bubbers,
Originally Posted by bubbers44
I have landed the B757 in TGU, Honduras on a 5400 ft runway at 3300 ft msl and had a reverser fail so just used single reverse with no problem because I had full control of speed brakes, braking and it was a non event.
And why would you imply that this would have been any problem with an Airbus? An inoperative thrust reverser does not inhibit ground spoilers or wheel brakes on an airbus. In fact, nothing inhibits manual wheel brakes. except physics (gear up, or loss of all hydraulics systems including the hydraulic accumulator).
I believe that you are a skilled pilot on the machines that you fly (I have no reason to believe otherwise), and I also believe you would be as good a pilot on an Airbus, even if you don't. I would embark on an airbus flown by you, provided you had the proper type-rating.
I didn't worry one second if any of this was available to me because it always is. Even if I left a throttle up a bit it would be obvious and corrected immediately. I don't have to fly the Airbus to know this isn't always true in that AC.
I really can't see what would be the problem here with an airbus.
Why would a throttle being left "up a bit" be more obvious in a Boeing than in an Airbus? And why would it only be corrected immediately in a Boeing, and not in an Airbus?
Further: Leaving the throttle up "a bit" is no problem in the A320, if below 10ft RA, the A320 logic interprets lever angles below 15 degrees as "near idle", even though 15 is more than halfway to CLIMB (which, iirc, is at 25 degrees), which in my book is a lot more than "up a bit".
I have read over 1000 reports of pilots not in agreement how Airbus logic works. My neighbor flies the A320 and tells me his stories about confusion in the cockpit with his captains.
Why do you imply that mode confusion is Airbus-specific? Almost all of these modes are autopilot modes, which must be very similar between Boeing and Airbus aircraft in modern glass-cockpit airliners.
Are you saying there are no reports of mode confusion in Boeing aircraft, or that you simply choose to notice only the ones about Airbus aircraft, because they support your choice of preferred aircraft?
I think the new technology is making the pilot the observer of the automation and a monitor otherwise how could it take them 11 seconds to use manual brakes?
As has been observed, this is
the other $50,000 question, but there is nothing to imply that it has anything to do with the aircraft type. On Boeing and Airbus aircraft alike, if there is no automatic braking, you brake manually. End of story.
The suggestion that a fly-by-wire Airbus aircraft was inherently less safe than a Boeing conventionally controlled (or even a Boeing fly-by-wire) aircraft would have to be substantiated by accident statistics. Which it isn't.
The suggestion that Boeing is more pilot-friendly than Airbus is, of course, a matter of personal preference, but would have to be substantiated by significant airtime in both types, and not by flying one and listening to anecdotes about the other.
I havn't flown either, and I will not make any jugdment whatsoever about which type is better to fly, but to see which one (if any) is safer, one only need to look at the statistics. If either had a significant advantage here, the other would be out of business quickly. And rightly so.
Bernd