View Full Version : Okay Second try....A glance of a Fs2002 Cockpit....I hope!!
01-04-2002, 10:05 PM
LAST EDITED ON Jan-04-02 AT 10:11PM (EDT)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-04-02 AT 10:07 PM (EDT)Sorry thats for FS2004.
01-04-2002, 10:09 PM
Whats that a cockpit of?
01-04-2002, 10:13 PM
That's an A340-300 Cockpit.Looks more impressive at night.Cheers,Serge.
01-04-2002, 10:13 PM
It looks like an Airbus A340
"It's a genetic thing."
01-04-2002, 11:43 PM
Guess you have to be left handed to fly it ehh?
01-04-2002, 11:52 PM
So, what this picture is showing is that it doesn't have YOKE, but uses joystick to controll it?
Are all new Jets like that?
01-05-2002, 07:13 AM
Only the Airbuses has joysticks for the moment, of the large jets. That fly-by-wire bs you know ;-)
Lets hope Boeing never gets those, YOKE´s the way to go!
01-05-2002, 07:16 AM
Yeah, if you´re not First Officer :-lol
01-05-2002, 09:53 AM
Well a response to the comments .that you have to be left handed and so on.If you look at the picture there is a Sidestick (not a joystick) for both pilots.This is fly by wire .Even though I like boeing airplanes like the 767.The one with those "yokes" in the middle.The Side stick is far easier to fly and more desirable then flying with the yoke..I can say this having flown the 767 for more than 4000 hrs.,and currently have at the moment over 800 hrs.on the A340.The A340 compared to the 767 is by far a superior aircraft for the pilot in every way possible.Imagine in the worst case scenario with multiple multiple failures the 340 will fly like any other conventional airplane like the 767.Absolutely with no manoeuver protections whats so ever. Also this is the most advanced cockpit in any commercial aircraft flying today .Let me say this that it is a dream to fly this Aircraft.One final note that future airplanes will most likely be this way Even boeing knows this, if they want to keep selling airplnes.
P.s.And who likes eating their meals with a yoke in the way.It's much nicer having a pull out table tray thats slides in and out out for eating and doing your paper work .Cheers,serge
01-05-2002, 10:54 AM
LAST EDITED ON Jan-05-02 AT 10:55AM (EDT)[p]Yeah but how much REAL flying is it?
Pilots of today are more of computer-technicians than pilots(Hello Airbus).
That´s the way I see it.
Just sit the whole flight monitoring the systems, and hope they won´t fail miserably, in which case you´re dead, at least in the oldies you as a pilot can do much to salvage the situation when things go nasty.
01-05-2002, 02:39 PM
LAST EDITED ON Jan-05-02 AT 02:42PM (EDT)[p]"That fly-by-wire bs you know"
Let me bust da bubble. The new BOEING 777' s control yoke is fly-by-wire! Guess you will have a change of heart now? Try Sikorsky.
P.S. Or bring R2D2 with you to monitor all the systems. Can we say technolgy evolution?
01-05-2002, 02:47 PM
Oh one more thing, Airbus is the future. Get use to the idea of computers controlling aircraft. In most cases they do a better job. Look at all the military aircraft (new stuff). How much analog instruments and control cables do you see? Nuff said.
01-05-2002, 03:03 PM
LAST EDITED ON Jan-05-02 AT 03:08PM (EDT)[p]I love computers, don´t get me wrong, but I think there is a valid reason not let systems get TOO complex.
I have seen interviews with senior captains that has expressed the same thaughts.
The more complicated systems get, there are more things that can fail, and we have all seen some nasty video-footage of the early Airbuses with the computers running the show, seen the one with the A-320(think it was that model) that wants to land but the captain(very, very experienced) did NOT want that? The plane "lands" in the woods in France.
Look at the new cars, if something fails, nothing you can do, call the toe-truck, so the guys can plug in the computer to see whats wrong. And yes new cars with a lot of computers HAVE many mysterious things that can happen to them due to the complexity.
Only time can tell how safe the new planes are, but for now, I rather take the good ole´ DC-9 than the A-340. But as I said, only time can tell.
01-05-2002, 05:40 PM
Oh my, it seems to be my destiny to discuss the Habsheim crash in the forums at least once a month... :-roll
Have a look here http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=1854&forum=DCForumID2&omm=0
, post no 15 and onwards, and we'll just take it from there, ok? :-lol Maybe even in that thread, since I don't have any good SS's of the airbus right now...
But check the sources first, ok? No, switch off discovery channel, I mean real sources... ;-)
01-05-2002, 07:18 PM
Almost looks as good as the upcoming Dreamfleet A340 :-)
[hr width="100%" noshade color="black"]
01-05-2002, 09:01 PM
Another response to some of the comments above especially Pellelutts. It goes to show that you dont know much about the comments you post.Referring to the A320 that crashed in the woods at an airshow some time ago .Well that was strictly the Captains fault and not the "airplanes".If he had not turned off on Purpose some of the protective features on the A320.That accident wouldn't have happened.In other words,It's like saying lets do a high speed pass on the fly by and turn off the engines to show the public how quiet this airplane is and on the go around we'll start the engines???That is about as stupid as what the captain did that day...unfortunately 3 people died..
As far as the planes being too complex ....yes they are.And for 1 main reason ....SAFETY. They are there to protect us when 'we Pilots screw up!!also there to reduce our "workload"The last is computers fly the airplanes much better than pilots.Why do you think An autoland(cat 3) has lower minimums than pilots?
One final note These type of sophiticated complex cockpits are here to stay and have proven they are safer and more economical
than before.Each year there are fewer airplane accidents than the previous year that's because of more newer type airplanes with more complex cockpits which in turn improve the safety margin by lots.Yes, we are not really pilots like before but more like managers.We manage and monitor the system and are there for the decision making in the event of.....Thats it and nothing more.
The cockpit of tomorrow is going to have only 1 pilotand the F/O being replaced by a dog.The Captain is there to feed the dog and the dog is there to bite the captain if he touches a button he not supposed too.A little humor to finish this post.Rgds.Serge
01-05-2002, 09:02 PM
Couldn't agree with you more.Cheers,Serge
01-06-2002, 05:23 AM
LAST EDITED ON Jan-06-02 AT 05:25AM (EDT)[p]OK guys, I would like to straighten out a few things with you if it´s ok.
You are absolutely correct that my technical knowledge in the A-320 crash and even in the computer-systems as well are quite limited. However I can from what I know look a the whole picture. Something just tells me that the now famous crash might not have occured would it not have such sophisticated systems. In my opinion the captain is not to be blaimed, not just me share this view, but the company that LET him get onboard not knowing he was 100% familiar with the systems, however if we took one of Airbus´ computer-programmer´s as PIC, the flight probably would have been quite successful. Björn, remember the JAS-crash over Stockholm-city, a discrase, and soon we all learned that is wasn´t the pilot, yes again very experienced, that was at fault, but it was the computer that did one thing and the pilot another.
And THIS is what I´m talking about.
You may all say that the computer-systems are VERY VERY safe, but one of the reasons I even post about this is my very big experience with computers. I had my first some 20 years ago and has since then been my biggest interest.
Of course, these home-computers can not be compared to those in an aircraft fully, however they ARE computers nonetheless.
And when a senior captain fail to operate these super-sophisticated machines, something tells me it´s not good.
Do you now understand where I am getting at, I will not tell you that you are incorrect with what you are saying, just that my view on the matter with (too much) computerization is both good and bad. Perhaps to much bad.
There was I time not too long ago when people depended a lot on the pilots to get them to their destination safely.
And we all felt safe when we knew that we had an experienced captain flying the "ship".
In maybe 20 or so years those days may be gone and we HAVE to rely on computers to get the job done, this is where I get nervous, perhaps not you, but me, and I can assure you, not JUST me.
I know a FO flying for Britannia who has told me about the FMC and Serge perhaps you should know what I´m talking about.
It is quite common that one of the most asked questions among pilots and the systems are: "what is it doing???". Insuring? Not for me, but that´s computers for ya!
And guys, what I am saying I don´t consider to be ALL facts, but just some thinking on my part. In that I´m not all wrong am I?
I might add that if there were an "all system override" button on the craft, so the pilots could steer the plane manually AND mechanically I would probably feel a lot better.
In a fight with Murphy I would rather have 2 pilots than a computer!
Perhaps I could round this up by quoting munnst when talking about this subject, it sums it up quite nicely on my part:
"I'm happier knowing the guy up front has a vested interest in getting safely back to the Wife and Kids."
01-06-2002, 06:54 AM
LAST EDITED ON Jan-06-02 AT 07:07AM (EDT)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-06-02 AT 07:06 AM (EDT)
Björn, I read the thread you recommended.
I all can say is that I agree with Todd in most cases.
However when it comes to the who´s right about the raw techinical reasons to why that and that accured I can not tell who´s right, my knowledge can´t determine that.
But when I draw my own conclusions I very often listen to sources, those being pilots in most cases.
"Let´s make planes for pilots, not computer-programmers".
01-06-2002, 10:07 AM
LAST EDITED ON Jan-06-02 AT 10:25AM (EDT)[p]Well, another response.I've come to the conclussion that your comments are based solely on word of mouth and not by experience.I agree on some of you points of view.As far as your friend flying for Brittania with the question of "what is it doing now" is based on only not knowing the systems and he should do some more study and review,and his lack of experience on the aircraft.Aircraft accidents are mainly caused by Pilot error( I think you can agree on that)Which results in the fact that the pilots screwed up because he did not know what was going on with the systems and by the time when the BS was hitting the fan ...and not taking corrective action in time,by then it's too late.Let me say that some accidents are mechanical and that is usually for older aircraft.As far as the famous 320 the captain was only to blame and not the company because both crew did not properly brief themselves entirely for this disasterous flight.He was very experienced and maybe he let his over confidence get the best part of him.Telling the F/o what he was going to do he had done 20 times before...which was BS.Only said that to the F/O to make him more at ease.
"And when a senior captain fails to operate these super-sophisticated machines, something tells me it´s not good."The statement is based only on the fact that the pilot was not familair with all the systems.,and that led him to make mistakes and not take the corrective actions neccesary.
Did you know that the A340 was also built by pilots and not only engineneers.They asked them what they wanted in the cockpit to help them with their duties and make their jobs easier.Going back to the senior captains with not liking the more complex cockpits.Well let me say this,that if you were used to flying one way for the last 30 years,you sure wouldn't like to change over to a new way of flying.Also for the older guys learning this new concept is much difficult for them.But for the young guys it's much easier because they're not used to any other way.Have you heard this saying. It's harder to teach an old new tricks.Also,It's hard to break a habit.Well these 2 saying are exactly that.I've seen it over and over.
I will say this type of flyng these type of glass cockpit causes
complacency and that's the problem.I ve seen it time and time again some guys go in and go to the airplane and read the paper and so on .They do it as if you were going in your car to the supermarket and simple as that.It's a real shame on our part because we pilots rely way to much on the computer stuff.Not like the olden days when the pilots had to tune in their radios and stuff.Here,now all you do is talk on the radio and raise the flaps and gear....Basically,thats it and the other 99% is montoring the flight. Sad to say!Our jobs have changed I speak only for the long haul flights that I do.The 12 hours or so.Cheers,Serge
P S."FACT" Last year before sept.11 the aviation industry had fewer accidents since world war 2..Ask yourself why it that???....Because state of the art technology(cockpit).
01-06-2002, 11:14 AM
Serge, you have actually made me change my mind a bit... I must admit.
Because when you think of all the crashes that has been made due to pilot-errors. Flaps not properly set and so on. If these things are more or less computer-controlled less man-made errors should occur.
The only thing that I´m afraid of is that little dash misplaced in the computer-code, if you know what I mean, the one that makes the plane go down regardless of what the pilots does. Hope it never happens!
But you have more or less made me change my mind Serge.
Do a google search for airbus upsets. You'll be surprised how many times these intelligent airplanes have displays that go blank ( becuase the airplane couldn't possibly be in this flight situation), autopilot changes mode because the crew initiated flaps down at 168kt instead of the 167 knots, uncommanded rudder inputs like the B737, autopilot trimming without visual cues, etc.
When computer programmers set up flight parameters on fly-by-wire systems, there should not be "the airplane can't do this" attitude. Otherwise, airlines wouldn't be teaching pilots how to roll B767 thru an upset if the plane couldn't do it. UAL has been teaching this upset training for about 6 yrs. Upset training like this couldn't be done in Airbuses as of 2 yrs ago.
01-06-2002, 11:50 AM
To make the long story short .Both the 767 and A340 are basically have the same concept/Principle and in both of those airplanes you can turn off the flight directors auto throttles/auto thrust use raw data info, autobrakes and auto speed brakes ...All that fancy stuff and fly manually just like a 172 if you want anytime in flight.Enough said, important thing is that we have total control when we want it.Cheers.Serge
This is a screen shot forum therefore any other debateable comments send it to my inbox.Rgds.Serge
01-06-2002, 12:00 PM
Mail is on the way Serge... your last reply got me thinking... again.
01-06-2002, 12:02 PM
Yoke!....no way!...I use a side mounted stick like an Airbus First Officer :-)
01-06-2002, 01:51 PM
Ok, I'll step in with one more thing here...
IMHO, the discussion of "is computerization good or bad" or "do we need to give more direct control to the pilots" is obsolete. It has been dealt with the last few decades , by a great many professionals from various fields. This broader question is like debating whether aircraft should have piston or jet engines, if you see what I mean...
But there are other matters within that field, and one of them is the mode confusion you mention Per ("what is the thing doing?!"). If I may draw your attention to this NASA article on the matter:
You might find it interesting...
Apart from that, Serge is right of course, this is a screenshot forum... ;-)
So, happy simming everyone, and see you around! :-)
01-06-2002, 02:22 PM
2002... An Airbus Oddysey
Capt. Joe: (talking to his computer) N123456, stay at FL310, current heading.
Airbus 123456 onboard computer: I'm afraid I can't do that. We have to land in these woods.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.