All the later Boeing products are " fly by wire".... the 777, 787, and the new version of the 747. So if you want to avoid a computerised aircraft then you had better add these to your NO-Fly list. IMHO the use of technology has vastly increased the safety of commercial aircraft in the last 20 years......... of course , lots of people point to the rare events which cause loss of life, such as the AF 330 but what the man in the street fails to realise is the many hundreds / thousands of incidents where the aircraft has not allowed the Humans to F##K Up. Technology such as envelope protection, TCAS, EGPWS , Windsheer protection and the vastly greater accuracy of modern navigation and voice / data communication have all contributed . How many CFIT ( Controlled Flight into Terrain ) accidents happen nowadays ? We all remember the accidents , but take a look at flightradar24 and marvel at the sheer numbers of commercial air traffic that are airborne at any one moment..... think about that for one minute , Times that for every hour and then for every day and just work out the percentages of the fatal accidents. No axe to grind about the Tanker decision........only to point out the 767 is by todays standards an Old Design ..... ( dates back to the 1970s )
I think the 767 entered service in 1984, 27 years ago. So, if it lasts 50+ years as a tanker (like the KC-135 has) that would put it on par with the DC-3 for longevity of service life, + 1 year. Not bad.
Final authority remains with the pilot with the Boeing fly-by-wire systems, however. The pilot can override the computer. The Airbus systems don't allow this.
Not sure what you mean by this..... for instance in the B777 the computers are always in the loop......these are either in Primary, Secondary, and Direct law...there are no physical connections between the control surfaces and the control column In Direct Law both Fly By Wire systems ( Airbus and Boeing )are much the same....... i.e. Controls will move in direct relationship to control column input with nothing added or taken away by the computers so the Pilot has to be very careful he doesn't overstress the airframe by excessive inputs.
The Airbus system is full protection, via computers. Roll/bank, pitch, airspeed are always engaged. No rolling the aircraft, no loops, no exceeding airspeeds or under speeding. If the system fails (3 levels of redundancy) or is disabled, theoretically you could do what you pleased with the aircraft excepting in these instances the controls are severely limited, and difficult to use, just what you don't want when exploring the envelopes of the aircraft. Boeing, on the other hand, while fly-by wire (no direct connection between controls) allow one, I believe, to roll or loop the aircraft, if so desired, which of course would lead to your loss of a job/career. Someone could argue this point but the 707 and DC-8 and most jet airliners since then (including Airbus the Boeing & 777) never really had pure direct linkages anyway, it was linked via hydraulic boost. Having all the hydraulics go out is just as bad as having the computers fail on the Airbus.
Not the case with airbus. Airbus is more like having clippy pop up and say 'Were you trying to...' and not being able to click 'no'. Dave
That's the point of control law; to not over stress (or stall) the aircraft. if it is operating correctly you basically can't. There have been a few, very few, instances where the logic has been fooled (typically during low approaches or landing) and "things have happened".
This event made a lasting impression on the flying public... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296 Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cv2ud1339E
As the discussion about flight controls was going on a few posts above the pic of hte plane going into the trees was in my head.
Edit: duh, 205 <IFRAME title="YouTube video player" height=390 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-kHa3WNerjU" frameBorder=0 width=480 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>
Post #1559 by chazbird wrote, "There have been a few, very few, instances where the logic has been fooled (typically during low approaches or landing) and "things have happened"." The video I posted (thanks, Klay, for embedding) showed an early example of a tragic event inside the parameter chazbird described. The Wiki article describes the low pass where the pilot could not advance the throttles, and the aircraft settled into the trees. This event occurred with passengers on board (unthinkable in US), and three passengers were killed.
But in reality an Airbus is X times more complex than the DC-9. For instance, in the Airbus manual the auto-flight chapter is about 125 pages, vs about 10 pages in the original DC-9.
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td valign="top">February 28, 2011 Cirrus Acquired By Chinese Company </td> <td class="copy" valign="top">Email this article |Print this article</td> </tr> </tbody></table> By Russ Niles, Editor-in-Chief <table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td></td> <td> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> Cirrus Industries Inc., parent company of Cirrus Aircraft, has been sold to China Aviation Industry General Aircraft Co. (CAIGA) of Zhuhai, China, but it appears the company will continue to build parts in Grand Forks, N.D., and assemble airplanes in Duluth, Minn. It has long been rumored that a Chinese company would acquire Cirrus and the final announcement was made Monday morning. CAIGA is a subsidiary of Aviation Industry Corporation (AVIC), the state-owned aviation company of China that makes everything from military jets to airliners. In a news release, Cirrus CEO Brent Wouters says the deal will be a shot in the arm for the company and for its employees in Grand Forks and Duluth. "CAIGA understands the strength and the talent of Cirrus's workforce and the prominence of the Cirrus brand in general aviation," Wouters said. "Through this transaction, CAIGA will invest in our employees in both Minnesota and North Dakota by committing to the continued use of our world-class production facilities." Although it was not specifically mentioned in the news release, the transaction could result in an immediate acceleration of Cirrus's long-awaited Vision jet program. The single-engine jet project has stalled in recent years due to a lack of funding but Wouters has maintained throughout that an injection of investment capital would revive the jet. For its part, CAIGA says its focusing on the piston market with Cirrus. "We are very optimistic to begin our partnership with Cirrus and add Cirrus's strong brand as the cornerstone in our aviation product portfolio," said CAIGA President Meng Xiangkai. Cirrus was founded by Alan and Dale Klapmeier about 12 years ago and Dale Klapmeier is the current chairman. He said he was "thrilled" to make the announcement. "With this transaction, Cirrus will continue to develop and build the best, most exciting aircraft in the world," Klapmeier said. "The original dream remains alive and well at Cirrus. We are just embarking on our next chapter on a global stage." WTF?
I really doubt production will stay in the USA. Remember, it takes two to tango - someone buys and someone sells, and we know who is whom.