot" while slamming the throttle to MRT, going boards in, and shoving the stick to neutral. Notionally, he does this in time to keep the jet from departing controlled flight, and we live. This would be a correct input in this situation. What is gained by averaging out these inputs? Is there ever a reason given in ground school?

 

[Catmando]

99% of the time, Airbusi are flown in "Normal LAW" which means among many other things, the pilot cannot physically stall the aircraft. It also limits "stupid" inputs. But AF447 was in "Alternate LAW" and many protections are no longer available. This is practiced in the sim, but not as a compound emergency which AF447 experienced. The FAA decides how sims are performed, more than any airline for us in the US.

I still believe in my model of Airbus, the capt. had sidestick priority. But a check of the A-330 confirms that opposite controls inputs are averaged. Nevertheless, all Airbus that I know of have a CAUTION whenever there is opposite control input. Pushing that button gives sidestick authority to that pilot. From the A-330 Manual:

When the PF makes a sidestick input, an electrical order is sent to the flight control computers. If the PNF makes a simultaneous sidestick input, both signals are algebraically summed and both PF and PNF green lights flash on the glareshield. This situation might occur in the case of an instinctive PNF reaction on the sidestick. If the PNF needs to take control, he must press and hold the take-over pb in order to avoid simultaneous sidestick inputs and announce, "I have control".​

In the case of a SIDESTICK FAULT ECAM warning due to an electrical failure, the affected sidestick order sent to the computers is zeroed. This means that the affected sidestick has been deactivated and there is no further procedure associated with this warning.​

In the case of pilot incapacitation where a sidestick input is being made, or in the case of a mechanical failure leading to a jammed sidestick, the inputs are again algebraically summed. There is no associated ECAM caution. In either of these cases, the intervening pilot must press the take-over pb to gain single sidestick authority. The pb must be depressed for at least 40 seconds to permanently deactivate the affected sidestick. However, if a sidestick has been deactivated, it may be reactivated by depressing its take-over pb.​

​

​

 

[nittany03]

OK, so if you're no-kidding trying to prevent stupidity, there is a mechanism available to take sole control of the aircraft. That makes more sense.

 

[Catmando]

A somewhat disrespectful (but also somewhat true) image of a 'normal' airline captain compared to an Airbus captain:

 

[MasterBates]

Nice one Cat.

Sent from my PH44100 using Tapatalk

 

[wink]

40 seconds seems like a long time to be holding down the button to gain unilateral control. If you have something like sever turbulence, out of control flight, another pilot to fight or keep off the controls after incapacitation, it might be hard to keep a finger on that button for 40 seconds. 40 seconds is a lifetime when you are upside down in a transport category aircraft hurdling to toward the earth.

 

[Catmando]

40 seconds seems like a long time to be holding down the button to gain unilateral control. If you have something like sever turbulence, out of control flight, another pilot to fight or keep off the controls after incapacitation, it might be hard to keep a finger on that button for 40 seconds. 40 seconds is a lifetime when you are upside down in a transport category aircraft hurdling to toward the earth.

Just to clarify:

Unilateral control is immediate when the PB is pushed, accompanied by an aural warning and visual cue.
Dual control returns when the PB is realeased.
However, if the PB is held down for 40 seconds, the unilateral control becomes permanent, rather than temporary.

 

[wink]

OK That sounds more resonable.