ypelchat 0 #76 April 29, 2005 QuoteQuoteBig S.U.Vs will have to be phased out, pretty soon Why do people pick on the SUV? What about large trucks, vans, high performance cars and large luxury cars that also get lousy mileage? It's just a matter of responsibility... I traveled many times in the U.S.A, and, honestly, I have always been surprised to see that most big American S.U.V's i've seen, traveling in the U.S.A., only carry one person/vehicle, at most.... Yves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #77 April 29, 2005 So you probably spend every weekend planting trees? We jump out of airplanes that burn a lot of fossil fuel.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ypelchat 0 #78 April 29, 2005 QuoteSo you probably spend every weekend planting trees? We jump out of airplanes that burn a lot of fossil fuel. Yes, I'm a skydiver too. I jump out of airplanes, but I also know that we should not take everything for granted... I'm not questioning what we do... I'm just questioning the way we do it... Yves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,107 #79 April 29, 2005 >We jump out of airplanes that burn a lot of fossil fuel. If skydivers followed the SUV model, we'd all be jumping out of Otters with massive tires, sketchy brakes, lots of chrome hanging out in the wind, and there would be only one 4-way team in each otter. After all, why should anyone be forced to jump with someone they don't want to jump with? This is america! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 102 #80 April 29, 2005 QuoteDo you know if, like other airbus types, this one is controlled fly-by-wire, with a joystick? I've gotten the impression that some pilots don't prefer that settup. I have a few issues with the Airbus cockpit (this applies to all of their fly-by-wire planes A320/A330/A340 series also, things that I think are a bad idea for a commercial airliner. 1) The sidestick controllers They give no feedback when the autopilot is flying - no movement. I think that seeing the control column/wheel move is a great way for the pilot to know what the autopilot is trying to do. There is also no force feedback as you try to make the plane do more severe maneuvers. When a pilot moves from right to left seat, they have to 'train' their other arm/hand to use the sidestick controller (it is on the outboard side). I think this is inherently a bad idea, for a commercial airliner. The sidestick controllers are not linked, so when one pilot is flying, the other stick does not move. So what happens if both are trying to fly? There is software logic that decides this, and it is indicated which side is in control with an indicator light, and the pilots can override/take command on their side with the push of a switch. The thought of the logic not working and the pilots pushing buttons to take command is not comforting to me. 2) The autothrottle They do not move in the normal mode, meaning that as the autopilot adjusts power, the handles stay in one position. You can see by instruments what it is trying to do, but not by movement of the big handles. In the normal mode, it is just a big rotary switch. Again, I think seeing the throttles move is a great way for the pilot to know what the autopilot/autothrottle system is trying to do. 3) Envelope protection/limiting (fancy term for the computer doesn't let you do stupid maneuvers or overstress the plane) I don't think it is a good idea to have the fly-by-wire system prevent the pilot from putting too much stress on the plane. We are talking about a airliner, not a fighter. The pilots will never overstress it just for practice. If they need to go beyond the design structural limits to try to get out of a dive, for instance, then I say they should be allowed to try. Airbus was so confident of their 'envelope protection' that it caused a crash of an A330 many years ago. An airline CEO and top pilot were being treated to a demonstration flight. Airbus decided to impress them with how the plane could not be made to stall, so they planned to take off very aggressively and immediately idle one engine and turn off one of the hydraulic systems. However the flight control engineers had never figured on such an aggressive, very high pitch rate climb being combined with the other 'failures', and the plane could not stop the stall. They ran out of altitude. The investigation found fault in how the Airbus pilots decided to create their own scenario during the pre flight briefing that would impress the customer, completely confident that the plane could not be stalled (as they had been claiming). This incident received much less attention than the crash of the A320 at the Paris air show because no normal passengers were on board. The Boeing fly by wire system on the 777 still uses a traditional control column/wheel. There is some distinct advantages to the sidesticks, such as reduced weight, and much more room in front of the pilot for a worktable to use maps/manuals/etc, It was tempting, however Boeing decided that it was a bad tradeoff overall. Boeing also decided that strict envelope protection was a bad idea, and that increasing force feedback (it is 'artificial') was a better way of preventing pilots from doing stupid things while not limiting their ability to fly the plane how they see fit. Both Boeing and Airbus have a switch on the overhead console that puts them into a 'direct' mode that cuts out the complex flight control logic and uses separate/simpler software that results in a less 'refined' feeling for the pilot. This requires time to activate it, and I would rather the pilots have complete control to try what they want without having to look up and back to activate a switch first. It probably will not surprise you to learn that I used to be an engineer for Boeing in their flight deck group during the development of the 777, hence the 777 in my username. Of couse Boeing has had problems, such as 737 rudder reversals, 747 cargo door latches, and uncommanded 767 thrust reversals. However, I think their choice on the column over the sidestick controller, and the flight control logic are examples of interesting, and important points of discussion.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 102 #81 April 29, 2005 QuoteIf skydivers followed the SUV model, we'd all be jumping out of Otters with massive tires, sketchy brakes, lots of chrome hanging out in the wind, and there would be only one 4-way team in each otter. After all, why should anyone be forced to jump with someone they don't want to jump with? This is america! Some SUVs are quite small and get relatively good mileage for the bad aerodynamics they have. I think there is a lot to criticize in vehicles that get lousy mileage, but the SUV is usually singled out, and that doesn't make sense. So let's pick on all vehicles that guzzle gas, not just the SUV.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ypelchat 0 #82 April 29, 2005 QuoteQuoteIf skydivers followed the SUV model, we'd all be jumping out of Otters with massive tires, sketchy brakes, lots of chrome hanging out in the wind, and there would be only one 4-way team in each otter. After all, why should anyone be forced to jump with someone they don't want to jump with? This is america! Some SUVs are quite small and get relatively good mileage for the bad aerodynamics they have. I think there is a lot to criticize in vehicles that get lousy mileage, but the SUV is usually singled out, and that doesn't make sense. So let's pick on all vehicles that guzzle gas, not just the SUV. You're right. Americans are just starting to experience what we've been experiencing, for years, in the rest of the world. Yves. Yves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites CloudOnMyTongue 0 #83 April 29, 2005 Air Canada is getting two A380's. When the air canada rep came into my work a few months ago they said one was for direct flights to Hong Kong and the other for India, but they will introduce them with shorter flights into London. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites murps2000 86 #84 April 29, 2005 Thanks for the post. That was interesting reading.Quote 3) Envelope protection/limiting (fancy term for the computer doesn't let you do stupid maneuvers or overstress the plane) I don't think it is a good idea to have the fly-by-wire system prevent the pilot from putting too much stress on the plane. We are talking about a airliner, not a fighter. The pilots will never overstress it just for practice. If they need to go beyond the design structural limits to try to get out of a dive, for instance, then I say they should be allowed to try. I wonder if skydivers who claim not to rely on AAD's would ride on it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 4 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
billvon 3,107 #79 April 29, 2005 >We jump out of airplanes that burn a lot of fossil fuel. If skydivers followed the SUV model, we'd all be jumping out of Otters with massive tires, sketchy brakes, lots of chrome hanging out in the wind, and there would be only one 4-way team in each otter. After all, why should anyone be forced to jump with someone they don't want to jump with? This is america! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #80 April 29, 2005 QuoteDo you know if, like other airbus types, this one is controlled fly-by-wire, with a joystick? I've gotten the impression that some pilots don't prefer that settup. I have a few issues with the Airbus cockpit (this applies to all of their fly-by-wire planes A320/A330/A340 series also, things that I think are a bad idea for a commercial airliner. 1) The sidestick controllers They give no feedback when the autopilot is flying - no movement. I think that seeing the control column/wheel move is a great way for the pilot to know what the autopilot is trying to do. There is also no force feedback as you try to make the plane do more severe maneuvers. When a pilot moves from right to left seat, they have to 'train' their other arm/hand to use the sidestick controller (it is on the outboard side). I think this is inherently a bad idea, for a commercial airliner. The sidestick controllers are not linked, so when one pilot is flying, the other stick does not move. So what happens if both are trying to fly? There is software logic that decides this, and it is indicated which side is in control with an indicator light, and the pilots can override/take command on their side with the push of a switch. The thought of the logic not working and the pilots pushing buttons to take command is not comforting to me. 2) The autothrottle They do not move in the normal mode, meaning that as the autopilot adjusts power, the handles stay in one position. You can see by instruments what it is trying to do, but not by movement of the big handles. In the normal mode, it is just a big rotary switch. Again, I think seeing the throttles move is a great way for the pilot to know what the autopilot/autothrottle system is trying to do. 3) Envelope protection/limiting (fancy term for the computer doesn't let you do stupid maneuvers or overstress the plane) I don't think it is a good idea to have the fly-by-wire system prevent the pilot from putting too much stress on the plane. We are talking about a airliner, not a fighter. The pilots will never overstress it just for practice. If they need to go beyond the design structural limits to try to get out of a dive, for instance, then I say they should be allowed to try. Airbus was so confident of their 'envelope protection' that it caused a crash of an A330 many years ago. An airline CEO and top pilot were being treated to a demonstration flight. Airbus decided to impress them with how the plane could not be made to stall, so they planned to take off very aggressively and immediately idle one engine and turn off one of the hydraulic systems. However the flight control engineers had never figured on such an aggressive, very high pitch rate climb being combined with the other 'failures', and the plane could not stop the stall. They ran out of altitude. The investigation found fault in how the Airbus pilots decided to create their own scenario during the pre flight briefing that would impress the customer, completely confident that the plane could not be stalled (as they had been claiming). This incident received much less attention than the crash of the A320 at the Paris air show because no normal passengers were on board. The Boeing fly by wire system on the 777 still uses a traditional control column/wheel. There is some distinct advantages to the sidesticks, such as reduced weight, and much more room in front of the pilot for a worktable to use maps/manuals/etc, It was tempting, however Boeing decided that it was a bad tradeoff overall. Boeing also decided that strict envelope protection was a bad idea, and that increasing force feedback (it is 'artificial') was a better way of preventing pilots from doing stupid things while not limiting their ability to fly the plane how they see fit. Both Boeing and Airbus have a switch on the overhead console that puts them into a 'direct' mode that cuts out the complex flight control logic and uses separate/simpler software that results in a less 'refined' feeling for the pilot. This requires time to activate it, and I would rather the pilots have complete control to try what they want without having to look up and back to activate a switch first. It probably will not surprise you to learn that I used to be an engineer for Boeing in their flight deck group during the development of the 777, hence the 777 in my username. Of couse Boeing has had problems, such as 737 rudder reversals, 747 cargo door latches, and uncommanded 767 thrust reversals. However, I think their choice on the column over the sidestick controller, and the flight control logic are examples of interesting, and important points of discussion.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #81 April 29, 2005 QuoteIf skydivers followed the SUV model, we'd all be jumping out of Otters with massive tires, sketchy brakes, lots of chrome hanging out in the wind, and there would be only one 4-way team in each otter. After all, why should anyone be forced to jump with someone they don't want to jump with? This is america! Some SUVs are quite small and get relatively good mileage for the bad aerodynamics they have. I think there is a lot to criticize in vehicles that get lousy mileage, but the SUV is usually singled out, and that doesn't make sense. So let's pick on all vehicles that guzzle gas, not just the SUV.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ypelchat 0 #82 April 29, 2005 QuoteQuoteIf skydivers followed the SUV model, we'd all be jumping out of Otters with massive tires, sketchy brakes, lots of chrome hanging out in the wind, and there would be only one 4-way team in each otter. After all, why should anyone be forced to jump with someone they don't want to jump with? This is america! Some SUVs are quite small and get relatively good mileage for the bad aerodynamics they have. I think there is a lot to criticize in vehicles that get lousy mileage, but the SUV is usually singled out, and that doesn't make sense. So let's pick on all vehicles that guzzle gas, not just the SUV. You're right. Americans are just starting to experience what we've been experiencing, for years, in the rest of the world. Yves. Yves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CloudOnMyTongue 0 #83 April 29, 2005 Air Canada is getting two A380's. When the air canada rep came into my work a few months ago they said one was for direct flights to Hong Kong and the other for India, but they will introduce them with shorter flights into London. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
murps2000 86 #84 April 29, 2005 Thanks for the post. That was interesting reading.Quote 3) Envelope protection/limiting (fancy term for the computer doesn't let you do stupid maneuvers or overstress the plane) I don't think it is a good idea to have the fly-by-wire system prevent the pilot from putting too much stress on the plane. We are talking about a airliner, not a fighter. The pilots will never overstress it just for practice. If they need to go beyond the design structural limits to try to get out of a dive, for instance, then I say they should be allowed to try. I wonder if skydivers who claim not to rely on AAD's would ride on it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
