Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

A-380 whens it gonna fly

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Actually, last I heard directly, it was Boeing that had committed to adding hard limits at the CAST-JSIT-LOC meetings, Airbus has no intent to go the other way, it would be contrary to the JSIT findings and the JIMDAT analysis.
 
CAST- JIMDAT committed to installing "Fight envelope Protection in new type designs". This does not mandate "hard limits" by any means.
 
Steveair said:
Airbus; where Rudders aren't required!

Ah damm...that reminds me of my commercial single checkride...

eights on pylons, chandelles, stalls, etc without rudder...why oh why!?!?!

-mini
 
Producing new aircraft with conventional "soft limit" control methodology is not in any way shape or form contrary to JSIT findings or JIMDAT analysis.
 
I saw 2 pictures on airliners.net showing a few run ups, and rolling tests

click me
 
Soft limits, like the MD11, are not contrary to what the JSIT said, but would be contrary to what Boeing folks stated a couple of years ago. Obviously, it was not an official public commitment, but I was present to hear it. Boeing was free to back off on it, and I have no problem with them if they did.
 
I don't know what you heard, but I can tell you what JSIT, with Boeing and Airbus as JSIT members have explicitly stated in print. Boeing agreed as did Airbus to install "Flight Envelope Protection in new type designs" That is is it. No hard limits were suggested nor implied by JSIT, Boeing or Airbus.
Traditionally the Airbus approach and methodology has been to effect this through implementation of "hard limits", Boeing's approach has been through implementing "soft limits". Both approaches comply with the JSIT
member committed elements, neither approach is contrary, despite what you might have "heard".
 
EagleRJ said:
including numerous accidents where they were a factor
Myself I prefer Boeing, but since I used to fly Airbus I'm interested in those "accidents", maybe you could name some of them?
 
Very good, now can you please direct me to which part of it states that anything other than hard limits would be contrary to their agreed upon findings?
 
Why don't you direct me to where it says that hard limits are against the agreed upon findings? The phrasing of your question contains a lot of editorial bias. What was originally stated and what was put in writing differ, but that does not mean that it was not stated, nor does it mean that it won't happen, it just means that political issues prevented the statement from being written that way. If you're truly familiar with the process then you surely understand that concept.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom