Which AIRLINE JET has the better FLIGHT CONTROLS? Explained by Captain Joe and Raja

[@Echo_Lima]

When I started watching your videos, I could only dream of becoming a pilot. Now I am doing the a320 rating and I am very happy that you are still here and still I get a lot of important info. Thanks man for all the videos until now. Keep going. Safe flights.

[@flywithcaptainjoe]

Great to hear!

[@taniaivanirdeoliveira5620]

Waw, joe com seus sorrisos e inspiração nos faz acreditar e realizar sonhos de verdade. Amo seus vídeos explicativos desejo felicidades a você joe🫡✈️🙏🏻🫰

[@Dirk-van-den-Berg]

Are you trained on the entire 320family? Ceo's and neo's?

[@Echo_Lima]

@@Dirk-van-den-Berg yes

[@Dirk-van-den-Berg]

Question. Let's say you have been flying on the 320ceo for some time, and the airline wants to schedule you for the 321neo. Do you require additional training or can you just hop into the other cockpit and start setting up?

[@ealibert]

Don't forget that long before the A320, Concorde had fly-by-wire flight controls. Not implemented by programmable digital computers, but using analog "computers". And it had flight envelope protection. The controls had feed-back, and were physically connected like on Boeing. A marvel of engineering, designed in the 60s :-)

[@ZK-APA]

Thats not surprising, considering aerospatiale (manufacturer of concorde) eventually merged to form airbus.

[@dcniner0187]

In the mid 1950’s the Canadian Avro Arrow CF105 had analogue fly by wire. dcniner01

[@nupagadii5834]

@@dcniner0187 Correct, the VERY First one .... Thank you for bring it up ...

[@chrissmith2114]

TSR-2 also had fly by wire

[@chrissmith2114]

@@ZK-APA BAC did most of Concord ( with no 'e' ) including engines and wings and that miraculous variable engine intake that allowed the Concord to supercruise was also UK. BAC also had experience of fly-by-wire from TSR-2, and the wing from Concord came from Vulcan nuclear bomber. It was only money that prevented UK from building Concord on its own. Never forget that France killed Concord with that big crash - bad maintenance, fuel tanks too full ( should have always had an air gap to prevent hydraulic rupture of tanks, and also the plane was overloaded.

[@EmilioGameair]

Remember when joe was an Airbus pilot?

[@craig7083]

When you have flown both types, you will understand.

[@EmilioGameair]

@craig7083 wth

[@EmilioGameair]

@craig7083 i literally just said " remember when joe was an airbus pilot" referencing to the time when he was flying for AirBerlin

[@Hans_R._Wahl]

Yes, with Air Berlin. Now many years ago.

[@lp3ligr0l]

Yes air Berlin I'm an OG subscriber

[@cesarbonifacio8799]

The Embraer 190 E1 family is hybrid too, only ailerons are powered by cables, all other controls are fly by wire including the nose weel steering, that is called Steer By Wire. The new E2 is all fly by wire.

[@English.Andy1]

Having worked as an aircraft refueller. I can tell you that the airbus fuel system is years ahead of Boeing. It’s superior how it balances & distributes the fuel between the wings and the centre tanks.

[@danielaramburo7648]

Boeing has a philosophy “if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it”.

[@nobodyinteresting9967]

You mean the Philosophie of don't spend money....on nothing

[@itsme-vw5yo]

​@@danielaramburo7648 just like the apple company. I mean what's up with the companies of the United States settling for less?

[@6thdayblue59]

Very Interesting mate. I do love reading the comments and seeing how things are in real life !!

[@toffonardi7037]

Airbus is years ahead on EVERYTHING over boeing

[@rkspotter]

So nice to see Raja :) And thank you guys for showing so many technical aspects!

[@rajainthesky]

Thank you!

[@elcastorgrande]

Raja is great! Keep her on board.

[@cockerhamsands]

Preferably with no clothes on.

[@EdOeuna]

For an aircraft design that is over 30 years old, the Boeing engineers got the 777 FBW system absolutely perfect. You are still in control of the aircraft (Boeing philosophy) but the aircraft will try and “fight back” against your attempts to do anything beyond the flight envelope. It is also a dream to fly and feels as light as a feather at all weights and configurations.

[@keeperofoddknowledgesociet3264]

Two caveats here. 1) the United 777 flying from Hawaii to the mainland almost crashed due to miscommunication b tween pilots (FO did not set the flaps properly) and was recovered by the pilot, I wonder if it was a 330 or 350 if that would have happened? I doubt it 2) AF447 that caused due to incorrect behavior after stall, apparently it was not in normal law as it should have overridden the pilots nose up attitude.

[@EdOeuna]

@@keeperofoddknowledgesociet3264- that 777 nearly crashed because the pilots, primarily the FO, just couldn’t fly the aircraft. He made some serious errors that shows gross incompetence. I think one of the issues with Boeing philosophy is that the pilots need to be well trained and competent. Having untrained or incompetent pilots in a Boeing just isn’t a good combination.

[@john_hind]

There is a 737MAX shaped elephant in the room right now!

[@EdOeuna]

@@john_hind - nothing wrong with the max if you actually know how to fly it.

[@john_hind]

@@EdOeuna Except that Max's MCAS was specifically designed to obviate the need to train pilots to know how to actually fly the plane. And then it somehow got classified 'non-essential' so it was subject to a single point failure which would cause it to 'fight back' against the pilot's attempts not to crash into the ground! Aside from this, nothing wrong with it!

[@connork5339]

I knew a guy back in the 90's who was an A and P mechanic at the UAL base at San Francisco Int. I asked him once which aircraft were easer to do maintenance and parts replacement on. Boeing or Airbus. Without hesitation he said Airbus.

[@fuzailkhan9701]

First non commercial vehicle is Apollo 9 Lunar Module which has a Fly By Wire control system or Lunar Landing Research/Training Vehicle on which astronauts were trained.

[@ericho4843]

The first non-commercial vehicle to use fly-by-wire technology was the Apollo Lunar Module, developed by NASA in the 1960s

[@wr3661]

Apollo Lunar was in 1968. Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow preceded that in 1958

[@JimmyHendrixJR]

Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV) 1964. First to use fly by wire.

[@klssn34]

Exactly

[@MrMartinae06]

You beat me to it... Awesome piece of technology!

Also known as the Flying Bedstead, or the contraption that almost killed Neil Armstrong.

[@MikeDCWeld]

I was thinking the Space Shuttle. Close, but a bit later on.

[@stargazer2504]

I knew it was an early space flight vehicle, I was thinking Mercury or Gemini.

[@ZK-APA]

Basically the difference between flying a boeing vs flying an airbus as a pilot is like if you're driving a sports car vs driving a grand tourer. A sports car will giver better performance, better handling and more driving enjoyment to a driver but a grand tourer will give better comfort and control when driving long distances in public roads at whatever speed limits there are. There is no wrong answer in terms of which is better or worse. It basically depends on personal preference and the situation.

[@RRC786]

Please make video on these topics-Different anntennas in airplane and all major avionics instruments in cockpit

[@michelpassone8804]

Thanks for this interesting video. I have very modest experience as a private pilot. Personally, I have always found that the "whell" gives more the impression of better control of the machine than the stick.

[@Brightsystem]

The first non-commercial vehicle to use fly by wire technology was the Avro CF-105 Arrow

[@ilovetotri23]

Great video! Thank you so much for posting it!

[@EmilePadja]

Great video, very educating. great job. Keep it up.

[@Cosmozorb]

THAT'S what I call a CaptainJoe video.

[@Hans_R._Wahl]

🙂👍

[@tomkam87]

the first "fly by wire" technology is radio-controlled boat in the late 1890s

[@henrimichelpierreplana4332]

Thanks for this video. I read somewhere that the laws of the fbw between boeing and airbus are different. And that airbus planes have a waiver from the faa to operate in the us.

[@Hans_R._Wahl]

Thank you very much!🙂👍 Very educating.🙂

[@TheLikeys]

Talking about fly by wire, I heard Airbus used a VFW 614 to test some Fly by wire systems in the A380 development. That aircraft was laying around for a long time on a parking lot of an Airbus plant in Germany

[@andymunnings9109]

"I enjoyed the session Joe and Raja. It was straight forward and educational. It is my belief? If all cockpit arrangements are explained with this open context and detail; It would invite many new interested prospect apprenticeship candidates to the field, once task and execution of command are illustrated(By graph and function) due to Flight Rules and standards." "Good Job, An instructor that makes learning Easy and Fun clears the muddy waters for the bedded fish to be seen; Leading one to appreciate the journey to catch that fish(Or learn a new function)after scoping from the Captain's looking glass that ease the search of the prey or proper function Stationed at the Captain's Quarters." 👍

[@michaelb1716]

Thank you Joe and Raja! Would an Airbus side stick with the feedback of a Boeing yoke be the ideal hybrid?

[@jarekferenc1149]

An ideal hybrid would be the yoke on the CPT side, and the side sick on the FO side :-)

[@ivandivan1881]

The Apollo Lunar Landing Research Vehicle was the first that used fly-by-wire with no mechanical or hydraulic backup

[@philipkudrna5643]

Seems Airbus should introduce feedback on the sidestick or at least self-moving throttle controls. I often hear that the lack of situational awareness in an Airbus is a disadvantage, with pilots not realizing that the plane is suddenly in direct law and they lost all protection that they usually rely upon and are suddenly overwhelmed with having to really fly the plane…

[@mikkorenvall428]

Agree.. Have read and heard the same. There should be a big and clear change in something to clearify when automation is off... a beacon, or change in colour of artificial horizon or something bigger than a one little text on the dash.

[@itsme-vw5yo]

I hear they are developing that connected side sticks

[@alexandruolaru8266]

Very interesting video👌👌👌

[@akvinodin]

Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow is the 1st non commercial FBW

[@gnomegemini2642]

As far as I know the V2 was controlled electrically. But not "nontrolled". I think the wonderfull looking Avro Vulcan was the first full FBW aircraft but also the latest versions of the B-17 had FBW but only for HDG+ALT hold.

[@FatimaDuarte-e5h]

impressive knowledge

[@shamimkhan5874]

Thanks for an informative video 👍

[@lsa1641]

Modern Airbus FBW should be compared with modern Boeing FBW system. Not with 50yo classic construction.

[@APaviationgame814]

I WANT TO BE AN EMIRATES PILOT. JOE YOU ARE MY MOTIVATION.

[@blackmamba3427]

Awesome video ❤

[@riaan7836]

nice one love it

[@ericsigwald4646]

first pure electronic FBW was the Apollo Lunar Landing Training Vehicle

[@RaysDad]

Air France Flight 447, an Airbus A330, crashed largely because both pilots were making sidestick inputs at the same time.

[@shi01]

The sidesticks weren't even mentioned as a contributing factor in the accident report...

[@RaysDad]

@@shi01 Yes, Airbus is good at suppressing negative information. The fact remains that one pilot panicked during stall and was pulling back his sidestick while the other pilot was appropriately pushing his stick forward to lower the nose. Neither pilot knew what the other was doing, and that can't happen in a Boeing airplane.

[@shi01]

@@RaysDad Just, that this isn't true. There were dual input events, yes. But the inputs the pilot in command did, wouldn't have resolved the situation even if Bonin, the guy who pulled on the stick, would had let his stick go to neutral. Also, there's always the priority button. Push it, you have exclusive control. The issue in the case of AF447 weren't the side sticks. It was the immediate break down of CRM. Why didn't they consult the checklist for unreliable airspeed? Why were they the only crew that manage to crash because of this specific problem. It was known that the pitot tubes on the A330 at the time had this specific weakness and similar incidents happend before, multiple times. Nobody else manage to crash the aircraft because of it. In fact these crews reported that it wasn't a big deal. Also you're dead wrong if you think something similar can't happen with the Boeing setup. Just look up the AF011 incident in 2022. 777 with Dual input situation without the other pilot noticing it. And in the a Boeing, you don't even get a warning if this happens, and it happens more often than people would think.

[@dwaynemcallister7231]

@@RaysDad Good point!

[@vinnumenon102]

Fantastic! Well done!

[@rolfts5762]

On the quiz-part: ..is it the F-16 fighter? //btw, Thanks for interesting video Raja and Joe

[@AtharvaKarthik-jw8ed]

That is what I thought

[@Ramsi-Berlin]

I think the luna Apollo 9 Vehikel was first ❕🤔

[@Ramsi-Berlin]

Or the AVRO Vulcan 1952 ❔❕🤷🏻‍♂️

[@brazeagle]

Awesome, thanks a lot. Cheers.

[@anand-menon]

Robert Pearson landed his Boeing at Gimli after losing both engines using Fly By Seat Of Pants....

[@suesyn5032]

1960s, when NASA and the U.S. Air Force modified an F-8 Crusader or 1964 the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV)

[@victorm1559]

Love your videos I learn so much

[@mattyplayz5589]

i prefer boings flight controls also bcs im bias since i like boeing more

[@manuo7245]

the F-16 was the first non commercial FBW aircraft.

[@vintagetriplex3728]

If i was a pilot i would definitely prefer flying a Boeing or even an airbus a300. I prefer the Boeings control column instead of the lazer tag video game joystick that modern airbuses use.

[@charlespierce3647]

Yoke just makes sense, unless you think you are playing a video game instead of piloting an airplane.

[@FTStratLP]

Thank you for this great video! So, does the side stick in the A320 move back into neutral position, when you leave hold of it? And in the conventional 747 it will stay in a certain position according to pitch trim? How is it in the 747-8? For me as only being a flight simmer the lack of real trimming and thus having the controls always centering themselves, if you leave hold of them (except maybe when using a force feedback yoke/stick) is one of the biggest draw backs of flight simming.

[@ARandom777]

Yes the sidestick is spring loaded back into the neutral position. The 747-8 function the same way as a conventional plane in regards to pitch. The FBW is only for the ailerons It's partial FBW, not full FBW, as in for all axis, like the 777 or 787.

[@FTStratLP]

​@@ARandom777Thank you! Much appreciated.

[@JanetGrech]

The big problem with flight sims is, of course, the plane doesn't exist, so is not subject to the exterior atmospheric conditions. The flipside, I guess, is that flying real planes is, broadly speaking, approaching sims in approximating situational awareness and overall control, especially with the phenomenal rise in frame rates on up-to-date graphics devices, enabling ever more realistic through-the-window scenery. The full motion simulator being show-cased is the ultimate in the dedicated flight simmers wishbox. Thanks to Joe and Raja.

[@FTStratLP]

​@@JanetGrech Well said!

[@tholo86]

People just hate Boeing for no reason, but they are the Toyota of the aviation industry. Controlling a jet carrying 700 people using a joystick is a joke to me😂

[@eltfell]

Quiz: If you take the question word by word, the Boeing B-17 was the first non-commercial vehicle to use the fly-by-wire technology. That's because its autopilot wasn't mechanically connected to the control surfaces. It was electrically connected to the actuators. That autopilot was simple and could only provide a stable flight straight ahead. But fly-by-wire technology was used. The first vehicle using a fly-by-wire system to control its movements by pilots was the Avro Vulcan 1952, 12 ahead of the moon lander.

[@massmike11]

In the B-17 the bomb sight could also control the flight controls during the bombing procedure.

[@luissimmons654]

next question why is it that when you are landing you push and pull the yoke and twisting it inn and out then right and left in a constant movement

[@tomstravels520]

Bigger deflections of the control surfaces are needed at low speed due to less air flowing over the surfaces. In Airbus the computer compensates for this so you only have to make small corrections

[@MikeDCWeld]

They have to make adjustments to maintain their glideslope ant the centerline, especially if they're dealing with crosswinds.

[@EdOeuna]

Looking at pilots landing a 737, there seems to be a lot of this. I believe it is down to the lack of FBW, instead being old fashioned cables and pulleys. These mean the flight controls are a lot more sensitive. Try that in a 777 and you’ll snap the wings off.

[@LightMike66]

I believe the F-117 Nighthawk was the first full fly-by-wire plane. Its non-commercial :)=. Otherwise nice video👍

[@GVTSounds]

Can't have been. Concorde was the First fly by wire Passenger jet, and that was built in the 60s, F117 wasn't built until the 80s.

[@ConstantlyDamaged]

@@GVTSounds Concorde was a commercial aircraft.

[@danielaramburo7648]

The 747 is so durable and tough, the US president trust it.

[@famousyouth]

It is made in the USA. They have no choice but to love it.

[@PlanesAndGames732]

Quiz: Space Shuttle Orbiter Vehicle

[@kenbrown2808]

considering pilots of both airliners had to learn in small aircraft, they all have to be pilots, before they get handed the certifications. I think a more accurate expression is that Boeing pilots pilot more actively in normal hand flight than airbus pilots.

[@RobertGracie]

I was gonna say the 1957 Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow

[@tomstravels520]

The very newest A320NEO’s only have 4x flight control computers instead of 7

[@skat0r]

A321*, there's no A320 with e-rudder yet.

[@ttjtech]

Excellent video! My question is, why doesn’t the Boeing 717 use a flyby wire system, considering it entered into production in the late 1990s? The 777 is somewhat older, no?

[@ZK-APA]

Because the boeing 717 isn't a true boeing. Its more of a rebranded MD95 (something like how the Airbus A220 is essentially a Bombardier C series aircraft)

[@ttjtech]

@ thanks so much for answering this. I really appreciate it. I kind of figured it had something to do with that, though I was thinking along the lines of the DC nine, and I had forgotten about the MD 95.

[@lufthansaplanespotting]

joe, get her more on your videos im just saying

[@RRC786]

please make video on audio control panel(ACP) and radio management panel(RMP) in airbus aircraft.

[@helge000]

I guess NASA's Digital Fly By Wire F-8 with the fancy 80's font using the modified Apollo Guidance Computer?

[@4403323]

The captain has to use the left hand which is not the dominant hand for most of the people to fly the aircraft?

[@ZK-APA]

Yoke or sidestick, its the same for both (left seat left hand)

[@bongm6039]

I think the first none commercial aircraft with FBW was the F16 Falcon

[@frankdibasta2546]

The f16 I do believe is the first non - commercial fbw aircraft.

[@viperdriver82]

The Lunar lander

[@mikelpacker]

I think the lunar rover was the first fly-by-wire non-commercial vehicle? 🚗 🚀

[@TwitMoe]

The space shuttle.

[@selloeliamolekwa530]

Captain Joe's videos want me to want to abandon my career and take up a pilot training program.

[@Bycopikeynes]

👍👏❤️ excelente video 🫶🏻

[@MySkyranger]

Don’t you just love Boeing’s 1940s style big steering stick on the 737. 777 787. All those cables and wires. So retro. OR JUST OLD FASHIONED JUNK.

[@-DC-]

Bus is far more ergonomic and comfortable as a narrow isle Aircraft Cockpit.

[@pietrophyothetzaw]

Can you make a Airbus vs ATR video

[@karolzammit2249]

F-16 is the answer to the question at the end of video

[@connorcunningham2647]

Is the answer the lunar landing research vehicle?

[@vannizaniboni3502]

Where does Raja come from? For which airline does she work? Cpt. Joe, you used to work on A320 for Eurowings. Now you work on B747s, for which company are you working? Thank you. Vanni

[@aashay350]

Ofcourse Airbus... 🙌

[@bartoszskowronski]

airbus and his "fly by computer" that is my definition. for "fly by wire" flight controls should ALWAYS represent of real position of control surfaces. And if computer decides it's not safe, force movement of yoke/stick is activated, like stick-pusher do, in many modern aircraft. that is a way I see that. and airbus's "fly by computer" proof safety of that system.

[@APaviationgame814]

I WANT A SIM LIKE THAT

[@kevinsavla]

17:29 answer is Avro Canada CF-105

[@gcampagn]

Well, I actually have both a Trustmaster Boeing yoke and the Trustmaster Airbus(Scarebus) sidestick for using my MSFS 2020 simulator and I very much prefer flying with the Boeing yoke because it's much more forgiving than with the sidestick if you happen to do a bad abrupt move! I have a disability in my hands which makes me to get tremors so I only use the sidestick for steering when I'm taxiing on the ground. I don't have pedals, yet. I am going to get pedals soon and that will finish my simulator cockpit. I already have the thrust quadrant(the Thrustmaster Airbus(Scarebus) because it's better quality than the Thrustmaster Boing thrust quadrant). My VR headset completes my flying experience beautifully!

[@01thomasss]

Answer: "The Flying Bedstead" of the NASA moon landing project of the late 1960's.

[@flywithcaptainjoe]

Correct!

[@pashabolokhov]

Is this again the sort of video with a provoking title, but after you watch the whole of it, they'll say: well it's up to you which you like best, every choice is good

[@flywithcaptainjoe]

Thanks for watching the whole video!

[@carlweisser3991]

After 30,000 hours flying a multitude of Boeings and Airbus, my choice is Boeing. The reason I chose Boeing is situational awareness. The side stick is great but it isn't mirrored on the non flying pilot side. Even if it were, the movements are so slight, it would be difficult to determine what the flying pilot was doing. In a boeing you have the old faithful yoke. It's easy to see wht the flying pilot is doing and if necessary either help on the controls or at the very least see what he/she is doing. The auto throttles don't move in the Bus. Again, no situational awareness. Seeing the throttles move is in my opinion essential. You can't cross control an Airbus. The side stick controls RATE of turn, not ANGLE of bank. So, in a crosswind, you either time kicking out the crab to land straight or land in a crab. In a Boeing you can actually do a forward slip just like you did when you were learning to fly if you are more than 60 years old you will understand. It works in all Boeings except the 747 because of the outboard engine and the 737 with the curb feeler winlets. The only thing I like about the Airbus is the dinner tray.

[@rasta77-x7o]

I am no pilot, but i see Mentour Pilot has the same complaint often about the input not being felt in the other stick and that could have saved some events. However i do appreciate Airbus hard laws or whatever it is called has saved people where the pilots would have caused their demise.

[@Inquisite1031]

@@rasta77-x7o triggering any of the airbus normal law protections is very very rare, and if a pilot does do that he or she has some serious explaining to do

[@Nemo2507s]

@@rasta77-x7oUPRT is mandatory on every airplane even airplanes with stall prevention systems like Airbus because someone managed to stall and crashed an A320. Airbus’s prevention mostly only works if you actually know how to deal with it

[@tonamg53]

@@Inquisite1031At least the pilot get a chance to explain themselves in an Airbus… Do the same in Boeing and usually the investigators had to dig through the wreckage to find the explanations…

[@Scarebus_Driver]

@@tonamg53 heard of Air France 447?

[@noeramirez4975]

Fly by wire is like fly a DJI Mavic Drone. 😉

[@320FL]

I flew yoke first then transitioned to the side stick. A damn kid can manually fly the airbus no joke..

[@ybing]

if I remember correctly there was an accident caused by both pilot try to control the side stick in an emergency ended up unrecoverable

[@RameshWarlall1952-rh5js]

Best and beautiful sir.

[@user-kp1ei7mn3x]

I'm a (Ret) tank commander, I can drive and shoot a tank. ;)

[@DaEarl777]

AVRO Vulcan was the First Fly by wire plane

[@Scarebus_Driver]

10,000 hours Airbus Boeing FBW 3000..Boeing for me im allowed to be treated as a pilot. Similarly the Boeing failure mentality is LIGHTYEARS better than ECAM and the overly regulated failure management Airbus inflict on crews. From a failure management perspective its not even close..

[@ARandom777]

Honestly it's pretty nice to see a pilot who isn't on the Airbus train for once. Today you won't see much pilots preferring Boeing over Airbus. I assume you're a 787 pilot based on the pic, my favorite of the Boeings. A technological marvel of the 2000s.

[@thilinajayasinghe7339]

Great"!!!

[@luissimmons654]

please question what are the most common frequencies used in Atlantic region i mean from north america to the south Argentina and the caribean i have in my book 124.1 133.0 133.4 199.6 124.0thoes are fiew that i have do you the others

[@EdOeuna]

Crossing that Atlantic, the most common frequencies listened to are 123.4 and 121.5.

[@Allan-Lauder]

I have a 12 year old son who is fascinated by Aeroplanes, we have tried both the 737 and A320 Fixed based sims, not having flown anything before we both thought the A320 was the most natural to fly for a novice. I think it comes down to are you really flying the A320 or just there for the ride, the Boeing needs a lot more pilot input. I didn’t know the 777 was fly by wire, I thought all Boeing were traditional mechanical flight control mechanisms.

[@Hans_R._Wahl]

The 777 and 787 are fly-by-wire, but in a different way as Airbus.

[@markusthl]

Because a novice can tell what is the most "natural" (whatever that's supposed to mean) way an aircraft is supposed to fly....🤦🏼‍♂️ And also, of course they design aircraft controls based on what is easier for people who have no idea about flying! So, very good point from your side

[@Inquisite1031]

u still need to trim the 777 so yeah a novice will still struggle with it

[@EdOeuna]

The 777 feels light as a feather because of its FBW, even at MTOW.

[@Fredcat-6]

The description of roll control is wrong. A conventional aircraft does not roll to wings level from a turn when the yoke or stick is let go.

[@ZK-APA]

Roll is not the right word, but yes because of stability it will return back to wings level eventually.

[@shi01]

Depends what you call "conventional". Basically all airliner type aircraft are build with a so called "dihedral wing" which means the wings are slightly canted. This causes asymetrical lift when the aircraft is rolled which causes the aircraft to roll slowly back to a neutral position by itself without additional control inputs.

[@theresacaron4238]

I disagree, in the Airbus the computer is in control limiting the pilots' inputs. In addition, lack of feedback in the joysticks caused an Air France airbus to crash in the Atlantic as the pilot in charge did not realize the co-pilot was holding full aft stick on his side preventing a stall recovery. In a Yoke aircraft, the other pilot can monitor the inputs by observing the movement on the yokes. So, in my book, the computer-controlled aircraft is operated by less skillful pilots who rely on computers to save their bacon. I use a joystick to play games, not to fly an airplane. You should both join the Airbus sales department as this was the obvious goal of your presentation.

[@MrGuzmanra]

The Moon lander was fly by wire, no?

[@SuzielSidan]

Great video

[@David-yy7lb]

Awesome explanation but i don't understand is if a plane loses all hydraulic systems why doesn't the airplane manufacturer us electric actuators for the main flight controls so the pilots can still control the plane to make an emergency landing....prime example flight 232 when the #2 engine fan disk blew apart and ruptured all the hydraulic lines the plane was uncontrollable and crashed landed in Suiox city Iowa

[@ARandom777]

787, A380 and A350 already do this. The 787 has Electro Mechanical Actuators that will power 2 spoilers per wing and the trimmable horizontal stabilizer if all 3 systems fail. The A380 and A350 has Electro Backup Hydraulic Actuators that will power some spoilers, elevators, horizontal stabilizer and rudder if the 2 hydraulic systems fail. They are the only aircraft after the 737 that can survive all hydraulic systems dead provided one engine is running that is...If all engines are dead with no RAT (and electricity in the 787 because the batteries can power the controls with no hydraulics for a limited time only), only then are you doomed on those 3 as well.

[@Inquisite1031]

because the chances of that happing is very very slim, and to put on electrical actuators that can move flight controls that big would be a massive undertaking, i always tell this to people who think they have great ideas, if u can come up with an idea, then the people who design that also came up with it, and if its not implemented its because there are hurdles that u are not smart enough to realize.

[@massmike11]

You are not smart enough to realize? Really? How many great invention came from one man with an idea in his garage that nobody else thought would work? Since we are talking aircraft, the whole thing false to two bicycle makers and before that some crazy gut with some ash sticks and canvas.

[@richardhunt3172]

Answer - UAV