Gusty wind technique…

[3WE]

Randomly flail the controls…

I know that’s not accurate and continue to be amazed at the seemingly solid AI and significant control inputs on many airliner landings.

A semi-genuine question if there’s adequate control authority, I’d hate to see a “truly-big” wind gust.

https://youtube.com/shorts/MoaXvZc1V-M?feature=share

[Gabriel]

The control input is zero (on average)

A semi-genuine question if there’s adequate control authority, I’d hate to see a “truly-big” wind gust.

Yes, there is, just hold your control input for more than a split second.

I think I have the same question than you. Seeing that these control inputs are "in response to" undetectable movements of the artificial horizon, I wonder how much of a difference would have it made if they had made control inputs with 1/2 of the frequency and 1/2 of the amplitude.

When you see the videos of the AP flying the final approach, you don't see these frantic control inputs, although I heard that the human is still better than the AP at compensating for turbulent / gusting conditions

[3WE]

I think I have the same question than you.

I have no question. The dude is type rated and experienced. This is how we land an airliner.

I bought a VHS tape in the 90s of people’s express dudes landing 747s to classical music. I noted big inputs.

https://youtu.be/F-YZgLNA2WQ (this is from the tape, not the best example, but there’s “more-than-172” inputs, and maybe a 747 has some inertia as you turn final with a hand full of power levers and x00,000 lbs in tow)

I have a favorite of a dude in a TWA 727. flyboy even commented when I posted it (will see if I can find it).

https://youtu.be/W_ErZ1nakd0

I find it amazing and believe 1) The dudes have finely calibrated gluteal accelerometers AND 2) sensitive flight directors that they pay strict attention to.

flyboy did make the comment that he tends to hold back- knowing that little bobbles are often followed by un-bobbles. (No place for black and white mentality here, but instead a gray concept.)

[ocelot]

At that altitude you'd better have your eyeballs out the window, not on the FD. (But that's part of what makes it possible; you can easily see deflections of the horizon out the window that won't register at all on the AH. Which is one of the other reasons staying upright using just instruments is harder.)

[Gabriel]

At that altitude you'd better have your eyeballs out the window, not on the FD. (But that's part of what makes it possible; you can easily see deflections of the horizon out the window that won't register at all on the AH. Which is one of the other reasons staying upright using just instruments is harder.)

I agree more with 3we here. To see a displacement in the horizon (be it in pitch or roll) you need first to build a vertical pitch or roll rate to take you from one position to the other, and for that you first need a pitch or roll acceleration. By by the time you become aware of any displacement of the horizon you are already reacting to the earlier inputs of your bio-accelerometers.

The horizon, however, it is an excellent calibrator for the bias caused by the double-integration cumulative errors when your brain goes (with your ice closed) from angular acceleration to angular speed and then to angular position. It works very well even with the peripheral vision, even if you are not looking at the horizon directly, That (not the ability to detect tiny deviations) is why it is much harder to stay upright just on instruments. Any trend that is anywhere near to get you upside down in the few next seconds is not tiny at all and it is easily detectable in the tiniest artificial horizon.

[Gabriel]

I think I have the same question than you.

I have no question. The dude is type rated and experienced. This is how we land an airliner.

I bought a VHS tape in the 90s of people’s express dudes landing 747s to classical music. I noted big inputs.

https://youtu.be/F-YZgLNA2WQ (this is from the tape, not the best example, but there’s “more-than-172” inputs, and maybe a 747 has some inertia as you turn final with a hand full of power levers and x00,000 lbs in tow)

I have a favorite of a dude in a TWA 727. flyboy even commented when I posted it (will see if I can find it).

https://youtu.be/W_ErZ1nakd0

I find it amazing and believe 1) The dudes have finely calibrated gluteal accelerometers AND 2) sensitive flight directors that they pay strict attention to.

flyboy did make the comment that he tends to hold back- knowing that little bobbles are often followed by un-bobbles. (No place for black and white mentality here, but instead a gray concept.)

I think these are just different techniques, and both work. Modulating the yoke/stick in frequent, large but very short deflections in opposite directions is equivalent to no deflection at all after a few seconds. However, when there is a larger deviation from the intended attitude, I think it is easier and quicker to just increase the size and length of your next displacement in the required direction that you were going to do right now anyway (because you are doing it all the time), than to process the deviation and command a control correction in the right direction starting from a steady yoke.

[3WE]

***I think these are just different techniques***

Once upon a time, an instructor said, “quit rocking the wings”…

Because some ass hat was edging the yoke left and right.

It was a 172, a completely different control response, altogether.

[Gabriel]

***I think these are just different techniques***

Once upon a time, an instructor said, “quit rocking the wings”…

Because some ass hat was edging the yoke left and right.

It was a 172, a completely different control response, altogether.

Well, some instructors I flew with had more mayonnaise-beating technique than others. The amplitude was of course not as large as the one seen in the video you linked, but you clearly could see how some had a technique that involved making "corrections" all the time (even if you could not see any correction, just the control inputs) while others basically tried to keep the yoke steady and making punctual corrections when required.

You already mentioned the inertia of the plane as a difference between small GA planes and big transport-category planes. But one thing you might have not considered is the "inertia" of the controls, and I am not talking about mass distribution of the control surfaces but about response time of hydraulic systems: it takes some time to fill up and vacate these actuators with hydraulic fluid. While the amplitude-vs time curves of control input and control surface response match almost 100% in a crank bell-able-pulley system, it does not so in a hydraulic system especially in bigger planes with bigger surfaces and actuators. Not only there is a very slight delay if you make an abrupt input, but also if you do a step input the response of the surface is a ramp. That has the effect hat very largo but very short alternating control inputs actually move the control surfaces quite less than what one would think by looking at the movements of the yoke.

[3WE]

***one thing you might have not considered is the "inertia" of the controls,***

Partial disconcur.

I have very little firsthand knowledge of what the guys up front are doing, but the thingies out the window 'always' seem fairly crisp AND APPROPRIATE.

Now, I've never seen overly extreme inputs, but they are timely.

My recent thunderstorm video is a good one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb-u8j9gX7I Some decent, crisp, "appropriately-aggressive" aileron deflections there.

Now, back to what the pilots are doing- maybe big iron tends to feel, "heavy, like a wet sponge"...so, perhaps those 'huge' inputs might be needed to give the small, crisp responses- and that there is inertia.

You are the one here with some time in a real sim* time- did they dial in a little 'ordinary' turbulence for you, did you feel the need for large inputs to get modest responses...was there a feeling of loseness/slop?

*Real simulator, my favorite oxymoron