Well, keep us posted on the progress. If you find the time that is. The fuel panel alone is worth some awe. Since they've put in a virtual flight engineer, one can learn from him though. Helps on the first attempts.

 

Back on the topic, commercial FBW started with her. And some other 'modern' elements. They even had a mechanical backup, but it was never used. On a side note. I still wonder who picked that bicycle bell for the trim sound. Must have been a funny guy. ^_^ Talking about the real and the sim plane.

Flight 593 was an A310, there was no FBW as we know it in the A310 series.

 

They are the same thing and the pilot has the ability to override anything he wants to, but the fact of the matter is, that a pilot will almost never feel the need to over ride what the computer thinks is a good idea, as it almost always is. In fact, I can't think of a situation where a pilot would want to over ride the flight envelope protections. The computer in FBW aircraft is not some intelligent being, it takes in the control inputs, processes them and sends them to the control surfaces, it is an inanimate object.

 

If you have specific questions about the workings of FBW or Airbus Flight Envelope Protections I'd be more than happy to answer them for you, but please don't start posting misinformed opinion on here as fact.

 

Regards,

Ró.

 

"the pilot has the ability to override anything he wants to"

 

How would he do that on the Airbus? By switching off the computers ?

 

Is it possible on the Airbus to switch off the computers and fly the plane entirely

as a conventional aircraft?

 

It's just a theorethical question as I know, as you explained, that this will almost

never be necessary.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Guy

Here's a training video where, around the 00:40:00 mark, you see how to do the silly things in an Airbus. He got rid of the protections, in the sim. He tells it in more detail and also points out that the real plane may not be able to perform the manoeuvre he performed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oSuMjQoct4

Makes sense to watch the whole thing as the context is important on some stuff.

 

Taking a wild guess, I doubt that any rw Airbus flyer, even with the high hour count, has ever seen a protection coming alive on the real plane and in normal airline ops. You don't bank over 67° and you also don't fly that close to stalling. Well, overspeed protection may be a case I could think of though. I'm open to be corrected of course.

Ah Alan Dix, funny man.

 

Indeed you can go from normal law to direct law by "turning off the computers" to get to alternate law, then drop the landing gear to get to direct law, but of course you'd never do that as she handles like a 3 legged bull in direct law.

 

Regards,

Ró.

Ah Alan Dix, funny man.

 

Indeed you can go from normal law to direct law by "turning off the computers" to get to alternate law, then drop the landing gear to get to direct law, but of course you'd never do that as she handles like a 3 legged bull in direct law.

 

Regards,

Ró.

 

Thats exactly what a friend of mine did who flys for US Airways when he got transitioned from 737's to 320's. He's 'old school' and on his initial sim session, after a lot of studying, he pulled the breakers for the computers to be sure he could fly the plane without HAL getting in the way, the instructor about flipped out :-) Unfortunatly he couldnt bypass the FADEC as far as I know. He was the PIC on the same plane Sully put down, and had the compressor stall the day before, but got it re-lit.

Ah Alan Dix, funny man.

 

Indeed you can go from normal law to direct law by "turning off the computers" to get to alternate law, then drop the landing gear to get to direct law, but of course you'd never do that as she handles like a 3 legged bull in direct law.

 

Regards,

Ró.

 

Many Thanks.

 

In the video he switched off FAC 1 and FAC 2, if I understood well.

 

This way he was in alternate law, where bank angle protection is lost, but

load factor maneuvering protection is still present.

 

So , without dropping the gear, it is not possible to pass in direct law and fly the

Bus like a conventional aircraft?

 

Is that right?

 

Guy

If you allow, I would note that the term 'like a conventional aircraft' may be misleading. Conventional aircraft deflect control surfaces and react to pilot input. The same goes for an Airbus. It's the same airflow, the same energy and the same law setup that keeps an Airbus flying. Well, if that conventional aircraft phrase just points to 'having no protections in place' or maybe just no hard ones, I could understand understand it better. Is that the case?

 

If so, I wonder why it is important. I looks like a mental blockage of some sort. Perhaps even like wounded pride. The pilot demands to be in control. He is! The pilot demands to overcome the laws of physics. He will not succeed, as proven. By this, the protection isn't something he may experience in any line operation. If he does, it may actually save him. Having in mind the previous post about the human limits and the stress factor.

 

Don't get me wrong, I understand the drive to keep asking. I'm just wondering about the background if you like.

 

That normal law is the safe regime, one doesn't actually want to leave it unless it reverts back for e.g. landing.

This way he was in alternate law, where bank angle protection is lost, but

load factor maneuvering protection is still present.

 

So , without dropping the gear, it is not possible to pass in direct law and fly the

Bus like a conventional aircraft?

 

Is that right?

 

I wouldn't exactly call flying in direct law being like in a conventional aircraft, but there are a number of ways to get to direct law, being in alternate and putting down the gear is just the first and easiest way that comes to mind.

 

Very simply put, in alternate law your pitch is like normal law and your bank is direct, in direct law your pitch also becomes direct as there's no flare mode in alternate law which makes landing in it extreemly difficult, hence the reversion back to direct law for landing. This sequence is initiated when the landing gear is dropped and no auto-pilot is engaged, otherwise it'll only happen once you take the AP out.

 

Regards,

Ró.

If you allow, I would note that the term 'like a conventional aircraft' may be misleading. Conventional aircraft deflect control surfaces and react to pilot input. The same goes for an Airbus. Well, if that conventional aircraft phrase just points to 'having no protections in place' or maybe just no hard ones, I could understand understand it better. Is that the case?

 

If so, I wonder why it is important. I looks like a mental blockage of some sort. Perhaps even like wounded pride. The pilot demands to be in control. He is! The pilot demands to overcome the laws of physics. He will not succeed, as proven. By this, the protection isn't something he may experience in any line operation. If he does, it may actually save him. Having in mind the previous post about the human limits and the stress factor.

 

Yes, by conventional aircraft, I mean "having no protections, no interfering control-laws at all ".

 

And I repeat: it is just a theoretical question out of interest .

 

Guy

I apologize to you, Guy. I didn't want to make it sound like it was forbidden to ask. :unsure:

I wouldn't exactly call flying in direct law being like in a conventional aircraft, but there are a number of ways to get to direct law, being in alternate and putting down the gear is just the first and easiest way that comes to mind.

 

Very simply put, in alternate law your pitch is like normal law and your bank is direct, in direct law your pitch also becomes direct as there's no flare mode in alternate law which makes landing in it extreemly difficult, hence the reversion back to direct law for landing. This sequence is initiated when the landing gear is dropped and no auto-pilot is engaged, otherwise it'll only happen once you take the AP out.

 

Regards,

Ró.

 

I understand , but Even DIRECT Law is still a computer flight control mode .

 

My THEORETICAL question is rather : Would it be possible to fly the bus in normal

conditions entirely without computer support

(that would be mechanical backup then perhaps )

 

 

Guy

With all electrics (for the flight controls) gone and only some hydraulical power left, you would have reached the mechanical level of controlling the flight. The side stick would be useless and only the trim and rudder pedals will alter the plane's trajectory.

 

If Rónán ever experiences that one, he will have a hell of a story to tell. ^_^

 

Nice system detail. The RAT on the A320 only powers the hydraulics. But there's an emergency generator in the BLUE loop if I got that right.

I understand , but Even DIRECT Law is still a computer flight control mode .

 

My THEORETICAL question is rather : Would it be possible to fly the bus in normal

conditions entirely without computer support

(that would be mechanical backup then I think)

 

Guy

Well there's mechanical back up law, where you use the trim wheel for pitch and the rudder for turn control, but really that's not gonna get you anywhere, I think the line from Toy Story "That's not flying, that's falling with style" would be applicable here, you're never going to be able to land in mechanical back up law, only crash in a semi controlled fashion...

 

And no one ever in their right mind would put themselves in a situation where they would go to mechanical backup on purpose...

 

It'd be like being sat in a 737 without a yoke and only trim and rudder to control the plane if you want to think of it like that.

 

Regards,

Ró.

 

Edit: Beaten to it... ^_^

Edited January 2, 201313 yr by Rónán O Cadhain

FBW differs from non FBW system the way

 

Processed meat differs from non processed meat.

 

Well there's mechanical back up law, where you use the trim wheel for pitch and the rudder for turn control, but really that's not gonna get you anywhere, I think the line from Toy Story "That's not flying, that's falling with style" would be applicable here, you're never going to be able to land in mechanical back up law, only crash in a semi controlled fashion...

 

And no one ever in their right mind would put themselves in a situation where they would go to mechanical backup on purpose...

 

It'd be like being sat in a 737 without a yoke and only trim and rudder to control the plane if you want to think of it like that.

 

Regards,

Ró.

 

Edit: Beaten to it... ^_^

 

 

I repeat once again : My question was purely theorethical and I

think I know the answer now :

 

It is NOT possible to fly the Airbus like a conventional aircraft.

 

Thanks for your patience , Captain ! :rolleyes:

 

Guy