Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
BlueSkys
Topic Author
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:58 am

Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:01 pm

An interesting article debating the different control systems of Airbus & Boeing. The advantages & disadvantages.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/boe202.shtml
 
MCOflyer
Posts: 7088
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:51 am

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:12 pm

If I was a pilot, I would take a Boeing as I would have full control instead of 75% control on the Airbus. I'd like to know how the Airbus would have reacted to the BA near miss by Indonesia with Captain Moody.

Hunter
Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5616
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:23 pm

As a private pilot, I like the Boeing philosophy better, although I have never (and probably never will) flown a jetliner. But the bottom line is the safety record, and both philosophies appear to be delivering that unbelievably well.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
jamesbuk
Posts: 3712
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 11:52 pm

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:24 pm



Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 1):
BA near miss by Indonesia with Captain Moody.

Wasn't that the engine out because of volcanic dust?

What would that have to do with the airbus control systems?  Confused

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 1):
75% control on the Airbus.

Pilots have full control within a certain envelope on the airbus - if they could go through that, it would endanger the aircraft - it doesn't limit the pilot in normal operating procedure also if i remember from a previous thread, the 777 has similar on board systems as most airbus aircraft now.


Just seems theres some sort of stereotype that airbus are unsafe because they have protection whilst Boeing apparently have no protection which makes it safer... apparently. Which really is bull crap.

If I was a commercial pilot - I would have no problem in flying either airbus (or airbii  wink  ) or Boeing.

Rgds --James--
You cant have your cake and eat it... What the hells the point in having it then!!!
 
BlueSkys
Topic Author
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:58 am

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:30 pm

Quoting Jamesbuk (Reply 3):
Wasn't that the engine out because of volcanic dust?

What would that have to do with the airbus control systems?

I really wonder if the Airbus system would have helped the situation or made it more difficult for the flight crew....

The flight crew did an amazing job keeping control of the situation, staying cool and making the right decisions under such circumstances....


It seems like only Boeings like flying onto ash clouds. lol

[Edited 2007-12-01 15:32:23]
 
jamesbuk
Posts: 3712
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 11:52 pm

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:32 pm



Quoting BlueSkys (Reply 4):

I don't know really... I don't see the difference myself because it was an engine issue - so they would've taken control like they did and descended like they did and kept doing the engine restart procedure like they did.

Anyone who fly's the bus got any idea if they'd be a difference?

Rgds --James--
You cant have your cake and eat it... What the hells the point in having it then!!!
 
n710ps
Posts: 1116
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:09 am

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:09 am

Frankly, they are both very fantastic systems to work with. I hold no type rateings in either Boeing or Airbus types but I do have a bit of experince with the systems on both of them as well as a little "black market" sim time. The Airbus is a rather impressive plane or at least the babybus which is what I am a pinch familliar with. Boeing is a great manufacture but they have totally diffrwen philosophy behind why what is what. I do not think it takes away from either companies safety to be honest though.
There is plenty of room for Gods animals, right next to the mashed potatoes!
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4950
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:28 am

Firstly, its worth noting that nearly seven and a half years have passed sinc this article was put to press.

Quoting Jamesbuk (Reply 3):

Wasn't that the engine out because of volcanic dust?

What would that have to do with the airbus control systems?

Yes, the RAT would have deployed and the aircraft would have reacted in the same manner until it was clear of the obstacle - in this case the ash cloud.

The Airbus philosophy is not as simple as 'thou can do this and thou cant do this'.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 2):
But the bottom line is the safety record, and both philosophies appear to be delivering that unbelievably well.

This is the only metric that needs comparison on, and at the moment both philosophies are delivering well and true.

Remember that it was an Airbus A330-200 that ran out of fuel more than 100km from a runway and still successfully managed to land. No doubt a Boeing aircraft could (and has) done the same, my point is that the Airbus philosophy is not the deathtrap many make it out to be.
 
kappel
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:48 pm

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:49 am



Quoting Moo (Reply 7):
Remember that it was an Airbus A330-200 that ran out of fuel more than 100km from a runway and still successfully managed to land. No doubt a Boeing aircraft could (and has) done the same, my point is that the Airbus philosophy is not the deathtrap many make it out to be.

That is a very good comparison to measure this by, the Air Transat pilot had all the controll necessary to land the aircraft safely, even though he had to take an extra few turns because he was too high before the landing. I guess it boils down to pilot skill in these cases, rather than the type of aircraft.
L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
 
ShyFlyer
Posts: 4698
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:38 pm

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:34 am

The only thing I don't like about Airbus is the voice for the altitude call-outs. To me, it kinda sounds like Kermit the Frog with a cold.  Silly
I lift things up and put them down.
 
HAL
Posts: 1773
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 1:38 am

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Sun Dec 02, 2007 4:52 am

Maybe I'm the first on this thread that has flown both Boeing (767) and Airbus (A320) to add my two cents to the discussion.

There is a fundamental philosophical difference between the two design groups, but that does not make either one inferior to the other. My own opinion after having flown both types (as well as Douglas, Saab, Cessna, Piper...etc, etc) is that both types are excellent airliners, and the issue is really about as resolvable as the high-wing vs. low-wing battle that has been going on in general aviation for decades. Neither one is 'better'; they are merely different.

I enjoy the Boeing for its rock solid feel on the controls, its reliability, and take pride in the fact that it is made near my home town. I enjoy the Airbus for its technological sophistication, comfort, and ease of flying. To say one is obviously better than the other misses the point; they are both extraordinary examples of modern technology. Remember the airline safety records from the 1940's, 50's, and 60's? I do. I've studied them, and so did both of these manufactures. In response to problems discovered with the designs of the day, they improved them in a continuous example of technological feedback. Today, we are absolutely shocked when we hear of an airliner crashing. It wasn't so a couple decades ago - it was depressingly common back then. Some (but not all) of these incidents were because of design problems related to how the crew interacted with the aircraft as well as basic construction and design problems. The designers learned, and today we have an incredibly safe air transport system. The best expression of that safety is the record expansion of airlines around the world, using both Boeing and Airbus aircraft. If one of them was inherently unsafe, would they be selling so many of them? Of course the two huge companies will snipe at each other - that is business. And people who have a stake in one side or the other (or just enjoy arguing) vehemently disparage the other side in forums such as this one. Just about every human being enjoys rooting for one side over another in any contest. But the proof is in the sales and accident figures, and both are going in the right direction for both companies.

I put my life in the hands of the designers of these aircraft every day that I go to work. I have no problem with that. I know what they have done, and it is good. They have designed aircraft (on both sides) that allow me to perform at my best in providing safe, comfortable transportation to the public. I have a wonderful wife and son at home, and want to get back to them every time I go to work. If I ever felt the aircraft I was about to fly was unsafe, I would never, ever, step foot on it.

So I guess this is a long answer to a short question. The manufacturers make different airplanes, but neither side is 'better' than the other. My own company (Hawaiian) is proof of that. They've been around for nearly 80 years now, and flown aircraft from most of the manufacturers out there. Even in my time there I've flown Douglas (DC-10), Boeing (767), and in a few years from now, Airbus (A330 & 350). They were each chosen at a particular time because they best fit the mission and finances of the company when they were purchased. That is what is great about the competition between Boeing & Airbus; it provides a force that brings innovation, improvement, and economic viability to them and the airlines that fly them. You'll never hear me tout one type to the disadvantage of the other, other than to say that whichever I'm flying at the time is a great airplane.

HAL
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
 
luv2cattlecall
Posts: 823
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 6:25 am

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:50 am



Quoting HAL (Reply 10):
HAL

That was well put! I know this is an unlikely/impossible circumstance, but would an airbus allow pilots, in an emergency, to do what the Sioux City DC-10 pilots did and control the plane by manipulating the thrust if the other control systems failed?
.
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:16 am



Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 1):



Quoting HAL (Reply 10):
Maybe I'm the first on this thread that has flown both Boeing (767) and Airbus (A320) to add my two cents to the discussion.

It always amuses me how different the opinions are between those who've actually flown both types and those who are just guessing... especially in the Tech/Ops forum.  Smile

Seriously, do some people really believe all those poor Airbus pilots out there hate their jobs and wish they could be flying a Boeing instead?  confused 
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19938
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:20 pm

Well put HAL!

Quoting Jamesbuk (Reply 3):

Pilots have full control within a certain envelope on the airbus - if they could go through that, it would endanger the aircraft - it doesn't limit the pilot in normal operating procedure also if i remember from a previous thread, the 777 has similar on board systems as most airbus aircraft now.

Important point. If a pilot hits the envelope limits in either a Boeing or an Airbus something has already gone wrong.

Quoting Jamesbuk (Reply 3):
Just seems theres some sort of stereotype that airbus are unsafe because they have protection whilst Boeing apparently have no protection which makes it safer... apparently.

Indeed. Ironically the one with "protection" is seen as unsafe because of it.

Quoting Moo (Reply 7):
The Airbus philosophy is not as simple as 'thou can do this and thou cant do this'.

Indeed. Much more nuanced.

Quoting Moo (Reply 7):

Remember that it was an Airbus A330-200 that ran out of fuel more than 100km from a runway and still successfully managed to land. No doubt a Boeing aircraft could (and has) done the same, my point is that the Airbus philosophy is not the deathtrap many make it out to be.

Quite true. By rights, the aircraft should have plummeted into the ocean since the computers "wouldn't have know what to do."  Wink
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8573
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Sun Dec 02, 2007 4:55 pm



Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 13):
Quoting Moo (Reply 7):

Remember that it was an Airbus A330-200 that ran out of fuel more than 100km from a runway and still successfully managed to land. No doubt a Boeing aircraft could (and has) done the same, my point is that the Airbus philosophy is not the deathtrap many make it out to be.

Quite true. By rights, the aircraft should have plummeted into the ocean since the computers "wouldn't have know what to do."

Why does the Azores incident have anything to do with Airbus/Boeing control philosophies? The FBW system doesn't shut down when the engines do.

Tom.
 
VC-10
Posts: 3552
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 1999 11:34 am

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Sun Dec 02, 2007 5:08 pm



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 14):

Why does the Azores incident have anything to do with Airbus/Boeing control philosophies? The FBW system doesn't shut down when the engines do.

I think it was a response to :

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 1):
If I was a pilot, I would take a Boeing as I would have full control instead of 75% control on the Airbus. I'd like to know how the Airbus would have reacted to the BA near miss by Indonesia with Captain Moody.

 
Blackbird
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Sun Dec 02, 2007 5:24 pm

Actually the envelope protections restrict G forces to +2.5 / -1.5 even though the plane could physically pull 4

Andrea Kent
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Sun Dec 02, 2007 5:52 pm

As a professional pilot who has experience in both aircraft I will try to put my .02Cts worth into this discussion.

First of all the first FBW I flew was in the Airforce. It was the F-16 and it was great, it would do anything within the envelope the engineers wanted us to play in. For instance you want 9 g pull you got it....other aircraft had de-tuned FBW that could only get 7....oops you're going to fight bad guys, you might need 9.5 G...it's just a computer input. That's all.

Now with respect to the 318-19-20-21-330-340-350-380, from what I have seen felt, the lame flight control laws are there which allow the PF to maneuver the aircraft anywhere within those limits. In normal or even abnormal situations the protection is safe enough to provide continued flight. You just can't exceed the boundaries. It's not as if we're running late and we want to implement the "speed up" protection laws where you could exceed Mmo by ,1MN. In commercial aviation that apprpach to safety isn't available. In the military it is.

In the airbus there is no stick shaker that preceeds the actual impending stall if you did nothing, The aircraft takes care of it all for you. On the 777, there is a stick shaker because the thought is there could be a time where you would want to max preform the wing and that is done by being right at the start of the stick shaker. So the 777 has a stick shaker to alert the crew just where they are. Personally, for wind shear recoveries Boeing's logic is fine.

As a general observation, the design philosophy really boils down Airbus views the pilots as system managers and they accomplish their tasks through the Flight Control Computers and if a parameter is exceeded the computer will restrict the action. Boeing, on the onther hand, takes the other approach that says we will provide the pilots with the dools to do the job and the necessary protection. It's up to them to make it safe.

Botton line on each system is you don't let the situation your in deterioriate till you have to use some superman escape maneuver. As a professional, you plan ahead and constantly develop, modify, disgard strategys that will be helpful for you to handle a possible situation in the future.
Fly fast, live slow
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:34 pm



Quoting Luv2cattlecall (Reply 11):
That was well put! I know this is an unlikely/impossible circumstance, but would an airbus allow pilots, in an emergency, to do what the Sioux City DC-10 pilots did and control the plane by manipulating the thrust if the other control systems failed?

Well, bear in mind that a DHL A300B4 was hit by a missile, lost all hydraulics and landed safely using only the engines for control, all while the wing was on fire. Had this been a passenger aircraft the incident would be legedary, and the pilots would be heroes. This follows Turkish 981 and United 232.

Also consider than an A380 can lose all of the ship-wide hydraulics and still be perfectly controlble.

Also consider that flight control logic has nothing to do with hydraulic status. If you lose all hydraulic power on an aircraft like the A330 or 777 then you're left with engines alone, nothing else, regardless of what the computers do.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
BlueSkys
Topic Author
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:58 am

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:31 pm



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 17):
It was the F-16 and it was great, it would do anything within the envelope the engineers wanted us to play in.

Wow, I'm jealous! I wish i got a chance to fly fighters!

But, without the FBW system is the f-16 even controllable? I heard the airframe is designed to be inheretly unstable, and without the FBW system corrections no pilot could fly the airplane.


I heard a good joke from an AME once about new airplanes...

Soon airbus and boeing planes will be flown with a pilot and a dog. The pilot's role is to feed the dog, and the dog is there to bite the pilot if he tries to touch anything.! lol
 
747Dreamlifter
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:07 pm

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:51 pm

Absolutely "Outstanding"!

I've read a lot of answers to hundreds on great questions on this Website. Above all, those posted here are the most professional I've ever read.

Congrats and "Thank You", to all the professional airline pilots that fly us safely around the World.
 
dw747400
Posts: 1100
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:24 am

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:28 pm



Quoting 777236ER (Reply 18):
Well, bear in mind that a DHL A300B4 was hit by a missile, lost all hydraulics and landed safely using only the engines for control, all while the wing was on fire

Correct me if I'm wrong, but other than a prototype or two, no A300s were FBW, meaning that its not really a good example for promoting Airbus's FBW logic.


It seems like as long as we have pilots who manage to ignore all warnings and fly their aircraft in an unsafe manner, the Airbus system will have benefits; and as long as situations arise that require an aircraft to use all available performance in the hands of a well-trained pilot, Boeing's system will have benefits.
CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
 
bok269
Posts: 1568
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 10:19 am

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:55 am



Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 21):
Correct me if I'm wrong, but other than a prototype or two, no A300s were FBW, meaning that its not really a good example for promoting Airbus's FBW logic.

 checkmark 

I once read an article about the Gimli Glider incident. The article included a first hand account written by Captain Pearson himself. In the article, Captain Pearson stated that he was glad he was flying a Boeing when he ran out of fuel. He was too high as he approached Gimli, and slipped the aircraft to help lose altitude. Had he been in an Airbus, he wouldn't have been able to do it. Obviously there are other incidents in which the Airbus system prevented accidents.
"Reality is wrong, dreams are for real." -Tupac
 
User avatar
Jetlagged
Posts: 2564
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:00 pm

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:03 am



Quoting Luv2cattlecall (Reply 11):
That was well put! I know this is an unlikely/impossible circumstance, but would an airbus allow pilots, in an emergency, to do what the Sioux City DC-10 pilots did and control the plane by manipulating the thrust if the other control systems failed?

Of course it would. It's not as if the Airbus does not allow manual flight!

Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 21):
It seems like as long as we have pilots who manage to ignore all warnings and fly their aircraft in an unsafe manner, the Airbus system will have benefits; and as long as situations arise that require an aircraft to use all available performance in the hands of a well-trained pilot, Boeing's system will have benefits.

That is a rather inflamatory conclusion. I recommend you read PhilSquare's post above to get an idea of the true position.

A pilot who wilfully ignores warnings or puts his aircraft in dangerous attitudes should not be flying any aircraft. Pilot's can make mistakes sometimes or have unexpected conditions arise (windshear, etc). This can happen in a Boeing just as easily as an Airbus. Airbus FBW does not restrict the performance available to the pilot. For example in windshear conditions it allows the pilot to use maximum available performance simply by pulling the stick fully back. In a Boeing the pilot pulls to stick shaker and has to hold it there, his skill at doing this in difficult circumstances is then a key factor in preventing a stall.
The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19938
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:30 am



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 14):
Why does the Azores incident have anything to do with Airbus/Boeing control philosophies? The FBW system doesn't shut down when the engines do.

Nothing much. But as mentioned it was a response to the BA 747 thing. Airbi are not as brittle as some people think.

Quoting Luv2cattlecall (Reply 11):
I know this is an unlikely/impossible circumstance, but would an airbus allow pilots, in an emergency, to do what the Sioux City DC-10 pilots did and control the plane by manipulating the thrust if the other control systems failed?

Of course.


Central to this discussion:

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 23):
A pilot who wilfully ignores warnings or puts his aircraft in dangerous attitudes should not be flying any aircraft



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 17):
Botton line on each system is you don't let the situation your in deterioriate till you have to use some superman escape maneuver. As a professional, you plan ahead and constantly develop, modify, disgard strategys that will be helpful for you to handle a possible situation in the future.

"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:45 am



Quoting Bok269 (Reply 22):

I once read an article about the Gimli Glider incident. The article included a first hand account written by Captain Pearson himself. In the article, Captain Pearson stated that he was glad he was flying a Boeing when he ran out of fuel. He was too high as he approached Gimli, and slipped the aircraft to help lose altitude. Had he been in an Airbus, he wouldn't have been able to do it. Obviously there are other incidents in which the Airbus system prevented accidents.

As I recall, he credited his glider training for getting him down, more than anything. Transat proved that the 330 is as good a glider as the 767 which, when it comes down to it, is a dubious distinction at best.
What the...?
 
User avatar
Jetlagged
Posts: 2564
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:00 pm

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:56 am



Quoting Bok269 (Reply 22):
Captain Pearson stated that he was glad he was flying a Boeing when he ran out of fuel. He was too high as he approached Gimli, and slipped the aircraft to help lose altitude. Had he been in an Airbus, he wouldn't have been able to do it.

You can sideslip an Airbus just as easily as a Boeing. The technique for holding bank angle is different though.
The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
 
Ceph
Posts: 104
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 1:29 pm

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Mon Dec 03, 2007 2:28 am



Quoting BlueSkys (Reply 19):
Soon airbus and boeing planes will be flown with a pilot and a dog. The pilot's role is to feed the dog, and the dog is there to bite the pilot if he tries to touch anything.! lol

Now thats funny... lolz...
 
ThirtyEcho
Posts: 1411
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 1:21 am

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:11 am

Once again, the really sharp pilot is capable of handling any emergency situation which arises, Airbus or Boeing.

The real Ancient Pelican pulls it back WAY before any emergency arises.
Next year will be the 50th anniversary of my life as a pilot; I have never experienced anything that might be called an emergency. You might call me the Ancient Chicken but I was taught by a long line of Ancient Pelicans: an ex-Army Air Force instructor who made sure that I had spins, rolls and loops under my belt before my first solo; a retired American Airlines Captain who taught me how to lead and lag that magnetic compass with perfection; an ex-Burma Hump pilot who taught me so much about instrument flying that I can well see how he survived that experience that killed so many others. Did you know that your manifold pressure gauge was a standby altimeter?

I am not a hot pilot; Scott Crossfield was a hot pilot. He flew a Cessna 210A into a known severe thunderstorm and is, now, dead. I hope that I remain the Ancient Chicken.
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:33 pm



Quoting ThirtyEcho (Reply 28):
You might call me the Ancient Chicken

God bless the Ancient Chickens.

Signed,

A passenger.  Smile
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:03 pm



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 17):
In the airbus there is no stick shaker that preceeds the actual impending stall if you did nothing, The aircraft takes care of it all for you. On the 777, there is a stick shaker because the thought is there could be a time where you would want to max preform the wing and that is done by being right at the start of the stick shaker. So the 777 has a stick shaker to alert the crew just where they are. Personally, for wind shear recoveries Boeing's logic is fine.

here we go again !
Phil, there are at least two very arguable aspects of your demonstration :

  • While it's true that there is no stick shaker on the 'Bus, there is ample warning of an impending approach to stall, i.e a high AoA situation.
    A common mistake people make is that the stick shaker provides the pilot with the aircraft max AoA capability...as a matter of fact, the stick shaker is triggered BELOW the "alpha prot" equivalent on a 'Bus.
    Lastly, "Alpha Floor" is again well beyond the stick shaker AoA and your sidestick input allows you Alpha Max, without ever being able to exceed it.
  • From the above, for windshear recovery, on a 'Bus, all you're required to do is apply GA thrust -which also retracts all parasitic spoiler drag- and pull the sidestick back, to the stop if required.And that's all you are required to do.
    On a Boeing, first you'd have to manage to fly in and out of the stick shaker [b]while at the same time your yoke inputs will be increased a lot ('cause of the systems abnormal flight limitation ).
    So you see, I'm sorry but your example is really the one where the A philosophy really comes to it's own.
    Like you, having flown both brands, I know that in a windshear situation, my preference goes to the 'Bus. Any day.


Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 17):
As a general observation, the design philosophy really boils down Airbus views the pilots as system managers and they accomplish their tasks through the Flight Control Computers and if a parameter is exceeded the computer will restrict the action.

I am a pilot when I need piloting and a systems manager when in cruise. Like on any other airplane.
I would add that the 'Bus allows me the most accurate flight path flying I have ever seen.

As for safety, look into this incident....which would have been another accident statistic instance had it been any other airplane ;
Grouillet collision
Contrail designer
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:41 pm



Quoting Pihero (Reply 30):
So you see, I'm sorry but your example is really the one where the A philosophy really comes to it's own.
Like you, having flown both brands, I know that in a windshear situation, my preference goes to the 'Bus. Any day.

Personal preference as far as I am concerned. I am sure you know, to max perform a swept wing aircraft, the wing is partially stalled. Since it stalls from the wingtip inwards, you are right on the edge of a stick shaker, or on a Boeing the Max Energy line. Where in an Airbus you will never quite get to that AOA. As I said, minor difference but for me it's a personal preference. I have no problem flying to the "moustache" as it's just something I've learned to do.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 30):
While it's true that there is no stick shaker on the 'Bus, there is ample warning of an impending approach to stall, i.e a high AoA situation.
A common mistake people make is that the stick shaker provides the pilot with the aircraft max AoA capability...as a matter of fact, the stick shaker is triggered BELOW the "alpha prot" equivalent on a 'Bus.
Lastly, "Alpha Floor" is again well beyond the stick shaker AoA and your sidestick input allows you Alpha Max, without ever being able to exceed it.

Again, the "high AoA" situation is also evident in the Boeing. Please re-read my post, I never said Max AoA but Max Perform the wing. Perhaps semantics but a difference from my perspective. Again, I never tried to say the stick shaker gave you max AoA capability, I am sure you've had an accelerated stall demonstrated in the SIM at some point, there is no stick shaker at all.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 30):
I am a pilot when I need piloting and a systems manager when in cruise. Like on any other airplane.
I would add that the 'Bus allows me the most accurate flight path flying I have ever seen.

I will argue this point. Two similar equipped aircraft one A and one B with similar FMS/FMGC and GPS updating would have almost if not the same track. There will be minor differences due to the wind input of the three IRS/ADIRS but we're talking errors of single meters.

Again, you have your preferences, I have mine. If you will re-read my post, I was pretty careful not to say A is better than B or B is better than A. I gave my preference. If you want to have an in-depth discussion about A v. B design philosophy I'd be more than happy but in private. My attempt was to offer my preference and a justification the average non-pilot/non-professional pilot could comprehend.
Fly fast, live slow
 
PGNCS
Posts: 2260
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:07 am

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:07 pm

I have also flown both (B-727/737/747-400/757/767; A-319/320) as well a other models (DC-9, MD-80/90, L-1011), so I have been interested in some of the information and misinformation exchanged here.

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 1):
If I was a pilot, I would take a Boeing as I would have full control instead of 75% control on the Airbus. I'd like to know how the Airbus would have reacted to the BA near miss by Indonesia with Captain Moody.

As others have said, there would have been no substantive difference except the FBW Airbus models would have had more avionics capability during unpowered flight.

Quoting BlueSkys (Reply 4):
I really wonder if the Airbus system would have helped the situation or made it more difficult for the flight crew....

I want you to explain your specific objection to the Airbus system architecture and how you think it would have made it more difficult.

Quoting Moo (Reply 7):
Yes, the RAT would have deployed and the aircraft would have reacted in the same manner until it was clear of the obstacle - in this case the ash cloud.

Yes.

The Airbus philosophy is not as simple as 'thou can do this and thou cant do this'.

Very well put. The Airbus FBW is very sophisticated and intuitive to use in practice.

Quoting Luv2cattlecall (Reply 11):
That was well put! I know this is an unlikely/impossible circumstance, but would an airbus allow pilots, in an emergency, to do what the Sioux City DC-10 pilots did and control the plane by manipulating the thrust if the other control systems failed?

And, again, why would you think this would be relevant? The entire problem with UA 232 was a loss of flight controls due to hydraulic depletion. Any aircraft without flight controls can be maneuvered by engine thrust to a degree, although not necessarily successfully.

Quoting David L (Reply 12):
It always amuses me how different the opinions are between those who've actually flown both types and those who are just guessing... especially in the Tech/Ops forum.

Yes there are. The amount of ignorance especially about Airbus design features is amazing.

Seriously, do some people really believe all those poor Airbus pilots out there hate their jobs and wish they could be flying a Boeing instead?

I am currently a Boeing pilot wishing that I had my Airbus back every day that I fly.

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 16):
Actually the envelope protections restrict G forces to +2.5 / -1.5 even though the plane could physically pull 4

Transport category aircraft are restricted to 2.5G's by certification authorities. How do you know it can pull 4 G's? Under what conditions? Configured? Clean? How about 5? 6? 3 on a 20 year old plane with 50,000 cycles?

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 17):
Now with respect to the 318-19-20-21-330-340-350-380, from what I have seen felt, the lame flight control laws are there which allow the PF to maneuver the aircraft anywhere within those limits. In normal or even abnormal situations the protection is safe enough to provide continued flight. You just can't exceed the boundaries. It's not as if we're running late and we want to implement the "speed up" protection laws where you could exceed Mmo by ,1MN. In commercial aviation that apprpach to safety isn't available. In the military it is.

In the airbus there is no stick shaker that preceeds the actual impending stall if you did nothing, The aircraft takes care of it all for you. On the 777, there is a stick shaker because the thought is there could be a time where you would want to max preform the wing and that is done by being right at the start of the stick shaker. So the 777 has a stick shaker to alert the crew just where they are. Personally, for wind shear recoveries Boeing's logic is fine.

As a general observation, the design philosophy really boils down Airbus views the pilots as system managers and they accomplish their tasks through the Flight Control Computers and if a parameter is exceeded the computer will restrict the action. Boeing, on the onther hand, takes the other approach that says we will provide the pilots with the dools to do the job and the necessary protection. It's up to them to make it safe.

Botton line on each system is you don't let the situation your in deterioriate till you have to use some superman escape maneuver. As a professional, you plan ahead and constantly develop, modify, disgard strategys that will be helpful for you to handle a possible situation in the future.

I respect Phil's experience, and am glad he is happy flying Boeing products. I do not agree with him about windshear escape issues, as during extremely dynamic maneuvering the Airbus full aft stick recovery is much easier to practically optimize flight path.

Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 21):
Quoting 777236ER (Reply 18):
Well, bear in mind that a DHL A300B4 was hit by a missile, lost all hydraulics and landed safely using only the engines for control, all while the wing was on fire

Correct me if I'm wrong, but other than a prototype or two, no A300s were FBW, meaning that its not really a good example for promoting Airbus's FBW logic.


It seems like as long as we have pilots who manage to ignore all warnings and fly their aircraft in an unsafe manner, the Airbus system will have benefits; and as long as situations arise that require an aircraft to use all available performance in the hands of a well-trained pilot, Boeing's system will have benefits.

The reason that the A-300 is relevant (remember the title of the thread is "Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus," not FBW Boeing & Airbus) is because in a total loss of hydraulics situation the A-300 is no more or less fly by wire than an A-320 or B-777. The DHL pilots were skilled and used what they had available. Your point is invalid that "as long as situations arise that require an aircraft to use all available performance in the hands of a well-trained pilot, Boeing's system will have benefits." The DHL pilots obviously were extremely well trained and definitely used all available performance they had available.

Quoting Bok269 (Reply 22):
I once read an article about the Gimli Glider incident. The article included a first hand account written by Captain Pearson himself. In the article, Captain Pearson stated that he was glad he was flying a Boeing when he ran out of fuel. He was too high as he approached Gimli, and slipped the aircraft to help lose altitude. Had he been in an Airbus, he wouldn't have been able to do it.

Well if this is true, even professionals can show their biases and ignorance. An Airbus can be slipped just as well as a Boeing. In the case of a FBW Airbus in the same situation, the amount of information available and systems working in the cockpit would have also been much higher.

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 26):
You can sideslip an Airbus just as easily as a Boeing.

Yes you can.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 30):
Phil, there are at least two very arguable aspects of your demonstration :



While it's true that there is no stick shaker on the 'Bus, there is ample warning of an impending approach to stall, i.e a high AoA situation.
A common mistake people make is that the stick shaker provides the pilot with the aircraft max AoA capability...as a matter of fact, the stick shaker is triggered BELOW the "alpha prot" equivalent on a 'Bus.
Lastly, "Alpha Floor" is again well beyond the stick shaker AoA and your sidestick input allows you Alpha Max, without ever being able to exceed it.

From the above, for windshear recovery, on a 'Bus, all you're required to do is apply GA thrust -which also retracts all parasitic spoiler drag- and pull the sidestick back, to the stop if required.And that's all you are required to do.
On a Boeing, first you'd have to manage to fly in and out of the stick shaker [b]while at the same time your yoke inputs will be increased a lot ('cause of the systems abnormal flight limitation ).
So you see, I'm sorry but your example is really the one where the A philosophy really comes to it's own.
Like you, having flown both brands, I know that in a windshear situation, my preference goes to the 'Bus. Any day.

Pihero: again you nail the point. I would always take an Airbus any day for any reason, but especially in the windshear scenarios. The more I fly Boeing, the more I like Airbus.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 30):
I am a pilot when I need piloting and a systems manager when in cruise. Like on any other airplane.
I would add that the 'Bus allows me the most accurate flight path flying I have ever seen.

I agree; especially in optimized vertical navigation.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 31):
Quoting Pihero (Reply 30):
I am a pilot when I need piloting and a systems manager when in cruise. Like on any other airplane.
I would add that the 'Bus allows me the most accurate flight path flying I have ever seen.

I will argue this point. Two similar equipped aircraft one A and one B with similar FMS/FMGC and GPS updating would have almost if not the same track. There will be minor differences due to the wind input of the three IRS/ADIRS but we're talking errors of single meters.

I have not flown the B-777 and even though I can now hold it, don't plan to. My friends that fly the 777 say that it is much better than other Boeings at VNAV path maintenance. Most Boeing products do an OK job at LNAV, but VNAV is spotty in my experience. Sometimes they nail the VNAV path, sometimes they don't come close, especially in changing winds. I find the Airbus FBW aircraft to be much smoother, and more accurate in Managed Vertical Navigation, and find the displays to be much more easily readable to verify position relative to the lateral and vertical paths. I am amazed that I have to use PROG page 2/2 to monitor XTK and VTK error on the Boeing, effectively taking the MCDU away from me during RNAV approaches. You are right, Phil, it's personal preference, but I personally prefer the Airbus any day of the week.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5616
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:50 pm



Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 25):
As I recall, he credited his glider training for getting him down, more than anything. Transat proved that the 330 is as good a glider as the 767 which, when it comes down to it, is a dubious distinction at best.

What both this and the Gimli incident prove is that both are capable of being landed safely after running out of fuel, which to me is not a dubious distinction at all. As long as planes require fuel to stay in the air I can foresee that occasionally one will come up short for one reason or another.

Quoting ThirtyEcho (Reply 28):
I hope that I remain the Ancient Chicken.

 checkmark   checkmark   checkmark 
There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots. I heartily concur in your philosophy.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:07 pm

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 31):
Two similar equipped aircraft one A and one B with similar FMS/FMGC and GPS updating would have almost if not the same track. There will be minor differences due to the wind input of the three IRS/ADIRS but we're talking errors of single meters.

I would agree with you, where only flying with a Flight director was concerned.
Remove it and fly raw data and the ball game changes drastically : the inherent stability built in the 'Bus comes to it's own, plus the fact that you are actually flying a flight path and not looking for one through bank / pitch / roll inputs makes a hell of a difference. That was my point.. and if you're intelligent enough - or lazy enough, depends on perspective - to select Track/FPV, you've just about become an ace !

PGNCS,
That was some declaration ! Big grin

[Edited 2007-12-04 13:09:01]
Contrail designer
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:00 pm



Quoting Pihero (Reply 34):
I would agree with you, where only flying with a Flight director was concerned.
Remove it and fly raw data and the ball game changes drastically : the inherent stability built in the 'Bus comes to it's own, plus the fact that you are actually flying a flight path and not looking for one through bank / pitch / roll inputs makes a hell of a difference. That was my point.. and if you're intelligent enough - or lazy enough, depends on perspective - to select Track/FPV, you've just about become an ace !

The Boeing like the Airbus is meant to be flown with the FD on and if you don't have that on you are supposed to select FPV, again just like the Airbus. Believe it or not on the Boeings there is a FPV option too/. Just like every other Boeing it "works fine lasts a long time".

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 32):
Most Boeing products do an OK job at LNAV, but VNAV is spotty in my experience. Sometimes they nail the VNAV path, sometimes they don't come close, especially in changing winds. I find the Airbus FBW aircraft to be much smoother, and more accurate in Managed Vertical Navigation, and find the displays to be much more easily readable to verify position relative to the lateral and vertical paths. I am amazed that I have to use PROG page 2/2 to monitor XTK and VTK error on the Boeing, effectively taking the MCDU away from me during RNAV approaches. You are right, Phil, it's personal preference, but I personally prefer the Airbus any day of the week.

Interesting. First of all, I find Boeings much better in VNAV than Airbus in Managed Descent. CAVEAT: My technique is to always enter winds for the descent. Why is there a need to monitor XTK and VTK during an RNAV approach? Even Airbus has taken away going to raw data for a non-precision approach when you have GPS installed. You have the info displayed in other locations? Makes no sense to me. I can look at the ND and get just want I want, I can look at the PFD and get what I need....
Fly fast, live slow
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:36 am

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 35):
Believe it or not on the Boeings there is a FPV option too/. Just like every other Boeing it "works fine lasts a long time".

Yes, I know the "bird", but found it rather *unstable* on the 744. And you can't preselect a TRK/FPA either.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 35):
Even Airbus has taken away going to raw data for a non-precision approach when you have GPS installed.

We've always used RNAV NPA , even in pre-GPS days... The Nav validation was somewhat more complicated but it worked fine.
As for VNAV, the 'Bus doesn't need wind inputs after the top of descent : it computes a series of flight path angles to each speed reduction be it a constraint or maneuvering, and altitude constraints,for the approach and voilà ! you're in !
Couldn't be simpler. Mind you, I've found the speed holding (NOT) rather upsetting, but at least, you'd respect the descent path quite accurately.
As you said, just a matter of preferences.

[Edited 2007-12-04 16:42:08]
Contrail designer
 
dw747400
Posts: 1100
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:24 am

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:37 am



Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 23):
A pilot who wilfully ignores warnings or puts his aircraft in dangerous attitudes should not be flying any aircraft.

I agree. Please read carefully what I wrote. Situations arise where, for whatever reason, pilots manage to fly the aircraft in a manner that is unsafe despite the warnings built into the aircraft. This has happened and will continue to happen. I work with dozens of flight crews on a daily basis, and I have a lot of respect for the professionalism most of them display when performing their job--this doesn't mean they can't make mistakes. I apologize if you found it offensive.

Quoting pgncs reply=0:
The reason that the A-300 is relevant (remember the title of the thread is "Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus," not FBW Boeing & Airbus) is because in a total loss of hydraulics situation the A-300 is no more or less fly by wire than an A-320 or B-777. The DHL pilots were skilled and used what they had available. Your point is invalid that "as long as situations arise that require an aircraft to use all available performance in the hands of a well-trained pilot, Boeing's system will have benefits." The DHL pilots obviously were extremely well trained and definitely used all available performance they had available.

First, regardless of what the thread title is, the article included in the thread-starter makes it clear that the question is how does the unique FBW logic on the Airbus compare to the more traditional FBW logic found on most current production Boeings (See the title--"Unlike Airbus, Boeing lets aviator override fly-by-wire technology "). The fact that a crew was able to land a crippled A300 has NOTHING to do with how the Airbus FBW logic would perform in such a situation. I'm not trying to speculate how an aircraft using Airbus's FBW system would have performed in the same situation, merely pointing out that it makes no sense to say the Airbus FBW system would work because the A300 successfully landed.

In short, the A300 is not an FBW product, so I don't see how it can be used to justify the effectiveness of the limits in the Airbus FBW system!
CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
 
PGNCS
Posts: 2260
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:07 am

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:58 am



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 35):
Why is there a need to monitor XTK and VTK during an RNAV approach? Even Airbus has taken away going to raw data for a non-precision approach when you have GPS installed. You have the info displayed in other locations? Makes no sense to me. I can look at the ND and get just want I want, I can look at the PFD and get what I need....

Because our fleet does not have XTK numerically displayed on the ND as the Airbus does, and our procedures require us to verify that we are constantly within the required XTK and VTK parameters of our Ops Specs from the FAF inbound. The only place that information is available in our configuration is on Prog 2/2.

I also enter winds in the Des Forecast, but still believe that the Airbus does a consistently better, smoother job. Having said that, that's just based on my experience, yours is apparently different.
 
PGNCS
Posts: 2260
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:07 am

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:16 am



Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 21):
Quoting 777236ER (Reply 18):
Well, bear in mind that a DHL A300B4 was hit by a missile, lost all hydraulics and landed safely using only the engines for control, all while the wing was on fire

Correct me if I'm wrong, but other than a prototype or two, no A300s were FBW, meaning that its not really a good example for promoting Airbus's FBW logic.



Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 37):
Quoting pgncs reply=0:
The reason that the A-300 is relevant (remember the title of the thread is "Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus," not FBW Boeing & Airbus) is because in a total loss of hydraulics situation the A-300 is no more or less fly by wire than an A-320 or B-777. The DHL pilots were skilled and used what they had available. Your point is invalid that "as long as situations arise that require an aircraft to use all available performance in the hands of a well-trained pilot, Boeing's system will have benefits." The DHL pilots obviously were extremely well trained and definitely used all available performance they had available.

First, regardless of what the thread title is, the article included in the thread-starter makes it clear that the question is how does the unique FBW logic on the Airbus compare to the more traditional FBW logic found on most current production Boeings (See the title--"Unlike Airbus, Boeing lets aviator override fly-by-wire technology "). The fact that a crew was able to land a crippled A300 has NOTHING to do with how the Airbus FBW logic would perform in such a situation. I'm not trying to speculate how an aircraft using Airbus's FBW system would have performed in the same situation, merely pointing out that it makes no sense to say the Airbus FBW system would work because the A300 successfully landed.

In short, the A300 is not an FBW product, so I don't see how it can be used to justify the effectiveness of the limits in the Airbus FBW system!

I am not following your objections. 777236ER mentioned the A-300 incident, and specifically mentioned "that flight control logic has nothing to do with hydraulic status," in his posting. He was responding to some discussion of the DC-10. Neither I nor 777236ER ever said or implied that the A-300 was an FBW aircraft, and neither of us made the point that the A-300 incident was relevant to a discussion of Airbus FBW design. My point was that the A-300 is a robust aircraft, and was skillfully flown by the DHL pilots in question. The specific point of the A-300 incident was raised in response to similar issues that arose in the DC-10; that context, and only that context, explains why it was a relevant point to the thread in general.
 
swallow
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:23 am

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Thu Dec 06, 2007 11:34 am

A classical battle rages....A vs. B

I think part of the problem is perspective; we tend to view 'different' as bad or inferior. But competition is healthy. Both OEWs produce great aircraft and it boils down to personal preference, as it is for the other battles of our time...

Yankees vs. Red Sox
Red State - Blue State
PC vs. Mac
Real Madrid vs. Barcelona FC
Man U vs. Arsenal, and
Hummer vs. Prius [OK, a lousy example]
The grass is greener where you water it
 
ThirtyEcho
Posts: 1411
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 1:21 am

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Thu Dec 06, 2007 11:43 am

When your airplane behaves in a way that you didn't expect, it will, eventually, do something else that you didn't expect and, then, something else. This is nothing other than the "chain of causation" that leads to an accident; recognize it as such.

If you lift off much sooner than expected, at a lower airspeed than expected, climb faster than expected and cruise faster than expected, something is wrong. Did some of your passengers jump out just before Vr or a cargo door fail and dump containers all along a taxiway?

No? Then you are carrying less fuel than calculated. This is the first link in the chain; the last link is named "Gimli."
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5616
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Thu Dec 06, 2007 6:07 pm



Quoting ThirtyEcho (Reply 41):

No? Then you are carrying less fuel than calculated. This is the first link in the chain; the last link is named "Gimli."

 checkmark 
Excellent point. The Azores incident also had clues; the problem is that when a pilot encounters something out of the ordinary it is very easy to come to the wrong conclusion about what is causing it. In retrospect it often is perfectly clear, and the poor pilot is hitting himself over the head thinking "Why didn't I think of that?" But if he has never seen it before it can be difficult to reach the correct conclusion, especially if it seems relatively minor and other matters are demanding attention.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19938
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Thu Dec 06, 2007 11:20 pm



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 42):
Excellent point. The Azores incident also had clues; the problem is that when a pilot encounters something out of the ordinary it is very easy to come to the wrong conclusion about what is causing it. In retrospect it often is perfectly clear, and the poor pilot is hitting himself over the head thinking "Why didn't I think of that?" But if he has never seen it before it can be difficult to reach the correct conclusion, especially if it seems relatively minor and other matters are demanding attention.

Sure. That's what checklists are for. Oh wait, they ignored the checklist....  Sad
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Fri Dec 07, 2007 1:07 pm



Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 43):
That's what checklists are for. Oh wait, they ignored the checklist....

Not quite, Starlion : The captain dismissed the possibility of a fuel leak, which showed a rather stubborn lack of confidence to the airplane systems and indications.
What is even more interesting is that being Canadian, he seemed rather unaware of the effect of low OATs on the oil / fuel system, which should have pointed to the *failure* of the oil / fuel heat exchanger.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 43):
the problem is that when a pilot encounters something out of the ordinary it is very easy to come to the wrong conclusion about what is causing it. In retrospect it often is perfectly clear, and the poor pilot is hitting himself over the head thinking "Why didn't I think of that?" But if he has never seen it before it can be difficult to reach the correct conclusion, especially if it seems relatively minor and other matters are demanding attention.

Tha's what training is for : it is called Situational Awareness. You can't train for everything and the official training syllabus is by necessity restricted to general or most likely failures : engine failure at different stages, depressurisation, fire, electrical abnormalities, flight control problems...and so forth.
Training -and experience - should go toward the formation of an analytical mind, which in our trade is called airmanship.
Contrail designer
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19938
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Sat Dec 08, 2007 4:13 am



Quoting Pihero (Reply 44):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 43):
That's what checklists are for. Oh wait, they ignored the checklist....

Not quite, Starlion : The captain dismissed the possibility of a fuel leak, which showed a rather stubborn lack of confidence to the airplane systems and indications.

Fair enough. But shouldn't he have done the checklist anyway? Before coming to the conclusion. Ergo he ignored the checklist by not bothering with it. I confess to not being as familiar with events as you probably are so I may be wrong.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 44):
Tha's what training is for : it is called Situational Awareness. Y

Agreed. But I didn't say that.  Wink
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
bok269
Posts: 1568
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 10:19 am

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Sat Dec 08, 2007 4:20 am



Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 26):

You can sideslip an Airbus just as easily as a Boeing. The technique for holding bank angle is different though.



Quoting PGNCS (Reply 32):

Well if this is true, even professionals can show their biases and ignorance. An Airbus can be slipped just as well as a Boeing. In the case of a FBW Airbus in the same situation, the amount of information available and systems working in the cockpit would have also been much higher.

Here is the article in question, for what its worth. If the article is indeed wrong, I stand corrected:
http://www.casa.gov.au/fsa/2003/jul/22-27.pdf
"Reality is wrong, dreams are for real." -Tupac
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Sat Dec 08, 2007 11:25 am



Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 45):
Agreed. But I didn't say that.

Sorry, Starlion, excerpt was a citation you quoted from someone else. to whom the answer is directed.
So solly, mistel Stallllion !
 Big grin
Contrail designer
 
sudden
Posts: 3936
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2001 5:20 pm

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Sat Dec 08, 2007 12:13 pm



Quoting HAL (Reply 10):
I put my life in the hands of the designers of these aircraft every day that I go to work. I have no problem with that. I know what they have done, and it is good. They have designed aircraft (on both sides) that allow me to perform at my best in providing safe, comfortable transportation to the public. I have a wonderful wife and son at home, and want to get back to them every time I go to work. If I ever felt the aircraft I was about to fly was unsafe, I would never, ever, step foot on it.

Above post more or less sums it up pretty good. As a pax I do prefer to arrive home and see my kids again.
I can also be very honest and say that I would not board an aicraft with a really poor record, and I also always check what type I am about to fly for the specific leg.

Both A and B sure knows what they are doing, but they have different ways of expressing it. Still, the message is the same, to provide crew and pax with a safe aircraft.

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 32):
Transport category aircraft are restricted to 2.5G's by certification authorities. How do you know it can pull 4 G's? Under what conditions? Configured? Clean? How about 5? 6? 3 on a 20 year old plane with 50,000 cycles?

If my memory is not failing totally, the hijacked DC-10 from FedEx pulled something around 4 G!?


Aim for the sky!
Sudden
When in doubt, flat out!
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19938
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Pilots Perspective. Boeing & Airbus

Sat Dec 08, 2007 1:09 pm



Quoting Pihero (Reply 47):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 45):
Agreed. But I didn't say that.

Sorry, Starlion, excerpt was a citation you quoted from someone else. to whom the answer is directed.
So solly, mistel Stallllion !

Oh do keep your pants on.  Wink
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: oldcodger and 15 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos