Boeing/Airbus
Guest
Posts: n/a
Boeing/Airbus
Having read another predictable thread about the relative merits of the two philosophies, and realising it will never be agreed, I thought of a way to solve the arguments. In a totally unbiased, impartial manner of course, with no axe to grind either way. The way to do it is as follows:
When a pilot starts to fly a 'Bus, cancel his licence and issue a new one endorsed FOR AIRBUS/PC SIMULATORS ONLY. When he comes back and is retrained on a real airplane, give him back his full licence.
What could be fairer than that?
When a pilot starts to fly a 'Bus, cancel his licence and issue a new one endorsed FOR AIRBUS/PC SIMULATORS ONLY. When he comes back and is retrained on a real airplane, give him back his full licence.
What could be fairer than that?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Oh, come one, not this again!! There are plenty of identical threads to this one in the archives etc, so instead of wasting space with another pointless argument that goes nowhere, how's about we just stop it right here, okay? Sound good? SFly
Guest
Posts: n/a
i totally agree with you! Give me boeing anytime. You can teach a monkey to fly an airbus ask anyone who does! If you are inclined to be a passive computer operator then get type trained on the airbus, but if your intention was to fly for a living then go boeing!
SFly
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK, in for a penny, in for a pound.
I'm not rated on either type, but in the course of a lot of research for providing simulators for heavy jets, I've flown both types in Simulators, and we've done things that most line pilots dread.
There's NO WAY, absolutely NO WAY that a "PC pilot" can come close to flying, or operating either type when things start getting pear shaped, and for all it's automation, the Bus is an absolute PIG to fly when it comes to real nasty stuff like a heavy gross weight manual reversion approach and landing.
Yeah, any monkey can do the basics, and even a little beyond them, but there are specific skills and training required to do the out of the ordinary on either type.
If there's a point that does need to be made, it's this.
The Bus requires the pilot/operator to have a much better OVERALL knowledge of the entire aircraft, and it's much less forgiving of lapses as there are interactions and relationships between systems that just could not be made on the Boeing as the systems evolved over time, rather than being designed as a whole, and that for sure can catch people out very quickly.
Each type has it's specific advantages and shortcomings, and there is a very clear difference in the design philosopy of both types.
As far as I'm concerned, the Jury is still out on as to which is the "correct" one.
I'm not rated on either type, but in the course of a lot of research for providing simulators for heavy jets, I've flown both types in Simulators, and we've done things that most line pilots dread.
There's NO WAY, absolutely NO WAY that a "PC pilot" can come close to flying, or operating either type when things start getting pear shaped, and for all it's automation, the Bus is an absolute PIG to fly when it comes to real nasty stuff like a heavy gross weight manual reversion approach and landing.
Yeah, any monkey can do the basics, and even a little beyond them, but there are specific skills and training required to do the out of the ordinary on either type.
If there's a point that does need to be made, it's this.
The Bus requires the pilot/operator to have a much better OVERALL knowledge of the entire aircraft, and it's much less forgiving of lapses as there are interactions and relationships between systems that just could not be made on the Boeing as the systems evolved over time, rather than being designed as a whole, and that for sure can catch people out very quickly.
Each type has it's specific advantages and shortcomings, and there is a very clear difference in the design philosopy of both types.
As far as I'm concerned, the Jury is still out on as to which is the "correct" one.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think that goes "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going" - but I can understand you changing it around.
I also understand that the Canadians have put their new A320s directly into their 'Ageing aircraft program', because of the quality of the product, and their fears that the airframe will not last the distance - don't even mention the avionics!!
