Airbus or Boeing

[Huntn]

The yoke does provide feedback to pilots. Something I would imagine would be hard to replicate in a joystick....

What kind of feedback?

Remember that originally yokes mounted on columns primarily gave the pilots leverage over flight controls. "Feel" was just something that was there when a pilot has a direct link to the controls. Over the years, due to hydraulics, artificial feel has played a larger and larger role. In fly-by-wire aircraft, today's commercial aircraft design standard, all "feel" if there is any, is artificial. In a computerized airplane with flight laws, it's never going to allow you to stall anyway, so the need for feel is negligible.

BTW, this is not my endorsement of fly-by-wire. Just an observation. I'd rather have a cable, instead of a computer and a wire, although I like the computers.

 

[quagmire]

What kind of feedback?

Remember that originally yokes mounted on columns primarily gave the pilots leverage over flight controls. "Feel" was just something that was there when a pilot has a direct link to the controls. Over the years artificial feel has played a larger and larger role. In fly-by-wire aircraft, today's commercial aircraft design standard, all "feel" if there is any, is artificial. In a computerized airplane with flight laws it's never going to allow you to stall anyway, so the need for feel is negligible.

BTW, this is not my endorsement of fly-by-wire. Just an observation. I'd rather have a cable, instead of a computer and a wire, although I like the computers.

That is what I was referring to was the artificial feel. Yes, the computer won't let you stall, overstress the airframe, etc anyway, but it is still a good thing to provide so pilots don't get lazy, complacent, out of touch of flying the aircraft, etc.

BTW, the controls were never directly connected to the flight controls. The wire would just go to a mechanism that would convert the action into a signal for the hydraulics to move the controls....

 

[smithrh]

Wait wait wait!

These bargain carriers here in town have some 20+ year old hammy down MD-80s that I wouldn't trust my dog to be carried in.

Say what?

Is this like "Wallah" or "for all intensive purposes?"

 

[Huntn]

That is what I was referring to was the artificial feel. Yes, the computer won't let you stall, overstress the airframe, etc anyway, but it is still a good thing to provide so pilots don't get lazy, complacent, out of touch of flying the aircraft, etc.

BTW, the controls were never directly connected to the flight controls. The wire would just go to a mechanism that would convert the action into a signal for the hydraulics to move the controls....

Check out the DC9 systems. Cables going to flight controls

----------

These bargain carriers here in town have some 20+ year old hammy down MD-80s that I wouldn't trust my dog to be carried in. I believe one got diverted back not too long ago for some kind of mechanical failure.

Keep in mind that all aircraft go through extensive checks and re-works as per FAA requirements. A heavy check basically rebuilds an airplane. Now if your so called bargain carrier skimps on maintenance, something that is not supposed to happen, you could be flying around in a piece of junk... but again, that is not supposed to happen.

 

[smithrh]

Hadn't seen this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/9232749/Hi-tech-controls-partly-blamed-for-Airbus-crash.html

 

[quagmire]

Check out the DC9 systems. Cables going to flight controls

Ah.... Not familiar with every aircraft system out there......

Keep in mind that all aircraft go through extensive checks and re-works as per FAA requirements. A heavy check basically rebuilds an airplane. Now if your so called bargain carrier skimps on maintenance, something that is not supposed to happen, you could be flying around in a piece of junk... but again, that is not supposed to happen.

Yep, and the aircraft that are at their end of their life go here( stress cracks, metal fatigue, etc).

 

[Huntn]

Yep, and the aircraft that are at their end of their life go here( stress cracks, metal fatigue, etc).

YouTube: video

But heavy checks can extend the life of an aircraft if someone wants to pay to do that. Wing spars, ribs, skin, can all be replaced. An aircraft can virtually be rebuilt. Again, price is the prohibiting factor.

BTW, I'm not trying to counter every thing you say... so please don't take this as some kind of duel of aircraft knowledge, (not saying you were). Good flying to you.

Hadn't seen this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/9232749/Hi-tech-controls-partly-blamed-for-Airbus-crash.html

I guess I'd ask, what is the background of the person who wrote this? I'm not going to flat out disagree, but todays airplane warning systems are only as good as the artificial feel and systems that are built into them. The indications are that the problem with the Air France crash in the ocean is that the pilots did not recognize the problem with their airspeed indicators. Joystick or yoke, the aircraft would have had to be designed with a feedback system designed to warn of stalls. And this particular aircraft, designed not to allow the pilots to stall under normal circumstances, did not have that. You can probably put a stick shaker in a joystick as easy as you could a control yoke.

Regarding pilot awareness, and a mistake being made, a valid point is that pulling back on the yoke is more visually apparent to the other pilot than observing the stick position indicator on the PFD (Primary Flight Display). However I'd say that is not a valid reason to put a yoke back into the flight deck. My guess is that there are other better ways to address the issue. Remember, the primary reason to have a yoke no longer exists.

 

[quagmire]

But heavy checks can extend the life of an aircraft if someone wants to pay to do that. Wing spars, ribs, skin, can all be replaced. An aircraft can virtually be rebuilt. Again, price is the prohibiting factor.

BTW, I'm not trying to counter every thing you say... so please don't take this as some kind of duel of aircraft knowledge, (not saying you were). Good flying to you.

Definitely. Even an aircraft that goes to die at the graveyard can be brought back to life. One of the AA MD82's in the video found new life with US Bank.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N237AA

None taken. It's always a good thing to learn new things. I simply stated what I know. Not trying to prove superiority or anything.

 

[shinobi-81]

Depends on the carrier. I can even fly Tupolev as long as it's not operated by Transnistrian Airfleet or whatever.

 

[elistan]

In a computerized airplane with flight laws, it's never going to allow you to stall anyway, so the need for feel is negligible.

Air France 447, discussed above, is an example of a situation of a modern fly-by-wire aircraft operating under "alternate law" where it does allow the pilots to put the plan into a stall.

What kind of feedback?

Not being a pilot, I can only talk out of my arse regarding what sort of feel, for the airplane, controls should provide. However, in the case of AF447, it certainly seems some feedback between the two control sticks, so that the two pilots automatically know what the other is doing, would have been of benefit.

The issue with AF447, for what it's worth, started with the pitot tubes icing over due to weather. This lack of airspeed information caused the AP to disengage and the flight controls to work under alternate law. There is an established procedure for this situation - I don't remember the details, but it has something to do with throttle settings and pitch settings (something like 85% throttle and 5 degrees nose up, or something.) Pilots flying a simulator were able to handle this situation every time without issue - the plane continued its course without issue. (Google for the cockpit transcript of AF447, it's fascinating.) One of the pilots seemingly did NOT react properly - and small, out of the way, zero-feedback-sharing sticks were a contributing factor in the flight crew not knowing what was going on. Not the ONLY factor, to be sure, but definitely a link in the chain of events.

 

[Huntn]

Air France 447, discussed above, is an example of a situation of a modern fly-by-wire aircraft operating under "alternate law" where it does allow the pilots to put the plan into a stall.

Thanks for your reply! The Airbus can stall in "alternate law", however the aircraft would resist and they had to force it into a stall because for whatever the reason was they lost situational awareness. Usually with a pitot tube blockage and indicated airspeed will read fast possibly into the red. An incorrect response is to pull the power off and/or pull the nose up. The correct response if fly known attitudes and power settings. This situation could have been made much more difficult if this was happening in severe turbulence while flying through a thunderstorm.

Not being a pilot, I can only talk out of my arse regarding what sort of feel, for the airplane, controls should provide. However, in the case of AF447, it certainly seems some feedback between the two control sticks, so that the two pilots automatically know what the other is doing, would have been of benefit.

When both pilots are on the controls and inputing opposite directions, the aircraft verbalizes "dual input". Yes this has been a issue in the past. When there are yokes, they are tied together so if one pilot is pulling and should not be, the other pilot could force the yoke forward (if he was stronger).

The issue with AF447, for what it's worth, started with the pitot tubes icing over due to weather. This lack of airspeed information caused the AP to disengage and the flight controls to work under alternate law. There is an established procedure for this situation - I don't remember the details, but it has something to do with throttle settings and pitch settings (something like 85% throttle and 5 degrees nose up, or something.) Pilots flying a simulator were able to handle this situation every time without issue - the plane continued its course without issue. (Google for the cockpit transcript of AF447, it's fascinating.) One of the pilots seemingly did NOT react properly - and small, out of the way, zero-feedback-sharing sticks were a contributing factor in the flight crew not knowing what was going on. Not the ONLY factor, to be sure, but definitely a link in the chain of events.

I briefly talked about this above.

 

[Gregg2]

I'm going to say Boeing out of loyalty for my best friend's husband working for them.

Same here, except in my case, it's a family member. I'm told that Airbus could not compete with Boeing without the heavy financial support it receives from European governments.

Wait wait wait!

Say what?

Is this like "Wallah" or "for all intensive purposes?"

...or, "it's a mute point"?

 

[NZed]

i feel no difference. I don't care.
Actually, its hard for me to choose because of my origin/destination and price.

 

[Huntn]

Same here, except in my case, it's a family member. I'm told that Airbus could not compete with Boeing without the heavy financial support it receives from European governments.

I'm not defending either company and like jobs in aerospace manufacturing staying in the country, but I'll present this for some perspective:

Boeing Subsidy Suite:

In 2004, EU authorities claimed Boeing (BA, Fortune 500) received $19 billion in unfair subsidies from federal and state governments between 1989 and 2006.

 

[Macintosh-HD]

Say what?

Is this like "Wallah" or "for all intensive purposes?"

... Worn out planes that once belonged to a major carrier and are now doomed to a budget service...

 

[elistan]

... Worn out planes that once belonged to a major carrier and are now doomed to a budget service...

I think you meant "hand-me-down" instead of "hammy down."

 

[kolax]

Hadn't seen this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/9232749/Hi-tech-controls-partly-blamed-for-Airbus-crash.html

That article seems pretty vague. In order for the pilot to adjust the pitch during cruise, he'd have to disengage the autopilot (which plays a sound). The other pilot would have noticed, plus when he adjusted the pitch, the attitude indicator would have shown otherwise.

Blaming the side stick on this is a weak argument I think. Even if his co-pilot had seen what he was doing (by means of a traditional yoke), you don't want two people trying to manually control the plane.

 

[Gregg2]

I'm not defending either company and like jobs in aerospace manufacturing staying in the country, but I'll present this for some perspective:

Boeing Subsidy Suite:

From the same article

According to Monday's ruling, the WTO's appellate body said Boeing received between $3 billion and $4 billion in U.S. subsidies, according to Kirk.
By contrast, the WTO said in December that Airbus received $18 billion in subsidies from European governments.

It goes on to say that both sides claim vindication. Seems more like politics than economics.

 

[Huntn]

From the same article

It goes on to say that both sides claim vindication. Seems more like politics than economics.

If the imbalance is a large as stated, then the U.S. government should definitely take that into consideration especially for U.S. military contracts.