El FWB siempre impone un límite, su programación, y está por encima de las decisiones del piloto siempre. Porque va en contra del propio sistema pensar que el piloto puede hacer mejor uso de los mandos de vuelo.
Falso, si activado el FBW y si la programación echa para aquel avión tiene limitaciones SI, pero si activado el FBW y la programación para aquel avión no impone limites NO. El FBW és diferente para cada avión y tiene conceptos diferentes como lo mencione antes, no se puede generalizar, en algunos valen limitaciones, en otros se puede cambiar de FBW para total control del piloto, en otros el FBW no tiene limitaciones.
One of the arguments favoring human input over computer control, of course, centers on the notion that a human pilot can sometimes squeeze precious extra performance out of the wing that the computers simply will refuse to acknowledge might be available. As supposed evidence, FBW critics point to video footage of an Airbus A320 crashing in a fireball into trees at an airshow in France in June 1988 rather than allowing its pilots to raise the nose even an inch farther during a low-speed pass. Another criticism of fly by wire centers on the video-game approach to flying that it can require, underscored with the crash of Air France Flight 447 into the Atlantic Ocean in 2009 after the Airbus A330’s pitot tubes iced over in a thunderstorm. When the flight computers transitioned from protected
mode to “direct law
” — making the fly-by-wire airliner behave much like a conventional airplane — the crew couldn’t cope with the emergency.
Dassault, Gulfstream and Embraer have gone to great lengths to ensure that the pilots stay in the loop while flying their FBW models
. This allows certain types of emergencies to be more easily handled, while still requiring proper piloting technique
Unlike the fly-by-wire logic in an Airbus airliner, there are far fewer electronic nannies in the Falcon, Gulfstream or Legacy jets. Where the Airbus family of airliners will prevent the pilots from banking more than 67 degrees in normal-law mode
, the pilot of a Falcon 7X, G650 or Legacy 500 can do barrel rolls all day long. Dassault’s fly-by-wire philosophy maintains a given bank input up to 35 degrees, but automatically returns you there if you bank beyond 35 degrees
. By the way, Airbus, Dassault Falcon and Embraer have all gone with sidesticks
in their full fly-by-wire applications, while Gulfstream and Boeing have retained yokes
. After gaining a fair amount of experience with both, I don’t have a definite preference, although obviously the sidestick frees up a nice chunk of cockpit real estate.
Boeing and Airbus differ in their FBW philosophies. In Airbus aircraft, the flight envelope protection always retains ultimate control and will not permit the pilot to fly outside the normal flight envelope. In a Boeing 777, the pilot can override the system, allowing the aircraft to be flown outside this envelope in emergencies. The pattern started by the Airbus A320 has been continued with the Airbus family and the Boeing 777.
Vienen desarrollos por ai...IFCS
Intelligent Flight Control System
A newer flight control system, called Intelligent Flight Control System (IFCS), is an extension of modern digital fly-by-wire flight control systems. The aim is to intelligently compensate for aircraft damage and failure during flight, such as automatically using engine thrust and other avionics to compensate for severe failures such as loss of hydraulics, loss of rudder, loss of ailerons, loss of an engine, etc. Several demonstrations were made on a flight simulator where a Cessna-trained small-aircraft pilot successfully landed a heavily-damaged full-size concept jet, without prior experience with large-body jet aircraft. This development is being spearheaded by NASA Dryden Flight Research Center. It is reported that enhancements are mostly software upgrades to existing fully computerized digital fly-by-wire flight control systems.