Re: I assume this is fly-by-wire.

I just got my Private license about 2.5 years ago and have talked about FBW technology that you "can't turn off" quite a bit with other PPSEL's through ATPs. The consensus was that FBW was great, but all of us agreed that it should be implemented on Boeing's model - the PIC can turn it off.

I'm geniunely not trying to tick you off. But I am very curious if there ever has been any debate with Airbus that you're aware of concerning adding the PIC's ability to shut off the FBW?

I guess what scares me and the other pilots I've spoken to is stuff like this:
[link|http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/lh2904/photo.shtml|http://www.airdisast...h2904/photo.shtml]

DLH 2904 flight from Frankfurt to Warsaw progressed normally until Warsaw Okecie TWR warned the crew that windshear exists on approach to RWY 11, as reported by DLH 5764, that had just landed. According to Flight Manual instructions PF used increased approach speed and with this speed touched down on RWY 11 in Okecie aerodrome. Very light touch of the runway surface with the landing gear and lack of compression of the left landing gear leg to the extent understood by the aircraft computer as the actual landing resulted in delayed deployment of spoilers and thrust reversers. Delay was about 9 seconds. Thus the braking commenced with delay and in condition of heavy rain and strong tailwind (storm front passed through aerodrome area at that time) aircraft did not stop on runway.

In effect of the crash one crew member and one of the passengers lost their lives. The aircraft sustained damage caused by fire.

[link|http://sunnyday.mit.edu/accidents/warsaw-report.html|http://sunnyday.mit....arsaw-report.html]

There are more, of course, like the Lufthansa flight in the clouds on final where the first officer thought he keyed in -3.5 degrees and what he actually keyed in was -3,500/min descent. They broke through the clouds at 1,000 agl, both pilot and first officer yanked the stick back but nothing happened because the computer decided that was "too much input" and instead nicely rounded it out into the ground and killed all on board.

Post #190,853 by saganista 1/19/05 6:02:20 PM Reply	Re: I assume this is fly-by-wire. Yes, it is. The FBW system is operational 100% of the time with high redundancy. The hydraulics look a little different too. Apparently, talking to one of my aircraft obsessive workmates, the original A380 FBW system had to be degraded. It was working too well, you could lose power from one of the engines and the cabin crew wouldn't know about it, so they programmed it to add some slippage.
Post #190,943 by mmoffitt 1/20/05 8:43:14 AM Reply	That's what I'd guessed. I just got my Private license about 2.5 years ago and have talked about FBW technology that you "can't turn off" quite a bit with other PPSEL's through ATPs. The consensus was that FBW was great, but all of us agreed that it should be implemented on Boeing's model - the PIC can turn it off. I'm geniunely not trying to tick you off. But I am very curious if there ever has been any debate with Airbus that you're aware of concerning adding the PIC's ability to shut off the FBW? I guess what scares me and the other pilots I've spoken to is stuff like this: [link\|http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/lh2904/photo.shtml\|http://www.airdisast...h2904/photo.shtml] DLH 2904 flight from Frankfurt to Warsaw progressed normally until Warsaw Okecie TWR warned the crew that windshear exists on approach to RWY 11, as reported by DLH 5764, that had just landed. According to Flight Manual instructions PF used increased approach speed and with this speed touched down on RWY 11 in Okecie aerodrome. Very light touch of the runway surface with the landing gear and lack of compression of the left landing gear leg to the extent understood by the aircraft computer as the actual landing resulted in delayed deployment of spoilers and thrust reversers. Delay was about 9 seconds. Thus the braking commenced with delay and in condition of heavy rain and strong tailwind (storm front passed through aerodrome area at that time) aircraft did not stop on runway. In effect of the crash one crew member and one of the passengers lost their lives. The aircraft sustained damage caused by fire. [link\|http://sunnyday.mit.edu/accidents/warsaw-report.html\|http://sunnyday.mit....arsaw-report.html] There are more, of course, like the Lufthansa flight in the clouds on final where the first officer thought he keyed in -3.5 degrees and what he actually keyed in was -3,500/min descent. They broke through the clouds at 1,000 agl, both pilot and first officer yanked the stick back but nothing happened because the computer decided that was "too much input" and instead nicely rounded it out into the ground and killed all on board. bcnu, Mikem Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer. (Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
Post #191,052 by saganista 1/21/05 5:50:10 AM Reply	Re: That's what I'd guessed. >I'm geniunely not trying to tick you off. But I am very curious if there ever has >been any debate with Airbus that you're aware of concerning adding the PIC's >ability to shut off the FBW? I really don't know. As I said in a previous post, I'm just a grease monkey. I leave the clever sods to concentrate on design and safety issues, while I concentrate on not falling off a four storey high wing jig. :)
Post #191,073 by mmoffitt 1/21/05 10:26:49 AM Reply	;0) bcnu, Mikem Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer. (Just trying to be accepted in the New America)

Welcome to IWETHEY!