Airbus vs Boeing threads
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: dublin
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi fropilot
In that case there are a lot of Airbus pilots who should not be sitting there! Not their fault. The AB trainers don't fully understand the systems either. And the manuals are difficult to read and don't cover more than a need to know level of info . The AB is fine when it is working but becomes progressively more difficult as degraded modes are introduced. Classic example AF477 .,that said if 477!had just gone to basics: pitch/power/ ground speed - don't change them - all would have been well.yanrair
In that case there are a lot of Airbus pilots who should not be sitting there! Not their fault. The AB trainers don't fully understand the systems either. And the manuals are difficult to read and don't cover more than a need to know level of info . The AB is fine when it is working but becomes progressively more difficult as degraded modes are introduced. Classic example AF477 .,that said if 477!had just gone to basics: pitch/power/ ground speed - don't change them - all would have been well.yanrair
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AB is fine when it is working but becomes progressively more difficult as degraded modes are introduced.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This might simplify the discussion too much for some but aren't we basically
talking about which is better when automation fails and pilots have to go back to basics?
The notorious question "what's it doing now" was already used frequently in the transfer-period coming from steam gauges to glass cockpits combined with a lot more automation going from 707 style to 757/767 ,DC10 to MD11 and 747 classic to 400 series, often loosing an extra pair of eyes and ears (FE) in the process.
I don't really see one system triumphing over the other, provided good training and good working philosophy between the pilots ,both A, B or any of the other ones give plenty of opportunities to save the day when things go wrong.
If the basics are not met both A and B suffer almost equally, eg AF477 for the Bus or more recently the ASIANA 777 crash for Boeing or how about the THY738.
Complacency seems to be the biggest determining factor time and time again, too much reliance on automation is a big part of that.
Even average pilots (which most are) should be more than able to safely operate any modern jet even in adverse conditions.
talking about which is better when automation fails and pilots have to go back to basics?
The notorious question "what's it doing now" was already used frequently in the transfer-period coming from steam gauges to glass cockpits combined with a lot more automation going from 707 style to 757/767 ,DC10 to MD11 and 747 classic to 400 series, often loosing an extra pair of eyes and ears (FE) in the process.
I don't really see one system triumphing over the other, provided good training and good working philosophy between the pilots ,both A, B or any of the other ones give plenty of opportunities to save the day when things go wrong.
If the basics are not met both A and B suffer almost equally, eg AF477 for the Bus or more recently the ASIANA 777 crash for Boeing or how about the THY738.
Complacency seems to be the biggest determining factor time and time again, too much reliance on automation is a big part of that.
Even average pilots (which most are) should be more than able to safely operate any modern jet even in adverse conditions.
