Six months Airbus 320/319 (500 hrs), 5000 hrs 737 300/700, 3500 hrs 146-200 (round dials), 2000 hrs Westwind (Business jet)
But why does Airbus "auto-trim"? As a pilot I **WANT** to trim out the forces myself - so that I am in concert with what I want the airplane to do. When I put my 757 in a bank, I trim slightly nose up and it's exactly how I've flown for 20+ years.
I don't **WANT** autotrim, as it removes me from control that much more. I want to know where my trim is at all times. Is there any way to disconnect the autotrim and keep 100% "hands on" operation?
There is a confusion that the airbus control system is designed as under a philosophy for pilots - which is rubbish, of course. The airbus side stick models were designed to be
cheaper -
cheaper to build,
cheaper to operate (less weight in the control system), and everything else flows from that as a matter of course. The side stick thus doesn't have reverse engineered motion or artificial feel (because it would cost money to include that).
That means that it feels the same to pull back the stick at 150 knots as it does at 450 knots - it follows then that you cannot allow a direct stick-to-elevator relationship as the aircraft would be too easy to overstress. Thus stick position relates to G (because it's
cheaper). Same for the aileron control.
As the stick relates to G, you then need auto-trim - so that was included.
With no stick movement, there's no stick push - hence the Airbus low speed protection. With no speed trim you need the Airbus high speed bias etc etc.
With so little feedback, you have to
force concentration onto the FMA's so you call EVERY change. You talk your self to death on an Airbus - I have said "check" more in the last six months that the previous 10 years.
As the power levers use the top third of the range of motion for the TOGA, Flex/MCT and Climb stops, and the bottom third for the reverse thrust area, there is only the middle third for manual thrust control - which makes manual thrust very sensitive - so few people use it.
The point is - everything "Airbus" flowed from a manufacturing philosophy, not from a "better handling" or "safer" philosophy. The airbus is rubbish to fly by hand - but Airbus never cared that that would be the case, they only cared that it was good enough for it to be certified.
Everything else is marketing. The marketers sold the (rubbish, and dangerous) idea "you can't stall an airbus".
In terms of operating it:
- The seats are about the same as the Boeing IMO.
- The space is nicer (larger and cleaner).
- The table is OK - I never noticed the lack in the Boeing, but I DO notice the lack of chart space in the Airbus (as the table needs to be stowed for landing).
- I HATE the cold feet problem on longer flights in the Airbus.
- I seriously dislike having to call engineering on the phone around once every 20 sectors or so (once a working week!) to organise a computer or system reset.
- the Boeing FMC was faster and easier to use and better in calculating performance.
- the map display in the Boeing was better (you can show airports AND constraints at the same time!), not that that is anything to write home about compared to current cockpit displays.
- as the Airbus is rubbish to hand-fly, as stated above - you'd rather be in a 737 rather than an A319/20 on a gusty high crosswind day.
- I am honestly surprised that the manuals in the Airbus were certified, they are THAT bad.
- Engine failures in the sim in the Airbus are much easier, as the autopilot is available for almost the entire exercise.
- Cat IIIb is better than Cat IIIa (I know it's an option on the 737).
I don't care enough to change my job over it, though.