By this, if you reduce thrust and still leave the stick alone, it should automatically pitch up (holds 1G) until you reach the angle of attack limits triggering the warnings and later protection. It will then automatically command more (means TOGA) thrust and also avoid exceeding the angle of attack limit even if a pilot would command to exceed them. That's the alpha max value. The hard limit.

I think I have to correct myself on that one. From my above text, it sounds like the alpha-floor protection sets in first, commanding TOGA thrust. After thinking about it, it doubt that this is the case in our 'leave the stick alone' in a straight and level flight situation with the thrust levers manually set to idle.

 

The high angle of attack protection should come alive in that situation, after the angle of attack has reached the limit. It did because the system tried to maintain 1G as long as it could. But it won't allow a further increase in AoA, therefore you would start to descend, keeping the AoA value steady around alpha prot.

 

Now if we had a pilot grabbing and pulling back on the stick while (still) leaving the thrust levers at idle, the TOGA thrust would be automatically commanded even if the autothrust system was off. He wants to go up, he can't because thrust is lacking, the system gives him thrust even if he forgot about it. Pilot in control. He receives what he's commanded, 'up'.

So nonetheless, what we have learned here is Airbus is the best. Fly by Wire saves lives. And no other aircraft has the technology of an airbus.

 

NOBODY said all that !

 

Some people said effectively that the Envelope Protections SAVED Lives in the

Hudson case. That maybe true. It certainly HELPED in this extreme stress situation.

They said also that, without the Envelope Protections , there would have been death

people. Without the envelope protections it would probably have been more

DIFFICULT, but it would have been theroretically FEASIBLE and we will NEVER know

what would have been the result !

 

Some one else said that, had the Habsheim plane not been an A320 it would probably

have crashed before the spectators . This statement is probably a bit exagerated and

certainly SUPERFLUOUS in my eyes and again it's something we will NEVER know.

 

Guy

I guess you have a point, Guy. I don't understand the 'lets add some fuel' posts in any direction, pro Boeing or pro Airbus.

 

Discussing the details is nice and interesting. Discussing fears, believes or strong emotions isn't. :mellow: By this, we may be focusing on the first aspect. :smile:

I guess you have a point, Guy. I don't understand the 'lets add some fuel' posts in any direction, pro Boeing or pro Airbus.

 

Discussing the details is nice and interesting. Discussing fears, believes or strong emotions isn't. :mellow: By this, we may be focusing on the first aspect. :smile:

 

Didn't try to "add some fuel" in any direction!

Simply tried to stay objective (if you read carefully)!

 

Guy

Don't worry, I wasn't talking about you actually adding fuel. But I left a note on reacting to such events. Since I've used the don't feed 'em phrase before, I wanted to alter the wording. :ph34r:

 

It will actually pitch up if you reduce the throttles, or do you just mean it will allow the AoA to increase as your speed falls out?

Oops, now I see where you are getting at. Forget that pitch up statement, the system references to a steady acceleration value which is the difference to referencing to the actual pitch value or a speed in other modes/planes. Sorry about that mixup. :blush: I guess I had some altitude hold in mind when writing.

 

Your blue text therefore is correct.

It was an interview with both the pilots and Airbus reps on either Air Emergency or Air Disasters a month or two back. I was so amazed I watched it numerous times just to be sure of what they were saying. I've tried to find the episode online but no luck so far.

 

There were so many bad decisions and bad judgement involved it's obsurd, this was just the frosting on the cake.

 

So you have nothing but opinions expressed the pilots involved in a TV programme almost 25 years after the event?

 

Can you point us confirmation of your statement in the Official Report, which is available on-line?

I guess I was under the impression that an airbus would feel and behave much like with the md-11's Lsas' attitude hold, or perhaps a Boeing flying in CWS mode.

I would support that impression when it comes to the 'point it where you want to go' style. While the internals differ, the outcome may indeed look very similar.

 

Besides, I hope the OP found some answers in those 6 pages of FBW tech and explanations. ^_^

I would support that impression when it comes to the 'point it where you want to go' style. While the internals differ, the outcome may indeed look very similar.

 

Besides, I hope the OP found some answers in those 6 pages of FBW tech and explanations. ^_^

 

 

I find these "point and go" aircraft are somewhat tricky to fly unless the autothrottles are engaged, because I'm used to manually trimming the aircraft for a speed, expecting the aircraft's nose to trend towards that trimmed state based on thrust. When hand flying, with the throttles in hand, I very much like the feel of positive stability :rolleyes:

Maybe Rónán can shed some light on the real stuff since he once transitioned from a normal 737 to the Airbus FBW thingies. He may be able to tell if it's a big switch or if one arrives at the side stick and intuitively starts flying planes with it. If I correctly understood him, he also trains the new folks so maybe there's some experience on the standard mishaps.

 

I'm used to manually trimming the aircraft for a speed

A 777 will give you this.

 

I think I would only have trouble if a plane constantly switched the character. So if I had an autotrim working for me, it's ok. Makes sense on that side stick setup Airbus has picked. Now if it would unpredictably revert back to losing the trim, that would mix up things.

 

Some for the need to care for rudder input. I can handle the manual and the auto stuff, but the mode changes have to be clear and transparent.

Yes, that would be very very helpful if Ronan would weigh in on transitioning to the hand flying feel of an Fbw Airbus when coming from a 737, because I imagine that is exactly the position that many of us FSX "captains" will find ourselves in.

Here's a photo of a F16 stick mounted on it's force transducer block.

 

The stick does only 'move' a 1/4 inch to give the pilot a more tactile feel.

this solution gave the F16 designers some advantages, less 'room' needed in the centre portion of the pit, better pilot position, less weight, less maintenance etc etc.

 

This picture is taken in my own homebuild sim btw, so the real deal looks a tiny bit different

 

That's your homebuild? I envy you!

 

While I'm a fan of the side stick setup on the Airbus, I may add that the fighter planes have some more or other reasons to 'stick' to sticks. The G loads may not allow for big movements on control columns. And room goes to the equipment, the engine and the tanks. Not the pilot.

 

The max G guys like Rónán pull are well below that FBW limit of 2.5. I guess the F16 folks are laughing at that limit. Because they can! :biggrin:

 

But the F-16 is a nice plane on the FBW aspect. It transitioned from an analogue setup to a later digital one if I'm right. And they feature some hard limits, I think even switchable when it's running with external payload.

So you have nothing but opinions expressed the pilots involved in a TV programme almost 25 years after the event?

 

Can you point us confirmation of your statement in the Official Report, which is available on-line?

 

Perhaps you should actually WATCH the program? It wasnt 'opinions' it was an interview with the actual pilot who FLEW THE PLANE, and the actual Airbus techs and TEST PILOTS. When the actual people involved state the actual facts, it is far from opinion.

 

There was so much coverup by Airbus about this I'm not surprised it's not in a online report, but I'm also sure if you dig deep enough you will find it, or as I said, you could simply waych the program.

I guess I know that channel where they offer all the secret stuff with no sources but lots of experts.

There was so much coverup by Airbus about this I'm not surprised it's not in a online report

Yeah, that must be it. Thanks for the HU! ^_^ Keep us posted on the progress, ok?

 

More on topic. Here's the truth about fly by wire. http://www.flybywire.co.nz/

Maybe Rónán can shed some light on the real stuff since he once transitioned from a normal 737 to the Airbus FBW thingies. He may be able to tell if it's a big switch or if one arrives at the side stick and intuitively starts flying planes with it. If I correctly understood him, he also trains the new folks so maybe there's some experience on the standard mishaps.

Yes, that would be very very helpful if Ronan would weigh in on transitioning to the hand flying feel of an Fbw Airbus when coming from a 737, because I imagine that is exactly the position that many of us FSX "captains" will find ourselves in.

 

Going from the Boeing to Airbus in terms of actually hand flying the aircraft, stick and rudder was as easy as I think transitioning from any aircraft to another was like. She handles very nicely, she's a lovely bird to just fly by hand. She handles slightly differently to Boeing with her FBW, but most pilots coming onto her all give the same responses of something like "Oh, look at that, isn't that different, oh wait now, wow, that's nice, look at that, look at how she's handling, ain't that neat". Pretty much the reaction that everyone undergoes and after those initial few moments most people have got a pretty rough idea of how she flies in their minds.

 

The majority of transition training would be in system detail, learning SOPs, learning ops, getting to know the intricate details etc. Hand flying here is pretty alright for everyone, and I had no difficulty switching from the 737 to the A330, bar one screw up in a brief panic with the auto-throttle system... :blush: :rolleyes:

 

While I am now involved in the training department, that's more of a formality for the pay grade, I do a bit of training/checking on the line, but most of my training things involves giving talks on company ethos, teamwork, CRM along with spending time answering emails from our pilots and monitoring our forums to teach people with questions etc. as opposed to actually teaching people to fly the aircraft.

 

Regards,

Ró.