News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Serious incident to the 777-300ER on 5 April 2022 at CDG ... by gambiting on Thursday January 18, 2024 @08:17AM (#39041293)
it's an "interesting" difference between Airbus and Boeing - on Boeings the input is averaged between both pilots. So if one is giving it maximum tilt left, the other maximum tilt right, the airplane doesn't move. On an Airbus both sticks have to mave in unison, they are physically linked.

Edit: Actually, I'm completely wrong, ignore me

Re:Serious incident to the 777-300ER on 5 April 2022 at CDG ... by verandaguy on Thursday January 18, 2024 @08:25AM (#39041386)
No, it's the opposite. Airbus does not use active side sticks; you get no haptic feedback from the other pilot. You do get an aural warning, "dual input," if split control inputs are detected, and each stick has an override button against the other side. See here[0].

Boeing's control columns are mechanically linked, but given (iirc) 50 lbs of force, they will mechanically desynchronize. If memory serves, they will snap back into sync once the force is released. I don't recall there being an aural warning for this.

The issues with Airbus's approach are that (a) in high-stress environments, aural warnings are the first ones to be unconsciously ignored, and (b) you get no haptic feedback, either from the other pilot's side stick, or from the control surfaces (since modern Airbuses are FBW, though you could still do electronic feedback via an active side stick). There's some talk of Airbus moving to active side sticks in the future to mitigate this issue.

The issue with Boeing's approach is that in a high-stress, tunnel-visioned situation, you can't tell another pilot's input feedback apart from something like jammed flight controls, a runaway stabiliser, or any other trim or autopilot malfunction, to name a few. There's also some talk of Boeing moving to active side sticks in the future to mitigate this issue.

  [0] https://aircrafttechnic.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Ads%C4%B1z-4.png
Re:Serious incident to the 777-300ER on 5 April 2022 at CDG ... by masklinn on Thursday January 18, 2024 @08:37AM (#39041518)
Note that here a breakout is exactly what happened and the behaviour of the controls in case of breakout is similar to Airbus’s:

> in the event of antagonistic inputs exceeding the breakout mechanism’s activation threshold, the controls would be desynchronised and the control surface would react according to the mean control position.

The breakout threshold is 50lbs, but it’s the combined thresholds, so sudden opposite force applied by two pilots (as apparently happened here) can unexpectedly trigger it. The report confirms there is no warning of breakout situation whether visual or aural.

Re:Serious incident to the 777-300ER on 5 April 2022 at CDG ... by spangry on Thursday January 18, 2024 @11:12AM (#39043512)
What a horribly confusing control mechanism. It could become very hard to distinguish between (1) desynchronization (2) your copilot yielding control to you and (3) a control jam being overcome. They would all feel exactly the same. Not the sort of ambiguity you would want in an emergency situation!
Re:Serious incident to the 777-300ER on 5 April 2022 at CDG ... by gambiting on Thursday January 18, 2024 @11:26AM (#39043716)
I'd like to think that people designing this aren't idiots - they are very well trained intelligent engineers. And probably the reason why this method was chosen was because it has some objective advantages over any other method. I don't know what those advantages might be, but I really hope they exist.
Re:Serious incident to the 777-300ER on 5 April 2022 at CDG ... by cesarb on Thursday January 18, 2024 @12:41PM (#39044808)
> I don't know what those advantages might be, but I really hope they exist.

The advantage is obvious: it's the most similar to how it worked back when the controls were fully mechanical.

IIRC, some old planes even had each side mechanically controlling independent halves of the control surfaces, such that the end result is the average of the inputs in case one of the control surfaces (or the cabling connecting to the controls) is jammed.

Re:Serious incident to the 777-300ER on 5 April 2022 at CDG ... by prmph on Thursday January 18, 2024 @10:29AM (#39042912)
So why is there not some hard-to-ignore feedback (like stick shaking) whenever this dual input occurs?
Re:Serious incident to the 777-300ER on 5 April 2022 at CDG ... by verandaguy on Thursday January 18, 2024 @12:16PM (#39044446)
Stick shaking is already used for stalls, and only for stalls (ok, specifically, it activates right before a stall, but for all intents in this argument, that's the same thing).

Pilots are trained very thoroughly to react to stick shakers in one specific and immediate way -- execute the stall escape manoeuvre, and that's to immediately, with only very minimal instrument scanning (typically, just check altitude and airspeed), apply power and push nose down to the extent the surrounding terrain will allow you.

I do agree that dual input could be better handled, but I doubt we'll see many big leaps in that area until active side sticks become the norm. For Boeing aircraft with yokes, I can't see a good solution. Maybe have some kind of hard-to-miss, single-purpose visual indicator on the glare shield, like where Airbus puts theirs? Or an alert when the two control columns get unlinked?

Also, to be clear -- stick shakers are a Boeing-only feature. Airbus has an aural, but very distinctive "STALL, STALL" warning, plus flight envelope protection provided by the FBW system. Alpha floor protection (A.FLOOR) is the subsystem responsible for preventing stalls.

Re:Serious incident to the 777-300ER on 5 April 2022 at CDG ... by Symbiote on Thursday January 18, 2024 @08:20AM (#39041330)
I thought it was the other way around, which is what led to the AF447 flight crashing — the other pilots didn't realize what the one in control was doing?

> The inputs cancelled each other out and triggered an audible "dual input" warning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447

Re:Serious incident to the 777-300ER on 5 April 2022 at CDG ... by andruby on Thursday January 18, 2024 @08:19AM (#39041317)
Could it be that you mean the opposite: Airbus is averaged, Boeing is physically linked?

That is my understanding of both systems at least

Re:Serious incident to the 777-300ER on 5 April 2022 at CDG ... by fhars on Thursday January 18, 2024 @08:27AM (#39041400)
Wasn't the problem here that Boeing is only linked if no great force is applied and also switches to the average it the force difference is large enough, and that it didn't really document that behaviour?
Re:Serious incident to the 777-300ER on 5 April 2022 at CDG ... by masklinn on Thursday January 18, 2024 @08:41AM (#39041554)
IIUC the possibility of breakout is documented, but pilots

> often only associated it with a jammed control

I assume in no small part because

> the description of the system in the [flight crew operating manual] was limited to an explanation about the risk of a control jamming

And it seems likely the precise behaviour of the system in case of breakout is not documented either.

Re:Serious incident to the 777-300ER on 5 April 2022 at CDG ... by mazugrin2 on Thursday January 18, 2024 @08:22AM (#39041361)
I think you're getting your aircraft manufacturers mixed up. On all modern Airbus airliners, there is no physical link between the two pilots' controls at all. On Boeing aircraft, the controls are physically linked and both move even when one pilot is making inputs. On the 777-300ER, if both pilots are making inputs, and those inputs differ enough, then the physical link can be disabled and then the inputs are considered "desynchronized" and only then to the inputs become averaged.
Re:Serious incident to the 777-300ER on 5 April 2022 at CDG ... by cesarb on Thursday January 18, 2024 @12:55PM (#39044999)
> then the physical link can be disabled and then the inputs are considered "desynchronized" and only then to the inputs become averaged.

My understanding is that it always averages the input, even when they're not desynchronized (but obviously, since the inputs are equal in that case, the average ends up being equal to the inputs themselves).

Re:Serious incident to the 777-300ER on 5 April 2022 at CDG ... by barrkel on Thursday January 18, 2024 @08:39AM (#39041542)
Re:Serious incident to the 777-300ER on 5 April 2022 at CDG ... by AnimalMuppet on Thursday January 18, 2024 @08:29AM (#39041420)
> On an Airbus both sticks have to mave in unison, they are physically linked.

Is that true? I seem to recall that Airbus gave "priority" to one side or the other (with the side being switchable on demand, not fixed).

Re:Serious incident to the 777-300ER on 5 April 2022 at CDG ... by masklinn on Thursday January 18, 2024 @08:45AM (#39041587)
They are incorrect, but you are as well

- airbus controls are not mechanically linked, save possibly on the A300 (which has a yoke not side-stick), but there’s less than 200 of these still flying

- airbus sticks have a priority / takeover button, but by default dual inputs are averaged (this is also what happens in Boeings when you trigger a breakout apparently)

- Airbus has a “dual input” aural alarm