Well quickly said one of the main differences is that modern Airbus planes are fly by wire, control inputs are transmitted to control surfaces electrical way when in B737 its done through hydraulics I think, though B777 and B787 are fly by wire planes too so it's not only Airbus thing.

 

Then unlike fly by wire planes of Boeing and of course all their traditional non fly by wire planes modern Airbus has flight envelope protection which basically prevents pilots from going beyond safe operation limits, basically stalling & overbanking & overspeeding the plane, when in Boeing pilot has full control and ability to go even beyond these limits. You can find more about these through Google of course...

 

Personally I like Airbus philosophy more, pilot error is still the number one cause of accidents and I believe that Airbus philosophy can save lives in certain situations.

 

I bet all those dead passengers at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean would disagree on that 'flight envelope protection' bit. And the Airbus that crashed with the media on board. I would say the design goals and reality are quite different.

 

Ray

I bet all those dead passengers at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean would disagree on that 'flight evelope protection' bit. And the Airbus that crashed with the media onboard. I would say the design goals and reality are quite different.

 

Ray

Flight envelope protection works like that as long as it has data to calculate. AF447 lost its airspeed data because pitot tubes not made by Airbus failed, and thus stall protection couldn't work anymore and went off. Had AF447 been flown with B777 with faulty pitot tubes outcome probably wouldn't have been any different as pilots failed to react follow proper procedures to maintain airspeed after they lost airspeed data, and after that they failed to understand what was happening and thus kept pulling up when they should have pulled the nose down to get out of that stall.

 

The difference is that Boeings can be stalled even when everything is working normally, Airbus not, at least not by accident. Flight envelope protection does just what it's supposed to do as long as there is no failure that would prevent it from getting all the data it needs to be able to work.

Everything works until it fails.

 

Hey, this has nothing to do with Boeing stuff. All i'm saying is airplanes crash and they crash because they got outside the 'flight envelope'. I'm an Airbus fan, just not a fanatic.

 

Ray

Ray,

 

You are talking about the Air France flight...that stalled and fell... right? The question was, why did the PIC not use the Power + Attitude = Performance (Basic IFR) to guess the speed.

 

IF it was a Boeing, he could have figured out from the throttle (Physical) position the power and then from the attitude indicator, and figure out that he was too slow.. right?

 

In an airbus, the physical indicator of the throttle may not give any feed back as to the power. Does the thorottle of the Air bus even move up and down to set power?

 

Am I correct? That was the issue..wasn't it?

 

Manny

Had AF447 been flown with B777 with faulty pitot tubes outcome probably wouldn't have been any different as pilots failed to react follow proper procedures to maintain airspeed after they lost airspeed data, and after that they failed to understand what was happening and thus kept pulling up when they should have pulled the nose down to get out of that stall.

 

Can't agree. The 777 pilots would never have pulled back on the stick at any point. Who in their right mind would pull back at 37000 feet, right in coffin corner? Only Airbus training can explain it. The Airbus pilots were reacting as if they still had all the protection, which they didn't. All the automation and "protection" was no doubt a big element in the human factors that resulted in them forgetting the most important thing: Fly the plane. Nobody on the flight deck flew the plane because they thought they were still flying the computer, and they are trained to pull back because the computer will just sort it all out for them.

 

Since the very beginning in 1988 I was never a fan of the Airbus philosophy. I'm not saying Airbus makes unsafe aircraft at all, but it is becoming more and more obvious that in attempting to eliminate one major cause of accidents, they've created another, and the end result is no difference to safety and a generation of pilots who technically haven't "flown an aeroplane" in years. Just the fact that you don't even need to apply back pressure in a turn is the kind of thing that over the years, in my humble opinion, surely sucks all the basic handling skills out of even the best pilots.

 

I have immense respect for Airbus and its aircraft, they are technological marvels, and some of the ideas are very very good. I will however never be comfortable with the fact that they can, and will at some point, disobey the pilot in command, or the fact that the nature of their everyday operation breeds the kind of gross incompetence displayed by the pilots of AF447. I'm absolutely sure that the flight crew of a 777 would have simply flown pitch and power, as you do on every aircraft in the world except those made by Airbus, and as taught by lesson 3 of every PPL course in the world. Just fly the damn plane.

 

Of course, the 777 crew could get into all sorts of trouble that the Airbus crew couldn't. But give me a plane that tells me why I'm dying over one that doesn't any day.

 

Does the thorottle of the Air bus even move up and down to set power?

Manny

 

No it doesn't, another thing that goes well with my post above.

"IF it was a Boeing, he could have figured out from the throttle (Physical) position the power and then from the attitude indicator, and figure out that he was too slow.. right?"

 

Well yeah I think that was one of the issues there, however had they immediately followed the checklist when they lost the airspeed data they would have had throttle and attitude set correctly for maintaining speed in time.

 

Nobody on the flight deck flew the plane because they thought they were still flying the computer, and they are trained to pull back because the computer will just sort it all out for them.

I don't think they are ever supposed to just keep pulling back for long.. Sure computer won't allow nose to rise too high so plane won't stall, however the maximum nose up attitude computer would allow them to do is much higher than ever seen in normal operations I think.

 

In my opinion AF447 was caused purely by bad training by Air France, not to say that other airlines operating modern Airbus fleet would be necessarily better. Pilots should be made clear that they are still flying and airplane that is just as much under physical laws as any non fly by wire & flight envelope protection airplane is. They should have understood that after they lost the airspeed data and aircraft went to different flight mode (can't remember what it was called...) flight envelope protection was gone and they would have to actively fly the plane instead of trusting normal automation helping them.

 

Sure there are improvements that should be made in pilot training for these planes... However AF447 still is really the first accident of its kind for modern Airbus plane, when through the history loads of completely normal working planes have crashed because of pilots simply getting disorientated and causing their plane to bank too much and other such things that could have been prevented with flight envelope protection.

Yeah I agree with you, I'm sure many accidents have been prevented by Airbus technology. My issue is with the handling of the aircraft. There is zero stick & rudder skill involved, and I fear we may start seeing more accidents as we see a generation of pilots who've hardly flown anything else in their lives. This ties in directly with your observation that the airplane is still "as much under physical laws as any non fly by wire & flight envelope protection airplane is". I do not see how a pilot who has spent 20 years flying only an Airbus could have any hope in hell of passing a PPL test on a Cessna 172, or flying his Airbus when the protection fails, turning it into an aeroplane again.

"IF it was a Boeing, he could have figured out from the throttle (Physical) position the power and then from the attitude indicator, and figure out that he was too slow.. right?"

 

Well yeah I think that was one of the issues there, however had they immediately followed the checklist when they lost the airspeed data they would have had throttle and attitude set correctly for maintaining speed in time.

 

I don't think they are ever supposed to just keep pulling back for long.. Sure computer won't allow nose to rise too high so plane won't stall, however the maximum nose up attitude computer would allow them to do is much higher than ever seen in normal operations I think.

 

In my opinion AF447 was caused purely by bad training by Air France, not to say that other airlines operating modern Airbus fleet would be necessarily better. Pilots should be made clear that they are still flying and airplane that is just as much under physical laws as any non fly by wire & flight envelope protection airplane is. They should have understood that after they lost the airspeed data and aircraft went to different flight mode (can't remember what it was called...) flight envelope protection was gone and they would have to actively fly the plane instead of trusting normal automation helping them.

 

Sure there are improvements that should be made in pilot training for these planes... However AF447 still is really the first accident of its kind for modern Airbus plane, when through the history loads of completely normal working planes have crashed because of pilots simply getting disorientated and causing their plane to bank too much and other such things that could have been prevented with flight envelope protection.

 

I believe the flight mode AF447 kicked into was called "Alternate Law".

 

The ACI documentary on it was fascinating but quite frightening. I don't even want to think about the terror those pilots and passengers must have experienced.

The difference is that Boeings can be stalled even when everything is working normally, Airbus not, at least not by accident. Flight envelope protection does just what it's supposed to do as long as there is no failure that would prevent it from getting all the data it needs to be able to work.

 

The technology isn't foolproof, remember the A320 that was flying an airshow flyby that got too low, and even though the pilot commanded full power to climb out the aircraft didn't respond and it crashed into the trees at the end of the runway. What happened was because of the aircraft speed, and the low altitude, the flight computer put the plane in landing mode and wouldn't allow the climb out. I guess had the crew realized this they could have commanded TO/GA and that would have saved the plane. Technology should only be used as a tool, the pilot should have ultimate control.

The technology isn't foolproof, remember the A320 that was flying an airshow flyby that got too low, and even though the pilot commanded full power to climb out the aircraft didn't respond and it crashed into the trees at the end of the runway. What happened was because of the aircraft speed, and the low altitude, the flight computer put the plane in landing mode and wouldn't allow the climb out. I guess had the crew realized this they could have commanded TO/GA and that would have saved the plane. Technology should only be used as a tool, the pilot should have ultimate control.

 

This is the kind of situation that leaves me uncomfortable with Airbus. It's a situation you shouldn't find yourself in anyway, but in the real world, #### happens, and these are situations where you want the airplane to do exactly as you command. Nobody could've predicted the events surrounding that air show accident. Only a human brain can assess and act on a totally unexpected situation, and a human brain that is "in the loop" all the time does so more effectively. Again I'm not saying one is safer than the other at this point but I do expect this kind of accident to rear its ugly head more often as time goes by and pilots are starved of the "feel" of flying.

I bet all those dead passengers at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean would disagree on that 'flight envelope protection' bit. And the Airbus that crashed with the media on board. I would say the design goals and reality are quite different.

 

Ray

 

 

The reason for the A330 crash was the peto tubes. They got super cool liquid ice in them and that caused them to freeze up. So they didnt know how fast they were going and the automated thrust system didn't work properly and that caused the plane to stall. So basically the Fly By Wire was doing its job correctly and the crash would have been prevented. But the Fly By Wire cant do its job properly if the pilots are flying the airplane too slow. Or trying to hold altitude while only going 100 KNOTS.

Guys lets just try to stay on topic.

 

In my opinion the FSL version will be the best. I cannot wait, I was thinking of getting the Aerosoft one in the mean time but the FSL one will be out this year hopefully so I'm not sure if it's worth it.

 

Lee

 

 

Sent using Tapatalk

Re:airbus

Thanks for the info. I thought it was a type of plane not just another brand/manufacturer. lol.

tf51d,

 

Not quite correct. No accident is that simple, and a lot of incorrect observations are made.

 

I have read the official report, and it is available in the web. The aircraft did not crash...the pilot did it...the pilot disabled the Alpha Floor protection and took the aircraft, loaded with passengers to 100ft above the runway...problem was, he made such a botched job of it, he went down to 50ft above the runway....it was only the remaining protection envelopes that stopped the aircraft from crashing right there. By the time they saw the line of trees at the end of the runway, it was too late to pull up. The report said the engines powered up properly, just the pilots applied the power too late.

 

You need to remember an Airbus is just an aeroplane, it doesnt fly by some black magic, it still obeys the laws of gravity...unfortunately it also obeys some very lousy decisions by some pilots.

Re:airbus

Thanks for the info. I thought it was a type of plane not just another brand/manufacturer. lol.

 

I must say I am a bit surprised that a person who is interested in flight sims never heard of airbus.

 

Either way I think a lot of people confuse the flight protections of a airbus with fly by wire.. You can have fly by wire with no protections at all, and both fly by wire and traditional planes use hydraulics to move the control surfaces.. The difference is how the pilot commands get there..

 

I also think that saying airbus pilots don't have stick and rudder skills is misleading.. any plane including a airbus can be flown without automation, the majority of departures and landings are hand flown and you still need to know how to fly a airplane to fly a airbus... let alone the fact that before you are allowed anywhere near the business end of a airbus you have spent quite a few hours in smaller less complicated planes