Plenty?

I can think of a 757 in South America but that's about it...off the top of my head.

There are less than completely competent pilots flying Boeings too - thanks to 3rd world (mostly) airline politics:sad:

Apart from F28, Bae146, Falcon, Citation, B757/767 and B777/787 my licence also has B737-300/900 on it - automation wise there isn't much difference between the 300/400 and 800ng.

There is not an aircraft built I am AFRAID of...I do have my preferences. I am sure from a pure 'poke it around the sky' point of view an airbus is as nice as most Boeings...better than some...the 767 was a real gravel truck handling wise...but for as long as a human is sitting behind the controls I think Boeing does it better than Airbus.

Northwest 6231 and Birgenair 301 also come to mind.

If it's a case of preference, that's fine, so long as you don't try to argue it's less safe because statistics will prove you wrong! ;-)

But that's no different to any technology; there are plenty of pilots who are so comfortable with the bus (after transferring to it) that they wonder why anyone would like to do it the old fashioned Boeing way.

It's like Windows vs. Mac. While I happily worked with the former for years, once I discovered the latter, I couldn't imagine going back. Others try it and hate it.

Statistics have never proven a damn thing in the real world.

Boeing = Mac

Airbus = MS

:E

Not a bad analogy. MAC is over priced and isn't very compatible in a business environment. Those that own one waste hours of other peoples lives talking about how great they are.

Shame you have to load windows on it to make it useful. :E

The Don

The same subject of Airbus now going to teach pilots how to manually fly during type rating and recurrent training, was covered at length in Pprune Rumors and News.

Here is the link:

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...arn-doing.html

The eight golden rules rules by Airbus have been around for a very long time (don't believe me? then Google it.). I believe they predate the 320. These are the things that are being rehashed by Airbus and where they think training needs to be focused now and in the future.

1-The aircraft can be flown like any other aircraft.
2-Fly,navigate,communicate in that order.
3-One head up at all times.
4-Cross check the accuracy of the FMS.
5-Know your FMA at all times.
6-When things don't go as expected-TAKE OVER.
7-Use the proper level of automation for the task.
8-Practice task sharing and back up each other.


These are not new. To some they seem like common sense, or what in the good old days was called Airmanship. But it would seem that Airbus saw back then you can not count on those things anymore. Any change to train pilots to be pilots, and not focus on Minimum cost, Minimum requirement training would seem like a good idea to me.

The Don

From a non expert point of view :E, I can state that those concepts and opinions have " allegedly" only very recently been embraced in the lofty reaches of the flight technical departments in TLS.
Don't believe me? send me a PM and I'll explain all, a legacy of too much time in the UK.
I should add that "the proper level of automation" means very different things to different mindsets, which should give you a starter to why based on my non expertness you are welcome to Le Boos :E

The concepts you describe are a result, rather than an ethos.

When you have a statement that originates from airbus to the tune, ".... the a/c is uncrashable...." Nothing, repeat nothing, surprises me what comes out of AB.

To be fair Double, I bet Boeing told their customers the batteries were pretty robust...:E

Point taken

Anyone who straps their backside to a B787 is part of the test flight program, whether they know it or not.

Like any new a/c these days.

Well yes - a year or so back I saw a CNN video about the 787 where Boeing gave him a ball peen hammer and a piece of carbon fibre fuselage and said "have at it".

In hindsight they'd have been better served giving him a battery and ball peen hammer :hmm:

During my 777 type rating course in Gatwick several years ago a group of Boeing pilots were finishing up the fidelity checks on the 787 sim. They told me there were some serious issues with the 787 but when they were resolved the aircraft would be awesome. No idea whether they meant the batteries - probably not. A few days later I flew the 787 sim and, battery issues aside, it's a VERY impressive aircraft. Assuming you've flown another wide body Boeing first it will be the easiest type conversion of your career. Like all Boeings everything just seems right...intuitive...you don't sit there thinking 'WTF did they do THAT?!'

Well at least until you get to the electrical system:eek:

Oh, they moved alright. Backwards when they shouldn't have. And the pilots didn't notice. :ugh:

I wouldn't have my business if I hadn't switched to Mac years ago; that, and the even more expensive learning to fly are best investments I ever made! :ok:

Good on you Bas.Glad it worked for someone.

Wash thee mouth out Don, oh ye of non Mac believer faith.....or I shall be forced to interrupt my pint of IPA here in the delightful but wet Cheshire countryside...

EX 380...I've got a really good email from a couple of mates on the 330 at CX that explains vol 3 nicely, P.O.S sums up the roller powered -300 variant :E but as I'm no expert I can't really do anything but agree with them entirely.
I should also add, my back hurts thanks to a firm 380 arrival yesterday, my daughter piped up "don't worry daddy...Boeings never do that" even 5 year olds get it:}

Should have been on the SQ 777 I was on to Amsterdam last year.

Low power (flight idle?) from 10,000 or so. Beautiful approach, never touched the throttles. This was going to be a good one. Wind calm, into the flare. BANG! :D

Like, WTF, how could you screw that up? :ugh:

Appoligise for the threat highjack, however I couldn't resist this one.

Another re invent, if ever there was one.

BBC News - Processed meat 'early death' link

I think we all knew this. Well we have to die of something.

Any more sausages??