From:         kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California
Date:         15 Jun 95 14:25:25 
References:   1 2
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

>The 310 is also not a FBW airplane and shouldn't even be included in
>this discussion.

I disagree.  This discussion is focusing on human-machine interface
problems, rightly, IMO.  FBW makes it easier to make dramatic changes
in this area (as the A320 demonstrates), but it neither forces these
changes (see the 777 or, I believe, Concorde) nor is it a prerequisite
for making significant, though less dramatic changes (as the A310 and
757, and to a lesser degree even the 737-300, demonstrate).

The 757, 767, and A310 all seem to represent a significant change in
interface from earlier aircraft, and therefore I include them in any
discussion of aircraft with modern flight decks.  The 747-400 (but not
earlier 747 models) and the MD-11 (but not the DC-10) both clearly
belong in this group as well.  The A300 is a bit fuzzy, because the
first ones clearly fit with the 747/DC-10/L-1011, but recent ones are
very close to the A310.  The A300-600 represented a major design
change, so I somewhat arbitrarily include it but not the earlier A300

Karl Swartz	|INet
1-415/854-3409	|UUCP	uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls
		|Snail	2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA
 Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to