Unlike Airbus, Boeing lets aviator override fly-by-wire tech

[seagull]

Re: Unlike Airbus, Boeing lets aviator override fly-by-wire

Well I apologize for perpetuating a myth, it happens to all of us now and again.

My stance doesn't change though... all the computerized assistance you can pack in but it needs to have a manual mode for when things assume a heading of 180.

You may WANT that, but the statistics prove that pilots usually do the wrong thing.

Why, exactly, do you want to be able to pull the wings off an airplane? Why do you want to be able to exceed the aircraft's design capabilities? How much aerobatics have you flown?

To me, I am more concerned that I can't overboost the engines due to FADEC, as a windshear or GPWS escape is FAR more likely than needing to intentionally roll inverted!

 

[Trip7]

Re: Unlike Airbus, Boeing lets aviator override fly-by-wire

Definitely have to go with Seagull on this one. As an airline pilot I just don't see any reason why pilots should be allowed to exceed the design capabilities of the aircraft. If the Q400 operated on Airbus' philosophy, all those people would be alive today. Also, in the history of the Airbus FBW series aircraft, I don't think any crash has ever been attributed to a pilot not being allowed to exceed the design limits. But like Seagull said, statistics prove many crashes have occurred due to pilots exceeding the design limits.

 

[derg]

Re: Unlike Airbus, Boeing lets aviator override fly-by-wire

That'd kind of a reach.

 

[seagull]

Re: Unlike Airbus, Boeing lets aviator override fly-by-wire

That'd kind of a reach.

What would?

 

[derg]

Re: Unlike Airbus, Boeing lets aviator override fly-by-wire

What would?

Trip7's comment.

 

[Orange Anchor]

Re: Unlike Airbus, Boeing lets aviator override fly-by-wire

Well I apologize for perpetuating a myth, it happens to all of us now and again.

One can accept they have their facts wrong or one can use sarcasm and cling to previously held beliefs. It is a choice and as you have noted, it happens.

The Habsheim accident is a Hufacts gold mine for things that went wrong and poor training. It is not a substantive indictment of FBW or computers.

 

[seagull]

Re: Unlike Airbus, Boeing lets aviator override fly-by-wire

Trip7's comment.

What portion do you think is not correct?

 

[derg]

Re: Unlike Airbus, Boeing lets aviator override fly-by-wire

Well, let me use a real world example apart from the Colgan crash.

With autothrottles and ALPA speed protection, theoretically the throttles will always be in a position at least to maintain an appropriate speed for a given, normal pitch angle.

However, between automation errors, software errors and a large degree of "other", some airlines have still encountered situations where the aircraft got abnormally close to stalling and some have encountered stick shakers.

FBW technology is amazing, yes, but there's always a tradeoff between replacing a number of potential pilot errors with a number of potential software errors.

I'm not taking a side in the FBW versus non-FBW because it's a much more comprehensive issue, sprinkled with ego, that is beyond the scope of most of our expertise on human factors, accident history and engineering.

I've been through way too many Atari versus Amiga, Boeing versus McDonnell-Douglas, Cessna versus Piper, Riddle versus UND arguments in my short 39 years. Two immovable camps that have no desire to understand, but all the intentions to beat the other into submission.

I have no practical experience with FBW so any opinions I have on the practical application of their principles would be moot. Philosophically I think it's a good thing, but professionally, it may or may not be the best thing. I have little faith in cure-alls.

Fly what the company puts in front of you. Find out the safest way to avoid bending metal or losing payload/passengers and cash that check!

 

[Orange Anchor]

Re: Unlike Airbus, Boeing lets aviator override fly-by-wire

I have no practical experience with FBW so any opinions I have on the practical application of their principles would be moot. Philosophically I think it's a good thing, but professionally, it may or may not be the best.

No. the next best is FBL (fly by light).

 

[derg]

Re: Unlike Airbus, Boeing lets aviator override fly-by-wire

No. the next best is FBL (fly by light).

The Millennium Falcon has that. I was able to do the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs with FBL technology.

 

[SeanD]

Re: Unlike Airbus, Boeing lets aviator override fly-by-wire

Thanks for the new sig Doug.

 

[Orange Anchor]

Re: Unlike Airbus, Boeing lets aviator override fly-by-wire

The Millennium Falcon has that. I was able to do the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs with FBL technology.

So you were what.. holding at the Chyrillis bypass for the PHA (potentially hazardous asteroids) storm to pass. Wimp.

Anyway, FBL is not exactly new. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19920023534_1992023534.pdf

And Gulfstream has been toying with it.

Oh, and the Kessel Run has been downgraded to Falcon RSSs beginning in October.

 

[derg]

Re: Unlike Airbus, Boeing lets aviator override fly-by-wire

Oh, and the Kessel Run has been downgraded to Falcon RSSs beginning in October.

Yeup. Our Millenium Falcon base got straight up gutted when Rebel Alliance management wrecked our scope clause. That damned Jedi that ran our negotiating committee went straight to management after we signed the letter of agreement.

I'll be glad when Darth Phantompooper finds his flight kit.

 

[Orange Anchor]

Re: Unlike Airbus, Boeing lets aviator override fly-by-wire

Yeup. Our Millenium Falcon base got straight up gutted when Rebel Alliance management wrecked our scope clause. That damned Jedi that ran our negotiating committee went straight to management after we signed the letter of agreement.

Funny thing too is a friend of mine 'green slipped' it yestermoment.

 

[derg]

Re: Unlike Airbus, Boeing lets aviator override fly-by-wire

Nice! but we've got X-wing drivers on furlough, that's totally going to screw the Manning formula.

(Holy thread creep! . This topic needed some levity anyway!)

 

[ColoradoPilot]

Re: Unlike Airbus, Boeing lets aviator override fly-by-wire

Definitely have to go with Seagull on this one. As an airline pilot I just don't see any reason why pilots should be allowed to exceed the design capabilities of the aircraft. If the Q400 operated on Airbus' philosophy, all those people would be alive today. Also, in the history of the Airbus FBW series aircraft, I don't think any crash has ever been attributed to a pilot not being allowed to exceed the design limits. But like Seagull said, statistics prove many crashes have occurred due to pilots exceeding the design limits.

There's been plenty (a few mentioned here) of incidents where lives have been saved by being allowed to.

 

[trafficinsight]

Re: Unlike Airbus, Boeing lets aviator override fly-by-wire

One can accept they have their facts wrong or one can use sarcasm and cling to previously held beliefs. It is a choice and as you have noted, it happens.

The Habsheim accident is a Hufacts gold mine for things that went wrong and poor training. It is not a substantive indictment of FBW or computers.

I was using it as an example (incorrectly) to support my position, which is not based on that one event. No sarcasm was intended.

 

[Maximilian_Jenius]

Re: Unlike Airbus, Boeing lets aviator override fly-by-wire

No. the next best is FBL (fly by light).

How does FBL differ from FBW, and how is it better?

 

[Minuteman]

Re: Unlike Airbus, Boeing lets aviator override fly-by-wire

How does FBL differ from FBW, and how is it better?

Information is transmitted via light (fiber optics), rather than electrical conductors. The signal is probably almost always discrete on/off digital modulation rather than, say, the intensity, color, or other "analog" characteristic of the signal. For flight control use, it's probably not significantly better than regular wires.

Even more interesting is fluidic control! No fancy electrics to get your point across there.

 

[seagull]

Re: Unlike Airbus, Boeing lets aviator override fly-by-wire

Well, let me use a real world example apart from the Colgan crash.

With autothrottles and ALPA speed protection, theoretically the throttles will always be in a position at least to maintain an appropriate speed for a given, normal pitch angle.

However, between automation errors, software errors and a large degree of "other", some airlines have still encountered situations where the aircraft got abnormally close to stalling and some have encountered stick shakers.

FBW technology is amazing, yes, but there's always a tradeoff between replacing a number of potential pilot errors with a number of potential software errors.

I'm not taking a side in the FBW versus non-FBW because it's a much more comprehensive issue, sprinkled with ego, that is beyond the scope of most of our expertise on human factors, accident history and engineering.

I've been through way too many Atari versus Amiga, Boeing versus McDonnell-Douglas, Cessna versus Piper, Riddle versus UND arguments in my short 39 years. Two immovable camps that have no desire to understand, but all the intentions to beat the other into submission.

I have no practical experience with FBW so any opinions I have on the practical application of their principles would be moot. Philosophically I think it's a good thing, but professionally, it may or may not be the best thing. I have little faith in cure-alls.

Fly what the company puts in front of you. Find out the safest way to avoid bending metal or losing payload/passengers and cash that check!

Doug, I'm not sure that the example you give would be possible in a true FBW aircraft, but there are not enough details.

Also, FYI, I do not have any bias particularly either way. I _have_ been inverted in swept wing jets, and am comfortable with that, I have the training to back that up.

My replies to this thread have not been based on any personal bias, I just follow the data. Much of the work I do is specifically in human factors, accident investigation and analysis and engineering, all specifically pertaining to the operation of large transport swept wing jets. In fact, those areas are what I spend 80% of my working hours doing (the rest I am flying).