Air buss loss at Paris Airshow?

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Greg wrote:
Certainly the aircraft's systems were revisited after this incident, as is
often the case after aviation accidents (is this the cue to get into the
Boeing runaway rudder discussion?)

It might be a great cue. There goes MX's theory of all things
mechanical being "under total command of the pilot" out of the window.
A completely non-FBW connection between pilot and rudder - and still
the rudder deflects uncommandedly.

Mechanical failures can happen with any aircraft, FBW or not.

Fixing an UN-intentional mechanical flaw that caused crashes, is quite
different from revisiting an intentional system design.

Kev

Greg Farris writes:

Pity that in this specialized discussion group we cannot get the level of
dialog abnove the childish, gutter-level snipes cherished by a few who would
have every reason to know better.

You always have the option of changing.

It could be becaus the many contributors who
really do have something pertinent to say are no longer wasting their time on
these discussions.

Everyone has had something pertinent to say, although sometimes a few
abstain in favor of personal attacks.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

In article . com,
says...

Lets see, I worked for Boeing for 8 years, mostly on the 777 Flight
Deck Displays (AIMS), and while there, I was privy to a lot of
competitive analysis of Airbus products.



If you did work in any significant engineering capacity at Boeing, it is all
the more disquieting that you would make disdainful (and unjustified) comments
on a worthy competitor (who has outsold Boeing every year since 2003).

The comparison between Boeing and Airbus is a very interesting industrial
subject. Two very different industrial models, in somewhat different cultural
and social context, a shared commercial strategic approach and of course a
global market resulting in two extremely comparable and highly competitive
products, with essentially equal market share.

Books can be (and have been) written about the subject - by intelligent
people, capable of making pertinent observations - and make for a lot of
insight into the high-tech sector.

Pity that in this specialized discussion group we cannot get the level of
dialog abnove the childish, gutter-level snipes cherished by a few who would
have every reason to know better. It could be becaus the many contributors who
really do have something pertinent to say are no longer wasting their time on
these discussions.

GF

In article .com,
says...


So, designing an airplane that does not respond to pilot throttle
inputs reflects well on their abilities? When a pilot pushes the
throttle handles forward, he wants more power NOW. Not when some
software algorithm decides that he is allowed to have it...


You make boastful claims about your knowledge and experience, yet you
continue to publish misleading information (polite word for mistakes) about
the subject.

There are several autothrottle designs in use, and a couple of general
families (those with levers that move automatically and those that do not).
The initiation of a go-around procedure will depend on what type of
autothrottle system is installed on the plane you are flying - and yes, you,
the pilot, are expected to know this and use it properly.

Both types of autothrottles have been installed on both Airbus and Boeing
aircraft, and are not specific to either. On some types, you will push the
levers forward to initiate a go-around, on others you will push the TOGA
buttons. On some, you can do either. This is not specific to Boeing or
Airbus, contrary to what deanwil continues to insist.

What happens "behind the scenes" is indeed different, and Airbus' autothrust
program is specific to their control scenario - but this is no longer a
"human factors" or ergonomics question.

GF

Greg Farris wrote:
In article . com,
says...

Lets see, I worked for Boeing for 8 years, mostly on the 777 Flight
Deck Displays (AIMS), and while there, I was privy to a lot of
competitive analysis of Airbus products.



If you did work in any significant engineering capacity at Boeing, it is all
the more disquieting that you would make disdainful (and unjustified) comments
on a worthy competitor (who has outsold Boeing every year since 2003).

The comparison between Boeing and Airbus is a very interesting industrial
subject. Two very different industrial models, in somewhat different cultural
and social context, a shared commercial strategic approach and of course a
global market resulting in two extremely comparable and highly competitive
products, with essentially equal market share.

Books can be (and have been) written about the subject - by intelligent
people, capable of making pertinent observations - and make for a lot of
insight into the high-tech sector.

Pity that in this specialized discussion group we cannot get the level of
dialog abnove the childish, gutter-level snipes cherished by a few who would
have every reason to know better. It could be becaus the many contributors who
really do have something pertinent to say are no longer wasting their time on
these discussions.

GF

Oh, so if my professional opinion does not agree with yours, it is
childish. That's a very high horse you are riding Greg.

The fact of the matter is that my opinion of the A320 autothrottle
design is shared by many engineers and human factors experts at Boeing.
It is a poor design. It is a dangerous design. It adds a barrier to
the pilot. Moving the throttle handles should always result in a
direct control of the engines. Pushing the autothrottle disconnect
button should not be necessary to accomplish this. The backdriven
handles on the Boeing airplanes is far safer than the A320
implementation.

So, what are your qualifications Greg?

Dean

Greg Farris wrote:
In article .com,
says...


So, designing an airplane that does not respond to pilot throttle
inputs reflects well on their abilities? When a pilot pushes the
throttle handles forward, he wants more power NOW. Not when some
software algorithm decides that he is allowed to have it...


You make boastful claims about your knowledge and experience, yet you
continue to publish misleading information (polite word for mistakes) about
the subject.

There are several autothrottle designs in use, and a couple of general
families (those with levers that move automatically and those that do not).
The initiation of a go-around procedure will depend on what type of
autothrottle system is installed on the plane you are flying - and yes, you,
the pilot, are expected to know this and use it properly.

Both types of autothrottles have been installed on both Airbus and Boeing
aircraft, and are not specific to either. On some types, you will push the
levers forward to initiate a go-around, on others you will push the TOGA
buttons. On some, you can do either. This is not specific to Boeing or
Airbus, contrary to what deanwil continues to insist.

What happens "behind the scenes" is indeed different, and Airbus' autothrust
program is specific to their control scenario - but this is no longer a
"human factors" or ergonomics question.

GF

Greg, it is you who is being boastful. After reading this, the limits
of your knowledge is clear. Nice try.

Greg Farris wrote:
In article .com,
says...


So, designing an airplane that does not respond to pilot throttle
inputs reflects well on their abilities? When a pilot pushes the
throttle handles forward, he wants more power NOW. Not when some
software algorithm decides that he is allowed to have it...


You make boastful claims about your knowledge and experience, yet you
continue to publish misleading information (polite word for mistakes) about
the subject.

There are several autothrottle designs in use, and a couple of general
families (those with levers that move automatically and those that do not).
The initiation of a go-around procedure will depend on what type of
autothrottle system is installed on the plane you are flying - and yes, you,
the pilot, are expected to know this and use it properly.

Both types of autothrottles have been installed on both Airbus and Boeing
aircraft, and are not specific to either. On some types, you will push the
levers forward to initiate a go-around, on others you will push the TOGA
buttons. On some, you can do either. This is not specific to Boeing or
Airbus, contrary to what deanwil continues to insist.

What happens "behind the scenes" is indeed different, and Airbus' autothrust
program is specific to their control scenario - but this is no longer a
"human factors" or ergonomics question.

GF

Greg, it is you who is being boastful. After reading this, the limits
of your knowledge is clear. Nice try.

Greg Farris wrote:
In article .com,
says...


So, designing an airplane that does not respond to pilot throttle
inputs reflects well on their abilities? When a pilot pushes the
throttle handles forward, he wants more power NOW. Not when some
software algorithm decides that he is allowed to have it...


You make boastful claims about your knowledge and experience, yet you
continue to publish misleading information (polite word for mistakes) about
the subject.

There are several autothrottle designs in use, and a couple of general
families (those with levers that move automatically and those that do not).
The initiation of a go-around procedure will depend on what type of
autothrottle system is installed on the plane you are flying - and yes, you,
the pilot, are expected to know this and use it properly.

Both types of autothrottles have been installed on both Airbus and Boeing
aircraft, and are not specific to either. On some types, you will push the
levers forward to initiate a go-around, on others you will push the TOGA
buttons. On some, you can do either. This is not specific to Boeing or
Airbus, contrary to what deanwil continues to insist.

What happens "behind the scenes" is indeed different, and Airbus' autothrust
program is specific to their control scenario - but this is no longer a
"human factors" or ergonomics question.

GF

"Both types of autothrottles have been installed on both Airbus and
Boeing
aircraft, and are not specific to either. On some types, you will push
the
levers forward to initiate a go-around, on others you will push the
TOGA
buttons. On some, you can do either. This is not specific to Boeing or

Airbus, contrary to what deanwil continues to insist."

False. On all Boeing models, moving the throttle handles controls the
engines directly. Disengaging the autothrottle is necessary to prevent
the handles from moving back to the position commanded by the
autothrottle, but the engines still respond to the handles. This is
very different than the Airbus A320 design that disengages the throttle
handles from the engines when the autothrottle is active, and has no
backdrive for the throttle handles.

I am ignoring your other remarks as the are clearly intended to incite
a flame war and I refuse to play that game.

writes:

It is a poor design. It is a dangerous design. It adds a barrier to
the pilot. Moving the throttle handles should always result in a
direct control of the engines. Pushing the autothrottle disconnect
button should not be necessary to accomplish this. The backdriven
handles on the Boeing airplanes is far safer than the A320
implementation.

I'm surprised anyone would argue otherwise. Clearly, it makes more
sense to have the handles move when the autothrottle adjusts them, so
that the pilot always knows where they are. It also makes sense that
the pilot should be able to control the throttles directly at all
times. He might sense resistance from the autothrottle actuator, but
he could still override it.

An Airbus is worse than Microsoft Flight Simulator. When I engage
autothrottle on the sim, the throttles don't move, but at least if I
grab them and move them, the sim responds. In an Airbus I could only
watch the terrain approach in the window, and I wouldn't be able to
restart the flight after the crash.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

schrieb:

The fact of the matter is that my opinion of the A320 autothrottle
design is shared by many engineers and human factors experts at Boeing.

It's obviously not shared by many engineers and human factor experts at
airbus.

It is a poor design.

Answerinig in four different posts to the same article without snipping
a single line is very poor design, too. I hope you did a better job at
Boeing.

Stefan