Aviation: get it right.
* In reference to the April 2011 article, "Army Slow To Adapt Fly-by-Wire," the story was 90 percent facts and 45 percent truth. I will not waste time refuting all of the false assumptions and conclusions, but here are some of the more significant discrepancies:
* The Army is not slow to adapt to fly by wire. Fly by wire was part of the development of the AH-64A Apache over 30 years ago.
* Don't compare fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft control systems and their requirements. The threat, mission profile, and air speeds are completely different. Helicopters fly low level at low air speeds and are exposed to a greater range of threats and hazards to include small arms fire. Redundancy in all helicopter subsystems are essential for aircraft and aircrew survivability, which all modernized helicopters have. Besides, instead of ejecting from a catastrophic failure or from battle damage, the crew stays with aircraft to the ground.
* All Army helicopters have some form of computerized flight control stabilization system. The loss of true mechanical feedback was lost with the transitioned from legacy helicopters to the current inventory.
While I do support the fly by wire on the UH-60 as a part of the primary or back up redundancy system, this article proposes the wrong argument for the implementation of fly by wire for the Sikorsky UH-60.
Sam Hamontree Sent by email
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||Readers' Forum|
|Date:||Jul 1, 2011|
|Previous Article:||In today's fiscal debate, doubt about the future is the elephant in the room.|
|Next Article:||Innovation dilemmas.|