AF 447 Telegraph-UK
 

It wouldn't be hard to retrofit those side-sticks with some kind of tactile feedback system...not necessarily full range-of-motion but at least a little pressure to indicate what direction the other guy is pushing it.

Software vs Hardware
 

Rick:

Mechanically, it would be impractical to physically link the two sticks (the linkage would have to go an extraordinary distance vertically down each side of the cockpit, below the floor, then across the cockpit). I assume you are talking about using the type of "feedback" found in higher-end video game controllers. Possible...but would still require some hardware mods (to add to the side-stick).

What might be easier, and just a software change, would be to add a control-deflection indicator to the glass. Something similar to the Flight Path Marker shown on the Bus now.

If I were to design it, it would show some type of up/down arrow for elevator input, a top-of-circle arc that would show magnitude of aileron input, and a bottom-of-circle arc that showed rudder inputs. I think to avoid clutter, it would go on the right side of the PFR (an analogue to the ILS Glideslope being on the left).

Sorry to see by your 'Position' you're in the 'Died. How long you been, and how much to go?

Not a physical link, just an electro-mechanical gadget in the stick unit to provide feedback based on data provided electronically from the other stick. Kind of like those video-game joysticks.

You could also generate a small video display on a PFD/MFD showing stick force. But that would be less intuitive...you would have to think to look at it. But the stick feedback thingy would only work if you had your hand on the stick.

Or maybe change SOP to require the PF to call out his control inputs in situations where the airplane is not performing as expected.

Or just send everybody back to piper cubs for 100 hours.

Well, it could be looked at in a variety of ways. SOP would dicate to simply fly the freaking airplane. Regardless of whether it uses a FBW system or traditional cable/pulley, etc.

If I'm not mistaken, isn't that what the QA and NW crews did when they encountered a similar situation? Granted, I don't believe those crews were in the same turbulence level as AF was.

OR, if one guy knew what was going on, just simply push the "side stick priority" button and say "my airplane" before the situation gets so out of hand it's unrecoverable.

This was a pretty biased article really, bit of Boeing bashing going on. Pretty ironic really as this confusion would not exist on a Boeing product. Its a bit hard to miss a pilot holding the yoke to his/her groin.

A few dollars per aircraft. The actual cost of creating a workaround for this problem. Mobile phone vibrator motors. These things are simply tiny motors with an off balance crank to create the rumble and could be easily mounted in the stick. The rumble becomes active when the flight control system is receiving control input from multiple devices. Simple and tactile. Also audible, but a workaround not a solution.

Pretty sensational article.

I've always wondered why major a/c manufacturers like Boeing and 'Bus don't provide raw AOA data to the pilots. Makes life so much easier. Rather than calculate Ref speeds, you just fly X AOA on final. Same time every time. Max Range? Fly Y AOA. Max Endurance, Z AOA. It's how we've been doing it in the Navy for decades. So easy, a caveman can do it.

You felt this article was Boeing bashing?

To me, it read like Airbus this is problem; Boeing system is better.

Did we read the same article?

Let me try and explain what I am getting at. You are right, outwardly this seems like a good article written for mass consumption, but the media has little tricks to temper its advertisers, let me show you a few.

..... Actually this is far from fair and balanced. The First Sentence: "With the report into the tragedy of Air France 447 due next month, Airbus’s 'brilliant’ aircraft design may have contributed to one of the world’s worst aviation disasters and the deaths of all 228 onboard." Think about the word 'brilliant'. Its an emotive not a technical word in this instance. It implies rather than informs, not a good way to start a well centered journalistic work reporting on the deaths of 228 civilians. A tragedy is the Knicks going down to the Lakers, or Chevy beating Ford or having a 32 hour layover somewhere you hate, an individual killing 228 passengers by accident whilst performing his job is something else.

Then there's this: "Anything to do with Airbus is important. The company has sold 11,500 aircraft to date, with 7,000 in the air. It commands half the world market in big airliners, the other half belonging to its great American rival, Boeing.".... Now it seems I have pulled this out of context but no, it hangs in the article in the same dis-jointed way it sits in this thread, why even include this little tit bit of trivia?

And more: "Boeing has always begged to differ, persisting with conventional controls on its fly-by-wire aircraft,".... Disinformation. Airbus is the company who continues to break from convention and a tiny amount of research would confirm this.

The implied, of faux interview with Captain King. Complete fabrication. Captain king supplied a press statement to the telegraph, there was no dialog. Breaking up a press statement to 'own' it is sensational journalism at best.

Ask yourself why it is that the BEA thought it prudent in its interim report to mention the fact that the pitot tubes had been changed out of this aircraft <from type AA to type BA> some 6 days before the crash but telegraph.co didn't?

Then the biggest problem, the time line of events. Nick Ross and Neil Tweedie write: "Only 45 seconds before impact Bonin blurted out that he had been trying to climb throughout the emergency, "

Yet in the CVR transcript the announcement by Bonin is only seconds before the end of the recording. What happened? Did the CVR malfunction some 30 seconds before impact? Is it just poorly written? Its a pretty big problem for the editors not to pick up on.

Also consider this. Nick Ross is a broadcaster, not a journalist. His claim to fame is the BBC series 'Crime Watch', kind of cops for the UK audience. And not two months before this tripe was written Feature writer Neil Tweedie got 'the scoop' on his peers with this headline: Secrets of the Freemasons.

If this was well written then it would answer with complete clarity the following: Who? What? When? Where? and Why?

Rant Ends.

Found a couple of really good articles about AF447.

DER SPIEGEL has a nice mass consumption article

This article includes images and links to the BEA interum report, not biased. Just the facts.

As expected Flight Global is a deeply technical article

Regards.

Um... I totally agree with you about the bias, but keep in mind this is a British article, you might not spend much time in the UK as "brilliant" is an extremely common colloquial word there that does not have the same connotation as here, more means between "cool" or "excellent", sometimes used sarcastically... I don't think this is the word to pick upon in this particular case, as it kind of fits what they were claiming.

Substitute "state of the art" for "brilliant" in this case for meaning.

... Hadn't really thought of that, cheers. We [AUS] use brilliant sarcastically sometimes, but mostly literally.