Automation: Boeing vs. Airbus

[The_Russian]

For those of you who have flown both, how would you compare the automation in both to each other with respect to pilot input abilty? For further clarification: What did you prefer, in-the-loop or out-of-the-loop automation systems?

What would you change in either aircraft to make it more "user-friendly" or safer to use?

and,

How do you feel this will affect future pilot training and overall ability?

 

[lineflyer1]

For those of you who have flown both, how would you compare the automation in both to each other with respect to pilot input abilty? For further clarification: What did you prefer, in-the-loop or out-of-the-loop automation systems?

What would you change in either aircraft to make it more "user-friendly" or safer to use?

and,

How do you feel this will affect future pilot training and overall ability?

I have only flown the Boeing 737 and it has too much automation!

 

[PreContact]

Boeing's Got It Right

Love the 757! Flies great hands-on, hands-off~!

 

[grog_sit_reserv]

Fifi is the laziest autopilot ever... which is fine because I'm the laziest pilot ever.

I love Fifi even though she calls me a retard just before the end of every flight.

 

[boxjockey]

At CX most guys who fly the airbus seem to like it, even though most say it takes some time to get your head around the computers. I guess it can also be quite easy to get wrapped up in checklist-land. The -400 is really easy, as it is about as automated as a CoffeeMate 2000.

box

 

[BiffF15]

I flown both the A320 and the 757 / 767. The Bus is the safest plane I have ever flown hands down. It's automation isn't perfect but is better than the 75-76 however it takes longer to become comfortable with.
Take the above comparison with a grain of salt as the technology spread between them as it's a bit of apples and oranges due to the time between airframe launches and fly by wire.

 

[GogglesPisano]

The A320 series automation takes a little getting used to but it hand flies like any other airplane -- although with a stick and with the added comfort of having neutral static stability when control pressure is released.

The systems automation is hands down superior to anything else I've ever flown -- although you are not as "in the loop" with what's going on behind you as you are in an older airplane.

The 737-800 I just checked out in hand-flies the best. The MD11 flies the worst and has the slowest FMS imaginable -- but that's a whole other thread.

The 737 vs A320 statistics are a wash ... http://www.airdisaster.com/statistics/

 

[Chronic Jetlag]

design philosophy

The main difference between Airbus and Boeing is the design philosophy. In a nutshell, the pilot has ultimate control in a Boeing whereas the plane retains ultimate control on a bus.

 

[sat74]

The MD11 flies the worst and has the slowest FMS imaginable -- but that's a whole other thread.

Yeah, I remember back in the day that my Atari and Commodore 64 ran faster than the MD11 POS FMS!!! Watching that thing go blank for eons while it calculates blows my mind!

 

[XShuttle]

I have several thousand hours in both the A320/A319 and B737-300/500. The Guppy has much better automation. The A320 won't even start a VNAV descent on it's own. The Boeing hand flies much better and the Guppy is much better in gusty winds. That said the A320 has a much more comfortable cockpit and the stick is great.

 

[GogglesPisano]

Yeah, I remember back in the day that my Atari and Commodore 64 ran faster than the MD11 POS FMS!!! Watching that thing go blank for eons while it calculates blows my mind!

Perfect for a long-haul over the ocean. It's when ATL, JFK, ORD ... change runways/STAR's at the last minute that things get interesting. :smash:

 

[oldxfr8dog]

The main difference between Airbus and Boeing is the design philosophy. In a nutshell, the pilot has ultimate control in a Boeing whereas the plane retains ultimate control on a bus.

Well, if you mean a Boeing guy has the authority to over "G" the airframe or bank more than 60 degrees, OK. Although, if the unusual attitude in the Bus is due to an "upset", full control authority is available.
The only time I have used more than 60 degrees of bank in a Boeing, was doing the "Loop" out of LA at night!
(Mr. FAA, that was a JOKE)!!!

 

[enigma]

The A320 won't even start a VNAV descent on it's own.

Yea, what's up with that? The Bus is a weird mix of "you can't do that because the engineer that designed it is smarter than you" and "why did you forget to start down"? It helps me do things I do well for myself like keeping the greasy side down, and doesn't help much in areas in which I need help, like starting down at the end of a long redeye. The UNS1's I flew years ago in corporate aircraft would at least give you a "top of descent" alert.

 

[Dizel8]

The UNS1's I flew years ago in corporate aircraft would at least give you a "top of descent" alert.

As does the bus, although it is not audible, I suppose you can program the "other guy" to yell at you

I have to laugh though, most people think the AB is too automated, yet the very same wants the a/c to initiate VNAV by itself.

It always comes down to the Boeing lovers wanting ultimate control stalling, overbanking etc and AB drivers defending the hard limits in the a/c. As someone else has already pointed out, the safety statistics are about the same for both types, so I guess it comes down to what one got used to!

 

[Old School 737]

What is the lowest RNP approach the bus can do?

 

[airbaker]

Yea, what's up with that? The Bus is a weird mix of "you can't do that because the engineer that designed it is smarter than you" and "why did you forget to start down"? It helps me do things I do well for myself like keeping the greasy side down, and doesn't help much in areas in which I need help, like starting down at the end of a long redeye. The UNS1's I flew years ago in corporate aircraft would at least give you a "top of descent" alert.

Airbus' version of a TOD alert is a little more cryptic; you'll just get a small "more drag" annunciator on the PFD and MCDU.

FWIW I much prefer the Boeing box (Honeywell) with it's logical programming inputs, but Airbus' automation

 

[Ralph Cramden]

Airbus' version of a TOD alert is a little more cryptic; you'll just get a small "more drag" annunciator on the PFD and MCDU.

FWIW I much prefer the Boeing box (Honeywell) with it's logical programming inputs, but Airbus' automation

The little red donut popping up where the GS scale goes ain't enough for you? Me neither!

I really like how you have the winds in, start down right on schedule for a multi step arrival like LGA and about a third of the way down all the constraints turn amber. Thanks Fifi, I love you too!

Agreed on the MCDU syntax. When I went to the G450 I kept trying to make lateral and vertical revisions to the flight plan. All it would do was drop to the scratch pad and cause the sim instructor to swat me with his paperwork.

 

[propjob27]

My opinion:

Flown 737 (300,500,700,800,900), 757 (200,300), and A300/A310

The automation in the 737-500 was better than that in the A300/310. That ought to tell you something.

 

[SkyWestCRJPilot]

Can anyone comment on the 777 vs the A330? I know they are different beasts but they both have fly by wire.

 

[Marko Ramius]

My opinion:

Flown 737 (300,500,700,800,900), 757 (200,300), and A300/A310

The automation in the 737-500 was better than that in the A300/310. That ought to tell you something.

Why? The A300 is a 70's design that was last updated in the early 80's, the 737-500 was launched in 87 and entered service in 1990.

 

[Cardinal]

The Bus is a weird mix of "you can't do that because the engineer that designed it is smarter than you" and "why did you forget to start down"?

The things the Airbus can't do is what I found surprising. There is no way to make the autopilot track a raw data VOR radial. You can dispaly it, and you can build it in the FMGC, but you can't tell George to track it. Nor can it track a backcourse. Boggles my mind. It's inane to be driving a brand-new, $40 million aircraft down a complex approach in heading select, because a particular approach isn't in the database.

 

[McNugget]

The things the Airbus can't do is what I found surprising. There is no way to make the autopilot track a raw data VOR radial. You can dispaly it, and you can build it in the FMGC, but you can't tell George to track it.

The 757 can't do that either, as well as some of the DC-10-30s I have flown.

They can do backcourse, however.

 

[pianoman]

Can anyone comment on the 777 vs the A330? I know they are different beasts but they both have fly by wire.

I haven't flown airbus, but the FBW in the 777 is pretty slick. You'd swear most of the time that you were actually moving the surfaces. It responds pretty quickly and is pretty stable. It'll let you do whatever you want but it'll let you know if it's a bad idea.

FMC/AP is pretty good. Smooth altitude changes instead of having to baby the v/s to start down or up. VNAV is decent provided the winds are updated. It still gets behind a little once in a while. The weirdest thing is not directly tuning NAV radios. It knows where it's going, but I feel a little out of the loop at times.

 

[tzflyer]

I have flown the 73NG, 757-200,300, McBoeing 717 and A320( I know, long and sorted tale....).
They all have good and bad points. It has taken awhile for this old boeing guy to get used to no throttle movement for autothrust, and the whole starting down thing. But...
The 737NG was no picnic either. If you let it start down it was aggressive and uncomfortable at the top...757 was just awesome.
A320 is most comfortable cockpit, and safe and easy to fly but the 757-200 is still my favorite.
As for the Nav auto tune..works good. I just display airports or vors on the map to still know where I am better than I ever did before the glass stuff...yes I flew that too!
Oh yeah, I like the logic of the honeywell boxes on the boeings with the drop down to scratch pad better than the lateral/vertical revision thing too.
Hope that was what you were looking for.

 

[typhoonpilot]

I haven't flown the Bus so take my comments as a loyal Boeing man only. I have been training guys coming from the A330/340 over to the B777 in the last few months. There are two things that stand out. Many had flown the B777 previously and wanted to come back. That tells me something right there. The other thing I notice is that they need to be reminded numerous times to guard the controls ( I.E. throttles and yoke during major changes and while near the ground ). It would appear that Bus pilots lose their basic flying behaviors.

Boeing still builds an airplane that gives the pilot tactile feedback as to what it is doing. That is the primary reason they left in the need to trim for speed changes. It's fun watching a guy from the Airbus try to hand fly an ILS while out of trim. Mention that they might try trimming and the improvement is dramatic.

They tell me the A330 box has some nice features that the B777 box doesn't. I find the Honeywell box fine. The seats in the A330/340 are universally known as better than the B777 seats. And everybody misses the tray table.



Typhoonpilot

 

[pianoman]

The seats in the A330/340 are universally known as better than the B777 seats.
Typhoonpilot

Yeah I was pretty surprised. You'd think a plane built for 15-16 hour trips would have the best seats in the world, but mmmm.....not so much.

 

[UALjan15]

B-737/300 experience: Really liked the FMC for programming and dealing with stuff like "cross 25 miles S of VOR at FL190." Loved the green arc. Weakness was moving back and forth between the "managed plan" and whatever ATC wanted you to do at the time. Also, the automation in the approach environment was pretty weak (no autotune of ILS, couldn't engage autopilot to fly published MAP because INS didn't know where it was)

A320 experience: An overall superior effort of automation, but one that took some time to master. I still would take the Honeywell/Boeing box over this thing. The ACP is where the Bus really shines--does a decent job getting you down and meeting restrictions (especially if you start down on time), but most of my descents involve ATC fvcking with my airspeed, top of descent, putting in undesired level offs, etc. I like the "push for managed, pull to command" philosophy, and it seems easier to get back to managed when my apple cart gets upset. The Bus also really shines for normal approaches, MAPs, and S/E work. It is true that some of the oddball stuff is convoluted to fly (backcourses, arcs), but they just don't come up that often where I fly. Finally, I love the fact that Fifi figures out your flap extension/retraction speeds, approach speeds, etc. and displays them on the tape. Brilliant! I'm sure more recent Boeing stuff does this, but not in the 300/500.

 

[The Victors]

Well, if you mean a Boeing guy has the authority to over "G" the airframe or bank more than 60 degrees, OK. Although, if the unusual attitude in the Bus is due to an "upset", full control authority is available.
The only time I have used more than 60 degrees of bank in a Boeing, was doing the "Loop" out of LA at night!
(Mr. FAA, that was a JOKE)!!!

Actually I think the point is that boeing "allows" the pilot to actually "fly" the plane. The bus just allows the pilot to program it. Automation is great, but most pilots got into this because they actually like to fly the plane.

 

[The Victors]

320 vs the 737, on a side note, the 320 does have a more comfortable cockpit and cabin. So you have that going for you, which is nice.

 

[oldxfr8dog]

Actually I think the point is that boeing "allows" the pilot to actually "fly" the plane. The bus just allows the pilot to program it. Automation is great, but most pilots got into this because they actually like to fly the plane.

The bus hand flies very nicely, very light on the controls. Before I flew it, I thought it would hand fly like a Boeing in CWS. Not true, it's very natural.