Re: Design Philosophy -Reply

John Vyhnalek (jvyhnale_at_us.dhl.com)
Wed, 26 Mar 1997 08:27:00 -0400


Why would anyone want to comprise the ability to maintain full and
complete control of an aircraft? I say that as one who once popped out
of the clouds in the terminal area just to find a single engine aircraft
directly in front of me (the maneuver we executed scared all my
passengers as well as myself, but saved our lives). The bus has reduced
roll beyond 30 degrees and the crew can only input 67 degrees of bank,
if I am not mistaken. To quote a Boeing representative at an ATA
Selected Event Training focus group meeting (said to the face of the
Airbus rep) "What if you need 70 degrees to miss the mountain?"

The learning curve we experienced in the 60s was similar to the curve
the military experienced when they took fighter pilots from the 40s and
put them in the first multiengine jets. The assumption was made that the
fighter pilots had already learned the lesson you refer to about engine
spool up times (after all, on swept wing transport category jets you can
go to idle thrust on approach, pitch up to level flight 100' off the
deck, and you won't get the stick shaker for 30 - 45 seconds).
Unfortunately, the fighter types didn't know what it was like to have
number four quit on takeoff, the resultant yaw from such a large moment
can really be a tiger for a single engine pilot.

There is no way any engineer can envision every possible abnormal or
emergency flight permutation, then even attempt to design a flight
control system to protect the crew from them. Teach me the limitations
of my airplane and let me experience them in the simulator. Don't design
an aircraft that does not permit the crew to exercise full and complete
control.

A B-727 driver

-- 
Sincerely,
  Jack Vyhnalek, AQP Program Coordinator
  DHL Airways, Inc.
  (606) 578-8301 ext. 251