757 avionics

[FriarTuck]

some questions if anyone knows the answers...

is 757 fly by wire or fly by cable?

The FMCS has full flight and landing capability, is it a separate control
system?

The FANS network, is it capable of directing "goto location/altitude" and
"set airspeed to K" type commands to the plane?

Is the yoke and throttle a completely separate control system from the
FMCS control system or are they common?

is the throttle control in cockpit only routed through FMCS ?

I read that the yoke was capable of exerting more power on the surfaces
than the FMCS could, essentially giving yoke priority, is that correct?
If so can you describe how that works?

[Mike]

"FriarTuck" > wrote in message
...
> some questions if anyone knows the answers...

A better question is...

Why should anyone answer the questions of a troll who asks the same
questions using different sock puppets?

[FriarTuck]

On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:46:19 +0000, Mike wrote:

> "FriarTuck" > wrote in message
> ...
>> some questions if anyone knows the answers...
>
> A better question is...
>
> Why should anyone answer the questions of a troll who asks the same
> questions using different sock puppets?

has it been asked and answered before? do you have a thread reference?
what newsgroup? around what date?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

FriarTuck > wrote in
:

> some questions if anyone knows the answers...
>
> is 757 fly by wire or fly by cable?


Neither

>
> The FMCS has full flight and landing capability, is it a separate
> control system?

It can autland but it's seperate from the flight controls. You can
disengage it anytime you like.
It fails passive, which means you can manually oer-ride any time you
want.

>
> The FANS network, is it capable of directing "goto location/altitude"
> and "set airspeed to K" type commands to the plane?


Doesn't have one

>
> Is the yoke and throttle a completely separate control system from the
> FMCS control system or are they common?


seperate
>
> is the throttle control in cockpit only routed through FMCS ?

No

>
> I read that the yoke was capable of exerting more power on the
> surfaces than the FMCS could, essentially giving yoke priority, is
> that correct? If so can you describe how that works?
>

The stick will give more authority because the autopiot flies the
airplane in a more limited way than a pilot would. When it intercepts an
altitude, it does so smoothly with a limited G. A pilot can manuever the
airplane as abruptly as he likes, but of course, most do so just as
smoothly as the autopilot does.
Sometimes the autopilot isn't quite so smooth. If it gets "surprised" by
a track interception, for instance, it will be a bit jerky in roll, or
if it gets surprised by a pitch intercept it wasn't expecting and the
autothrottle gets a bit out of step it will pitch a bit harshly. Ridig
as a passenger this sort of thing is often felt in the back and mistaken
for hand flying.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

"Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote in news:f7rFk.410$yI6.46
@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:

> "FriarTuck" > wrote in message
> ...
>> some questions if anyone knows the answers...
>
> A better question is...
>
> Why should anyone answer the questions of a troll who asks the same
> questions using different sock puppets?
>
>

Step into my parlour.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

FriarTuck > wrote in news:4trFk.4623$8T1.1260
@newsfe28.ams2:

> On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:46:19 +0000, Mike wrote:
>
>> "FriarTuck" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> some questions if anyone knows the answers...
>>
>> A better question is...
>>
>> Why should anyone answer the questions of a troll who asks the same
>> questions using different sock puppets?
>
> has it been asked and answered before? do you have a thread reference?
> what newsgroup? around what date?
>

Look in the conspirawhacko groups, especially right after 9-11..

alt.conspiracy in particular, but also all of the aviation groups.
There's volumes on whether a 757 could be flown remotely and volumes of
explanations on why it couldn't be.





Bertie

[[email protected]]

On 3 Okt, 17:46, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
> "FriarTuck" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > some questions if anyone knows the answers...
>
> A better question is...
>
> Why should anyone answer the questions of a troll who asks the same
> questions using different sock puppets?

Ahem... by no means the same question, and I can assure you I'm not
one of Ducky's sockpuppets. He looked up a wiki article on the 757
FMCS and decided it meant that the 757 was FBW.

[[email protected]]

On 3 Okt, 18:09, FriarTuck > wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:46:19 +0000, Mike wrote:
> > "FriarTuck" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> some questions if anyone knows the answers...
>
> > A better question is...
>
> > Why should anyone answer the questions of a troll who asks the same
> > questions using different sock puppets?
>
> has it been asked and answered before?

The question as to whether the 757 is FBW or not certainly has been...
Why don't you ask them what diameter the turn Hanjour made was? Or try
and explain to them how it would have been impossible for him to have
flown it, even though you don't knwo what the diameter of the turn
was? Or how, if he had flown it, you feel he would have probably
entered a "graveyard turn" despite it being mid-morning on a CAVU
day?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

wrote in news:dd1b41a5-1df4-49ca-9895-e7325985c9e3
@e2g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

> On 3 Okt, 18:09, FriarTuck > wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:46:19 +0000, Mike wrote:
>> > "FriarTuck" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> some questions if anyone knows the answers...
>>
>> > A better question is...
>>
>> > Why should anyone answer the questions of a troll who asks the same
>> > questions using different sock puppets?
>>
>> has it been asked and answered before?
>
> The question as to whether the 757 is FBW or not certainly has been...
> Why don't you ask them what diameter the turn Hanjour made was? Or try
> and explain to them how it would have been impossible for him to have
> flown it, even though you don't knwo what the diameter of the turn
> was? Or how, if he had flown it, you feel he would have probably
> entered a "graveyard turn" despite it being mid-morning on a CAVU
> day?
>


K00k alert!

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

wrote in news:71a42f98-fbdf-4249-ba94-33ac4f4ecfe9@
64g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:

> On 3 Okt, 17:46, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
>> "FriarTuck" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > some questions if anyone knows the answers...
>>
>> A better question is...
>>
>> Why should anyone answer the questions of a troll who asks the same
>> questions using different sock puppets?
>
> Ahem... by no means the same question, and I can assure you I'm not
> one of Ducky's sockpuppets. He looked up a wiki article on the 757
> FMCS and decided it meant that the 757 was FBW.
>

And you looked up a wiki article on "graveyard turns" and stuck your head
up your ass for all time.


Bertie

[Mike]

> wrote in message
...
> On 3 Okt, 17:46, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
>> "FriarTuck" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > some questions if anyone knows the answers...
>>
>> A better question is...
>>
>> Why should anyone answer the questions of a troll who asks the same
>> questions using different sock puppets?
>
> Ahem... by no means the same question, and I can assure you I'm not
> one of Ducky's sockpuppets. He looked up a wiki article on the 757
> FMCS and decided it meant that the 757 was FBW.

Both of you asked the same question no less than 2 hours apart. Are you a
liar or just to dumb to read his post?

Either you're a sockpuppet or you're his designated ****** for the day. I'm
not sure which is worse really.

[[email protected]]

On 3 Okt, 18:32, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in news:71a42f98-fbdf-4249-ba94-33ac4f4ecfe9@
> 64g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On 3 Okt, 17:46, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
> >> "FriarTuck" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> > some questions if anyone knows the answers...
>
> >> A better question is...
>
> >> Why should anyone answer the questions of a troll who asks the same
> >> questions using different sock puppets?
>
> > Ahem... by no means the same question, and I can assure you I'm not
> > one of Ducky's sockpuppets. He looked up a wiki article on the 757
> > FMCS and decided it meant that the 757 was FBW.
>
> And you looked up a wiki article on "graveyard turns" and stuck your head
> up your ass for all time.
>
> Bertie

Quite possibly. But it still strikes me as unlikely that one coudl get
into a situation whereby one was convinced one was in level flight
whilst in a turn if they could see the horizon..

[[email protected]]

On 3 Okt, 18:39, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On 3 Okt, 17:46, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
> >> "FriarTuck" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> > some questions if anyone knows the answers...
>
> >> A better question is...
>
> >> Why should anyone answer the questions of a troll who asks the same
> >> questions using different sock puppets?
>
> > Ahem... by no means the same question, and I can assure you I'm not
> > one of Ducky's sockpuppets. He looked up a wiki article on the 757
> > FMCS and decided it meant that the 757 was FBW.
>
> Both of you asked the same question no less than 2 hours apart.

I was first! Nyah!

>*Are you a liar or just to dumb to read his post?

See above...

>
> Either you're a sockpuppet or you're his designated ****** for the day. *I'm
> not sure which is worse really.

I'm MY designated ****** for today, thank you veh much.

[[email protected]]

On 3 Okt, 18:13, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> FriarTuck > wrote :
>
> > some questions if anyone knows the answers...
>
> > is 757 fly by wire or fly by cable?
>
> Neither
>
>
>
> > The FMCS has full flight and landing capability, is it a separate
> > control system?
>
> It can autland but it's seperate from the flight controls. You can
> disengage it anytime you like.
> It fails passive, which means you can manually oer-ride any time you
> want.
>
>
>
> > The FANS network, is it capable of directing "goto location/altitude"
> > and "set airspeed to K" type commands to the plane?
>
> Doesn't have one
>
>
>
> > Is the yoke and throttle a completely separate control system from the
> > FMCS control system or are they common?
>
> seperate
>
>
>
> > is the throttle control in cockpit only routed through FMCS ?
>
> No
>
>
>
> > I read that the yoke was capable of exerting more power on the
> > surfaces than the FMCS could, essentially giving yoke priority, is
> > that correct? *If so can you describe how that works?
>
> The stick will give more authority because the autopiot flies the
> airplane in a more limited way than a pilot would. When it intercepts an
> altitude, it does so smoothly with a limited G. A pilot can manuever the
> airplane as abruptly as he likes, but of course, most do so just as
> smoothly as the autopilot does.
> Sometimes the autopilot isn't quite so smooth. If it gets "surprised" by
> a track interception, for instance, it will be a bit jerky in roll, or
> if it gets surprised by a pitch intercept it wasn't expecting and the
> autothrottle gets a bit out of step it will pitch a bit harshly. Ridig
> as a passenger this sort of thing is often felt in the back and mistaken
> for hand flying.
>
> Bertie

Thankyou. Very informative.

At the risk of filling your forum with kookery - Speaking as someone
who seems to have experienced these things, do you think that, once
getting in the general area using the autopilot, Hani Hanjour (or even
Friar Tuck or myself - a low hours, head-up-arse PPL) could have
performed a 360 degree turn, pointed it at the Pentagon, and smacked
into it?

[[email protected]]

On 3 Okt, 18:31, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in news:dd1b41a5-1df4-49ca-9895-e7325985c9e3
> @e2g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On 3 Okt, 18:09, FriarTuck > wrote:
> >> On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:46:19 +0000, Mike wrote:
> >> > "FriarTuck" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> some questions if anyone knows the answers...
>
> >> > A better question is...
>
> >> > Why should anyone answer the questions of a troll who asks the same
> >> > questions using different sock puppets?
>
> >> has it been asked and answered before?
>
> > The question as to whether the 757 is FBW or not certainly has been...
> > Why don't you ask them what diameter the turn Hanjour made was? Or try
> > and explain to them how it would have been impossible for him to have
> > flown it, even though you don't knwo what the diameter of the turn
> > was? Or how, if he had flown it, you feel he would have probably
> > entered a "graveyard turn" despite it being mid-morning on a CAVU
> > day?
>
> K00k alert!
>
> Bertie

Absolutely...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

wrote in
:

> On 3 Okt, 18:32, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in
>> news:71a42f98-fbdf-4249-ba94-33ac4f4ecfe9@
>> 64g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 3 Okt, 17:46, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
>> >> "FriarTuck" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >> > some questions if anyone knows the answers...
>>
>> >> A better question is...
>>
>> >> Why should anyone answer the questions of a troll who asks the
>> >> same questions using different sock puppets?
>>
>> > Ahem... by no means the same question, and I can assure you I'm not
>> > one of Ducky's sockpuppets. He looked up a wiki article on the 757
>> > FMCS and decided it meant that the 757 was FBW.
>>
>> And you looked up a wiki article on "graveyard turns" and stuck your
>> head up your ass for all time.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Quite possibly. But it still strikes me as unlikely that one coudl get
> into a situation whereby one was convinced one was in level flight
> whilst in a turn if they could see the horizon..

Which demonstrates that you don't know what a graveyard turn is.

Here's a hint, there's no such thing.





Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

wrote in
:

> On 3 Okt, 18:13, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> FriarTuck > wrote
>>
> s2:
>>
>> > some questions if anyone knows the answers...
>>
>> > is 757 fly by wire or fly by cable?
>>
>> Neither
>>
>>
>>
>> > The FMCS has full flight and landing capability, is it a separate
>> > control system?
>>
>> It can autland but it's seperate from the flight controls. You can
>> disengage it anytime you like.
>> It fails passive, which means you can manually oer-ride any time you
>> want.
>>
>>
>>
>> > The FANS network, is it capable of directing "goto
>> > location/altitude" and "set airspeed to K" type commands to the
>> > plane?
>>
>> Doesn't have one
>>
>>
>>
>> > Is the yoke and throttle a completely separate control system from
>> > the FMCS control system or are they common?
>>
>> seperate
>>
>>
>>
>> > is the throttle control in cockpit only routed through FMCS ?
>>
>> No
>>
>>
>>
>> > I read that the yoke was capable of exerting more power on the
>> > surfaces than the FMCS could, essentially giving yoke priority, is
>> > that correct? *If so can you describe how that works?
>>
>> The stick will give more authority because the autopiot flies the
>> airplane in a more limited way than a pilot would. When it intercepts
>> an altitude, it does so smoothly with a limited G. A pilot can
>> manuever the airplane as abruptly as he likes, but of course, most do
>> so just as smoothly as the autopilot does.
>> Sometimes the autopilot isn't quite so smooth. If it gets "surprised"
>> by a track interception, for instance, it will be a bit jerky in
>> roll, or if it gets surprised by a pitch intercept it wasn't
>> expecting and the autothrottle gets a bit out of step it will pitch a
>> bit harshly. Ridig as a passenger this sort of thing is often felt in
>> the back and mistaken for hand flying.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Thankyou. Very informative.
>
> At the risk of filling your forum with kookery - Speaking as someone
> who seems to have experienced these things, do you think that, once
> getting in the general area using the autopilot, Hani Hanjour (or even
> Friar Tuck or myself - a low hours, head-up-arse PPL) could have
> performed a 360 degree turn, pointed it at the Pentagon, and smacked
> into it?
>
>

Yep


Bertie

[Mike]

> wrote in message
...
> On 3 Okt, 18:39, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > On 3 Okt, 17:46, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
> > >> "FriarTuck" > wrote in message
> >
> > ...
> >
> > >> > some questions if anyone knows the answers...
> >
> > >> A better question is...
> >
> > >> Why should anyone answer the questions of a troll who asks the same
> > >> questions using different sock puppets?
> >
> > > Ahem... by no means the same question, and I can assure you I'm not
> > > one of Ducky's sockpuppets. He looked up a wiki article on the 757
> > > FMCS and decided it meant that the 757 was FBW.
> >
> > Both of you asked the same question no less than 2 hours apart.
>
> I was first! Nyah!

That just makes you the wankee.

[[email protected]]

On 3 Okt, 20:54, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On 3 Okt, 18:39, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
> > > > wrote in message
>
> > ...
>
> > > > On 3 Okt, 17:46, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
> > > >> "FriarTuck" > wrote in message
>
> > > ...
>
> > > >> > some questions if anyone knows the answers...
>
> > > >> A better question is...
>
> > > >> Why should anyone answer the questions of a troll who asks the same
> > > >> questions using different sock puppets?
>
> > > > Ahem... by no means the same question, and I can assure you I'm not
> > > > one of Ducky's sockpuppets. He looked up a wiki article on the 757
> > > > FMCS and decided it meant that the 757 was FBW.
>
> > > Both of you asked the same question no less than 2 hours apart.
>
> > I was first! Nyah!
>
> That just makes you the wankee.

Well, that's to be preferred, surely?

[Mike]

> wrote in message
...
> On 3 Okt, 20:54, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 3 Okt, 18:39, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
>> > > > wrote in message
>>
>> > ...
>>
>> > > > On 3 Okt, 17:46, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
>> > > >> "FriarTuck" > wrote in message
>>
>> > > ...
>>
>> > > >> > some questions if anyone knows the answers...
>>
>> > > >> A better question is...
>>
>> > > >> Why should anyone answer the questions of a troll who asks the
>> > > >> same
>> > > >> questions using different sock puppets?
>>
>> > > > Ahem... by no means the same question, and I can assure you I'm not
>> > > > one of Ducky's sockpuppets. He looked up a wiki article on the 757
>> > > > FMCS and decided it meant that the 757 was FBW.
>>
>> > > Both of you asked the same question no less than 2 hours apart.
>>
>> > I was first! Nyah!
>>
>> That just makes you the wankee.
>
> Well, that's to be preferred, surely?

The pitcher and catcher are on the same team, no?

[[email protected]]

On 3 Okt, 21:19, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On 3 Okt, 20:54, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> > On 3 Okt, 18:39, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
> >> > > > wrote in message
>
> >> > ...
>
> >> > > > On 3 Okt, 17:46, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
> >> > > >> "FriarTuck" > wrote in message
>
> >> > > ...
>
> >> > > >> > some questions if anyone knows the answers...
>
> >> > > >> A better question is...
>
> >> > > >> Why should anyone answer the questions of a troll who asks the
> >> > > >> same
> >> > > >> questions using different sock puppets?
>
> >> > > > Ahem... by no means the same question, and I can assure you I'm not
> >> > > > one of Ducky's sockpuppets. He looked up a wiki article on the 757
> >> > > > FMCS and decided it meant that the 757 was FBW.
>
> >> > > Both of you asked the same question no less than 2 hours apart.
>
> >> > I was first! Nyah!
>
> >> That just makes you the wankee.
>
> > Well, that's to be preferred, surely?
>
> The pitcher and catcher are on the same team, no?

Good Lord, no.

[george]

On Oct 4, 4:20*am, wrote:

> The question as to whether the 757 is FBW or not certainly has been...
> Why don't you ask them what diameter the turn Hanjour made was? Or try
> and explain to them how it would have been impossible for him to have
> flown it, even though you don't knwo what the diameter of the turn
> was? Or how, if he had flown it, you feel he would have probably
> entered a "graveyard turn" despite it being mid-morning on a CAVU
> day?

If you ignore the kook typeover messages this video was taken off a
kook site and shows a graphic of the socalled 'impossible' turn.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzR-q0ijbV0
At no time does the turn exceed a slow descending rate 2 turn and is
generally a rate1 throughout !

[Mike]

> wrote in message
...
> On 3 Okt, 21:19, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 3 Okt, 20:54, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
>> >> > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >> > On 3 Okt, 18:39, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
>> >> > > > wrote in message
>>
>> >> > ...
>>
>> >> > > > On 3 Okt, 17:46, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
>> >> > > >> "FriarTuck" > wrote in message
>>
>> >> > > ...
>>
>> >> > > >> > some questions if anyone knows the answers...
>>
>> >> > > >> A better question is...
>>
>> >> > > >> Why should anyone answer the questions of a troll who asks the
>> >> > > >> same
>> >> > > >> questions using different sock puppets?
>>
>> >> > > > Ahem... by no means the same question, and I can assure you I'm
>> >> > > > not
>> >> > > > one of Ducky's sockpuppets. He looked up a wiki article on the
>> >> > > > 757
>> >> > > > FMCS and decided it meant that the 757 was FBW.
>>
>> >> > > Both of you asked the same question no less than 2 hours apart.
>>
>> >> > I was first! Nyah!
>>
>> >> That just makes you the wankee.
>>
>> > Well, that's to be preferred, surely?
>>
>> The pitcher and catcher are on the same team, no?
>
> Good Lord, no.

I'm starting to see why you're the wankee.

[[email protected]]

On 3 Okt, 21:38, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On 3 Okt, 21:19, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> > On 3 Okt, 20:54, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
> >> >> > wrote in message
>
> >> ...
>
> >> >> > On 3 Okt, 18:39, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
> >> >> > > > wrote in message
>
> >> >> > ...
>
> >> >> > > > On 3 Okt, 17:46, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
> >> >> > > >> "FriarTuck" > wrote in message
>
> >> >> > > ...
>
> >> >> > > >> > some questions if anyone knows the answers...
>
> >> >> > > >> A better question is...
>
> >> >> > > >> Why should anyone answer the questions of a troll who asks the
> >> >> > > >> same
> >> >> > > >> questions using different sock puppets?
>
> >> >> > > > Ahem... by no means the same question, and I can assure you I'm
> >> >> > > > not
> >> >> > > > one of Ducky's sockpuppets. He looked up a wiki article on the
> >> >> > > > 757
> >> >> > > > FMCS and decided it meant that the 757 was FBW.
>
> >> >> > > Both of you asked the same question no less than 2 hours apart.
>
> >> >> > I was first! Nyah!
>
> >> >> That just makes you the wankee.
>
> >> > Well, that's to be preferred, surely?
>
> >> The pitcher and catcher are on the same team, no?
>
> > Good Lord, no.
>
> I'm starting to see why you're the wankee.

Cool! Jealous?

[Mike]

> wrote in message
...
> On 3 Okt, 21:38, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 3 Okt, 21:19, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
>> >> > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >> > On 3 Okt, 20:54, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > wrote in message
>>
>> >> ...
>>
>> >> >> > On 3 Okt, 18:39, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > > > wrote in message
>>
>> >> >> > ...
>>
>> >> >> > > > On 3 Okt, 17:46, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > > >> "FriarTuck" > wrote in message
>>
>> >> >> > > ...
>>
>> >> >> > > >> > some questions if anyone knows the answers...
>>
>> >> >> > > >> A better question is...
>>
>> >> >> > > >> Why should anyone answer the questions of a troll who asks
>> >> >> > > >> the
>> >> >> > > >> same
>> >> >> > > >> questions using different sock puppets?
>>
>> >> >> > > > Ahem... by no means the same question, and I can assure you
>> >> >> > > > I'm
>> >> >> > > > not
>> >> >> > > > one of Ducky's sockpuppets. He looked up a wiki article on
>> >> >> > > > the
>> >> >> > > > 757
>> >> >> > > > FMCS and decided it meant that the 757 was FBW.
>>
>> >> >> > > Both of you asked the same question no less than 2 hours apart.
>>
>> >> >> > I was first! Nyah!
>>
>> >> >> That just makes you the wankee.
>>
>> >> > Well, that's to be preferred, surely?
>>
>> >> The pitcher and catcher are on the same team, no?
>>
>> > Good Lord, no.
>>
>> I'm starting to see why you're the wankee.
>
> Cool! Jealous?

No, just amused.

[FriarTuck]

On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:13:16 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> FriarTuck > wrote in
> :
>
>> some questions if anyone knows the answers...
>>
>> is 757 fly by wire or fly by cable?
>
>
> Neither
>

you contradict yourself again and say its fly by wire to parris_k... why
is that?

>
>> The FMCS has full flight and landing capability, is it a separate
>> control system?
>
> It can autland but it's seperate from the flight controls. You can
> disengage it anytime you like.
> It fails passive, which means you can manually oer-ride any time you
> want.
>
>
>> The FANS network, is it capable of directing "goto location/altitude"
>> and "set airspeed to K" type commands to the plane?
>
>
> Doesn't have one
>
>
>> Is the yoke and throttle a completely separate control system from the
>> FMCS control system or are they common?
>
>
> seperate
>>

but you contradict yourself in another reply and say its shared, you say
the fmcs uses the same controls as yoke...

>> is the throttle control in cockpit only routed through FMCS ?
>
> No
>
>
>> I read that the yoke was capable of exerting more power on the surfaces
>> than the FMCS could, essentially giving yoke priority, is that correct?
>> If so can you describe how that works?
>>
>>
> The stick will give more authority because the autopiot flies the
> airplane in a more limited way than a pilot would. When it intercepts an
> altitude, it does so smoothly with a limited G. A pilot can manuever the
> airplane as abruptly as he likes, but of course, most do so just as
> smoothly as the autopilot does.

so if autopilot/fmcs could not be switched off then the pilot has no way
of over-riding the controls?

> Sometimes the autopilot isn't quite so smooth. If it gets "surprised" by
> a track interception, for instance, it will be a bit jerky in roll, or
> if it gets surprised by a pitch intercept it wasn't expecting and the
> autothrottle gets a bit out of step it will pitch a bit harshly. Ridig
> as a passenger this sort of thing is often felt in the back and mistaken
> for hand flying.
>
>
> Bertie

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"FriarTuck" > wrote in message
...
> some questions if anyone knows the answers...
>
> is 757 fly by wire or fly by cable?
>


Your best bet is to talk directly to one of our experts on using flight
computers and autopilots:
>

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

FriarTuck > wrote in :

> On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:13:16 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> FriarTuck > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> some questions if anyone knows the answers...
>>>
>>> is 757 fly by wire or fly by cable?
>>
>>
>> Neither
>>
>
> you contradict yourself again and say its fly by wire to parris_k... why
> is that?

Apparently it's because

A, you can't read

B. you're a conspirawhacko

C. all of the above.



Take your pick.


Bertie===>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com> wrote in
:

> "FriarTuck" > wrote in message
> ...
>> some questions if anyone knows the answers...
>>
>> is 757 fly by wire or fly by cable?
>>
>
>
> Your best bet is to talk directly to one of our experts on using flight
> computers and autopilots:
> >
>

That's just mean.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On 4 Okt, 01:52, FriarTuck > wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:13:16 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> > FriarTuck > wrote in
> :
>
> >> some questions if anyone knows the answers...
>
> >> is 757 fly by wire or fly by cable?
>
> > Neither
>
> you contradict yourself again and say its fly by wire to parris_k...

No, he didn't. He said, over and over again, that it WASN'T fly by
wire. You're simply too stupid to understand what you are being told.
You ****ing braindead kook-sucker

[Qanset]

Mike wrote:
> "FriarTuck" > wrote in message
> ...
>> some questions if anyone knows the answers...
>
> A better question is...
>
> Why should anyone answer the questions of a troll who asks the same
> questions using different sock puppets?

Why cant you answer the question in a more civilised manner, than being
a smartarse???

[Mike]

"Qanset" > wrote in message
...
> Mike wrote:
>> "FriarTuck" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> some questions if anyone knows the answers...
>>
>> A better question is...
>>
>> Why should anyone answer the questions of a troll who asks the same
>> questions using different sock puppets?
>
> Why cant you answer the question in a more civilised manner, than being a
> smartarse???

Probably because I have no interest in engaging in a discussion with a
tin-foil hat kook who knows as much about aviation as a pig knows about
Sunday.

But I'm sure we could all learn a thing or two from you about civilized
retorts, eh?

http://groups.google.com/group/aus.aviation/browse_thread/thread/3f851794a6c91da1/eac16872a0ae13e6#eac16872a0ae13e6

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Qanset" > wrote

> Why cant you answer the question in a more civilised manner, than being a
> smartarse???

I thought that was more civilized answer that the questioning party
deserved. Of course, no answer would have been even more civilized, and was
exactly what was deserved.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Qanset" > wrote
>
>> Why cant you answer the question in a more civilised manner, than
>> being a smartarse???
>
> I thought that was more civilized answer that the questioning party
> deserved. Of course, no answer would have been even more civilized,
> and was exactly what was deserved.

And of course, you couldn't answer it anyway, so your reply is just jerking
off in public, ain't it?


Bertie