It may work, but then there are those times.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cS1SMptlnQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cS1SMptlnQ
Fly by wire
- Thread starter Exhaustgases
- Start date
- Status
Kestas
Staff member
Apples and oranges. When a car's drive by wire fails it pulls over to the side of the road. Airplanes need redundant systems available for component failure.
Originally Posted by PimTac
Didn't watch the video.
Many people owns vehicles with drive by wire. Is it a problem?
Brakes generally are not drive by wire except the failure of MB but still had redundant but weak back up mechanical system. To "land" the car you hit the brakes.
To fly to land a plane in one piece requires most controls working in some manner.
Didn't watch the video.
Many people owns vehicles with drive by wire. Is it a problem?
Brakes generally are not drive by wire except the failure of MB but still had redundant but weak back up mechanical system. To "land" the car you hit the brakes.
To fly to land a plane in one piece requires most controls working in some manner.
40 minute video.
The events, and the cause, of this incident remain controversial. The Captain was a former USN fighter pilot IIRC.
It's easy to point to a FBW flight control system failure and say, "FBW is bad".
But no one has accurately counted how many saves FBW has had through its many advances over conventional flight control systems, including stall protection, bank limiting, wind shear recovery, terrain avoidance, etc.
In the Airbus, there are seven flight control computers operating through multiple channels. The plane can be flown, with degraded envelope protection and performance, on just two of those computers on just one channel.
Aircraft flight control computers are far more reliable than ordinary consumer product quality computers, better even than engine control computers in cars.
FBW is better, meaning safer, more reliable, better performing, than conventional flight controls. NASA research into control of damaged airplanes ( e.g. loss of hydraulics or damage to control surfaces) has shown that FBW allowed for reconfigurable flight control logic that enables the damaged airplane to be flown when conventional controls would be inadequate.
There have been thousands of crashes over the years from conventional flight control (cable) failure. Even stretched/incorrectly tensioned cables have led to crashes. For example, we lost a T-34 when I was flying them due a stretched rudder cable. The crew couldn't recover the airplane after a training syllabus maneuver due to the insufficient rudder authority caused by the stretched cable, and bailed out. The crew survived.
The events, and the cause, of this incident remain controversial. The Captain was a former USN fighter pilot IIRC.
It's easy to point to a FBW flight control system failure and say, "FBW is bad".
But no one has accurately counted how many saves FBW has had through its many advances over conventional flight control systems, including stall protection, bank limiting, wind shear recovery, terrain avoidance, etc.
In the Airbus, there are seven flight control computers operating through multiple channels. The plane can be flown, with degraded envelope protection and performance, on just two of those computers on just one channel.
Aircraft flight control computers are far more reliable than ordinary consumer product quality computers, better even than engine control computers in cars.
FBW is better, meaning safer, more reliable, better performing, than conventional flight controls. NASA research into control of damaged airplanes ( e.g. loss of hydraulics or damage to control surfaces) has shown that FBW allowed for reconfigurable flight control logic that enables the damaged airplane to be flown when conventional controls would be inadequate.
There have been thousands of crashes over the years from conventional flight control (cable) failure. Even stretched/incorrectly tensioned cables have led to crashes. For example, we lost a T-34 when I was flying them due a stretched rudder cable. The crew couldn't recover the airplane after a training syllabus maneuver due to the insufficient rudder authority caused by the stretched cable, and bailed out. The crew survived.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Astro14
But no one has accurately counted how many saves FBW has had through its many advances over conventional flight control systems, including stall protection, bank limiting, wind shear recovery, terrain avoidance, etc.
In the Airbus, there are seven flight control computers operating through multiple channels. The plane can be flown, with degraded envelope protection and performance, on just two
Exactly!
Clearly, the things we've been doing are working. Far fewer passenger airline crashes than in the past. It's wonderful to point to the human element, namely the superb training that many crews receive (endure) but there is no question that technology is a big factor.
FBW offers safety and performance advantages (remember that in aviation, performance is often synonymous with safety, such as stopping shorter on wet runways) An example of things that can and do happen: The loss of LH aileron actuator functionality on a G650ER does not jam up the rest of the system. Roll performance is achieved by the 7 remaining flight controls, the RH aileron and the 6 remaining spoilers. Not to mention the possibility of differential elevators.
Load relief is another. Where heavy turbulence loads can be relieved for a smoother ride and lower airframe stresses.
We tend to concentrate on computer failures, but the reality is that the mechanical systems are often the ones that fail and the electronics are tasked with compensating.
With all that in mind, the FAA has discovered something interesting with the digital airframe. Namely the introduction of unforseen problems. Pilots may be unable to rapidly troubleshoot unusual problems, leading to confusion. The inspector I spoke with was not really talking about the 737 Max, but rather the current Cirrus piston singles and similar. Citing examples of things as simple as indicated heading errors leading to real problems.
Our G550 engines roll back to low thrust and the fuel control's metering sleeve locks in position, when the TAT (temp) probes fill with ice crystals, when at FL470 and M 0.86 (but not at lower altitudes) . This is because the ice melts, and +32F degree water contacts the thermistor, the air data computers then compensate for aerodynamic heating, telling the engine FADEC that the outside air temp is above freezing at FL470. A point at which the computer has no "look up tables" for. As it's never that warm up there. The engineers never thought of that.
But no one has accurately counted how many saves FBW has had through its many advances over conventional flight control systems, including stall protection, bank limiting, wind shear recovery, terrain avoidance, etc.
In the Airbus, there are seven flight control computers operating through multiple channels. The plane can be flown, with degraded envelope protection and performance, on just two
Exactly!
Clearly, the things we've been doing are working. Far fewer passenger airline crashes than in the past. It's wonderful to point to the human element, namely the superb training that many crews receive (endure) but there is no question that technology is a big factor.
FBW offers safety and performance advantages (remember that in aviation, performance is often synonymous with safety, such as stopping shorter on wet runways) An example of things that can and do happen: The loss of LH aileron actuator functionality on a G650ER does not jam up the rest of the system. Roll performance is achieved by the 7 remaining flight controls, the RH aileron and the 6 remaining spoilers. Not to mention the possibility of differential elevators.
Load relief is another. Where heavy turbulence loads can be relieved for a smoother ride and lower airframe stresses.
We tend to concentrate on computer failures, but the reality is that the mechanical systems are often the ones that fail and the electronics are tasked with compensating.
With all that in mind, the FAA has discovered something interesting with the digital airframe. Namely the introduction of unforseen problems. Pilots may be unable to rapidly troubleshoot unusual problems, leading to confusion. The inspector I spoke with was not really talking about the 737 Max, but rather the current Cirrus piston singles and similar. Citing examples of things as simple as indicated heading errors leading to real problems.
Our G550 engines roll back to low thrust and the fuel control's metering sleeve locks in position, when the TAT (temp) probes fill with ice crystals, when at FL470 and M 0.86 (but not at lower altitudes) . This is because the ice melts, and +32F degree water contacts the thermistor, the air data computers then compensate for aerodynamic heating, telling the engine FADEC that the outside air temp is above freezing at FL470. A point at which the computer has no "look up tables" for. As it's never that warm up there. The engineers never thought of that.
Originally Posted by PimTac
Didn't watch the video.
Many people owns vehicles with drive by wire. Is it a problem?
It has been many times, but it won't be brought to anyones attention. I liked how with the unattended acceleration deal years ago, how that was blamed on everything but the CAN system. Many cars have computers running everything, including the brakes I think there was a 60 minutes show that proved that.
Trusting your life to a computer is a dangerous thing to do.
The thing that has lessened the air crashes is better air traffic control such as all planes using a transponder, and all commercial airliners using collison avoidance systems. All the electronics and electrical systems are great when they work right. But there are times when they don't.
There are just not many good pilots like Sully any more, and full automation is not helping that situation very much, it makes the flight deck crew very lax, and that is not good.
Didn't watch the video.
Many people owns vehicles with drive by wire. Is it a problem?
It has been many times, but it won't be brought to anyones attention. I liked how with the unattended acceleration deal years ago, how that was blamed on everything but the CAN system. Many cars have computers running everything, including the brakes I think there was a 60 minutes show that proved that.
Trusting your life to a computer is a dangerous thing to do.
The thing that has lessened the air crashes is better air traffic control such as all planes using a transponder, and all commercial airliners using collison avoidance systems. All the electronics and electrical systems are great when they work right. But there are times when they don't.
There are just not many good pilots like Sully any more, and full automation is not helping that situation very much, it makes the flight deck crew very lax, and that is not good.
Originally Posted by Exhaustgases
The thing that has lessened the air crashes is better air traffic control such as all planes using a transponder, and all commercial airliners using collison avoidance systems.
Wow!
That's so incredibly over-simplified, hat I don't know where to begin.
An analogy: "The thing that has lessened car accidents is police enforcement of red lights". Not airbags, vehicle construction, ABS, highway design, improvements in tires, or any other improvement in the last sixty years.
Mid-air collisions, while sensational in the news, were always a minor threat when compared with engine failure, metal fatigue, pilot error, windshear, icing, and others.
Mid-air collisions still cause crashes because air traffic control is not perfect, either.
The thing that has lessened the air crashes is better air traffic control such as all planes using a transponder, and all commercial airliners using collison avoidance systems.
Wow!
That's so incredibly over-simplified, hat I don't know where to begin.
An analogy: "The thing that has lessened car accidents is police enforcement of red lights". Not airbags, vehicle construction, ABS, highway design, improvements in tires, or any other improvement in the last sixty years.
Mid-air collisions, while sensational in the news, were always a minor threat when compared with engine failure, metal fatigue, pilot error, windshear, icing, and others.
Mid-air collisions still cause crashes because air traffic control is not perfect, either.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Kestas
Apples and oranges. When a car's drive by wire fails it pulls over to the side of the road. Airplanes need redundant systems available for component failure.
The brakes in my wife's car are drive by wire...
Apples and oranges. When a car's drive by wire fails it pulls over to the side of the road. Airplanes need redundant systems available for component failure.
The brakes in my wife's car are drive by wire...
Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by Exhaustgases
The thing that has lessened the air crashes is better air traffic control such as all planes using a transponder, and all commercial airliners using collison avoidance systems.
Wow!
That's so incredibly over-simplified, hat I don't know where to begin.
An analogy: "The thing that has lessened car accidents is police enforcement of red lights". Not airbags, vehicle construction, ABS, highway design, improvements in tires, or any other improvement in the last sixty years.
Mid-air collisions, while sensational in the news, were always a minor threat when compared with engine failure, metal fatigue, pilot error, windshear, icing, and others.
Mid-air collisions still cause crashes because air traffic control is not perfect, either.
Air Bags? How does an airbag eliminate car crashes? And as of late they have been the problem.
Most air craft crashes are the nut behind the wheel just like in car crashes. Engine failure on a multi engine plane should not cause a crash unless there are fires, or parts flying into the aircraft structure. Metal fatigue is like MCAS, it is a design problem or bad maintenance. Windshear, icing are legit excuses for a plane crash.
Originally Posted by Exhaustgases
The thing that has lessened the air crashes is better air traffic control such as all planes using a transponder, and all commercial airliners using collison avoidance systems.
Wow!
That's so incredibly over-simplified, hat I don't know where to begin.
An analogy: "The thing that has lessened car accidents is police enforcement of red lights". Not airbags, vehicle construction, ABS, highway design, improvements in tires, or any other improvement in the last sixty years.
Mid-air collisions, while sensational in the news, were always a minor threat when compared with engine failure, metal fatigue, pilot error, windshear, icing, and others.
Mid-air collisions still cause crashes because air traffic control is not perfect, either.
Air Bags? How does an airbag eliminate car crashes? And as of late they have been the problem.
Most air craft crashes are the nut behind the wheel just like in car crashes. Engine failure on a multi engine plane should not cause a crash unless there are fires, or parts flying into the aircraft structure. Metal fatigue is like MCAS, it is a design problem or bad maintenance. Windshear, icing are legit excuses for a plane crash.
- Status
