The International Cessna^® 170 Association

There are SO many misconceptions about the A320 family, especially among pilots, even those who have flown it. I showed up to airbus school with many of them. From a pilot's perspective, on the average day, it flies like an airplane. It has quirks that tell me that the pilot was late to the design meeting, but when you shut off the magic (and I do, every leg, because I like flying) its just another airplane.

It is a hard pill to swallow, for a guy who learned to fly in a tail dragger, by the seat of your pants, that the stick is not connected to the flight controls. On the other hand, it does have some features that are amazing. Day to day, it is WAY more comfy than a 737. We commuters love it because it has 2 jump seats. All in all it is a neat airplane, and I never thought I'd say that. Was it my first choice for a heavy job? No, I'm still chasing that 727 job. But I hand fly it every day because I like to fly, and you CAN do that, despite what they want you to believe.

Lopez, it is comforting to know the pilot can shut it off and fly it, especially if he sees a problem. That gives me a little more confidence in riding in an Airbus if company procedure lets you do it.

But, on the other hand, if the pilots can't tell what the other one is doing, neither pilot knows what is happening, and doesn't even know full aft elevator stalls the plane, I still don't want to be there. Obviously the plane is not completely at fault but it contributes to the confusion at least.

Then we can go back to plastic vs. metal. Yes, metal will fail, but so far, I just don't trust plastic completely, that is my opinion.

And since we decided not to discuss politics on this forum (be sure and vote today if you haven't already) so we all remain civil to each other, expressing opinions about aviation subjects should be encouraged, in my opinion.

What bothers me more than the airframe/fly by wire system, is the Airbus MENTALITY. Airbus wants you to engage the autopilot at 100' and don't touch it until 200' AGL on landing. This creates such a disconnect for a lot of pilots who let themselves get complacent. When things are a little off, they don't notice. One of my favorite examples of this is watching guys level off (autopilot on) with the speed brakes out, because they forgot they put them out on the descent. The airplane shakes like a wet dog with the speed brakes out, but they've lost that connection with the airplane (seat of the pants?).

Don't kid yourselves though, this mentality is spilling over to the Boeing world. It just so happens that being what my dad and I call an "Etch-a-Sketch pilot", Twisting knobs to fly, is easier in a Bus.

Small plane mfrs are going for the concept also. Several friends and I.P. co-workers have expressed their dismay over the Cirrus, which they state has a similar philosophy in insisting that their owner/pilots engage autopilot immediately after takeoff and let the airplane.automation do the flying.
My cohorts are convinced it leads to the spate of accidents we've all read recently, and they also point out that the owner/pilots seem happy to rely upon that parachute as their "backup" plan.

All the time we teach pro pilots about the dangers of automation dependency. We tell them to "drop down a level" in automation whenever the machine is not doing what you desire. The concern I have in this discussion is, Airbus and Cirrus and perhaps others, are doing their best to make airplanes safer by focusing so much effort on technology....they are seemingly forgetting the "weak link" in the human interface requires what I will call "flexible logic"...the ability of the human to grasp the logic of the computer is less problem than the INABILITY of the COMPUTER to be flexible to the human.

The attempt by designers to insist that flying airplanes is a SCIENCE which has hard-and-fast axioms is defective logic.
Flying is more than machinery-manipulation. It is also ART! And it requires flexibility that computer logic and uncooperative hardware will not accomodate.

I'm not buying into the philosophy. I like flying because it makes ME prove my capabilities to MYSELF every flight. For me, airplanes are more than a vehicle to get somewhere.

But I guess that is not the case for busy travelling techies who have the money to fly.

George,

Please keep us informed should you read another newspaper article and double your knowledge about fly by wire aircraft.

Perhaps if you read an article on healthcare you would be qualified to offer medical advice....

mekstrand wrote:George,

Please keep us informed should you read another newspaper article and double your knowledge about fly by wire aircraft.

Perhaps if you read an article on healthcare you would be qualified to offer medical advice....

I think this thread just officially became rude. Something I rarely see here.

Spirited debate and honest disagreement? Sure, all the time.
Insulting? No, this may be a first.

bagarre,

Right on !

Marshall (mekstrand) I think your a little over the top there. I understand a nerve was probably hit.

I had the same nerve hit when a Eurocopter software engineer started to tell me I didn't know how to fly a helicopter and his software was correct. Turned out the "system" which included the software had some limitations Eurocopter claimed they didn't know about until then. Caused a new chapter for the BK117C2 VARTOMS maintenance manual to be written.

If I remember right United and Usair lost 737 to the loss of control due to a malfunctioning rudder servo. Seems Boeing tried to cover that one up as was reported in the Seattle P I . In every Airbus incident and accident the airplane did exactly what it was programmed to do ie pilot error. I am not talking out of the back of my pants. I'm typed airbus 320 which includes 319 320 321 and b737 757 767. I like the idea of people not riding on Air Bus planes means more seats available for me to non rev on. But I also flew a F model MU2 121 MA

O.K. I'll wade in... First not all aircraft are the same..so if you dislike an A330 as an example, what kind of 330? Same goes for the "B" team what kind of 777, or if you're talking specific frame then with kind of engines? What years? FBW is used pretty much by everyone. You could go to manual reversion but do you really want to? Early planes it was simple, now..well maybe if you're being paid to be a test pilot. Really feedback has been artificial for a long time, now it's gone Hi-tech. Plastic parts.. yep everybody. What about the innards? what avionics provider, layout, config?
There's good ideas and better ones and hopefully that search never changes but its a certainty that the design will and so will preferences. So I'll try a turn with another question, will we ever see a 170 stretched?

No. This is what it would look like.

I think you're onto something here

Bruce Fenstermacher wrote:No. This is what it would look like.

The BEST thing about ALL the 170's, including the proposed s t r e t c h e d Model 170-D is....it's 100 % FLY BY WIRE!

That's right! ..19-stranded wire rope and pulleys!

(PS, I'm not sure how I feel about the new, complication of the retractable tailwheel, however.)

I have to say onr thing about Bruces "stretched C-170". It sure looks a helluva lot better than any swept tail Cessna that has been tailwheeled.

About the only half way decent (IMO) looking slant tailed plane (tail wheeled) is the homebuilt GlasStar. One of the worst ones I have seen is a Hawk HP conversion. I am sure it is a nice performer however and wouldn't I like to have that combination of engine & prop! Just put a straight tail on it for goodness sake-------------and paint it green