I read somewhere that Capt. Sullenberger had his stick full aft when trying to flare the plane, but that it wouldn't let him pull the nose up any further. As a result, the plane thumped into the water's surface at a much higher rate of descent than he wanted. Was this a good thing? Or was it case that if it hadn't overidden him it actually saved him from a catastrophic stall? I guess that is a dumb and overly hypothetical question, because who can say what would have happened if the plane had impacted the water's surface differently.

 

Unrelated to the above, Airbusses are something that I have literally ZERO knowledge of whatsoever. The learning curve intimidates me. While not an FBW plane, the MD-11 has a computer in between the pilot and the elevator as part of its stability system. One of the effects of this is attitude hold, meaning the appearance of neutral stability, and no tendency to return to a trimmed state. I find this problematic as heck when trying to fly the aircraft with autothrottles disengaged, because with even a second's innatention it is very easy to get into a bad angle of attack situation, where my speed is falling off, my rate of descent is rapidly increasing, but my nose is glued to some magic point in space. As a result I pretty much only fly this aircraft with the autothrots engaged--and that makes me feel like a putz! On the other hand I understand that the T7, while FBW, has true speed trim and basically feels like a non FBW airplane. How is the Airbus in this regard? Is it one of those point-the-nose type airplanes like the MD?

My interest in AB sims is in the unique instrumentation of the AB. Things like "green dot speed", the FPA "bird", etc.

 

scott s.

.

I read somewhere that Capt. Sullenberger had his stick full aft when trying to flare the plane, but that it wouldn't let him pull the nose up any further. As a result, the plane thumped into the water's surface at a much higher rate of descent than he wanted. Was this a good thing? Or was it case that if it hadn't overidden him it actually saved him from a catastrophic stall? I guess that is a dumb and overly hypothetical question, because who can say what would have happened if the plane had impacted the water's surface differently.

Stalling into the water from flare altitude would probably not have been much different than performing a hard "landing" in the water. If a stall occurred over a hard surface, it might be a different story. . . .

 

I support the Airbus style of flight envelope protection. While not directly relevant, this case shows how flight envelope protection can improve situational awareness. In circumstances that would have been highly chaotic, the captain may have forgotten how close he or she was to a stall. Even though it "caused" a hard landing, flight envelope protection would have at least reminded the captain of the potential stall.

 

Regardless, I think the benefits of having rigid stall protection in relation to normal operations greatly outweigh the benefits of having loose stall protection in a case, if any, in which a stall maneuver would be necessary in order for the preservation of life.

Boeing: pilot actually flys the plane...

 

Scarebus: Pilot monitors the computer and generally takes a nap :-)

 

Hey now, Everyone knows airbus is better

One add'l, do you actually use a joystick? Does the Airbus series have both a joystick and yoke?

 

 

I most definitely use a joystick when flying the Airbus X Extended or BBS Airbus. My joystick is on a small table next to my seat, about in the same location as the real Airbus. For me, it adds a lot of realism, to fly the Airbus with a joystick and the Boeing with a yoke. With both the Boeing and Airbus, I use the twist feature of the joystick for the steering tiller, which works real nice too.

With some I suppose it doesn't matter, but for me the feeling has to be there, and flying the Airbus with a joystick does that job, the same way as flying these aircraft in virtual cockpit with TrackIR, rather than using a very unrealistic 2D cockpit.

But, each person has to enjoy the simulation in their own way.

I read somewhere that Capt. Sullenberger had his stick full aft when trying to flare the plane, but that it wouldn't let him pull the nose up any further. As a result, the plane thumped into the water's surface at a much higher rate of descent than he wanted. Was this a good thing? Or was it case that if it hadn't overidden him it actually saved him from a catastrophic stall? I guess that is a dumb and overly hypothetical question, because who can say what would have happened if the plane had impacted the water's surface differently.

 

 

It isn't a dumb question at all. In fact, William Langewiesche's book Fly by Wire is practically a dissertation on that very matter. Ultimately, the answer remains debatable. Yes, Sullenberger did run into "alpha protection" when he flared the 'Bus, and some say that made the landing better than Sully could have on his own, others say the opposite. Airbus Industrie says he was at the wrong speed in the wrong configuration, else he could have put the airplane down without bending it (Airbus engineers had the luxury of figuring this out in hindsight). Regardless, Sully was the man on the spot, and thank goodness he was!

Of course what Airbus neglects to mention and hopes no one else ever does again...if Sully had been able to bypass the FADEC controls, he would have had enough power to return to the airport. FADEC and the Bus systems are designed to save the engines, Sully was saving lives.

My joystick is on a small table next to my seat, about in the same location as the real Airbus . . . . With both the Boeing and Airbus, I use the twist feature of the joystick for the steering tiller

Same. I used to put my joystick on the same level as my keyboard, but such was cluttered and uncomfortable. I now rest the joystick on a file cabinet left of my seat. This position also mimics that of the tiller on Boeing aircraft, so it's a two-in-one convenience.

Of course what Airbus neglects to mention and hopes no one else ever does again...if Sully had been able to bypass the FADEC controls, he would have had enough power to return to the airport. FADEC and the Bus systems are designed to save the engines, Sully was saving lives.

 

What engines are you talking about, the ones that ingested Canadian geese and were in pieces??

What engines are you talking about, the ones that ingested Canadian geese and were in pieces??

 

Yup, thems the ones. You should read the reports and Sully comments. They were not in pieces, in fact there was very littel damage.They were retarded to idle thrust by the FADEC computers and wouldn't allow the pilots to increase thrust. One of the quotes from Sully was that if this had been a Boeing he probably would never have crashed because he would have had at least partial power.

I have the report with me. The NTSB states that as a result of damage to the core, neither engine was capable of producing thrust to maintain flight.

NTSB also states no commercial aircraft currently has any system to advise and diagnose the type of damage that has occurred ( not even Boeing), therefore it was unreasonable to expect the crew to know that they were wasting their time trying to relight the engines as they had not actually shut down.

 

Nothing wrong with the way the aircraft performed there, I think you have been given wrong information.

 

 

FADEC and the Bus systems are designed to save the engines, Sully was saving lives.

 

...lovely bit of prose that. but your other comments (especially the one about Sully stating that if he were in a Boeing he would not have crashed) suggest a deep prejudice against all things Airbus, and you are really stretching credibility and the truth in a few of your posts on this thread!

You are right, I dont have much respect for Airbuses, but that doesnt negate the facts, the computers idled the engines, not the pilots and they were not destroyed, only damaged. If the pilots had control they in all likelyhood could have nursed the plane back.....and if you doubt that, please let Sully know, I'm just repeating what he said in an interview a while back

You are right, I dont have much respect for Airbuses, but that doesnt negate the facts, the computers idled the engines, not the pilots and they were not destroyed, only damaged. If the pilots had control they in all likelyhood could have nursed the plane back.....and if you doubt that, please let Sully know, I'm just repeating what he said in an interview a while back

 

Wrong again, the engines decreased thrust due to core damage, the crew then moved the throttle levers to idle at 15:28, it is in the report.

 

What becomes clear is that the people who appear to dislike Airbus is simply because they don't understand or refuse to understand it.

 

It is like being given a Humvee and complain because it doesn't handle or ride like your old Chevvy.

 

Will, I doubt that folks with the experienced prejudice read reports. If they do, they usually say it was faked if it doesn't tell their 'truth'. I saw that happening, on the case. :mellow:

 

There's a full report, there also is the one of the powerplant engineer, including the pictures of the engine damage, Sully, in the report and in his book, never blamed Airbus or explained anything like 'a Boeing would have made it'.

 

To believe that a (two) mechanically broken engine(s) can be 'bypassed' is, for itself, a overwhelmingly surprising statement. If you know what I mean. And the damage got described and shown in great detail.

 

Since the OP openly asked for some typical Airbus character traits and since I doubted that the thread will stay on that open road, I think we are not surprised where it went, for some. So now you choose if you feed them or if we just stick to the topic. :smile:

 

 

By the way, good tip on the book from Richard de Crespigny, QF32. Now that was an event which could have been disastrous, huh? For me, it proved that a good crew is golden, no matter what plane they are flying.

 

The OP spoke about his 757. I wonder if there's some comparable Airbus plane when it comes to the reported good climb performance. A319 maybe? Just thinking about the ones being used in and out of the high elevation airfields, e.g. Paro.