PDA

View Full Version : Airbus vs Boeing


templarknight
15th Apr 2008, 15:51
What’s wrong with the B777?

Having recently converted from Airbus 330/340 to B777 I can now categorically state that the Boeing is in fact a piece of junk.

Here are the problems it has:

Control Column…where is the table? Fly by wire but artificial feel added to make you think you are flying a conventional aircraft…why? Old Americans? In fully reclined (normal) flying position yoke obscures the PFD/ND displays.

Too much air coming in and unable to turn it off. Especially that little triangular vent by your left knee which blows air in your eyes when you are trying to sleep with your head on the ridiculous control column.

Clumsy sun shades that need to be clipped on and then restowed; they should be pull-down items like the vastly superior airbus.

Ridiculous crank handle for opening window. Airbus opens with the one handle that Boeing already has.

Massive tiller; my arm is sore thinking about it. What do Boeing not understand about fly by wire.

Uncomfortable seat with centre harness strap that crushes your jewels. Does not recline enough.

Outrageous seat rails above the floor. Airbus are under floor like they should be. Wreaks havoc on your leather soled shoes and have already damaged one pair when electrically sliding it backwards.

Chair armrest obscures the CM1 RMP in the (normal) reclined position.

No flap limit speeds on the speed tape on PFD…what?????

MCP too far away from CM1. Major effort from (normal) reclined position to order any weather etc or check system displays.

Boeing procedure also sucks saying is an EICAS driven plane and no need to check system displays. This is purely poor airmanship whereas Airbus suggests a system check about every 30 minutes. This has saved my bacon a few times already and I will not follow Boeing recommendation.

By the way I don't like the Boeing and would go back to the Airbus if I could but that isn’t my decision.

Pugilistic Animus
15th Apr 2008, 16:11
Oh Lordy you're gonna get it:ouch:

Boeing is a nice plane
Airbus is a nice plane

alphabetized to exclude bias:}

Bolty McBolt
15th Apr 2008, 17:47
:ok:Take a concrete pill
Harden up.
You are not paid the bucks for nothing

captjns
15th Apr 2008, 20:22
Legend has it that Boeing is built for pilots, while Airbus is built for those that want to be pilots:E

But seriously folks... both good and bad attributes are inherent in both aircraft.

templarknight
16th Apr 2008, 00:16
Other things:
Trim...elevator and aileron trim! excuse me??? What part of fly by wire are we not grasping here? Also the behaviour of the rudder trim with engine out:ugh:

The fold out side table is too low and the emergency torch (on the floor!) is too close to the wall to allow a standard size flight bag to fit beside your seat.

galaxy flyer
16th Apr 2008, 01:31
Oh my, this will be a nasty thread :ugh: :ugh:

ksa5223
16th Apr 2008, 01:40
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa178/ksa5223/MichealJacksonPopcorn.gif

foxtrot india
16th Apr 2008, 04:34
I do pity those unfortunate enough to have to sit beside you, it’s going to be a looooong flight!

Tight Slot
16th Apr 2008, 06:19
Give me 30kts across and I'd take the Boeing every day. That said, the big bus is a nice place to work...

RnR
16th Apr 2008, 09:56
WooHoo

way to go,

Big Bus is FAr Superior!!!!!!

Real Men have a stick between their legs!!!!
they don't need the one from Boeing!!!!!:}

INCOMING!!!!!!!!! :E

OFF TO,
RnR

Maude Charlee
16th Apr 2008, 10:13
I'll just sit here smug and happy in my E-jet, and laugh at both of the big boys. ;)

Kerosine
16th Apr 2008, 12:37
Where are you supposed to put your in-tray, paperweights, stapler and a photo of a loved one on a boeing?? :}

fourgolds
16th Apr 2008, 13:45
Having also converted from Bus to 777 , here is my take.

All in all a very different experience. Kinda like soccer and rugby. Both ball games but quite different.

There are many differences but overall heres,s my impression ( some things may seen mundane but they are relevent when you are spending so much time on the flight deck.

What I dislike on the 777 predictably is no table or sidestick. Also the lighting to read charts etc is very poor compared to a bus.Also the seats believe it or not are very uncomfortable on the 777.( they say the guy who designed the seats on the 777,s wife was sleeping with a pilot)
For an aeroplane that was designed with the consultation of pilots I find this dissapointing.
I mean why should we have to struggle to read the charts sitting in discomfort !!! Also the audio speaker on the 777 is for some reason on the floor , so a little more difficult to hear , almost requiring full volume( for me ,compared to the bus) . Mr Bus put it more in line with where your ears are !!! The FMC is more instinctive on the bus although I am going to give Boeing a little latitude on this as I have been operating it for 4 months v 7 years on the bus. Allthough the use of multiple colours and a far more instinctive and faster thinking FMC does make me prefer the bus. Being able to string the alternate when doing diversion planning in the hold etc is a huge plus given modern fuel policies. Again I have to say I prefer the bus for its FMS.
Taxi with FBW on the bus is also like power steering versus a much heavier tiller on the 777. Again on that I prefer the bus.

OK so what do I like about the boeing then !
Well here is the crux. Where it counts , the abnormals ,Boeing is far superior, The Eicas and systems I feel are far simpler with more redundancy and a simpler overall pholosophy.
If it all goes pear shaped . I would prefer to handle the Boeing philosophy. With the only exception I find being engine failure on take off that is much busier on the 777 than the bus.
I also cannot see the need for having built in the need to trim the 777 just to comply with the requests of pilots. Truthfully the way most modern airlines automation policy , 90 % of the time crews hardly hand fly and trim anyway. So again while its more traditional to trim . I think Airbus got that right.

However on the bus the flight controlls demand roll rate ( a pain in a strong crosswind as you almost have to adjust then centre then adjust then centre) Its all a little messy. The 777 however the roll is aileron deflection ( bank) which is exactly what you want in strong winds.
I do prefer ( handling) the 777 , she is much more solid and stable in almost every regime.
I have found her lovely to land , however most airlines that operate both types seem to have many many more hard landings regularly on the 777 than on the Bus. I am trying to see why , but I do believe it has something to do with the Flare Law in the bus and probably related to motor skills on the sidestick being easier to replicate for regular flare ( inspite of what they say about looking out the window , assessing your sink rate etc which of course is primary.)

If Mr Boeing is listening please give us a more comfortable seat on the 787 , and much better lighting. Would,nt it be logical to have a light that actually shines on your approach charts !. Update your FMC , put in a faster processor. Keep the flight controll laws , but give us a sidestick and a table.

fourgolds
16th Apr 2008, 13:53
Stop press

Sorry in my previous post I meant.
I found the engine failure on take off easier on the bus than on the 777. Seemed to confuse that. ( probably something to do with 95 hours in the last 4 weeks) a little shattered.

Check Airman
16th Apr 2008, 14:16
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/2005/15/images/fig63.jpg

mnttech
16th Apr 2008, 22:56
Hummm, this post has been up for almost 24 hours and only 15 responses........ I would have thought 15 pages.

As a ex flight engineer off of the 707 and a sim tech who has flown both the 777 and the A320 in the same day, I would have to go with the Boeing as a better airplane. The 777 FMS seems more straight forward. And I like both the moving throttles and the flight control logic of the 777.

I will say that I have put non pilots in both, and most younger kids can fly the heck out the A320. Must be all that computer joy stick time.

BTW, I always had a table in the Boeing!

GlueBall
17th Apr 2008, 09:03
. . . and not to forget to mention the much more spacious B777 cabin. :ok:

Rananim
17th Apr 2008, 11:13
I also cannot see the need for having built in the need to trim the 777 just to comply with the requests of pilots. Truthfully the way most modern airlines automation policy , 90 % of the time crews hardly hand fly and trim anyway. So again while its more traditional to trim . I think Airbus got that right.


Can you handfly an Airbus?Didnt think so.
I think inadvertently you have highlighted the one underlying difference between the two.Boeing's design is pilot-oriented,Airbus imposes its design on the pilot.They "disconnect" the pilot from the plane with little or no sensory feedback and in return try and dazzle you with some gimmickry.You know pilots are just people,some stupid,some not so stupid.I read the thread started by Strong Resolve a while back and noted the staunch and stubborn opposition to almost everything he said in spite of the clarity and sanity of what he was actually saying.Humans have five(some say six) sensory channels;yet Airbus arrogantly ask the system-operator(for that is surely what you unwittingly become) to follow whats going on with one.Revolutionary?Yes.Modern?Yes.Clever?No.

Ndicho Moja
17th Apr 2008, 11:38
Give me a Bus any day. Boeing aircraft are like John Deere tractors. Sound, simple and reliable.......Nothing fancy. Good if you want to plough a field.
:eek:

Fil
17th Apr 2008, 12:18
I hope the 787 is the best Boeing can do rather than the best they can do whilst maintaining backwards compatibility with older aircraft.

I've flown both Bus and 777 and like both, but what frustrates me with the 777 is that it is a newer aircraft than the Airbus yet some aspects seem dumbed down so to be like older Boeings....Almost like putting a hand crank start on a new car because that's how they're always done it!! Even though they have the technology to go much further.

Rick777
18th Apr 2008, 06:58
I just checked out in the 777 after 10 years flying the A320. I have also flown all the Boeings from the 707 on. While the Boeings seem more solid I like flying the bus. The 787 is going to be a common type rating with the 777, but the cockpit looka a lot more star Wars like and seats look completely different. You can blame the yoke on the old pilots at UAL. they were the launch customer and had a lot to say about the design. A little irony here I have had a lot of FO's say they really like flying the bus, but if they had to go to war the would want a Boeing, and now the USAF has chosen the A330 as their new tanker.

Bus14
18th Apr 2008, 09:20
Airbus FBW family.....Custom designed originals

B757......very nice to fly, but, at the end of the day it's the b*ast*rd child of a drunken night out between a B727 and a B767

B767.....Custom designed original, very nice to fly, but seriously old fashioned compared to the bus

B777...slghtly warmed over B767 with some FBW bits to make it appear modern

B787....plastic B777

type rated on MD80, A320/321, B757, B767. Loved them all, but give me a choice and it's the Airbus every time. Despite what Rananim, thinks they're great for hand flying too.

Bus14

beachbumflyer
18th Apr 2008, 09:52
I would definitively fly a B-727 than any Airbus.
The airbus is booooring. :ok:

FullWings
18th Apr 2008, 10:58
Control column - agree; it's sad that we never got to see a proper force-feedback sidestick with cross-cockpit linking. Boeing had the chance to do it properly and out-Airbus Airbus but blew it.

Gale-force air conditioning - agree; I end up taping over most of the vents on a long flight otherwise I feel like I've been sandpapering my face. There's a major blast of air from the gaps between the overhead panels as well. :ugh:

Sun "shades" - agree; completely useless, too small and not dark enough. Luckily there are plenty of newspapers available. :p

Window handles - neutral; could live with either, don't open the window that much anyway.

Tiller - agree; the blasted things always seem to have some sort of bias one way or the other, so it won't a) go in a straight line without input leading to b) applying a steady force for the whole taxi, either on the tiller or the rudder pedals. This is mucho annoying on a long taxi out. :ugh:

Uncomfortable seat - agree in spades; I think the designer of the Iron Maiden was teamed up with a concrete technician to make these. I've slept on floors that were more comfortable. :mad:

Seat rails - agree; another design triumph.

Flap limit speeds - disagree; They seem to be present, or do my eyes deceive me...?

MCP distant - sort of agree; the EICAS/COM/synoptic panel is a bit of a stretch from the LHS but think of the poor occupant of the RHS who can barely see the N1/EPR gauges as they're so far away.

EICAS - disagree; seems to work OK. Why do you need to check things constantly, have you not heard of Sudoku? How do you know if something is good or bad if there are no published limits for it and the systems are self-configuring? You have to be careful not to manufacture a "problem" where none really exists.

Trim - agree; what's the point of trim on a FBW aeroplane? Do you ever want to be out of trim? Answers on a postcard...:rolleyes:

Overall there's plenty to complain about but I do get the feeling that I'm flying a very safe aircraft. I don't think the handling is enjoyable but it works and I can't think of anything better in a 40kt crosswind. It has thrust asymmetry and envelope protection but they don't get in your way during normal operations and can be overridden if you don't like what they're up to. A few mods to increase the comfort level at the front, some FF joysticks and we're ready to go. Here's to the 787 doing at least some of this...

milkybarkid
18th Apr 2008, 11:20
Airbus v Boeing (v Douglas etc...)
One thing only to remember, in the words of the old song "Love the one you're with"

....
And the eagle flies with the dove
And if you can't be with the one you love
...
love the one, love the one, love the one your with
.....
Don't be angry
Don't be sad
Don't sit cryin' for good times you had
etc etc
:ok:

Rananim
18th Apr 2008, 12:49
but what frustrates me with the 777 is that it is a newer aircraft than the Airbus yet some aspects seem dumbed down so to be like older Boeings....Almost like putting a hand crank start on a new car because that's how they're always done it!!

Typifies nicely the chasm between the two camps.The Airbus afficionado is basically a tech-junkie,probably queues for the latest iphone/ipod and then throws it away when something shinier comes along in 6 months.I've had the same mobile for the last ten years and wont be changing it anytime soon.But translate this tech-addiction to flying and you have a problem.Flying doesnt change and neither do humans;they're lousy monitors especially in the only available channel that Airbus give you(optical),and they need multiple cues in as many sensory channels as possible to function optimally.
When Airbus introduced their wonder-machine way back when, they said it was so easy that a kid could fly it and that it would put an end to pilot-error.How wrong they were.:D

parabellum
18th Apr 2008, 13:25
"Gale-force air conditioning - agree; I end up taping over most of the vents on a long flight otherwise I feel like I've been sandpapering my face. There's a major blast of air from the gaps between the overhead panels as well."

Isn't some of that the equipment cooling air? And you tape it off?:confused:

Eff-Ohhh
18th Apr 2008, 14:02
“Flying doesn’t change and neither do humans”

How wrong! Flying does change. I hate to have to state the obvious but that statement means some of us don’t see this point: Flight dynamics may be constant for a given configuration, mass, and velocity, but the act of how we as humans use the technology at our disposal to get an aeroplane from A to B hasn’t stopped evolving for over a hundred years. If we stifle this evolution with the attitude of “well it’s worked alright for the last ten years” we never would have had the A320 and all that has evolved from it.

I for one am looking forward to see what innovations are just around the corner.

GlueBall
18th Apr 2008, 15:08
FullWings . . . "taping over the air vents" . . .are you one of those guys who doesn't wear a T-shirt and easily gets cold chills, and then thinks that the cockpit temp ought to be 26c? :confused:

I run the cockpit temp at or nearest to 22c [Int'l comfort standard] and tell my copilot to bring a sweater if he has a problem with that. :ooh:

FullWings
18th Apr 2008, 21:05
Regarding air vents: nothing to do with the temperature, just the volume & velocity of the air that comes out of them. On a long night sector, it goes down the back of your neck, up your sleeves, dries your eyes out, etc. On one of our aircaft that is set to force 11-12, I had to fold up a bit of newspaper into a makeshift hat to avoid going numb around the ears!

It's a personal viewpoint, of course, much in the same way that some people can stand on a glacier at midday without sunglasses and others wouldn't even be able to open their eyes. I fall into the latter category, if you haven't guessed already...

rewfly
18th Apr 2008, 21:38
Boeing and Airbus are for sissies,
Try flying the MD11 and douglas metal :ok:

chase888
19th Apr 2008, 04:00
I think they tried the ploughed field approach at Heathrow earlier this year????:confused:

Clandestino
19th Apr 2008, 21:54
Can you handfly an Airbus?Didnt think so.

The game is quite simple: if you can't handfly Airboos to happy landing in direct law (and that's very manual indeed), you cannot put Airboos type rating on your licence. Your opinion holds true for every non-pilot, though.

The best airplane in the world is the one you're paid to fly. If you want a happy and long lasting friendship with her, love her good sides and learn to live with her bad sides.

Boeing or Bus? Whichever gets me bigger paycheck and more free time (in a vain hope they're not mutually exclusive) - even if it's Cessna.

anastasialkt
20th Apr 2008, 20:04
Wow I love reading this and FULLWINGS your post is really really funny here seriously.. :D:}

Very entertaining to read about the gale force air vent. HAHAHAHA

ct3f
21st Apr 2008, 08:44
Lets see.....Airbus seats by Recaro no wonder they are so comfy.
Boeing cockpit designed by 4'2" midget with a change purse for a flight kit. "This should be plenty of room for 3 (at the time) crewmembers". PS. Per boeing engineers, the 707,727,737 was designed for a 5'2" pilot. I guess thats why my 6'7" 275lbs of muscle just didnt fit!

Check Airman
21st Apr 2008, 14:14
I guess thats why my 6'7" 275lbs of muscle just didn't fit!

At 6'7, I'm sure you'd have a hard time fitting anywhere!:)

seawings
21st Apr 2008, 15:05
In fully reclined (normal) flying position yoke obscures the PFD/ND displays.

when you are trying to sleep with your head on the ridiculous control column.

Uncomfortable seat with centre harness strap that crushes your jewels. Does not recline enough.

Chair armrest obscures the CM1 RMP in the (normal) reclined position.

Major effort from (normal) reclined position to order any weather etc or check system displays.

Am I mistaken or misunderstanding the many references to reclined or sleeping...in the cockpit?

TyroPicard
21st Apr 2008, 15:39
templarknight
Six days ... not bad.. but I think you've been rumbled!
TP

stator vane
21st Apr 2008, 15:50
when sitting on butt for hours on end, a simple consideration of mechanics would conclude that if one could reduce the vertical force upon one's back, and butt, the less pain and resultant discomfort and after years, malfunction of lower back and hip area.

i find that only after 4 hours, i must stand up, if only in the flight deck. and that is only on the 737-800.

templarknight
22nd Apr 2008, 05:28
Seawings
The airplane flys for 17 hours and with two pilots we can fly for about 10 hours so yes we do (and are permitted to by the company) rest/sleep in the cockpit.
Foxtrot India
As above yes it is going to be a long flight but your comment is to be expected. Just because someone has a moan doesnt mean they are going to be an arse to fly with. I dont like the Boeing; I prefer the Airbus, hence the thread.

allflight57
24th Apr 2008, 08:17
ksa5223 LOL thats hilarious

Fil
24th Apr 2008, 14:35
Flap limit speeds - disagree; They seem to be present, or do my eyes deceive me...?

Not quite in the same way if I underdstand the point here. Airbus's show VFEnext whilst decelerating so you get a visual indication on the PFD speed-tape of the flap limiting speed for the next flap setting

templarknight
27th Apr 2008, 14:44
Also:
-setting the park brake; airbus is a simple, no effort switch. I will need a chiropractor after a few months on this tractor, and
-how can this airplane have been certified when it is IMPOSSIBLE to do a full and free control check (full control column pull back) if sitting in the correct position reference the white cross in front of the column used to SET the correct position!!!!

Hint for Mr Boeing...side stick.

As an aside I understand one of Boeing's major issues with the side stick is lack of feedback/situational awareness.

2nd hint for Mr Boeing...make the side sticks move together as if they were a conventional column and if need be make them move with autopilot inputs. There you go...problem solved now lets get on with it and ditch the biggest negative in your airplanes.

Tree
27th Apr 2008, 15:53
Mr. t

1. Some of us value true performance over frills and we don't expect a flight deck to be a spa or a balcony seat at the Opera House.
2. There is no history of a "cross-wired" yoke ever causing a near-accident.
3. I have not seen a video of a wingtip strike involving a 777.
4. Setting the park brake is one of life's difficult challenges and sometimes you must conquer it more than twice a day but then again there is no history of landing with it on. Also it still works on an electrically unpowered aircraft.

empati
27th Apr 2008, 16:33
BOEING IS FOR PILOTS, AIRBUS IS FOR AIRPLANE DRIVERS!:D

templarknight
27th Apr 2008, 18:21
Ok,
you drive your tractor; I prefer my bentley
or maybe I just prefer shopping at Harrods compared to Woolworths
(lets face it; it's a good accountants airplane but a poor pilot's plane compared to the Bus)

Mephistopheles
27th Apr 2008, 18:49
It always amazes me when the Airbus v. Boeing question comes up that some of us get very up tight as if it's something personal. I really don't think either of the two company's management really care what we think. Especially the coming years when all management will be looking towards the accountant for which aeroplane is better.
But my Airbus is still better than your Boeing:)

empati
27th Apr 2008, 22:36
I rest my case!:p

18-Wheeler
28th Apr 2008, 07:13
They're both good aeroplanes and they can both get from A to B with a minimum of fuss and ease.
However, while they carry about the same amount of people, the A340 burns something like 8 tonnes per hour and the B777 more like 6 t/hr and it goes faster.
Why on earth would anyone buy an A340?

fourgolds
28th Apr 2008, 11:28
I feel both airplanes have there good and bad points. Ultimately though I feel with productivity on the increase around the world , more of us will be spending more and more " hours" in the seat. So you can argue all you like about the technology. All I want is a nice comfy office ( that wont neccessitate back surgery in a few years). Also with the mountains of info we have to access at times give me the table any day.
The bus wins hands down for comfort. I still think Mr Boeing faired very poorly with the comfort factor. Its almost disgracefull.
Can you imagine buyng your new Ferrari with "go cart " or lawnmower seats in it. Even the averge public bus has a better seat.

PLEASE MR BOEING , BUILD A BETTER SEAT ON THE 787. IF YOU DONT KNOW HOW , TRY SAAB MOTOR CARS , ( IF THEY ARE TOO MUCH THEN EVEN JOHN DEERE TRACTORS WOULD HELP MORE THAN YOUR PRESENT TORTURE DEVICE"

Founder
29th Apr 2008, 01:11
I agree with you fourgolds

SAAB's seats are the best in the world... I drive a Saab 9-3 Viggen and you can sit in those seats forever. It's a shame that aircraft builders havn't put anything that can compare into commercial aircrafts =)

Fly3
29th Apr 2008, 03:53
Why on earth would someone buy an A340?
Maybe to feel more comfortable on the polar routes.

keesje
29th Apr 2008, 17:00
Someone on the net claiming he is a AC 767 pilot, is claiming Air Canada pilots and maintenance folks far prefer the Boeings over the the Airbus types. He quotes:

Quote from 36 year airline pilot in letter to AW&ST,
April 14, 2008:

"One third of my time has been in Airbus models and while they are quiet and comfortable, they are sub-standard to Boeings in every measure except acquisition cost. The common belief among pilots and mechanics is that they are 'throwaway' aircraft. As the A330 age has approached 10 years in many fleets, maintenance and decreased reliability have gone through the roof."

Can anyone confirm / deny this?

Dream Land
30th Apr 2008, 06:11
Can't speak for the wide body airframes, we operate about 10 1994 A320's and these aircraft have been to hell and back, they still fly straight and I have been AOG on only one occasion in four years, very reliable, I personally believe that Airbuses do better if flown, leaving them sit on the deck will create problems.

ZAGORFLY
1st May 2008, 13:41
I respect your opinions however regarding the control column the only positive thing you must admit is that there is a mechanical linkage with the other one that allow you to "feel" what the other guy is thinking . this is I believe heavily missed on side stick controls configurations.

Burger Thing
2nd May 2008, 01:11
... and of course in disagreement with the bean counters, I would say: neither :p I love the MD-11 - what a gorgeous plane. Makes me somehow still feel proud to be a pilot :ok:

GMDS
2nd May 2008, 05:37
Oh yes!! The MD11 had the best flying office, by far.

My best of:

cockpit space: MD11 / 777 / AB
view: MD11 / AB+777
seat: MD11 / AB / 777
noise: MD11 / AB+777
yoke/sidestick: AB / 777+MD11 (best would be ss with feedback)
ride: 777 / MD11 / AB
RAs: MD11 / AB+777
Em descents: MD11 / 777 / AB
gen Emergencies: 777 / AB / MD11
Checklist work: 777 / MD11 / AB
FCP: MD11 / 777 / AB
Throttle concept: MD11 / 777 / (AB go back to the drawing board, the fix stinks!)
Brakes: AB+777 / MD11
Landing performance : 777 / AB / MD11's weak spot!
X-wind: 777 / MD11 / AB
Hard landing danger: 777 / AB / MD11
Taxiing: neither (go back to the drawing board, all of you!)
FMC: neither (just include the goodies of the competitor and yours will finally be fine)

Now everyone has his priorities, so the objectively perfect one does not exist.
For me it would be the MD11 cockpit/FCP/AT, with AB sidestick (moving feedback please), including the electronic checklist of the 777, on a 777 airframe.

empati
2nd May 2008, 12:23
Thank you! Very interesting! Send this to Boeing and AB!:D:D:D

Empati

rewfly
2nd May 2008, 18:10
GMDS Oh yes!! The MD11 had the best flying office, by far.

Amen to that!!
Loved flying it:ok:

Dani
2nd May 2008, 18:50
I like your discussion. It shows that you have no problems whatsoever :O I would understand if you would complain about a loud turboprop or a Russian airliner, but the differences between A and B is so small and neglectable that it's not worth an argument.

On the other hand I have to smile about your wishes for the designers. Airbus will never do movin throttles and feedback units on the sidestick. That's the trick behind it: Because you only have a stick, you save hundreds if not thousands of kilos of weight, millions of costs and uncountable hours on maintenance. That's why this concept is so powerful.

Let me say this after having seen both worlds: I don't need moving throttles, and I have enough feedback from other sources when it comes to monitoring pilot.

Dani
(currently flying the mighty F100)

PA-28-180
3rd May 2008, 05:58
I will say that I have put non pilots in both, and most younger kids can fly the heck out the A320. Must be all that computer joy stick time.

Mnttech....I agree with you completely on this one! I was able to get some time in a 744 and 320 class D sim around 1997. At that time, I had a PPL/IR and about 8 hours multi time in a duchess...TT was about 160 hours. I did the 320 first and had NO problem flying it. APU/engine start, taxi, take off, flew 3 ILS approaches (one autoland), land full stop, taxi back and shut down.
On the 744....well, I got it into the air and that was about it! I was porpoising all the way through the approach and cratered on every attempt. :eek:

Was great fun though! No way I will ever be able to do it again after 9/11. :suspect:

alexban
3rd May 2008, 18:08
Dani, I don't think they saved hundreds on kilos....each AB is heavier than the B in it's class (320 -737)
For ex ,the 318 has an EW of 40 T ,and the 700 has about 39T (the 300 has 33T ) .And the 318 should be compared with the 600, which smaller than the 700.

Hardass56
4th May 2008, 07:49
Hello Templar,
I detect a case of the Devil’s advocate in you. As a fellow Devil’s advocate, perhaps I may respond!
From Boeing to Airbus 330/340, I find various good points and bad points. I need time to think of good points for the AIRBUS family.
1. Great VLS indication, and far better than B767 (absolutely ignorant about B777). I love it in relation to bank, config, speedbrakes, and G loading ( I try & avoid aerobatics if pax on board).
2. Surprisingly good low altitude performance! But crap as you get into the higher altitudes. However this is justified by Airbus’s so-called [OPTIMISED] philosophy (French left-bank academics at work!)
3. Nicely integrated FMGS, but no doubt on par with B777 and inferior to Gulfstream/Falcon.
4. I do not think Airlines (e.g. Air France, Lufthansa, China Eastern, Emirates, Qatar etc. would give a flying f**k if you had a tray or not! So that is not part of the equation. In fact, the tray tends to spill my champagne into my Lobster coz Airbus did not have the expertise to design it to be level!!
5. What is interesting is whether there is any feedback from the Control Columns / Thrust Levers. The opinion is divided in this respect based on the accident record.
6. Does point 5 have any effect on pilots when under extreme stress as a result of Upset/ Extreme change/low experience on type?
7. Massive tiller on Boeing designed for wimps with limp wrists transitioning from Airbus. Very good foresight on Boeing’s part!
8. Regarding the Airbus tiller, I normally play with my balls my every hour, so I have no problem handling the tiller.
9. Regarding the excessive airflow, my Training Capt suggested I was a stupid f**k for not being able to turn it off. Perhaps your trainer was more subtle and gentler than mine!
10. Excellent sunshades taken from Citroen - absolutely superior - no question!
11. Regarding the seat recline, I must admit that the Airbus seats are PURRRFECT for studying the overhead panel thru one’s eyelids - tho my FO insisted that it was PURRRFECT for him too.
12. My company has insisted on removing the chair armrest due to consistent complaints from the flight crew that they were too comfortable.
13. My company also insists on us knowing the flap speed limits - absolutely untenable - we are fighting this point in the Labour Courts.
14. My company does not have a problem with MCP distance since we do not have a policy of discriminating on the basis of one’s arms’ length. We have been actively recruiting in the southern hemisphere.
15.I find it bizarre that on a 4-eng aeroplane (A340), a 2-eng failure can result in a dual Hydraulic loss, resulting in a manual gear extension and loss of Nose-wheel steering with a landing commit point whenever the gear is extended! I would have thought that with a 2 eng failure, Airbus would have designed the systems to support the pilots’ workload rather than loading them up.
16. I would suggest ignore EICAS coz Airbus systems fail with regular monotony, so sit on the edge of your seat all the time waiting till you discover the fault on ECAM.
My initial humble opinion. Standing by for the inevitable arrows in my back!!
HA56

jetset lady
5th May 2008, 14:58
You're all wrong and getting far too technical about it! I work on, (notice the work on, not fly!) the 737, A319 and the 777. Ignoring the 777, the basic differences between the 73 and the 319 are obvious. The 73 comes complete with fluffy dice, a pine tree air freshener and go faster stripes, whereas the Airbus has a tartan rug and a box of tissues on the back parcel shelf and a round tin of travel sweets in the flight deck! The Airbus is the Rover 416 while the 737 is a Mark II Ford Fiesta XR2i! See, it's easy when you don't get technical! :p

I'll get my coat.....

JSL

GMDS
6th May 2008, 04:02
Dani

You can get a rumbling, feedbacking joystick at Sears or Carrefour around the corner for just 5$ and maybe 20 gramms more. - And if you don't need feedback: Good for you. I still do because even with all the gimmicks installed, I still fly primarerly with my extended spine and this needs feedback!! Call me old and I couldn't give a damn .....

Dani
6th May 2008, 08:28
Posted by Alexban:
Dani, I don't think they saved hundreds on kilos....each AB is heavier than the B in it's class (320 -737)


I didn't say that A is lighter than B, I say that you save weight with FBW and/or sidestick.
The overall weight differences might stem from other sources like fuselage/wing design, hull size and interiour quality - all of which an A seems to be slightly more robust/comfortable.

Posted by GMDS

You can get a rumbling, feedbacking joystick at Sears or Carrefour around the corner for just 5$ and maybe 20 gramms more.

You can also get a nice soft TV chair with remote command and drink holder at Sears or Carrefour - comes to about the same level of comfort as some plane seats :E Still I'm not sure if that would be the right set of furniture. You would be the first ppruner to complain about "it's too soft, to old, the fabric too warm, the imprint patterns too ugly"...

Dani

wileydog3
6th May 2008, 14:28
AvWeek has been publishing letters from every guy who has been within 1 mile of an airport as a response to the A330 winning the tanker bid. One wrote the Airbus can't "take a hit". ??? I flew -135s for a while and we never boasted about it being able to absorb hits. ???

And just as pilots seem to be quite parochial about their airplanes, no doubt mechanics are the same. Some think Boeing makes great airplanes and some think that McDoug makes great airplanes. Neither will agree the other company makes great airplanes.

according to speed news http://tinyurl.com/6s3otm 364 Boeings in storage with some from the 60s.

"" http://tinyurl.com/5ztgcw 78 Airbi in storage some of which are more than 20+ yrs old.


Funny thing is there are a few DC-3s and the youngest is over 60.. hardly a 'throwaway'

18-Wheeler
6th May 2008, 14:46
The overall weight differences might stem from other sources like fuselage/wing design, hull size and interiour quality - all of which an A seems to be slightly more robust/comfortable.

Surely you jest: Boeing builds a stronger/tougher plane than Airbus. Take a look at any old airliner from the pair and the Boeing will typically be in better condition.

SortieIII
6th May 2008, 16:33
If an Airbus, any Airbus, is 'more comfortable' than a Boeing in terms of turbulence encounters, then my definition of comfortable has been wrong for a long time.

Dani
7th May 2008, 08:09
Posted by18-Wheeler:
Take a look at any old airliner from the pair and the Boeing will typically be in better condition.

You mean when I look at a brand new 737NG and it looks already like an old airliner ;)

Or do you get your opinion from the fact that there are still these old 727 and 737 classic all around the world, falling apart and crashing all the time (ok ok, I know, it's because of maintenance).

Dani

Burger Thing
7th May 2008, 15:09
Or do you get your opinion from the fact that there are still these old 727 and 737 classic all around the world, falling apart and crashing all the time (ok ok, I know, it's because of maintenance).

Let's wait and see what happens, if one day 35 year old A320s will be operated in - let's say - Indonesia or Africa.... Should be rather interesting :rolleyes:

Dani
7th May 2008, 19:18
They wont, because AI doesn't give aircraft to dubious operators. And they say "stop!" after 50 000 hrs (100k and 150k can soon be purchased, but only with checks).

barit1
7th May 2008, 19:40
Wileydog3 quotes a genius - One wrote the Airbus can't "take a hit". ???

There's a DHL crew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Baghdad_DHL_attempted_shootdown_incident) who would like to have a word with him... :}

18-Wheeler
8th May 2008, 03:31
Or do you get your opinion from the fact that there are still these old 727 and 737 classic all around the world, falling apart and crashing all the time (ok ok, I know, it's because of maintenance).

No, from the fact that the cockpit interiors in the Airbus's fall apart far quicker than the Boeing's. Also from talking to ground engineers that have worked on both - So far all have said that where B might use a nicely made forged bracket to hold something in place, A would use a bit of bend sheet.
Sure it's lighter, but it's not going to last as long. And as we found out further up the thread a 320 isn't lighter than a 737 anyway, so where is the extra weight?

GMDS
8th May 2008, 04:00
It's in the:

Fold-away table
Clamp that blocks opposite sidestick movement
Clamp that blocks autothrottle lever movement
Artificial pitch/roll demand signal generator and actuator
Converter of FD/FPV logical signal to silly bird display
Retrofit of instinctive V/S-thumbwheel to confusing turnknob
"Too soft and comfy seat" (see silly comment above)
My zillions of logbook entries, because "I am the first ppruner to complain" (same same -> above)

GMDS:}

TWApilot
12th May 2008, 06:37
This is all way too complicated.

It is this simple:

The problem with an Airbus is that it is an Airbus (cheap, flimsy, disposable airplane).

The problem with a Douglas is that it is a Douglas.

A Boeing airplane (any Boeing) is superior to all others because... it is a Boeing.

It is that simple.

GE90115BL2
12th May 2008, 06:58
TWA Pilot:- 100% agree with you.

CX spent 25% of our maintenace budget on 4 A340-600's !! incredible piece of un-reliable plastic junk,

And to those mis-guided fools that think you actually fly an Airbus....................nope, you have a computer keeping it at a constant G ( for the manoeuver being attempted ) therefore any wing drops, nose drops etc are basically corrected BY THE COMPUTER, not you. Some don't get the concept and greatly overcontrol the side stick and thus make it look bad. Set it, leave it alone.

So you are ALWAYS in a mode Boeing call control wheel steering, ie Flying the machine through the computer.

Except for below 100' ( or is it 50' ) when you get direct law.

So enough of "I hand fly the Airbus" No you don't:= the computer does.

I've flown the Airbus Sim a lot ( 320 330 and 340 ) and I can say that anyone could fly a bus after being told the basics of how to massage the side stick.

On a Boeing you still need to actually FLY the Aircraft, just like a C 150.

Tight Slot
12th May 2008, 07:11
In a big bus or a big Boeing, I know where I'd rather be, and it's got a side stick. That said if its 30 kts across and I'm at the end of a 12 hour day... ah sod it, I'll keep with the bus, not hurt me yet!

Lemurian
12th May 2008, 10:54
Quote : "I've flown the Airbus Sim a lot ( 320 330 and 340 ) and I can say that anyone could fly a bus after being told the basics of how to massage the side stick. "
That is about the best compliment you could make for the safety of the Airbus.
On the same vein, I haven't heard of anybody complaining about the DC-10 or the MD-11 handling through the CWS...Another case for the goose and the gander, perhaps ?
Another way to look at things - and a lot more accurate than your post - is that the 777 FBW is what you get from a 'Bus with degraded modes. Think about dumbing down a perfectly sensible syatem !

18-Wheeler
12th May 2008, 13:55
GE90115BL2, I used to think much along your lines as well, but with a new job I was required to start an A330 type rating and through the course of it I was converted (no pun intended)
As I wrote earlier, both types do the same job quite well - But they do it differently. This doesn't mean that one is inherently better or worse than the other, just different.
If you like hand-flying and a relatively simple aeroplane, you should like a Boeing.
If you like managing the machine and operating some very clever gadgets, then you should like an Airbus.

Check Airman
12th May 2008, 13:59
There hasn't been an Airbus v. Boeing debate here in a long time. At least this one is pretty civil. Nice work gentlemen.:D

GE90115BL2
13th May 2008, 00:18
I was only pointing out to those that think they are hand "flying" the Airbus that they are NOT flying it at all.

The 777 Autopilot is certified to land in 38 kts, apart from LWMO. A nice thing to have when tired after a long flight. And it does a damn good job too.

The Eicas on the 777 works like a dream, all the time.:ok:
The Ecam on the Bus is a nightmare: 1/ Ecam actions 2/ check the paper QRH 3/ check the FCOMs.
Airbus ECAM actions can be wrong and not fixed by software updates for a long time. Makes it messy for the crew, and possible to screw up.
An example is a KA A320 that had a flap problem and the crew followed the Ecam actions, trouble was they were not right and the FBW software gave them hell until they pulled out the bulletins. They nearly came to grief that day. ( back at Kai tak in about 1996 )

I've never been in a good landing in an Airbus, especially the 340, it has 4 distinct touchdowns and only 1 of them are smooth!! ( the first touchdown as the rear wheels meet the runway, the gear tilt screws the rest )

The Airbus rattles and squeeks as you taxi along, all the overhead lockers look like they are about to rip off.

Several heavy landings done, mostly by an inexperienced F/O. The Captain doesn't know what inputs the F/O is doing and if he tries to use "sidestick priority" below 50' he could cancel out the input from the F/O and quite possibly make it a lot worse. Quite a few landing gear have needed changing on a Bus, NEVER on a Boeing.

Several accidental go- arounds below 100' when the PF moves the Thrust levers out of the "detent" to give it a burst of power to stop the speed decay or sink rate, he mistakingly puts it back into the detent and then gets TOGA. Around we go...............yee haaaa.........oops.
This can only happen below 100'

It's slow, but at least it's quiet in the cockpit( a good point )

Airbus: built by a dummy to be flown by a genious
Boeing: built by a genious to be flown by dummies.

GE90115BL2
13th May 2008, 00:44
oh and did I mention the complicated fuel system on the Bus? Inner tanks, outer tanks, split tanks. The 346 has 18 fuel pump switches on the overhead panel for goodness sake!!

We had a 330 divert into Darwin with a medical problem a while ago. The crew didn't transfer the fuel from the outer tanks to the inner before landing...........so what happened? The outboard wings iced up in the humid Darwin air due to cold fuel !! 12 hour tech delay waiting for the fuel temp to rise and melt the ice.
( crew ran out of hours to continue )

the crew can't be blamed, they were not to know, they do now.

18-Wheeler
13th May 2008, 00:46
Interesting comments, GE90115BL2, thanks.

ford cortina
13th May 2008, 07:16
When I converted to the 737 CL and NG, I was told by my instructor that Boeing build aircraft to be flown hard by Ham fisted Texans, Airbus build aircraft to be flown gently by French pilots.

I have no idea what the ideal landing in a Airbus is like, but on the 73 it is a positive one. Mine are somtimes still hard and I have not broke anything yet.
The 73 is a bit like a old Mercedes S class, full of over engineering:cool:

Lemurian
13th May 2008, 13:26
What I still -after 20 years ! -find amusing is all the argument about flying a Boeing like a Cessna 152.
That was probably true up to the DC-4 era and then became the greatest macho joke in pilot circles : Thinking that one has a direct action on the flight controls is, in my very humble opinion, either myopic or intellectually dishonest.
The last semi-modern cable-and-rods airplane I flew last was the Nord 262 and- along with the DC-4 - the controls seemed set in concrete anywhere above 170 kt indicated.
So the hydraulic power was put in airplanes, in its different forms so, to be perfectly honest, one could not move these controls on virile muscles alone...
Then came the jet and its inherent higher speed and then they gave us mach trims (transparent), yaw dampers (also very transparent), CWS (called here A/P-transparent flying) which is the normal way of operating a DC-10...And I am not even talking about changes in flight control configuration with speed (low / high speed ailerons, spoilers....) that the pilot does not manage.
So... are you still having a direct control of your flight ?
Don't you think that the engineers have given you systems that make believe that nothing had changed and your beloved DC-3 is still alive ?

And why is it that the only acceptable way of flying an aeroplane is still the 1910 way (that's as close to a century that one can get !)* ?
Does having to "manually" trim the airplane give you an orgasmic trip ?
You can say what you want about the 'Bus flight controls and I would even agree with you that some people still object to the un-linked side-sticks, but the fact is that on any FBW Airbus, one can achieve a piloting precision you've only dreamed about (it still thrills me to watch a 600 hour F/O flying a "manual" VNAV approach to Nice and the airplane feels like on steel rails ).

Quote : "Several accidental go- arounds below 100' when the PF moves the Thrust levers out of the "detent" to give it a burst of power to stop the speed decay or sink rate, he mistakingly puts it back into the detent and then gets TOGA."

That's just impossible. To go into TOGA, you need to be in the TOGA detent, equivalent to "firewalling" the thottles...

Quote : "The Ecam on the Bus is a nightmare: 1/ Ecam actions 2/ check the paper QRH 3/ check the FCOMs.
"
Wrong : the procedure is 1/Check QRH and the Tech document for possible amendments, 2/ ECAM actions...Checking the FCOM is to allow you, if you have the time, to make a decision on whether your destination can repair the fault or if you'd have some new limitations introduced by the failure (in my airline, you do that regardless of the type you're flying ; might help Operations...)...The QRH items you refer to are exactly 6 and every pilot I know is aware of them. The only important ones are about using the QRH for an Avionics Smoke and... for NAV: ADR (IR) FAULT : "in case of a total loss of an ADIRU (ADR + IR) first use the NAV : ADR 1(2)(3) FAULT then the NAV : IR 1(2)(3) FAULT checklist". I'm sure even a Boeing pilot can cope with that.

* to illustrate this point, here in France, lateral control is still called "gauchissement" which means "wing warping" !

GMDS
13th May 2008, 14:43
Lemurian

You are basically right. But you're taking the fun out of it!!

Still I'd like to come back to three issues:

- Sure enough we do not have to fly like in the 1910's. Technology evolves, "tempora mutantur et nos cum illis". But one thing is for sure, we have not yet been able to modify the program of the homo sapiens. And this species is simply better designed to function with ALL its senses than with its (mainly overrated) brain only. So taking away any feedback is taking away one of his senses and this means simply taking away a backup, or safety net, and at least here I hope all professionals will agree, there is a setback per human design.

- As I remeber the DC-9 was flown with a direct cable to the inverted aileron on the main one. Direct link with direct feel.

- Praise the Airbus as much as you want, but a circuit with a DC-10 and its FBW will forever be superior. Set the attitude, hold for 1 second and it flies spot on.

- Comparing EICAS and ECAM is a no brainer. Only guys who haven't flown both can pretend otherwise than discrediting ECAM. Just think: On the 330, with double engine failure: DO NOT USE ECAM! What a farce, it's exactly in such a incident when i would desperately need it!!!!

GMDS:bored:

GE90115BL2
13th May 2008, 15:07
Lem: sorry but you didn't READ MY POST.

So I'll describe it to you again:
Quite a few new guys and girls have caused an unintentional go-around while doing a managed speed approach. They went OUT of the detent to give it a burst ( forward of the detent )and then they put the levers back INTO the Detent straight after. Below 100' THAT GIVES YOU TOGA. then it's too late................."going around"
( I think it's 100' the logic changes, not too sure of the exact ht )

It HAS happened quite a few times, only happens to you once though!! you learn from it.

So Airbus' electronic wonder jets have a really nifty ECAM fitted that has lots of checklists in it for you to follow, BUT you get the paper one out first because the ECAM may be wrong !! Brilliant system you have mate.:D

On the 777 we always follow the EICAS and do the electronic checklist. Granted there are times with multiple messages you have to filter a bit, but so what.


You can keep you plastique fantastique ( French accent used here!! )


The QRH items you refer to are exactly 6 and every pilot I know is aware of them. The only important ones are about using the QRH for an Avionics Smoke and... for NAV: ADR (IR) FAULT : "in case of a total loss of an ADIRU (ADR + IR) first use the NAV : ADR 1(2)(3) FAULT then the NAV : IR 1(2)(3) FAULT checklist". I'm sure even a Boeing pilot can cope with that.

You shouldn't have to "cope with that" buddy. If Airbus were half interested in product support and SAFETY they'd provide a software update to FIX the problem.

Another example is the RMI ( or RDMI you call it? ) On the CX A330's we couldn't use the thing for 5 years until Airbus finally fixed the bugs.

here is a copy of a current Notam:-

AIRBUS: VOR APPROACHES WITH A FINAL APPROACH TRACK BETWEEN
THE RADIALS 006 AND 016 MUST NOT BE USED ON A340-300 AIRCRAFT
WHICH DO NOT HAVE MODIFIED VOR RECEIVERS.

What is that about? It's been in the Notams for over 3 years

Nope sorry, Airbus are cheap cheap and cheap.

GE90115BL2
13th May 2008, 15:48
Thinking that one has a direct action on the flight controls is, in my very humble opinion, either myopic or intellectually dishonest.


On the 777 when I move the control column it does move the corresponding control surface. It might resist a little if I try to do something the computer doesn't like but it still does WHAT I TELL IT TO. The FBW on the 777 does have envelope protection but it can be over ridden with force if you really want to.

I agree a sidestick would be better, but one with FEEDBACK from the other stick. So you know what the other chap is doing.

I believe the C17 Globemaster 3 has a fighter style stick just like the Bus, but it has feedback?
Maybe someone out there knows?

Just so you know, I'll happily fly on any Airbus. They are a very safe Aircraft. It's just that I think it's over-engineered a bit, and this makes it a little more complicated for the end user ( you )

TWApilot
13th May 2008, 17:42
Flying a Boeing is still like flying an airplane.
Flying an Airbus is simply operating a computer.

I am a computer geek, and I spend so much time on my computers at home that my wife has to tell me to stop it frequently. I love the computer stuff.

But when I go to work, I want to fly an airplane, not a computer.

And when you consider that real airplanes do not even have electrical systems, you can see just how far from that Airbus has gone!!!

As to the Airbus's systems making it safer... consider that the safest thing on an airplane is a highly experienced stick-and-rudder pilot. That is what will keep out out of the trees. If I flew an Airbus for a few years, I think I'd need to go back through Private Pilot training again before climbing into a Cessna again. Not a good situation when basic flying skills erode. And if you don't think an Airbus erodes those skills, you are fooling yourselves. That is not a safe situation.

Tight Slot
13th May 2008, 18:59
Quote - "So I'll describe it to you again:
Quite a few new guys and girls have caused an unintentional go-around while doing a managed speed approach. They went OUT of the detent to give it a burst ( forward of the detent )and then they put the levers back INTO the Detent straight after. Below 100' THAT GIVES YOU TOGA. then it's too late................."going around" "

I agree it gives you a boot load of unwanted thrust but not quite TOGA. If one was to move the thust levers above the CL detent, then but not as far as TOGA, then back into the CL detent, the AT will disconnect and give you full CLB power. No sign of TOGA or GA pitch commands, just a bucket load of unwanted power very close to Planet Earth....

Dream Land
13th May 2008, 19:25
So I'll describe it to you again:
Quite a few new guys and girls have caused an unintentional go-around while doing a managed speed approach. They went OUT of the detent to give it a burst ( forward of the detent )and then they put the levers back INTO the Detent straight after. Below 100' THAT GIVES YOU TOGA. then it's too late................."going around"
Oh really, since when?

As to the Airbus's systems making it safer... consider that the safest thing on an airplane is a highly experienced stick-and-rudder pilot. That is what will keep out out of the trees. If I flew an Airbus for a few years, I think I'd need to go back through Private Pilot training again before climbing into a Cessna again. Not a good situation when basic flying skills erode. And if you don't think an Airbus erodes those skills, you are fooling yourselves. That is not a safe situationIFR hand flying skills, yes by all means, stick and rudder, not quite, cadets can't handle cross winds, I get loads of practice. :}

Lemurian
13th May 2008, 19:57
Quote : "So I'll describe it to you again:
Quite a few new guys and girls have caused an unintentional go-around while doing a managed speed approach. They went OUT of the detent to give it a burst ( forward of the detent )and then they put the levers back INTO the Detent straight after. Below 100' THAT GIVES YOU TOGA. then it's too late................."going around" "
And I say it a bit more clearly : That's BULLLLLSHIIIT !
You can't have a Go-around without the thrust levers in the TOGA detent.(Contrarily to a 744 under MDA)
Please check your sources again.

Quote : "...consider that the safest thing on an airplane is a highly experienced stick-and-rudder pilot..."
Yes, there were so many of them, they are all over mountain slopes. I prefer a good operator to a stick-and-rudder jock anytime (some of them have become very good operators, too).

Quote : "You can keep you plastique fantastique "
Are you refering to the 787 ?

Quote : "As I remember the DC-9 was flown with a direct cable to the inverted aileron on the main one. Direct link with direct feel.
"
I give you that one. That doesn't say that the 9 was not a cow.

Quote : "But when I go to work, I want to fly an airplane, not a computer.
"
As far as I know, all FBW airplanes are flown through a computer, and so will those which will follow. To make you believe that it's not there is what I call intellectual dishonesty and limiting the systems capability.

Quote : "If Airbus were half interested in product support and SAFETY they'd provide a software update to FIX the problem."
That's what they do, and these QRH items will disappear as they all do eventually. Like all that have been discovered through line operation or technical trials.

Quote : "Praise the Airbus as much as you want, but a circuit with a DC-10 and its FBW will forever be superior. Set the attitude, hold for 1 second and it flies spot on.
"
1/- I did not know the DC-10 was FBW.
2/- What you describe is what you get on a 'Bus : Leve the 'stick alone and the airplane will fly the latest path you have controlled. On a circling down to the minima, it's priceless.

Quote : "If one was to move the thust levers above the CL detent, then but not as far as TOGA, then back into the CL detent, the AT will disconnect and give you full CLB power. No sign of TOGA or GA pitch commands, just a bucket load of unwanted power very close to Planet Earth.... "
Thanks, Tight Slot. But...
Why would one do that? If anything, the approach speeds given by the FMGS are too conservative. In twelve years on the 'Bus and having worked for the Tech department, I have never heard of that situation. Either you are in A/THR mode and there is plenty of speed or you are on manual flying and to need in this case a thrust over CL is a bit of an overkill (or a wind gradient situation that's out of this world).

GMDS,
Yeah I know, I'm not fun, but this is about a silly war that a few would like to keep waging. To me, being just an airline pilot, I'd take anything my boss and his VP finance will get, and I'll adapt and I will even love it...dealing with its qualities, idiosyncracies and weaknesses. It's just the willy-waving macho trip that hit me. And I want to do the same !
Sorry.

CONF iture
13th May 2008, 20:32
There hasn't been an Airbus v. Boeing debate here in a long time. At least this one is pretty civil. Nice work gentlemen.
Yesterday ..............

1Way2Live
13th May 2008, 21:09
Can't we all just get along? :ok:

I fly the Airbus and love it. I just hope I'm never forced off it and back into a Boeing! Not because I think Boeings are bad, just that I really get on with Airbus philosophy. I love the lack of trim, static throttles (the N1s, FMAs and engine noise tell me all I need to know!), sidestick, etc etc.

I respect Boeing and its pilots. And I hope they respect me and my Airbus colleagues too. Two very different ways of operating a flying machine.

:)

GE90115BL2
14th May 2008, 01:48
You just don't understand the scenario I have painted do you.

So I'll try to draw it for you a third time.
Please read carefully.

1/ you are flying an approach using the autothrust ( known to be a bit slow in the Bus )
2/ the thrust levers are in the "detent"
3/ the speed gets a little slow below 100' and you decide that the autothrust sitting at lower power just ain't cutting the mustard.
4/ so you push the levers forward of the "detent" for maybe 1 second to give it a bit of thrust to stop the **** happeneing.
5/ The thrust then goes UP to commanded thrust lever position. right? yep
6/ you then mistakingly put it back into the "detent".
7/ but it's below 100' and the logic is different
8/ you now get the thrust commensurate with thrust lever postion. ie:
way way too much.
9/ which is not what you want is it. NOPE

What part of this is wrong?
Explain the Airbus autothrust logic to me then?

I know I'm a dumb Boeing Pilot, but maybe you could tell me what happens below 100' if you move forward out of detent and then back into detent? while the autothrust is engaged.

This is basically Pilot error I guess, but it shouldn't be allowed to happen.

So what about all the other things I commented on?
1/ Fuel system and wings iced up
2/ ECAM bs
3/ RMI faults and not being able to do VOR approaches

Cat got your tongue with those ones? How's about you try and refute them.

Tight Slot
14th May 2008, 02:01
All true untill point 8) TOGA will not be commanded. As both levers are moved ahead of the CL detent, the AT will disconnect, not armed, or active - it will disconnect. therefore the levers will act as per the norm throttles in a Boeing. If the PF then puts them back into the CL gate, FULL CLM power is demanded (below 100' on the 330) AT is still disconnected.

Catches most Airbus drivers out at least once...

GE90115BL2
14th May 2008, 02:05
yes thanks.
I was wrong, it doesn't go into TOGA as you say. please accept my humble apologies for the mistake.

But a lot of thrust results, which is not what you want.

I may have gotten the finer details wrong but the end result of a stuff up and go-around is correct.

It's happened to new Airbus command trainees in CX more than once, doesn't impress the checker.

regards from dumb Boeing pilot.:ok:

p.s I have ammended item 8 on the post above.

Tight Slot
14th May 2008, 02:09
No worries, glad to help. PS - our little secret ok - With 1000's more hours on the Boeings than the 'Bus, I'd still like to have the logic of the moving levers...

GE90115BL2
14th May 2008, 04:20
you know most Airbus Pilot's after a few drinks tell me they'd rather fly a Boeing. :}

Anyway we're all Pilot's and Flying is what we love. So I guess we should just get on with it hey?

:ok:

Dream Land
14th May 2008, 04:43
Catches most Airbus drivers out at least once...I don't think so, no one that has any systems knowledge operates in this fasion. :ugh:

Fly3
14th May 2008, 05:25
Problem with frozen fuel in Darwin! I'm amazed cos I have never seen fuel temps anywhere near freezing point over Australia and have never known the temp in Darwin below 20C.

fourgolds
14th May 2008, 05:26
Just landed the 777 in 32 kts across. Loved it !!!!!!. However my back is still going to need 2 hours of rubbing every time I get to BKK because of the torchure device we have to sit on. Hell I hate the seats !!!!

Tight Slot
14th May 2008, 07:05
Well Dream Land - We have lots of Boeing to Airbus and Cadet to Airbus pilots in our fleet - trust me, lots and lots do it. If they think its loosing energy close to the ground, nat instinct is to push them forward..

Lots of power, however... (Go around, Flaps!)

Lemurian
14th May 2008, 08:57
GE,
Quote ;"So what about all the other things I commented on?
1/ Fuel system and wings iced up
2/ ECAM bs
3/ RMI faults and not being able to do VOR approaches
Cat got your tongue with those ones? How's about you try and refute them."

1/- That happened as well to a 777 in a medical emergency...Cold soak and a quick descent...Result was the same.

2/-Read the first pages of this thread and see that quite a few pilots prefer the A ECAM to the B EICAS. As in my airline just about 2/3 of the young pilots transfer from the 320 to the 777, it's pretty general that they miss the Airbus when working on the "dumb" philosophy of the Boeing. Not really an argument as it is a matter of preference.

3/-The RDDMI is just another instrument -part of the standby flight instruments- and has two selections VOR/ADFs. I agree that its integration has been a problem BUT, contrarily to what you write, the ND displays correct course/radial informations. Therefore, one can perform VOR, VOR/D, ADF approaches without any trouble. If anything, I prefer the Airbus set-up to the one you are using.
Another uninformed myth shot down... ( not surprising, you guys usually go for the hype without any prior background check).

keesje
14th May 2008, 10:10
Airbus: built by a dummy to be flown by a genious
Boeing: built by a genious to be flown by dummies.


Many other seem to argue it is just the other way around, e.g. in terms of the computer vs pilot flying the aircraft..

I know Lufthansa and SQ were pushing for a side stick in the 787, but Boeing didn't surrender.

Looking at the 787 I think new Boeing designs have become more common with Airbus designs, not the other way around.. ;)

GE90115BL2
14th May 2008, 11:19
Another uninformed myth shot down... ( not surprising, you guys usually go for the hype without any prior background check).

I will post you a current company Notam again, seems you didn't read it the first time round.

not a myth mate, real.


AIRBUS: VOR APPROACHES WITH A FINAL APPROACH TRACK BETWEEN
THE RADIALS 006 AND 016 MUST NOT BE USED ON A340-300 AIRCRAFT

WHICH DO NOT HAVE MODIFIED VOR RECEIVERS.



I just spoke to an Airbus skipper mate and he confirmed this, most of our 330's are fixed ( after 3 + years ) but none of the 340's.

This means they cannot do any VOR type approaches ( even using the needles ) between the 006 and 016 radials. This also includes Utapho in Thailand.


Not only that the Airbus fleet cannot do managed Approaches in Rnav at the moment due to a software problem with the approach coding.


The outer wing on your Bus is quite thin, and it has a fuel tank close to the surface? When you land in a warm moist place with maybe 3 or 4 tonnes of nice COLD fuel in the tank it quickly forms Frost/ice on the surface. If you're quick you should have transferred fuel to the inners before you landed ( if you could )

Remember this was an unplanned landing en-rte to Aussie, they didn't have time to transfer the fuel and didn't know it would cause ice.


I've seen Philippine Airlines 330 on the ground in Narita at 0900 with ice/frost on the outboard sections of both wings in +5 c.
( I saw it from the terminal walking to my gate, I was checking the wings of other aircraft on the way to see if we too might have to de-ice. )

To my knowledge it cannot happen on the 777, our wing skin is thicker and I've never seen a Boeing grounded in Darwin because cold fuel caused ice on the wing. The only Boeing that seems to suffer from this is the 737-800 series, happens a lot in Melbourne to Aussie operators in Winter.

I spoke to the Air France 777-300ER crew in NRT about 1 year ago. ( they happily showed me through their brand spanking new ER ) They said it was the best Aircraft AF had ever introduced and was a fantastic machine to fly, better than the Airbus they all said. They loved the performance, the ease of reading the simple Boeing Fcoms, the CCD, the EICAS and they especially loved the overhead crew rest area.

New Airbus Pilot: "what's it doing"?

Old Airbus Pilot: "I don't know but it's doing it again"

back to you...

PK-KAR
14th May 2008, 11:39
(lets face it; it's a good accountants airplane but a poor pilot's plane compared to the Bus)
At the end of the day, it's the accountant who says Ur company made a profit or not... not the pilots...

My best of:

cockpit space: MD11 / 777 / AB
view: MD11 / AB+777
seat: MD11 / AB / 777
noise: MD11 / AB+777
yoke/sidestick: AB / 777+MD11 (best would be ss with feedback)
ride: 777 / MD11 / AB
RAs: MD11 / AB+777
Em descents: MD11 / 777 / AB
gen Emergencies: 777 / AB / MD11
Checklist work: 777 / MD11 / AB
FCP: MD11 / 777 / AB
Throttle concept: MD11 / 777 / (AB go back to the drawing board, the fix stinks!)
Brakes: AB+777 / MD11
Landing performance : 777 / AB / MD11's weak spot!
X-wind: 777 / MD11 / AB
Hard landing danger: 777 / AB / MD11
Taxiing: neither (go back to the drawing board, all of you!)
FMC: neither (just include the goodies of the competitor and yours will finally be fine)
I am laughing hard n agreement..

For me it would be the MD11 cockpit/FCP/AT, with AB sidestick (moving feedback please), including the electronic checklist of the 777, on a 777 airframe.
So when are we gonna see the BoeBus 9000?

15.I find it bizarre that on a 4-eng aeroplane (A340), a 2-eng failure can result in a dual Hydraulic loss, resulting in a manual gear extension and loss of Nose-wheel steering with a landing commit point whenever the gear is extended! I would have thought that with a 2 eng failure, Airbus would have designed the systems to support the pilots’ workload rather than loading them up.
Oh? Heck, then... we know the answer to the following:
Why on earth would anyone buy an A340?
To get discounts on the A330s... LOL !

Let's wait and see what happens, if one day 35 year old A320s will be operated in - let's say - Indonesia or Africa.... Should be rather interesting
It's being done... sorta...
PK-YVE (Batavia 320 ex Transasia)... It's gotta be the worst dispatch reliability in the classic & 320 fleet country wide.
PK-RMA & RMC (Mandala 320 wCFMs... the ex Irish 320s they leased when the lessor went bust), well, even Mandala's now phased out 732s had better dispatch reliability. To this day, Mandala's current fleet of 2 734s and 2 new 319s and 2 new 320s and 2 old 320s... U can guess the dispatch reliability order... the 734s tend to have extra nights flights picking up where the 2 old 320s left off at noon a few days a week... when one of the new buses has something wrong, all hell breaks loose. Got some dual rated 320 & 734 pilots there, and guess what, they're now spending more hours on the 734 than the old 320s... coz it's more reliable (same age-ish)... despite the shortage of crew on both fleets.

Sidestick? handflying?
3.8G landings on 320s anyone?

If there's one thing I really like from the bus is the double blink strobes... I can see it from miles away it's an airbus!

Rananim
14th May 2008, 12:22
Lemurian,
Ecoutez bien Mr GE90115BL2 et peut-etre vous apprendrez quelque-chose.Votre Nintendo detruit les habiles traditionels du pilote.Reflechissez bien
monsieur

GE90115BL2
14th May 2008, 13:13
ah, you sound like CDG ground giving AF prority over non- english speaking Airlines. :=

So out with it.........what did you say?

kbrockman
14th May 2008, 13:29
An Airbus described as a nintendo, that's maybe why the youngsters are so much better with it.

You got a point though.


EDIT to include translation.

Lemurian,
Ecoutez bien Mr GE90115BL2 et peut-etre vous apprendrez quelque-chose.Votre Nintendo detruit les habiles traditionels du pilote.Reflechissez bien
monsieur

LEMURIAN,

Listen to mr GE90.... and maybe you'll learn something, your nintendo destroys good piloting skills.

Wings Of Fury
14th May 2008, 13:31
Don't know if anyone mentioned it but which aeroplane has a nice big tray table to put your food on/ sleep on, whatever! -AIRBUS :ok:
Comfort comes first! :ok:

does the 777 have a tray table? I don't know?

Oh and one other thing, I recently walked past a framed picture in a simulator building and had to look twice at what I saw, I picture of a DOUGLAS DC-3 with the caption below it saying BOEING DC-3 !!!!! How on EARTH can they take credit from something they did not put one ounce into designing! :yuk: And don't tell me "but Boeing merged with Douglas Blah blah blah!"
There was also a whole lot of other Aircraft they seemed to have claimed in other photos. :yuk:
B717= another Douglas Design (a third generation version of the Douglas DC-9)
They also redesigned the F-18 Hornet, bigger better ect.. and called it the Super Hornet, so well done, but it came from a Douglas Design!

And I wont start me on the B737, from a pilot point of view....... what a major f^$% up! :yuk:
But yes, like someone said, from a business point of view they are of course doing well.

GE90115BL2
14th May 2008, 14:01
Yes in an ideal world I'd like a sidestick WITH backdrive on the 777. And then we could have a nice pull out table as well:ok:

That would make it truely the bees knees:)

Actually we have quite a few F/O's on the 777 that came from the Bus. Their biggest complaint is the lack of table, that's it. Oh and maybe a few features of the Airbus FM would be good.

They like the big Cockpit, nice big uncluttered LCD's, simple systems and best of all they really LOVE the ECL. ( it actually works on the 777 )

Overall they say the 777 beats the Bus hands down.........And they don't regret coming over to the "other side"

1Way2Live
14th May 2008, 14:04
Some of you guys really have strong feelings about your favorite aircraft don't you!

"Boeings are better because Airbusses can't do VOR approaches..." etc. etc.
They can do VOR approaches. And please don't show us your NOTAM again - it refers to one aircraft type at an airfield that obviously has some sort of anomaly. Airbus should have fixed it by now, but its still not a very good anti-airbus argument is it?

I can't get excited about the rest of the arguments, though. They're all very good aircraft. Just very different. In the same way that the French and the Americans are very different. Nobody is going to try and argue which race is better are they?

And pushing the thrust levers out of the CLB detent and back into it on an approach (at any altitude) is just crazy. Well, it is to me as the Airbus is the only type I've flown. I guess ex-Boeing pilots are used to having to adjust the levers themselves. This shouldn't be seen as an Airbus design fault - just poor training?

GE90115BL2
14th May 2008, 14:43
The VOR problem effects UN-modified Airbus VOR receivers for ALL VOR approaches at ALL airports that require the redials 006 to 016.

Until modified the AIRBUS cannot do ANY type of VOR app at the airport using THOSE radials above.

Naha and Utapo are only 2 that I come accoss in SE Asia near HKG, any Airport that uses those radials is out.

My point is that this has been a software problem on Airbus aircraft for well over 3 years, WHY does it take soooo long to write a fix? It should be done quickly.

Not to mention the managed RNAV ban still in effect since an Airbus came close to a sea wall on approach. This happened over a year back.

Did I tell you about the Nose Wheel steering problem on the 330? Yep they couldn't use full nose wheel deflection for some bizaar reason. That was fixed after about 3 years finally.

The list goes on a bit longer with the problems my buddies tell me about. That's right the Airbus guys/girls I know love to tell all about their wonder jet. When drunk they wish they were flying the 777 again.

One day I probably will have to transfer to the Airbus, escpecially If I want a Base in OZ. I hope you'll welcome me into the Airbus family?

Who knows, maybe after the Airbus frontal Labotomy I'll like it too:ok:

Lemurian
14th May 2008, 19:01
GE,
Quote : "I just spoke to an Airbus skipper mate and he confirmed this, most of our 330's are fixed ( after 3 + years ) but none of the 340's."
As I have no knowledge of this situation here, seems to me CX isn't too keen on getting the fix (just a VOR receiver modification). Maybe they're getting rid of them soon ?
So your argument is moot.

Quote : "Not to mention the managed RNAV ban still in effect since an Airbus came close to a sea wall on approach. This happened over a year back.
"
Same answer. there is no managed RNAV approach ban here. You need to see your flight safety people to give an explanation on that one.

Quote : "When drunk they wish they were flying the 777 again."
Only when they are drunk ? And does it happen often with your colleagues ?

What I find very intersting is that you could find a lot of faults with the @Bus products and never say anything about your airplane. For the sake of fairness, yoiu could have told us about ADIRUs, AD (is that one corrected ?), landing gears going upwards through the wing, double engine failure on final, a number of single engine diversions...
Here, we know were the hangar queens are...their names don't start with a A or a 3...What does that prove ? Type of operation and maintenance qualities are very probably one answer...At AF, with a fleet of about 150 320/21/19/18s, they achieve so good a dispatch reliability that most of the time there is no reserve aircraft and most of the QRH items we talked about exist because of time to retrofit new boxes for old ones so fleet standardisation is an endless chore ( it will never be achieved in my lifetime ), and I am not even talking about the compatibility of new *boxes* with the old software. If anything, my main gripe with Airbus Industrie is the speed at which they incorporate improvements to their products. Not the contrary.

Quote :"... maybe you'll learn something, your nintendo destroys good piloting skills..."
I tell you what : pilot cadets join the airline with about 150 hours, of which some 40 on the KingAir...they transform into the medium haul fleet (all 'Buses now )...they fly for another three to four years ( some 2000 to 2500 hrs ) and then move into the long haul fleet,let's say 1/2 to 2/3 of them, depending on the slot availability, will go to the T7...funny enough we haven't heard of any problem getting that qualification and flying on the line ( I also have to say that the T7 is very popular with the pilots : Main reason is that it pays more than the 330/340 ). Flying skills ? Hey, they pass their sim and base checks without any problems...

Now it's time for me to say that I have no gripe with the other brand at all, having flown all types of 737s (including the -100 out of Denver ! and bar the NGs) in all kinds of countries and weather, all types of 747 with all types of engines, and I have thoroughly enjoyed them - except the 300 into Kai Tak -...but I certainly do not miss them when I sit on an Airbus flight deck.
As someone said, it's just a matter of beauty in the eyes of a beholder...
Or is it ?

Jet_A_Knight
14th May 2008, 23:29
My biggest gripe with the Airbus is that the autopilot limitation of 100' after takeoff is about 95feet too high.:8

GE90115BL2
14th May 2008, 23:48
My point was that Airbus take too long to fix problems.

I wasn't meaning my Airbus friends get drunk all of the time, overnights at the Bangkok bar can be fun, a little Beer opens up a lot!!;)

The Rnav managed approach ban might only be a CX software issue? Don't know if it effects all Airbus aircraft worldwide BUT it certainly effects ours.

Point is, it's been over 12 months and still no fix.:D

The Adiru software problem was fixed a long time ago, initially they reverted back to older software codes then they fixed a new one.

Landing gear up through wing? You mean the BA 38?
I would have Loved to see how an Airbus would have looked after that landing in LHR!! Did you notice that the fuselage and wings were not even rippled on the aircraft?

Every time an Airbus does a heavy landing it costs 5 or 6 million USD to replace the whole gear:bored:

Double Engine failure on final, yep that is a mystery for sure.

Single engine diversions, seems that GE has the minor problem there, not Boeing. But it is being sorted as we speak.

How long does Airbus take to fix proeblems? too long.

kbrockman
15th May 2008, 00:29
Quoting GE90:
Landing gear up through wing? You mean the BA 38?

Just a wild guess but I think he was referring to the SAUDI incident.

Quoting GE90:
Every time an Airbus does a heavy landing it costs 5 or 6 million USD to replace the whole gear

Sorry but that's just an unfair statement, any type of plane doing a hard landing can be expensive to repair, it has nothing to do with who or where it was manufactured.

Quoting GE90:
I would have Loved to see how an Airbus would have looked after that landing in LHR!! Did you notice that the fuselage and wings were not even rippled on the aircraft?

Again a non issue imho, the IB346 at Quito also looked fairly well intact after being used as a plough.
No conclusion can be made as to regards of overall strength of any of these 2
frames.
The way everything is designed nowadays ,with little or non overengineering, it is fair to say that the newest birds probably all fall a bit short in this category compared with older designs.

propstriker
15th May 2008, 00:56
i like the boeing FMC, airbus' isnt as user friendly in my opinion

Lemurian
15th May 2008, 01:21
kbrockman,
Quote :"Just a wild guess but I think he was referring to the SAUDI incident.
"
Spot on ! Thanks !
You see ? Too busy criticizing the 'Bus to know about incidents on his airplane ! :rolleyes:

GE90115BL2
15th May 2008, 01:36
Well let me see..............3 landing gears replaced on 330's and 340-600's in CX alone in the last 3 years. All about 5 to 6 million to fix. FACT

How many on CX Boeing A/C in the last 20 years? NONE, even after heavy landings.

Not too sure about the Saudi incident, give me the details with true facts about what actually failed and came through the wing, then I can comment.

18-Wheeler
15th May 2008, 05:45
3/-The RDDMI is just another instrument -part of the standby flight instruments- and has two selections VOR/ADFs. I agree that its integration has been a problem BUT, contrarily to what you write, the ND displays correct course/radial informations. Therefore, one can perform VOR, VOR/D, ADF approaches without any trouble. If anything, I prefer the Airbus set-up to the one you are using.
Another uninformed myth shot down... ( not surprising, you guys usually go for the hype without any prior background check).

FWIW on most (I think) of the Qantas A330's there are no ADF's ftted.




Don't know if anyone mentioned it but which aeroplane has a nice big tray table to put your food on/ sleep on, whatever! -AIRBUS
Comfort comes first!

does the 777 have a tray table? I don't know?

Just move the seat back and there's plenty of room. It's not difficult FFS.




Oh and one other thing, I recently walked past a framed picture in a simulator building and had to look twice at what I saw, I picture of a DOUGLAS DC-3 with the caption below it saying BOEING DC-3 !!!!! How on EARTH

So how is that Boeing's fault?




i like the boeing FMC, airbus' isnt as user friendly in my opinion

That's simply a matter of training. I too found it 'orrible initially but after getting used to it, it's fine. You can do a lot more with it than the typical Honeywell/etc fitting to Boeings. The lack of scratchpad is very annoying though.

Wings Of Fury
15th May 2008, 10:06
18-Wheeler,

Its was a simple question "does the 777 have a tray table?"
If you fly this aeroplane you should know, does it have one or not?
-Plenty of room is not a tray table!

You asked how is that Boeing's fault?
It is a fault because they have claimed an aeroplane they did not make!
Boeing DC-3! its just not right.

Its like saying one day in the future Boeing are in trouble, they merge with a big company, that company puts its completely different name in front of one of boeings classics, lets say the 747, can anyone think who might do that?

18-Wheeler
16th May 2008, 02:52
Its was a simple question "does the 777 have a tray table?"
If you fly this aeroplane you should know, does it have one or not?
-Plenty of room is not a tray table!

Of course the 777 doesn't have a folding table, but the inferrance was that the control column gets in the way of having a meal tray in front of you - It doesn't.




You asked how is that Boeing's fault?
It is a fault because they have claimed an aeroplane they did not make!
Boeing DC-3! its just not right.


So you carefully checked that the poster was a Boeing product?
No, it wasn't.

templarknight
16th May 2008, 12:22
Having spent 9 days away on a trip and the last day at the chiropractors I am loving the dialogue.
GE90; you made some comments on landing As and Bs. Its a different technique and you can do smooth ones.
Airbus you derotate on landing and get a beautiful smooth landing with A330/343/345 (I know). Don't derotate and you will get a 'wobble' on touch of forward bogies. The middle wheels on a A345 hang front wheel down cf the mains which are rear wheel down.
Boeing you get a nice touch down after rear main wheel contact by NOT derotating. If you do it will smack on; freeze the (stupid and unnecessary) wheel in the position you touched and the rest should come down pretty nicely.
Overall experience as pilot and passenger I think A beats B for smooth landings but that is of course merely an opinion.

GE90115BL2
21st May 2008, 04:41
you must be joking me?

Yes mate the Airbus guys/girls in CX know how to de-rotate the bus on landing. Then the whole cabin shakes and squeeks till your stopped at the gate.

I've travelled to Oz on Qf and Cx about twice a month for the last 14 years on Bus and I know what is true.

The good ol Boeing just "paints" itself on, if you do it right.

I've NEVER experienced that in a Bus, ever.

TyroPicard
21st May 2008, 09:39
1Way2Live
And pushing the thrust levers out of the CLB detent and back into it on an approach (at any altitude) is just crazy. Well, it is to me as the Airbus is the only type I've flown.
Are you sure you have flown an Airbus? This is the Airbus recommended technique if PF requires more thrust on the approach! Have a look at FCTM 1.030
TP

olepilot
21st May 2008, 11:31
GE90115BL2, get a life!

kbrockman
21st May 2008, 12:03
Might be true for a T7 but it sure is not for the 767.
Hardly ever a greaser with that one ,no matter who's flying it.

c130jage
21st May 2008, 16:31
So all in all at the end of the day and all that, I think that we can conclude that both A and B have their good and bad points. Its a personal preference and as crew you are fortunate enough to do a job which you enjoy.
Let the pointless bickering cease forthwith!!!!!!!
Constructive debate rules Ok...

GE90115BL2
22nd May 2008, 00:37
check:ok:

Which ever aircraft you're on it's still the best job in the world:ok:

azlee_19
23rd May 2008, 18:54
this is totally out of whats being discussed currently, but here's my techniques to acheive a very smooth ldg on 777. I ve done several good ones lately.

-hold/maintain the power (autothr), dont let it retard till 10 feet (i flare at sound of 40 ftRA)
-at 10 ft close thr quickly, if nose drop jerk up veryvery slightly
-slowly derotate the nose to cushion all main gears.
-as soon as u are on the ground let the nose go down, onlyv arrest it last minute just b4 it touches grd letg it go down slowly

of course this comes after i learned aerobatics, and its my personal technique. Anyway, any other suggestions?

chase888
24th May 2008, 02:52
Azlee,
Would love to know how you "jerk up" slowly?:D

azlee_19
24th May 2008, 05:30
LOL, wrong word.

slow or fast, depends on u guys, which ever you like......:}

aguadalte
2nd Jun 2008, 22:23
...You Know, someone said that, all flight crew professionals who used to have a table have already lost it: Radio; Navigator and F/E...:mad::ugh:

Lemurian
3rd Jun 2008, 22:54
You are right. I met King Arthur with his shiny bars and crash helmet the other day and he told me he lost his beautiful round one.

AdamLT
5th Jun 2008, 13:34
hi all

i remember coming across a website all about the 737. it was an orange and white coloured website, with similar information like in the http://www.b737.org.uk/.

any help would be much appreciated

ad

Blinkz
5th Jun 2008, 16:28
www.smartcockpit.com

AdamLT
5th Jun 2008, 21:40
Many thanks blinkz :ok:

templarknight
14th Mar 2009, 18:44
Having now surpassed 1000 hours on the B777 my position remains unchanged apart from constant back pain and dry/red eyes from the airflow.
In the Bus every air vent had a sliding 'on/off' control which apart from controlling the airflow had a direct impact on the noise level in the cockpit. The Boeing has no such controls and the cockpit is (as a result) far noisier and less conducive to: a) rest, and b) a satisfactory working environment.
If anyone has developed and/or sourced air vent 'plugs' that we could insert into the knee/side table/#2 window vents please PM me and I will buy them; otherwise I will tape them over on each flight.
I understand the reason for the airflow is to create an over-pressure in the cockpit compared to the cabin behind the cockpit door...and it is bollocks.
One further point to come out of a miserable thousand hours flying this airplane is the CG setting on the init perf page. What does it actually mean? It's preset at 30% for 300 and 7.5% for 300ER but what does it do? Unless the CG is 30 or 7.5% it's a nonsense! Airbus CG changes with fuel burn off and it compensates for it; change in fuel load in the Boeing has minimal effect on CG. 7.5% on ER is for alleged vibration but I have yet to encounter that. Changing CG upwards increases opt and max altitudes on the FMC and clearly the wings and engines (the most powerful engines ever on a civilian airliner) can handle it. If you have a (not unusual scenario) of an ocean crossing with little or no chance of an optimum altitude with 7.5% preset, change to anything higher (30-40%) and perhaps get your altitude. Normal CG is probably between 30 and 40 anyway.
The Boeing airframe is ok; put an airbus cockpit into it and keep the electronic checklist and it would be a good ship

wileydog3
15th Mar 2009, 00:41
This is all too funny. You guys sound like a bunch of 1960NASCAR rednecks arguing over which is best, Chevrolet or Ford. The facts are ALL airplanes are compromises and each has strengths and weaknesses. The best one is the one with the best departure and arrival times, the best layovers, the best F/As on board, the best pay and the most time off. Everything else is very subjective and anecdotal. :ok:

Heliarctic
16th Mar 2009, 02:17
I know it´s and old thread..
But seriously "Pugilistic animus" "Ksa 5223" and "Check airman"
You Had me laughing out loud with your "comments"
Ksa 5223 ha ha ha....hillarious!:ok:
Have a good day all..

BuzzLightyears
16th Mar 2009, 08:48
... but overall i still prefer Boeing planes!...

fc101
16th Mar 2009, 08:58
After reading this thread...are you all talking about real aircrft or MSFS aircraft?

My little fighter jet freighter...sorry E145 is far better than any of yours... :}

fc101
E145 Driver

jetjockey737
16th Mar 2009, 22:21
I still have nightmares about going back onto a tractor.....gotta love the bus!!!

JJ

B-HKD
18th Mar 2009, 03:21
Boeing because....

the bus is french. so no thanks.

Leo :E

stillalbatross
18th Mar 2009, 03:36
With the boeing costing almost twice an airbus is it a fair comparison?

zlin77
18th Mar 2009, 06:38
Our procedure on a 300ER is to subtract an extra 10% Off the TOMAC C of G and insert that pre-flight on the performance initialisation page.
I.E. TOMAC 31% -10% insert 21% in the FMC. This gives a more realistic initial cruise C of G usually giving a higher MAX ALT on VNAV Cruise page..
What do other operators do?

Khaosai
19th Mar 2009, 05:37
Hi Zlin,

what you have done is subtract 10 rather than 10 %. Is that correct ?.

Just curious.

Rgds.

Riso
28th Mar 2009, 17:22
I really didn't have the chance to fly a boeing yet, but if i could choose, i would say airbus... I'm not saying that Boeing is a bad aircraft, i just think that at the end of the day you are still in one piece after flying an airbus, and here's is why

- workload reduced
-ergonomic design of the cockpit
-Sidestick+ flight laws ( Ground Mode, Flare mode, Flight mode) that is hell of a good reason, since the relation between the sidestick deflection and the elevator and aileron deflection changes according to the phase of flight you are at..anyways there's much more to add to this post but i would have to spend the whole afternoon here :}

that's my opnion! :ok:

oceancrosser
28th Mar 2009, 17:52
What do the (Airbus, I believe) acronyms CM1 and CM2 mean?


O/c firmly footed in the Boeing park, but curious about the Bus.

Riso
28th Mar 2009, 18:40
CM1 and CM2 is the same as PF and PNF !:)

Endeavour
28th Mar 2009, 18:47
CM1 and CM2 is the same as PF and PNF

Not quite!

CM1 is the occupant of the LHS. CM2 is the occupant of the RHS

Riso
28th Mar 2009, 18:50
Sure thing! thanks for correct me !

oceancrosser
28th Mar 2009, 19:01
Thanks guys, but what does the acronym CM actually stand for? Is it something in French?

CDA
28th Mar 2009, 20:53
CM1(2) = Crew Member 1 (left seat) or 2 (right seat)

Thin Air
10th Apr 2009, 13:01
GE.

This from the Airbus operating manual re use of manual thrust and the 100' you referred to.

USE OF A/THR
The pilot should use the A/THR for approaches as it provides accurate speed
control. The pilot will keep hand on the thrust levers so as to be prepared to
react if needed. If for any reason, the speed drops significantly below VAPP,
the pilot may push the thrust levers forward above CLB detent (but below
MCT) till the speed trend arrow indicates an acceleration then bring back the
thrust levers into CLB detent. This is enough to be quickly back on speed.

The pilot should keep in mind, however, that, when below 100 ft AGL, moving
the thrust levers above the CLB detent will result in the A/THR disconnection. Regarding the fuel/wing icing prob, can't find the ref, but from memory, if the outer tank fuel temp is less than zero (??) and you are descending into an area of high humidity with an outside air temp less 10 (??) you need to transfer fuel to warm it up.

Can any other bus drivers, fill in the blanks on the temps?

Come to 'the other side' you might just like it:ok:

kijangnim
10th Apr 2009, 13:34
Greeings
I was flying the A330, and yes it happens
Regarding the fuel/wing icing prob, can't find the ref, but from memory, if the outer tank fuel temp is less than zero (??) and you are descending into an area of high humidity with an outside air temp less 10 (??) you need to transfer fuel to warm it up.


We tranfer the fuel on the ground, the transfer enables the skin to warm up, because it is no longer in contact with sub zero fuel, and ice will melt :ok: I cannot found any reference in the books, but we use to do it especially when tankering fuel.

Now I am on the B777 and I love it :) the only thing I miss is the table :}

c130jage
10th Apr 2009, 13:37
#147 (http://www.pprune.org/4796888-post147.html) (permalink (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/322808-airbus-vs-boeing-8.html#post4796888)) B-HKD (http://www.pprune.org/members/183523-b-hkd)

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: McDonalds
Age: 17
Posts: 40


Boeing because....

the bus is french. so no thanks.



Now Now its not French, its european. or USE (united States of Europe)

EAM
11th Apr 2009, 10:19
its acutally frensh/german and a little bit of spanish/english....but of course the frensh like to pretend that it is only frensh.

kijangnim
11th Apr 2009, 11:39
Greetings

Well, I think the French are right , Airbus specification/performance, is done solenely by Aerospatiale, the french engineering company who designed Concord perf/specs/systems, :cool:then the first Airbus :cool:, and then...:}
Now, partners have to turn the specifications (paperware) into hardware, this enables the French to have some dilution on human error :{, and of course to blame others :E

muduckace
11th Apr 2009, 19:17
The aircraft was not built for you!!!

al446
11th Apr 2009, 19:43
Boeing because....

the bus is french. so no thanks.

LeoAge 17? For one so young to display such xenophobia speaks volumes about the environment you are being reared in. I thought this thread was to discuss the relative merits of a/c NOT to display ignorant prejudices.

Will be nice when the schools/universities/reformatories go back.

Happy adulthood Leo, when you reach it.

glad rag
11th Apr 2009, 19:44
With hundreds of workers poised to loose their jobs, EADS to return 50% of their capital (1.7 BILLION Euro's) in compensation for the fiasco of the A400M if it fails , YES I guess YOU WILL be looking for someone to blame.


Exploding Costs: Can the Airbus A400M Be Saved? - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International (http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,605262,00.html)

SPIEGEL Interview with Airbus CEO Thomas Enders: 'EADS Should Never Have Signed the A400M Contract' - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International (http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,616296,00.html)

kijangnim
11th Apr 2009, 20:13
Greetings

YES I guess YOU WILL be looking for someone to blame.
The someone to blame was a kind a humour, and was never intended to be serious.
Building aircraft is not a walk in a park, it is paved with chalenges, as far as I can remember Airbus never blamed its partners, today the world economical crise overloads any company, Airbus and Boeing inclusive, the know how has nothing to do with this.
As far as I am concerned, I flew A330, and B777, and on a serious note I do prefer Boeing, more practical, more pilot oriented, with a technology that serves its purpose. :ok:
BTW I am not French, and this does not matter at all.

Silver Spur
13th Apr 2009, 16:30
Dear Mr Moderator, can we do something about Mr B-HKD, I enjoyed reading Bus Vs Boeing "comparison" till such an unimportant, inappropriate comment brought about by Mr. B-HKD.

Regards,
SS

Indeed. Gratuitously offensive material is not part and parcel of Tech Log.

JT

Silver Spur
13th Apr 2009, 16:52
No worries then, so let us continue the discussion, I am looking forward to see more "comparisons " between Airbus and Boeing.


Regards,
SS

fc101
20th Apr 2009, 14:05
Maude Charlee (http://www.pprune.org/members/93186-maude-charlee)



I'll just sit here smug and happy in my E-jet, and laugh at both of the big boys. http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/wink2.gif

Me too

fc101
E145 Driver

GearDown&Locked
21st Apr 2009, 10:51
Just curious... is there some sort of a G/S mini function on the Bravo planes?

Anyway, if flying still is a way of making a structure big enough to contain boxes and accommodate some humans inside it, beat the earth's gravity through the air flow "sucking" phenomena provided by Mr. Bernoulli's principles, how it's done has changed radically throughout this past century: from the Wright bros simple machine with just a piece of string as their first and only flight instrument through the Alpha aeroplanos. Sorry, but IMHO, A is leading technology wise.

From a Darwinian perspective, A and B evolutive ramifications are very much like the Humans and the Chimps, both Primates but with completely different technologies.

GD&L:ok: