![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
RK Henry writes:
Don't underestimate the capabilities of a trained, experienced crew to cope with equipment failure. Case in point, United flight 232 at Sioux City, Iowa. Despite complete hydraulic loss and concomitant loss of flight controls the crew was able to bring the aircraft to what turned out to be a survivable crash for most of the occupants. They were also flying an aircraft that did not have fly-by-wire systems. Fly-by-wire means that no command bypasses the computer. If the computer malfunctions, or if it decides to ignore your command, you're out of luck, and no amount of skill will help you. If flight 232 had been a fly-by-wire aircraft, everyone aboard would have died. The problem with fly-by-wire is that digital systems have typically catastrophic failure modes, which is the dark flip side of their superlative performance within the envelope. If flight remains within the envelope foreseen by the developers of the system (and assuming there are no bugs in the software), FBW aircraft fly better and more easily than non-FBW aircraft. However, if flight ventures outside the programmed envelope, failures in the system _will_ occur--and failures in digital systems are often catastrophic failures, because of the way digitization separates control from any constraining physical parameters. This issue is not limited to FBW aircraft, but it is much more critical in FBW because the results of a malfunction are usually fatal. Everything is different in more conventional aircraft. You might lose the hydraulic assist on control surfaces, but you can still move them to some extent, and they won't snap into implausible positions that exceed the physical limits of the system. As an example, if you have a purely analog throttle, if you push it beyond the maximum or below idle, the worst you're likely to get is no effect at all, i.e., you'll still have full throttle or idle, respectively. In a poorly-designed FADEC, however, your throttle will just be providing a number to a computer. If the computer has throttle settings from 00 to 99, and you push the throttle to a point that sends the internal computer setting beyond 99, it may roll over to 00, setting the engines abruptly to idle. Thus, the FBW throttle has a catastrophic failure mode that is completely absent in the conventional throttle. Add to that the fact that many FBW systems are not ergonomically designed and may have features that were conceived by engineers or project analysts rather than pilots, and you multiply the chances of problems. I think every FBW should have a button that says "do exactly what all the control inputs tell you to do," but many engineers apparently disagree, and most people (including some engineers) don't know enough about computers to realize the danger in this. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
SWRFI - next weekend! | Richard Lamb | Home Built | 13 | May 10th 06 03:45 AM |
DG Rudder AD - DONE! - Notes from my work | ContestID67 | Soaring | 0 | March 30th 06 07:36 PM |
Southern California airports have worst runway safety records | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 0 | November 26th 05 04:48 PM |
Information on A310 that lost it's rudder enroute to Canada from Cuba | Corky Scott | Piloting | 3 | March 27th 05 03:49 PM |
Rwy incursions | Hankal | Piloting | 10 | November 16th 03 02:33 AM |