Visit our sponsor betterhelp.com/mentournow today to receive 10% off your first month of therapy

@737Garrus

6 ай бұрын

Få mig att besöka sponsorn säger jag bara... >:(

@YHK_YT

6 ай бұрын

Again

@Doug_Dimmadome

6 ай бұрын

Stop taking their sponsors please

@hualani6785

6 ай бұрын

I’m not convinced there’s enough subs who’re also patreon high level supporters to eliminate sponsors, someone has to pay for production that viewers enjoy, right? It certainly cant. come free. I don’t see you’re a content producer so maybe you’re unaware of costs behind production.for this quality.

@lewiskelly14

6 ай бұрын

No. I never touch sponsors

Hey guys, don’t forget active FBW sticks in heavy jets ALREADY DO EXIST. The C-17 has a center stick fly-by-wire and both are mechanically connected so when one is moved the other moves with it. Even the autopilot, when engaged, moves the sticks, just like the auto throttles. It absolutely fixes the problems Airbus has with pilot confusion. I taught the C-17 for 17 years and never saw any “who’s flying” confusion.

@thewhitefalcon8539

6 ай бұрын

There was a "who's flying" crash in a Boeing once.

@SkylineFTW97

6 ай бұрын

@@thewhitefalcon8539 Once in an unusual situation vs multiple times under more normal circumstances with Airbus. It's clearly a far greater issue for them.

@misarthim6538

6 ай бұрын

Yeah, it's much easier to mechanically couple center sticks than side sticks. But then you lose the advantage of getting rid of heavy mechanical component of your fly by wire system. Then again, my guess why you've never seen a 'who's flying' confusion has much less to do with the sticks and much more to do with the fact that airline training is absolutely incomparable to military aviation training.

@jmaner89

6 ай бұрын

@tringalij Agreed. My 5 years flying the C-17 pales in comparison to your 17, and I've also never had or seen any confusion about who had control.

@Stealth86651

6 ай бұрын

@@SkylineFTW97 That's why as a pilot you announce and communicate when you have control of the aircraft. That's more of a failure or training and procedures than a mechanical failure of the sticks. If you're relying on the aircraft to tell you who's flying, you've already failed.

I've about 7000 hours on A320 and the same previously on B737. I'm not bothered about a force feedback sidestick. If I were to change anything about the A320, I'd have the 737 throttles. The lack of feedback in the sidestick has never bothered me, but the lack of movement in the airbus thrust levers and the position of the autothrust gates is more of a problem. Because the climb, MCT and TOGA gate take up the top third of the available movement, and the reverse thrust the bottom third, only the middle third is available for manual thrust setting. On the Boeing the full range of motion is available, so manual thrust setting is much more accurate and easier. In addition, if you need to add thrust (say the speed gets a bit low in a manual circuit base turn), in the Boeing you just shove the thrust levers up a bit - very intuitive. In the Airbus the levers will be sitting in the Climb detent, so to add a bit of thrust you have to pull the lever BACK, out of the detent, match the blue circles on the guages with the current thrust position, disconnect the autothrust and THEN you can add a bit of power. Very uninuitive.

@soccerguy2433

6 ай бұрын

Disagree

@priceyA320

6 ай бұрын

I also have 1000s of hours on both 737 and A320. The thing I like the most about the 320 throttles is this. Go around and RTO. Wanna go around? Push the throttles to the stop. No TOGA button, no overtemp. Easy. Wanna reject the take off? Close the levers. No auto throttle disconnect buttons to mess with. Easy. 737 RTO was a four step process and if you forget any one of those steps and you’re in big trouble. I’d lever the levers just as they are.

@axelBr1

6 ай бұрын

Not a pilot, but long time interest in avionics, (my father designed a navigation computer used by various militaries mainly on helicopters), and flying general, From a recent video by Petter, the Airbus throttle control did seem more like an automatic gearbox on a car; fully forward to go up, in the middle to go level, back to go down, stop. The procedure to add a bit of thrust sounds rather complex, and working on the control systems in chemical plants, sounds very much like the work-arounds to do something the control system designer didn't want you to do. Surely on the Airbus to add thrust, can't you just adjust the A/P set speed or climb rate?

@priceyA320

6 ай бұрын

@@axelBr1 I’ve flown the A320 for almost 15 years and not once (apart from in the simulator) have I needed to add thrust. The auto throttle is extremely good at maintaining either the pilot selected speed or the one commanded by the FMGC. Even when hand flying the auto throttle should be left on. If the conditions are so gusty the automatics can’t cope then a divert is probably the smartest move. So in a flight after the throttles are retarded at thrust reduction altitude I don’t move them again until the flare.

@jackfromthe60s

6 ай бұрын

I’ve got a few thousand hours in Boeings and Airbuses. I agree with the OP. Back-driven thrust levers on Airbus would be an improvement. Don’t care about the sidesticks not moving together. The “dual input” warning takes care of that.

I fly the A320. I would absolutely love active side sticks. One of the things I miss most coming from 26 years of flying aircraft with conventional yokes, I don’t like not having feedback at all.

@caparroz1923

6 ай бұрын

I'm a flight/combat simulator enthusiast for more than two decades now and I've used all sort of HOTAS setups, including some high-end "boutique" stuff. That said, I'm right-handed but I've developed severe pain in my right shoulder and I'm forced to use my left hand to control the joystick more often than not, but I'm struggling to adapt and it's nigh impossible for me to fly some very agile airplanes like fighter jets from DCS with my left hand controlling the stick. I'm perfectly aware that flying virtually is worlds apart from the real thing, but I wonder if it's a problem or concern when a CA or FO is forced to control the side stick with their non dominant-hand?

@mikeh9399

6 ай бұрын

@@caparroz1923 It’s something we generally pick up very quickly. Even on aircraft with yokes you would typically fly with your right hand as an FO and your left as a Captain.

@bayouflier6641

6 ай бұрын

@@caparroz1923 An airline pilot would simply not go to work if he had "severe" pain in his shoulder.

@topethermohenes7658

6 ай бұрын

⁠@@caparroz1923 movement on sidesticks are only on the wrist, moving your shoulder means your seat position/armrest setting is incorrect. Also sidesticks movements are generally very very minimal because of the FBW characteristics of airbus

@mzaite

6 ай бұрын

@@caparroz1923 You don't normally fly a Yoke with both hands, and you don't always fly a center stick with your right either if the throttle controls are in the middle like most GA with center sticks that aren't specially built for the Air Force. You start as a student with your left hand, then use your right as an instructor (and that takes a bit to get used to, though mostly due to sight picture) Then back to your left when you fly yourself, then Right hand as an FO and left hand as Captain. Only Single Seaters and tandem's do you live your whole life only ever flying right handed. I will say though, with a dead spring centered control, it's a lot harder to learn. Which is why it's such a good thing the FFB patent troll is done and FFB yokes and sticks can be made without licensing again.

I flew Boeing planes for 27 years. The Airbus side stick was amazing and the first time I flew the Airbus 330, I was sold. Never missed the control wheel. Way to go Airbus.

@ludrigosanchezjr.3182

4 ай бұрын

I don't miss the yoke either.

@CW-rx2js

4 ай бұрын

Also safer

@Vanrides.

4 ай бұрын

​@CW-rx2js really? Wasn't the side stick a factor in the Airfrance crash a few years back when one pilot did not know the other pilots input control because of a lack of visual sight which a yoke would have given. I'm not connected with aviation by the way.

@identidem

3 ай бұрын

the plane shouts 'dual input ' when it happens but yea , both have their own advantages ​@@Vanrides.

@giulia3855

3 ай бұрын

​@@Vanrides. After seeing what happened with AF 11 in 2022 (a b777) I'm more concerned about air France training than the system

Yes I definitely want to hear about the different ways between Boeing and airbus fly by wire envelopes were done!! Please do a video explaining the differences

@MentourNow

6 ай бұрын

Noted!

@greenesyt563

6 ай бұрын

In short both make Fly by wire planes but generally airbus have more and stricter protections

@robertschultz6922

6 ай бұрын

@@MentourNow awesome!!!

@luiskp7173

6 ай бұрын

Throw in how the “side-yoke” on the new Embraer E2 Jets for good measure! Please?

@PauloSergioMDC

6 ай бұрын

​@@greenesyt563The difference is called Hard Limits and Soft Limits, and underlines the philosophical differences between Airbus and Boeing in the human-machine interface. In direct law, the Airbus has no envelop protection, whereas the Boeing 777 has crude envelop protection on its four actuator control electronics (ACE) computers, in addition to envelop protections available in Normal and Secondary control law from its three primary flight computers (PFC).

As an A320/350 TRI/TRE it would certainly make landing with a trainee less tense, when I was flying Boeings it was far easier to see that my colleague was (or wasn't) making the correct inputs close to the ground. this was my biggest hang up when I moved to the bus and even more so when I took on a training role

@NicholasAndre1

6 ай бұрын

Is “the bus” actually a nickname used for these? 😂 I love that.

@tommihommi1

6 ай бұрын

it's literally called air bus

@CoasterGuy787

6 ай бұрын

@@NicholasAndre1 It is. Many pilots say "the bus" when referring to Airbus lmao 😆

@elbutchio

6 ай бұрын

I was a bit surprised this wasn't really addressed as a benefit in the video. My organization is seeing lower experience levels in new pilots than in the past, and every bit of feedback near the ground helps.

@JacquesZahar

6 ай бұрын

@@NicholasAndre1yep. The actual nickname is the ´bus with an apostrophe, to emphasize the shortening

What’s cool about Gulfstream’s side sticks at 9:58 and 13:40 is the pressure on the sticks movement is different from left to right. If you’re if the left seat, your left hand would be on the stick. You naturally have more strength turning your wrist inwards. So Gulfstream made the inward pressure and outward pressure different. This way both ways feel the same. And the the opposite on the FO side. Beyond cool.

@lefty2050

6 ай бұрын

What about left-handed pilots? And what about different combinations of dominant hand for first and second pilots?)

@R160A

6 ай бұрын

@@lefty2050Real-world pilot here. I’m right hand dominant, and it was a fairly natural transition when I flew a DA-40 with my left hand on the stick. I imagine the adjustment would be fairly quick.

@rascallhunter

6 ай бұрын

@@lefty2050What I hear being said here has to do with differences in strength due to ergonomics (curling hand in compared to out) rather than hand dominance.

@lefty2050

6 ай бұрын

@@rascallhunter Thanks, it makes sense!

@dingodango1

6 ай бұрын

My favorite part of the gulfstream side stick is that my knee can get lodged between the stick and the tray table blocking movement of the stick. What an oversight by gulfstream.

I fly the A220 and one interesting thing about its sidesticks is that they actually have a force feedback system linked to the trim system and they also have a stick shaker function 👍 Still no interconnection between sidesticks though.

@mrfinlay7516

6 ай бұрын

Thanks for the info

@thegrandmuftiofwakanda

5 ай бұрын

But you don't though.

@Leaferr

5 ай бұрын

@@thegrandmuftiofwakanda?

@dorian4219

5 ай бұрын

@@Leaferr he's jelly

@thebigint-hw1on

4 ай бұрын

I fly Aerosucre and I can confirm we Fly Into Wires at the end of the runway regularly

The F-16's stick initially didn't move at all in the A models. It was only due to pilots wanting some sort of tactile feedback that LM added their motion at all.

@therflash

6 ай бұрын

Yea, cause the max force the stick senses is like 20 pounds or something, and there was no way of knowing when the pilots reached that force. So they were pulling and pulling and then they were landing with bent sticks. At least that's what i've heard.

@firstlast6796

6 ай бұрын

Yeah that's seems like such a crazy decision. Like the decision an engineer might make for sensible reasons (to them) but when it's actually in use it's downright dangerous/stupid. Imagine if your car worked like that, and you never knew how far you actually had the wheel turned at any given time.

@jordananderson2728

6 ай бұрын

GD, not LockMart. LockMart bought GD later.

@JohnnyWishbone85

6 ай бұрын

@@firstlast6796 -- It really wasn't quite that crazy. The main reason they made the change was that pilots arms were cramping after long periods in the cockpit (sometimes not so long), and they found that the simplest way to fix it was to add a bit of movement to the sticks.

@sandgroper1970

6 ай бұрын

Yes I also read this with the initial F16, and it was all about the force the pilot put through the stick in his grip that was needed . But of course the pilots are going to think ok I need x force, when they get to feel overwhelmed or the adrenaline starts pumping then the old instincts to pull hard…

As an Airbus pilot, I really hope this actually happens. It's been the thing I most don't like about the A320 since I started. You sometimes feel a bit disconnected from the airplane which makes it less fun to fly. Also if this happens we'll have even more ammunition to throw at you Boeing guys in the airbus v Boeing banter we all engage in (most of the time it's completely friendly and just banter. We all try to respect each other and we're all aviation nerds so an airplane that has yokes instead of sidesticks is still going to be cool to us Airbus guys.)

@cloudstreets1396

6 ай бұрын

Less fun to fly? You get paid to fly passengers from point A to point B on time without killing them. Who gives a crap if you’re having fun or not up front pretending you are Chuck Yeager?

@MySkyranger

6 ай бұрын

You mean you are an Airbus computer game flyer

@elliott7268

6 ай бұрын

@@MySkyranger no...

@aerotube7291

6 ай бұрын

​@@MySkyranger😂 He's the king I'd say, probably never stacked it

@ohheyitskevinc

6 ай бұрын

I’m not familiar with Airbus, but are the sidesticks in A320s lit in any way when the ambient lighting is low in the flight deck? For example - active stick when autopilot is disengaged is lit at the base and/or non-active stick is lit at the base to indicate the other is active? Some sort of visual indication seems to me to be useful (and probably far easier to implement (if it’s not already) than feedback). Btw I’m based in CLT so I’m pretty much on A320s all the time - I can always tell when autopilot is disengaged when on approach with the little “wobble” 😉 happens on others too, just feels more obvious on A320s. Less so the A330s we used to have here.

Force feedback and actually moving both sticks in sync in response to an input on one stick (to avoid dual input confusion, which has contributed to accidents) would be a huge safety improvement.

@therealrobinc

3 ай бұрын

Exactly. That would've prevented the tragedy of Air France 447.

@C0lon0

3 ай бұрын

Embraer used a comercial system that already existed since the 2000s, funny how Airbus simply ignored that.

@ant2312

2 ай бұрын

airbus unlike Boeing doesn't need huge safety improvements

Active side sticks would be a welcome addition to Airbus fleets. I have 18 years on Boeings (737,757,767) and 7 on Airbus 320 Series. Now that we are flying with so many new hire pilots, with markedly less experience than new hires in the past, active side sticks would definitely add a layer of safety through improved situational awareness for check airmen and both pilots, especially the captain. I fly with pilots with under 100 hours in type on the 320 Series almost weekly, and I would really appreciate active side sticks.

I think active sidesticks are the best of both worlds because they are more space-efficient and are still useful for noticing over-corrections in training and emergencies.

@moshedyane

6 ай бұрын

Twenty plus years training on the A320 plus a technical job. In FBW, ie flight path control rather than flight control deflection demands, the active side stick or the 777 control column, doesn’t actually add anything but weight and complexity. If you are concerned about dual inputs, then a stick trembler beats active linked controls.

@Conservator.

6 ай бұрын

@@moshedyaneThanks for your comment! Wouldn’t forced feedback provide extra information in an intuitively way to you as a pilot. I mean like you would get when flying a single engine two or four seater? Or is your point that you just want to direct where you want to go and let the airplane figure out how to do that? I’m just curious about your thoughts. Thanks in advance!

@longiusaescius2537

6 ай бұрын

Hmm

Concorde G-BOAC was experimentally and temporarily fitted with a sidestick (LH seat only) during development of the Airbus sidestick FBW system.

@NovejSpeed3

6 ай бұрын

You stole my fire LOL!

@THXUK

6 ай бұрын

Are you sure it was G-BOAC? She was a production aircraft delivered to British Airways on 13 February 1976. I flew on her from London to New York on 20th June 2003.

@NovejSpeed3

6 ай бұрын

@THXUK you are correct it was build number 201 which first flew in Dec '73 and would go on to have registration F-WTSB which was retired at Toulouse! G-BOAC was build number 204.

@michaelrmurphy2734

6 ай бұрын

Was there ever a Concorde G-AIFR?

@michaelrmurphy2734

6 ай бұрын

I like your handle. The first was THX-1138...@@THXUK

When I first came to United Airlines, the instructors there mentioned that Boeing had come to UAL when they were designing the 777, and asked them which system UAL would prefer. Supposedly UAL said "yokes". As the launch customer, they had some pull. This could be just a legend.

@JetPro11

6 ай бұрын

I heard the same thing as UAL was flying 767’s, 757’s, 737’s and 727’s and did not want the training burden of sidesticks for the 777. Reduced training burden a la Southwest.

@9HighFlyer9

6 ай бұрын

That was a main marketing point for Boeing. They went to their customers and asked what they wanted. Flight deck, maintenance, cabin amenities.

It's absolutely nuts that Airbus does not have force feedback. Video game controllers have really good force feedback, just look at how realistic a good wheel and something like iRacing can be, and Airbus has the *real* values the controls should be feeling from their sensors. And it's not hard to add a system that stops the feedback if it reaches a certain threshold... It wouldn't even be hard to add it so that the pilot can physically disconnect it if needed. Disable the system if the pilot isn't in the seat, and if you want a physical override, make it so that e.g. the motor is connected by a piece of plastic that breaks if the pilot inputs more than 60kg - like how the yokes snap apart on some Boeing models if you fight against each other.

I'm all for mechanically and hydraulically connected and assisted sidesticks. (Active) It Increases pilot saftey in terms of awareness in the cockpit and feeling the aircraft when handflying. Lets see where the future takes us

@MentourNow

6 ай бұрын

I’m hoping this video will be a push in the right direction.

@johannesgutsmiedl366

6 ай бұрын

mechanical/hydraulic connection isn't going to happen, but if the electronic connection can be proven safe enough to certify (which has apparently already been done for the gulfstreams) then it really should be a huge step forward in terms of safety

@fat_biker

6 ай бұрын

Back in the dark ages, when there was no feedback on home microcomputer joysticks (Spectrums, BBC Micros, really ancient history) , and indeed most people didn't have joysticks at all, flying rudimentary flight sims with their keyboards, it was common to have a little circular display element with a big dot on it that visually represented the position of the joystick (or virtual joystick). So, what you need is a circular display in the middle of the panel with a white dot on that shows both pilots what the current effective inputs are, with the dot turning yellow if both sticks are making inputs that more or less agree with each other, and red if they are opposing each other. Then if the forces end up opposing for more than say 10 seconds, sound a buzzer. The good thing about this is that it would be easy to retrofit to legacy aircraft...

@JawanzaBassue

6 ай бұрын

Take a look at the active side sticks in the Symmetry Flight Deck on the Gulfstream G500, G700, etc. They do exactly what you're referencing without a mechanical linkage. Works great on those applications.

@fr89k

6 ай бұрын

I don't think it's going to happen (again), because on big airplanes, it adds a massive amount of weight. Therefore, I am almost sure that fly-by-wire-only will stick around for a lot longer. However, eventually fly-by-wire will probably get transmitted via optical fiber. It is a lot lighter than the copper wiring and it is immune to EMI problems. However, first it has to prove to be reliable enough.

Though not a side stick, we used to make the Q-Feel valve for the Harrier. This provided feedback to the pilot primarily during slow speed manoeuvring when there were no aerodynamic loads being fed back from the control surfaces and the size and weight of these units was not very significant at all. Making sidesticks active shouldn`t incur a significant weight or size penalty but it would cost.

@JoeHamelin

6 ай бұрын

Like what doesn't cost on an aircraft!

@hoilst265

6 ай бұрын

I remember a story about how the first F-16 prototypes had sticks that...didn't actually move. At all. Since it was all 100% FBW, they didn't actually have to move, but instead just detected pressure on the stick, but it freaked out the pilots, so they put in some artificial movement.

@longiusaescius2537

6 ай бұрын

Interesting

@neilmurgatroyd3197

4 ай бұрын

not just cost. For a fleet of a/c, how are you going to transition? You'll have some of the crew trained for active, and some of the aircraft with active. I don't think it would happen, you'd have to have a separate qualification. OR make active feedback a selectable option for trained crew....

Been in the Bus for 15 years. As mentioned on a comment before, the main issue for Airbus is that when too close to the ground and not having a feedback on your hands may lead to undesirable situations. AirBus is a perfect machine but this improvement would help a lot, specially on instruction flights.

@jamesglover1746

6 ай бұрын

00😊

@VagabondTexan

5 ай бұрын

"Perfect machine, but this improvement would help a lot"...sooooo not perfect. 😄

Visual and audible feedback will always be second-best to tactile, because words have to be interpreted and understood. Tactile feedback is so immediate and powerful that it takes a lot of training and hard work for pilots to ignore "seat of the pants" feel when g-forces send the wrong messages, as seen in so many of your videos. I think this is something that should be implemented as soon as it can safely be done.

I wanna see the fly by wire differences! Also, if you haven’t yet, you should dive into the 1500 ATP rule in the US and how it’s affecting pilot supply/demand.

@tomstravels520

6 ай бұрын

He has

@outermarker5801

6 ай бұрын

He already has a video on the subject

@spelldaddy5386

6 ай бұрын

He has done it, though watching the senate hearing last week where many people seem to be under the impression that 1500 hours is beneficial was shocking to me.

@rosuav

6 ай бұрын

Definitely interested in the FBW differences and how they affect safety. I've learned so much from your videos, and it's fascinating to hear about these magnificent protections that exist - and what their limits are. The design choices are so critical, and there's no single obvious answer.

@ferrariguy6389

6 ай бұрын

Scare Buss

I'd love for a deep dive into the flight control law differences between airbus and (recent) boeing airliners! Explaining all the differences between C* and C*U

The biggest control advantage of a yoke versus a sidestick is the yoke is much easer it modulate in smaller percentage of full travel increments for the finesse needed for superior landings... fly by wire may damp and modulate some of the inputs on FBW aircraft, but the yoke does enable more finesse than the side stick.

Yokes also give out of trim (rudder/aileron) indications just by looking at them (you know that mark on top on Boeing's yokes that centers when the rudder/aileron is well trimmed), this is great for Single Engine operations as it makes trimming the rudder that much easier. A yoke that is angled to one side is a clear indication something isn't right including a fuel imbalance. I can tell when a former Airbus pilot is fairly new to the 757 as they tend to keep their hands on their laps with the Autopilot / Autothrottle engaged. Yes, I fully agree active sidesticks would be a great leap forward for Airbus. Great video!!!

Airbus can keep their side sticks but they DESPERATELY need force feedback. We've seen like 3-4 videos on this channel alone of accidents where both pilots were inputting on the controls and the system averaged the input. They never hear that dual input horn (now that it exists) in an emergency and Air France 447 was a direct result of that lack of feedback.

@skayt35

6 ай бұрын

Dual input warning is also displayed prominently in their primary flight display. If they no longer look at their instruments, then something is really off anyway. Speaking of Air France, they managed to perform unrecognised dual input in a 777 on a beautiful day. BEA in their preliminary report made a veiled but very acid remark at Air France and their capabilities.

@acfiv1421

6 ай бұрын

100% agree. The inability of the pilot to feel through the controls that they are fighting another pilot's input is a critical point of failure. It was a huge factor in the AF 447 crash, among others. I'm really shocked that making the sidesticks move together has not been made mandatory 30 years ago - it's just such an obvious and dangerous weakness.

@Chris_1024_

6 ай бұрын

I disagree. AF447 was the result of not adhering to any standard. If they followed memory items, the accident would not have happened. If they forgot them, going through then checklist demanded by SOP would have saved the day. If they had better CRM and communication, the accident wouldn't have happened. If they analyzed the situation instead of just doing stupid stuff loosing total situaltional awareness, this would not have happened. If they listended to the 60 Stall warnings, the accident wouldn't have happened. They absolutely ignored everything. And btw: In the most important phase that got them to the stall, David Robert knew wat Bonin was doing. This is from the FDR transcript: 02:10:07 (Robert) What’s this? 02:10:15 (Bonin) There’s no good… there’s no good speed indication. 02:10:16 (Robert) We’ve lost the, the, the speeds, then? [The plane is soon climbing at a blistering rate of 7000 feet per minute. While it is gaining altitude, it is losing speed, until it is crawling along at only 93 knots, a speed more typical of a small Cessna than an airliner. Robert notices Bonin's error and tries to correct him.] 02:10:27 (Robert) Pay attention to your speed. Pay attention to your speed. 02:10:28 (Bonin) Okay, okay, I’m descending. 02:10:30 (Robert Stabilize. 02:10:31 (Bonin) Yeah. 02:10:31 (Robert) Descend… It says we’re going up… It says we’re going up, so descend. 02:10:36 (Robert) Descend! 02:10:37 (Bonin) Here we go, we’re descending. 02:10:38 (Robert) Gently! [Bonin eases the back pressure on the stick, and the plane gains speed as its climb becomes more shallow. It accelerates to 223 knots. The stall warning falls silent. For a moment, the co-pilots are in control of the airplane.] 02:10:41(Bonin) We’re… yeah, we’re in a climb. 02:10:49 (Robert) Damn it, where is he? 02:10:55 (Robert) Damn it! Robert KNEW, froim looking at the flight displays instead of Bonin's the stick that he could easily see, what Bonin was doing. The whole conversation was all about Bonin pulling up. So despite what Boing commentators say, Robert knew what Bonin was doing Flight-Input wise. They dind't talk about much else in the most critical phase. So saying that this happpened because Robert didn't know what Bonin was doing with his sidestick is beyond misleading and couldn't be more wrong even if they tried. It all turned worse when Robert concentrated on getting the captain back into the cockpit and lost awareness. He wouild have seen any movement of the million times less information than flightdisdplays giving sidestsick either. He did not have a hand on the sidestick until the stall, so feedback wouldn't have helped. As a Pilot monitoring, it's his job to look the the Flight displays which again give FAR more information than Stick movements. it's more helpful understanding what the PF is currently doing and FAR MORE IMPORTANT: WHAT HE HAS DONE BEFORE, as the current flight parameters are the direct result of the inputs of the last minutes. They carry the history of what he has done. Bonin actually didn't always pull back. You can see that in the FDR data. So if the PM would have had an active sidestick and taken away his eyes from the flight displays to see what this thing is doing, he might have catched a monent when Bonin was pushing forward, getting a totally wrong momentarily impression of what he is doing. The main problem of this flight also was: They didn't look at the flight displays enough. All they needed to know was there. Any destraktion like looking at sidesticks would absolutely not be helpful. So despite what boing fans say, the BEA final report acknowledged the difficulty for one pilot to observe the side-stick input of the other, but did not identify it as a cause of the accident and made no recommendation related to the side-stick input design.

@geezee1946

6 ай бұрын

I just can't believe that anyone could ever have thought that designing an aircraft with no feedback in the control stick was a smart idea...

@abarratt8869

6 ай бұрын

@@geezee1946 The service record of the entire Airbus family is a pretty good ringing endorsement for the design.

I think it'd be very nice to have a video focused on how Boeing and Airbus approach the flight envelope protection! Thanks Petter!

As a proud Canadian, the mention of the Avro Arrow just hits me hard. 🍁 The Arrow hit Mach 1.9 in the initial flight tests, with plans for a homegrown jet engine upgrade. The sixth Arrow(RL 206) was just days from being ready with the new Orenda engines. The engineers figured RL 206 would hit Mach 2.5 with those engines.

@ytzpilot

6 ай бұрын

The old saying only the good die young I feel applies to the Arrow, it never had the chance to achieve great things, and that has become its legacy. Had the program continued its problems would have also become transparent, and that never happened either, a track record would make or break an aircraft and the Arrow never got that chance either way. Therefore we remember it for the potential it never achieved

@jean-philippevachon9563

6 ай бұрын

As a proud Canadian, don’t forget the mention of the airbus a220, also a Canadian product ;)

@Bartonovich52

6 ай бұрын

The problem with the Arrow is there is a lot of mythos that surrounds it that has no basis in reality. First is the idea that it was the first FBW aircraft. It wasn’t. The Avro Vulcan was which is where Avro Canada got the design. Next is the speed. Yes it could have gone Mach 2.5 (not any faster or it would have melted). Then it would have to immediately return to base because it had no fuel. It was not practical and to make it practical either extra fuel or weapons would have had to be mounted externally.. negating any speed advantage. The C-Series is the best plane Canada ever produced… period. Not only is it advanced but it’s competitive and profitable (now that it’s away from bungling Bombardier).

@karlbassett8485

6 ай бұрын

As a Brit it reminds me of the TSR-2. Like the Arrow it was the US that put pressure on the government to cancel it, offering a good deal on a US plane. A trick they repeated when the UK developed satellite launch capability. The US offered free launches on their rockets, an offer they withdrew after the UK scrapped its rocket.

@OzzSabbath

6 ай бұрын

@Bartonovich52 Your comment is based on no basis. The Arrow was designed as an interceptor for Russian bombers from coming to Canadian airspace to the north. Avro was already working on designs for a future Arrow if the project was a success. Britain requested The Arrow for research purposes after the cancelation, but the Canadian government instead decided to scrap everything to do with the Arrow. It was ahead of time, and we ended up buying the Voodoo which was rejected before the Arrow project started because it didn't meet the requirements for the RCAF, but the Arrow exceeded all their requirements and more. I highly recommend the book "Avro Arrow: The Story of the Avro Arrow From Its Evolution To Its Extinction". The Arrow would have been a poor dog fighter, but that wasn't its purpose. We will never know its full potential and where Canada’s aerospace industry would be today. Tens of thousands of brilliant Canadians lost their jobs when the cancelation occurred. Lots of engineers from Avro Canada went to Nasa and worked on the Apollo program. You must not be a Canadian. We are now completely reliant on US aircraft for our defense.

It's worth mentioning that unlike the current side sticks on Airbus, Active Side Sticks moves while the A/P is engaged, like B777 Yokes are back driven by Back Drive Actuators taking command from A/P via PFCs

I think an analysis of the difference between fly by wire in Airbus and Boeing would be a great video! There is a lot to be said for Boeing's version, where the pilots ultimately have the ability to overrule the computer, much more easily than Airbus, as well as the computer still giving feedback through the yokes, but I'd love to hear your analysis

@iancormie9916

6 ай бұрын

Boeing departed from direct control with the MCAS. Cannot understand what (oversite) made that possible. At some point, one switch should give the pilot total control over an airframe assuming the design is stable. I would also hope that any such system would also ensure that a reasonable forward CG is established asap is the plane is in a neutral or tail heavy configuration.

@spelldaddy5386

6 ай бұрын

@@iancormie9916 MCAS is only supposed to come into effect to assist with stall recovery, and even if it acts erroneously, pilots are now trained in overruling it. That was part of the recertification process, so that pilots wouldn't lose control like those two accidents. That said, the 737 (even the MAX) is still direct control. It is not until later aircraft that fly by wire was introduced

@topethermohenes7658

6 ай бұрын

Clicking only 2 buttons found on the same panel would give total control to the pilots in an airbus

@poiujnbvcxdswq

6 ай бұрын

Statistically giving complete control to the pilot to over ride the computer is a TERRIBLE idea. Pilots are and have been for several decades far and away the leading cause of crashes. In the last decade its gotten up to nearly 80% of crashes are pilot induced.

As an active A320 FAM PIC since 15years and having flown the 737, too, I do not really miss anything of the 737. But I enjoyed my time in it a lot. Regarding A320: It is a matter of training and stabilization criteria adherence in order to stay safely and adequately in all tolerances. I find the recently observable ghosting technique of Boeing rather not very helpful, especially for new FO. They should feel when a landing is rather positive than never let them experience at all their results of their own manual flight path management.

@englishcitystone1663

6 ай бұрын

Excellent English with a hint of French syntax.😊

@bayouflier6641

6 ай бұрын

@@englishcitystone1663 I was just thinking, is it me?, or did that statement make no sense at all.

@michaelrmurphy2734

6 ай бұрын

You DO know that Petter is a B737 pilot right?!

Retired airline pilot with time in B737,757,767, AB330,319,320,321. Never had a problem when going from Boeing to AB once the system was studied and understood. Had stick and yoke experience in Navy as well. Learn your aircraft and understand how the controls work. Also know where your standby instruments are and use them when the electronics fail you.

If you are looking for a counterpoint to your positive feelings about active feedback in side-sticks, here is what I think. Whenever you add a new system into an airliner, ESPECIALLY a primary flight control, you have to ask "what happens when this fails?" Getting answers is very difficult and often tricky for the engineers. Before they system is implemented, they can't be absolutely sure what will happen, because it hasn't happened yet. So they must make assumptions about when and how it will fail, and what the crew will do about it. This uncertainty can make engineers very reluctant to change something that already works. As for the pilots, they could be confused by failure of the feedback system to give them correct (or any) feedback during a maneuver, leading them to overcorrect, or cross-control, similar to what has happened in past accidents. So digging to the heart of its reliability might reveal that there are new problems introduced, even as it prevents old problems.

Started my pilot life out flying military helicopters and was definitely used to lots of feedback. First jet was the A220 and now the A320 and I don’t miss the feedback at all and never really think about it.

@a-sch

6 ай бұрын

Have a few friends who flew helos professionally and somehow ended up in airbus machines. They find them a piece of cake and very intuitive.

@KoiranenAerospace

5 ай бұрын

I also flew few thousand hours with various aircraft with feedback from three decades, now A320 series. Feedback would feel completely useless to me, maybe it would help with trimming in direct law, but if the aircraft is in direct law, I have my doubts that the feedback system would not be working anyway.

@wesleyhurd3574

4 ай бұрын

If you are gifted with the aptitude to be able to fly a military helicopter, I believe flying any sub-sonic aircraft would be relatively easy for you.

Although a nerd, I'm not particularly interested in aviation or aircraft mechanics and technology. So, the fact that I've watched the whole video with great interest is just a testimony to the production value of your videos. My motto has always been that there is no such thing as useless knowledge - it just has to be served the right way. Thank you - you've just earned a new sub. 👍

As an 8,000 hrs Airbus TRI/TRE, there’s nothing I would like more than an active feedback side-stick, thank you for this episode. Right on the money. It would take away any advantage from Boeing dinosaur’s design.

@Abbecskin

6 ай бұрын

Just because something is older technology does not mean it is a dinosaur to imply that it is not relevant. I realize you are joshing and digging, but the Boeing design is just as good if not better in many of the people's opinion, mine included.

@brotakig1531

6 ай бұрын

Se this is not banter just 'plane' rude.

@LexlutherVII

6 ай бұрын

Boeing is the one who should learn from Airbus not the other way around

@mr.redneck2715

4 ай бұрын

Just remember alligators are dinosaurs and they’re still around!

Well, that tragic Air France 447 crash off the coast of South America was partly caused by the copilot and relief captain entering opposite commands on the side sticks. Remember the copilot kept pulling back while the relief captain was pushing down.

@KoiranenAerospace

5 ай бұрын

Read the report again. It was just short time when that happened, and again, why on earth the relief captain used side stick without pressing take over pb? If you don't follow any procedures, you gonna get yourself and others killed even with synchronized sidesticks.

@therealrobinc

3 ай бұрын

The relief pilot was actually a more senior First Officer who actually had the most experience flying that model of Airbus, even more than the Captain. Unfortunately, the Airbus side stick (till today) isn't active and the the most junior pilot was the Pilot Flying (PF) in the right seat. He started the cascade of bad actions that led to the catastrophe by pulling the jet up to very high angles of attack & stalling the plane, and he continued making that mistake. The more experienced Pilot Monitoring (PM) in the Left Seat could hardly control the stick as it was the less experienced pilot in the Right Seat who kept hogging the side stick and making exaggerated movements with his side stick, even though the PM tried to towards the end. Airbus computers simply gives up when it encounters conflicting input. Crucially, the PM couldn't see the inputs made by the PF, because Airbus still have yet to install active side sticks that moves in sync with any input. At the end, it was poor & insufficient emergency training in the simulators. The PF was hasty in his response, and made very bad idiotic decisions. Had he waited a minute for the ice to melt off the pitot tubes so airspeed can be read, and kept the plane on level flight (ie. don't nose the jet up unnecessarily), it would not have triggered the cascade of disaster. Even student pilots are taught to watch their angle of attack, and to resist pulling the nose up as it will induce a stall. Just aviate, and keep the plane on level flight. Get back to the basics, instead of inducing loss of control with panic moves. Obviously that PF failed miserably to even do that. It was also the Captain's decision to allow the most junior pilot to be the PF before he went for his rest. I believe that had the PM been the PF, the tragedy would have been avoided. Given the equatorial storm cells that exists, the more experienced First Officer should have been the PF, at least until the jet is clear of them.

@KoiranenAerospace

3 ай бұрын

@@therealrobinc since when the computers “give up” with conflicting input? This is nonsense, on top of that there shouldn’t ever been conflicting input especially after first warning of dual input. The one wanting to interfere should always press takeover pushbutton and take controls. Neither in the cockpit realized the stall and neither of them unloaded the aircraft. I agree, that probably the situation would have been avoided by replacing the PF before lost of control happened, it’s likely to be avoided even with another “fresh” first officer with similar experience.

@therealrobinc

3 ай бұрын

@@KoiranenAerospace Read the official report.

@KoiranenAerospace

3 ай бұрын

@@therealrobinc, how many times I have to read it? The flight control computers don’t give up and there is no information that any of those would have worked differently than described.

The A220 was actually initially planned to have active sidesticks as well, the servo motors are still there and you can feel and hear them when moving the side stick. It also gives quite a different feel than the A320 family side sticks. No idea though, why the active feature has not been put to real use so far.

@ZS-rm5vn

6 ай бұрын

Source? True those sticks feel totally different from the 320s. Not saying this is determinative of course but I've peeled back the boot of the 220 stick and haven't seen any servo motor being there. So please share your info on that, would be quite cool. Even the Globals don't have active sidesticks I thought, and they use the same setup.

@CyberHornet

6 ай бұрын

@@ZS-rm5vnI fly the A220 and can confirm, they have a force feedback system that puts opposite force when out of trim, they also shake when the plane is about to stall. Still no interconnection between a stick and the other though.

@thegrandmuftiofwakanda

5 ай бұрын

WRONG.

With active side stick AF447 (one of my fav video ) might have been avoided. Personaly i am french so an airbus fan but the only thing that matters is Safety and both airbus and boeing make beautiful and safe planes

@miks564

6 ай бұрын

The problem with active sidesticks is that they will then be expected to provide feedback from the flight envelope as well. So, the feeling on the sidestick might not be clearly identified as 'Dual Input'

@Chris_1024_

6 ай бұрын

I highly dount that and BEA thinks the same. The BEA final report acknowledged the difficulty for one pilot to observe the side-stick input of the other, but did not identify it as a cause of the accident and made no recommendation related to the side-stick input design.

@kadrikarakoc807

6 ай бұрын

@@Chris_1024_ But it is unlikely to they recommend something which is not implemented or accepted in general aviation yet. For example if some A320 crashes because of lost both engines, nobody can say ''we recommend 4 smaller engines on A320''

@Curt_Sampson

6 ай бұрын

@@kadrikarakoc807 It is very likely that recommendations are not implemented or accepted generally; if they were, they would already be in place and there would be no need to make the recommendation. Most of what goes on in a cockpit these days exists because of recommendations made in a time when those things weren't part of cockpit instrumentation or procedure. And why on earth would accident investigators care about acceptability of the recommendations? Are they really going to say, "doing X would likely reduce the chances of an accident, but we _don't_ recommend you do X because, well, nobody does it; better just to let aircraft keep crashing"?

@jshepard152

6 ай бұрын

​@@Chris_1024_ Sully disagrees with you. I'm going with his opinion.

Retired 30k hour Boeing pilot here, so I am probably biased. 😅 HOWEVER I’ve always said that NOT knowing what the other pilot is inputting, is a disaster waiting to happen, and this has been proven with both accidents and VERY near misses. (I also don’t like thrust levers that don’t move on auto throttle - the loss of that visual AND tactile feedback is a big disadvantage.) In the 1990s I read an excellent article by a retired Airbus test pilot. He said that locking in both of those design features was a serious fail, and will continue to cause accidents (and incidents) indefinitely. He was far from happy with the design. I concur with that view.

"direct law where the plane lets the pilots no longer know when it's out of pitch" this give XL airways flashbacks

If not already done, I’d love to see a video about self landing systems. From the origins in tbe 50s to the latest (up to cat III c) versions.

@molen_

6 ай бұрын

yessss

@Wol747

4 ай бұрын

The HS Trident started autoland trials in the sixties and carried out thousands in passenger service over the years until it was withdrawn from service in the early eighties. Many cat 3 landings were carried out in service. The accuracy was stunning, including in crosswinds when the drift was “kicked off” (misleading phrase) just prior to touchdown. Remarkable since it was pre-digital: the air data computers were electromechanical, triplicated autopilot systems.

@MeppyMan

4 ай бұрын

@@Wol747 family friend was a 747 captain when I was growing up. He would say that if they did a hard landing they would blame the auto landing system. 😂

the best solution would probably to develop a passive mode for the active sidestick. That way Airbus can roll out the technology to the entire, but leave it up to the airlies to make the switch.

@MentourNow

6 ай бұрын

Maybe, but I would find it highly strange if an airline would NOT want this.

@bigstick6332

6 ай бұрын

@@MentourNowcost unfortunately often is the decision. Many airlines are cheap and profit first. All the equipment, maintenance and training costs would be a big factor in the decision.

@Stoney3K

6 ай бұрын

@@MentourNowI agree that airlines may want it, but they can keep their existing aircraft in service while the pilots are being re-trained on the active sticks.

I flew side sticks for years on my homebuilt varieze and Rutan Defiant (push pull twin ) these were mechanical non electronic control sticks. These were such a natural way to control these aircraft that the owners rarely bothered to comment on them in their discussion. Having an open lap for paper charts at the time was a natural advantage.

I have extensive experience in multiple Boeing and Airbus type ratings. The yoke is a pain in rear. I can't imagine the 777x with a yoke.

I always wanted the force feedback joystick. And now I have money to buy it, but sadly they dont make them anymore. Interesting thing about first sidestick in F16 prototype, it wasnt movable, but they figured out that humans are much better at sensing little differences in location of their hand then small changes in applied pressure. So they made it movable. I am now training in a B737 simulator and I think I would prefer the active sidestick.

@plektosgaming

6 ай бұрын

They do, but they are all now very expensive HOTAS setups (Close to $1000 plus last I checked). I find it much easier to use one than a normal joystick. Mine's about 10 or 12 years old when you could get them for a more reasonable $200 or so.

@michaelrmurphy2734

6 ай бұрын

The CH joystick and throttle combos I got through eBay were pre force feedback. Secondhand through the internet. I hope they are around...

As an A320/A330 pilot, I think that should the design remain the same except the force feedback, it would be a really good idea. I would just suggest a way of disabling the active system should there be faults, maybe a little button somewhere near the PFD/ND display setting switch that allows the system to be disconnected should there be any faults with the system (ie. false feedback/really bad trim issue to prevent fatigue from pulling the sidestick back). I think it would make a trainer's life easier too being able to see all inputs easily.

@therealrobinc

3 ай бұрын

Active side sticks and throttle levers that move in sync with pilot or computer inputs (and active shaker) would solve most of such issues. Not having active side sticks is that single point of failure that caused Air France 447. Airbus alone is responsible for this design disaster.

>12k in the A319/20/21 & A330. Did another 12k in Douglas, Fokker & Boeing prior. I GREATLY preferred Airbus side-stick, fbw w/protections. I know the Boeing guys can put their hand on the yoke, turn around to chat with the stew and know what's going on, but frankly, I just did what Airbus wanted you to do...use your eyes. If you have N1/EPR and FMA awareness, you don't need all that stuff moving around. My periphery vision is good and I could see what the other pilot was doing with his hand. As long as I have the red takeover button, I'm good. Rather than chasing some over active stick pumper, I can lay my hand on my stick that isn't moving all over the darn place and simply push and hold the red button if I need to. I'll add that one reason the Airbus auto-throttle is so responsive in gusty conditions is because the FADEC's don't suffer the lag of having to back drive & physically move the thrust levers like on the 73/75/76.

One of my Boeing friends told me that sidesticks were examined as a possibility for the 777. His opinion was that the decision to reject sidesticks was as much a rejection of the particular implementation that they tested as it was a rejection of the concept per se.

I’ve flown both center stick and side stick in light aircraft. Both work well although side sticks tend to be much shorter resulting in less mechanical advantage, reduced travel distance and therefore less precise control. This is why aerobatic aircraft generally have center sticks. I would imagine that fly by wire and auto-trim mitigates this disadvantage to some degree. From an engineering perspective, I agree that active side sticks will be the most practical compromise. Hopefully, I’ll get a chance to fly with them before I retire.

As a long time Airbus pilot, I can tell you it’s not about the sidestick, it’s about the table!

@christerry1773

6 ай бұрын

Those yokes have got be so annoying, especially considering only a fraction of the time are they being used for manual flying

@KoiranenAerospace

5 ай бұрын

@@christerry1773, especially those yokes that are attached to the floor, so even your leg movements are restricted (instead of Cessna 152/172 style yoke that comes from the instrument panel)

@christerry1773

5 ай бұрын

@@KoiranenAerospace or the Phemnom

@KoiranenAerospace

5 ай бұрын

@@christerry1773, yeah, that’s good in emb500/505 design. Otherwise the flight deck is a bit too small, even I flew it with the rearmost seat position and I’m not a tall guy. My phenom type rating expired few months ago as I don’t need it anymore, now flying only A320 series.

@christerry1773

5 ай бұрын

@@KoiranenAerospace I flew in a phenom before at the company i work for. If they did single pilot i'd get to set up front. One time, a pilot let me take manual control at cruising alt. I knew the guy but still.....that was Amazingly fun!

The biggest challenge with the recent sidesticks is that at what point exactly, not too early notice too late, that I have to take over the other pilot’s control. Personally I use the force I feel on my butt against the seat cushion to determine if he or she is doing good enough, but maybe as a senior who has already had over 15000 hours is capable to do so, but for a junior pilot, I really want them to feel what I’m doing on the stick, how much force I use on the stick to get the plane on ground. But with the recent version of the 320 sidestick, it’s difficult to accomplish.

For years I thought that these side sticks have some sort of feedback. I only found out they didn't in the Air France Atlantic crash. Even a small feedback would already have made a high difference. The only reason I can imagine not changing is the programming complications in the systems and cost.

It would be very interesting to learn about the differences of fly by wire between Airbus and Boeing !

@EvoraGT430

6 ай бұрын

Airbus way more advanced.

@cherrypepsi2815

6 ай бұрын

@@EvoraGT430 There's a reason so many old boeings are still in use, as opposed to old airbuses

@58biggles

6 ай бұрын

​@@cherrypepsi2815the company has been around a lot longer which would contribute to that also

@bobrice3957

6 ай бұрын

Airbus has no physical feedback to the pilots whereas Boeing controls move to match the flight control movement. In short. Pilot moves control, picked up by sensor, sends signal to computer, computer checks it is within safe envelope, sends signal to control PCU which moves, sensors sense the movement and send feedback to computer which moves control column to match. It is similar with throttle and stab trim so pilots have physical evidence of what is happening. Airbus keep it a secret. lol

Very interesting and informative. Perhaps if Airbus decides to incorporate active side sticks in their existing aircraft, the A320/A330 neos will also get new cockpits with large screens, like the A220/A350. Also curios to know if Embraer will have sidesticks on any future products of theirs. The KC390 and Praetor jets have them, but the E2s still have the yokes, probably for commonality. Would love to have a pilot’s perspective on Embraer yokes versus Boeing yokes.

@ZS-rm5vn

6 ай бұрын

The worst thing is where the embraer bicycle wheel pivots. It's below the Y formed by the handles... probably good geometric and engineering reasons for it but on an ergonomics consideration side, banking and crosswind inputs can result in knee bashing, somehow more so than the Boeing UU yokes.

As a Professional Engineer of Control Systems and as a private pilot, I know professionally and first hand how important user interface design is. As you point out, active FBW joy stick design is an obvious improvement. The feedback of "feeling" the aircraft's behavior is absolutely necessary, especially when most of the aerodynamic safety automation is disabled. However, it is also imperative that the inputs from that "feeling" are validated and known. For example, if the indication of the elevator trim system is unknown or has impossible indications, there needs to be a way that this feedback can be disabled or it will further confuse and disorient the pilots. As an aside, I use the Boeing vs. Airbus philosophies as a teaching point for inexperienced engineers. I would really like to see your take on the philosophical differences of the flight deck design. Thanks for a thoughtful presentation.

@woodwind314

6 ай бұрын

You are soooo right. A true force feedback system while the A/C operates in normal law is big design challenge. But once it goes to direct law, not having that sort of feedback is a catastrophe in the making.

@mzaite

6 ай бұрын

Just the argument of Up/Forward is on Vs. Up/Back is on would be glorious!

@therealrobinc

3 ай бұрын

@jakebrodakype And in your opinion, between Boeing vs Airbus, which UI is more valid? And how would you remediate the deficiencies of either? Thanks.

@woodwind314

3 ай бұрын

I don't know why this popped up in my notifications 2 months later. (Yes, Utube, you also need to work on your human-machine interface!) IMHO, abstractions, be that in the aviation industry, ore elsewhere (specifically programming / system designs) are both a boon and a huge problem. First of all, if all you learn to work with is abstractions, with tons of guard-rails surrounding you, what can you learn? The pilot, captain of a ship, operator of a power plant or else, NEEDS to understand the basic system functionalities. More than understand: They need to be *ingrained* in that person's mind. Automation, like in the Airbus (but also other manufacturers) destroys that. I drive old cars, Mercs from the late 80ies to early 90ies. Zero computer support for anything. And I get (occasionally) claps and ovations when I can park these cars into a place that the automatic parking of a Tesla has given up on...

@mzaite

3 ай бұрын

@@woodwind314 They need to not just be ingrained, they need to be INTEGRATED into the system. To “feel” it, to “wear it”, to make it an intuitive part of themselves. F-16 and F-22 pilots don’t seem to have a problem, but they are a small specially selected subset of pilots. Airbus are driven by any rando climbing the ladder, be they Bob Hoovers, or What ever the opposite of Bob Hoover is. (Larry Eureka?) So more engagement would be better, except the goal is to rely 100% on the automation, so the autopilot controls have more thought put into them than the side sticks. Hell the lunch trays have more thought put into them.

I worked as an engineer on a military FBW aircraft (not mentioned in the video) with active side sticks which has been flying for almost 10 years. I'm not sure I'd recommend them despite the advantages listed in the video. The disadvantages are just too problematic. -They are heavier than passive side sticks. -They are harder to package as you need room for the large box below the sticks to contain the servos. -The hardware is more expensive than the passive side sticks. -The software is more complex and requires more development time than passive side sticks. -They have thermal issues and high failure rates which cannot be tolerated in a FBW input device. I'll explain that last one. The lower console of an aircraft is essentially a black box in a greenhouse. Add to that black box a couple servos generating their own heat. This is a recipe for a thermal problem, especially at 3 in the afternoon when on the ground with limited or no ECS (the side sticks would most often fail after a mid afternoon fuel stop). You can add more cooling with ordinary ducted fans, but the primary source of noise in many cockpits is actually the cockpit cooling fans. Adding a couple more is not desired, and without ECS, the fans might not actually get the job done. An airliner might have the ground ECS capability to keep them cool during a fuel stop, but I certainly would not put them on military aircraft that is expected to be happy operating in a desert. Pilots wear Nomex gloves in the summer, not for fire risk, but because everything in the cockpit is hot enough to cook on it when it was 50C/122F outside. Surface temps in the lower console can be literally hot enough to cook a steak. But, I'm an engineer, not a pilot. Well, I'm a pilot too, but not on these aircraft. Force feedback on yokes do not have the thermal issues as their servos tend to be mounted under the floor in a much more protected space. That's my 2c.

I had been flow a B 738 since 2003 as a captain, now I am captain A320 since 2010 ..let me tell you my friends.. Nothing is better than a side stick . Soo you should try it, the most important key is to understand and comprehend the side stick Air in Air Bus family. Thanks .

@PsRohrbaugh

6 ай бұрын

I have nothing against side stick or fly by wire. But I am a strong believer in force feedback. There are only pros, no cons. Another comment points out that's exactly how the side sticks in the C17 work.

Hello Petter, love your videos! Would love to see one on flight envelope protections.

Actually, the new Embraer E2 just got rid of feedback inputs. Even when flying on Auto Pilot you have no visual clue of inputs, the yoke remains centered. Why they did that? I don’t know but for me, sounds insane. The visualziation coming from yoke movements makes easier to recognize any mistakes..

So many Airbus captains have comments here that they wish they had active side sticks when flying with new first officers. 30 feet that nose doesn’t move an inch up followed by a late hard pitch and the A321 mains are going to be sent to earth at 20 feet with a firm runway to kiss the tires. The flight attendants in the aft galley are going to feel that landing the rest of the day. Active side sticks will be a game changer.

@MentorNow Please Peter, the Airbus commands don’t average! They add to each other. I am an A320 TRI and I would LOVE to see active flight controls! It would be so beneficial in all aspects of operation, including training and building muscle memory when the auto-pilot is engaged.

@MentourNow

6 ай бұрын

What?

@benjaminsmith-haddon7316

6 ай бұрын

What?

@tomstravels520

6 ай бұрын

@@MentourNowso if one pilot moves their sidestick half left, the other pilot also moves their sidestick half left, the Airbus will behave like it is a full movement to the left. Adding the movements together. Not a half left like it would if averaged

@gastonpossel

6 ай бұрын

​@@tomstravels520you might want to check your maths

@skayt35

6 ай бұрын

If they are moved in different directions though (e.g. 10 deg left vs. 20 deg right), it will result in the average if I understood correctly (5 deg right in this example, please correct me if I'm wrong and it results in 10 deg right).

Good info here, but I don’t think you have a practical understanding of the Airbus flight control system. Even flying manually in direct law you will still know that the aircraft is out of trim because you will have to be holding constant stick input to maintain attitude. Force feedback would be a waste of resources. I have over 2000 hours in the A320 series, and I like the controls just how they are. I’m flying the Boeing 777 now, and its needlessly heavy fake control feel and the constant need to trim seem silly for a flyby wire airplane. The only thing I would change in the 320 would be the auto thrust system. Moving thrust levers like Boeing are a better system, it is nice to be able to quickly override them in certain situations without having to “match and mash” and totally disconnect the system.

@CoasterGuy787

9 күн бұрын

Mentour knows exactly what he is talking about. XL888T had An A320 end up in direct law where the pilot was trying to avoid stalling by pushing the nose down but in the heat of the moment he didn't realize that the autotrim left the horizontal stabilizer at the maximum nose up position, so the stabilizer just pitched the plane back up. Know why? Apart from the fact the "Use Man Pitch Trim" indication on the PFD being missed, there's no artificial control feedback pressure that could have told him the stabilizer was out of trim. That "needlessly heavy fake control feel and the constant need to trim" could have been the last line of defense that could have saved that A320 from stalling. That heavy fake control feedback may have made the pilots of AF447, Air Asia 8501 and S7 5220 avoid stalling with a heavier control force required at the higher speed to pull back and not having an autotrim maintaining nose up attitude with protections off, giving increased awareness of aircraft attitude and energy state. He even spoke about this in his S7 5220 video. Holding the stick constantly to see if the plane will maintain attitude is only fine if you ain't in a confused/stress state, not about to stall the machine and can think logically with the use of the stick and trim wheel. Don't need to be an Airbus pilot to realize the disadvantages of their FBW system.

2:22 Concorde's flight stick is known as a "Rams Horn" because they look like the horns on a ram. I think Embraer also use a similar design.

@igorgoncharov3191

6 ай бұрын

So does majority of bicycles.

I'm one definitely for the active sidesticks. Also remember that an Airbus sidestick with no A/P engaged is pretty much the same as the old CWS, control wheel steering was on Boeings , and still had low rate autotrim, so I don't know who stole who, or what, but the different technologies have been around, and certainly can be mixed matched and retrofitted to new and older Airbus. I do agree that the current passive sidestick has contributed to a few accidents. Very nice video.

I am now flying a 737 but, in my heart, I am an Airbus pilot. I like the way Airbus separates flying duties. The pilot flying is the one with his hand on the stick-period. Yes there are instances where both pilots fight each other with opposite inputs but this also happens with conventional yokes. Therefore this is not a side-stick issue, it is a training issue and should be treated as such.

@starbase218

6 ай бұрын

I’m wondering if it’s not possible to have sensors in the stick that determine if it’s being held by a hand. If so, that could initiate a lock to only allow control from that stick. When the other one is then being held, some warning could be sounded, indicating that control is on the other stick. When the first stick is released, the lock is released as well, and then whoever grabs the stick first re-initiates the lock and has control. I work in IT and this is not very different from how we protect two threads from e.g. creating a database record with the same ID.

@Bob-nc5hz

6 ай бұрын

"Therefore this is not a side-stick issue, it is a training issue and should be treated as such." most things are "training issue" if you want to get down to it, but humans are fallible, that's why we add safety equipment, warnings, and procedures. It removes opportunities for human errors, or adds notifications to them. "Skill issue" is rightfully not considered a proper solution.

@coyote_foxtrot

6 ай бұрын

That might be a good mind set for pilots, but that sort of mindset basically absolves engineers of responsibility. Aviation safety is something that is to be tackled from many directions. You want the best possible training to reduce the misuse of designed systems, and you want to design systems to be resistant to misuse. If you were to simplify this issue down to a scale, you’re approaching from both ends to squeeze the areas of risk down to a minimum. We want to account for all factors from all areas of knowledge for a shared outcome of better safety.

@kadrikarakoc807

6 ай бұрын

but you are seeing your coworker fighing over controls when this happens on a Boeing, but you don't on Airbus.

@misarthim6538

6 ай бұрын

@@coyote_foxtrot Yes, but nobody seems to take into account that you are also adding more complexity, more points of failures and more potential issues causing accidents. So it's not cost free. Nobody seems to be assessing if the increase of complexity and more potential things that can fail and cause confusion (imagine if the sticks due to some failure start to move at different rates and now you have 2 flight controls that show different deflection) is worth the issue we're trying to fix.

Hey all. In response to the author's call for comments from real-life sidestickers, here's my two-cents: When transitioning to the A320 back in 2009, after 16 years of Dash8, MD11 and B737 Classic as well as NG, the only thing I missed the most, was the flight control feedback. Magically moving throttles, I didn't cry a tear for. The Airbus' autotrim works as a charm. Reverting to conventional trim in case of direct law (which I only encountered during simulator flights) didn't pose a problem. ECAM is a true blessing. Vastly suprerior to EICAS. Especially when this ungodly electronic checklist has to be managed. I have a suspicion, that when the industry's big-heads are done with honestly analyzing all known failure modes of current Human-Interface-Devices - human as well as technical - THE best control system will present itself. And it might just look like Gulfstream's/Irkut's solution. Provided the new failure modes of that new device have been properly addressed, it looks like, ACS is, what most Airbus pilots have wanted from the very start. It also eliminates Boeing's last excuse to hold on to their silly relic. With the introduction of active control sidesticks into commercial production aircraft, it now has become the "current-state-of-the-art". The industry might have talked their way out of it, if it had only been the mad russians employing this deviltry. But now, with the rich&famous, not only get to demand unvaxxed pilots, but also get even fancier Gulfstream aircraft, there's no way around it anymore. It It might not have become a legal requirement yet, but acting outside of the-state-of-the-art, is a very slippery slope, legally. So for any manufacturer, not to implement state-of-the-art into their products, will open them up to huge class action lawsuits, in the event of the next mishap, which has FBW and the old yoke&stick design as contributary factor. They either implement it, or better have rock-solid arguments, for not having done so. Some crafty lawer will bring it up regardless, as sure as faith. Either that, or chance it, and finaegel their way out of it, by palitical shenninnigans...as would be usual. FAA and EASA have evolved into palitical institution, with a tight budget and lazy politicians leading them, long ago, after all. Passengers certainly wouldn't take note of it. They will as happily get into an any Airbus or Boeing of any operator, as they jump onto a dodgy Twotter-flight to some one-way mountain slope in Nepal - fancy sidestix or not. Fact is, neither Airbus' PCS nor Boeing's coupled yoke column are the the best available interface for an FBW aircraft. Yes, we can and do make due with either in daily operations and during most abnormal events. That's what we train for, after all. ACS seems to be the best of both worlds. But even with the perfect control device, "unreliable airspeed" or similarly critical events, are soved by the pilot; not the input device. Pointing fingers at seemingly stupid or complacent pilots is always easy. It's called denial. "Won't happen to me", in other words. The idiosyncrasies of FBW aircraft are well known in theory. Dealing with them in real life, overcoming the human idiosyncrasies of humans (startle effect, e.g.), is quite a different affair, than reading about some obscure occurence of remote possbility. A better control device will certainly help in doing the job properly. But it still requires the same amount of training and disipline as before, to use it properly and at the correct time. So, this stick might be quite a big deal (and I think it is), but it ain't the holy grail. I also think, that final Accident Reports and associated findings, are importnant and carry quite a lot of weight. Airbus is indeed under quite some pressure, to come up with a working solution to this long overdue, and well-known flaw in the system, due to those recent in- and accidents, in which the passive sidestick concept has been been identified as a contributing factor. Blaming it on silly pilots will no longer do. If there had not been any pressure, Airbus would not have changed a thing. It's also quite apparent, that their quick fix, of finally giving pilots an AoA indicator of sorts. Albeit a nice thing to have, during an "unreliable airspeed" event, it does not seem to eliminate the possibility of grand fuckery under stress. Therfore, the days of Airbus' passive stick concept seem to be numbered, to an ordinary pilot. As far as the Boing incidient goes, in which undetected decoupling of linked yokes is suspected, I'd imagine, that Boing also has some involuntary homework ahead of them. Frankly, the MCAS incidents should have given ample heads-up, into Boeing's FBW implementation philosophy...or their financial management policies. So frankly, the days of having interlinked yokes or PCS, on any FBW aircraft, might be over, soon; and thank heavens, if they actually are. As the argument for having them, has been somewhat diminished (if not eliminated), by the incident you have describibed in the video, (pending the findings of the final incident report on the Boeing mishap, of course) Also relevant, but a bit outside this stick/yoke discussion is, that "unreliable airspeed" (and others, affecting FBW performance) is a seriously nasty event. Not so much the handling of the problem, after recognition. Rather, the recognition itself. I do this (training) for a living. There is an extensive "unreliable airspeed" sim-prebrief, there is homework and private study. ahead of the briefing. Still, despite the fact, that the "unreliable airspeed" event is a (mandatory) planned, and announced event during sim training, the amount and diversity of grand-fuckery that follows introducing the failure, is mind boggling. And it is almost exclusively a result of recognition or entering the drill. Even from well seasoned and highly experienced pilots. So, imagine being sprung by it, on the last red-eye of a 6 day duty-block. Training (for it), is absolutely essential. I seriously hope, that somebody will finally wake up soon, and realize, that economizing training requirements, has not been the best of ideas, and reverses this ungodly trend. No sane pilot would ever deliberately hurt his aircraft, or endanger anybody. In these particular, most recent cases though, I wonder, whether or how much complacency, paired with retention of "old habits" is becoming a systemic problem. As being goaded into it, by minmalistic training on that subject, certainly doesn't help getting rid of "old habits". There was a time, when something similar occured. Way back, when Glass-Cockpit, FMS and GPS were becoming the new standard. (Ya, I am that old) So, is it now "children of the electronic wire"? (Resaerch here: kzread.info/dash/bejne/Z3mHrKpqfq-zfNY.html ) We're merley human beings. Neither are we meant to fly in aircraft, nor are we meant to fly aircraft. The latter requires aqcuired skills, to enable the former to get to their destination reliably and safely. These skills require continuous, non-punitive, and very expensive training. If we have a genuine interest in keeping aviation the safest form of transport, we need to realize that it requires effort and that it has a monetary price. When I observe, that it is less expensive to fly from FRA to PMI, than it is, to take a 400km train trip to FRA, then this tells me, that the world is askew. Quality is expensive. Less quality is more expensive.

@HypoceeYT

6 ай бұрын

Just a random technocratic thought. Unreliable airspeed/altitude is indeed among the most dangerous sensor failures, and so very, very difficult to train for. And it relies on such vulnerable hardware! Two tiny little holes in carefully chosen places. Can you see from meters below whether a wasp built a nest overnight? Did someone use _the correct procedure but the wrong kind of tape_ while washing the airplane? And the real solution is to have a larger number of static systems, but you're never going to certify more neutral pressure points and put aneroid boxes in everywhere. I've read a lot of James Albright's code7700 and he suggests learning what different airspeeds sound and "feel" like in your aircraft. But, when he wrote that he was flying private Gulfstream, i.e. in one particular aircraft for years at a time. It's much less relevant if you're climbing into ten different 737s or 320s on ten different days, and in the nightmare where suddenly all the numbers on your PFD stop responding to what you do, you're supposed to Zen out and use the Force? It seems to me that with modern hardware and software, it would be relatively easy to have a slightly less precise but nonintrusive, more reliable backup system. It could produce a _good enough estimate_ of IAS and AoA with some strain gauges glued on the wings/stabs and the control surface actuators. Compare those forces to the control surface deflections which are already very precisely and reliably measured, and a couple simple empirical lookup tables can spit out numbers good enough to keep the wing flying, prove and alert if one or both statics have failed, and get you home safely. I admit I can't see how to get useful altitude, at least in a nonpressurized craft. IAS versus longitudinal strain on the prop bearings/nacelles, perhaps. And GPS is probably better at that than airspeed or orientation in unknown winds aloft.

@user-hc2dt6wg1o

6 ай бұрын

Good point all around. Especially, the note on the vulnerability of the pitostatic ports. These things will remain vulnerable, for some time to come. so how to deal with them? Sound van never be a replacement. The mitigation strategy so far has been "pitch and power". and that DOES work. But it does require the pilot to know these things and remember them. An AoA indicator should have been part of any het's cockpit from the very beginning, but it hasn't been. And that is still an important reason, why AoA is such a mystery for many pilots. So, firstly, put AoA indications in a cockpit, in an easily digestable format, and secondly train pilots on how to use them. Not only for emergenvies, but in day-to-day-operation. The did it on Concorde, why not do it now?! As far as static ports go, the failure modes of the statice ports are way fewer in number, than those of the pitot system. On top of that, static port pailures are way less dynamic. So coming up with a "safe" mitigation for that is relatively easy.

I'm just a lowly Private Pilot ASEL and an A&P IA. I flew a friend of mines Columbia that is equipped with side sticks. I was totally lost. I could fell the flight controls but it was just odd to me. I much prefer a yoke. I had never felt so behind an aircraft. I would probably crash if I attempted to fly an aircraft that is fly by wires.

Yesterday I was searching whether to get a yoke or stick for my simulator. Here I am with my favorite pilot explaining the history and differences. Thank you very much.

Just an idea... Perhaps Airbus could put trim switches on the new active side sticks, so when in a degraded control law, it's easier to trim and you can sort of revert to basics of your flight training days of "select attitude and trim'.

@bayouflier6641

6 ай бұрын

That is a retrogressive idea. The whole concept here is the eventual elimination of aircrews. These companies are not interested in what will make more sense for pilots.

I'm clearly pro fly-by-wire, but it's better artificial feedback that none. Still doesn't entirely solve the dual input problem. The active pilot might perceive different stick reactions coming from the aircraft and not from the other crew member.

@kwikdahl

6 ай бұрын

The aircraft should still be able to sense dual input by comparing input force on the sticks and warn the pilots.

@miks564

6 ай бұрын

@@kwikdahl Sure, but that it already does. Apparently without much success, because when that happens, pilots are under stress and don't listen to the call outs anymore.

After several thousands of training flights in gliders and light motor planes, I cannot imagine doing that without an active stick. When the trainee performs a takeoff or landing I always have my hands on the stick or joke in order to correct any wrong handling immediately. I even remember landings of long-serving airline captains with light aircraft where it was good that I had my hands on the controls. It is not so sure that they bring down a PA-18 as a whole. And flying a sailplane without feeling when it becomes soft while thermallig must be terrible.

Having interconnected yokes is no guarantee of a good outcome in an unreliable airspeed situation. The Aeroperu 757 accident proves that when overloaded pilots get disoriented and start pushing and pulling it’s a very dangerous situation regardless of the flight control system.

I feel like this would be quite easy to implement on the A220 since from my understanding it is flown like a Boeing, you trim for a speed, if you push the throttle forward, the plane will climb, and if you pull them back, it will dive to chase the speed it's trimmed for as any conventional aircraft would, the only difference being its stick being passive. On regular Airbuses that would be a much bigger change considering that you do not trim it, and unlike a conventional aircraft, if you're flying straight and push the throttle, the aircraft won't climb, it will accelerate and trim itself nose down, which is comfortable but is the opposite of how aerodynamics naturally works. Keeping these control laws with an active sidestick would probably not allow to take full advantage of the sidestick, and changing it would be a huge change in handling for the thousands of pilots flying these planes so it may be a bit complicated to retrofit

If you haven't already can you at some point discuss the challenges from moving from flying with a yoke to sidesticks? How does the transition from the right side of the flight deck to the left work in terms of using right vs. left hand for the sidestick? How much does being left vs. right handed affect one's ability to use them?

@vfrgermany4784

6 ай бұрын

The switch from left to right does not differ between yoke and sidestick. Altough you can physically grab a yoke with either hand, in all critical phases of flight you just use one hand - because the other one has to be on the throttle.

@skayt35

6 ай бұрын

There is no difference as of which hand is at the flight controls between yoke or sidestick. Pilots in the left seat use their *left hand at the yoke* or sidestick. The right hand is busy otherwise, in both setups. Pilots in the right seat have their right hand at the yoke or sidestick, the left being busy otherwise. As far as I understood Petter, changing the seat and your hands isn't that big of a deal. Certainly interesting to know though.

Yes. We would love to hear your description of the different approaches to fly-by-wire taken by Boeing and Airbus.

Discovered your channels a few months ago. Best finding in 2023 period! Its just a blessing watching your videos to satisfy my passion for the aviation industry and its history :)

Great video, totally agree! Active side sicks would have prevented the fatal Air Asia A320 stall crash as well. Also modifying the Thrust Levers to move with the Auto-Thrust system would give us better much better interface with what's going on. That system is over engineered in my opinion. 16yrs - 737/12 yrs - A320

2:07 I would like to see a video about the Avro Arrow and why it never entered production.

I'm not a pilot. My observation after reading all the comments is : people usually don't like change. It's true abour pilots but it's also true about everything in life. Most people don't like change. But in the end, in the aviation world, change always brings something better, right ? And another question: how do you train a new pilot if you can't feel what he/she is doing with his/her stick ?

I am not a Pilot, this first, but I recognized the Sidesticks of Airbus visa the standard Yokes that most other planes use. For me the most irritating thing was that the Pilot must handle the stick with the left hand cause of the position at the left sidewall und the Co-Pilot has the stick on the right side handle the stick with the right hand. This in in my point of view a big change when the co-pilot get. the upgrade to pilot sitting then on the left. An additional training in mindset and sensivity, because most people are right hander.

@terrysmit4629

28 күн бұрын

But he flies the yoke with his left hand anyway, right hand on the throttles or settings on the glare shield!

I remember hearing once that fighter jets use side sticks as they're easier to use than a yoke during high g maneuvers.

@melainekerfaou8418

6 ай бұрын

That's what I was about to comment on: side-sticks are great for avoiding feedback between the load factor and the commands, since the weight of the pilot's arm is resting on the armrest and not holding onto the handles. I imagine it's less important for airliners, except maybe in severe turbulence.

@c17nav

6 ай бұрын

*yoke

@melainekerfaou8418

6 ай бұрын

@@c17nav good catch:) Unless it was on purpose - I can very well see how a yolk doesn't agree much with high-g manoeuvres.

@zeberto1986

6 ай бұрын

@@melainekerfaou8418 it was a good catch, I hadnt even noticed. @c17nav thank you for pointing out my mistake!

@TianarTruegard

6 ай бұрын

Hate to tell you this but, yolks are for eggs, yokes are for aircraft, animals or buckets. :P@@melainekerfaou8418

I'd also like to hear how the Airbus A220 sidestick differs from other Airbus aircraft, how the flight control laws work in the Bombardier-designed sidestick.

Been a short haul Boeing pilot and a long haul Airbus pilot… side stick wins hands down for comfort which is important on long flights. For training a new pilot on their first wide body a yoke is just so much easier (and safer).

I know a 787 pilot and he prefers the yoke because in cruise he can rest his hand gently on the yoke and feel what the aircraft is doing. So having an active side-stick seems to be nothing but a good thing. I guess retrofitting is more of a logistical problem as you will have aircraft types with and without and pilots trained and not trained so it may disrupt operations. Much easier to bring it in on a new type or variant.

For military jets, the sidestick has another advantage, the HOTAS which is important

@shi01

6 ай бұрын

HOTAS also works with a center stick. The point of HOTAS is to put all necessary input deviced you will ever need during a dogfight or a target run on either the stick or the throttle.

@michaelfreiberg8057

6 ай бұрын

@@shi01 it probably would but i don't think it was ever made that way. it also would give a more weird and unstable position of arms. having the joystick on the right and throtle on the left allows you to do all the basic functions without moving your hand, which would also be difficult at high G's

@shi01

6 ай бұрын

@@michaelfreiberg8057 Actually all fighter aircraft since the F16 use a HOTAS setup. Some like the MiG 29 were converted later. Others like the F/A-18 or Gripen or Eurofighter had it from the start.

@michaelfreiberg8057

6 ай бұрын

@@shi01 i said i don't know of a fighter with center stick

@shi01

6 ай бұрын

@@michaelfreiberg8057 F15, F18, Gripen, Eurofighter, MiG-29 all have center sticks.

I’m not an ATP, but if I were, I’d prefer a yoke, just like I do in a GA aircraft. I like the controls front and center, and like being able to use 2 hands. Obviously that’s pure personal preference.

@tomstravels520

6 ай бұрын

But on landing and part of the takeoff you don’t use 2 hands. You have one on yoke and one on throttle. So practically no difference

Retired MD-11 / 717 PIC - Just my take, I do not feel comfortable with anything other than a yoke. After 50 years of flying in total, I want to feel the airplane, not speak to the flight control surfaces via a computer. The way I see things, the more complex any system becomes, the more likely it remains to fail. Simple logic.

My father inlaw worked for Boeing in the 60s and he told me that the original 737 design had side sticks but airlines were not intrested in it so Boeing but in yokes.

I hope Airbus gives pilots force feedback on the flight controls. If airbus combines their technology with Boeings flight countrols Airbus would be perfect.

@FoxMikeHotel

6 ай бұрын

I would hope so too but they would have to change completely how their aircraft handles from a path maintaining autotrim to a trim for speed control laws like in a boeing or A220 which is the natural aerodynamical behavior of an aircraft

@superskullmaster

6 ай бұрын

C-17 already does that

@PaleBlueDotCitizen

6 ай бұрын

Maybe they can partner with Toyota and Hyundai and give fake manual transmission and broom-broom sounds as well

I'm not a specialist at all, but I am always surprised to heard that in case of dual input, engineers chose to average both input. It blows my mind that they didn't chose to follow the simple rule : at any time there is only one pilot. I find the situation when both pilots think they are in command incredibly dangerous. I would prefer that one of the pilot become quickly aware that nothing happened when he move the stick, even if the plane is not flied during several seconds, and that he can regain control after if he want to. Rather than seeing to pilots doing different things independently during several minute with a plane which averages this, which means be completely out of control during a long time. Imagine trying to drive a car which average the input of two drivers !!

@Xymanek

6 ай бұрын

There is a button in Airbus cockpits to set one of the sidesticks as priority - in that case the system will ignore simultaneous inputs from the other one. However, in all events where the averaging was a problem this functionality was not used. In absence of such selection by pilots, how should the system (which is potentially degraded already) decide which command to follow? I severely doubt the engineers/Airbus are keen to shoulder the blame for such system making an incorrect judgement

@Redchrome1

6 ай бұрын

Master Milo build a car with two steering inputs! Hilarity ensued. kzread.info/dash/bejne/ZJeVqM-ydKfWmbg.html

@HypoceeYT

6 ай бұрын

@@Xymanek If no priority button has been pressed, the captain's input. 100% obviously. PF or PM, the captain is legally and morally responsible for the flight by default. Otherwise, the last stick to press priority. Yes, if the pilots literally fight, people die, but usually they don't. In most of these cases they never even figure out that there's a disagreement. As with turlupouet, aside from the fact (rather glibly glossed over here) that Airbus didn't get force-feedback five minutes after it was a consumer entertainment product (or, indeed, fifteen or twenty years before), the input averaging shocks me anew in every one of these stupid cases. It's the single obviously wrong answer. Confused pilot? Stick mechanically jams? Stick fails and sends full axis input? Here you go, stressed apes, we glorious engineers will *average your inputs with a bad one*. Just, you know, troubleshoot a whole other layer of mathematical mangling simultaneously with the actual issue.

@someonespotatohmm9513

6 ай бұрын

@@HypoceeYT Just like boing trusted the captains sensor in their Mcas system was obviously the right option XD. Averaging inputs is saver because if one input does random shit, your output wil only be 50% shit which is A LOT better then a 50% chance of complete shit, because it gives you way more time to figure out what is going wrong. And how can you say that averaging is a bad idea, but then claim you SHOUD LINK THE CONTROLS such that one goes bad BOTH WILL GO BAD!? You also don't apreaciate that ffb from a game is one thing, but force feedback between 2 mechanical systems that are BOTH being actuated is a control nightmare. And is a very active area of research to guarantee stability, safety and performance.

@HypoceeYT

6 ай бұрын

@@someonespotatohmm9513 MCAS was deliberately concealed from regulators and pilots, and in service of that concealment was inappropriately designed for its supposed purpose in many ways. Yes, one of those ways was that as a transient emergency response system it was set to fire instantly and repeatedly on the input from one sensor which could give bad data. One of the corrective actions was to make it fire only upon two agreeing sensors; notice that the corrective action was _not_ to feed it the average of the two AoA sensors. If they had shifted to averaging, it would probably act exactly the same in a sensor fault scenario - "way out of range" and "moderately out of range" both translate to stabilizer down. More importantly, as an emergency response system it can and should do that: Default to no input unless there is a proven emergency. I wouldn't class "all pilot input" as a transient system and turn off both sticks until the pilots can type in an essay showing that they know what's gone wrong, but you do you. 50% shit is still the difference between flying into air or rock. And the criticism is about averaging _without letting a pilot with good input feel_ what's going into the system. It's a choice of 50% shit and hard to diagnose, versus 100% shit, "no good, your aircraft", hit button, "my aircraft", airplane flying again, start doing maintenance paperwork. As mentioned in the video, all these interlocks are designed to be snapped out of with moderate brute force to decouple the sticks/yokes as a potential recovery step. After. After. After. The interlock has informed both pilots, instantly and intuitively, exactly what something - the autopilot, MCAS, the other pilot - is and is not putting into the controls. "Push toward the other stick's position, maybe with a PID" is not exactly a sophisticated algorithm, and unlike entertainment FFB it doesn't even need to be strong; it's just a communication tool. I bet all these active sticks have a "turn off FFB" switch somewhere. Which you trip for convenience in a diagnosed failed stick scenario... _after_ it's instantly interrupted a dozen fatal crash chains.

The CF-105 Arrow is definitely a nostalgic throwback for many Canadians, thanks for the quick mention.

I’m also on the A320/321 and agree with the other statements about the advantages of active side sticks like being more connected to what the aircraft is doing and feeling the control inputs of a pilot with low time in the Airbus. The only disadvantages I can think of is presumably more cost and reliability…it is one more thing to break and possibly ground the aircraft. I wonder if this is why Airbus has its version of auto thrust vs moving thrust levers.

The S7 upset incident was a clear reminder, that all the improvements since AF447 did not solve this huge disadvantage of Airbus ergonomics in stress situations. If technically feasible, the upgrade to active sidesticks HAS to be done.

Great video as usual. Accurate data and facts.

@MentourNow

6 ай бұрын

Glad you liked it!! We do our best

the cited example CF-105 also featured 'feedback' built into the controls - quite revolutionary for its time

AF447 screams for an active side stick. This accident may never have happened if other pilot knew that Bonin was holding the stick back all the way

About 30 years ago my brother had a job writing software for flight simulators that simulated warplanes. The company had working examples of the A10 and the F16. As a private pilot (he had a Piper Comanche) he liked the A10, but was perplexed when taking off with the F16 simulator. The F16 control didn't move; he looked at it as he twisted and pushed and pulled, deciding it was jammed. Then he looked up and saw the simulator was rolling rapidly over and over. Fly by wire strikes!

@djizomdjinn

6 ай бұрын

To be honest, that’s less a fault of the FBW and more the F16 using a force-sensing stick. My understanding is that the F16 was designed with a force-sensing stick because it was easier to use under high g-force; not typically a consideration given to civilian aircraft.

As an airbus girl, I love the awareness and feedback on the yoke, table isn't everything 😅

@miks564

6 ай бұрын

What kind of Airbus girl are you? Since when is the table the bigger advantage of having a sidestick?

@Hgtv-ok3gl

6 ай бұрын

@@miks564 she's saying that the table ISN'T a bigger advantage lol

@miks564

6 ай бұрын

@@Hgtv-ok3gl She said the table isn't everything as if the table was the advantage of having a sidestick. The table is just a convenient desk taking advantage of the space left. The advantage of side sticks is to provide an easy way of providing input to the computers. We just need one hand and small movements and we don't even need to care much about precision, because that part is left for the computers. Where she's right is in the feedback feeling of the yoke on 'analogue' planes like the 737.

@Hgtv-ok3gl

6 ай бұрын

@@miks564ohhh

@13:37 this is my problem with touch screens in vehicles. In order to be able to ensure you press the right part of the screen, you end up having to grip/support your other fingers on other parts. I've found myself doing this in my car because if there is ANY unexpected motion (undulation on road, small bump etc) an unsupported hand can wipe across the screen, increasing the chance of touching (and activating) other functions. This is something that is an order of magnitude harder to do on accident with physical buttons and switches, not impossible, but defiantly harder. Not only that, really important buttons/switches can have guards around them to further reduce the risk of accidental activation. All that and that's not going into the lack of tactile feel and the need to physically look at a touch screen, even if you know where the "button" is on it.