3 ms·
I think they’re talking about the pilot being able to apply inputs that might otherwise be considered dangerous by the flight control computers. So in an emerg
by SteveNuts 3y ago
I think they’re talking about the pilot being able to apply inputs that might otherwise be considered dangerous by the flight control computers.
So in an emergency a Boeing may allow the pilots to make an input that may overstress the airframe but save the lives of the passengers. Whereas the Airbus computer would override the pilot’s decision and not allow it.
IANAP so I have no idea if that’s true or not.
- 7thaccount 3y agoIsn't the MCAS situation the exact opposite? Boeing pilots tried hard to override it, but it wouldn't let them.
- SteveNuts 3y agoYes but MCAS is relatively recent, the controversy in GP happened when fly by wire was a new concept.
- rootusrootus 3y agoYes, it's one of the most notable aspects of MCAS, that it departs from previous Boeing design philosophy.
- kotaKat 3y agoYou can dump an A3xx to "direct law" if you turn off the right switches and get direct controls. ECAM memo: "DIRECT LAW (PROT LOST)" https://apstraining.com/wp-content/uploads/FCS-Airbus-Quick-Reference.pdf https://apstraining.com/wp-content/uploads/FCS-Airbus-Quick-...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- theolivenbaum 3y agoMore or less that - the rationale being that pilots could overreact in stressful emergency situations and thus the flight control system would prevent unintentional damage that would only make the situation worse.