I have had a try of both and much prefer the Boeing seats (even though they are not electric). Airbus armrest is better.

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.

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.

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...

Denti,

What do you mean by this?

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.

Not sure what you mean by this, curved RNP approaches are possible on the A320, jetBlue and Air New Zealand are some of the early operators that were approved for them. On the A320/30/40/80 GLS is a customer option, it will be standard fit on the A350 like the 787 and 747-8.


www.caa.govt.nz/pbn/AR_Mtg/airnz.pdf‎
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi...-GEN-SEQ02.pdf

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.

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. The B737 - even the NG models - are required to use old technology in the flight deck to retain type compatibility, but it's definitely a double-edged sword.

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.

When autoflight is clicked off, the pilot has *complete and constant* authority over the flight control computers, which - to all intents and purposes - simply act as a relay from the sidesticks to the control surfaces. The only exception to this state of affairs is if you trigger the envelope protection limits, and even then the aircraft will comply with what you're doing as long as you don't exceed 2.5G.

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? ;)

Boeing doesn't "backdrive" the thrust levers on any of their airplanes - it moves the throttle to obtain the desired thrust - unlike Brand A, the throttle position determines the thrust setting. The autothrottle drives the throttle to the position necessary to obtain the desired N1/EPR, operating closed loop on the FADEC provided N1/EPR Command. The logic is in no way complex, and hasn't changed a whole lot since the early 757/767.:=

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. :sad:

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) :ugh:

Obviously you know better than I, but I was under the impression that the T7 and later had a more software-driven architecture.

It has to be, because the variables involved and the interactions between them are that much more complex. The Airbus system was first specified in 1982. Taking the inputs from the PFC and applying them such that the load on the aircraft does not exceed the limitations is much simpler to implement than progressively increasing contrary load to the PFC via servos.

Agreed, and I did kinda make that point - the poster was talking about Boeing in general, and I was providing counterpoint.

Honeywell say GLS is optional on the 737NG, and it is a function of the FM, not the aircraft (Hence Honeywell). Any FBW Airbus can be upgraded or ordered GBAS capable.

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 :mad: hits the turbo fan I sure know which one I'd rather be sitting in .:sad::ok:

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.

As I noted, the Boeing autothrottle algorithms haven't changed much since the 767/747-400 days - running closed loop on EPR/N1 Command. The biggest difference between the 777 and the 747/767 autothrottle is that the 777 can move the two throttles independently (via separate servos - 747/767 are single servo autothrottles, meaning all throttles have to do the same thing).
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. :sad:

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 :rolleyes:

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.

It is actually solely a function of the MMR on 737NGs, which is capable of doing that since around 2004. However you do need the required hardware interface, nav panels that support entering a channel number instead of a frequency. That panel might be an option, didn't cost us anything though as boeing was quite eager to get it out into the market.

Yes, it has dual servos, which is needed for OEI CAT III approaches in which the autothrottle drives only the thrust lever of the remaining engine.

Ladies and gentlemen, re-read the OPs original query?

"Not another Boeing vs Airbus argument - don't worry!"

Or start another thread specifically A versus B?

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.

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.

That is something i do question though. For example the 777 and 787 share a common type rating. A difference course therefore should be shorter from one type to the other than a new typerating. However it is in fact longer than a CCQ (cross crew qualification) from an A320 to A330 whereafter you may fly both types in mixed fleet flying.

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.

There's no objective answer to that question. All you can do is look at the safety record of both - which implies that there is in fact very little in it. In fact, the A320 series appears to have a slight edge.

What makes you think the A320 would be more difficult to fly out of a serious situation?

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.