Difference between Airbus and Boeing controls
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Difference between Airbus and Boeing controls
Hey guys
Just wondering how long does it take to transfer from Boeing controls to the Airbus' sidestick?
And is it hard to get used to?
Thanks
Just wondering how long does it take to transfer from Boeing controls to the Airbus' sidestick?
And is it hard to get used to?
Thanks
Slightly offtopic...
Haven't flown Boeing, but I've moved to 320 after a couple of years flying ATR. It took me about...30 mins of (simulated) manual flight to adapt to sidestick. It's not difficult but as the stick has quite small throw, compared to yoke, it's very important to find proper seating and armrest positions.
Flying the A320 in direct law (autotrim and protections are lost and there's direct relation between sidestick and control deflection) was as easy as hand-flying the ATR, if not a bit easier. The most difficult part for me was remembering that FBW always tries to maintain 1G flight path (and from my limited experience, does it quite well) and there's no need to stir the stick when changing speed or config. Also not pulling the stick when banking into turn seemed unnatural to me at first, but I got used to it pretty fast.
Now, let's hear it from ex-Boeing boys.
Flying the A320 in direct law (autotrim and protections are lost and there's direct relation between sidestick and control deflection) was as easy as hand-flying the ATR, if not a bit easier. The most difficult part for me was remembering that FBW always tries to maintain 1G flight path (and from my limited experience, does it quite well) and there's no need to stir the stick when changing speed or config. Also not pulling the stick when banking into turn seemed unnatural to me at first, but I got used to it pretty fast.
Now, let's hear it from ex-Boeing boys.
Just converted from B767 to A330. Only takes a few mins to get a feel for the sidestick. Most annoying aspect is the relatively low roll rates available - makes the thing feel quite "wallowey" on final when trying to make small corrections.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Midlands,UK
Age: 58
Posts: 439
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Veruka points out the side stick is not an issue as far as the conversion goes, even for the natural right hander in the left seat. This had been a concern prior to the simulator and I was quite surprised that it was totaly natural and instinctive.
My personal headache was the FMS. Having flown the 737-300/700 for five years, what I used to do in the Boeing on the FMS does not allways follow through for the Airbus FMS. One big thing I miss was the ability to line select to the scratch pad, amend and reinsert. At times I felt that Airbus deliberetly chose to do somthing in the opposite fashion to Boeing just to different. However once you can find your way around this box of tricks, the day to day operation in a multi sector environment is a joy. The cockpit setup is quicker than the Boeing, there is more room to work in and it is much quiter. I do miss the Boeing when a strong cross wind is around though and the ability to feel what inputs a low houred F/O has enterd rather than see an attitude change afterwards. This can be a little interesting at 30 feet !!
My personal headache was the FMS. Having flown the 737-300/700 for five years, what I used to do in the Boeing on the FMS does not allways follow through for the Airbus FMS. One big thing I miss was the ability to line select to the scratch pad, amend and reinsert. At times I felt that Airbus deliberetly chose to do somthing in the opposite fashion to Boeing just to different. However once you can find your way around this box of tricks, the day to day operation in a multi sector environment is a joy. The cockpit setup is quicker than the Boeing, there is more room to work in and it is much quiter. I do miss the Boeing when a strong cross wind is around though and the ability to feel what inputs a low houred F/O has enterd rather than see an attitude change afterwards. This can be a little interesting at 30 feet !!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do miss the Boeing when a strong cross wind is around ...
and the ability to feel what inputs a low houred F/O has enterd rather than see an attitude change afterwards. This can be a little interesting at 30 feet !!
and the ability to feel what inputs a low houred F/O has enterd rather than see an attitude change afterwards. This can be a little interesting at 30 feet !!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two VERY astute and VERY accurate and VERY important observations! These very issues have bothered me for quite a while. Unfortunately, I don't know what to do to alleviate or directly reduce the amount of concern for either!
And I see 2 options:
1- You take control earlier than later in the approach in a kind of preemptive attitude cos you know your own capability, and on that flight you're not either an instructor or a check pilot.
2- You play the game and let your partner go knowing you may well not have the time or the proper information to try to successfully correct an hazardous situation, just because Airbus choose not to fully keep you in the loop.
But fortunately, the most of the time it's a non event, you move a bit on your seat, hope for the best, wait ... and one minute later you're taxiing to your stand.
Multicrew airplane with that kind of flight controls ...
not sure it was the smartest move ...
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the other hand, the Airbus design means that it's harder to inadvertantly bump the control column and disengage the automation (like the Everglades TriStar), you have more space to perform non-handling tasks in and the instrument panel will not be obscured in certain positions.
CONFiture, we know your opinions but the fact remains that you are as 'in the loop' as you want to be in both Airbus and Boeing cockpits. Even Boeing's latest production cockpit design in the 777 has computer-controlled force feedback telling you what the other guy is doing rather than a mechanical linkage, so your distrust of computers should be just as piqued there.
CONFiture, we know your opinions but the fact remains that you are as 'in the loop' as you want to be in both Airbus and Boeing cockpits. Even Boeing's latest production cockpit design in the 777 has computer-controlled force feedback telling you what the other guy is doing rather than a mechanical linkage, so your distrust of computers should be just as piqued there.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Front right seat
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having a control that gives the other pilot feedback didn't help the crew in the recent accident in Indonesia. The landing was so hard there the nose wheel broke off.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DW
CONFiture, we know your opinions but the fact remains that you are as 'in the loop' as you want to be in both Airbus and Boeing cockpits ... so your distrust of computers should be just as piqued there
Even Boeing's latest production cockpit design in the 777 has computer-controlled force feedback telling you what the other guy is doing
... to help the monitoring pilot to monitor ... and what is it if it's not keeping someone in the loop ?
On the other hand, the Airbus design means that it's harder to inadvertantly bump the control column and disengage the automation
- A foot on the footrest and inadvertantly displace the sidestick with your knee
- Or a fully loaded (and up to date) FCOM which slips from tray table.
But much more interesting, as mentioned by "flap 15", is at 30 feet and below on your way down ... and I would add on your way up as well.
Some input, not from the sidestick or yoke, but from experience.
In most cases control column movements do not tell you what the “other guy” is doing, only what he has already done (debateable I will concede). Monitoring of aircraft performance either from instruments or visual cues, or a combination of both, tells a pilot what is happening to the flight path, and therefore what the other pilot is doing.
After many thousands of hours as a training pilot on Boeing the concept of the Airbus “passive sidestick – no feedback” was disconcerting. However, as I grew familiar with the big bus I found that it had some advantages. Firstly, some small adjustments to the flight path can be made with “summed” stick inputs (in an unobtrusive manner if no dual input advisory fitted) and this can give the student confidence until stick-input versus momentum becomes built into the muscle memory. This is no different to a “helping nudge (pull)”, or a blocking hand to prevent excessive aileron input on a conventional yoke but with the added advantage that the student is not conscious of you being all over the controls. Secondly, in the worst scenario where a take-over is required the priority button ensures an instant take over with no wrestling over the controls. It is difficult to imagine the student, after an instructor calls "Taking over" or "I have control", then applying his (the student's) priority button to regain control! A conventional control wrestling bout only ever occurred to me once on the Boeing and that was when a very large and powerful student was determined to increase pitch attitude after mainwheel touchdown. Despite a very positive “I HAVE CONTROL!!” and forceful forward control column input, “Muscles” did not want to let go. I will spare you further grisly details. In any case I have no beef with either system and wouldn’t knock back a seat in either aircraft. Maybe adaptability is the key.
Happy landings!
After many thousands of hours as a training pilot on Boeing the concept of the Airbus “passive sidestick – no feedback” was disconcerting. However, as I grew familiar with the big bus I found that it had some advantages. Firstly, some small adjustments to the flight path can be made with “summed” stick inputs (in an unobtrusive manner if no dual input advisory fitted) and this can give the student confidence until stick-input versus momentum becomes built into the muscle memory. This is no different to a “helping nudge (pull)”, or a blocking hand to prevent excessive aileron input on a conventional yoke but with the added advantage that the student is not conscious of you being all over the controls. Secondly, in the worst scenario where a take-over is required the priority button ensures an instant take over with no wrestling over the controls. It is difficult to imagine the student, after an instructor calls "Taking over" or "I have control", then applying his (the student's) priority button to regain control! A conventional control wrestling bout only ever occurred to me once on the Boeing and that was when a very large and powerful student was determined to increase pitch attitude after mainwheel touchdown. Despite a very positive “I HAVE CONTROL!!” and forceful forward control column input, “Muscles” did not want to let go. I will spare you further grisly details. In any case I have no beef with either system and wouldn’t knock back a seat in either aircraft. Maybe adaptability is the key.
Happy landings!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In most cases control column movements do not tell you what the “other guy” is doing, only what he has already done
and it is already a lot compared to his sidestick which tells you ... nothing !
Monitoring of aircraft performance either from instruments or visual cues, or a combination of both, tells a pilot what is happening to the flight path, and therefore what the other pilot is doing.
but I strongly disagree for the remaining percent, when weather conditions mix and mess up with your inputs
I do not share either your view on "summed" stick inputs.
If a guy has to intervene, even in the most discret way, RED BUTTON must be the only way to go.
Otherwise how would you rate your action versus his, and how would he rate his action versus yours in the resulting attitude change ?
I do not think Airbus would recommend such interference.
At least have not seen anything like this in the FTCM.
You make a good point with the "Taking over" situation.
Saying so, we do not expect fighting on a flight deck.
Nevertheless, your anecdote emphasizes the point I wanna bring:
If a guy does the same with a sidestick, you will not notice his action on that sidestick, but only the result of that action: Nose pitch up
So, already, you are a little behind in your assessment of the situation, and in your intervention.
I believe you could have been much closer to tailstrike with sidestick philosophy than with your control column.
CONF, you have made some interesting observations, none of with which I would strongly disagree.
I would say that in many hours of instruction on conventional types from piston taildraggers to heavy jets I have often physically “summed” my control inputs with my students, normally by a slight nudge on the control column or a gentle “assist” with rudder. Is this too different from the sidestick situation? In practice it has the same effect. Or is the philosophy that you espouse for FBW also mean a “Taking over” situation is always appropriate for conventional controls?
I would say that in many hours of instruction on conventional types from piston taildraggers to heavy jets I have often physically “summed” my control inputs with my students, normally by a slight nudge on the control column or a gentle “assist” with rudder. Is this too different from the sidestick situation? In practice it has the same effect. Or is the philosophy that you espouse for FBW also mean a “Taking over” situation is always appropriate for conventional controls?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CONF, another point I would make is that back sidestick does not always result in increased pitch attitude. Agree????
But if your partner pull on his control column and pitch attitude does not increase, at least you are aware he did pull.
With a sidestick you are not aware of anything ...
Maybe he pulled ?
Maybe he did not ?
So I'm not blaming FBW in this case
I'm blaming sidestick philosophy versus control columns
- which are coupled
- which are well in sight
These two characteristics are so rich in information for two pilots who share the same flightdeck.
Standard Operation Procedures request pilots to share information, any one.
- If you select Engine Anti Ice ON, you are supposed to let your partner know.
- If he switches TCAS selector from ABOVE to BELOW, he will let you know as well.
Why should it be any different with flight controls ?
In normal operation it's not a big deal
But when it's getting touchy, at low speed, and at very low altitude ...
when flight controls displacements are big
and reaction time to judge the situation at its minimum ... !?
Of course you will not loudly verbalize to the other crew member what your actions are on your sidestick ...
But that's where the MAGIC of coupled control columns is (FBW or not)
THEY TELL YOU THE REAL STORY IN LIVE ON THE OTHER GUY INTENTIONS
So you are in the game, not on the side !
Regarding the summed control inputs issue:
They make a lot of sense for coupled control columns
They have no meaning for sidesticks
... that's MY view
The Airbus flightdeck I know is VERY comfortable
too bad they did not install in the garderobe a couple of removable control columns we would plug back in place for takeoff and landing
... and even better if it was in direct law !
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Front right seat
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there any evidence to prove that the side stick option leads to more unsafe landings. I used to fly B727-200 and am now on the A319. Whilst on the Boeing I never noticed the PNF staring at the Control Column during landing. If anyone has any statistics to prove that stick feedback reduces unsafe landing incidences could they please share them with us.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Asia
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just moved from LHS B737-700NG to RHS A320/321, signed of last week.
I find the use of the stick fine, but I struggle with the finer movements on final approach, especially in the last 50' I find there is a lack of feel compared to what I am used to previously.
Leaving that aside, the lack of grunt in the A321 is dissapointing !!
Finally, the ECAM, FCOM, OEB's etc etc now I know why there is a table, its for all the books!
My preference is for the Boeing, but I guess thats because I spent the last 5 years on one.
Regards
I find the use of the stick fine, but I struggle with the finer movements on final approach, especially in the last 50' I find there is a lack of feel compared to what I am used to previously.
Leaving that aside, the lack of grunt in the A321 is dissapointing !!
Finally, the ECAM, FCOM, OEB's etc etc now I know why there is a table, its for all the books!
My preference is for the Boeing, but I guess thats because I spent the last 5 years on one.
Regards