Automation: Boeing vs. Airbus

[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.