Mechanical and hydro-mechanical flight control systems (cables, pushrods, hydraulics) all offer pilots some form of feedback – direct or, in the case of hydraulics, artificial – as the aircraft maneuvers and forces are applied to the controls. I know that early FBW, like that in the F-16 prototypes, used a rigid system that often allowed pilots to over-control the aircraft.
Do fly-by-wire-equipped airliners, like their non-FBW siblings, use an artificial feel system to provide control feedback?
To answers this question I need to remember my favourite subject, Principles of Flight - just kidding. The key to the aswer is the requirement that civil (sorry, I don't know about military, but you're also not asking) aircraft are required to have a certain amount of stick force per G. What does this mean? In simple words:the aircraft is required to require the pilot to put more force on the controls if he wants to achive a higher load factor. Even simpler: we are supposed to work hard to have fun ;)
Now we need to know what fly by wire is. FBW means that the imputs from the pilots are brought to the control surfaces, or better the actuators digital. So there is no mechanical connection between the surfaces, where the aerodynamic forces act and the controls the pilot feels. That means that there are also no stick forces per G. That would also make a pilots life very hard. I can not imagine to fly a plane without feeling it / getting a feedback on the controls.
Taking into account both facts I've listed above my answer is yes, an airliner which is fly by wire equipped needs also to be equipped with an artificial feel system.
After some digging, I found an answer for myself: yes, some FBW airliners use artificial feel systems, but not all of them. According to Electronics in the Evolution of Flight (Google Books),
The [Boeing] 777 fly-by-wire system employs envelope protection. This feature of the artificial-feel system provides increasingly greater force when the aircraft is pushed to its limits.
Conversely, Airbus does not provide any feedback to the pilots as their flight control system enforces control laws that cannot be overridden by inputs (source: Aerospatiale engineering document):
The positioning of the control surfaces is no longer a simple reflection of the pilot’s control inputs and conversely, the natural aerodynamic characteristics of the aircraft are not fed back directly to the pilot.
Getting regulatory, since I did some further research: 14 CFR 29.395, certification of Transport Category aircraft, only states that the controls are required to resist a certain amount of force (i.e., not break). This differs from how much force is required to "achieve the positive limit maneuvering load factor" or otherwise impart changes to the aircraft's orientation (14 CFR 23.155 / 23.157).
Mechanical and hydro-mechanical flight control systems (cables, pushrods, hydraulics) all offer pilots some form of feedback – direct or, in the case of hydraulics, artificial – as the aircraft maneuvers and forces are applied to the controls. I know that early FBW, like that in the F-16 prototypes, used a rigid system that often allowed pilots to over-control the aircraft. Do fly-by-wire-equipped airliners, like their non-FBW siblings, use an artificial feel system to provide control feedback?
In February 2014 a co-pilot hijacked Ethopian Airlines flight 702 and took it to Switzerland. Now in March there is some speculation that Malaysia Airlines flight 370 may have been hijacked and destroyed by the pilots - maybe they took a nose dive into the Andaman Sea? So my question is this: is there an automatic or say anti-pilot warning system on commercial airliners? In other words, a system that is non-maskable (can't be disabled by the pilot) and which will automatically warn ATC about unexpected conditions (like a sudden decrease in altitude)?
Provided an aircraft with a fly-by-wire system, there are basically two possible choices when it comes deciding how to let the pilots interface with it: rate control / attitude hold: a deflection of the stick will command a certain rate, releasing it will make the system maintain the current attitude. See the Airbus Normal control law. direct control: a deflection of the yoke will directly translate to a deflection of the surfaces, mimicking the "old" mechanical control setup. It is my understanding that this is the design choice of Boeing in its new aircrafts. I do not wish to discuss
See Wikipedia:Drag polar and Wikipedia:Polar curve (aviation) for example. These curves are not on a polar coordinate system. Why are they called polars?
WWII. They didn't have flight control computers back then, and the only control complaints I recall them having is that early versions had a tendency to flip over backwards when approaching stall speeds, well, that and the ground effects were pretty strong. But, no mentions of going into flat spins when going into hard maneuvers (that I recall). So how do they control that Y axis on flying wings...How do flying wings, like the B-2 Stealth bomber, actually keep themselves from yawing out of control without a vertical stabilizer? For the record, I assume this has to be a simple mechanics
pinged to track an aircraft's position and heading? Would this require any intervention by the pilots? (posted separately) Is this system standard on commercial airliners? What data do Airlines collect...An aircraft's Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System uses line of sight HF via ground stations or satellites to communicate with its base station. This system allows for three types of messages to be sent: Air Traffic Control Aeronautical Operational Control Airline Administrative Control Aeronautical operational control and airline administrative control messages
critical time surveying the control panel, but didn't apprehend the problem in time. I am dejected to imagine that a passenger might've straightaway discerned the discrepancy between their yoke controls (without spending time examining the instruments) and salvaged all. Please feel free to edit this post; I'm not an expert on aviation. ...Suppose that an aircraft is in an exigency or emergency solely related to aviation (ie not a medical situation). Moreover, suppose that some airline passenger believes that he/she can help
With all the shiny new glass cockpits it would seem that the days of the spinning mechanical gyro (and associated tumbling due to gimbal lock) should be over: Sparing everyone the boring math it should suffice to say that solid-state gyros can be engineered and built in such a way that gimbal lock is impossible, but I'm not certain that's how they're actually designed. Do modern AHRS systems with solid-state gyros (or replacement electronic horizons like the RC Allen 2600 series) still suffer from gimbal lock, or do they provide true 3-dimensional freedom? I'm interested primarily
I know that for land aircraft and seaplanes that they require separate endorsements to fly them. However, for the case of amphibians, what do you need to fly one? Do you need to have another, completely different endorsement, or just a seaplane and land endorsements? What about if you always fly it on water or land?
the following requirements: ... (2) The aircraft must be equipped with at least one automatic altitude control system that controls the aircraft altitude Note that it does not say that it must be engaged, or even operative. Simply "equipped", and also that this is to approve an aircraft for RVSM. From what I can find, there is no operational requirement for the autopilot to actually be working or engaged. Assuming that my MEL allows me to defer the autopilot and still fly, can I fly in RVSM airspace? Some people however say that if you are in RVSM airspace