Why is there no "new flight deck option" for the A320 series?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: at the edge of the alps
Posts: 447
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is there no "new flight deck option" for the A320 series?
While Airbus is selling a "new engine option" for the A320 series all these shiny NEO birds come with a flight deck that would not startle a pilot rated in the first A320 delivered over 30 years ago. There have been some small changes to the flight guidance panel and FMS but while the screens have evolved from CRT to LCD the overall impression is quite "retro" compared to the huge screens on the A350, A220 and E2-Jets, let alone business jets with their quickly evolving flight decks.
I assume this is mainly a sacrifice on the altar of commonality but given the fact that CCQ is allowed between A320 and A350 can't be a show-stopper. High costs of certification could be an issue but there is certification for the A350.
Any ideas why Airbus isn't offering an A350-style flight deck as a customer option for the A320 series, something which might be of interest to airlines using A320/350 CCQ?
I assume this is mainly a sacrifice on the altar of commonality but given the fact that CCQ is allowed between A320 and A350 can't be a show-stopper. High costs of certification could be an issue but there is certification for the A350.
Any ideas why Airbus isn't offering an A350-style flight deck as a customer option for the A320 series, something which might be of interest to airlines using A320/350 CCQ?
AFAIK they modify some technical cockpit stuff behind the scenes with the XLR cockpit certification recently. This might trickle down later on.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was development work for an A320 NEO enhanced with an A350 style layout. Not the same as it wouldn’t fit, but based on it. From what i read one of the bigger european low cost carriers was the launch customer for it. Sadly Airbus cancelled it about 3 or 4 years ago for the high development cost and low customer (airline) interest.
Yes, in many ways the 320 avionics are quite dated, since they were released we have seen two major interface updates in the 737 with the NG and MAX, and even the NG is quite a bit better in many ways in its avionics, not in system automation though. But coming from the 737 i do miss stuff like the navigation performance scales on the PFD, vertical situation display, integrated approach navigation (although the copied FLS is available as an option now on the A320). Other stuff like GLS capability, higher autoland crosswind limits and a higher alert height are just nice to have.
Yes, in many ways the 320 avionics are quite dated, since they were released we have seen two major interface updates in the 737 with the NG and MAX, and even the NG is quite a bit better in many ways in its avionics, not in system automation though. But coming from the 737 i do miss stuff like the navigation performance scales on the PFD, vertical situation display, integrated approach navigation (although the copied FLS is available as an option now on the A320). Other stuff like GLS capability, higher autoland crosswind limits and a higher alert height are just nice to have.
I wouldn't call the A320 family cockpit dated, it is clean, spacious and functional. And it is easy and logical to fly and works extremely well.
You wouldn't really say that a new car with a manual clutch and manual gearbox was dated, even though that technology is over a hundred years old, and much more modern DSG auto boxes are now available.
And the Airbus systems and design are still class leading.
An integrated EFB would be good, but there's not much room for the screens anywhere on A320, except on the outboard window ledge.
You wouldn't really say that a new car with a manual clutch and manual gearbox was dated, even though that technology is over a hundred years old, and much more modern DSG auto boxes are now available.
And the Airbus systems and design are still class leading.
An integrated EFB would be good, but there's not much room for the screens anywhere on A320, except on the outboard window ledge.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ziltoidia... indeed'd.
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget about the cockpit layout, when are they going to let the thrust levers move along with the thrust? I'd gladly give up the tray, the ashtray on the side, the foot rests, and the mini speedbrakes/landing lights, for having the feed back of a moving thrust lever during a landing in bad weather.
They won't to it. They want you to look at the engine display. And they call it a mode selector not thrust lever.
Last edited by Less Hair; 25th Sep 2022 at 15:52.
You should look at the speed trend arrow on the PFD and the engine N1/EPR gauges anyway, so moving thrust levers tell you very little extra and add complications with TOGA etc.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh my, reading comprehension seems to be a lost art for some. No, i did not call the whole flight deck of the A320 dated, just some aspects of the avionics suite which is after all more than 30 years old without any major update. And yes, some physical attributes of those avionics as well, like those tiny and dim screens.
In my view the airbus systems are not class leading in some regards. Like the stuff i mentioned above, and pf course other design choices like the inability to use use managed vertical modes on heading, the inability to start a descent at TOD on its own or the impossibility to fly an RNAV or overlay approach without flIght directors.
Don‘t get me wrong, i still like to operate an A320 as other aspects are quite nice, but it certainly lags behind others in some aspects.
And of course i would call any car with a manual clutch and gearbox dated, there are perfectly fine automated double clutch gearboxes out there if you really still want to drive a combustion engine, personally i switched to electric 8 or so years ago.
In my view the airbus systems are not class leading in some regards. Like the stuff i mentioned above, and pf course other design choices like the inability to use use managed vertical modes on heading, the inability to start a descent at TOD on its own or the impossibility to fly an RNAV or overlay approach without flIght directors.
Don‘t get me wrong, i still like to operate an A320 as other aspects are quite nice, but it certainly lags behind others in some aspects.
And of course i would call any car with a manual clutch and gearbox dated, there are perfectly fine automated double clutch gearboxes out there if you really still want to drive a combustion engine, personally i switched to electric 8 or so years ago.
Personally I wish the A320 family fbw architecture was updated to the current iteration than start messing around with the cockpit.One easy fix would be a more comfortable jump seat.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: at the edge of the alps
Posts: 447
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because better is the enemy of good and better stuff has been invented in the meantime?
Thanks for all the replies. It seems there's no business case for an upgrade and those who want the bleeding edge in avionics will have to apply for a business jet job ;-)
Thanks for all the replies. It seems there's no business case for an upgrade and those who want the bleeding edge in avionics will have to apply for a business jet job ;-)
https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/newsr...-communication
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ziltoidia... indeed'd.
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not rated in Boeing but in other types that have moving thrust levers, and for the life of me I just can't see how not having to look away from the PFD to know what the engines are doing is not going to be benefitial in bad weather, particularly when the A/T in Airbus is sometimes slow and inacurate maintaining the speed. A slight push or retract of the thrust levers by the pilot would be enough to fix a situation where the A/T is not maintaining Vapp on final, whereas now the pilot can't do absolutely anything except wonder when the A/T is going to react.
And what makes a GA complicated is not a moving thrust lever, is having to push a button on the side of the lever after slamming GA thrust in a panic situation, something that is not required in Airbus.
Airbus system works fine but it could work so much better...
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was a plan announced in 2020 to upgrade the A320 & A330 ACP / RMP / ATC avionics into a single integrated unit knowns as DRAIMS. The plan was to start installing the system from 2021 but I believe it’s delayed or on hold (maybe due to supply chain issues)?
https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/newsr...-communication
https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/newsr...-communication
It is being installed. Thought it was standard from the middle of the 9000 MSNs on for the A320. Mind you, digital radios have been around for a long time, airbus is simply catching up on 15 years of progress by the competition.
............I'm not rated in Boeing but in other types that have moving thrust levers, and for the life of me I just can't see how not having to look away from the PFD to know what the engines are doing is not going to be benefitial in bad weather, particularly when the A/T in Airbus is sometimes slow and inacurate maintaining the speed. A slight push or retract of the thrust levers by the pilot would be enough to fix a situation where the A/T is not maintaining Vapp on final, whereas now the pilot can't do absolutely anything except wonder when the A/T is going to react.
And what makes a GA complicated is not a moving thrust lever, is having to push a button on the side of the lever after slamming GA thrust in a panic situation, something that is not required in Airbus.
Airbus system works fine but it could work so much better...
And what makes a GA complicated is not a moving thrust lever, is having to push a button on the side of the lever after slamming GA thrust in a panic situation, something that is not required in Airbus.
Airbus system works fine but it could work so much better...
And I see you agree with me about the well designed thrust control of the Airbus FBW.
As you say, the Airbus system does work extremely well, and will give Vapp +/- 5kts, but if it is not doing what you need, you should take manual control - indeed Airbus specify this action if the automatics are not performing correctly.
I find the Airbus FBW auto-thrust so good that I have only ever had to do this a couple of times on older A330s, which apparently did not have the increase in auto-thrust response gain below 3,000'.
We used to be allowed to use 'phase advance'; where a little push or pull on the thrust levers would correct a "slow" auto-thrust, but presumably too many pilots did not fully understand the sequence and cocked it up and got into difficulties, so it was withdrawn. But taking manual thrust control always remains an option, in which case the thrust levers are entirely conventional and do move to match the changes of demanded thrust, (because the pilot moves them !).
"slamming" the thrust levers to go-around does indeed sound like the actions of panic, rather than the calm, considered actions of a competent pilot. The clever part of the Airbus FBW system, as you know, is that simply and instinctively clicking the levers fully forward into TOGA, switches the engines, the aircraft and the navigation systems into go-around mode, without any other switch-pressing required to select go-around.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ziltoidia... indeed'd.
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are finding that you are so transfixed to the PFD that you don't have the capacity to flick your eyes across to scan the N1/EPR gauges and back; then perhaps you need to go-around, or improve your capacity to scan.
And I see you agree with me about the well designed thrust control of the Airbus FBW.
As you say, the Airbus system does work extremely well, and will give Vapp +/- 5kts, but if it is not doing what you need, you should take manual control - indeed Airbus specify this action if the automatics are not performing correctly.
I find the Airbus FBW auto-thrust so good that I have only ever had to do this a couple of times on older A330s, which apparently did not have the increase in auto-thrust response gain below 3,000'.
We used to be allowed to use 'phase advance'; where a little push or pull on the thrust levers would correct a "slow" auto-thrust, but presumably too many pilots did not fully understand the sequence and cocked it up and got into difficulties, so it was withdrawn. But taking manual thrust control always remains an option, in which case the thrust levers are entirely conventional and do move to match the changes of demanded thrust, (because the pilot moves them !).
"slamming" the thrust levers to go-around does indeed sound like the actions of panic, rather than the calm, considered actions of a competent pilot. The clever part of the Airbus FBW system, as you know, is that simply and instinctively clicking the levers fully forward into TOGA, switches the engines, the aircraft and the navigation systems into go-around mode, without any other switch-pressing required to select go-around.
And I see you agree with me about the well designed thrust control of the Airbus FBW.
As you say, the Airbus system does work extremely well, and will give Vapp +/- 5kts, but if it is not doing what you need, you should take manual control - indeed Airbus specify this action if the automatics are not performing correctly.
I find the Airbus FBW auto-thrust so good that I have only ever had to do this a couple of times on older A330s, which apparently did not have the increase in auto-thrust response gain below 3,000'.
We used to be allowed to use 'phase advance'; where a little push or pull on the thrust levers would correct a "slow" auto-thrust, but presumably too many pilots did not fully understand the sequence and cocked it up and got into difficulties, so it was withdrawn. But taking manual thrust control always remains an option, in which case the thrust levers are entirely conventional and do move to match the changes of demanded thrust, (because the pilot moves them !).
"slamming" the thrust levers to go-around does indeed sound like the actions of panic, rather than the calm, considered actions of a competent pilot. The clever part of the Airbus FBW system, as you know, is that simply and instinctively clicking the levers fully forward into TOGA, switches the engines, the aircraft and the navigation systems into go-around mode, without any other switch-pressing required to select go-around.
You have a good one.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with the OP. Airbus hit a home run back in the 80’s with the displays, but they haven’t really improved on them much since then.
Compare the original 757/767 screens that were developed around the same time to what’s in the 787 and 737 max now, and you’ll see what I mean.
I even prefer the displays on the 737/777 from the 90’s to the displays on our newest NEO’s.
Airbus leapfrogged Boeing’s 757/767 EFIS, and Boeing improved on the A320 display in the 90’s and again in the 2000’s.
I wouldn’t want a direct copy and paste of the Boeing displays though, because I do find them a bit cluttered (example: why’s the FD displayed on the ground?)
I’m not asking for the expansive display suite that the A350 has, but a facelift would be nice.
Compare the original 757/767 screens that were developed around the same time to what’s in the 787 and 737 max now, and you’ll see what I mean.
I even prefer the displays on the 737/777 from the 90’s to the displays on our newest NEO’s.
Airbus leapfrogged Boeing’s 757/767 EFIS, and Boeing improved on the A320 display in the 90’s and again in the 2000’s.
I wouldn’t want a direct copy and paste of the Boeing displays though, because I do find them a bit cluttered (example: why’s the FD displayed on the ground?)
I’m not asking for the expansive display suite that the A350 has, but a facelift would be nice.
Form follows function
What new or changed functionality is required … really required, not just a wish list.
and
before considering removing anything, refer to Mr Chesterton’s fence; - never remove anything unless you know why it was put there in the first instance; then why, why, why, why, why.
Apply similar knowledge and argument in proposing something new, because it will probably have to displace something else lest there be clutter.
and
before considering removing anything, refer to Mr Chesterton’s fence; - never remove anything unless you know why it was put there in the first instance; then why, why, why, why, why.
Apply similar knowledge and argument in proposing something new, because it will probably have to displace something else lest there be clutter.
Last edited by safetypee; 27th Sep 2022 at 17:56.
Uplinker, you keep assuming that I am not a competent pilot, that I don't know how the system works, and that my experience in the Airbus is the result of bad managed panic reactions, so there is no point in carrying on with the debate if you are not going to give any credit to anything I say.
You have a good one.
You have a good one.
Surely, even on a turbulent approach you have the capacity to glance at the N1/EPRs when you see the speed trend arrow dip or overshoot? Surely you can see and hear and feel the engines spool up or down?
What, actually, do moving thrust levers tell you that the Airbus FBW family doesn't? Genuine question - I have flown both Airbus and B737, and cannot see any advantage in the Boeing system - for me, it added more problems than it allegedly solved.
.
Last edited by Uplinker; 27th Sep 2022 at 17:14.
