Also amazing that there's a mode where moving a control sometimes controls all engines, sometimes just one.
This is a fallback in case the primary rudder fails. You can still shift left or right, but you will take more time and it will be far less precise than using the rudder.
This is also valid for aircraft, where not only the rudder can be compensated but also the elevator (aka up/down) by simultaneously modifying the power of all engines. You can see a list at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_with_disabled_controls.
I know of a ferry that a local warf built that had two bridges, and a combined throttle and rudder in each.
The thing is that when moving from one bridge to the other, the crew had to flip a switch to indicate what direction was forward. And quite often they forgot.
End result was a long history of damaged because ferry would ram the pier when the crew was actually attempting to move away from it.
EDIT (since some people obviously don’t understand the problem): ... so that each set of controls is always correct for the respective side on which it is located. No switch is necessary.
Eg, if you're facing the dock, and push forward, you'll hit the dock. Take the other side and point your body to sea. Intuitive.
Poor UI design is remarkably common, even on controls that are essential for safe operations.
Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Field-Guide-Understanding-Human-Error...
Older PDF (paperback is well worth it, in my opinion): http://www.leonardo-in-flight.nl/PDF/FieldGuide%20to%20Human...
Airbus uses two "side stick" controllers that are on opposite sides of the cockpit. This was a contributing factor in the Air France 447 crash.
> Decent odds you've flown on an airplane with a similar UX for primary flight controls.
Ah, well Airbus does a few things. 1.) A "dual input" warning is issued if there is an attempt at using both controls simultaneously. 2.) There are lights to indicate when your sidestick is active and when it is not.
For an industry that is so safety conscious, I believe this is a huge flaw in disaster control. To put it in context that most readers here can understand - lets say your everyday computer uses OS X as its operating system, but one day, with deadlines to meet, you have a huge crash, and the OS reverts to Windows, and you have to find the problem and remember the appropriate commands under intense pressure...
The big problem was that the pilot-in-command simply forgot (or did not know) how to fly the plane. He overcorrected in reaction to turbulence and the rest is history. Normal law does not allow the pilot to set an angle of attack that would lead to a stall. In the alternate law modes this protection is not there and so when the PIC didn't adhere to the rule of "don't pull up while in a stall" there was no safety net to prevent him from exacerbating the situation. In fact he kept pulling back when the stall alarm went off.
A better UI would not have solved the self-inflicted problems. From the findings sections in the wiki entry:
- The pilots apparently did not notice that the aircraft had reached its maximum permissible altitude
- The pilots did not read out the available data (vertical velocity, altitude, etc.)
- the crew made inappropriate control inputs that destabilized the flight path;
- the crew failed to follow appropriate procedure for loss of displayed airspeed information;
- the crew lacked understanding of the approach to stall
- the crew lacked practical training in manually handling the aircraft both at high altitude and in the event of anomalies of speed indication
- the two co-pilots' task sharing was weakened both by incomprehension of the situation at the time of autopilot disconnection, and by poor management of the "startle effect", leaving them in an emotionally charged situation
- the crew did not respond to the stall warning
A better cockpit may have given the pilots a better chance of surviving but definitely wouldn't have guaranteed a better outcome. One only needs to look at Asiana to see that even Boeing, with their contrasting approach to UX, can't save pilots who lack basic airmanship. My understanding is that most long-haul pilots will fly a fairly small number of segments each month, and that most of those segments are going to involve a huge amount of time spent in the middle of nowhere with autopilot on. This leads to atrophying of skills needed to manually fly a plane.
Conversely, one only need to look at Qantas' QF32 incident to see that good airmanship can absolutely make catastrophic failure survivable. Yes, there is a lot of information to process in an emergency... but the Qantas crew took that information and delegated appropriately. The Air France pilots lost their cool and fucked up.
The pilot flying wasn't the pilot-in-command. Half the problem was the PIC was out of the cockpit at the time and the lack of any clear command structure between the two first officers in the cockpit. You can also argue that it may have been recoverable if the PIC took over as PF when he returned to the cockpit (had he acted rationally, etc.), instead of being confused by the situation they were in and unable to get out of, likely without knowing what the PF was doing.
> My understanding is that most long-haul pilots will fly a fairly small number of segments each month, and that most of those segments are going to involve a huge amount of time spent in the middle of nowhere with autopilot on. This leads to atrophying of skills needed to manually fly a plane.
Much flying nowadays is through RVSM (reduced vertical separation minima) airspace, and you're not allowed to hand-fly the aircraft there (in general, modern autopilots can maintain altitude better than a pilot can).
There were a Captain and two co-pilots aboard AF445. The junior co-pilot was PIC for much of the incident.
See also <https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/33414/who-is-th....
As in the AF447 case, the PIC will delegate to an acting PIC while they are on their rest break, but ultimate responsibility still remains with them.
PF Pilot Flying
PNF Pilot Not Flying
https://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601.en/pdf/f-cp09060...
But where does your viewpoint meet up with someone like Chesley Sullenberger who says the pilots would have probably not crashed if the plane was a Boeing rather than an Airbus, because it would have had an angle-of-attack indicator?
The initially-designated co-pilot also was virtually fully occupied simply clearing alerts from the aircraft's control and diagnostics systems -- for about 45 minutes as I recall.
That's a near-deadly case of TMI, I suspect.
Controls that are active should be illuminated in a particular color, say red.
Controls that are disabled should be extinguished, physically-locked or track active controls, and sound a warning when manipulated.
Jetliners have gangable throttle controls for their engines, albeit with what is probably a much better interface.
Then again, in high stress situations even totally obvious signs like this can be missed, as evidenced by the Qantas 747 crew on the famous runway overrun in Thailand some years ago. I believe in that case, a large contributing factor was when the captain went to pull the levers back over the rear detents for reverse thrust after landing on the wet runway, he only grabbed three of the levers, and left one engine running at just over idle speed.