B737NG vs A320 Flight Deck comparison
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B737NG vs A320 Flight Deck comparison
Hi all,
Not another Boeing vs Airbus argument - don't worry!
I'm after some significant differences between the flight decks of the A320 and the B737NG with respect to:
- gear
- warning/caution/advisory systems
- engine instruments
- FMS/MCDU
Any info would be greatly appreciated.
Not another Boeing vs Airbus argument - don't worry!
I'm after some significant differences between the flight decks of the A320 and the B737NG with respect to:
- gear
- warning/caution/advisory systems
- engine instruments
- FMS/MCDU
Any info would be greatly appreciated.
Can't speak to the A320, but the NG is antediluvian.
6-pack master caution old fashioned bright light in front of the flight crew, which frequently fails to light up without a firm tap or two. The overhead panel is almost identical to the original design, as any significant changes would need a new type rating.
Bleed air, and air conditioning particularly suffer from poor ergonomics and are easy to misconfigure. I understand the 737MAX is going to be substantially similar.
6-pack master caution old fashioned bright light in front of the flight crew, which frequently fails to light up without a firm tap or two. The overhead panel is almost identical to the original design, as any significant changes would need a new type rating.
Bleed air, and air conditioning particularly suffer from poor ergonomics and are easy to misconfigure. I understand the 737MAX is going to be substantially similar.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ankh Morpork, DW
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haven't flown the 320, but have flown the 737 and jumpseated on the 320.
The 737 is rotten. 6-pack works maybe on the delivery flight, after that it's toast. You've got square feet of wasted LCD space that could have EICAM, but noooooo. Better get that useless HDG SEL on top so it doesn't clutter the display. Stealthy VNAV PATH-VNAV SPD reversions. Full throttle and speedbrake? Sure, why not? Cabin Temp Selectors? Those are for display purpose, only.
Hey, let's use the same warning for two different systems! Great idea!
The 737 is rotten. 6-pack works maybe on the delivery flight, after that it's toast. You've got square feet of wasted LCD space that could have EICAM, but noooooo. Better get that useless HDG SEL on top so it doesn't clutter the display. Stealthy VNAV PATH-VNAV SPD reversions. Full throttle and speedbrake? Sure, why not? Cabin Temp Selectors? Those are for display purpose, only.
Hey, let's use the same warning for two different systems! Great idea!
I have not flown the NG but have the 300 and 500. The problem with the 737 is that it is a common type from the 100 to the 900. They had to keep the old 6 pack warning system and manual switching while the A320 is a much more recent design with a lot of automatic switching and EICAS system. A lot of people prefer Boeings, but I really liked the A320. I also very much enjoyed the 757, 767, and 777. The 737 not so much although the NG does have a modern FMC.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
while the A320 is a much more recent design with a lot of automatic switching and EICAS system.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Vega Constellation
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haven't flown the 737, but spent some time in the sim of both the -200 and -800 series. I am current on the A320.
No aircraft would fit perfectly every pilot, but from my point of view cockpit layout is much better organized on the 320. Information systems a relatively clear, push-button philosophy is simple with dark cockpit concept.
Yet the A320 suffers from cluttering of the ECAM when multiple failures occur, and thourough/ continuous study and review is necessary to feel really comfortable.
I have found (in the sim though) the half-lit cockpit of the 737 to be non-intuitive and switches and knobs position do not seems to follow any logic or ergonomic philosophy. In my opinion, even the -800 737 cockpit looks like a dinosaur.
On the other hand, comparing apples and oranges is always a tricky task.
I remember a comment I read years ago about the 737 NG: "I you take a Ford Cortina (1960's) and fit a Mondeo's dash board...well, it's still a ford Cortina!"
No aircraft would fit perfectly every pilot, but from my point of view cockpit layout is much better organized on the 320. Information systems a relatively clear, push-button philosophy is simple with dark cockpit concept.
Yet the A320 suffers from cluttering of the ECAM when multiple failures occur, and thourough/ continuous study and review is necessary to feel really comfortable.
I have found (in the sim though) the half-lit cockpit of the 737 to be non-intuitive and switches and knobs position do not seems to follow any logic or ergonomic philosophy. In my opinion, even the -800 737 cockpit looks like a dinosaur.
On the other hand, comparing apples and oranges is always a tricky task.
I remember a comment I read years ago about the 737 NG: "I you take a Ford Cortina (1960's) and fit a Mondeo's dash board...well, it's still a ford Cortina!"
Last edited by Jetdriver; 16th Oct 2013 at 16:25.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks everyone.
Can anyone please explain the difference in automation characteristics on the two airframes? i.e. selected and managed vs VNAV/LNAV, etc? How are they similar and how do they differ?
Can anyone please explain the difference in automation characteristics on the two airframes? i.e. selected and managed vs VNAV/LNAV, etc? How are they similar and how do they differ?
737 is fairly old-fashioned from what I read about the A320:
Lateral:
HDG SEL
LNAV
VOR/LOC
LNAV follows the route in the FMC. The other two are "what it says on the tin"
Vertical:
Level Change (climbs/descends to MCP selected altitude using max N1 or idle thrust)
Vertical Speed (maintains selected VS using up to max N1 for phase of flight, speed secondary)
VNAV - several whole threads on this on its own. Follows defined vertical paths, or descends at a speed. It does its best to maintain the descent path calculated by the FMC. It varies from pretty good to utterly rubbish, and does things in what can sometimes be a rather counterintuitive way.
APP mode - follows the glideslope on the ILS
A/T Modes:
N1 (LVL CHG or VNAV SPD climb)
MCP SPD (in V/S or APP)
FMC SPD (via VNAV)
I understand that Level Change roughly equates to Open Descent in the busy, and VNAV to managed.
The Autothrottle is pretty "dumb", and requires a bit of assistance from time to time. VNAV is the mode most likely to get you wondering "what's it doing now?". VOR/LOC also doesn't track the localiser in the way a human pilot would.
If you really want the nuts and bolts, Smartcockpit.com has some good stuff on the 737 autoflight, taken from the FCOM.
Lateral:
HDG SEL
LNAV
VOR/LOC
LNAV follows the route in the FMC. The other two are "what it says on the tin"
Vertical:
Level Change (climbs/descends to MCP selected altitude using max N1 or idle thrust)
Vertical Speed (maintains selected VS using up to max N1 for phase of flight, speed secondary)
VNAV - several whole threads on this on its own. Follows defined vertical paths, or descends at a speed. It does its best to maintain the descent path calculated by the FMC. It varies from pretty good to utterly rubbish, and does things in what can sometimes be a rather counterintuitive way.
APP mode - follows the glideslope on the ILS
A/T Modes:
N1 (LVL CHG or VNAV SPD climb)
MCP SPD (in V/S or APP)
FMC SPD (via VNAV)
I understand that Level Change roughly equates to Open Descent in the busy, and VNAV to managed.
The Autothrottle is pretty "dumb", and requires a bit of assistance from time to time. VNAV is the mode most likely to get you wondering "what's it doing now?". VOR/LOC also doesn't track the localiser in the way a human pilot would.
If you really want the nuts and bolts, Smartcockpit.com has some good stuff on the 737 autoflight, taken from the FCOM.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The APProach mode flies GLS signals and all available database or database/conventional (ie LOC) approaches except RNP AR (flown in LNAV/VNAV with open speed window) and curved GLS approaches (currently not possible at all). The ROLLOUT mode activates on ground after an automatic approach and tracks the localizer/GLS signal down the runway until the autopilot is disconnected.
I just find sat watching the aircraft track the localiser, it drifts off, then will hold the aircraft in a slight bank and regain very slowly indeed. It copes poorly with wind shifts at low altitudes in my view. Also compare the way you would capture the localiser when flying raw data to how VORLOC does it. Aggressive turn, and either hooks through it or parallels it and edges on slowly.
This is only a personal opinion, but it's one of the things that irritates me about the aircraft. I find you have to look through the FD, particularly in roll when hand flying on approach.
This is only a personal opinion, but it's one of the things that irritates me about the aircraft. I find you have to look through the FD, particularly in roll when hand flying on approach.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: EU
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's no doubt that the 737NG is just a 737-200 in new clothes with a couple of new accessories. I haven't flown the A320 but I hear the 737 is more of a pilots plane. You can't fully rely on the automatics either, you it keeps you on your toes a bit more than the bus (again, no personal experience with the Bus, just what I've heard).
I think Boeing should really modernise the 737MAX cockpit, make it similar to that of a 787. But from what I've heard, it's not going to be that way. It's going to be a 737 in newer clothes....again. And they're going to shoot themselves in the foot by doing this.
As for the look of the cockpits. A320 is much cleaner and simple, but I like both cockpits. The one thing I really want in my Boeing is a tray table!!
I think Boeing should really modernise the 737MAX cockpit, make it similar to that of a 787. But from what I've heard, it's not going to be that way. It's going to be a 737 in newer clothes....again. And they're going to shoot themselves in the foot by doing this.
As for the look of the cockpits. A320 is much cleaner and simple, but I like both cockpits. The one thing I really want in my Boeing is a tray table!!
Last edited by pudoc; 16th Oct 2013 at 22:32.
Blame the operators for the 737 flight deck - they've insisted on minimal flight deck changes to minimize training differences between the versions. There will be updates on the MAX, but it's going to much the same as the NG. 
Boeing has looked at putting an updated avionic package in the 737 based on one of the newer Boeing models (getting better economies of scale in the process), but the operators don't want it due to the associated training costs.
Boeing has looked at putting an updated avionic package in the 737 based on one of the newer Boeing models (getting better economies of scale in the process), but the operators don't want it due to the associated training costs.
Until Boeing have used the thousands of excess 737-100 analogue electrical panel surrounds which they still use on the NG - I will be locked into to looking up and shaking my head and saying 'if only.....'
Big advancement for 2013 - trusty sidekick very rarely has to touch the Start Switches!
I am really looking forward to the 2014 model advancements!
I do however enjoy my job, but I laugh a lot!
Big advancement for 2013 - trusty sidekick very rarely has to touch the Start Switches!
I am really looking forward to the 2014 model advancements!
I do however enjoy my job, but I laugh a lot!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Type rated on both !
A lot of comments from one side of the fence or the other, I am currently type rated on both the A320 and B737NG.
The A320 has the most comfortable cockpit by far, the systems presentation is light years ahead of the B738 and it also has a few very good features in the Nav system, someone commented on the Boeing heading bug above, I agree that Airbus have that one right!
The B738 FMC is a bit more user friendly with VNAV avalable in HDG but other wise these are much the same except with some earlier A320 FNC's you could execute a function with one press of the button....not a good idea.
To go from FMC navigation to conventional the Boeing is by far the best and so it a more flexible real world tool when things get changed at the last moment.
When things get rough in terms of weather the Boeing is far better in turbulence and crosswinds, for some reason the A320 flight control system can't quite get things right when the going gets really rough.
The Airbus is a mess when things go wrong, the ECAM tis a good idea but then you find yourself going into a paper checklist and maybe the FCOM...... For any problem the QRH is the place to go on the Boeing.........simples !!!
Both are very reliable and safe aircraft but on the whole the disadvantages of the Boeing are not enough to out weigh the advantages of the Airbus, when things are going well the Airbus is the more comfortable place to be....... But when the trouble starts the Boeing offers a less sophisticated and more flexible way out of your troubles and gives you more time to think about things.
No doubt some will have other opinions !
The A320 has the most comfortable cockpit by far, the systems presentation is light years ahead of the B738 and it also has a few very good features in the Nav system, someone commented on the Boeing heading bug above, I agree that Airbus have that one right!
The B738 FMC is a bit more user friendly with VNAV avalable in HDG but other wise these are much the same except with some earlier A320 FNC's you could execute a function with one press of the button....not a good idea.
To go from FMC navigation to conventional the Boeing is by far the best and so it a more flexible real world tool when things get changed at the last moment.
When things get rough in terms of weather the Boeing is far better in turbulence and crosswinds, for some reason the A320 flight control system can't quite get things right when the going gets really rough.
The Airbus is a mess when things go wrong, the ECAM tis a good idea but then you find yourself going into a paper checklist and maybe the FCOM...... For any problem the QRH is the place to go on the Boeing.........simples !!!
Both are very reliable and safe aircraft but on the whole the disadvantages of the Boeing are not enough to out weigh the advantages of the Airbus, when things are going well the Airbus is the more comfortable place to be....... But when the trouble starts the Boeing offers a less sophisticated and more flexible way out of your troubles and gives you more time to think about things.
No doubt some will have other opinions !
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: equatorial side of the Polar Jet
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A320 superior
Ergonomics-?A320 wins
State of the art tech- A320 wins
Switching and system schematics-A320 simpler and more intuitive
Cockpit clutter and lighting-737 wins (no eye brows on 320)
Gear Handle-737 is well hung...and has an off position after raising the gear.A320 is simpler..and smaller..again more ergonomic with associated instrumentation and switching.
Cockpit seats,head rest and arm rest-A320(arguably) more luxurious
Deck room..roomier , wider and higher ceiling in A320..also quieter cockpit
Cockpit visibility..arguably slightly better forard vis on Mr.Bo but better peripheral on the bus
Rudder pedals..more ergonomic on the bus
Trim controls-more ergonomic and smaller on the bus
PFD and ND..more intelligent on the bus
ECAM-more intelligent and assists with checklist actions and schematicaly more inteligent than 73
FCU on the bus...more inteligent but requires more adaptaion than MCP on 73
Autothrust on bus Auto throttles on Boeing
MCDU on the bus..more advanced than FMS on the 73
AFCS and FBW control laws more inteligent and automated than 73
QRH and FCOM on the bus more literal than Boeing handbooks
Boeing pilots feel more in the loop with the plane.Bus pilots watch it fly and manage its behaviour more remotely.
State of the art tech- A320 wins
Switching and system schematics-A320 simpler and more intuitive
Cockpit clutter and lighting-737 wins (no eye brows on 320)
Gear Handle-737 is well hung...and has an off position after raising the gear.A320 is simpler..and smaller..again more ergonomic with associated instrumentation and switching.
Cockpit seats,head rest and arm rest-A320(arguably) more luxurious
Deck room..roomier , wider and higher ceiling in A320..also quieter cockpit
Cockpit visibility..arguably slightly better forard vis on Mr.Bo but better peripheral on the bus
Rudder pedals..more ergonomic on the bus
Trim controls-more ergonomic and smaller on the bus
PFD and ND..more intelligent on the bus
ECAM-more intelligent and assists with checklist actions and schematicaly more inteligent than 73
FCU on the bus...more inteligent but requires more adaptaion than MCP on 73
Autothrust on bus Auto throttles on Boeing
MCDU on the bus..more advanced than FMS on the 73
AFCS and FBW control laws more inteligent and automated than 73
QRH and FCOM on the bus more literal than Boeing handbooks
Boeing pilots feel more in the loop with the plane.Bus pilots watch it fly and manage its behaviour more remotely.
Crap.
Boeing build Aeroplanes for Pilots.
Airbus just build computers for nerds, over complicated.
When the **** hits the fan I'd rather be in a Boeing any day of the week.
A and C above in post #20 got it 100% correct, especially the really important bit about non normal procedures.....
Boeing build Aeroplanes for Pilots.
Airbus just build computers for nerds, over complicated.
When the **** hits the fan I'd rather be in a Boeing any day of the week.
A and C above in post #20 got it 100% correct, especially the really important bit about non normal procedures.....
Last edited by nitpicker330; 21st Oct 2013 at 08:44.