Yeah... we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Too many Airbus crashes where the FBW systems were taking pilot input and doing something other than what the pilot expected... and the result was catastrophic. So... yep, we'll have to definitely agree to disagree.

 

mmm i watch many aircrash investigation an not all crashes were the FBW systems fault. Most of the crashes have seen were pilot error. But i do agree with you when you said that the FBW system were taking pilot input and doing something other than what the pilot expected. That only happen once o twice i think . An the cause for that to happen was because the computer was getting faulty reading coming from the pitot tube ,do to ice being build up on the pitot tube. An it has not only happen with Airbus FBW systems but Boeing as well . They teach pilot to always relied on their instruments an not their human instinct . So when the computer fails to do what you ask it to do i know they have different manual they can turn to when that happens. If you search really good most crashes are cause by pilot error. Computer are not as perfect as it seems, that is why Airbus an Boeing have different procedures to be fallow when those system fails. That is where your flight training comes into play what you learn is there. But one thing i can really say about airbus pilot is that to much automation can cause a pilot to lose their flying skill . Because they barely fly the aircraft . So that is why when one system fails everything is automated an you have to find the cause really quick why the aircraft is behaving that way. I can't really say how much of confusion goes on when all the system start going off one by one. When everything is automated an you don't even know if to trust your instrument or relied on your instinct it must be really hard to choose at that moment. But if you don't get to fly the bus all that much you won't know what to do when something of that nature happen.

 

 

To stay on topic i don't know if this may help you to better understand what fly by wire really is but take a look it might help you :smile:

 

The key facts in the AF447 incident are, in sequence:

 

1. Airspeed indications were lost because of icing

 

2. The flight crew didn't follow the memory procedure for such an event which is to fly the aircraft on pitch angle and engine speed. Had tne procedure been followed the aircraft would have continued to fly safely.

 

3. While the stall warning was sounding the flight crew pulled the stick fully aft and took the aircraft well outside its flight envelope achieving a 40 deg AoA . It's doubtful if any similar aircraft could have recovered from that situation.

Aeroflot Flight 593 - Flaw in Airbus FBW logic causes partial autopilot disconnect with zero indication to crew

 

No. the partial disconnection was caused by one of the captain's children who was allowed to sit at the controls.

Also, in short it can prevent the pilots from operating the plane beyond normal limits.

 

For example, on an airbus, if the pilot is stalling the airplane it will throttle up and pitch down on it's own, preventing the stall.

 

Of course that is a simple explaination...

 

Tell that to the people who were onboard AF447...... It stalled...

 

(But yes it were extremely rare circumstances).

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know you're an airbus fan... that's fine.

 

I also know political b.s. when I read it. Air France shouldn't have crashed... it's primary cause which Airbus fans refuse to admit: The concept that two pilots can input pitch commands and that there is zero indication of what the computer actually does is a flaw. Period. Bad design, going to get more killed sooner than later.

 

The Russian Airbus shouldn't have crashed either. Once again, zero indication to the flight crew as to what decision the computer made. Bad design. Period.

 

As for the test flight... the autopilot was clearly willing to take the aircraft into a stall condition... which it shouldn't ever do.

 

I realize you don't like me saying bad things about Airbus... but as far as I'm concerned... it's like driving a car with a blindfold and expecting nothing to go wrong.

 

This has nothing to do with being an Airbus fan or not.

As Ronan stated, the Aeroflot crash was an A310. Since the A310 does not have FBW, the cause of the crash can not in any way be contributed to the FBW system Airbus uses on their later designs.

 

As for AF447, the FBW was doing what it was supposed to do. It were the pilots who got totally disoriented and it could have happened in a steam gauge Boeing as well.

 

In general, aircraft should never crash. Yet numerous Airbusses, Boeings, Fokkers, etc have crashed. All due to various reasons and circumstances. You can not simply appoint brand 'A' to be less safe than brand 'B' by just the use of a single system. If that were true, never go flying a 777 or 787....

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Tell that to the people who were onboard AF447...... It stalled...

 

(But yes it were extremely rare circumstances).

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

From the report I read it was pilot error, and the same scenarios in a sim the stall was avoided. However, it is easy to sit here or in a sim and say/do this or that. While in the thick of it, over the ocean, in severe CB,s is another with faulty readings and gongs and warnings is another thing.

Didn't AF447 for most of the stalled descent, keep wings level? I'm not sure if that was by aircraft design or if the EFCS played some part.

 

Also - remember that Concorde was FBW, which was 60's technology.

Didn't AF447 for most of the stalled descent, keep wings level? I'm not sure if that was by aircraft design or if the EFCS played some part.

From what I recall it was in fact banked which was one of the distractions that the pilots were focusing on trying to get it back to wings level instead of focusing on pitch and power.

 

Also - remember that Concorde was FBW, which was 60's technology.

Analogue FBW instead of digital... Not entirely sure how that works going on some of the basics I'd take about FBW, looks like I'll just have to buy the Concorde X and learn to fly her...

 

The Russian Airbus shouldn't have crashed either. Once again, zero indication to the flight crew as to what decision the computer made. Bad design. Period.

Also to point out here, in the 737 classics, you could make input after input all you wanted but there wasn't a gauge that told you what the control surfaces were doing, you just new what they were doing, just as you know with an Airbus if you give it left stick, right stick, forward stick or back stick, then that's what you'll get.

 

LOL Maybe you should have read Rónán's signature think most of us know he is a RW Pilot of the Airbus series, that's why we take note of what he inputs in here.

Thank you.

 

As for the test flight... the autopilot was clearly willing to take the aircraft into a stall condition... which it shouldn't ever do.

Turkish Airlines crash in AMS, Boeing 737-800NG, Autopilot took the airplane to a stall and then due to the low altitude a crash, again though, an Autopilot problem and not a FBW one...

 

 

Regards,

Ró.

Fly by wire pertains to the way input is sent to a control surface. FBW is electrical imput from the control in the cockpit sent to an electric motor that uses this input to move a control surface. If it isn't a FBW then it is assumed that the control in the cockpit is attached to the control surface by a cable and the motion is thus transfered by the cable.

 

RLJR

looks like I'll just have to buy the Concorde X and learn to fly her...

Aer Lingus Concorde! :im Not Worthy: Next thing must be the Dublin - Paro route. ^_^

Aer Lingus Concorde! :im Not Worthy: Next thing must be the Dublin - Paro route. ^_^

We're working on that, looks like Faro might be the closest we'll get in my lifetime though... :( <_< -_- I don't think they'd let me near a Concorde in real life though, I'd be bound to taxi it into the grass...

 

Regards,

Ró.

Concorde, the thing were some Airbus tech started or at least originated from. They forgot about the speed though. :mad: Well, if you get her, let us know how you like the old but amazing tech. Great rendition in the sim!

Concorde, the thing were some Airbus tech started or at least originated from. They forgot about the speed though. :mad: Well, if you get her, let us know how you like the old but amazing tech. Great rendition in the sim!

I was a little bit daunted by her to be honest, had a few hours with her on someone else's rig, and all I can say was it was like being smacked across the face from 5 different directions all at once. I guess it may well be time though to take the plunge and go for it, I do love the classics...

 

Still curious about the implementation of Analogue FBW over Digital...

 

Regards,

Ró.

I guess Andrew is an expert on the case, Rónán. And he surely shares some Concorde love too.

 

I've only got some basic links and my books, being a fan. http://www.concordes.../flightsys.html For example, the hydraulic colours look familiar, huh?

 

it was like being smacked across the face from 5 different directions all at once.

That's the pro and con of the plane, right at the same time. I'd say that no one really entered the sim with running her perfectly. She's too unique and detailed to just get started by jumping in. Well, that's my impression and surely a result of the great system detail the guys have established.

 

Still my favourite sim plane and somehow benchmark. So I'm biased, I admit. :wub:

http://www.concordes.../flightsys.html

Ah there's that smack in the face I remember... ^_^

 

She does seem like quite the bird, I guess I'll have to get her now, or at least in the next week or two. Get some DUB->BOS flights done in her... Something both daunting and appealing about one person doing the work of 3 LOL.... :blush:

 

Regards,

Ró.