3 ms·

Nope, it wouldn't happen in a Boeing aircraft. This is a well-known Airbus defect that was a contributing factor to the crash of Air France Flight 447. Boeing

by tropo 10y ago

Nope, it wouldn't happen in a Boeing aircraft. This is a well-known Airbus defect that was a contributing factor to the crash of Air France Flight 447. Boeing uses traditional controls. It's like a race car steering wheel on a big movable stick. It is really easy to see how the control is positioned. Airbus uses a small joystick off to the side. It is force-based like a Thinkpad pointing stick, so it barely moves when you push on it. It isn't easy to see if the device is being pushed. Here, a camera got jammed against the joystick. The pilot nearly made things worse by putting the aircraft in "direct law" mode because he couldn't tell that his own control was causing the problem. In the case of Air France Flight 447, the pilot's idiotic control input was not visible to the two other people in the cockpit. Airbus will obviously brush this one under the carpet as well, because admitting that the side-stick control is hazardous would cause a need for drastic retrofit of all Airbus aircraft cockpits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Sidestick_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Sidestic...

jsmthrowaway 10y ago
This is the partisanship I'm talking about, for what it's worth. I've flown an A320 in a full-size simulator and my experience with its sidestick, even in that simulator environment, does not match what you are describing. The sidestick moves quite far and quite noticeably[0], and does not behave like a ThinkPad. The aircraft simply ignores drastic input, which might be what you're thinking of with that assessment? Anyway, I'd imagine if I were PIC of this flight and my aircraft suddenly pitched down 18 degrees, the sidestick would be the first thing I'd look at in about the first 750 milliseconds. Not sure why that didn't happen here, but I tend not to judge pilots from accident reports, so I have't put a lot of thought into it. I can't imagine a scenario where any camera could conceal itself in that arrangement, unless the A330 has huge voids under the stick that the A320 does not. Even stopping short of judging the PIC, I have a hard time imagining an outcome where this is an Airbus control flaw, no matter the (as one can see, passionate) opinions on sidestick. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zBsxJdI5JI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zBsxJdI5JI
- xenadu02 10y ago
  I don't think the sidestick is the problem, it's the lack of feedback and the fact that the system ignores conflicting input. Boeing undoubtedly does that one aspect correctly: Regardless of the type of stick the two inputs are linked so if the captain is giving strange input it would be <i>immediately</i> obvious to the copilot. There is no reason Airbus couldn't implement the same system on their sidesticks. The fact that conflicting input causes the system to ignore both seems like downright insanity and based on the assumption of one input being defective, rather than conflict between pilots. A simple fix might be to include a hand detection mechanism and ignore input from the stick that doesn't have a hand present unless it is the only input and is not overridden.
werdna123 10y ago
Yep, partisanship aside, the side-stick design is dangerous as seen here and the Air France disaster.
cyberferret 10y ago
Bear in mind that the AF447 crash was primarily due to a junior officer not knowing basic flight principles. Visibility of the side stick to the other two crew (the captain had come back into the cockpit and was positioned between the first and second officer) is an issue, but I am not sure that central style yokes like Boeings have would have been a huge help to a crew already overloaded with an insurmountable amount of data to resolve. There have been many cases of pilots turning the yoke the wrong way [1], or shutting down the wrong engine [2] which are levers in full view of both pilots and not getting immediately picked up. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nCvO_QlEm8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nCvO_QlEm8 [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransAsia_Airways_Flight_235 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransAsia_Airways_Flight_235
- dorfsmay 10y ago
  In the case of AF447, the first officer (Robert) has to constantly ask the second officer (Bonin) what he is doing and why he is climbing, he's clearly worried about air speed (starting at 2:10:16 in [1]. Had the FO had direct control over the input, he could have felt that the SO was pulling back, and push back the column in neutral himself. In the case of Crossair 498 (your first link), the copilot knew the captain was turning the wrong. Having linked controls, it is surprising he didn't take over. One of the conclusion was that there was a communication problem between the two pilots due to language barrier [2]. The copilot never gave any input to the controls, so the direct link controls were not an issue. I'm not sure what how TransAsia 235 is linked to the issue discussed here, OP (tropo) didn't say that Boeing's approach prevents all pilot errors, but that mechanically linked controls have the advantage of letting one pilot know exactly what the other is doing, and give him a chance to intervene. There is no question that computers doing most of the flying have improved reliability tremendously, but misinterpretation between computers and pilot of what the other is doing has been recognised has an issue and is something the aviation industry is focusing on right now. [1] http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a3115/what-really-happened-aboard-air-france-447-6611877/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a3115/what-really-hap... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIAujniUuq0&t=42m20s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIAujniUuq0&t=42m20s
  - 10y ago
Gravityloss 10y ago
Pilot makes a gross error, Airbus software saves the day ... cue comment how this shows Boeing is better.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by tropo 10y ago

jsmthrowaway 10y ago

This is the partisanship I'm talking about, for what it's worth. I've flown an A320 in a full-size simulator and my experience with its sidestick, even in that simulator environment, does not match what you are describing. The sidestick moves quite far and quite noticeably[0], and does not behave like a ThinkPad. The aircraft simply ignores drastic input, which might be what you're thinking of with that assessment? Anyway, I'd imagine if I were PIC of this flight and my aircraft suddenly pitched down 18 degrees, the sidestick would be the first thing I'd look at in about the first 750 milliseconds. Not sure why that didn't happen here, but I tend not to judge pilots from accident reports, so I have't put a lot of thought into it. I can't imagine a scenario where any camera could conceal itself in that arrangement, unless the A330 has huge voids under the stick that the A320 does not. Even stopping short of judging the PIC, I have a hard time imagining an outcome where this is an Airbus control flaw, no matter the (as one can see, passionate) opinions on sidestick. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zBsxJdI5JI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zBsxJdI5JI

xenadu02 10y ago
I don't think the sidestick is the problem, it's the lack of feedback and the fact that the system ignores conflicting input. Boeing undoubtedly does that one aspect correctly: Regardless of the type of stick the two inputs are linked so if the captain is giving strange input it would be <i>immediately</i> obvious to the copilot. There is no reason Airbus couldn't implement the same system on their sidesticks. The fact that conflicting input causes the system to ignore both seems like downright insanity and based on the assumption of one input being defective, rather than conflict between pilots. A simple fix might be to include a hand detection mechanism and ignore input from the stick that doesn't have a hand present unless it is the only input and is not overridden.

werdna123 10y ago

Yep, partisanship aside, the side-stick design is dangerous as seen here and the Air France disaster.

cyberferret 10y ago

Bear in mind that the AF447 crash was primarily due to a junior officer not knowing basic flight principles. Visibility of the side stick to the other two crew (the captain had come back into the cockpit and was positioned between the first and second officer) is an issue, but I am not sure that central style yokes like Boeings have would have been a huge help to a crew already overloaded with an insurmountable amount of data to resolve. There have been many cases of pilots turning the yoke the wrong way [1], or shutting down the wrong engine [2] which are levers in full view of both pilots and not getting immediately picked up. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nCvO_QlEm8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nCvO_QlEm8 [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransAsia_Airways_Flight_235 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransAsia_Airways_Flight_235

dorfsmay 10y ago
In the case of AF447, the first officer (Robert) has to constantly ask the second officer (Bonin) what he is doing and why he is climbing, he's clearly worried about air speed (starting at 2:10:16 in [1]. Had the FO had direct control over the input, he could have felt that the SO was pulling back, and push back the column in neutral himself. In the case of Crossair 498 (your first link), the copilot knew the captain was turning the wrong. Having linked controls, it is surprising he didn't take over. One of the conclusion was that there was a communication problem between the two pilots due to language barrier [2]. The copilot never gave any input to the controls, so the direct link controls were not an issue. I'm not sure what how TransAsia 235 is linked to the issue discussed here, OP (tropo) didn't say that Boeing's approach prevents all pilot errors, but that mechanically linked controls have the advantage of letting one pilot know exactly what the other is doing, and give him a chance to intervene. There is no question that computers doing most of the flying have improved reliability tremendously, but misinterpretation between computers and pilot of what the other is doing has been recognised has an issue and is something the aviation industry is focusing on right now. [1] http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a3115/what-really-happened-aboard-air-france-447-6611877/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a3115/what-really-hap... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIAujniUuq0&t=42m20s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIAujniUuq0&t=42m20s
- 10y ago

Gravityloss 10y ago

Pilot makes a gross error, Airbus software saves the day ... cue comment how this shows Boeing is better.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]