B737NG vs A320 Flight Deck comparison
Cockpit seats,head rest and arm rest-A320(arguably) more luxurious
Deck room..roomier , wider and higher ceiling in A320..also quieter cockpit
Deck room..roomier , wider and higher ceiling in A320..also quieter cockpit
Yes Airbus is much roomier, but the noise level is deafening (seems to be mostly air conditioning noise).
In most other respects they seem to be very similar.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: In the land of smog
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The airbus is just a series of computers that the pilot can occasionally have influence over - I.e. when flying with the side stick and using selected modes on the autopilot.
Auto thrust is quite different to other systems I've seen:
On the ground the thrust levers work conventionally, during the takeoff roll as the levers are advanced into the FLEX/MCT or TOGA detent, auto thrust is armed. When the levers are retarded into the climb detent at thrust reduction altitude auto thrust transitions from armed to active.
The levers are not back driven, unless there is a problem the levers stay in the climb decent from thrust reduction altitude until 30' in the flare.
When in the climb detent, A/THR can command any thrust between idle and climb thrust - I.e. cannot command thrust higher than the lever position
When advanced beyond the climb detent to MCT, max cont thrust will be commanded and so on for TOGA - I.e. manual thrust settings (A/THR goes back to armed mode until the levers are back in the active range)
If an engine has failed, the computers will ask you to set the thrust levers to MCT. Then the active range increases to include MCT (I.e. on one engine with A/THR active, thrust levels up to MCT are available.
If you don't want to use A/THR, then you simply set the levers to the current thrust level (by matching the EPR doughnuts) and then turn Auto thrust off - thrust then works conventionally.
Vertical modes in the bus:
V/S = rate of climb or descent selected on the FCU (=MCP in Boeing) and engine thrust ranges from idle to climb thrust when auto thrust is active
FPA = Flight path angle - the aircraft will adjust pitch to follow a selected angle of climb or descent (think 3.0 degree glide path)
OPEN CLB = Max climb thrust is commanded and speed is controlled by pitch
OPEN DES = Idle thrust is commanded and speed is controlled by pitch
CLB = Managed climb - essentially the same as open climb but the computer will respect speed and altitude constraints (e.g. Temporary level off until clear of a SID restriction then automatically transitions back to climb limited by altitude selected on the MCP)
DES = Managed descent - pitch is used to control rate of descent and auto thrust supports it by adding thrust if necessary. The speed is allowed to deviate generally +/- 20kts before things change. If high and fast, the aircraft will pitch up to maintain +20 knots and advise if it can't make a restriction with half speed brake extended. If it is low and slow, auto thrust will add thrust to regain speed and profile.
G/S = pitch is adjusted to follow the glide path signal
ALT* / ALT = Altitude capture and hold
ALT CRZ = allows minor deviations +/- 50ft to smooth engine operation and save fuel.
Horizontal Modes:
HDG = selected on the MCP, AOB up to 25 degrees generally
DCT TO = max 15 AOB turn to a waypoint
NAV = max 15 AOB turns as required to follow waypoints in the flight plan
TRK = AOB is adjusted to maintain a particular track (automatic adjustments for wind)
RWY TRK = maintains runway track
LOC = tracks the selected localiser
Noise wise, anything above 280 kts is quite noisy and so are the cabin fans especially when ground power is plugged in (avionics cooling goes up to max).
The tray table is pretty handy for eating ones dinner and resting the newspaper on.
Auto thrust is quite different to other systems I've seen:
On the ground the thrust levers work conventionally, during the takeoff roll as the levers are advanced into the FLEX/MCT or TOGA detent, auto thrust is armed. When the levers are retarded into the climb detent at thrust reduction altitude auto thrust transitions from armed to active.
The levers are not back driven, unless there is a problem the levers stay in the climb decent from thrust reduction altitude until 30' in the flare.
When in the climb detent, A/THR can command any thrust between idle and climb thrust - I.e. cannot command thrust higher than the lever position
When advanced beyond the climb detent to MCT, max cont thrust will be commanded and so on for TOGA - I.e. manual thrust settings (A/THR goes back to armed mode until the levers are back in the active range)
If an engine has failed, the computers will ask you to set the thrust levers to MCT. Then the active range increases to include MCT (I.e. on one engine with A/THR active, thrust levels up to MCT are available.
If you don't want to use A/THR, then you simply set the levers to the current thrust level (by matching the EPR doughnuts) and then turn Auto thrust off - thrust then works conventionally.
Vertical modes in the bus:
V/S = rate of climb or descent selected on the FCU (=MCP in Boeing) and engine thrust ranges from idle to climb thrust when auto thrust is active
FPA = Flight path angle - the aircraft will adjust pitch to follow a selected angle of climb or descent (think 3.0 degree glide path)
OPEN CLB = Max climb thrust is commanded and speed is controlled by pitch
OPEN DES = Idle thrust is commanded and speed is controlled by pitch
CLB = Managed climb - essentially the same as open climb but the computer will respect speed and altitude constraints (e.g. Temporary level off until clear of a SID restriction then automatically transitions back to climb limited by altitude selected on the MCP)
DES = Managed descent - pitch is used to control rate of descent and auto thrust supports it by adding thrust if necessary. The speed is allowed to deviate generally +/- 20kts before things change. If high and fast, the aircraft will pitch up to maintain +20 knots and advise if it can't make a restriction with half speed brake extended. If it is low and slow, auto thrust will add thrust to regain speed and profile.
G/S = pitch is adjusted to follow the glide path signal
ALT* / ALT = Altitude capture and hold
ALT CRZ = allows minor deviations +/- 50ft to smooth engine operation and save fuel.
Horizontal Modes:
HDG = selected on the MCP, AOB up to 25 degrees generally
DCT TO = max 15 AOB turn to a waypoint
NAV = max 15 AOB turns as required to follow waypoints in the flight plan
TRK = AOB is adjusted to maintain a particular track (automatic adjustments for wind)
RWY TRK = maintains runway track
LOC = tracks the selected localiser
Noise wise, anything above 280 kts is quite noisy and so are the cabin fans especially when ground power is plugged in (avionics cooling goes up to max).
The tray table is pretty handy for eating ones dinner and resting the newspaper on.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find the forward viz better on the bus. Overall, I like operating (different from flying!) the Bus slightly more than the 737.
BUT!
The manuals on the Airbus are absolutely horrible compared with Boeing manuals... This one point has brought many a man to tears at some stage in their conversion...
BUT!
The manuals on the Airbus are absolutely horrible compared with Boeing manuals... This one point has brought many a man to tears at some stage in their conversion...
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A GLS approach in automatics can only be flown with the approach mode currently and the approach mode (same as VORLOC) is only able to track straight in approaches, not curved ones. Which explains why both RNP (AR) and curved GLS approaches are not possible in approach mode. Of course one could fly a curved approach manually following the normal needles. RNP (AR) can be flown in LNAV/VNAV which can follow curved approach paths, but isn't a precision approach mode.
Originally Posted by Denti
A GLS approach in automatics can only be flown with the approach mode currently and the approach mode (same as VORLOC) is only able to track straight in approaches, not curved ones. Which explains why both RNP (AR) and curved GLS approaches are not possible in approach mode. Of course one could fly a curved approach manually following the normal needles. RNP (AR) can be flown in LNAV/VNAV which can follow curved approach paths, but isn't a precision approach mode.
www.caa.govt.nz/pbn/AR_Mtg/airnz.pdf
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi...-GEN-SEQ02.pdf
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, reading comprehension seems to be a lost art yet again.
Of course i wasn't writing about the A320, i was commenting on the 737 which has GLS as standard equipment for the last 9 years now and of course offers curved RNP (AR) to RNP approaches to 0.10 since they were invented, just not with the approach mode but with LNAV/VNAV instead.
Of course i wasn't writing about the A320, i was commenting on the 737 which has GLS as standard equipment for the last 9 years now and of course offers curved RNP (AR) to RNP approaches to 0.10 since they were invented, just not with the approach mode but with LNAV/VNAV instead.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ECAM may initially appear to be fiddly, but it's very reliable - if you want an example of how working through ECAM may have helped save lives, I recommend Capt. de Crespigny's book on QF72.
Regarding the manuals - Airbus has a policy of writing them in French and translating them directly, word-for-word, into other languages in order to avoid any potential technical discrepancy arising from phrasing. I wonder how Boeing's manuals read to a native French speaker?
Last edited by DozyWannabe; 22nd Oct 2013 at 20:25.
Actually, from a software standpoint, the code used to control the back-driven yokes and thrust levers on the T7 and B787 is more complex than the A320's flight control code in its entirety.
Yes, the yokes on the FBW 777/787 are back driven - which unlike Brand A provides the pilot a tactile input to what the airplane is actually being commanded to do . But to call that back-drive s/w more complex than the entire A320 flight control system is dubious at best.
Which is all pretty much irrelevant to discussion at hand which is about the A320 vs. 737 (of course the 737 doesn't have FBW)
Last edited by tdracer; 22nd Oct 2013 at 20:52. Reason: Edited for typo
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But to call that back-drive s/w more complex than the entire A320 flight control system is dubious at best.
Which is all pretty much irrelevant to discussion at hand which is about the A320 vs. 737 (of course the 737 doesn't have FBW)
Originally Posted by Denti
Of course i wasn't writing about the A320, i was commenting on the 737 which has GLS as standard equipment for the last 9 years now and of course offers curved RNP (AR) to RNP approaches to 0.10 since they were invented, just not with the approach mode but with LNAV/VNAV instead.
http://events.aaae.org/sites/091001/..._Honeywell.pdf
Dozy----
My observations after 25 years Boeing and 4 years Airbus is exactly what I said.
Boeing engineers made the Aircraft for Pilots to fly like a conventional Aircraft and not some high tech computer game where we are out of the direct loop, especially when the FO is flying. ( AF 447 proves the point regarding back driven controls )
Everything is natural.
The Electronic checklist in the 777 787 748 is simple and it works. No need to refer to FCOMS, OEB's, QRH's or do those damn complicated stupid landing distance calculations on the Boeing.......
When the
hits the turbo fan I sure know which one I'd rather be sitting in .
The only things I like on the Airbus relate to ergonomics.....tray table, quieter cockpit, more comfortable seats, better window shades, not as drafty etc.
My observations after 25 years Boeing and 4 years Airbus is exactly what I said.
Boeing engineers made the Aircraft for Pilots to fly like a conventional Aircraft and not some high tech computer game where we are out of the direct loop, especially when the FO is flying. ( AF 447 proves the point regarding back driven controls )
Everything is natural.
The Electronic checklist in the 777 787 748 is simple and it works. No need to refer to FCOMS, OEB's, QRH's or do those damn complicated stupid landing distance calculations on the Boeing.......
When the
hits the turbo fan I sure know which one I'd rather be sitting in .The only things I like on the Airbus relate to ergonomics.....tray table, quieter cockpit, more comfortable seats, better window shades, not as drafty etc.
Last edited by nitpicker330; 24th Oct 2013 at 02:09.
Obviously you know better than I, but I was under the impression that the T7 and later had a more software-driven architecture.
The 747/767/777/787 all make use of a limited 'trimmer' - basically the FMC/TMC sends a signal to the engines telling each engine to move its N1/EPR up or down a slight amount to align EPR/N1 across wing. It's basically there on the 747-400/767 to account for small amounts of throttle stagger. On the 777 and 787 the trimmer is pretty much redundant since the throttles can be adjusted independently by the autothrottle. But the key word is "limited" - the trimmer authority is limited to ~2.5% thrust at low altitude (~5% at cruise). On Boeing, the throttle position determines thrust - a fundamental difference between Boeing and Airbus - one that I'd be very surprised if it ever changed because Boeing considers the moving throttle position feedback to be safer.
As for back-driving the control yokes, my Boeing job is control systems. Artificial feel isn't hard - it's basically a few relatively simple algorithms and a bunch of table lookups (back driven steering wheels and control yokes have been common features on the more sophisticated videogames for years). The hard part is getting the data tables right
But back to the original subject, I haven't had much involvement with the 737NG, but I'm reasonably sure it has a dual servo autothrottle - something that I'm sure will be carried over to the MAX.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Honeywell say GLS is optional on the 737NG, and it is a function of the FM, not the aircraft (Hence Honeywell).
But back to the original subject, I haven't had much involvement with the 737NG, but I'm reasonably sure it has a dual servo autothrottle - something that I'm sure will be carried over to the MAX.
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Or-E-Gun, USA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can appreciate that some pilots prefer the A320, as you say, but one has to wonder why. On a clam day when all of the instruments and systems work as expected, the instrument layout may be better but... When something goes to hell, which airplane is easier to safely fly out of a serious problem? I rest my case.
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Or-E-Gun, USA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MAX may have some cockpit design limitations, but Boeing is being responsive to their customers: The new model MUST be included in the common type rating and the buyers demand it. I'm not privy to Boeing's decision making, but this just has to be a biggie for their major customers. What airline wants to retrain all of their 737 pilots against an entirely new type rating, when a short 'changes' course will do. I strongly suspect that Airbus is taking the same course with their NEW edition of the 320 series - and for the same reasons.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What airline wants to retrain all of their 737 pilots against an entirely new type rating, when a short 'changes' course will do.
I guess since CCQ/MFF is an airbus thing that boeing doesn't want to do it and concentrates on a common type rating approach instead.
It is probably true that southwest and ryanair as the biggest 737 customers concentrate on least amount of additional training during the transition period from one type to another, however other customers are less than satisfied with this approach an are probably changing to airbus for commonality options between shorthaul and longhaul that are simply not available with boeing, despite a pretty common screen layout between the MAX and the 787.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What makes you think the A320 would be more difficult to fly out of a serious situation?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting out of a serious situation.
Unfortunatly that is a question that no one can answer as it depends on the situation that you are talking about.
The only thing I will say is that the Boeing non normal check list (QRH) is a a lot better to use, the Airbus paperwork can be troublesome at best, the electrical fire & smoke is a very poor joke that I think must have been written under the direction of lawyers.
What is clear is that both aircraft are very safe mechanically, both have there good and bad points the result of this is the only reason I would prefer to be in a Boeing when things go wrong is that the checklists are much more user friendly.
The only thing I will say is that the Boeing non normal check list (QRH) is a a lot better to use, the Airbus paperwork can be troublesome at best, the electrical fire & smoke is a very poor joke that I think must have been written under the direction of lawyers.
What is clear is that both aircraft are very safe mechanically, both have there good and bad points the result of this is the only reason I would prefer to be in a Boeing when things go wrong is that the checklists are much more user friendly.