Not quite. While true that in the strictest definition of FBW it does not have a 'mind of its own', by its very nature a 3rd party (usually another computer) can be interposed between the pilot and the FBW system
Computers *are* a part of the FBW system itself. It's not a matter of 'can'.
Just look at the Airbus A320 and family. The onboard computer on the Airbus has been shown on several occasions to override the pilots input. Some have claimed this disconnection between pilot and plane to has lead to several accidents involving the plane.
Now we're talking about bugs or technical malfunction, which is very hard or virtually impossible to eliminate in such complex systems. But the benefits are so great in many respects when compared to these minor risks (after all, these error redundant, fault tolerant systems are thoroughly tested before they're put into service).
When the original poster of this thread complained about FBW, I had the impression that he believed FBW suffered from more disadvantages than advantages due to lack of direct, mechanical control. That's what I responded to. Technical failure can and do certainly occur in simpler, mechanical systems as well. The sort of incidents you mention (those which cause accidents or crashes) are extreme examples which are not representative for FBW based aircraft. And, as you mentioned yourself, I think we can safely state that FBW systems have prevented more pilot errors and accidents than it has caused.
Personally I feel any computer enchanced FBW system should have an override switch that causes it to accept direct control inputs in an emergency. Now, whether the F22 has such a backseat driving computer system I don't know.
I know that at least some FBW systems features 'soft limits' which allows for pilot override. In extreme situations such manual override can come in handy, I won't deny that. But I'd rather fly a FBW combat aircraft than a manually controlled one, due to the benefits of FBW (as mentioned earlier in this thread).
Now, whether the F22 has such a backseat driving computer system I don't know.
Me neither, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it does allow for pilot override.
> I for one don't care for fly-by-wire. Perhaps > I'm old fashioned.:> > I'd rather the airplane do what I told it to do > than what it thinks I should have told it to do. ...
You almost make it sound like FBW has 'a mind of its own' and fails to obey your physical feedback, which is not true. One of the advantages of FBW is the increased responsiveness, a factor which can be very important in air-to-air engagements.
FBW does not allow you to push the aircraft *beyond its flight envelope* (such as automatic G-limiting), but that's for your own and the plane's safety.
A very skilled pilot can potentially push a mechanically controlled plane further than a FBW based aircraft under certain circumstances (at the risk of structural damage, loss of control, etc), but FBW systems allows for faster responsivess and better use of the full flight capabilities of today's sophisticated fighter aircraft.
You should also keep in mind that many of the world's most maneuverable fighter aircraft - such as the F-16 and Su-27 - use FBW. Later versions of the highly maneuverable Mig-29 also featured FBW, but as far as I can recall they never entered regular service.
Besides, F-22 is such a complex combat aircraft (with special features such as vectorized thrust and supercruise) that FBW is necessary if the pilot wants to take full advantage of F-22's flight capabilities.
One final note: One of the earlier posters here used the term "controlled stall". I think a more correct term would be "relaxed stability".
Slashdot Mirror
Now we're talking about bugs or technical malfunction, which is very hard or virtually impossible to eliminate in such complex systems. But the benefits are so great in many respects when compared to these minor risks (after all, these error redundant, fault tolerant systems are thoroughly tested before they're put into service).
When the original poster of this thread complained about FBW, I had the impression that he believed FBW suffered from more disadvantages than advantages due to lack of direct, mechanical control. That's what I responded to. Technical failure can and do certainly occur in simpler, mechanical systems as well. The sort of incidents you mention (those which cause accidents or crashes) are extreme examples which are not representative for FBW based aircraft. And, as you mentioned yourself, I think we can safely state that FBW systems have prevented more pilot errors and accidents than it has caused.
I know that at least some FBW systems features 'soft limits' which allows for pilot override. In extreme situations such manual override can come in handy, I won't deny that. But I'd rather fly a FBW combat aircraft than a manually controlled one, due to the benefits of FBW (as mentioned earlier in this thread). Me neither, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it does allow for pilot override.> I'm old fashioned.
> I'd rather the airplane do what I told it to do
> than what it thinks I should have told it to do.
You almost make it sound like FBW has 'a mind of its own' and fails to obey your physical feedback, which is not true. One of the advantages of FBW is the increased responsiveness, a factor which can be very important in air-to-air engagements.
FBW does not allow you to push the aircraft *beyond its flight envelope* (such as automatic G-limiting), but that's for your own and the plane's safety.
A very skilled pilot can potentially push a mechanically controlled plane further than a FBW based aircraft under certain circumstances (at the risk of structural damage, loss of control, etc), but FBW systems allows for faster responsivess and better use of the full flight capabilities of today's sophisticated fighter aircraft.
You should also keep in mind that many of the world's most maneuverable fighter aircraft - such as the F-16 and Su-27 - use FBW. Later versions of the highly maneuverable Mig-29 also featured FBW, but as far as I can recall they never entered regular service.
Besides, F-22 is such a complex combat aircraft (with special features such as vectorized thrust and supercruise) that FBW is necessary if the pilot wants to take full advantage of F-22's flight capabilities.
One final note: One of the earlier posters here used the term "controlled stall". I think a more correct term would be "relaxed stability".
F-8 Digital Fly-By-Wire Aircraft