home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!unixhub!ohare!news
- From: Robert Dorsett <rdd@cactus.org>
- Subject: Re: TV programme on 777
- Message-ID: <airliners.1992.18@ohare.Chicago.COM>
- Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM
- Reply-To: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu
- X-Original-Message-Id: <CMM.0.90.2.722295999.rdd@cactus.org>
- Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM
- Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 15:46:39 CST
- Lines: 38
-
- In article <airliners.1992.14@ohare.Chicago.COM> bentson@CS.ColoState.EDU (Randolph Bentson) writes:
- >Boeing is _very_ reluctant to use fly-by-wire. Management
- >trusts computer solutions no more than members of this forum. I
- >got the impression that this system has a pilot override as part
- >of it's basic design. (A sort of "do what I say, not what you
- >think I want" mode.)
-
- As I understand it, the FBW system is the only way the pilots can signal
- the actuators. Boeing is simply providing a "conventional" control law and
- interface, with "protections" that can be over-ridden by the pilot, if
- necessary. Redundancy/backup is at the hardware level, not in alternate
- select modes.
-
- So, rather than a simple joystick, Boeing's "simulating" a conventional
- interface, with feedback, in the cockpit cab: each control column inter-
- connected with the other, each providing tactile feedback. The FBW is there,
- one way or the other.
-
-
- On the other hand, I do think it's a positive step that Boeing's not "re-
- writing" the book by offering *artificial* control laws, as Airbus is doing.
- Thus, to override the protections, the pilots just need to push or pull
- *harder,* or click an overrride button: they don't have to deal with or
- anticipate the effects of *four* distinct control law modes, and the many
- permutations within each mode, depending upon system status, as is the case
- with the A3[2-4]0.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- ---
- Robert Dorsett
- rdd@cactus.org
- ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd
-
-
-