Airbus vs Boeing threads
 

Hi all..

I have been wondering for some time why most threads on "Tech log" seems to revolve around Airbusses. On page one I count 10 theads which are directly related to Airbus, either in the title or in reference to a flight number like AF447/XL888T where most of the discussion revolves around the Airbus philosophy. Conversely, there are now only two threads on page one which mentions Boeing.

I'm not trying to start yet another lengthy thead about Boeing vs Airbus but this has been like this for a long time.

Could this have something to do with the complexity of the Airbus?
Do most pilots nowadays start their career on Airbus and therefore have many questions to ask?

Ryanair and Norwegian uses Boeings so in that respect we should see lots of questions asked about Boeing as well.
Although we have maybe nowadays more Airbusses flying in Europe compared to Boeing, the discussion is really disproportional.

What do you think?

I think it's just because Airbus operators are jealous of Boeing pilots.

I have flown both. Maybe it is because Boeings are a little more intuitive and easier to understand.

The majority of the arguments that I've read on Prune revolve mostly around the group of people wanting to see the side stick move when the other guy is flying.

During my experience as an instructor, this feature of the Airbus has never been a problem, only to the Boeing pilots that don't fully understand the system.

Ready for incoming...

Dreamland - if you scour the several AF447 threads I think you will find that was the primary criticism the Airbus pilots contributing had of their aircraft.:)

Dreamland------where do I start????

I'll summarize it for you.....

Airbus-----ok I guess but generally cheap nasty plastic flimsy crap forever complicated and needing watching over 100% of the time. What the hell is it doing now?

Boeing-----the opposite..:ok:

13,000 hrs Boeing and 3,000 hrs Bus.

proxus
Well, you just did it.

Only A Guess
 

My best guess is that this is because far too many Airbus drivers do not thoroughly understand how their machines operate. Responsible men and women that they are, they recognize that they SHOULD know this stuff, and that it has never been taught or presented. @Rick777 (above) got it right IMO, noting that the Boeing system is more intuitive.
To take it one step farther... nearly all pilots with large aircraft experience could safely land a Boeing in a 'land or die' situation. I don't believe that is true with the Airbus method.
At the end of the flying day, there is nothing wrong with the Airbus operating system. The fault lies with the training given to AB pilots - the average Joe (or Mary) simply does not understand enough about how the AB's logic works. No matter the benefits of the many systems and computers, the boys and girls in those two front seats must still have and maintain absolute mastery of their machine. IMO, most who fly Boeings have that; too many who fly ABs simply do not.

Disclaimer: only flown brand B

However, I think it's because the Airbus manuals are written in French and transliterated (not translated) into English. The Boeing manuals, while sometimes irritatingly sparse on data, are written in easily comprehensible and clear english.

On another note, has anyone produced anything like the 737 MRG for the Airbus?

NFZ and Jwscud, you are both correct IMHO.

We used to be taught a lot more in our Type Rating Classes then the boys and girls do now, or so it may appear to us...

Question then becomes:

• Did we learn too much? Or:
• Do they now not learn enough?

That question will remain unanswered for sure as opinions are perpetually split.

I'm with Jwscud. It's the manuals - everything else (and that includes all the ignorant carping upthread) is moot. Contrary to scuttlebutt, the Airbus manuals do describe all the relevant actions relating to control laws etc., but because the language can be somewhat idiosyncratic, you'll see threads started requesting confirmation and elaboration.

I've said it before, but I'd be interested to see if French pilots of Brand B have similar issues with their manuals. :ok:

Thanks for that mate, I'll take my experience gained in 30 years and leave the room now.

Enjoy you delusions. :D

p.s. I actually enjoy flying the Bus now, but it is over engineered/complicated a tad when compared to the B.

If the Airbus system is more complicated and less intuitive can we really blame resulting issues onto the training? I know more training will resolve issues caused by excessive complications but surely the complex system is ultimately to blame. "Better Training" is acceptable in the short term but it is not addressing the root cause.

@nitpicker330 - How so? Do enlighten us.

Once more my handler comes into play: (the "Gretchenfrage" in Goethe's Faust)

Does the human have to adapt to a new system, or should the system be designed according human performance?

Or more directly:

Are humans capable of handling such complicated and sophisticated marvels in stress situation, or is the last resort, the human pilot, overwhelmed with the mess such marvels sometimes leave him alone with?

Maybe the initial question of this thread gives a simple answer.

There are many Airbusnauts on these threads, each and every one a wizard on his own and i am sure they would handle every emergency perfectly on their Airbus (if they even fly one ......).
But we must consider the average John Doe, or Yo Nh Doh for that matter, and ask above questions.

Yes Gretchen, the human factors must sorted out, for both Airbus and Boeing applications.

Plenty has been written in Pprune by myself and others regarding the drawbacks of the Airbus way of life and I can't be bothered going over it all again.....

However 2 positives about the Bus. 1/ tray table and 2/ quieter cockpit.

Actually 3, I get paid the same as a 777 driver.

This matter was resolved for me along time ago by an Airbus Captain at a meeting in Rio in 1992

"If you a sitting in the cockpit Boeing or Airbus and you do not know what the aircraft is doing, then you should not be sitting there"

Generally speaking true, but as aircraft have become more and more technologically advanced and computer-dependant, coupled with less training and increasingly sparse information in the manuals/FCOMs compared to older models, it is not unusual to hear even experienced training captains utter the words, "I've never seen it do that before".

Anyone who has flown recent generations of transport aircraft for any amount of time has seen them do things that they are not supposed to do and are not in the manuals, and that when described to engineers/Chief Pilots are met with a shrug. What is important to me is not necessarily knowing why "it did something" but rather what it should be doing, and be able to rapidly intervene and put things right if necessary, by reversion to a simpler mode of automation or manual flight. That is what determines whether you should be sitting on the flight deck in the first place.

I do believe however after seven years of flying A and seven years of B, that company B's products are generally designed to be more intuitive and pilot-friendly. IMHO of course.

Boeings are boys.
Airbuses are girls.

Guys have trouble working out girls.