3 ms·

> A coarse summary might be that Airbus drivers are negotiating with a computer while Boeing drivers are generally flying the airplane. Would you mind taking a

> A coarse summary might be that Airbus drivers are negotiating with a computer while Boeing drivers are generally flying the airplane. Would you mind taking a moment to spell out what these statements mean to a non-pilot? (For example, I expect that Airbus pilots still operate controls which affect the movement of the airplane; they aren't typing parameters into a computer. And I expect Boeing pilot's actions are still mediated by a computer.)

jsmthrowaway 10y ago
Sure. On all FBW systems there's a computer in between the pilot's appendages and the wiggly parts built into the airplane that control its orientation (roll, pitch, yaw, what have you). Airbus systems position the pilot as a suggestive force. At any given time the computer has its idea of what's happening and the pilot influences this calculus within safety tolerances for various bad things that happen to airplanes. One example is a stall, which results from a variety of factors including excessive pitch of the wing against the oncoming air (called angle of attack -- think about tilting your hand back when holding it out of the car and it dropping back on you. that's a stall). Airbus computers typically prevent the pilot from introducing the situation by dampening, modifying, or outright ignoring control input to avoid critical angles of attack. That's one example. Basically, without going alternate law, the Airbus computer will work to make it very hard (not impossible, obviously) to apply control input that would place the flight in jeopardy. Boeing would allow the input and mostly permit the pilot to introduce the situation. That's the difference. They treat the pilot as the end of authority in command. That has compelling merits. So does Airbus. As JshWright said, both sides have incidents on the other they can point to as supporting data.

jsmthrowaway 10y ago

Sure. On all FBW systems there's a computer in between the pilot's appendages and the wiggly parts built into the airplane that control its orientation (roll, pitch, yaw, what have you). Airbus systems position the pilot as a suggestive force. At any given time the computer has its idea of what's happening and the pilot influences this calculus within safety tolerances for various bad things that happen to airplanes. One example is a stall, which results from a variety of factors including excessive pitch of the wing against the oncoming air (called angle of attack -- think about tilting your hand back when holding it out of the car and it dropping back on you. that's a stall). Airbus computers typically prevent the pilot from introducing the situation by dampening, modifying, or outright ignoring control input to avoid critical angles of attack. That's one example. Basically, without going alternate law, the Airbus computer will work to make it very hard (not impossible, obviously) to apply control input that would place the flight in jeopardy. Boeing would allow the input and mostly permit the pilot to introduce the situation. That's the difference. They treat the pilot as the end of authority in command. That has compelling merits. So does Airbus. As JshWright said, both sides have incidents on the other they can point to as supporting data.