3 ms·

> Almost true and oft-repeated. There are still means to somewhat control most FBW aircraft in the unlikely event all electrical control is lost; A320 can pitch

> Almost true and oft-repeated. There are still means to somewhat control most FBW aircraft in the unlikely event all electrical control is lost; A320 can pitch/yaw with mechanical linkage to stabilizer trim and the rudder, for example (but, to your point, neither involve the sidestick). Yeah, that's why I was specific about the stick/yoke connection. Though, after some research, it appears I was wrong about that as well (as least in the case of Embraer). In the 190, the ailerons are, effectively, directly controlled (there is a hydraulic system in line, but it is directly actuated by cables from the yoke). I was unable to find any conclusive details about the Phenom 300 after a cursory search, but it appears it is "fully" FBW. > Boeing is entirely different in FBW philosophy from Airbus. A coarse summary might be that Airbus drivers are negotiating with a computer while Boeing drivers are generally flying the airplane. Both have merits and drawbacks and vocal camps. Yeah, and both sides can point to major incidents that wouldn't have happened in the other cockpit.

throwanem 10y ago
I know of Air France 447 in the "fly the airplane" camp. (An inexperienced copilot stalled the aircraft all the way from cruise altitude to impact, and because the sidesticks aren't linked, no one else could tell that was what was wrong.) What's a good example in the "negotiate with the computer" camp? Perhaps it's merely a tendency on my part, but I don't think I have run across any accident which militates as strongly in favor of Airbus's design as AF 447 seems to militate against it.
- rockdoe 10y ago
  AA 587, which ironically happened on an early model Airbus before they went FBW. Your perspective will influence how you classify the accidents. Proponents of full FBW will argue AF 447 happened exactly because part of the FBW system was disabled.
- pedrocr 10y ago
  >I don't think I have run across any accident which militates as strongly in favor of Airbus's design as AF 447 seems to militate against it. The references I've seen to advantages tend to be more subtle than the AF447 tragedy. Things like the Hudson river landing where in that strange situation where you have no power the workload was diminished by having the computer keep the airplane flying most efficiently and thus be able to reach the river instead of crashing by losing airspeed. It also makes sense the advantages are less obvious as the flight envelope protection actively prohibits dangerous situations and you can't report on non-events. The stats also show Boeing and Airbus airplanes pretty evenly matched on safety.
- TuxerLulz 10y ago
  AF447 is more complicated than just that sidestick issue, if you look at the accident report closely. The contributing factors were loss of outside air temperature and airspeed sensors because of icing, a dark moonless night above the ocean, and flying/falling outside of the operating range of the stall horn (when they pitched the nose down, they started recovering from the stall, airspeed went up, and the stall horn activated. when they pitched up, they went back outside of the operating range, and the horn muted). A big contributing factor as well was that in an airbus, in normal operating conditions, pulling the stick all the way back will configure the aircraft for the best rate of climb (which can be different from just putting the elevator in full climb conditions). Due to the pitot tubes being iced up, the flight computers were in Direct mode (where movement of the sidestick is directly translated in movement of the flight controls, without computer intervention), which didn't help.
  - raverbashing 10y ago
    > the flight computers were in Direct mode Almost that, they were in Alternate Law
- tolien 10y ago
  Not a Boeing but the Airbus A300 predates fly-by-wire and the pilot stamping on the rudder pedals snapped the tail off of AA Flight 587 [1] - you might reasonably expect FBW to have intervened. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587
neurotech1 10y ago
The Phenom 300 does not use FBW. The Stability Augmentation System (generic term) is digital, but there is a mechanical link to the aileron and elevator. My understanding is the GPS and Inertial Measuring Unit (IMU) are combined. If there is a loss of GPS, the Autopilot & Yaw Dampener considers the IMU from that channel unavailable. Only the newer Embraer 450 & Embraer 500 models are FBW aircraft. They also have side-stick controls.

throwanem 10y ago

I know of Air France 447 in the "fly the airplane" camp. (An inexperienced copilot stalled the aircraft all the way from cruise altitude to impact, and because the sidesticks aren't linked, no one else could tell that was what was wrong.) What's a good example in the "negotiate with the computer" camp? Perhaps it's merely a tendency on my part, but I don't think I have run across any accident which militates as strongly in favor of Airbus's design as AF 447 seems to militate against it.

rockdoe 10y ago
AA 587, which ironically happened on an early model Airbus before they went FBW. Your perspective will influence how you classify the accidents. Proponents of full FBW will argue AF 447 happened exactly because part of the FBW system was disabled.
pedrocr 10y ago
>I don't think I have run across any accident which militates as strongly in favor of Airbus's design as AF 447 seems to militate against it. The references I've seen to advantages tend to be more subtle than the AF447 tragedy. Things like the Hudson river landing where in that strange situation where you have no power the workload was diminished by having the computer keep the airplane flying most efficiently and thus be able to reach the river instead of crashing by losing airspeed. It also makes sense the advantages are less obvious as the flight envelope protection actively prohibits dangerous situations and you can't report on non-events. The stats also show Boeing and Airbus airplanes pretty evenly matched on safety.
TuxerLulz 10y ago
AF447 is more complicated than just that sidestick issue, if you look at the accident report closely. The contributing factors were loss of outside air temperature and airspeed sensors because of icing, a dark moonless night above the ocean, and flying/falling outside of the operating range of the stall horn (when they pitched the nose down, they started recovering from the stall, airspeed went up, and the stall horn activated. when they pitched up, they went back outside of the operating range, and the horn muted). A big contributing factor as well was that in an airbus, in normal operating conditions, pulling the stick all the way back will configure the aircraft for the best rate of climb (which can be different from just putting the elevator in full climb conditions). Due to the pitot tubes being iced up, the flight computers were in Direct mode (where movement of the sidestick is directly translated in movement of the flight controls, without computer intervention), which didn't help.
- raverbashing 10y ago
  > the flight computers were in Direct mode Almost that, they were in Alternate Law
tolien 10y ago
Not a Boeing but the Airbus A300 predates fly-by-wire and the pilot stamping on the rudder pedals snapped the tail off of AA Flight 587 [1] - you might reasonably expect FBW to have intervened. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587

neurotech1 10y ago

The Phenom 300 does not use FBW. The Stability Augmentation System (generic term) is digital, but there is a mechanical link to the aileron and elevator. My understanding is the GPS and Inertial Measuring Unit (IMU) are combined. If there is a loss of GPS, the Autopilot & Yaw Dampener considers the IMU from that channel unavailable. Only the newer Embraer 450 & Embraer 500 models are FBW aircraft. They also have side-stick controls.