Sully takes issue with new book

[FWAAA]

Is this the book containing the accounts of about 100 of the passengers?

The pilot who guided his disabled plane to a safe emergency landing in the Hudson River says that a new book that underscores the role of the jet's automation technology in the landing is inaccurate.

Capt. Chesley Sullenberger said Sunday that the book, "Fly By Wire," by William Langewiesche (lang-a-VEE'-sha) greatly overstates how much it mattered" that the Airbus A320 featured an automated cockpit.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Hudson-Mirac...ml?x=0&.v=2

 

[ableoneable]

Is this the book containing the accounts of about 100 of the passengers?



http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Hudson-Mirac...ml?x=0&.v=2

No it's a completely different book. It appears Mr.Langewiesche is slightly bitter about not having been able to become an airline pilot himself. He is yet another airbus expert with no time in type.

 

[Justme]

FROM:

'Fly by Wire,' by William Langewiesche
Phaedra Hise, Special to The Chronicle
Sunday, November 15, 2009

And once a pilot positions the airplane for a turn or a climb, the A320 automatically makes the hundreds of continual micro-adjustments necessary to keep it perfectly positioned there, even if the pilot lets go of the controls. In essence, the A320's autopilot is always on, spotting, nudging and even overriding the human pilot.

It's a terrible thing to be misunderstood.....

and of course......"a little knowledge is dangerous"

Article Here

 

[nycbusdriver]

No it's a completely different book. It appears Mr.Langewiesche is slightly bitter about not having been able to become an airline pilot himself. He is yet another airbus expert with no time in type.

Is this guy kin to the person with the same last name that wrote the classic, "Stick and Rudder."?

 

[Justme]

Is this guy kin to the person with the same last name that wrote the classic, "Stick and Rudder."?

I thought the same thing. but.....

"Mr. Wolfgang Langewiesche copyrighted this tome in 1944..."

maybe it's his son?

 

[nycbusdriver]

And once a pilot positions the airplane for a turn or a climb, the A320 automatically makes the hundreds of continual micro-adjustments necessary to keep it perfectly positioned there, even if the pilot lets go of the controls. In essence, the A320's autopilot is always on, spotting, nudging and even overriding the human pilot.

It's a terrible thing to be misunderstood.....

and of course......"a little knowledge is dangerous"

While the system is very different, the type of control the A320 pilot gets is similar to that of the Control Wheel Steering function of the original Boeing 737 autopilot. When in CWS, the B737 exhibits the same type of stability and protection that the A320 does when "hand flown." This may be the basis of the misunderstanding. And, given that, for the most part, there is no mechanical linkage from the pilot's side stick to the control surfaces on the A320, there is a level of automation present to make all of this happen. It may not be called an autopilot by the Airbus factory, but if it looks like a duck....

 

[Justme]

It's a terrible thing to be misunderstood.....

and of course......"a little knowledge is dangerous"





While the system is very different, the type of control the A320 pilot gets is similar to that of the Control Wheel Steering function of the original Boeing 737 autopilot. When in CWS, the B737 exhibits the same type of stability and protection that the A320 does when "hand flown." This may be the basis of the misunderstanding. And, given that, for the most part, there is no mechanical linkage from the pilot's side stick to the control surfaces on the A320, there is a level of automation present to make all of this happen. It may not be called an autopilot by the Airbus factory, but if it looks like a duck....

Well, yes I agree. But I think that pointing out the distinction between the flight control computers translating sidestick inputs into control surface movement and an autopilot is valid. The article states that the "autopilot" can make the airplane go somewhere that the pilot is not in favor of. Can you see how that might make someone reading Vanity Fair (this guy's magazine) a little nervous? Contrast that with telling them that there is logic built into the flight control computers that limits you from exceeding certain limits by, yes, overriding you if it comes to that.

Maybe I'm just overthinking it. And besides, you're the pilot so I will defer to you.

 

[Reed Richards]

Well, yes I agree. But I think that pointing out the distinction between the flight control computers translating sidestick inputs into control surface movement and an autopilot is valid. The article states that the "autopilot" can make the airplane go somewhere that the pilot is not in favor of. Can you see how that might make someone reading Vanity Fair (this guy's magazine) a little nervous? Contrast that with telling them that there is logic built into the flight control computers that limits you from exceeding certain limits by, yes, overriding you if it comes to that.

Maybe I'm just overthinking it. And besides, you're the pilot so I will defer to you.

Justme, first of all thanks for your honest "outside" appraisal based on what you have read. You are probably correct in how the majority of Vanity Fair readers will digest the article. But just for the record, there are no Airbus aircraft going "somewhere the pilot is not in favor of." The correct analysis would be "going somewhere the pilot does not understand." Airbus aircraft are beautifully configured to keep from stalling and exceeding structural limits..outstanding characteristics when nearing performance limits, especially in a windshear event. But a simple well executed keystroke, or even better the press of an autopilot disconnect button and flight directors, makes the Airbus a very willing and agreeable slave of the pilot in command. Any pilot flying the Airbus understands the unique laws of Airbus, and even in our own ranks those having not done so (having not flown the aircraft!) continue to propagate false rumors. Boeing and Airbus are both excellent aircraft, both controlled entirely by their pilots, and both controlled with just a slightly different logic. That said they all fly the same, especially below 100 feet (where it really counts.)

To be clear, I have not in fact even read the VF article, you just seem to be very well educated and I wanted you to know my thoughts.

RR

 

[ableoneable]

I thought the same thing. but.....

"Mr. Wolfgang Langewiesche copyrighted this tome in 1944..."

maybe it's his son?

It is indeed.

 

[Justme]

it's late....deleted by justme

 

[Justme]

deleted by justme

 

[Justme]

But just for the record, there are no Airbus aircraft going "somewhere the pilot is not in favor of." The correct analysis would be "going somewhere the pilot does not understand."

Well, I've obviously obfuscated things. I wasn't speaking to "what's it doing now" in terms of the autopilot. I was only attempting to point out that it's the flight control laws and not the autopilot that's responsible for "overriding" a pilot's input.

And regarding nycbusdriver's calling a duck a duck, upon reflection it would seem that the automation provided by the flight control computers when the autopilot is turned off is indeed quite duckish.

 

[nycbusdriver]

If the Airbus systems are all working properly, the pilot can confidently yank that control stick to full deflection and the Airbus will automatically command maximum performance...but not one bit more. That is, the computers will not allow the pilot to exceed the operating envelope of the airplane. This is the biggest departure from the Boeing philosophy where the pilots can actually exceed the operating envelope (but not in CWS....which, again, is rarely if ever used.)

This difference is a mixed bag. There may be rare occasions when "bending" the airplane may give that extra edge of performance to escape disaster. It may leave the airplane unserviceable, but it may save lives. In the Boeing, you can do that, but taking it that far is a risk in and of itself, because a little too much "bend," and that in and of itself may result in disaster.

The fly-by-wire Airbus doesn't give the pilot that edge, and by doing so guarantees the integrity of the airframe itself and mitigates any disastrous result from breaking the airplane.

The above is all about pilot input. If the flight is critically upset by external forces, all bets are off for Boeing and Airbus.

 

[FWAAA]

The fly-by-wire Airbus doesn't give the pilot that edge, and by doing so guarantees the integrity of the airframe itself and mitigates any disastrous result from breaking the airplane.

That doesn't apply to the older AA AB6, where the pilots (first officer?) of AA587 demanded rudder in excess of the structural integrity limits, snapping off the vertical stabilizer, right?

 

[nycbusdriver]

That doesn't apply to the older AA AB6, where the pilots (first officer?) of AA587 demanded rudder in excess of the structural integrity limits, snapping off the vertical stabilizer, right?

Yes, that's why I placed the qualifier "fly-by-wire" before Airbus. In jet aircraft, the rudder normally will come into play during take off and landing for directional control in crosswind conditions. In abnormal conditions, it is essential for control when an engine fails. Other than that, it is typically not used and most pilots take their feet completely off the rudder pedals once "cleaned up' (landing gear and flaps retracted) and keep their feet on the floor throughout the flight.

The American Airlines co-pilot, while doing exactly as he had been trained at the AA Flight Academy (so we are told), used the rudder to correct a roll and overdid the correction, which caused him to quickly deflect the rudder in the opposite direction to compensate. The Airbus factory specifically recommends NOT using the rudder to correct for roll, mainly because it could possibly snap off the vertical stabilizer. Sadly, the factory was right.

I'm not familiar with the differences in the rudder system of the AA587 aircraft and the modern Airbuses. The rudder is a very powerful control, and judicious use is always the way to operate it.