A350 Entry into Service Pushed Back 6-Months

[Pi brat]

Either you don't know your airplane or you've been in a very bad situation if you got down to direct law.



You know the answer to that - nope, and never wanted to. I don't like the thought of a software engineer telling me what I can or can't do if push comes to shove. Foolish me - I consider a bent airplane that doesn't produce a crater better than an airworthy airplane that makes a big hole.

Jim

Because my inputs to the AB go through flight control computers, I'm not "flying" the airplane? Huh. So, when you went and hopped in your 737-400 did you turn off the hydraulics, pmc's, mach trim, speed trim, IRS, FMC, disable the autopilot and use a sextant so that you would be "flying"? If not, did you enjoy the pleasure of the ARTIFICIAL feel systems in your hands and the navigation of the IRSs and FMC? I have to be in Direct Law to fly? How many 737 pilots have ever flown it in manual reversion? With your definition wouldn't that be the only time you would really be "flying"? Oh, and don't try that in a 767.

I know my airplane and just because it has flight envelope protections doesn't mean I don't fly it. 700s video showed how a couple of guys flew one right into the ground, and Hal didn't take over. The AB doesn't do it all by itself.

I still enjoy flying the airplane. I regularly turn off the AP and autothrust and hand fly. All the challenges you listed we also face and I'm pleased when I feel I do them well. The AB was on the list of fun to fly, just not at the top. But, with RNAV SIDs and STARS, a lot of 737 pilots aren't hand flying much more than we are. The F100 was a very nice hand flying airplane, but would put it at the top of the worst overall jet airplane I've ever flown list.

You are entitled to your opinions about the designs. As I said, I shared your opinion until I actually flew the AB. It's different, but is a comfortable, capable and in my experience a very reliable aircraft. The design of the 737 didn't help the 427 guys, did it?

I'm glad that I started my career as a 727 F/E and next was 737-200 F/O. The PI F/E school taught me much about systems that I still use today and flying the 737-200 with a lot of great guys taught me planning and energy management that I still use today and I don't just blindly follow the FMC. With all highly automated A/C today I'm afraid some of those skills are being lost. I saw that while flying captain on the 737 too. It can make someone lazy just like the AB can.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Because my inputs to the AB go through flight control computers, I'm not "flying" the airplane? Huh. So, when you went and hopped in your 737-400 did you turn off the hydraulics, pmc's, mach trim, speed trim, IRS, FMC, disable the autopilot and use a sextant so that you would be "flying"?

Got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, huh? A little defensive about being a programmer?

Both airplanes use hydraulics to move the flight controls don't they? (quick, look in the book) Call me old fashioned but isn't navigational equipment used to navigate, not to move the flight controls? Why list all that stuff that has no connection to actually flying the plane?

Just answer this - will those flight control computers let you do anything you want with the flight controls? Yes or No...

Jim

 

[Pi brat]

Got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, huh? A little defensive about being a programmer?

Both airplanes use hydraulics to move the flight controls don't they? (quick, look in the book) Call me old fashioned but isn't navigational equipment used to navigate, not to move the flight controls? Why list all that stuff that has no connection to actually flying the plane?

Just answer this - will those flight control computers let you do anything you want with the flight controls? Yes or No...

Jim

It really gets to you for someone to question you, doesn't it?

No, in normal law, it will not. Will the 737 autopilot?

You have a narrow definition of "fly". I guess we could go all the way back and say 737 pilots don't fly because they don't use wing warping, couldn't we? This is the line of yours I had a problem with: "Airbus doesn't want pilots to fly their pretty airplane - pilots might mess it up." We do fly the airplane Jim and as has been shown, pilots can and have "messed it up".

Programmer? I guess you always let the F/O load and handle the FMC so that you wouldn't be a programmer.

As I said, you are entitled to your opinion, but if you had actually flown the airplane I might give it more credit.

It is comforting to know somethings are constant. Like the sun coming up and you being arrogant.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Yup, definitely defensive... ...that was a long yes or no answer... :blink:

"No, in normal law, it will not." - leave out the "in normal law" and that's all I'm saying. The flight control computers look at your input and decide whether what you request will exceed the envelope Airbus specifies or not. If they will, the computers won't let you do it. Your defensiveness speaks volumes, however.

If I could actually fly the airplane and not just program the computers I wouldn't feel this way, but Airbus won't let me or you actually fly the airplane.

Jim

 

[nycbusdriver]

Why list all that stuff that has no connection to actually flying the plane?

I think his point was that you claim you don't want to be a programmer, but you programmed all the time and let the auto flight systems "take over" when you programmed the FMC and let the autothrust set power for you. Did you ever engage the autopilot? If you were a REAL pilot, you should have navigated manually on the airways, tuning each and every VOR. And don;t forget to keep tweaking climb power every few thousand feet, since you, as a real pilot, won't allow the auto thrust to do that for you.

Yes, indeed, if you get to Direct Law in an Airbus, you are already into deep doo-doo. But, if you are in a position in a Boeing to have to bend the airplane, are you not also into the same crap heap? The Airbus is engineered to assist pilots from getting into those situations. The Boeing will allow you to do whatever you want (that's why the terrorists had to choose Boeing to destroy the WTC and Pentagon.) In that sense, the Boeing is less safe, since it allows human beings (you, of course as KOAT, are the exception) to screw more things up, even if unintentionaly.

Good logic on the distinction between fun and going to work every day. Common thread for most of us is the overall love for the 75/76..I could go on and on. But as to the best office in the sky, so to speak, I never want to leave the AB.

The work environment, as a total package, is far better in the Airbus than the Boeings (at least for those aircraft used by LCC.)

I must take exception to grouping the 767 and 757 into one "love" category. The 767 is a great handling airplane; the 757 handles like U-Haul truck. That being said, if I had to be in an max gross weight, twin-engine airplane that lost an engine at rotation, there is no question I would choose to be in a 757.

 

[Reed Richards]

Got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, huh? A little defensive about being a programmer?

Both airplanes use hydraulics to move the flight controls don't they? (quick, look in the book) Call me old fashioned but isn't navigational equipment used to navigate, not to move the flight controls? Why list all that stuff that has no connection to actually flying the plane?

Just answer this - will those flight control computers let you do anything you want with the flight controls? Yes or No...

Jim

When I left this thread last night, I did so with a smile...great discussion. By the time I get up I see it has turned ugly.

BB, go back and read the entire thread again..maybe you will see where it went bad. Probably you won't. Yikes.

RR

 

[Pi brat]

Yup, definitely defensive... ...that was a long yes or no answer... :blink:

"No, in normal law, it will not." - leave out the "in normal law" and that's all I'm saying. The flight control computers look at your input and decide whether what you request will exceed the envelope Airbus specifies or not. If they will, the computers won't let you do it. Your defensiveness speaks volumes, however.

If I could actually fly the airplane and not just program the computers I wouldn't feel this way, but Airbus won't let me or you actually fly the airplane.

Jim

Sometimes yes or no won't do.

I don't not program the ELACs, SECs, or FACs. The person that wrote the software did that. I USE the computers to FLY the airplane, just like I used what Boeing gave me to fly the 737. Go get yourself some time in an Airbus, then we can talk.

Cut him some slack RR, he just enjoys the argument, and this one is a nice break for him from the SLI!

Now Jim, let's get into Ford vs Chevy, or Honda vs Harley.

 

[BoeingBoy]

The Airbus is engineered to assist pilots from getting into those situations. The Boeing will allow you to do whatever you want (that's why the terrorists had to choose Boeing to destroy the WTC and Pentagon.) In that sense, the Boeing is less safe, since it allows human beings (you, of course as KOAT, are the exception) to screw more things up, even if unintentionaly.

And there you'd be wrong. An airbus would let those terrorists fly into buildings too. Just like an airbus will let you fly into the ground. It'll just make sure you don't bend the plane before you hit. No, the airbus isn't safer. It just keeps the pilot from doing something stupid that will harm the plane. Unfortunately, those computers can't tell the difference between doing something stupid and doing a "hail mary" that might save the people on the plane.

As far as your other points, there's a difference between using automation as an aid and being subservient to the automation...

Jim

 

[Pi brat]

"hail mary" that might save the people.

Jim

What might that be Jim?

 

[Pi brat]

An airbus would let those terrorists fly into buildings too. Just like an airbus will let you fly into the ground.

Wait a minute, I thought you said you couldn't fly and Airbus. Did you mean program it into a building or the ground?

 

[BoeingBoy]

What might that be Jim?

You'd probably be surprised at the capabilities of these airplanes. They're perfectly capable of doing things you'd never think of doing as you plod along never banking over 30 degrees, using max thrust, with no 3g pitch ups or -3g pitch downs. Even Airbuses computer limits leave quite a bit of performance on the table, never to be available to the pilot.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

Wait a minute, I thought you said you couldn't fly and Airbus. Did you mean program it into a building or the ground?

Shorthand, Pie, shorthand...Since the terrorists didn't request any maneuvers that would have exceeded the computer enforced limits on an airbus, the computers would happily fly the plane into the buildings just as the terrorists asked.

Jim

 

[Pi brat]

You'd probably be surprised at the capabilities of these airplanes. They're perfectly capable of doing things you'd never think of doing as you plod along never banking over 30 degrees, using max thrust, with no 3g pitch ups or -3g pitch downs. Even Airbuses computer limits leave quite a bit of performance on the table, never to be available to the pilot.

Jim

NOOOO! Really?

I guess the big question between designs is do we make the laws so they help out in many cases where pilots left some performance on the table, such as not retracting the speedbrakes, or do we leave it so every ounce of performance/maneuverability is there for that very rare occasion that every ounce may be needed. I think in the world we FLY in, the Airbus has a good compromise.

AGAIN, the reason I first addressed you is because you said we do not fly the Airbus.

 

[Pi brat]

Shorthand, Pie, shorthand...Since the terrorists didn't request any maneuvers that would have exceeded the computer enforced limits on an airbus, the computers would happily fly the plane into the buildings just as the terrorists asked.

Jim

Ah, shorthand. Okay Jim, got ya.

 

[nycbusdriver]

And there you'd be wrong. An airbus would let those terrorists fly into buildings too. Just like an airbus will let you fly into the ground. It'll just make sure you don't bend the plane before you hit. No, the airbus isn't safer. It just keeps the pilot from doing something stupid that will harm the plane. Unfortunately, those computers can't tell the difference between doing something stupid and doing a "hail mary" that might save the people on the plane.

As far as your other points, there's a difference between using automation as an aid and being subservient to the automation...

Jim

The terrorists could not have hit the WTC and Pentagon with the impact energy they were able to muster with the Boeings. Had they tried, they would have flown OVER the WTC and Pentagon.

Obviously, you are not as familiar with the Airbus as you think you are. You disappoint me, O KOAT. I guess maybe we need to change that to KIA.