Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:52 From: jfmezei <email@example.com> Organization: SPC References: 1 2 3 Followups: 1
View raw article or MIME structure
Robert Dorsett wrote: > and say "THIS is the way it's done." We're still on the learning curve. > A brand new learning curve. It's a learning curve that will be hard- > fought, and that will by necessity be very proprietary, very institutional. > The lessons and processes will stay with their originators, and will not > be shared. Five years from now, the 777's systems will look "OLD and ANTIQUATED", just as the 767's systems are no longer state of the art and DC9 systems are fit for museums. When the 747 came out, I am sure some feared flying in it because it was so big and feared it would not take off etc. Anything new attracts fear. But after a few years of operation, people forget about those fears and focus on something else. When microwave ovens came along, there were fears of cancer due to microwave leaks. Now, those are barely mentioned. When you look back over the history, you don't find any revolutions, you find an evolution. FBW is just another step from direct mechanical controls, some of them being hydrolically assisted, some of them being hydrolically driven, some of them being electrically driven, and now, FBW simply means that there are no remaining direct controls and all are electrically switched/operated. In the same veins, FMCs have also evolved from being able to keep heading/altitude, to being able to have waypoints and change in direction, to being able to autoland, and now, being able to judge actions relative to the capabilities of the aircraft. The Airbus and 777 systems are "revolutionary" only in being the first generations where plane systems start to talk/monitor each other to have a more complete view of what is going on (as opposed to portions operating totally independantly from each other with only the pilot to monitor what is really going on).