Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Role Of The Pilot In Airbus And Boeing  
User currently offlineUnited946 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (14 years 11 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4318 times:

In another post, somebody asked my why I was sad to see UAL's B737-200s being phased out in favor of A319s. I thought it would make a good topic for discussion. Here's what I said.


It's not that I hate the Airbus. I've flown 319s and 320s, and they're
nice airplanes. But it's hard to explain. From my point of view, being a
younger pilot who flies state of the art equipment, I'd love to fly a 732
or 722, where there are no computers to look over your shoulder at every
move you make. The fundamental problem with the Airbus is that the people
that design their stuff are trying to change the fundamental method of
collecting data when you're flying an airplane. With, say, a 722, you can
feel what's going on through the yoke. It's really a pilot's airplane,
and I wish I could have flown it, but it would have jeopardized my chance
at the 777. With the 319 or 320, you have a stupid stick on the side. The
flight control computers won't allow the pilot to overstress the
airframe, bank beyond a certain point, pitch too high or too low, or
stall the aircraft. If the pilot tries to do any of these, the computer
takes over contol of the aircraft.

Boeing has an entirely different philosophy. In designing the 777, great
care was taken to preserve the "feel" of a traditional aircraft. As a 777
pilot, I can say that they've done a great job, especially when you
compare it to the Airbus products. As a matter of fact, Boeing originally
wanted the 777 to have a joystick because, with fly-by-wire systems,
there was no longer any need for a traditional yoke, but since UAL, as
launch customer, had a great deal of input, we convinced our
representative to Boeing, Gordon McKinzie, to make a big deal about
keeping that "feel," and keeping the yoke in particular.

So, the way it turned out was that although the 777's electronics are by
far more advanced than anything else flying, they have a lot more
limitations placed on them by the software than the Airbus systems. A 777
pilot can exceed stress limitations, stall the aircraft, overbank, all
with the idea that in an emergency, where it might be necessary to exceed
what the airframe was designed for, the pilot should be in control, not
the computer.

Anyway, that was really long winded, but my point is that a lot of us,
particularly the older guys, are really sentimental about those old 727s
and 737s because those aircraft represent what a lot of us think modern
airliners should try to emulate in their designs and flight deck
ergonomics and flight control software. The people at Airbus seem to
disagree. Boeing, on the other hand, keeps the tradition, and really hit
a home run in that sense on the 777, which is why so many of us love to
fly it. And I, for one, am sad to see those old 732s replaced by flying
robots.

Hope that explains my position.

United946

37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirbus Boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (14 years 11 months 5 days ago) and read 3998 times:

I have a story about BA 320's.

A BA 320 takes off out of LHR.

Departure 'Speedbird *** turn right heading 150'

Plane the FO is flying ' Right 150 Speedbird ***'

The planes starts to turn left so the capt. takes over.

Departure coems back in a very kurt voice 'Speedbird *** That was a right turn 150 not left where are you going'

Plane Capt ' Departure speedbird *** this is the captain you want us to go right we want to go right the planes wants to go left we are going left to 150.'

I like the Airbus' thought the cockpit foes not looked at crapped as a MD-80 or 737's. But I heard that on a 777 the plane will not let you turn more then 30 degrees. Is it an option or what?
Dave


User currently offlineWingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2211 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (14 years 11 months 5 days ago) and read 3988 times:

Nice post. I'm sure many will disagree, but I'm not one. My laptop has crashed too many times to give me 100% confidence in computer systems. And all I really do is Word or Excel, not aircraft recovery from a spin or stall.

My uncle flew 722s and L1011s for TWA for 30+ years. He loves the 722, said he could fly that thing blindfolded. This is an interesting debate I mentioned in an earlier post.

For more interesting info, look out for TLC's show on the subject. Much of the pro-Boeing commentary came from an LH 747 training Captain, who really dislikes the Airbus philosophy. But he was older, so who knows how the LH pilots feel now after dumping Boeing for Airbus.


User currently offlineDash8 From New Zealand, joined Aug 2005, 2 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (14 years 11 months 5 days ago) and read 3980 times:

I agree completely with United 946.

This has always been my point of view. When you compare the ergonomics of Airbus jets compared to Boeing's........well.....there is just no comparison.

I've seen flight manuals and video's from both the A340 and the 777 and the 757/767 wich are a bit older.
Things like what United was talking about, throttles which don't move. A yoke you can't see etc. etc. just make a pilot even more detached from the flight itself.
A pilot who has been removed from the "loop" that is called piloting an airplane, he is less apt to take over when something goes drastically wrong.
And let's face it, when something goes drastically wrong you're left on your own. the computers wont for example try and relight the second engine after both engines flame out in midair. All it does is prevent a stall. it wont turn to the nearest airport. It wont fly itself.
This is why the pilots should always be kept in the "loop". To be one with the plane, to see and feel what it is doing. You don't have that with the Airbus aircraft. You do with the Boeing family of airplanes.

That's my point of view anyways..........

Dash8


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4453 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (14 years 11 months 5 days ago) and read 3973 times:

United946 you hit the nail on the head. I for one believe in Boeing's control surface theology than in the Airbus's.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineDash8 From New Zealand, joined Aug 2005, 2 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (14 years 11 months 5 days ago) and read 3971 times:

it is not that it wont let you pass the 30 degree bank angle. The control wheel force just increases. You can bank it to whatever bank you want. You just have to be strong. The plane will keep the bank until you release the control wheel. Then the airplane will bank the plane to a 30 degree bank.
Maybe United946 can better explain this, but I think this is how it works on the 777.


Dash8


User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3122 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (14 years 11 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3972 times:

Of course the older planes are more pilots friendly but technology changes as time goes by.

Do you prefer to go to your job every days using your automobile from the 90's or would you like to go using a 60's car?

The fun of this is to see the Boeing fanatics showing up, he he he.

I also like Boeing, I like the "style"

Luis, Faro, Portugal


User currently offlineA330 From Belgium, joined May 1999, 649 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (14 years 11 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3966 times:

On the A320/A340 series, you CAN actually overwrite the computers by a simple button. So it IS possible to stall an Airbus (Of course)and to bank harder than 30 degrees.
The only thing to do in order to keep the "touch" for pilots is to train all new pilots in Aerobatics, like Sabena does.

Tino



Shiek!
User currently offlineAirbus Boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (14 years 11 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3960 times:

Thanks for the help. Also I saw your airline in a magazine this month. It looks like you have a lot of fun destinations.
UAL946 please can you tell us a bit more about this 30 degree thing on the 777.
Thanks to both of you,
Dave


User currently offlineTP343 From Brazil, joined May 1999, 312 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (14 years 11 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3963 times:

United946, I can understand your point of view (it's coherent), but I don't agree with it.

First of all, if the system used by Airbus since the A320 appear (since 1988, therefore) were bad, unsafe, uncomfortable, or whatever negative, the new Airbus would not have it. Therefore, if today we have also the A319, A321, A330-200/-300, A340-200/-300 and soon A318 and A340-500/-600 featuring this system, it's because it has been approved worldwide.

Second, as I have told in other post, I know many of TAP-Air Portugal and VARIG pilots, and the majority of them agree in one point: Airbus give more safety and confort sensation to pilots. Coincidence or not, it is what I have been hearing for many years from people that fly A340s (TP) and B767s (RG). And more: those pilots (from VARIG) that have never flown an Airbus, agree that Airbus fame is positive (attention: neither them nor me are saying by this statement that Boeing fame is negative!).

I understand your opinion (I'll take the example Mirage gave, but I'll modify it a bit): It's the same as comparing a car with Manual- and a car with Automatic Gear Box. Each one has its advantages, each one has its disadvantages, and each one gives selected kinds of pleasure/security/trust/etc feeling to the driver. Meanwhile, both are undoubtfully safe and the differences are very subtle and up to each one (there we have the definition: it's a personal question).

And, as also Mirage have pointed, it's one of the "problems" that come with the advent of new technologies. If one is scared now of flying an Airbus and feel unsafe, I can't predict how will one behave if someday we have totally-computerized planes flying on next-space (troposphere) and without pilot! (Or maybe one - especially the American - will like and say it's ok, as it's Boeing and not Airbus who is taking the lead to develop this...).

Regards,

TP343, São Paulo, Brazil.


User currently offlineUnited946 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (14 years 11 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3962 times:

Mirage- yes, I would prefer the modern car, but I don't want the new car's engine control module telling me when I can and can't accelerate, the navigation system telling me where I can and can't go, or the gauges deciding what to show me and what not to show me. I want to make those decisions myself. And, to clarify, I am not a Boeing fanatic. I prefer Boeing aircraft because Boeing engineers have proven that their products are pilot and passenger oriented, rather than computer oriented. I know this because I have flown several different types of Boeing jetliners and I have flown the Airbus 319/320s. I prefer Boeing by far.

Airbus boy- If I exceed maximum bank angle or pitch angle or stall, etc., the yoke will vibrate and place more resistance on my movements of the yoke. But I can still force it to where I want to go. It lets you know you're exceeding design limitations, sounds klaxons, etc., but you are still the one in control. It's as simple as that.

United946


User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3122 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (14 years 11 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3951 times:

The word fanatic was not for you, other people have replied the topic.

I understand your point, it's an old one in this Airbus / Boeing debate.


User currently offlineDash8 From New Zealand, joined Aug 2005, 2 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (14 years 11 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3941 times:

Then the A340 pilot you was talking to wasn't the TAP A340 pilot who experienced inflight fuel jettisoning over the Atlantic ocean.
They even called Toulouse. Nothing could stop it. Until a fellow pilot crossing the Atlantic who also experienced this problem once, told the crew to shut down an engine and relight......."That should do the trick".


Dash8


User currently offlineTygue From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (14 years 11 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3930 times:

United946,
It seems you have a problem with feeling safe. As a passenger, I honestly don't give a damn whether the aircraft I am flying on is controlled by a human or a computer as long as I am there on time, my seat is comfortable and my >insert any airline mean here< does not taste like a mix of styrofoam and tabasco sauce.

So what if you can feel the yoke moving? It's just another thing that can break on an airplane with over 2 decade old technology. This is why aircraft have instruments on them, isn't it? Wondering what the plane is doing? Look at teh attitude indicator!!! I just began the instrument part of my private training, and I was tought to do something called a radial scan. Back and forth, back and forth on the sacred six to make sure you aren't going to die.

You mentioned that with the Airbus, the airplane itself will not allow you to stall, bank past X number of degrees or stress the airframe. Well let me ask you this: If it needs to be done, aren't you glad that the aircraft is preventing its own wings from snapping? Do you, honestly, think it is stupid that technology enables you to lower your chance of coming home in a series of small ziplock bags by throttling to TOGA if a stall is detected?

The Airbus is a MUCH more comfortable airliner, as a passenger, and a lot more safe, as a pilot, than those 20+ year old 737-200's and 727-200's.

We are in the nineties. People have walked on the moon. Computers fit into single rooms. Airplanes prevent a lot of people from dying. Think about it.

IMHO
Tygue


User currently offlineAirbus boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (14 years 11 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3924 times:

If UAL946 was scared to fly airbus' do you think he would have take 1000's of people up in the plane and take responsibility for them.

And how much instrument training are you doing with your private. All I did was learn to fly in and out of a cloud. And the nav stuff but not the nav. stuff in the cloud.
Dave


User currently offlineUnited946 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (14 years 11 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3927 times:

You missed my point completely. I did not say that a 737-200 is a better aircraft than the A319. I said that Airbus has failed to keep the pilot "in the loop," as we say. Airbus is making us read information rather than feel it. That joystick might as well be a keyboard.

I also said that the people who designed the 777, including one of my best friends, Alan Mulally, designed an excellent machine that perfectly combines the benefits of state-of-the-art avionics and also of the most powerful computer in the world: the human brain. I have no inhibitions about saying that the 777 is better than anything Airbus will ever make.

I know what a radial scan is. All the stuff your flight instructor taught you about flying your Cessna is entirely different than the stuff I learned at 777 training in Denver, okay? Please don't try to compare the two. What you do works at 90 knots and 2,000' AGL doesn't work at .84M and FL370.

About computers allowing pilots to stall or overbank aircraft, if the computer was about to fly me into a cliff or another aircraft showed up through the clouds suddenly, I'd rather risk snapping a wing than just collide.

One last thing: I'd be very interested to know when a UAL 727 or 737 crashed. We've had a DC-8 and DC-10 crash, but not much other than that in recent history. UAL mechanics are excellent, and they maintain our aircraft well.

I've flown 319s and 320s, and I know firsthand that they can act up sometimes. I'd rather be in complete control of a 732 than at the mercy of an A319's computers. United Airlines pays me to fly airplanes, not to sit back and watch airplanes fly themselves.

United946


User currently offlineTP343 From Brazil, joined May 1999, 312 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (14 years 11 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3923 times:

Should I understand your very informative and adequate post from 04:48 as a gratuitous provocation, with no link to the original topic subject?

TP343, São Paulo, Brazil.


User currently offline24291 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (14 years 11 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3911 times:

First, to United946, I agree with you on this issue, but a UA 737-200 crashed in Colorado Springs. I also have a few comments about the things Tygue brought up--and I'm not trying to pick on Tygue.

We're talking about the importance of quality human-engineering in the cockpit; you're correct that as a passenger, you may not be concerned with such things; however, it may be an important factor in whether you arrive at your destination or not.

Tygue mentioned that a yoke is "just another thing that can break on an airplane with over 2 decade old technology." First, a yoke is no more likely to break than a more-complex-than-you-might-think sidestick. Secondly, a 777 has a yoke, but it is far from "2 decade old technology." Finally, it is extremely important to have any additional feedback to the pilot that is possible. A pilot might have his head turned talking to a flight attendant, while the aircraft goes into a 1-g diving bank. If he has his hand on that moving yoke, he'll feel the plane bank and will be alerted to the situation. You also say, "Wondering what the plane is doing? Look at teh attitude indicator!!!"--What if the attitude indicator happens to be broken--sure, you can still fly the plane, but every bit of feedback helps. Anyone who has done some instrument training in a crappy Frasca 142 flight training device should know that without the force-feedback the real airplane gives you, it is much more challenging and fatiguing to fly. The same goes for the Airbus philosophy--without that yoke between your legs providing information through touch, the airplane will demand more of your other senses.

Sure, I love flying on the A320--it is very comfortable, but I sure hope the crew is paying complete attention to what's going on up there.


User currently offlineNavion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1010 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (14 years 11 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3905 times:

About 4 years ago, Mac McClellan, editor of Flying magazine, few in the cockpit of a Lufthansa A340 from Neward to Frankfurt. I will forever remember reading the story because it caused me such discomfort. He talked of the takeoff and subsequent FMS control and remarked how turns were being made and engines were throttling down without sticks or throttles moving!!! He discussed how strange that felt and his concern of taking pilots out of the loop. All of us who participate in this forum and are pilots know that all of the information that can be sent to you through as many sources as possible (aural, visual, sensory, olfactory etc.) help you to know what is going on with the aircraft. Many times I felt feedback through rudder pedals (when the autopilot yaw damper was malfunctioning) or noticed the angle of the control wheel was slightly off (aircraft was out of rig) and many times I have taken comfort when I noticed everything was in it's proper place (throttle position, control wheel position etc.) with just a glance. Early in the A320's career (about 10 years ago), they had about 3 crashes all of which were attributed to pilot error but the proximate cause being automation, lack of familiarity with it, and the subsequent helplessness to do anything about it when the situation got desparate. The crashes were the Air France A320, Indian Airlines A320 (crashed short of the runway), and the Air France A320 crash into the side of the mountain during a non-precision approach. What really got my attention was when Airbus great test pilot Nick Warner (I think that's his name) was killed in an A330-300 on takeoff from Toulouse when the computer was apparently programmed to do something differently than he (Warner) intended. I remember thinking "if this guy can kill himself, who's really safe." My idea, as a pilot, of having the final say so can get you out of many situations which may not have been accounted for by the programmers. The example of a wingover to avoid a cliff has happened many times with many pilots including Chuck Yeager (read his biography about flying out of a box canyon after almost slamming into a sheer rock wall). Just a few thoughts.

User currently offlineOvelix From Greece, joined Aug 1999, 639 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (14 years 11 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3911 times:




As a passenger I don’t give a damn of how the pilot feels as far as my trip is safe, comfortable and reliable. I want him capable and alert, not happy. If some people want some aviation action they can buy their own airliner and carry their friends. I want a totally uneventfull trip and I know that the vast majority of the aviation indusrty makes a good job on that. I don’t understand why someone can have problem with a computer manipulating controls. Except if some feel devalueted pilots by the fact that a computer can fly a plane much more accuratelly than a human can. When in emergency the pilot can always override the system with a single button. The technology is here to make things easier, not complex them. A computer can take over certain things such as following the correct flight path and hold altitude etc leaving the pilot’s hands and mind free for more important things.

Another issue is that both Airbus and Boeing use a great deal of input and info by their customers before deciding how every part of the plane will be made. For all that they have a different philosophy and they make their products slightly different but equally efficient. Same market, different solutions.

Thanks

Kostas, Athens, Greece




User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29791 posts, RR: 58
Reply 20, posted (14 years 11 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3906 times:

I would like to pipe in the following observation about the "modern" FMGS systems that are used on many airliners including Boeing, Airbus, McDonnell Douglas, DeHavilland Canada, Doiner, ect. ect. ect. The seems to be a lot of negativity toward "20 year old" systems here. I get a good laugh usually from those that talk about these modern systems and how new andgreat they are.

I would like to point out that the FMGS systems generally use the 8088 processor. For those of you who don't know what that computer chip is, it is the one the 286 processor replaced. Anybody bought a Commodore 64 or a Radio Shack TI Tandy computer recently???

Frankly I trust that 20 year old computer chip a lot more then if I walked onto an Airbus or Boeing and saw the Windows 98 logo displayed on the ECAM display!!! Then I would be worried.

Beware of the pengiun Bill.




OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offline24291 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (14 years 11 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3900 times:

I don't see this purely as a discussion of automation. Both the Airbus and Boeing 777 use Fly-By-Wire, Flight Management Computers, and the systems are highly automated in both aircraft (hence the two-person flight crew). In this regard, both aircraft use a similar philosophy.

The important difference is the human-interface in the design of the cockpit and the computer software. If you're going to put a human up there who is really the one responsible for flying the plane, he should have as much feedback provided by the aircraft as possible.

You're right in thinking that technology should make the pilot's job easier; my argument is that the design of the Airbus cockpit makes the job more difficult than does the design of the 777 cockpit (see earlier post). Also, I understand that most passengers don't care how comfortable the pilot is, but the pilot's relationship with the airplane is critical to the safety of your flight. Any pilot should understand this.

It's not a matter of ego, either; both aircraft use a high degree of automation. I simply feel that the Airbus philosophy requires extremely vigilant cockpit management and limits the valuable resource of humans in the cockpit. Humans can be aware of unusual situations that the computer cannot interpret--a good example is the crash of the Lufthansa A320 in Warsaw. The pilot wanted to deploy the thrust reversers and spoilers but could not, because the computers did not recognize that both main gear were firmly on the ground. If the pilot had been able to execute his commands, it would have prevented this crash.


User currently offlineLeo-ERJ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (14 years 11 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3896 times:


What happens in the avionics of an Airbus system is quite different. The
mainframe computer works as CPU to all the other arrays within the system.
When performing such an action which was entered in the data module, the mainframe basically gives array string of options, which can be performed in virtually a million ways at the pilot's discretion.The computer does not control the pilot, but warns him and does not allow him/her to do something wrong or such an action that will present risk. The pilot is ultimately still in charge in determining the result from the data string given to him.
I must point out that the basic chip used for control options has been the so famous '741'. This is basically an operational amplifier and especifically is in charge of the ailerons adjustement. This chip is still used today for the same automated systems, which was conceived I believe in the sixties, in earlier Boeing models. The thing I do not agree with however is the use of the yoke and similar hyds.. That is a reasonable discussions, and certainly takes away the 'feeling' of the cruise.

. The inegrity of new technology from any company is extremely healthy for
competition and the breed of new ides. I must add that the integrated system used by
Boeing on the 777 is not far from the Airbus philosophy. It also uses an
integrated data loop for its internal system. Automation is just as important.

For me, from some piloting experience think that the pilot should be 100% in charge of the controls . But even with this said, older cockpit design can also prevent a pilot's action or response from feedback given by the plane. An example of this is a F-100 crash in 1996 where thrust reversers were deployed during take-off! When this happens, the throttles lock completely, and the pilot can do absolutely nothing. The best he could do was deviate from a school but eventually hit a heavily populated area. Finally, I presume that the
future designs of airframes will very much contain such automated
systems, but don't be scared because a human brain will always be present,
regardless of what....

Cheers,
Leo-ERJ
______________________________________________________


User currently offlineWingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2211 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (14 years 11 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3896 times:

A couple of words- again some I posted in a separate thread on the same subject. In all of the cockpit recordings from Airbus crashes involving FBW technology, the same lines are heard over and over again such as:

1. What is IT doing now?
2. Why can't I get IT to do what I want?
3. What do you think IT will do next?

These phrases are also heard in incident reports many of us will never know of. One is the same that Dash 8 mentioned about a 340 dumping fuel w/o cause in mid-flight and the pilots calling Toulouse to stop it. I heard this from a KLM pilot as well. The pilot is simply not in charge. He/She might as well be in a sleeper seat with Bill Gates up front. As a passenger I would not want to hear pilot comments such as the ones above.

Second point for anyone who thinks FBW is modern technology. The first application of FBW was the Apollo 11 lunar lander in 1969! That's 30 years old. It was later used in military jets in order to maintain flyability in aircraft that favored maneuverability in favor of aerodynamics. Airbus opted for this system as a competitive advantage and because cost was not a concern in its development.

If a pilot wants to lay back and vegetate in front of computer screens, give him an Airbus, if a pilot wants to fly, give him a Boeing. This is why Southwest pilots are the most satisfied in the world with their jobs. They take-off and land all day long and spend more time out of autopilot than any other pilot group in the commercial world (jets only). They're pilots, not programmers.


User currently offlineTP343 From Brazil, joined May 1999, 312 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (14 years 11 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3898 times:

Oh yes... let's realise Airbuses are pieces of s**t flying everywhere and putting in risk crews, passengers and commom people' life that live below where Airbuses fly...

The only curious aspect of this is that all common Boeing fans says Airbus control system is unsafe, but the - whole - world says the contrary! Who is right? Oh, Certainly the commom guys!!!...

People, don't you see who ridiculous is to discuss an issue that we barely know about? (Or am I talking with someone here that has projected the systems in Airbus and Boeing a/c?).

Let's ALL realise that we ALL just repeat what we LISTEN, and NOT what we handle/work with.

------------------------------------------------------

Wingman,

Sincerely, telling that a pilot that stays in manual comand all day is more happy than one that just observe what is going on is the same as saying that in an industry worker that handle greasy and oil is more happy than one that just observes what the machines and computers are doing.
More: pilots don't fly to have pleasure; they fly to work, it's their job! They carry lives, compromises and responsabilities. If they what to have pleasure, they fly Aerodrome's Cessnas on rest-days. If I was an airline chairman and a candidate to pilot post tells me he flies to feel happy, I would NEVER contract him.
Finally, about your coment "Airbus pilots vegetate in front of computer screens", just a question: have you ever taken a jump seat on BOTH A340 and B777? I had a jump seat on a TAP A340 for landing, and if there is something I have not seem is pilots talking with me and looking to the stars. And... don't forget that B747-400s and B777s also figure those "vegetative" 6 screens...

Regards,

TP343, São Paulo, Brazil.


25 Dash8 : First of all, I'm sorry if I offended you by not putting your name in the topics field. What I said in my post was just to point out that the A340 is
26 William : This is beginning to remind me of the argument between the DC10 and L1011. Many pilots stated that Lockheed widebody were far more pleasurable to fly
27 BryanG : A great website that I found which discusses the relative merits and penalties of "computer controlled flight" can be found here: http://www.rvs.uni-b
28 BryanG : A great website that I found which discusses the relative merits and penalties of "computer controlled flight" can be found here: http://www.rvs.uni-b
29 William : If I remember correctly,a Piedmont 737 ran off the end of the runway under some of those same conditions. All major aircraft have a safety feature tha
30 Wingman : Relax TP, no one said Airbus were sh*t aircraft, where ddi you read that. We're discussing the role of pilots in each aircraft type. Some like FWB, so
31 24291 : First off, I feel like TP343 blew off the handle a little. I usually respect your comments, but what was that all about? I hope you don't think I'm ca
32 Wingman : You are right. Pilots generally vegetate on long flights no matter what aircraft they're on. And in this case, 777 pilots will be as bored as 340 pilo
33 24291 : Yikes! Now that's a scary thought!
34 777200 : I think both boeing 777 and airbus planes are fly-by-wire so, i saw videos about boeing 777 and airbus 330 and both have computers controling the pla
35 777200 : I don't agree with you at all. Human pilot it will be necessary every time.
36 24291 : Regarding the video you saw, I can't comment, because I haven't seen it. I think it's a little hasty to say that what you saw the 777 do is "the same"
37 Post contains images TP343 : Opening this post today, after 3 days off-line, for my surprise I found some posts addressed to me. I feel I have not used enough words to say what I
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The Number Of Orders Airbus And Boeing In 2001 posted Sun Jan 21 2001 05:46:32 by United Airline
Fuel Burn Of Airbus And Boeing? posted Tue Apr 25 2006 04:39:13 by MaxQ2351
Airbus And Boeing Orders In 2004 posted Wed Dec 3 2003 02:13:40 by MEA321
The Role Of A Flight Attendant - In Your Own Words posted Fri Nov 8 2002 21:13:25 by Fpdonald
Difference In Light B/W Airbus And Boeing posted Thu Sep 26 2002 04:19:07 by Hamad
What Are The Antonovs Doing In YYZ And Yvr? posted Fri Jul 19 2002 14:48:56 by Airbus Lover
Airbus And Boeing Product Strategy posted Wed Oct 25 2006 20:52:57 by Katekebo
More Private Jets Ordered From Airbus And Boeing posted Wed Oct 18 2006 16:47:20 by Manni
Airbus And Boeing On Their Way To Iran? posted Tue Jun 6 2006 17:14:25 by PM
Airbus And Boeing Orders posted Wed May 10 2006 05:52:39 by Kaitak744