My point is that there seems to be some opinion (mostly those that has never tried a stick) that the big airliner yoke, with its column (that even requires a cutout in the seat) and large range of movement is inherenly right, and that sticks are evil and difficult to use. But does the yoke, in its modern form, with no mechanical linkages, make aircraft any safer or more stable than stick-equipped aircraft? Does it absolutely have to be so big?-

You tend to learn it after 20 years of interest in Aviation. Just watch some of the TV shows about aircrash investigations to see the issues ALL manufacturers have had.As to the difference between Dvorak and Qwerty, it's nothing like the Airbus/Boeing thing. Qwerty was always designed to slow typists down due to the nature of typewriters, where Dvorak is designed with Word Processors and PC's in mind where you don't need to slow the person down because they're not going to jam up the works.

Lou,I agree with everything you say. ;-)Actually I have serious time in aircraft. Mainly in the PA31-310 and MD-11. Even if I wasn

>My point is that there seems to be some opinion (mostly those>that has never tried a stick) that the big airliner yoke, with>its column (that even requires a cutout in the seat) and large>range of movement is inherenly right, and that sticks are evil>and difficult to use. But does the yoke, in its modern form,>with no mechanical linkages, make aircraft any safer or more>stable than stick-equipped aircraft? Does it absolutely have>to be so big?>As I remember, yokes in Boeings are still there, because of pilot preferences of what they're use to. Other than that, it just doesn't matter which type of control is used.Personally, for small aircraft, I prefer "sticks", either right or left hand. The linkages are simple and tight, compared to a yokes cogs, chains, pulleys, cables, possible "slack", etc.L.Adamson

Cockpit designs have to take into account the psychology of the pilot. For the Civil pilot, the demands are different to a combat pilot and so the inevitible compromises on operational safety for the fighter pilot are understandably greater, when it is just as, if not more important that the pilot be able to hold and maintain a higher developed sense of situation awareness. The way the interface is designed is to focus on reducing the workload in an extremely high workload combat situation.The civil pilots overriding responsibility is to maintain the safety margins demanded by the regulator. Everything about the way he is managed as an employee to the way he operates the aircraft and interacts with other crew members is about safety, with efficiency following close behind.With that in mind, modern civil cockpits are designed, not for easy of use by a novice, like a Windows application interface might be, but for ease of use by an expert - honed to encourage quick accurate decisions within airliner operational parameters, like a pure data entry interface would be design - speed, accuracy and efficiency.When a pilot is in training they transition through three phases of learning: Cognative (theory), Associative (demonstrations), Autonomous (skilled - where the pilot can perform the tasks without impinging on his capacity to deal with other tasks - emergencies are an extreme example).A civil line pilot will be in the Autonomous stage. The means that he does not have to think about the theory of flight to control an aircraft perfectly, that he does not have to stop and work out how to intercept a radial, it is all natural, he can do it and in some cases cannot explain how he does it (a difficult xwind landing for example).The problem with that stage is that if a step is missed for whatever reason, it is easy mess-up everything from that point onwards, it is like the correct procedure is applied to the wrong controls. If he is distracted and presses the flap button and not the gear button, in his mind the job is done, there is no notion that step has been missed. For this reason, the levers are designed so that to select 10 flap or gear down a concious effort is needed to position the hand, to move the lever in the right direction, to force the lever past the detent, etc. The chances of doing the correct procedure with the wrong controls is very very slight.

>My point is that there seems to be some opinion (mostly those>that has never tried a stick) that the big airliner yoke, with>its column (that even requires a cutout in the seat) and large>range of movement is inherenly right, and that sticks are evil>and difficult to use. But does the yoke, in its modern form,>with no mechanical linkages, make aircraft any safer or more>stable than stick-equipped aircraft? Does it absolutely have>to be so big?>You keep changing the subject or your 'point'. From "serving no purpose" to "not any safer" or "sticks are evil". I replied to your "serves no purpose" part which is factually incorrect. Any human factor specialist would tell you about this.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

Staffan,Would it be possible to do? Absolutely.Would it be wise? Probably not, at least not for the foreseeable future. There is an old saying: "If it ain't broke don't fix it", and I see nothing wrong with the current controls in use. Regards,http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...R_FORUM_LOU.jpg

>>The intention with this thread was to raise the question if it>would be possible for aircraft manufacturers to skip the>spoiler, flaps and gear levers for some kind of buttons.Everything is possible but it doesn't mean that it would result in a **better** cockpit. Would such changes be easily accepted by pilot's community, or would they be deemed a 'gimmick' without providing any meanigful improvement from the standpoint of cockpit ergonomics - these are the main questions to be answered.A good example in the automotive industry is BMW's I'drive operating system to control various systems of the car. It forces you to control systems through fancy menus rather than through previously dedicated buttons. Technology for the sake of technology, most drivers found the new system to be cumbersome to operate.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

And that from a pilot, I guess I'll go with what Lou says on this one, since he's likely forgotten more than most of us will ever know.

Would you happen to know anything about the Eclipse's flight control system? I notice they advertise a millitary style sidestick.-

>Would you happen to know anything about the Eclipse's flight>control system? I notice they advertise a millitary style>sidestick.Why military? It is a sidestick, similar to aircraft like Cirrus or Lancair Columbia. There is no fancy fly-by-wire stuff in those airplanes, not even a hydraulic boost, just regular mechanical connection which you can do with a yoke or a joystick.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

>>Why military? It is a sidestick, similar to aircraft like>Cirrus or Lancair Columbia. There is no fancy fly-by-wire>stuff in those airplanes, just regular mechanical connection>which you can do with a yoke or a joystick.>It's just the style of stick, which is marketed as military style, because of the hand fitting molded grip and switches all over the place.

Ok Larry, thanks for explaining.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

And a minor but important point. Though Eclipes or Cirrus may have a sidestick, these are not Airbus "style" joysticks. Their travel range is fairly large, not like in an Airbus where your wrist is stationary and you can control the whole aircraft just by making tiny movement with your stick. In other words Airbus stick is very similar in its behaviour to our desktop joysticks, unlike those on Eclipses and Cirruses.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

>these are not Airbus "style" joysticks.>Their travel range is fairly large But you just said in an earlier posting that joysticks wouldn't work with Boeing-style soft envelope protection because they wouldn't have a large enough range of movement. So Boing could have used joysticks after all, or?-