Flying the A350 over the last couple months has been an absolute pleasure. The large cockpit is a massive improvement over the A330/340, especially when operating with four crew. HOWEVER, the cockpit dustbins are really small (yes I know it’s a silly observation) considering it’s designed to fly for 16+ hours.
This got me thinking about what other silly designs are out there for otherwise great aircraft. The separate dimming switch for the Wx radar ND display (ND brightness up, wx brightness down is very dangerous is not picked up) on the A330/340 comes to mind.

What other examples?

What is it you're throwing away that requires large dustbins?

The light switches/dimmers scattered about on the A330 drive me nuts sometimes. Which one do I want again? Is it on the overhead, the left side of the centre console, or the right side of the centre console? What does "main panel flood" refer to? And did someone leave the maintenance dome light switch to on, so now we can't turn the dome light off completely from the overhead, and it works in the opposite direction?

Where to start? Where to end? This list could be veeeery long.
-On the 777 there is no dust bin at all on the flight deck.
-On newer 777 you have to switch ON the printer right after you supply external power or the aircraft will be unhappy and you'd have to reboot if you forgot the printer.
-There's no CB page on the 777 (I really like that on the Airbus).
-You cannot have the flaps extended and slats retracted (for maintenance) without disconnecting an electrical connector and installing a jumper wire. Yet during the Flap/Slat system test via the MAT the aircraft happily drives both independently from each other.
-There's no OFF switch for the weather radar. When you select WXR on either EFIS control panel, the weather radar is active.
-The Ground Service switch on the 777F is a glorified light switch. Not much more ground servicing possible when ON than when OFF. (Potable water service for example needs the whole aircraft powered up. Air chiller only available when the aircraft is powered up.)
-No fuel transfer possible from the flight deck alone (I love that feature on the MD11)

Ah yes. No cockpit indication that ground air supply is connected on A330/340, and you can’t select APU bleed with ground air connected

The stabilizer tank in the 747 is not supposed to be used as a trim tank.
It would be awesome to have that feature enabled.

The overhead bins on the A350. An overall great aircraft, but Airbus, even in their newest plane designs, can't hold a candle to the overhead bins of the Boeing planes (737 Sky Interior, 787, 777, 747-8) regarding spaciousness and size.

I flew the A350 a couple of weeks ago and an otherwise wonderful plane didn't get the interior right. I kept bumping my head, bins are smaller, etc. They need to take a lesson from Boeing's playbook on the overhead bins.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Dating me, but using mirror to read the compass in the -9 was pretty silly. I mean, it wasn’t designed by Lucas engineers despite the appearance.

Lucas...funny... AKA "the Prince Of Darkness"......from a previous MGB owner.....

FriscoHeavy wrote:

The overhead bins on the A350. An overall great aircraft, but Airbus, even in their newest plane designs, can't hold a candle to the overhead bins of the Boeing planes (737 Sky Interior, 787, 777, 747-8) regarding spaciousness and size.

I flew the A350 a couple of weeks ago and an otherwise wonderful plane didn't get the interior right. I kept bumping my head, bins are smaller, etc. They need to take a lesson from Boeing's playbook on the overhead bins.

Can't say I've noticed that, I find the bins and interior of the 350 to be fine. Only bin issue I recently noticed, sitting in the rear of the Y cabin, was someone in the middle kept trying to yank on what they thought was an overhead bin where the crew rest area is on a LH 359

Why do (most) 737s not have a flight control position indicator?

A320 NLG air ground sensing proximity sensor targets, they are on small handle which rotates in shaft being actuated by small link, when there is freeplay on shaft and link connection, target will not come fully to proximity sensors and You can not retract landing gear. Every other Aircraft has proximity sensors targets on main links and it works fine all the time.

The A330 main gear has a "shortening mechanism" to fit the gear in the well on retraction. For no apparent reason, the ECAM message for a fault with the shortening mechanism is "lengthening fault"...

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Dating me, but using mirror to read the compass in the -9 was pretty silly. I mean, it wasn’t designed by Lucas engineers despite the appearance.

Even sillier is that they kept that design all the way through the MD-95/717

Starlionblue wrote:

The A330 main gear has a "shortening mechanism" to fit the gear in the well on retraction. For no apparent reason, the ECAM message for a fault with the shortening mechanism is "lengthening fault"...

Probably written by the same engineer that thought when you fly past Top of Descent the appropriate message is “decelerate”.

Horstroad wrote:

Where to start? Where to end? This list could be veeeery long.
-On the 777 there is no dust bin at all on the flight deck.
-On newer 777 you have to switch ON the printer right after you supply external power or the aircraft will be unhappy and you'd have to reboot if you forgot the printer.
-There's no CB page on the 777 (I really like that on the Airbus).
-You cannot have the flaps extended and slats retracted (for maintenance) without disconnecting an electrical connector and installing a jumper wire. Yet during the Flap/Slat system test via the MAT the aircraft happily drives both independently from each other.
-There's no OFF switch for the weather radar. When you select WXR on either EFIS control panel, the weather radar is active.
-The Ground Service switch on the 777F is a glorified light switch. Not much more ground servicing possible when ON than when OFF. (Potable water service for example needs the whole aircraft powered up. Air chiller only available when the aircraft is powered up.)
-No fuel transfer possible from the flight deck alone (I love that feature on the MD11)

AFAIK the slats jumper is a safety item, to prevent any unwanted deployments. Either way an improvement over the 747 that requires a dummy plug on every actuator to do the same.

Making the wing safe for mx requires you to pull 3 CB's, one of which is located behind a panel that can only be openend with the fwd cargo door open.

bhill wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Dating me, but using mirror to read the compass in the -9 was pretty silly. I mean, it wasn’t designed by Lucas engineers despite the appearance.

Lucas...funny... AKA "the Prince Of Darkness"......from a previous MGB owner.....

The first time I flew an aircraft with an electrical system produced by Lucas, I was told, "Lucas makes refrigerators for the U.K. and is the reason the English drink warm beer."

FlyHossD wrote:

bhill wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Dating me, but using mirror to read the compass in the -9 was pretty silly. I mean, it wasn’t designed by Lucas engineers despite the appearance.

Lucas...funny... AKA "the Prince Of Darkness"......from a previous MGB owner.....

The first time I flew an aircraft with an electrical system produced by Lucas, I was told, "Lucas makes refrigerators for the U.K. and is the reason the English drink warm beer."

Obviously you never flew the DH Comet!

Why there has to be a 6-inch gap between passenger window planes is beyond me. I'm sure there's a reason for it, but it makes night filming quite difficult.

BWIAirport wrote:

Why there has to be a 6-inch gap between passenger window planes is beyond me. I'm sure there's a reason for it, but it makes night filming quite difficult.

To maintain structural integrity of the fuselage by reducing chances of fracture.

I find the fasteners used to secure Radome on the 737 very lame. They should have used latches on the later models like on the A320. One faster overtorqued and the anchor breaks. Then you have to open the Radome again for access.

Alias1024 wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

The A330 main gear has a "shortening mechanism" to fit the gear in the well on retraction. For no apparent reason, the ECAM message for a fault with the shortening mechanism is "lengthening fault"...

Probably written by the same engineer that thought when you fly past Top of Descent the appropriate message is “decelerate”.

Indeed... Especially weird since in the 'bus if you want to descend at a steeper angle you need to... accelerate. But I guess it is pretty appropriate until top of drop.

Starlionblue wrote:

Alias1024 wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

The A330 main gear has a "shortening mechanism" to fit the gear in the well on retraction. For no apparent reason, the ECAM message for a fault with the shortening mechanism is "lengthening fault"...

Probably written by the same engineer that thought when you fly past Top of Descent the appropriate message is “decelerate”.

Indeed... Especially weird since in the 'bus if you want to descend at a steeper angle you need to... accelerate. But I guess it is pretty appropriate until top of drop.

It's probably a case of Frenglish, just like the judgement of your landing right after touching down.

Didn't the older frames have a French accent as well?

unimproved wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

Alias1024 wrote:

Probably written by the same engineer that thought when you fly past Top of Descent the appropriate message is “decelerate”.

Indeed... Especially weird since in the 'bus if you want to descend at a steeper angle you need to... accelerate. But I guess it is pretty appropriate until top of drop.

It's probably a case of Frenglish, just like the judgement of your landing right after touching down.

Didn't the older frames have a French accent as well?

Never heard a French accent, but the oldest 'bus I've flown is only about 20 years old.

I have come to love-hate the somewhat passive-aggressive radalt callout tone if you float a bit.

"Fifty, forty, thirty, twenty, retard, ten....." pause..."seven..." ( or "five" or "eight"). As if he's saying "my good man, I'm not judging but... well, actually I am judging..."

Starlionblue wrote:

unimproved wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

Indeed... Especially weird since in the 'bus if you want to descend at a steeper angle you need to... accelerate. But I guess it is pretty appropriate until top of drop.

It's probably a case of Frenglish, just like the judgement of your landing right after touching down.

Didn't the older frames have a French accent as well?

Never heard a French accent, but the oldest 'bus I've flown is only about 20 years old.

I have come to love-hate the somewhat passive-aggressive radalt callout tone if you float a bit.

"Fifty, forty, thirty, twenty, retard, ten....." pause..."seven..." ( or "five" or "eight"). As if he's saying "my good man, I'm not judging but... well, actually I am judging..."

Generally a sign that a greaser in imminent though

'Remove Status' the using the Clear button on the Bus. After 10000hrs on Airbus I still say 'clear status' now and again.

T54A wrote:

'Remove Status' the using the Clear button on the Bus. After 10000hrs on Airbus I still say 'clear status' now and again.

You are definitely not alone...

The ATR:
The passenger entry door and lavatory is in the back. In cargo conversions you get no lavatory.
The cargo compartments are at the extreme ends of the aircraft, makes cargo and passenger distribution interesting. The 2 rear holds are accessed through the galley and service door.
The flight deck is accessed through a cargo compartment.
The air conditioning system is worse than on a Cessna 172, really unreliable.
The 600 series is a total mess in the cockpit, a really half-baked solution with non-functioning buttons, an FMS from a helicopter complete with a hover mode and various CAT III items. Plus it comes in 3 different variations all with differences between them that you can't find anywhere in the manuals.

Oh, and no headrest.

A320. “Page Update In Progess”

CATIIIevery5yrs wrote:

A320. “Page Update In Progess”

A330 also. Typically happens just as you've punched something in...

The reading light on the A330/340 is a joke. It's fine if you lean back, then it illuminates the table. As soon as you lean forward in order to read or especially to write something, your head will overshadow the table.
The A320 has a nice light strip underneath the glareshield panel, lighting up the table in all situations. But the engineer designing the A330/340 reading light in the overhead ceiling must have had a head made of glass and no brain in it...

glen wrote:

The reading light on the A330/340 is a joke. It's fine if you lean back, then it illuminates the table. As soon as you lean forward in order to read or especially to write something, your head will overshadow the table.
The A320 has a nice light strip underneath the glareshield panel, lighting up the table in all situations. But the engineer designing the A330/340 reading light in the overhead ceiling must have had a head made of glass and no brain in it...

Seconded. It seems perfectly designed for my hand to cast a shadow onto anything I am writing.

The A340-600 and the A350 fixed this with a nice light right under the glareshield.

FriscoHeavy wrote:

The overhead bins on the A350. An overall great aircraft, but Airbus, even in their newest plane designs, can't hold a candle to the overhead bins of the Boeing planes (737 Sky Interior, 787, 777, 747-8) regarding spaciousness and size.

I flew the A350 a couple of weeks ago and an otherwise wonderful plane didn't get the interior right. I kept bumping my head, bins are smaller, etc. They need to take a lesson from Boeing's playbook on the overhead bins.

the sky interior was a response to Airlines making their OWN modifications. United installed new contoured Bin Doors and Bin extensions to store the rollaway bags many business people were carrying. I'm sure other airlines probably did the same to keep people from damaging the overhead bin doors by forcing then shut. When I was a terminal mechanic years ago, I spent hours per day fixing overhead bin latches that passengers had forced closed . The extended bin with the curved door alleviated most of that. Especially on the 737's, 757's and A320 series airplanes..

The 787 can't operate a taxi light until both engines are fully running. A flash of the taxi light indicates to the marshaller that the pilots are fine on their own and no need for any more ground assistance.

This takes a while and forces a ridiculous long wait for the pushback crew. Especially since we can't clear to start until stopped on the line. Even more frustrating is doing this in bad weather. Standing in the middle of a downpour while the engines slowly come online so the pilots can give you a flash sucks.

FriscoHeavy wrote:

The overhead bins on the A350. An overall great aircraft, but Airbus, even in their newest plane designs, can't hold a candle to the overhead bins of the Boeing planes (737 Sky Interior, 787, 777, 747-8) regarding spaciousness and size.

I flew the A350 a couple of weeks ago and an otherwise wonderful plane didn't get the interior right. I kept bumping my head, bins are smaller, etc. They need to take a lesson from Boeing's playbook on the overhead bins.

For the love of God, how many kitchen sinks were you bringing onboard? I've travelled extensively on the A350 and there never has been much issue with overhead bin space aside from the rear rows where crew bunks take up the space.

Speaking of bumping heads, the 737 BSI bins are awful for that, they drop so low. Not to mention the giant vagina Boeing put on the ceiling. Obviously the designers had other things on their mind...

CATIIIevery5yrs wrote:

A320. “Page Update In Progess”

It runs on 1987 hardware, remember

By pet peeves:

A320/330 - scrolling arrows on the MCDU. Why on earth they decided make them work in opposite sense? (yeah, I know it's 'scrolling the roll'), but still...

787:

VNAV descent is [email protected], usually too high/too fast, plus has some stuid logic (speed target changing, when opening speed window, etc.). Unable to cope with chaning winds in THR. After soo many years of buliding FMS equipped airplanes, the should have figured it out by now - or copy from Airbus.

Also, automatic deceleration (a'la Airbus decel), but the speed won't stop at flap maneouvering speed, but will happily go down to amber band (equivalent of Vls for Airbus types)

Autothrottle logic - TOGA switch doesn't work after touchdown (see EK 777 crash)

Other one - no decent space for gear pins in the cockpit. The are either stowed in avionic compartment (thus invisible to the crew), or stowed in some makeshift box in a drawer

Automatic brightness in the cockpit - goes nuts everytime during sunrise

Cockpit window shades - dont even get me started on that.... Everyone brings their own pair of $5 car shades, coz the Boeing original ones are crap...

Built in EFB sucks, is slow and hard to use

thepinkmachine wrote:

By pet peeves:

A320/330 - scrolling arrows on the MCDU. Why on earth they decided make them work in opposite sense? (yeah, I know it's 'scrolling the roll'), but still...

787:

VNAV descent is [email protected], usually too high/too fast, plus has some stuid logic (speed target changing, when opening speed window, etc.). Unable to cope with chaning winds in THR. After soo many years of buliding FMS equipped airplanes, the should have figured it out by now - or copy from Airbus.

Also, automatic deceleration (a'la Airbus decel), but the speed won't stop at flap maneouvering speed, but will happily go down to amber band (equivalent of Vls for Airbus types)

Autothrottle logic - TOGA switch doesn't work after touchdown (see EK 777 crash)

Other one - no decent space for gear pins in the cockpit. The are either stowed in avionic compartment (thus invisible to the crew), or stowed in some makeshift box in a drawer

Automatic domming in the cockpit - goes nuts everytime during sunrise

Cockpit window shades - dont even get me started on that.... Everyone brings their own pair of $5 car shades, coz the Boeing original ones are crap...

The MCDU scrolling things becomes even more annoying when you go back and forth with the A350, which scrolls the other way...

The A350 windshield shades are tedious. I don't know why couldn't use the pretty decent integrated design from the A330. Instead you get this bit of tintet plastic with a clamp...

Starlionblue wrote:

The MCDU scrolling things becomes even more annoying when you go back and forth with the A350, which scrolls the other way...

The A350 windshield shades are tedious. I don't know why couldn't use the pretty decent integrated design from the A330. Instead you get this bit of tintet plastic with a clamp...

Include the „push for STD“ on A350 instead of „Pull for STD“ on A320/A330/A340.
I thought the clamp shades only come with HUD. Are they now on every 350?

Agent wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

The MCDU scrolling things becomes even more annoying when you go back and forth with the A350, which scrolls the other way...

The A350 windshield shades are tedious. I don't know why couldn't use the pretty decent integrated design from the A330. Instead you get this bit of tintet plastic with a clamp...

Include the „push for STD“ on A350 instead of „Pull for STD“ on A320/A330/A340.
I thought the clamp shades only come with HUD. Are they now on every 350?

All of ours have the HUD so I don't know. Methinks they could still have designed a shade like the A330, sliding down between the HUD and the windshield.

Push for STD actually makes some sense, since it sorta follow the "push for managed" vs "pull for selected" logic, but I will agree it is an annoyance. There's a lot of pushing, then pulling or vice versa now. "Transition". "Grrrrdamnit." "Standard set and crosschecked..."

A350: Inability to transfer enroute data to opposite EFB.

T54A wrote:

A350: Inability to transfer enroute data to opposite EFB.

What sort of enroute data?

Starlionblue wrote:

T54A wrote:

A350: Inability to transfer enroute data to opposite EFB.

What sort of enroute data?

Hi Level chart route. XXXXX UM321 XXXXX UG123 etc

CRJ100/200 had a cup holder that was too small for a can of soda.

Are there any such design issues in the cockpits of general aviation and business aviation aircraft ? It would be interesting to know as an avgeek.

bradyj23 wrote:

CRJ100/200 had a cup holder that was too small for a can of soda.

As the CRJ100 probably has a nearly identical cockpit to a Challenger which went into service in the 80's: Soda cans in Canada were smaller than the US until 1990 or so...

http://www.coke-cans.com/canada.html

basspaul wrote:

bradyj23 wrote:

CRJ100/200 had a cup holder that was too small for a can of soda.

As the CRJ100 probably has a nearly identical cockpit to a Challenger which went into service in the 80's: Soda cans in Canada were smaller than the US until 1990 or so...

http://www.coke-cans.com/canada.html

Had no idea. That’s interesting and it at least explains why. It was fixed in the 700/900

basspaul wrote:

bradyj23 wrote:

CRJ100/200 had a cup holder that was too small for a can of soda.

As the CRJ100 probably has a nearly identical cockpit to a Challenger which went into service in the 80's: Soda cans in Canada were smaller than the US until 1990 or so...

http://www.coke-cans.com/canada.html

I always wondered why Canadians are in better shape, now I have the answer!

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The G6000 was designed to be paperless, but really wasn’t ready for it, so no chart holder, which was a $2 plastic clip. The 605 had a neat preselect for QNH, set the landing QNH, hit the button at transition. Never made it on either the 350 (smaller) or Globals. I asked Collins VP, “it was never requested, simple to add”.

The G6000 had been pretty well settled, so why is tow bar head very different on the G7500? Why is the lav service door flimsy and opens against the wind?

That’s a start.

Wow, that's some good info, thanks ! I like the Globals, but never knew they too had their quirks, especially since their cockpits look so stylish. Have all the cockpit & avionics issues you mentioned, been fixed in the Global-7500 ?

Maybe the tow bar head issue you mentioned could be for a valid reason or a money grabbing move intended to increase profits by sales of accessories like the new tow bar ? Something like the smartphone manufacturers who sell new adaptors for the new problem they created maybe ?

And is it possible there would have been complaints about the old lav service door design, where it might have been difficult to keep it open in high wind conditions, when the ground crew were working on it ? So now by making it open against the wind, it might stay open regardless of wind conditions ? I could be wrong about all this so apologies for any mistakes/misunderstandings.