From the headline, I could not figure out how an A330s flight control system could have any influence on spacecraft launched in 1977. Surely there would be no way to port the code and the storage on the Voyagers is tiny... at least until the V'ger Mk. I upgrade.
A330 flight control laws saved Voyager, inquiry finds
61–70 of 186 posts
Re: A330 flight control laws saved Voyager, inquiry finds
#62Re: A330 flight control laws saved Voyager, inquiry finds
#63Gotta love the officialese for 'people puked everywhere'....
Re: A330 flight control laws saved Voyager, inquiry finds
#64Re: A330 flight control laws saved Voyager, inquiry finds
#65"Modern technology may be capable of reducing crew workload to historic lows" It's stated as benefit, but is this the reason pilots get bored perhaps?
Re: A330 flight control laws saved Voyager, inquiry finds
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
The computer worked to prevent the aircraft from entering an overspeed condition by pitching up and attempting to recover from the dive even before that dual stick input was an issue. It was intervening 13 seconds into the incident, as the aircraft threatened to exceed safety tolerances. The dual stick input created another issue after that intervention began. The automation very possibly saved lives here. The oversp…
A Boeing would not have intervened in the situation at all OTOH it's probably a lot harder to "jam" a camera into the center stick of a Boeing than it is into the side-stick of a Bus.
Re: A330 flight control laws saved Voyager, inquiry finds
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
A Boeing would not have intervened in the situation at all OTOH it's probably a lot harder to "jam" a camera into the center stick of a Boeing than it is into the side-stick of a Bus.
I could also imagine that a Boeing pilot generally has more respect of the machine (s)he's operating because of the direct control. The overall deadly accident rate in Boeing vs. Airbus, plotted over time, would be interesting.
Re: A330 flight control laws saved Voyager, inquiry finds
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
The computer worked to prevent the aircraft from entering an overspeed condition by pitching up and attempting to recover from the dive even before that dual stick input was an issue. It was intervening 13 seconds into the incident, as the aircraft threatened to exceed safety tolerances. The dual stick input created another issue after that intervention began. The automation very possibly saved lives here. The oversp…
A Boeing would not have intervened in the situation at all OTOH it's probably a lot harder to "jam" a camera into the center stick of a Boeing than it is into the side-stick of a Bus.
I truly don't understand the Airbus approach... There is no method of resolving conflicts between the sticks that make sense... Sum them? Average them? Take the last seen input? Prefer the left side always?
Re: A330 flight control laws saved Voyager, inquiry finds
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the clarification. Is it normal to refer to kts with the assumption this is related to pressure on the airframe and not actual airspeed? The reference to the 365KIAS rating later in the article provides only a clue IMO.
It literally says "indicated air speed." There's no need for interpretation or assumption. If I saw a raw airspeed without and qualifier, I'd probably assume it meant indicated speed. But I fly small planes where that's the only airspeed available. If you want true airspeed, you have to take what's indicated and convert manually.
We had a similar problem at my day job (a storage company) – there were two kinds of entities, one called a "volume" and one called a "storage volume". The were related (hence the similar names) but not the same thing. Of course, those less familiar with the difference kept dropping "storage" from "storage volume" to cause all sorts of confusion.
My solution? Eradicate "storage volume" from our vocabulary and replace it with the pseudo-acronym "SV", which stood for nothing. Confusion ended.
Re: A330 flight control laws saved Voyager, inquiry finds
#70> with a maximum indicated air speed of 358kt (662km/h), or Mach 0.9, recorded What? 358 knots is much closer to mach 0.5 in air. 358 meters/second is close... 662 mph is close.
Further confusing numbers: > “Up to 24% of the aircraft occupants were rendered temporarily unfit for duties following the incident,” the report adds, referring to 25 passengers and seven crew members. > “Without the excellent technology of the Airbus A330 flight control laws, the outcome could have been very different, with the realistic potential for the loss of the aircraft and 198 of our people,” MAA director gen…