Will Airbus Finally switch?? 

Visit our sponsor betterhelp.com/mentournow today to receive 10% off your first month of therapy

Hey guys, don’t forget active FBW sticks in heavy jets ALREADY DO EXIST. The C-17 has a center stick fly-by-wire and both are mechanically connected so when one is moved the other moves with it. Even the autopilot, when engaged, moves the sticks, just like the auto throttles. It absolutely fixes the problems Airbus has with pilot confusion. I taught the C-17 for 17 years and never saw any “who’s flying” confusion.

I've about 7000 hours on A320 and the same previously on B737. I'm not bothered about a force feedback sidestick. If I were to change anything about the A320, I'd have the 737 throttles. The lack of feedback in the sidestick has never bothered me, but the lack of movement in the airbus thrust levers and the position of the autothrust gates is more of a problem. Because the climb, MCT and TOGA gate take up the top third of the available movement, and the reverse thrust the bottom third, only the middle third is available for manual thrust setting. On the Boeing the full range of motion is available, so manual thrust setting is much more accurate and easier. In addition, if you need to add thrust (say the speed gets a bit low in a manual circuit base turn), in the Boeing you just shove the thrust levers up a bit - very intuitive. In the Airbus the levers will be sitting in the Climb detent, so to add a bit of thrust you have to pull the lever BACK, out of the detent, match the blue circles on the guages with the current thrust position, disconnect the autothrust and THEN you can add a bit of power. Very uninuitive.

I fly the A320. I would absolutely love active side sticks. One of the things I miss most coming from 26 years of flying aircraft with conventional yokes, I don’t like not having feedback at all.

Retired airline pilot with time in B737,757,767, AB330,319,320,321. Never had a problem when going from Boeing to AB once the system was studied and understood. Had stick and yoke experience in Navy as well. Learn your aircraft and understand how the controls work. Also know where your standby instruments are and use them when the electronics fail you.

What’s cool about Gulfstream’s side sticks at 9:58 and 13:40 is the pressure on the sticks movement is different from left to right. If you’re if the left seat, your left hand would be on the stick. You naturally have more strength turning your wrist inwards. So Gulfstream made the inward pressure and outward pressure different. This way both ways feel the same. And the the opposite on the FO side. Beyond cool.

Yes I definitely want to hear about the different ways between Boeing and airbus fly by wire envelopes were done!! Please do a video explaining the differences

As an A320/350 TRI/TRE it would certainly make landing with a trainee less tense, when I was flying Boeings it was far easier to see that my colleague was (or wasn't) making the correct inputs close to the ground. this was my biggest hang up when I moved to the bus and even more so when I took on a training role

I fly the A220 and one interesting thing about its sidesticks is that they actually have a force feedback system linked to the trim system and they also have a stick shaker function 👍 Still no interconnection between sidesticks though.

Force feedback and actually moving both sticks in sync in response to an input on one stick (to avoid dual input confusion, which has contributed to accidents) would be a huge safety improvement.

I flew Boeing planes for 27 years. The Airbus side stick was amazing and the first time I flew the Airbus 330, I was sold. Never missed the control wheel. Way to go Airbus.

The F-16's stick initially didn't move at all in the A models. It was only due to pilots wanting some sort of tactile feedback that LM added their motion at all.

As an Airbus pilot, I really hope this actually happens. It's been the thing I most don't like about the A320 since I started. You sometimes feel a bit disconnected from the airplane which makes it less fun to fly. Also if this happens we'll have even more ammunition to throw at you Boeing guys in the airbus v Boeing banter we all engage in (most of the time it's completely friendly and just banter. We all try to respect each other and we're all aviation nerds so an airplane that has yokes instead of sidesticks is still going to be cool to us Airbus guys.)

Though not a side stick, we used to make the Q-Feel valve for the Harrier. This provided feedback to the pilot primarily during slow speed manoeuvring when there were no aerodynamic loads being fed back from the control surfaces and the size and weight of these units was not very significant at all. Making sidesticks active shouldn`t incur a significant weight or size penalty but it would cost.

As a retired captain B767 now an instructor and recently Type'd on the A320, getting used to the side stick is not a big problem, Left Hand or Right Hand (I split training 50/50 left and right seat for my type) and flying the B767 both right and left seat I had no issues with getting used to right/left hand when flying. The one thing I do miss on the Airbus is visual queue's as to what the "aircraft/Autopilot" is doing or the FO is imputing (if anything) What I would most like to see (on the Airbus) is auto throttle movement. Visual movement of the throttles is a big BIG indicator of something happening way before you know about it on the (non moving throttles) Airbus.

Yokes also give out of trim (rudder/aileron) indications just by looking at them (you know that mark on top on Boeing's yokes that centers when the rudder/aileron is well trimmed), this is great for Single Engine operations as it makes trimming the rudder that much easier. A yoke that is angled to one side is a clear indication something isn't right including a fuel imbalance. I can tell when a former Airbus pilot is fairly new to the 757 as they tend to keep their hands on their laps with the Autopilot / Autothrottle engaged. Yes, I fully agree active sidesticks would be a great leap forward for Airbus. Great video!!!

I'd love for a deep dive into the flight control law differences between airbus and (recent) boeing airliners! Explaining all the differences between C* and C*U

Active side sticks would be a welcome addition to Airbus fleets. I have 18 years on Boeings (737,757,767) and 7 on Airbus 320 Series. Now that we are flying with so many new hire pilots, with markedly less experience than new hires in the past, active side sticks would definitely add a layer of safety through improved situational awareness for check airmen and both pilots, especially the captain. I fly with pilots with under 100 hours in type on the 320 Series almost weekly, and I would really appreciate active side sticks.

Concorde G-BOAC was experimentally and temporarily fitted with a sidestick (LH seat only) during development of the Airbus sidestick FBW system.

Personally I find the sidesticks very practical and intuitive... Never needed feedback from the other pilot's stick.

The biggest control advantage of a yoke versus a sidestick is the yoke is much easer it modulate in smaller percentage of full travel increments for the finesse needed for superior landings... fly by wire may damp and modulate some of the inputs on FBW aircraft, but the yoke does enable more finesse than the side stick.

Visual and audible feedback will always be second-best to tactile, because words have to be interpreted and understood. Tactile feedback is so immediate and powerful that it takes a lot of training and hard work for pilots to ignore "seat of the pants" feel when g-forces send the wrong messages, as seen in so many of your videos. I think this is something that should be implemented as soon as it can safely be done.

I wanna see the fly by wire differences! Also, if you haven’t yet, you should dive into the 1500 ATP rule in the US and how it’s affecting pilot supply/demand.

I'm all for mechanically and hydraulically connected and assisted sidesticks. (Active) It Increases pilot saftey in terms of awareness in the cockpit and feeling the aircraft when handflying. Lets see where the future takes us

Well, that tragic Air France 447 crash off the coast of South America was partly caused by the copilot and relief captain entering opposite commands on the side sticks. Remember the copilot kept pulling back while the relief captain was pushing down.

I think it'd be very nice to have a video focused on how Boeing and Airbus approach the flight envelope protection! Thanks Petter!

I think an analysis of the difference between fly by wire in Airbus and Boeing would be a great video! There is a lot to be said for Boeing's version, where the pilots ultimately have the ability to overrule the computer, much more easily than Airbus, as well as the computer still giving feedback through the yokes, but I'd love to hear your analysis

Although a nerd, I'm not particularly interested in aviation or aircraft mechanics and technology. So, the fact that I've watched the whole video with great interest is just a testimony to the production value of your videos. My motto has always been that there is no such thing as useless knowledge - it just has to be served the right way. Thank you - you've just earned a new sub. 👍

Airbus can keep their side sticks but they DESPERATELY need force feedback. We've seen like 3-4 videos on this channel alone of accidents where both pilots were inputting on the controls and the system averaged the input. They never hear that dual input horn (now that it exists) in an emergency and Air France 447 was a direct result of that lack of feedback.

It's absolutely nuts that Airbus does not have force feedback. Video game controllers have really good force feedback, just look at how realistic a good wheel and something like iRacing can be, and Airbus has the *real* values the controls should be feeling from their sensors. And it's not hard to add a system that stops the feedback if it reaches a certain threshold... It wouldn't even be hard to add it so that the pilot can physically disconnect it if needed. Disable the system if the pilot isn't in the seat, and if you want a physical override, make it so that e.g. the motor is connected by a piece of plastic that breaks if the pilot inputs more than 60kg - like how the yokes snap apart on some Boeing models if you fight against each other.

My father inlaw worked for Boeing in the 60s and he told me that the original 737 design had side sticks but airlines were not intrested in it so Boeing but in yokes.

Been in the Bus for 15 years. As mentioned on a comment before, the main issue for Airbus is that when too close to the ground and not having a feedback on your hands may lead to undesirable situations. AirBus is a perfect machine but this improvement would help a lot, specially on instruction flights.

Started my pilot life out flying military helicopters and was definitely used to lots of feedback. First jet was the A220 and now the A320 and I don’t miss the feedback at all and never really think about it.

Good info here, but I don’t think you have a practical understanding of the Airbus flight control system. Even flying manually in direct law you will still know that the aircraft is out of trim because you will have to be holding constant stick input to maintain attitude. Force feedback would be a waste of resources. I have over 2000 hours in the A320 series, and I like the controls just how they are. I’m flying the Boeing 777 now, and its needlessly heavy fake control feel and the constant need to trim seem silly for a flyby wire airplane. The only thing I would change in the 320 would be the auto thrust system. Moving thrust levers like Boeing are a better system, it is nice to be able to quickly override them in certain situations without having to “match and mash” and totally disconnect the system.

It's worth mentioning that unlike the current side sticks on Airbus, Active Side Sticks moves while the A/P is engaged, like B777 Yokes are back driven by Back Drive Actuators taking command from A/P via PFCs

I worked as an engineer on a military FBW aircraft (not mentioned in the video) with active side sticks which has been flying for almost 10 years. I'm not sure I'd recommend them despite the advantages listed in the video. The disadvantages are just too problematic. -They are heavier than passive side sticks. -They are harder to package as you need room for the large box below the sticks to contain the servos. -The hardware is more expensive than the passive side sticks. -The software is more complex and requires more development time than passive side sticks. -They have thermal issues and high failure rates which cannot be tolerated in a FBW input device. I'll explain that last one. The lower console of an aircraft is essentially a black box in a greenhouse. Add to that black box a couple servos generating their own heat. This is a recipe for a thermal problem, especially at 3 in the afternoon when on the ground with limited or no ECS (the side sticks would most often fail after a mid afternoon fuel stop). You can add more cooling with ordinary ducted fans, but the primary source of noise in many cockpits is actually the cockpit cooling fans. Adding a couple more is not desired, and without ECS, the fans might not actually get the job done. An airliner might have the ground ECS capability to keep them cool during a fuel stop, but I certainly would not put them on military aircraft that is expected to be happy operating in a desert. Pilots wear Nomex gloves in the summer, not for fire risk, but because everything in the cockpit is hot enough to cook on it when it was 50C/122F outside. Surface temps in the lower console can be literally hot enough to cook a steak. But, I'm an engineer, not a pilot. Well, I'm a pilot too, but not on these aircraft. Force feedback on yokes do not have the thermal issues as their servos tend to be mounted under the floor in a much more protected space. That's my 2c.

As an A320/A330 pilot, I think that should the design remain the same except the force feedback, it would be a really good idea. I would just suggest a way of disabling the active system should there be faults, maybe a little button somewhere near the PFD/ND display setting switch that allows the system to be disconnected should there be any faults with the system (ie. false feedback/really bad trim issue to prevent fatigue from pulling the sidestick back). I think it would make a trainer's life easier too being able to see all inputs easily.

As a proud Canadian, the mention of the Avro Arrow just hits me hard. 🍁 The Arrow hit Mach 1.9 in the initial flight tests, with plans for a homegrown jet engine upgrade. The sixth Arrow(RL 206) was just days from being ready with the new Orenda engines. The engineers figured RL 206 would hit Mach 2.5 with those engines.

If you are looking for a counterpoint to your positive feelings about active feedback in side-sticks, here is what I think. Whenever you add a new system into an airliner, ESPECIALLY a primary flight control, you have to ask "what happens when this fails?" Getting answers is very difficult and often tricky for the engineers. Before they system is implemented, they can't be absolutely sure what will happen, because it hasn't happened yet. So they must make assumptions about when and how it will fail, and what the crew will do about it. This uncertainty can make engineers very reluctant to change something that already works. As for the pilots, they could be confused by failure of the feedback system to give them correct (or any) feedback during a maneuver, leading them to overcorrect, or cross-control, similar to what has happened in past accidents. So digging to the heart of its reliability might reveal that there are new problems introduced, even as it prevents old problems.

"direct law where the plane lets the pilots no longer know when it's out of pitch" this give XL airways flashbacks

Retired 30k hour Boeing pilot here, so I am probably biased. 😅 HOWEVER I’ve always said that NOT knowing what the other pilot is inputting, is a disaster waiting to happen, and this has been proven with both accidents and VERY near misses. (I also don’t like thrust levers that don’t move on auto throttle - the loss of that visual AND tactile feedback is a big disadvantage.) In the 1990s I read an excellent article by a retired Airbus test pilot. He said that locking in both of those design features was a serious fail, and will continue to cause accidents (and incidents) indefinitely. He was far from happy with the design. I concur with that view.

I’ve flown both center stick and side stick in light aircraft. Both work well although side sticks tend to be much shorter resulting in less mechanical advantage, reduced travel distance and therefore less precise control. This is why aerobatic aircraft generally have center sticks. I would imagine that fly by wire and auto-trim mitigates this disadvantage to some degree. From an engineering perspective, I agree that active side sticks will be the most practical compromise. Hopefully, I’ll get a chance to fly with them before I retire.

Hello Petter, love your videos! Would love to see one on flight envelope protections.

As an active A320 FAM PIC since 15years and having flown the 737, too, I do not really miss anything of the 737. But I enjoyed my time in it a lot. Regarding A320: It is a matter of training and stabilization criteria adherence in order to stay safely and adequately in all tolerances. I find the recently observable ghosting technique of Boeing rather not very helpful, especially for new FO. They should feel when a landing is rather positive than never let them experience at all their results of their own manual flight path management.

The A220 was actually initially planned to have active sidesticks as well, the servo motors are still there and you can feel and hear them when moving the side stick. It also gives quite a different feel than the A320 family side sticks. No idea though, why the active feature has not been put to real use so far.

When I first came to United Airlines, the instructors there mentioned that Boeing had come to UAL when they were designing the 777, and asked them which system UAL would prefer. Supposedly UAL said "yokes". As the launch customer, they had some pull. This could be just a legend.

With active side stick AF447 (one of my fav video ) might have been avoided. Personaly i am french so an airbus fan but the only thing that matters is Safety and both airbus and boeing make beautiful and safe planes

the best solution would probably to develop a passive mode for the active sidestick. That way Airbus can roll out the technology to the entire, but leave it up to the airlies to make the switch.

As an 8,000 hrs Airbus TRI/TRE, there’s nothing I would like more than an active feedback side-stick, thank you for this episode. Right on the money. It would take away any advantage from Boeing dinosaur’s design.

>12k in the A319/20/21 & A330. Did another 12k in Douglas, Fokker & Boeing prior. I GREATLY preferred Airbus side-stick, fbw w/protections. I know the Boeing guys can put their hand on the yoke, turn around to chat with the stew and know what's going on, but frankly, I just did what Airbus wanted you to do...use your eyes. If you have N1/EPR and FMA awareness, you don't need all that stuff moving around. My periphery vision is good and I could see what the other pilot was doing with his hand. As long as I have the red takeover button, I'm good. Rather than chasing some over active stick pumper, I can lay my hand on my stick that isn't moving all over the darn place and simply push and hold the red button if I need to. I'll add that one reason the Airbus auto-throttle is so responsive in gusty conditions is because the FADEC's don't suffer the lag of having to back drive & physically move the thrust levers like on the 73/75/76.

I flew side sticks for years on my homebuilt varieze and Rutan Defiant (push pull twin ) these were mechanical non electronic control sticks. These were such a natural way to control these aircraft that the owners rarely bothered to comment on them in their discussion. Having an open lap for paper charts at the time was a natural advantage.

If not already done, I’d love to see a video about self landing systems. From the origins in tbe 50s to the latest (up to cat III c) versions.

It would be very interesting to learn about the differences of fly by wire between Airbus and Boeing !

One of my Boeing friends told me that sidesticks were examined as a possibility for the 777. His opinion was that the decision to reject sidesticks was as much a rejection of the particular implementation that they tested as it was a rejection of the concept per se.

Discovered your channels a few months ago. Best finding in 2023 period! Its just a blessing watching your videos to satisfy my passion for the aviation industry and its history :)

I have extensive experience in multiple Boeing and Airbus type ratings. The yoke is a pain in rear. I can't imagine the 777x with a yoke.

As a long time Airbus pilot, I can tell you it’s not about the sidestick, it’s about the table!

Very interesting and informative. Perhaps if Airbus decides to incorporate active side sticks in their existing aircraft, the A320/A330 neos will also get new cockpits with large screens, like the A220/A350. Also curios to know if Embraer will have sidesticks on any future products of theirs. The KC390 and Praetor jets have them, but the E2s still have the yokes, probably for commonality. Would love to have a pilot’s perspective on Embraer yokes versus Boeing yokes.

I always wanted the force feedback joystick. And now I have money to buy it, but sadly they dont make them anymore. Interesting thing about first sidestick in F16 prototype, it wasnt movable, but they figured out that humans are much better at sensing little differences in location of their hand then small changes in applied pressure. So they made it movable. I am now training in a B737 simulator and I think I would prefer the active sidestick.

2:22 Concorde's flight stick is known as a "Rams Horn" because they look like the horns on a ram. I think Embraer also use a similar design.

So many Airbus captains have comments here that they wish they had active side sticks when flying with new first officers. 30 feet that nose doesn’t move an inch up followed by a late hard pitch and the A321 mains are going to be sent to earth at 20 feet with a firm runway to kiss the tires. The flight attendants in the aft galley are going to feel that landing the rest of the day. Active side sticks will be a game changer.

Hey all. In response to the author's call for comments from real-life sidestickers, here's my two-cents: When transitioning to the A320 back in 2009, after 16 years of Dash8, MD11 and B737 Classic as well as NG, the only thing I missed the most, was the flight control feedback. Magically moving throttles, I didn't cry a tear for. The Airbus' autotrim works as a charm. Reverting to conventional trim in case of direct law (which I only encountered during simulator flights) didn't pose a problem. ECAM is a true blessing. Vastly suprerior to EICAS. Especially when this ungodly electronic checklist has to be managed. I have a suspicion, that when the industry's big-heads are done with honestly analyzing all known failure modes of current Human-Interface-Devices - human as well as technical - THE best control system will present itself. And it might just look like Gulfstream's/Irkut's solution. Provided the new failure modes of that new device have been properly addressed, it looks like, ACS is, what most Airbus pilots have wanted from the very start. It also eliminates Boeing's last excuse to hold on to their silly relic. With the introduction of active control sidesticks into commercial production aircraft, it now has become the "current-state-of-the-art". The industry might have talked their way out of it, if it had only been the mad russians employing this deviltry. But now, with the rich&famous, not only get to demand unvaxxed pilots, but also get even fancier Gulfstream aircraft, there's no way around it anymore. It It might not have become a legal requirement yet, but acting outside of the-state-of-the-art, is a very slippery slope, legally. So for any manufacturer, not to implement state-of-the-art into their products, will open them up to huge class action lawsuits, in the event of the next mishap, which has FBW and the old yoke&stick design as contributary factor. They either implement it, or better have rock-solid arguments, for not having done so. Some crafty lawer will bring it up regardless, as sure as faith. Either that, or chance it, and finaegel their way out of it, by palitical shenninnigans...as would be usual. FAA and EASA have evolved into palitical institution, with a tight budget and lazy politicians leading them, long ago, after all. Passengers certainly wouldn't take note of it. They will as happily get into an any Airbus or Boeing of any operator, as they jump onto a dodgy Twotter-flight to some one-way mountain slope in Nepal - fancy sidestix or not. Fact is, neither Airbus' PCS nor Boeing's coupled yoke column are the the best available interface for an FBW aircraft. Yes, we can and do make due with either in daily operations and during most abnormal events. That's what we train for, after all. ACS seems to be the best of both worlds. But even with the perfect control device, "unreliable airspeed" or similarly critical events, are soved by the pilot; not the input device. Pointing fingers at seemingly stupid or complacent pilots is always easy. It's called denial. "Won't happen to me", in other words. The idiosyncrasies of FBW aircraft are well known in theory. Dealing with them in real life, overcoming the human idiosyncrasies of humans (startle effect, e.g.), is quite a different affair, than reading about some obscure occurence of remote possbility. A better control device will certainly help in doing the job properly. But it still requires the same amount of training and disipline as before, to use it properly and at the correct time. So, this stick might be quite a big deal (and I think it is), but it ain't the holy grail. I also think, that final Accident Reports and associated findings, are importnant and carry quite a lot of weight. Airbus is indeed under quite some pressure, to come up with a working solution to this long overdue, and well-known flaw in the system, due to those recent in- and accidents, in which the passive sidestick concept has been been identified as a contributing factor. Blaming it on silly pilots will no longer do. If there had not been any pressure, Airbus would not have changed a thing. It's also quite apparent, that their quick fix, of finally giving pilots an AoA indicator of sorts. Albeit a nice thing to have, during an "unreliable airspeed" event, it does not seem to eliminate the possibility of grand fuckery under stress. Therfore, the days of Airbus' passive stick concept seem to be numbered, to an ordinary pilot. As far as the Boing incidient goes, in which undetected decoupling of linked yokes is suspected, I'd imagine, that Boing also has some involuntary homework ahead of them. Frankly, the MCAS incidents should have given ample heads-up, into Boeing's FBW implementation philosophy...or their financial management policies. So frankly, the days of having interlinked yokes or PCS, on any FBW aircraft, might be over, soon; and thank heavens, if they actually are. As the argument for having them, has been somewhat diminished (if not eliminated), by the incident you have describibed in the video, (pending the findings of the final incident report on the Boeing mishap, of course) Also relevant, but a bit outside this stick/yoke discussion is, that "unreliable airspeed" (and others, affecting FBW performance) is a seriously nasty event. Not so much the handling of the problem, after recognition. Rather, the recognition itself. I do this (training) for a living. There is an extensive "unreliable airspeed" sim-prebrief, there is homework and private study. ahead of the briefing. Still, despite the fact, that the "unreliable airspeed" event is a (mandatory) planned, and announced event during sim training, the amount and diversity of grand-fuckery that follows introducing the failure, is mind boggling. And it is almost exclusively a result of recognition or entering the drill. Even from well seasoned and highly experienced pilots. So, imagine being sprung by it, on the last red-eye of a 6 day duty-block. Training (for it), is absolutely essential. I seriously hope, that somebody will finally wake up soon, and realize, that economizing training requirements, has not been the best of ideas, and reverses this ungodly trend. No sane pilot would ever deliberately hurt his aircraft, or endanger anybody. In these particular, most recent cases though, I wonder, whether or how much complacency, paired with retention of "old habits" is becoming a systemic problem. As being goaded into it, by minmalistic training on that subject, certainly doesn't help getting rid of "old habits". There was a time, when something similar occured. Way back, when Glass-Cockpit, FMS and GPS were becoming the new standard. (Ya, I am that old) So, is it now "children of the electronic wire"? (Resaerch here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-5ESJH1NLMLs.html ) We're merley human beings. Neither are we meant to fly in aircraft, nor are we meant to fly aircraft. The latter requires aqcuired skills, to enable the former to get to their destination reliably and safely. These skills require continuous, non-punitive, and very expensive training. If we have a genuine interest in keeping aviation the safest form of transport, we need to realize that it requires effort and that it has a monetary price. When I observe, that it is less expensive to fly from FRA to PMI, than it is, to take a 400km train trip to FRA, then this tells me, that the world is askew. Quality is expensive. Less quality is more expensive.

I had been flow a B 738 since 2003 as a captain, now I am captain A320 since 2010 ..let me tell you my friends.. Nothing is better than a side stick . Soo you should try it, the most important key is to understand and comprehend the side stick Air in Air Bus family. Thanks .

As a Professional Engineer of Control Systems and as a private pilot, I know professionally and first hand how important user interface design is. As you point out, active FBW joy stick design is an obvious improvement. The feedback of "feeling" the aircraft's behavior is absolutely necessary, especially when most of the aerodynamic safety automation is disabled. However, it is also imperative that the inputs from that "feeling" are validated and known. For example, if the indication of the elevator trim system is unknown or has impossible indications, there needs to be a way that this feedback can be disabled or it will further confuse and disorient the pilots. As an aside, I use the Boeing vs. Airbus philosophies as a teaching point for inexperienced engineers. I would really like to see your take on the philosophical differences of the flight deck design. Thanks for a thoughtful presentation.

AF447 screams for an active side stick. This accident may never have happened if other pilot knew that Bonin was holding the stick back all the way

Having interconnected yokes is no guarantee of a good outcome in an unreliable airspeed situation. The Aeroperu 757 accident proves that when overloaded pilots get disoriented and start pushing and pulling it’s a very dangerous situation regardless of the flight control system.

Just an idea... Perhaps Airbus could put trim switches on the new active side sticks, so when in a degraded control law, it's easier to trim and you can sort of revert to basics of your flight training days of "select attitude and trim'.

@MentorNow Please Peter, the Airbus commands don’t average! They add to each other. I am an A320 TRI and I would LOVE to see active flight controls! It would be so beneficial in all aspects of operation, including training and building muscle memory when the auto-pilot is engaged.

I'm clearly pro fly-by-wire, but it's better artificial feedback that none. Still doesn't entirely solve the dual input problem. The active pilot might perceive different stick reactions coming from the aircraft and not from the other crew member.

From just an intuitive perspective, controlling a live and moving object without any tactile feedback is always going to be much harder in any crisis - whatever other additional envelope processing and safeguards are present in the overall system. For instance, there is no way I would want to even drive my car with no natural force feedback to the steering wheel. Because without it I would not sense camber, slippage or skidding on bad surfaces fast enough, to react in time to compensate and avert a collision using visual and/or instrument perception alone. Quite simply, I would not be able to intuitively control the dynamics of the vehicle in any unexpected circumstances. To me this is blindly obvious..

Retired MD-11 / 717 PIC - Just my take, I do not feel comfortable with anything other than a yoke. After 50 years of flying in total, I want to feel the airplane, not speak to the flight control surfaces via a computer. The way I see things, the more complex any system becomes, the more likely it remains to fail. Simple logic.

For military jets, the sidestick has another advantage, the HOTAS which is important

Great video, totally agree! Active side sicks would have prevented the fatal Air Asia A320 stall crash as well. Also modifying the Thrust Levers to move with the Auto-Thrust system would give us better much better interface with what's going on. That system is over engineered in my opinion. 16yrs - 737/12 yrs - A320

I remember hearing once that fighter jets use side sticks as they're easier to use than a yoke during high g maneuvers.

The biggest challenge with the recent sidesticks is that at what point exactly, not too early notice too late, that I have to take over the other pilot’s control. Personally I use the force I feel on my butt against the seat cushion to determine if he or she is doing good enough, but maybe as a senior who has already had over 15000 hours is capable to do so, but for a junior pilot, I really want them to feel what I’m doing on the stick, how much force I use on the stick to get the plane on ground. But with the recent version of the 320 sidestick, it’s difficult to accomplish.

For years I thought that these side sticks have some sort of feedback. I only found out they didn't in the Air France Atlantic crash. Even a small feedback would already have made a high difference. The only reason I can imagine not changing is the programming complications in the systems and cost.

As an airbus girl, I love the awareness and feedback on the yoke, table isn't everything 😅

I feel like this would be quite easy to implement on the A220 since from my understanding it is flown like a Boeing, you trim for a speed, if you push the throttle forward, the plane will climb, and if you pull them back, it will dive to chase the speed it's trimmed for as any conventional aircraft would, the only difference being its stick being passive. On regular Airbuses that would be a much bigger change considering that you do not trim it, and unlike a conventional aircraft, if you're flying straight and push the throttle, the aircraft won't climb, it will accelerate and trim itself nose down, which is comfortable but is the opposite of how aerodynamics naturally works. Keeping these control laws with an active sidestick would probably not allow to take full advantage of the sidestick, and changing it would be a huge change in handling for the thousands of pilots flying these planes so it may be a bit complicated to retrofit

I never flew the line in a Airbus as I changed jobs shortly following my type rating on the A320. So I’m only going to point out things that I experienced while getting my type at Airbus in MIA. I went from years of flying Boeings, Douglas and Lockheed’s to an A320. At first glance I was surprised by how odd and complicated the jet seemed. I thought it was designed to be operated by third world airlines?….The Airbus version of the FMC was to me very non intuitive. It was like they seemed to copy the ideas of the Honeywell FMC but lost all of its beautiful simplicity in the translation. Then there was the ECAM which was their version of Boeing EICAS. At first glance the ECAM seemed to be an attempt to simplify the handling of non normal procedures, but they managed to really overcomplicate that too. You would find yourself jumping between the ICAM and a large, very poorly organized paper QRH. My entire class walked to a Staples store and purchased colored plastic labeling tabs that we added to our QRHs to make them easier to comprehend in the heat of battle. A Boeing QRH on the other hand is dead simple to use and easy to understand. In the sim I loved the side stick controller. I’m also an Ag Pilot so I felt right at home with that. However, the lack of any flight control loading feedback through the little stick combined with the two not being inter-connected seemed very weird. It’s no more then a sophisticated game controller and looks and feels out of place in a transport category jet. I recall my sim partner and I had fun taking control from each other with the mere push of a button. You can’t see the opposite controller so if the other pilot neglects to announce “I have control” it can really cause confusion. I have good friends who’ve operated the various modules of the Airbus of years now. They all seem to like it well enough but, they never say that they really understood the logic of the flight control design, and most have told me straight up that they couldn’t wait to get back to a Boeing, or just off the Bus. That tells you one thing, these pilots aren’t comfortable or confident in the jet and certainly not on those dark stormy nights when problems can become amplified. The Airbus now has millions or hours of airline service so it’s a good jet, but let’s admit that in their quest to design and build a non-Boeing they got some things wrong, like the side sticks. The really bad accidents like the Air France nightmare paints a picture of first world pilots not understanding the very basics of the jet they’re flying. In those crashes the pilots are desperately confused trying to understand their high AOA condition and are inexplicably moving the side stick in exactly the wrong direction. That’s pretty scary. To the point of absurdity and the resulting carnage……A new Russian airliner, look out below😂 I flew the 777 an old lady can fly that jet correctly. I guess French pilots do things a bit different 😂 sorry I can’t help it. Great content!

Actually, the new Embraer E2 just got rid of feedback inputs. Even when flying on Auto Pilot you have no visual clue of inputs, the yoke remains centered. Why they did that? I don’t know but for me, sounds insane. The visualziation coming from yoke movements makes easier to recognize any mistakes..

After several thousands of training flights in gliders and light motor planes, I cannot imagine doing that without an active stick. When the trainee performs a takeoff or landing I always have my hands on the stick or joke in order to correct any wrong handling immediately. I even remember landings of long-serving airline captains with light aircraft where it was good that I had my hands on the controls. It is not so sure that they bring down a PA-18 as a whole. And flying a sailplane without feeling when it becomes soft while thermallig must be terrible.

The latest Gulfstream jets have active sidesticks. Remember the A320 was developed in the very early 1980’s it took a long time to be able to develop good ones

A330 captain, I would really love to have the active sidestick for all the reasons you mentioned, plus it would be much better to have instant feedback on my sidestick to whatever the FO is doing when he/she is landing the plane 😆😆

If you haven't already can you at some point discuss the challenges from moving from flying with a yoke to sidesticks? How does the transition from the right side of the flight deck to the left work in terms of using right vs. left hand for the sidestick? How much does being left vs. right handed affect one's ability to use them?

I'm just a lowly Private Pilot ASEL and an A&P IA. I flew a friend of mines Columbia that is equipped with side sticks. I was totally lost. I could fell the flight controls but it was just odd to me. I much prefer a yoke. I had never felt so behind an aircraft. I would probably crash if I attempted to fly an aircraft that is fly by wires.

I am not a Pilot, this first, but I recognized the Sidesticks of Airbus visa the standard Yokes that most other planes use. For me the most irritating thing was that the Pilot must handle the stick with the left hand cause of the position at the left sidewall und the Co-Pilot has the stick on the right side handle the stick with the right hand. This in in my point of view a big change when the co-pilot get. the upgrade to pilot sitting then on the left. An additional training in mindset and sensivity, because most people are right hander.

The S7 upset incident was a clear reminder, that all the improvements since AF447 did not solve this huge disadvantage of Airbus ergonomics in stress situations. If technically feasible, the upgrade to active sidesticks HAS to be done.

I hope Airbus gives pilots force feedback on the flight controls. If airbus combines their technology with Boeings flight countrols Airbus would be perfect.

About 30 years ago my brother had a job writing software for flight simulators that simulated warplanes. The company had working examples of the A10 and the F16. As a private pilot (he had a Piper Comanche) he liked the A10, but was perplexed when taking off with the F16 simulator. The F16 control didn't move; he looked at it as he twisted and pushed and pulled, deciding it was jammed. Then he looked up and saw the simulator was rolling rapidly over and over. Fly by wire strikes!

My first concern is that the side-stick feedback might disappear when an aircraft's performance degrades; when there are combined disagreements of instruments, sensors, control-inputs, trim-setting, control-surface positions, or any other situations when the aircraft's fly-by-wire system has degraded into (or below) Alternate Law--because it's precisely in those times that control-stick feedback will be most safety-critical. I say that because it seems Airbus' fly-by-wire systems rely heavily on everything functioning properly--including members of the aircrew. When things start to degrade, or an upset sends an Airbus outside its predicted design envelope, Airbus aircrews have on numerous occasions become unwilling test pilots. If in situations like that, the computers are going to be programmed to give up providing feedback--reverting the side-sticks back into 'video-game joysticks'--then this isn't actually a real fix. If that's how it winds up being implemented, the retrofit will only give Airbus aircrews a false sense of confidence. That does seem to be a well-rehearsed corporate two-step at Airbus: Airline: "Aircrews express concerns." Airbus: "We're addressing that with a retrofit." Airline: "Oh, you're fixing the safety issue?" Airbus: "No. But if the flight manual says we did--that'll justify dismissal of aircrew concerns." Airline: "Good enough. Thanks, Airbus!" So I do hope that's not how it plays out this time.

I know a 787 pilot and he prefers the yoke because in cruise he can rest his hand gently on the yoke and feel what the aircraft is doing. So having an active side-stick seems to be nothing but a good thing. I guess retrofitting is more of a logistical problem as you will have aircraft types with and without and pilots trained and not trained so it may disrupt operations. Much easier to bring it in on a new type or variant.

Great video as usual. Accurate data and facts.

Active Sidesticks are the next logical step for Airbus, For all the detractors who haven't flown as much as a kite yes its a different way of flying but the Airbus Technology has saved Aircraft and Lives when the Pilots have fallen behind the curve, Great Channel your open minded Approach is a Credit to you.

Thank you, Petter, very informative. Does this mean that Airbus will start developing active throttles( thrust levers) as well ? Perhaps Airbus needs to have a lecture about situational awareness.....this is not limited to geographical location but also includes current aircraft parameters. That is pitch, thrust, and trim compatibility . 😅

Maybe the active side stick will have another safety feature such as the stall stick shaker

I’m also on the A320/321 and agree with the other statements about the advantages of active side sticks like being more connected to what the aircraft is doing and feeling the control inputs of a pilot with low time in the Airbus. The only disadvantages I can think of is presumably more cost and reliability…it is one more thing to break and possibly ground the aircraft. I wonder if this is why Airbus has its version of auto thrust vs moving thrust levers.

Great episode Peter! It's a bit frustrating in aviation to see it takes so much time for the airliners to catch up with the current technology. Even for such 'not that complicated' mechanical challenges. I can't imagine how long would it take for airliners to come with AI for example.

I do prefer the sidesticks from the perspective that they save a lot of weight and space, but in their current form they're not linked together and not having any sort of force feedback like you would get in a conventional yoke is a detriment. Combining the space and weight savings of a sidestick with the mechanical feedback of a yoke seems like the natural progression in the technology on the part of Airbus, and it's a bit weird that it hasn't already happened.

Every time I see this discussion, I think Air France 447. That accident wouldn't have taken place on a yoked aircraft as the second pilot would have seen Bonin's action immediately.

This was a very informative video. Thanks for your time. Also please upload a video explaining the differences between the flight envelope protection systems.