Captain Hornfeldt, why do you refer to aviation maintenance technicians and aircraft mechanics as *_"engineers"_* ? Is it because in your native Swedish language there doesn't exist separate words or terminology in the Swedish vocabulary to distinguish between the two different professions of aerospace engineers and A&P mechanics ?
I think it does matter now more than ever. Not only is it a debate on which is safer but now we have to worry about Boeing flying a crew up to its destination and then returning without its crew all the way back to its destination. I mean it can’t stay safe within Earth’s atmosphere, now we know that it’s even unsafe out of Earth’s gravity. Forget about the “Fly-By-Wire” debate, let’s get the “Fly and stay flying by a stale aircraft” debate going…. 🤣🤣🫡✈️
You forgot very important point. While "modern" Airbus is on same safe level as "modern" Boeing, the issue is that most of the flying Airbuses are the modern type like A320, but most of the flying Boeings are still missing the modern features like fly-by-wire, for example 737. You also forgot to mention that the "old" 737 is currently the only Boeing in production. Yes, Renault has an F1 race car same as Ferrari, but most Renaults on the road are not race cars.
So, I test flew airplanes at Boeing and Northrop and then later became an air line pilot and logged over 15000 hours in the A320 family and now have been flying the 787 for the last 3 years. The analysis presented in this video is excellent and there is not much to add. At this point it mostly comes down to personal preference although in at least one area, I think one system is clearly superior. So, here are my preferences: -Yoke vs stick: stick -Moving vs non moving controls: moving -ECAM vs EICAS: ECAM - Handling qualities: Boeing - Ergonomics/cockpit layout: Airbus -And last, hard vs soft protections: hard. And I have to elaborate a little on this subject. When I worked at Northrop in the early 1990s the Air Force paid for a study to determine if soft or overridable protections offered an advantage over hard protections as most everyone thought that soft protections would allow the pilots to squeeze some more performance out of the airplane in an emergency. The study was very thorough and well documented and it indicated that in every case, hard protections were better. And, having dealt a lot with that subject, I am a firm believer. To me, both Airbus and Boeing’s systems are very good but not perfect. I really love flying the 787 as it is a fantastic airplane with great performance and economics. Given the choice, I would prefer to fly the A350. Alas, my airline does not operate the type so I will finish my career on the 787 or 777. Thanks Peter for another great video!
@peteorengo5888 also a 787 driver here. Agree with most of your preferences, other than ECAM vs EICAS - they both work just fine. Probably a good thing your airline doesn’t operate the A350, as it’s saved you from drying out like a lizard. As the 78 is your first LongHaul type, you probably don’t realise just what a difference having air from the CACs makes, rather than bleed air. I flew the 744 for 10 years (great aircraft), and positioned many times on our 777’s and A350’s - and I can categorically state that the 787 is a far more pleasant place to be, and leaves you feeling far more refreshed (as much as one can be after 14+ hours) than any other type, Boeing or Airbus. I don’t care who makes ‘my’ aircraft, but table or no table, for me, the CAC’s win every time! 👍🏼
I have a friend who's a long haul pilot for BA, his experience was entirely Boeing (747 and 777) at the time of this anecdote. About 8 years ago we were both living in the French Alps and he'd regularly commute from GVA to LHR on another airline who flew A320s to get to work. I asked him about the classic hypothetical scenario of both pilots being incapacitated and could he land the plane safely, his answer was that the differences are big enough that someone with enough hours on an A320 in a home flight sim would probably have a better chance than he would! There might have been some beers involved so I don't know how serious he was and I expect it depends a lot on how many hours the amateur spent in their flight sim but personally I'd prefer it if they were both in the cockpit.
As a long haul pilot today, I wouldn’t willingly go Boeing. I can’t imagine sitting for 8hrs+ with a moving yoke in between my legs. All respect to my Boeing colleagues, but the A350 experience is simply unbeatable today in my view. I Wouldn’t change it
I know little to nothing about aircraft, if I looked at two planes I couldn’t tell you what’s a Boeing 777 or an Airbus A320 but I’ve been playing flight sim off and on since 2020 and Boeing has more name recognition for me so I’ve always flown Boeings… Let me tell you that I was shocked when I first flew an A320 I think it was…. They have a freaking tray table ffs, looks like you can legit just stretch out and relax as compared to Boeing where your all cramped in with a gigantic thing between you legs. Plus given the fact that i actually figured out how to turn it on without the in-game systems and can turn on autopilot and all that without using keyboard shortcuts means i more often than not fly Airbuses now… Boeing does have better manufacturer liveries though, barring the Beluga (thing’s kinda cute), which matter a lot to me lol
@@FetidafI almost knew few to nothing about aircrafts but im just interested to know about planes, but based on this video, a much "Big respect" to pilot Boieng air flyers as they are much more experienced than Airbus drivers as Boieng is the traditional design, but watching this video really make sense to choose Airbus over a Boieng as Airbuses were built more automated and reduces human errors....for safety, I would go to Airbus
Nice idea, but I believe he could and would fly the A series easily, and finding a job as a Pilot or Captain for such a well educated and involved in aviation as Petter is should be any problem if he would wanna get a job on board these A series (that I personally like better to SIM in) ... p.s. Does anybody know what MOD of an Airbus Petter and his crew use in these documentaries?
Yeah well in Airbus when you deploy your landing gear, you can see your front landing gear turned 90 degree causing a emergency landing. This happened more than once and it is still happening from time to time.
Tell that to the crew of the A400M that pulled power on all 4 engines because the flight management system detected one engine failure and decided that the pilots were making a power adjustment, so when the bad engine rolled back, the computer rolled back the other 3 to prevent an asymmetric thrust profile and killed everyone on board because Airbus thinks pilots are stupid and shouldn't be the final decision makers in an emergency.
Boeing aircraft still give the pilots control. The MCAS controls the stabilizer trim, so do the pilots. But if there's a disagreement, the pilots just follow the runaway stabilizer trim memory items.
When I flew KC-135s, and Airbus joined the market, we all liked the saying "The difference between Boeing and Airbus is the Boeing pilot outranks his airplane." But of course, now, with MCAS and who knows what else the bean counters have hidden or cheaped out on in recent Boeing planes, I think I'd prefer to fly Airbus.
I fly the A320 and we have quite a few former 737 pilots in the fleet. Not one of them would ever go back. The Bus is way more comfortable, it is quieter and supports its pilots way more. After a 12 hour shift with 4 sectors on an A320 you will be tired, but on a 737 you are done and have to hope that you don't fall asleep on the drive back home. I guess when it comes to 777 and 787 it's different, but between the A320 and the 737 there is no contest. It's not even close.
@@glynnetolar4423 Because as a passenger you want your pilots not to be over tired or fatigued (there is a difference!), as then should something go wrong you have people better placed to make critical decisions about your safety in charge.
This is why they are both awful aircraft. It’s like saying “my dad only beats me twice a week not four times”. Nobody endures more punishment than narrow body drivers. Thats why almost nobody would go from a 737 to an A320.. they just want to get out of there.. either wide body, perpetual reserve, SIM, or management.
@@calvinnickel9995 I assume that is mostly a result of the lots of shorter flights vs actual comfort of the aircraft, since I assume an A320 is probably as comfortable as any Airbus widebody for the pilots.
If there's one things I've spotted it's that it's far more common for Airbus to trickle down their new technologies from the newer aircraft to their older ones and offer as retrofit. For example the Back Up Speed Scale first introduced in the A380 was added to the A320/A330/A340 a few years later and can be retrofitted to older aircraft, when the A350 used the new DBUS and enhanced speed monitoring system, the A320/A330 soon got a modified version of that. To this day only the 787 has an equivalent version.
Certainly agree, but have an inkling that this may be a practical difference - not just “unwillingness” on Boeing’s part (caveats for last decade+ corporate shenanigans)… The Airbus is (as you and Petter mention) both modular and mainly digital (bus-based) in communications between the cockpit IF/UX and the functional units in the bay. That way, some retrofits may (!) be more a software and sensor change, running and being displayed within the existing process-units and displays. The B737 - the oldest airframe still in production - these retrofits become convoluted for practical reasons. The sad outcome from “larger engines -> MCAS” is an example, whereas the A32x is aging, but still new in comparison. New engines were less different to the original ones. Check out the original B737-200 low bypass engine mounts, engineered only a decade (plus) after some very “creative” airliners… (I’m 58, about the same as the original B737. Retrofitting “my systems” makes me very unreliable…😂)
This is definitely an advantage to Airbus, especially if they ensure all of one model in an airline's fleet get modified over a short span of time along with pilot training.
Few people know that the B737NG could and should have had a functioning EICAS, but Southwest, Delta and American Airlines didn’t want to spend the money to retrain their pilots, and now, 30 years later, Boeing is crying blood at the prospect of being forced to install it on the MAX -10. It often boils down to corporate greed, toothless government agencies and weak political will. Airbus have EASA write the rules for them to push innovation, Boeing has lobbyists stop the FAA from forcing them to innovate on old designs. Case in point: AoA is information the ADIRUs base their output on. It’s information the system has and that can easily displayed to pilots. Why is AoA display not mandatory? So that Boeing can sell it as an option, easy as that. Of course airline managers in charge of buying aircraft (they call them “equipment” to further distance themselves from the flying part of their company) don’t want to pay for an option, however safety-improving it would be, so pilots with blocked pitot tubes or faulty ADIRUs are doomed to die and kill everyone on board.
Airbus is very good when it comes to software updates. A lot of the A320NEO features are easily transferable to the A320CEO via just a software update. It allows airlines to standardize all their aircraft features regardless of the age difference between them. Like you said, the BUSS is a great example. Even though (most) NEOs come with a lovely BUSS pushbutton on the MIP, unlike the CEO, where the BUSS is triggered by an ADR1+2+3 FAULT.
@@soffici1 I agree with all you say here, except - “weak political will”…? As I see our global north economy having changed in 4’ish decades, it’s an outcome of excessive political will! They got what they wanted, or should I say “what their corporate supporters wanted”? Or… didn’t we understand what they wanted, and thought we (non-corporate people) wanted the same? We (someone did…) called it “freedom” after all, nice catchphrase. It worked! 😅
I have 3500 hrs on the 737MAX, and now 6000+ hrs on the A320/321. I love the fact that the Airbus is so much quieter in the cockpit (I actually ditched my plan to buy noise-cancelling headsets after I switched), but also that the cockpit is more spacious, that I can stretch out over a long flight because there’s no yoke to restrict my legs from moving about. The sidestick also means that I don’t have to crane my neck to see the entire PFD and ND at certain yoke positions, and the tray table that helps me do my paperwork and eat meals more elegantly is certainly a bonus, rather than having to push the seat way back, then wedging the food tray between the yoke and my paunch. Q: how do you tell a Boeing pilot from an Airbus pilot? A: by the food stains on his tie! I do like the simplicity of the Airbus Flap settings compared to the Boeing’s 1-2-5-10-15-25-30-40, and the simpler brake settings - I remember having agonising debates in my mind over whether autobrake 2 or 3 would be better for this landing! Though I’m sure a lot of these dilemmas have been resolved with the new iPad-based landing distance calculator apps. Having said that, there were certain features on the Boeing that I still miss on the Airbus. Being able to intercept a DME arc from any intermediate radial rather than just the preset ones on the database was definitely one of them. Being able to capture and track out/in on a VOR radial is another. And the Boeing FMGS is much better than the Airbus in many respects: entering initial data on the FMGS is so much simpler, rather than having the remember D-I-F-S-R-I-P and now A. Or the fact that the VNAV allows the entry of Anti-Ice on/off flight levels for better optimisation of the descent, the expedite climb feature allows the pilot to decide whether they want best Rate of Climb or best Angle of Climb. The Climb 1 & 2 features are also something that I miss sometimes, though Airbus has added an automated version of that in the neo FADEC (not as effective, though). The 3-digit Mach number displayed on the Legs page allowed me to figure out the practical aspects of Cost Index on my own and the ability of the aircraft to initiate descent on its own (“when ready descend FL260…”) was a bonus that allowed us to focus on other things like traffic or approach briefing. The display of the relative headwind/tailwind and crosswind components on the Approach page was very helpful. I liked the fact that some of the TCAS units installed gave me the option of finding out the actual flight levels of the target aircraft, rather than just their relative altitude. The PFD, ND and Upper/Lower DUs displays were much sharper and the fonts used are very pleasing to the eye - I’m not a fan of the dashed range rings on the Airbus that clutter the screen and can’t even be turned off. The ability to copy a value onto the scratchpad, then paste it to another field (V1 to Vr for example) is something I still miss. And yes, I do miss the ability to display the cockpit entry camera on the lower DU! Instead, I have to crane my neck to see who wants to enter…
For comparing safety the better ergonomics of the Airbus planes is a serious point - it is not just about pilots enjoying it more. People get tired, noisy uncomfortable cockpits with unintuitive instrument layouts tire them much quicker, and tired people make mistakes.
on the A350, the DIR function is no more radial in/out... its now course in/out... so you dont need to do that mental calculation in your head and enter the radial, just enter the course you want.
Thanks for that comment. Which planes are the safest - a320, a321 or a321neo? I've heard too many bad news about the reliability of the p&w engines and don't know what planes are more safer?
@ Hmm… that’s a tough one. All aircraft are generally safe and get better with age, as the initial teething problems are sorted out. Remember the string of crashes the A320 has when it was first introduced? Having said that, the p&w engines have not yet sorted themselves out completely, but I fly them often and am not too concerned at falling out of the sky 😀 The CFM LEAP engines neos have had almost no teething problems really, so at the moment they’re safer, but i expect p&w will catch up soon. A320 vs A321? No difference
@AtulBhatia thanks for your comment, I appreciate all the help that I get. Is there a website that's accurate to show the history of incidents and accidents that happened to specific commercial jet planes? I know the planes are generally safe but I just want to be that extra safe to soothe my conscience😄 I hardly fly on planes
I can also give some input from the maintenance side being an AMT. Generally Airbus planes are more maintenance friendly and are easier to troubleshoot whereas Boeing planes require a lot more hands-on troubleshooting. On an A320 you can BITE test virtually every system on the plane through the MCDU. On the 737, most BITE functions are local to whatever component they're associated with, as in, you have to crawl into the guts of the plane, the avionics bay, and find whichever computer you need to test. On an A320 it's all done remotely, via the MCDU from the comfort of the cockpit. Physical maintenance tasks and servicing is generally easier on Airbus planes too, they generally provide more room to work, while Boeing planes are notorious for being cramped and affording very limited access to components. The A300 for example actually has a bench in the avionics bay making wiring work much more ergonomic for technicians. The 767 does not sport any such luxuries for maintainers by contrast.
A built in bench for the engineers to perform their work ergonomically. That really shows how they appreciate the importance of everyone's contributions
Lots of time in both Airbus and Boeing (A320, B737, B787, B747). For an office, a place to spend several hours each day, the Airbus wins, no contest. A very comfortable work environment. I flew the Airbus before I flew Boeings, so I found the Airbus philosophy easy to understand and work with. So I have nothing bad to say about Airbus. But if I were to go up and just hand fly for an hour, doing maneuvers, and takeoffs and landings, give me the 737 (I flew the classics, 300s and 400s). So manual flying qualities, the Boeing. For an office in which to make your living for several hours, the Airbus. But honestly, I am flying the 747 now, and even though the office is not as nice as the Airbus, I gotta say that that for airline type flying, it is so cool to fly the Whale.
Thanks for that comment. Which of these planes are more safer: a320, a321 or a321neo? I've heard many bad news about the reliability of the p&w engines and don't know what planes are more safer?
@ Absolutely brilliant… but when you first make an approach in very windy conditions it takes a bit of faith to believe you’re not ending up with a rushed approach. In a 319 at light weight you could see 160 kt at 200 ft with a VREF of 116 kt or so… and then it all magically works out at the last minute.
@@ClaysonAntoons Where to start? The 777 is pretty bloody good - especially compared with the classic 747 - but the FLCH trap casued a few colleagues a scare (never got caught myself but apparently not nice). The A380 has so many brilliant touches that it would take week... a couple of examples: 1. Going into anywhere with taxi routes that make the runway exit point important, once you know the landing runway, bring up the airfield chart on the ND, select the runway exit you want, and select BTV on the autobrake selector, and the aircraft delays braking until a single moderate application will get you to 20 kt 50m or so before you arrive at the lead-in line to the taxiway. 2. I once landed 60 TONNES over MLW because of a life-or-death medical emergency. At a LW of 452 000kg, I autolanded (AL is demonstrated and calibrated up to MTOW) and touchdown was smooth as silk, with max reverse and manual braking (knocked autobrake off as soon as it touched down in exactly the right place with a safe groundspeed for the runway [KEF - strong headwind]) and the aircraft sent the data to Maintrol and Toulouse before we finished the rollout. The data assessment confirmed no exceedences or excessive accelerations and we carried on to LAX on an ACF for 5 flights. On return to LHR a full data dump and visual inspection confirmed zero issues and the aircraft was cleared for service. Awesome beast.
The A380 ist one of my absolute favourite Airplanes of all time. Such a beast! It looks smaller than you expected when you approach it walking towards the terminal. Then, it's size becomes so giant that you wonder how such a thing could ever fly! And then... when you fly (as a passenger), it is so nice - at least (in my experience) when you fly SIA. :)
@@theboatcheat1204 Thanks for the reply. Now I understand some of your reasoning for preferring Airbus to Boeing. It's really interesting when a pilot who has flown the 777 doesn't say the 777 is their most favorite aircraft since that is the most "worshipped" aircraft, based on all the statements pilots make about it.
Regardless of which aircraft is “better” can we just agree that modern airliners are engineering marvels? And as a Boeing pilot myself, I’m jealous of the tray table and noise levels in the airbus 😅
Not to mention the quality of the Airbus! Considering the major problems Boeing has, I won't fly them at this point, and my co-workers feel the same way. We have to travel a lot with our company, and stick with an airline who flies Airbus.
Aye, as long as the plane is made/designed correctly, it seems the question which is "better" is just preference (or dependant on extremely specifc criteria). Maybe its actually good to have at least some diversity between plane manufacturers, probably better for innovation.
@@vulpix9210 Being european I have a bias towards Airbus, but plenty of the problems that happened on Boeings in the last months were due to poor maintenance on the airlines' behalves. Granted the one that lost a door shortly after takeoff was like one month old and that is a real issue, but all the others were a couple of years old, that is just bad maintainance. That being said, maybe Airbus makes planes that are designed to be easier to maintain than Boeing's?
An overlooked difference IMHO is the cockpit layout philosophy (consistent color coding on flight instruments, arrangement and design of pushbuttons and system groups, "dark cockpit" philosophy etc.) is really well thought through at Airbus. They studied the human factor very well when designing the A320 human/machine interface and it still shows and is consitant till the A350. If you look at Boing cockpits, you can see a rather confusing arrangement of buttons and indications seeminly random and unintutive compared to Airbus.
@@clairegrube429 a consistent color coding and arrangement of buttons does not make things safer. One button can be mistaken for an adjacent button or a button of the same color.
@@Blank00 An intuitive human/machine interface reduces the mental load in phases of high stress e.g. because of an abnomal situation. This can indeed be a safety factor in such cases.
Boeing pilot here, jeah thats objektively a fair point... but to be honest compared to Airbus, Boeing has less cockpit control confusion incidents most likely due to its organic design. For example the throttle quadrant with its controls... Cheers.
as a sidenote, 22:47 . as an a350 pilot, a350s dont have BUSS anymore when All ADR failure is triggered. its simply called Backup Speed. where it uses AOA probes, engine parameters and weight. at low mach speed, backup speed is computed using AOA sensors while on high mach on engine parameters. all speed and altitude indicators are there but within +/- 10 knots margin of error. laws head to direct law
Oh boy you've opened a can of worms here! As an engineer I'm going to say Airbus. I've worked on Boeings from the 707 right up to the present day's 787 I helped build and maintain Airbus' from the A300 up to the present day's A350. The build quality of Airbus and the way that the company just makes incremental design improvemants along with the way the flight deck layout is what edges it for me. Oh! That and the truly awful build quality of Boeing jets today. I've never seen such a poorly constructed aircraft as the B787 before and the Avionics architechture is just insane. Why so many computers, so many electonics that the aircraft's electronics need liquid cooling, unlike the Airbus with two computers and a conventional cooling system. As for the paint (Or lack of it) on the wings of the Boeing 787!!! No more words needed.
Yes, the efficiency of Airbus. You only need 2 computers to kill people. Well, there are documented cases of where the computers decided the pilots were wrong and crashed the plane. So...
@@kevintaylor31 the lack of paint on 787s is cosmetic and caused by how novel new materials were at the time. A350 has a very similar issue, but on the fuselage. Neither are safety issues.
Bombardier C-Serie has fly-by-wire and protection laws like Airbus, but also the throttles feedback like Boeing. It doesn't have joystick feedback because the technology is not mature enough. But we can expect the next generation of aircraft to have full fly-by-wire control with force feedback. Then we can say bye-bye 737 Max and its "grandfathering" rule. Now, no matter what's the technology, a badly screwed bolt or a bug in a programmed line of code will screw up everything. Quality comes first.
"Active sidesticks", as they're apparently called, already exist for some business jets and I think Embraer's new military cargo plane, too. The Russian MC-21 would have had active sidesticks too (made by the same company in France that makes Airbus sidesticks) were it not for the war in Ukraine. They will definitely be part of all future airliners, I think... although technically at least Boeings with fly-by-wire have artificial feel in their yokes, which is "active" in the same sense, except of course that the two yokes are linked mechanically. Check out my previous video on sidesticks for more on this, if you like!
@@MentourNow Well, until they aren't connected anymore. Like in the Air France 777 in Paris CdG not long ago, where both pilots made disagreeing input so hard, that it detached the linkage.
@@MentourNow An interesting case study would have been indeed Air France Flight 11 where the Pilots managed it to have on a 777 as few feeling what the other pilot is doing as in an Airbus.
It’s all relative…..I have 14000 hours on the 747-400. It’s a great machine, with its very old-fashioned control architecture and rudimentary automatics and flight management system. By the same token, it had a very uncomfortable air quality that would completely fatigue you at the end of long flights and the pilot seats were just awful. As a current A350 Captain, I’m completely satisfied with this airplane’s ergonomics, handling and safety enhancements. The 787 has had so many issues though certification delays and in it’s initial years of service, that I didn’t rate the engineering and build-quality on it as having been well-executed, thus I couldn’t bring myself to bid onto it. The A350 has been smooth sailing, both through its certification and in service so far, with Airbus carefully utilizing their existing technologies in the design. Well done Airbus!
Airbus came along a lot later and started their planes of with a very forward looking technology first design aproach. Boeing still has a big legacy in traditional design concepts and their transition has been a lot more difficult and probably caused a lot of conflict within the company about what would be the right way to move forward. Couldn't have been easy to change that philosophy within boeing.
@@rogerk6180 interestingly, guys and gals I know on the 787 and many of my A350 colleagues agree that both aircraft are starting to come closer in some of the design philosophy when we compare notes…..
Smooth sailing, eh? You might want to actually read up on the development of the A350. You're flying version 2 which used to be called the XWB. Version 1 was roundly rejected by the airlines as "nothing new, go away." And you must've not been around for the 149-hour glitch… had to power down and reboot the airplane before reaching 149 hours of continuous power-on time, else data concentrators would glitch, leading to all primary displays going blank, among other things.
I flew the A330 for 2 years. The one thing I never liked about the Airbus was that there wasn’t any tactile feedback from the autothrottles. Boeing’s move and you can at least tell what the throttles are commanding and easily override them if they aren’t where you think they should be (without disconnecting the auto throttles).
My first aircraft was the Dash 8 (the old models, not the Q400). So, I had a fair amount of conventional experience before I started on the A320. Besides not having to trim, the Airbus controls feel like any other aircraft. That is how they designed it. When you make an approach in gusty conditions, you need to make corrective inputs if you want to keep the aircraft flying the way you want it to. And the flare for landing is as conventional as it gets. As you approach the flare height, you look at the end of the runway and correct the sink with aft stick pressure, just as you do with a Cessna 172. In older A320 models, at 30ft, the computers push the nose down to make the pilot flare. But in the A320 and A321neo models, they removed it. So, the sink that you feel is very real. From my experience, it is better not to overthink. When you fly an Airbus fly it like any other aircraft.
Did you ever see that famous Q400 rant on Reddit? This pilot had just checked out in the Q400 and another guy congratulated him by hauling off on this INCREDIBLE, stream of consciousness rant on how much he hated the brakes, the air, the displays, the de-icing, basically everything. It’s one of my favorite “aviation internet” things of all time lol
In a perfect world, you would take the benefits of both systems and combine them. Like an Airbus with active side sticks or a Boeing with Airbus protections.
And which documentation is better, the "engineer's cut" Airbus or the "essentials" Boeing. I'd go with the one that keeps my feet warm (fancy a pony plane).
the descriptions remind me so much of the debate about manual vs automatic stick shift in cars, albeit on a much smaller scale. i trained on a manual and now drive automatic and i feel like i see both sides of the argument, manual makes you truly feel in control of the car while automatic makes you feel like you're playing a game (but also you need less effort to drive). it's funny how similar arguments exist across different spheres
I spoke to a training captain on a B747 simulator session at British Airways and his preference was Boeing as he could look away from the instruments, but leave one hand on the yoke and still feel what the aircraft was doing. I can see a case for Airbus bringing in feedback through the sidestick at some point as this is useful feedback to the pilots.
The Airbus will maintain its last flight path using flight control login and autotrim. So as long as you are where you want pitch and bank wise, and don’t move the stick accidentally, to be you can look away and be more flight path stable than there Boeing imo.
@@steve3291 I. can do the same thing without having my hands on the thrust levers or the side stick. Just look out the window or the PFD and you know whats going on with the flight controls. In reality, you often fly the aircraft with the FCU and monitor the aircraft. Its not an issue to not have your hands on the controls. You have other sources of data.
I flew the A320 since 1991 and I have just retired flying as a captain. First of all...CONGRATULATIONS for this GREAT VIDEO is perfectly explained as far as A320 is concerned. I can tell you that the weak point of the Airbus fly-by-wire flight control logic is the lack of manual feed back (side stick and throttle handles). Greetings from Mexico City.
Thanks for that comment. Which of these planes are more safer: a320, a321 or a321neo? I've heard many bad news about the reliability of the p&w engines and don't know what planes are more safer?
in the recent years, Boeing seems to have more safety issues, several ex-engineers published some severe whistle-blows - and I very much like that you mention the source videos in the description 👍
Yeah but I'm not sure the safety issues in question have anything to do with the aircraft design philosophy, they have to do with the company's philosophy
Actually that is not correct. MCAS was intended as a Maneuvering Control Augmentation System. It was supposed to make the airplane feel like the 737 NG not take away control from the pilots. The errors on this system are so outrageous that I expect it was not done by control system professionals.
@@bocahdongo7769no one is going to debate this with you. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about and just want to argue and ask such a silly question.
I’m an Airbus pilot and I absolutely love flying it. It’s been designed so well and it’s a spaceship that’s also a 1980s Atari. The automation allows you to really think about where the airplane is and where it needs to be and because of this you can do your job of managing the flight path with great precision. BUT! The airplane can be tricky to land in windy conditions because all of the amazing seat of the pants flying skills you earned flying other jets and piston airplanes gets thrown aside. So when you come in to land in a big crosswind for example you need to be thinking ahead of the airplane and anticipate what it’s going to do because you can’t FEEL anything that’s happening. It’s all visual. If you fly it like a regular airplane it will punish you with bad landings. And even when you put in the correct inputs sometimes the landings won’t go super smooth. Therefore you’re thinking minutes ahead of your approach “ok get the right wing down and land upwind wheel first but don’t bank too much to deploy the spoilers and I’m going to kick in left rudder at ten feet and go idle at 20’” in contrast with a regular jet where you’re just landing on instinct and coordination and experience which is better in my opinion. The airplane isn’t as good as a traditional jet in situations where the autopilot and flight directors get turned off because it’s a flight path airplane and really doesn’t give you any feedback. But because we are usually flying into busy airports it’s not an issue. My colleagues that fly the Boeings also greatly respect and admire their jets but complain about the small and loud cockpits.
Yes - it seems really foolish of Airbus not to implement lots of feedback to supplement instrument feedback - ie put some tactility into the joystick and make the throttles move to the position that the engines "see". This might have been difficult to do reliably and safely when the A300 was being built, but not now. None of that would compromise Airbus' correct philosophy of giving the pilots as little opportunity to stuff up as possible - hard protections ARE better than soft ones because even superbly trained humans are error prone. But especially in Direct Law, when almost by definition relying on visual feedback from instruments is problematic, that haptic feedback will be a real help with the pilots' situational awareness.
15,000 or so hours on the 757/767 and around 6000 on the 330/320. I don't miss that Yoke (control column)stuck between my legs. I'm a side stick convert
This is highly relevant in my case. 12 years on Boeing 737, 757/767, and 7 years left seat in the A320 series. For the narrow body, Airbus 100% all-day every day. Widebody my company has Boeing only after they canceled an A350 order. I am staying on the A320 series because I simply do not want to fly with a big yoke anymore.
In Military Aviation they also do the Airbus approach. Many US made fighter, pilot is manager. In a fight, they want pilot to focus on the target so many things are done by computer.
that's interesting! i also heard somewhere that some fighter designs are pretty complicated and counterintuitive to the point where the "airbus approach" is more or less the only option. manually flying would result in an immense mental workload (which is probably not ideal for military operations).
As a former US F-16 pilot I couldn’t disagree more. It’s NOT the “Air Bus approach.” (Yes I fly the 350 now as well.) US Fighters go far beyond the strict hard limitations of an Air Bus. A US Fighter would be operating in what Air Bus considers Direct Law. Yes in a modern fighter you are aided by computer, but you are taking in and dealing with MUCH more input and a far more complicated dynamic in a combat environment. Most of that computer function is doing that targeting, not flying.
Actually, control laws in combat jets are not the same as airbus ones. From what I understand, the fly by wire in those are to help controlling the aircraft in many manouvers like flying sideways and looping.
@@cfzippo It's odd coming from the first (I think) fighter with a sidestick (that didn't move either, how odd to fly is that?) and FBW, which is what Airbus has done for the past 40 years or so. Of course you have a greater control of your fighter than of an airliner, the mission is different, but you still have a computer that decides HOW to actually interpret your inputs and send it to the actual control surfaces. I'd say the F-16 and F/A-18 are more like Airbus and the F-14 more like Boeing, a lot more manual and hands on. The F-15 would be a mix. Now, if we compare the F-35 to Boeing or Airbus, which one do you think is closer?
I have been 320 CA, 767 CA, 777 FO, 787 CA and currently training 777 CA. I still prefer Boeing but absolutely respect the Bus. Your analysis is very thorough and excellent. Really enjoyed it.
17:32 this I dont really understand... why is there not just a big fat screen at the top of the cockpit between both monitors thats only shows either "NORMAL LAW", "ALTERNATE LAW" or "DIRECT LAW" in either green, yellow or red. Why does crucial and important information like this always need to be hidden away on some random screen in the lower left corner with font-size 15px
@@anotheruser9876 Not quite: eggs must be washed and refrigerated. Then the US refuses to collect and publish sufficient data to allow for comparisons.
Take 100 computers and 100 humans. Now let them compute something like the total of the first 100 prime numbers. Who can compute faster and is less error prone? Hardware issues are usually related to sensors and not to the computer. "Computer error" is often faulty sensors or software error... and the software is written by humans. Computers are way much more reliable than humans. It's not even on the same scale.
While both is not fully true, I think past accidents have shown that pilots generally make a lot more mistakes than computers. Then again: You need pilots most, when something goes so wrong, that the computer becomes somewhat helpless in the first place. So having a lot of computers to look over what the pilot is doing and even intervene is correct in my opinion. It still means you need good pilots for exactly the situations in which something is so damaged or goes so wrong, that the computer can't act anymore.
@@falcodante1114 The fixed thrust levers is not an issue. The EPR guage starts catching your eye and it becomes normal to notice changes. Just takes a little time and it normalizes. The thrust lever philosophy really is better on the bus.
Airbus throttles do move, if you move them 😉 Many Airbus pilots at my airline often disconnected autothrust during an approach to landing. They’ll act just like Boeing throttles when you do that.
One can always use a MSFS 2020 Fenix A320 to start, and then simply pay couple hundred euros for a real Lufthansa A320 sim (they even do sim sessions for people without any flying experience) in either MUC, FRA, or BER. A great Xmas gift, btw.
If you like the Airbus Backup Speed Scale (ie A330) you'll love what the A350 provides for the crew. To begin with: A330 Back Up Speed Scale, great idea based on AOA however: • Only available below 25,000 ft. • Crew needs to work through ECAM failure procedures eventually selecting off all three air data functions of the ADIRU's……all during high workload and stress The A350 provides something truly ingenious. Let me explain: Normally: • Air data system 1 (ADIRU 1) feeds the Capts instruments while Air data system 2 (ADIRU 2 ) feeds the First officers instruments. So far, standard Airbus. If Air data sys 1 becomes unreliable: • ADIRU 3 automatically feeds the failed side, in this example, the Capts instruments. Two independent sources of information continue to be presented to the crew. If Air data sys 1 and 3 become unreliable: • The system automatically displays the FO's air data (ADIRU 2) on the Capts instruments….effectively providing single source air data. For crew awareness, shown beside the PFD speed and/or altitude scales is the source of this single air data. In our example “ADR 2 SPD” and/or “ADR 2 ALT”. If all three Air data systems become unreliable: • The system automatically displays Integrated Standby Instrument data. “ISIS SPD” and/or “ISIS ALT” beside the PFD speed and/or alt scales. • The A350 Standby Instrument doesn’t just sit there and look pretty as on other aircraft…..its data feeds into the network and utilized if necessary. If all Air data systems become unreliable, including ISIS (AF447): • The A350 will pull Air data off the engines (FADEC)…….and the way this is done is truly ingenious….. as this source of air data will not ice up. “BKUP SPD” and/or “BKUP ALT” beside the PFD speed and alt scales. “BKUP…..” means engine data. All of the above is automatically accomplished without crew action. What chooses the best air data for display? A computer that is hungry for accurate and valid air data….. the Primary Flight Control Computers. The PRIM’s choose what air data the flight crew see and what air data is used to compute flight control laws. Brillant…..IMHO
@@XD-ql2kr What if MCAS has trimmed it so far that you can't physically turn manual trim wheel? Do you switch electric trim back and try to be faster than MCAS?
Just an enthusiast here. I had heard of the design philosophies of the manufacturers of course, but it's great to have this clear explanation. So thank you!
I haven't done a ton of flying but as a passenger I always noticed the Airbus planes tended to be smoother in all aspects. As a non-pilot, I feel like the automation of Airbus does make their planes safer, but may require a greater technical understanding of the systems in the case of anything abnormal. "The plane is doing a thing we need to correct" becomes "The plane is doing a thing we need to correct, and it's because the automation is in mode X trying to do Y" so training and systematic understanding is paramount.
I agree with you on this one. The Airbus automation seems to give me as a passenger comfort, but Boeing planes seems to be too noisy and sometimes not feel so stable in the air. Maybe this is the feedback most pilots are referring to in their comments.
Good point, I would assume that Airbus has a higher percentage of Gen 4 aircraft in the air than Boeing because Boeing refuses to part with the 737 design even after more than half a century...
Yeah that seamed like a disingenuous take when you could argue that airbus created that 4th generation with it first aircraft while boeing is still selling what is essentially a third gen aircraft.
As a passenger I have to admit that I prefer to fly on a airbus plane. This is because I find there interiors tend to be more spaced out compared to Boeing. Not just across airlines but also within airlines that operate with both plane manufacturers. There seating configurations seem to be better on airbus planes
Two different design approaches, plusses and minuses to each - very well explained, thank you. However quality of manufacturing and testing may have a bigger effect on the outcomes then the design differences.
Yeh, thats definitely the takeaway. When theyre correctly designed, tested and produced, there is pretty little difference in Airbus/Boeing performance, seems to be tiny margins. And thats still true for most boeing aircraft, luckily enough^^
28 years now at my airline, 727, 737, 757, 767 (Most time 75/76) 330 and now a 350 captain. Safety wise? Really not much difference. Air France 447? Birgenair Flight 301? Virtually the same accident. The Asiana 777 in SFO? So, it’s training, being familiar with your systems, knowing your airplane. So? Yes my favorite to hand fly is the 757. But? Overall I don’t like the yoke as much as the stick. I like the very much more comfortable seats in the Air Bus, and the TV tray 😂 the 350 in particular is a nice flying jet for long haul, quiet and comfortable. But honestly? Give me pay, lifestyle and either airplane is fine. Of those I’ve flown the 737 is probably my least favorite. While the 737-200s flew like a Cessna 310 almost, the 700, 800 and 900? Ya well I’d take the Air Bus over those. But IF you paid me what I make now to fly the 757 to Hawaii the last year of my career? I’d take it!!😅
Boeing pilots always seem to be constantly trying to validate themselves to Airbus pilots... Airbus pilots don't even need to respond because they already know they fly the better planes anyway, lol.
There is one more thing, that wasn't mentioned. The assembly quality or production culture. It doesn't matter how great the feature is when it isn't working. I've flown both Airbus and multiple Boeings, as well as the Embraer and others. And from that perspective, the overall thoughts are not quite matching.
Currently flying the B787, previously flew the A320… let’s be honest, I love both. But at the end of the day, I’ll always choose the bigger aircraft. What really matters to me isn’t just the type of plane-it’s the quality of life and the scheduling that make all the difference.
Flown both, 10000 hrs on the Airbus and 7000 on Boeing including lamentable Max. If 737’s were fridges they would have been banned years ago. Airbus for my money are way more impressive, the cockpit’s are quiet, roomy and well thought out with a great operating philosophy. Many note the static thrust levers are a hazard but because Airbus FMA’s are rigorously called out and acknowledged the operating loop is tight. Protections are brilliant, windshear full back stick and Toga power the jet will look after you as with all the other potential pilot cockpit ups. Most of the Boeings I flew were powerful and had good lift but goodness the cockpits were messy and some (737) noisy and manuals were complete gobbledygook’ flaps are not down they are not up? What?
@@Blueteddy-kq1pj Fascinating comment. I had heard of the quieter cockpit in the Airbus before. Surely massively important for any flight beyond 90mins?
It is clear from pilot comments that 1) Airbus wins in cockpit design, room, and comfort and 2) pilots feel comfortable with what looks like excessive automation.
maybe less reputable airlines prefere boeings and airbuses, as in most cases it's not the manufacturer fault, but inconpetence of airlines (except double MAX drop)
“Comparison is the thief of joy.” When I first got into flight simming, I started with Airbus because I found them easier to fly and understand while I was still learning. That being said, I do really love Boeing a lot as well. I enjoy both types and like flying both of them. Boeing has a certain 'mechanical' feel to it that is nice, and I find enjoyable. That, and I think that a Boeing 737NG/MAX is more 'exciting' to look at in comparison to an Airbus A320 family airliner. In flight simming, looking cool is half the battle, lol. Jokes aside, I like the layout of the Boeing 737 flight deck, and I have an easier time navigating it. The Airbus' MCDU sometimes felt disorienting, having to go through so many different pages and even having to input certain things into it. Obviously, that's a me issue; I'd have to learn more to fully understand the systems and how they work. But for simply flying along, I get by. Long story short, I like both Boeing and Airbus aircraft. I have a bit more of a Boeing preference, though.
Fly by wire is great, but I disagree with Airbus' choice of summing dual inputs, can't think of any circumstances where this would help in any emergency. Trouble is the only real fix would be to implement expensive and heavy side stick feedback mechanisms. But I think a simple vibration system might be enough in its place. Something, anything, to shake a pilot into realising its happening.
Summing the inputs of two sticks is the only sensible way if they aren't mechanically linked. An alternative might be the average input, but that's just half of the sum and that would halve your control range during normal operation (zero input from the non-flying pilot). A mechanism that picks one input and ignores the other based on some criterion would be far worse because it could lead to an abrupt switch from one pilot to the other while the pilot that's actually in control is making a manoeuvre. If the sticks are virtually linked so that the stick that's not held by a pilot follows the movements of the other stick, then the average would be the right thing. Maybe Airbus will introduce force feedback with linked sticks some day. Not easy in engineering: the force must be large enough that it's noticeable in a panic situation but it can't take a lot of space and it must be absolutely impossible for the mechanism to jam and render the stick inoperable.
Since the audio warning can be suppressed by other alerts and visual not noticed, some stick vibration could be really useful for dual input. Should be very cheap and bulletproof, probably also easy to retrofit. Although Airbus does not have a stick shaker (?) ideally it should feel quite different than one to prevent confusion for transitioning pilots.
I would say in general I’m more of a Boeing person because the 737 is my favorite airplane. But I think that only happened to be because I know more about the 737 than any other aircraft. Regardless, Airbus has beautiful airplanes with interesting features which are also plenty of fun to learn about. I just wish I had enough time and space in my head to know everything about both!
I used to be same as you, but as soon as I got into details of all the systems in Airbus and how they work, it simply flabbergasted me. Now I'm an Airbus guy.
Having flown both Boeing & Airbus, Boeing is by far my preference. Main reason is simple: The Boeing is designed around the human Pilot and Airbus is designed around the Automation!! I find the interface in the Airbus lacking EFFECTIVE & direct communication with the Pilot. As mentor explained very well is that the Airbus interface relies on communication on visual cues. The Boeing communicates very well with the Pilot through visual and more importantly tactile feedback such as moving thrust levers and other controls. In addition, the pilot is able to bring up any non-normal checklist at any time which was not possible on the A320 I flew. Perhaps that is changed, I don't know. The Boeing is also in my opinion an aircraft that is far more intuitive and easier to understand than the Airbus which I think contributes to safety.
Video says safety stats between modern aircraft from both companies are about the same, but by the definition of modern given, most Boeings AREN'T Modern, ie 737. I'd be interested to see comparison between A320 and B737.
The comparison between the 737 and A320 family is day and night. They can do more or less the same and there's where the similarities end. One is a modern fly-by-wire aircraft, fully computer controlled machine. The other is a cables and pulleys along the airframe old school aircraft that doesn't even have EICAS like every other Boeing.
I flew Boeing for 6 years before moving to Airbus and I was very reluctant to leave the 737 but it didnt take me long to realise the Airbus is a way better machine!
I am not a pilot and do not claim to have any knowledge except for the aviation interested person. But one thing that has always puzzled me is that only Airbus (at least until recent models) use digital information on the displays as Quick Reference (check list). I have always wondered why the paper reference manual has survived for so long, in particular when it comes to stressful situations where a lot is going on. Wouldn't it be easier to simply get the right information on a display right in front of you? Perhaps a touch display with some quick look up links to touch for further information. Finding the right information fast is usually quicker on a display where the only thing required is that the computer shows you the right checklist for the situation you are in. You could even (maybe it is already done) make this even easier by a voice control system where the pilots could simply describe the situation in normal language (of course pilot terminology), to have the system bring up links to the most likely pages to look at for solutions. I don't understand why Boeing has kept the paper book for so long. I remember first time I saw that Airbus automatically showed the quick reference on the display in front of the pilot when needed, my first thought was: "But of course! Isn't that the only logical solution in this day and age?". Before someone clever chirps in and point to the situation where the entire cockpit goes dark, I am of course not suggesting you completely trash the analog paper reference handbook with checklists. So of course every cockpit will always have a flashlight (or other emergency light) and a paper manual, for the situation where the entire plane dies on the pilot. But for all the million other scenarios that usually are the ones happening, isn't it much safer to have a digital reference manual that shows the correct page without having to look it up in some paper book? Another obvious benefit of a digital manual is that it can always remain updated - even in flight if a new instruction is published from the manufacturer. As long as the plane can communicate witht the ground, it is also possible to send live updates to the reference manual. And even if - for security reasons one wouldn't do it in-flight - it is still a safeguard against aged information that a digital manual is synchronized with the newest available information each time a plane is on the ground - even during a simple turn-around. Is there a reason Boeing is so conservative when it comes to changing checklists to digital checklists on the display?
good that we have both! Both challenge each other constantly. We (consumers) benefit a lot of the development and improvements resulting this "rivalry".
@@Tom-xy9yy Everybody borrows from everybody.........the A350 fuel tank arrangement it's B777........the B777 passenger doors....its an Airbus door.......
@@Tom-xy9yy it's less about the product (if I could still fly, you would never catch me on one of them) and more about the economic pressure. I just checked the fleet sizes of 5 Chinese carriers and they have close to 1000 planes combined. That's a lot of business to potentially lose if Airbus and Boeing can't provide quality products. (Putting aside the pressure the PRC government will put them under to buy local and the tightening restrictions on the export of avionics technology from the USA to China)
Re the S7 incident description; you left out a feature that Airbus have designed into the displays during flight in degraded laws. They don’t have to look at the ECAM to notice that the aircraft is in Alternate or Direct law. The PFD has indications to help the pilots. As alternate law is no big deal, the indications are subtle (but obvious to a well trained Airbus pilot). If the aircraft is in direct law, both PFDs (the screen that the Russian pilots would have been glued to during their pitch oscillations) had a hugely obvious message displayed in the blue part of the attitude display that reads “USE MAN PITCH TRIM”. Maybe it was a language barrier, poor training, or something else - but one of the two pilots should’ve seen this and followed its guidance.
Imagine the startle effect the S7 crew faced. Departing in a winter storm from an airport surrounded by mountains, on a fully loaded A321neo, they encountered speed fluctuations almost immediately after takeoff. They were likely experiencing moderate turbulence, adding to the stress and compounding the initial shock that led to the ensuing aircraft upset. This reaction aligns with the urgency and confusion heard in their initial radio transmission. So I doubt that they didn’t get the message on the FMA due to a language barrier or something. Other aircraft faced similar weather but managed uneventful departures by following the procedures like unreliable speed. Even if the S7’s fuselage had been de-iced, ice ridges would still have been a problem, as these form primarily from melted on the warmed windows snow. For aircraft like the A321neo, which require more ground time for start-up and warm-up during winter, the prolonged exposure to falling snow makes ice ridges more likely. Preventing such incidents requires more than just de-icing. Proper training is essential to maintain manual flying skills and combat complacency. Additionally, implementing specific holdover time limits to address ice ridge formation, based on precipitation rates, would also help.
@@marksuslenkov8757 fair comment, but it’s not an FMA indication; it’s a large, red message written across the blue (sky) part of the attitude indicator. It’s designed to be very hard to miss and gets the PF’s attention because he will be flying the aircraft manually at that point.
Yep. AF447 was all about CRM, not control architecture - that and a dickhead pilot trying to force a fully loaded A330 into an 8000 ft per minute climb at 32,000 ft. But it'll always be brought up by the Boeing is better crowd as the exception that proves the rule
But the first officer would not have pulled back the entire time to begin with if he wasn't lead to believe that hard protection would work 99% of the time. Put yourself in the cockpit that night, brewing storm outside, no visual reference. Try to figure out how fast you were falling before it's too late Oh, btw, the computer was blaring stall when you push the stick forward
@@chunkyazian just back up there. When the pitot tube blocked, and the aircraft dropped out of normal law, it was flying straight and level in good trim. All Bonin had to do was hand control over to his mate and go and get a coffee. So long as his mate continued to fly the pitch and power they were already at until the airspeed indication returned, no one would ever have known there was ever an issue. He had nothing to figure out. Instead he managed to climb the aircraft into "coffin corner" for absolutely no good reason whatsoever, and all of the subsequent issues you cite from then on are a direct consequence of that dumb decision. The really stupid thing about AF447 is that in order to avoid it they needed to do nothing - literally. Just fly pitch and power until airspeed indication returned
@@orlestone yes, it's easy to talk about pitch and power at the comfort of your own home. The first officer made a mistake for sure. Something similar happened in a Boeing before. All I'm saying is that software has been keeping the human operator away from the machine in the physical world and the human operator has become complacent in trusting the software to do the proper thing. And I'm saying this as a software dev myself. Humans do make mistake sometimes and the Airbus' design makes it much more difficult to decepher all those messages in the middle of the night. In the case of AF447, the first officer likely to have believed that he could pull back on the stick all he wanted, due to a false drop in altitude, and the computer would handle the pitch and power for him. His mistake was masked by the stall warning when his colleague tried to put in corrective action. The situation was so deteriorated that the computer blared out stall warning when they tried to lower the nose. Finally, why would Airbus look into active side stick if its design is the ultimate answer?
Having flown both manufacturers. 737, 767, A330 and A380 somewhere between the two would be best. Both do things better and worse than the other. E.g IMHO Side-sticks are better for most controlling (737 aside as cable backup makes leverage essential) but not being interconnected is pretty bad, particularly for training pilots. Thrust levers that move are great, though airbus method of initiating a go-around is more intuitive (thrust levers full forward) than pressing an often slightly difficult to find TOGA button. Most airbus protections are fantastic are much easier to fly time critical manoeuvres than Boeing (EGPWS and wind shear escape) though in a black swan the lack of protections on Boeing could be useful. Boeing PFD is much better than Airbus PFD. There are many more. I have not flown a A220 or a McDonnell Douglas jet (C17 or B717) but those that have say the blend of features is close to ideal. It was explained to be once that the difference between Airbus and Boeing is a bit like the difference between a European and American car. They both do the same thing, but the indicators and wiper controls are on different sides and how you engage and use the cruise control is different though the functions are the same, the key to remember is that deep down they are both cars. ANC
Since many(most?) accidents involve human error, removing the possibility of human error as much as possible sounds like a good idea. I work in IT operations, and we automate everything as much as possible and try to avoid manual activity, and one of the reasons for that is that people mess up. Of course, automation can also go wrong but that is significantly rarer than a person making a mistake. So the approach of relying on automation for the most part during normal operations and seeking intervention from a human "administrator" only when that automation goes wrong is more appealing to me personally.
@@glynnetolar4423 That's part of it, of course, but it's far from the only reason. Even things that would be easier and faster done manually go into automation. Well maybe it's different in your organization.
@@kloudray Automation, just like mechanical parts, must be maintained periodically. If improperly maintained, then automation will not be reliable. Incidents like wheels falling off old planes, engine cowlings opening after takeoff, and even LA800 go to show how maintainence by the airline or 3rd party isn’t always done properly.
The biggest difference is fatigue for pilots flying multiple legs a day. The Airbus is a lot less fatiguing. The flight deck is much more roomy and easily allows for two jump seaters. The cabin is also 6 inches wider which translates into an economy seat being one inch wider as compared to a 737. Our FA’s even prefer the galleys on our A-320 family aircraft versus the 73.
@ I have and the long haul charter is only one take off and landing, maybe two because of a reposition. Not 4 legs in a day like a lot of 73 folks are doing.
I completely agree that if the aircraft is making adjustments to yoke/joystick or throttles, then it should visually move accordingly, the amount of accidents that could be prevented, if the auto-controls were logical and intuitive to the pilots, is huge.
"feel what the aircraft is doing" is the 1st thing you need to let go if you get an instrument rating. Dont trust your feeling, trust your instruments! But do cross checks. As I learned the hard way in my flight training with an old style attitude indicator that "failed" in the sim, I ended up with a pretty large course deviation before I had 100% identified "the problem" and started ignoring the faulty instrument. Very good lesson!
From my view as a flight sim enthusiast, I find the airbus a much more intuitive kite to fly, things just make sense, some 737 procedures take a good bit of learning imo
The Fenix A320 feels so much more ergonomic than the PMDG 737, but the 737 has more "character" and gives more "feedback" especially during hand flying. Procedures in the Airbus seem far more intuitive though...
I have had the pleasure of flying the Boeing 737 and the Airbus A320 family, so maybe I may be allowed a comment. Over 3000 hours on the B737 (200 and 3/4/500). The 200 was described to me on the type course as a "Cessna 172 with jet engines" and it was maybe a bit like the Tiger Moth in that it was easy to fly and difficult to fly well. There were all sorts of glitches, being speed unstable at lower speeds being one of them. The 737 400 had less of those sort of problems, but the automation was very much new wine in old bottles. I then went onto the A319 and hated all the differences (even the switches were upside down!), but learned to get along with it and discovered that slightly different techniques were needed. For example sudden control inputs in the last 50 feet would be at the time the control laws were changing (blending was the Airbus word) into the ground range. You learned to make gentle control inputs preferably a bit higher than you might on a 737. I then went back on the 737 for a while and was surprised how much I missed the finer points of the Airbus. My final flying years were spent on the Airbus (a total of 6000 hours) and by the end had learned to love it. so between the two I would always want to fly the A320 in preference to the B737, but I do acknowledge that I have never flown the more recent Boeings. However, given a totally free choice, can I have the Twin Otter, an aeroplane I still love most.
excellent comment. My only jet experience is on the BAe-146, and large deHavilland types. And small DeHavilland types. So basically I have been flying the same aeroplane for 20,000 hours. I have friends who fly old Boeings, new Boeings, and Airbuses, and they all seem to favour whatever they happen to be flying at the time, which is a great attitude. My happiest hours were spent flying a Twin Otter on CAP floats. Peace, brother.
I enjoyed reading both perspectives above, and your experience paths. I’ve nearly 2000 hrs, since the late ‘80s, mostly on B747 variants-sadly just in MSFS ;-)
In the book "Digital Apollo," many early test pilots (and other military pilots) refused to fly aircraft with FBW. It was perceived that manual controls meant the pilots were actually pilots, whereas FBW meant they were really just passengers with some advisory capacity. Do you want to be the pilot or just a passenger with the ability to gripe? They had to get used to it. The Lunar Module could only function with FBW; it was determined, early on, that it was be nearly impossible to land it, successfully, had it been strictly manually-controlled. The F-16 has FBW because the airframe is inherently unstable, such that a pilot would have great difficulty simply keeping it in controlled flight, much less able to conduct combat maneuvers.
If you would have asked that any aviation fanboy 20 years ago, Boeing and both Airbus, nowadays, it's only Airbus sadly due to all Boeing leadership culture changes in the past decades
@@stussymishka Boeing invented what? Nop, the first passenger commercial jet was the Comet, the first supersonic was the Concorde, the first widebody twin engine was the A300, the first with digital FBW was the A320.
It took fifteen plus years for leadership changes to have an affect on engineering and build operations. This means it will take many years to make an effect back to safety and engineering first.
I absolutely despise basically everything fly by wire. As a heavy equipment operator, we call manual valve controls "pilot" controls (pilot for the low-power hydraulic circuit that amplifies stick movement to operate high flow, high pressure valves) while fly by wire is referred to as EH, or Electric over hydraulic controls, which are fundamentally quite similar to their aviation equipment, though hopefully with lower standards for failure, as these systems do fail and often behave unpredictably when the management computers that filter out sudden inputs and coordinate speed matching and positioning systems get an unexpected position or speed reading from a damp sensor. Needless to say, out 259D is a lemon and we're sending it back to Caterpillar.
Airbus pilot here (320). Airbus is better by a mile. I never want to fly a Boeing. Everyone at my airline that has come from a 73 will never go back. The 737 is stuck in the past. They could not fully update it because they needed to keep a single type rating.
Im not a pilot but have an honest question if you dont mind? Do you or did you ever find it awkward to change seats and use the other hand on the side stick? I would think a yoke would be more natural right off the bat.
@ It’s ok, you get used to the switch pretty quick. Now what is hard is going back to fly a C172 (I haven’t flown that in 20 years). It’s gonna take a couple times to figure out the height and landing the plane.
@ I hope we have lots of people senior to me thinking the same way! 😜. The Max is updated but the overhead panel is still stuck in the 50’s. And it still has the small cockpit. No thanks.
@ Not like the overhead is a piano you touch and move switches all the time. Toogle or push switch.. same one-off-standby-armed whatever. It is just looks, and when we talk looks the MAX, 787, 777X screens and graphics layout beat Airbus on all points. The screens are what we spend our time looking at, not the overhead.
I have dreamed of being an airline pilot since age 3, but that train has long since left the station without me. As a fall-back I developed a keen interest in software development in my teens. And from that background can comment on the differences with the electronic displays and the operating manuals. Back in the mid 1980s to late 1990s both the hardware *and* the software manuals were very detailed and very extensive. In fact, I was able to build and assemble several computers in that time-frame with just the provided manuals. I was also able to learn several programming languages and build some impressive programs for the hardware limitations I had. By the early 2000s the hardware manuals had evolved (or rather devolved) into a quick reference flyer that was often smaller than an A5 sized piece of paper, and building my own computer became nearly impossible. A similar trend had occurred with software. Even consumer software came with extensive manuals that detailed how to use all the various features of the software, encouraging exploring and learning new features that make your life easier. Nowadays you only get a Quick Installation Guide booklet, if at all. Back in the 1990s the included manuals for a software development tool could easily occupy about one meter of shelf-space. And it was usually possible to find an answer to a startled “Why the heck is this happening (or not happening)?”. Nowadays the included manuals are virtually non-existent, and even the “official” on-line manuals are often sub-par. I find myself more often having to wade through standards documents, then trying to puzzle out how the implementation of my tool differs from the official standard. I also have to search through a huge volume of forum and/or discussion board archives while trying to find an answer my questions. So with that background in mind, I have to concede the win to the Airbus ECAM and the Airbus Flight Operations Manual.Yes, there might be a danger of information overload, but it will be a huge help when you need to figure out some bizarre fault indication.
If AF447 is anything to go by (and the video from last weekend), I’d prefer flight controls that show me what the other pilot is doing and whether they’re stalling the jet.
it would be a valid argument, except that the pilots regained control by switching the powered trim off, and then lost control again, by switching it back on. which is not to say that the 737 MAX program wasn't an unforced error.
@@kenbrown2808 That is a misrepresentation of events the pilots figured out what was causing the issue, turned off. Then realized that they did not have enough altitude to retrim the aircraft properly manually which is what they were going to do. So they turned it back on knowing they needed the computer to help them retrim. Once they turned It back it reverted all the manual trim work they did and they crashed. So it is a valid argument MCAS took control put the aircraft into a situation where it was going to crash, and when it was figured out they didn't have enough altitude to correct the issue manually. Root cause MCAS. How you stated it, it makes it sound like the pilots totally fixed the problem and they would have been fine but they made the choice to turn it back on for some reason not related to them already being in a situation where a crash was inevitable.
Have flown 727, 737, 747, 767, 787 and A380's. The modern Boeing fly by wire architecture (in my opinion) was alot more intuitive, pilot friendly and easy to understand than the Airbus system. My personal preference having flown both is the Boeing FBW system, but I've friends who have primarily flown Airbus and swing the other way! Both have pro's and cons, but the biggest change I would like to see would be to have the Airbus sidesticks linked so you know what the other pilot is doing. Having moving autothrottle levers would also add to situational awareness. Air France 447 was a classic example of 2 experienced pilots losing control of a perfectly serviceable aircraft. Loss of situational awareness and not being aware of the flying pilot's inputs were significant factors. Each to their own, but I've seen alot of very experienced A330 Captains bid for the 787 and been very happy with the change. Having said that I'd love to see how the A350 has improved above the A380.
One thing to note: the pilot who suggested that sidesticks should be used on the A320 was a British pilot named Gordon Corps. He was the Airbus investigator who died during the investigation of Thai 311 due to altitude sickness at Nepal.
As an FAA A&P, and as an EASA B1 RII Mechanic and Inspector, I can honestly say that while I grew up on B727s and 737s, I totally fell in love with A300/310s, A320s, and A330/340s. I love the consistency through Airframe design, engineering, and operation. Boeing tried to re-engineer the wheel on every new airframe.....even when it couldn't or didn't need to.....
Very good video... I have never flown an Airbus, I fly a B777, so I know my opinion may be a bit biased, but I really think that Airbus is not really solving any problem, for example with the automatic emergency descent of the A350 or the automatic TCAS RA of the A380 (and I suppose A350 too), according to them, these are safety devices, but the reality is that for decades there have been no accidents or incidents related to these events where pilots have performed the maneuver incorrectly, that is, the industry is not really needing them. I think that in aviation, the automatisms are separated into 3 categories, those that really reduce the workload of the pilots, those that make flights more economically efficient for the company and those that are intended to get pilots out of the planes and I think that Airbus is dedicated to this 100%. Well, after consulting with many friends who have flown Airbus and Boeing (or non-Airbus like Bombardier, Embraer, etc.), practically all of them have told me the same thing... "WHEN EVERYTHING IS GOOD, AIRBUS IS EXCELLENT, BUT THE DAY YOU HAVE PROBLEMS, YOU WILL WANT TO BE ON A BOEING."
I'll have to disagree with you when it comes to the automatic emergency descent on the A350. The purpose is to be a last safety net in the extremely unlikely chance both pilots get incapacitated due to a depressurization. That is something I wish all modern airliners being built today had. That system alone would have saved the Helios 737 (flight 522) from crashing. So there have been an accident where that system would have saved the day. Automatic TCAS isn't really necessary as it's mainly to reduce workload but it's just part of the future where aircraft gets more automated. I of course don't like the prospect of single pilot or no pilot operations at all but Airbus is ahead when it comes to automation. However now we have new generation aircraft like the Gulfstream G600 where as it's avionics and flight abilities blows the most advanced airliners in service, the 787 and A350 out of the water.
@ The emergency descent in airliners is not "necessary", the Time of Useful Consciousness (TUC) at the altitudes we fly ranges from 1 minute at 30 thousand feet to 30 seconds at 40 thousand feet, more than enough time for us to put on the oxygen mask and make the descent. The Helios case does not count because all the "alarms" that the cabin altitude was ascending failed. It was an old model that did not have EICAS or ECAM. In addition, it was a slow decompression, which is why they did not notice. If it had been an explosive decompression, if they had noticed, I would have started the emergency descent. In any modern airplane, there are signs of (slow) decompression already at 8,500 feet and again, in case of an explosive one, flying at 40 thousand feet, we have 30 seconds to act. It is different in corporate airplanes that fly at 50 or more, there it is useful since the TUC is only a few seconds. Airbus aims to remove pilots from aircraft as soon as possible and for no reason other than the "cost" to airlines. This is quite clear, they are already testing the 350 with Cathay.
He was talking a lot about the issues with the Airbus way. And I'm sure they all true. But does Boing has less accidents with their systems? At the end I think is the most important is how the pilots are trained and how good they know their systems.
Hi Petter, congratulations on taking on such a controversial subject! Hopefully you’ll get a chance to have a go in an A320 sim at some point. With familiarity the non back driven throttles and unlinked sticks become natural. In your safety comparison you correctly point out all FBW aircraft are similar crash statistic wise. The problem is the vast majority of Boeing production isn’t FBW. The 737. No FBW, no EICAS and crash statistics far worse than the A320. Of the approximately 12000 737s made there have been 234 hull losses. Of the almost identical number of A320s made just 38 have been lost.
Yes! Petter On your @Mentour _pilot_ channel, I was asking you this question on one of your uploads where you asked us viewers and subscribers our opinion, I asked you to opine. I'm glad to be watching this one now...😊
As a software developer, I can’t remember ever being on a team where I didn’t look around at my team and think about at least one of them “thank god they’re not developing life critical systems”. /s
Then at the end of your work day you climb into your car and drive home. All the time relying on safety-critical systems your car, most other vehicles around you, the traffic control systems, etc., etc. Or maybe you take the train... same thing. Even working from home you have to trust that the team who coded the firmware for your fridge weren't a bunch of psychopaths. /s
When are cars falling from 40,000 ft and filling in bulk? The safety systems in cars are typically not driving. What world are you living in? Well there was that one time when someone was decapitated but...
@purrple.shadows if things were tested properly, those problems would be fixed. Most new engineering designs have problems, thats why testing is so important, but boeing skimps on that to save money, same with basic quality control, and thats why they have problems.
@@orlestone if it had been tested properly, it would not of been... all engineering has design flaws, every company and product has them, its how they are tested and fixed which matters, and thats where boeing keeps screwing up. Thats the part other companies do better, they find the faults and fix them before putting them on the market.
What do I prefer as an aerospace engineer and not a pilot? All the modern FBW aircraft. Given the choice of A330, A350, B777, or B787 I'd just say yes. Given the choice of A320 family or B737 family... I have been avoiding the 737 for 20 years. I only fly on them when my employer books them. In the long term they have 5 times the hull loss rate and 4 times the casualty rate despite having less deliveries than the A320 family. By 4th generation do you mean only the MAX or the 737 NG too? I'm pretty sure the MAX proved very dangerous initially.
@@cageordie Yes, the 737 in all iterations is a gen 3 aircraft. The US government even had to give it special exemptions for the fact it doesn't even have an EICAS. The 777 and 787 are the only true Gen 4 commercial Boeing airliners. It's sad that the MAX even exists it should've been completely redesigned or replaced.
I typically dont buy into these sorts of “one vs another” things that pop up. I have favorites (747, 757, a340, etc) but it always comes down to the PLANES as opposed to the firms themselves. I’m a GA pilot so I like the stick and rudder aspects of flying but I also appreciate the fact that if necessary, my little RV-12 can fly an RNAV approach on autopilot with relatively minimal hassle…and I absolutely love ADSB and the extra safety it provides. So I don’t think that “one or the other” scenarios are the right outlook. It’s more about flying what you’re given in the safest, most enjoyable manner humanly possible.
Go to saily.com/mentournow and use the code mentournow to get an exclusive 15% off your first purchase.
Captain Hornfeldt, why do you refer to aviation maintenance technicians and aircraft mechanics as *_"engineers"_* ? Is it because in your native Swedish language there doesn't exist separate words or terminology in the Swedish vocabulary to distinguish between the two different professions of aerospace engineers and A&P mechanics ?
What is Boeing??!!! Sounds familiar! Something from the past, maybe?
I think it does matter now more than ever. Not only is it a debate on which is safer but now we have to worry about Boeing flying a crew up to its destination and then returning without its crew all the way back to its destination. I mean it can’t stay safe within Earth’s atmosphere, now we know that it’s even unsafe out of Earth’s gravity. Forget about the “Fly-By-Wire” debate, let’s get the “Fly and stay flying by a stale aircraft” debate going…. 🤣🤣🫡✈️
You forgot very important point. While "modern" Airbus is on same safe level as "modern" Boeing, the issue is that most of the flying Airbuses are the modern type like A320, but most of the flying Boeings are still missing the modern features like fly-by-wire, for example 737. You also forgot to mention that the "old" 737 is currently the only Boeing in production.
Yes, Renault has an F1 race car same as Ferrari, but most Renaults on the road are not race cars.
5:43 I would really like to see your impressions about to flying an Airbus plane, so I hope you achieve that hit very very soon!
So, I test flew airplanes at Boeing and Northrop and then later became an air line pilot and logged over 15000 hours in the A320 family and now have been flying the 787 for the last 3 years.
The analysis presented in this video is excellent and there is not much to add.
At this point it mostly comes down to personal preference although in at least one area, I think one system is clearly superior.
So, here are my preferences:
-Yoke vs stick: stick
-Moving vs non moving controls: moving
-ECAM vs EICAS: ECAM
- Handling qualities:
Boeing
- Ergonomics/cockpit layout: Airbus
-And last, hard vs soft protections: hard. And I have to elaborate a little on this subject. When I worked at Northrop in the early 1990s the Air Force paid for a study to determine if soft or overridable protections offered an advantage over hard protections as most everyone thought that soft protections would allow the pilots to squeeze some more performance out of the airplane in an emergency. The study was very thorough and well documented and it indicated that in every case, hard protections were better. And, having dealt a lot with that subject, I am a firm believer.
To me, both Airbus and Boeing’s systems are very good but not perfect. I really love flying the 787 as it is a fantastic airplane with great performance and economics. Given the choice, I would prefer to fly the A350. Alas, my airline does not operate the type so I will finish my career on the 787 or 777.
Thanks Peter for another great video!
@peteorengo5888 also a 787 driver here. Agree with most of your preferences, other than ECAM vs EICAS - they both work just fine.
Probably a good thing your airline doesn’t operate the A350, as it’s saved you from drying out like a lizard. As the 78 is your first LongHaul type, you probably don’t realise just what a difference having air from the CACs makes, rather than bleed air. I flew the 744 for 10 years (great aircraft), and positioned many times on our 777’s and A350’s - and I can categorically state that the 787 is a far more pleasant place to be, and leaves you feeling far more refreshed (as much as one can be after 14+ hours) than any other type, Boeing or Airbus.
I don’t care who makes ‘my’ aircraft, but table or no table, for me, the CAC’s win every time! 👍🏼
For a pilot doing long haul, the comfort of Airbus cockpits make this an easy choice. For regional flights, as a pilot, Boeing is preferable IMO.
Thank you for your valuable comments on this sensitive subject.
I have a friend who's a long haul pilot for BA, his experience was entirely Boeing (747 and 777) at the time of this anecdote. About 8 years ago we were both living in the French Alps and he'd regularly commute from GVA to LHR on another airline who flew A320s to get to work. I asked him about the classic hypothetical scenario of both pilots being incapacitated and could he land the plane safely, his answer was that the differences are big enough that someone with enough hours on an A320 in a home flight sim would probably have a better chance than he would!
There might have been some beers involved so I don't know how serious he was and I expect it depends a lot on how many hours the amateur spent in their flight sim but personally I'd prefer it if they were both in the cockpit.
@@phil_nicholls that`s what Boeing mannagment said to the pilots when they did not tell them about MCAS. They probably don`t care
Boeing: pilot has ultimate authority.
Also Boeing: MCAS
Yes last 10 years or so Boeing has been shit really
Money Comes Above Safety.
MCAS=May Crash Anytime Soon 😮
@@dantetre Brilliant!
@@dantetre You really dived nose down into the issue
As a long haul pilot today, I wouldn’t willingly go Boeing. I can’t imagine sitting for 8hrs+ with a moving yoke in between my legs. All respect to my Boeing colleagues, but the A350 experience is simply unbeatable today in my view. I Wouldn’t change it
I know little to nothing about aircraft, if I looked at two planes I couldn’t tell you what’s a Boeing 777 or an Airbus A320 but I’ve been playing flight sim off and on since 2020 and Boeing has more name recognition for me so I’ve always flown Boeings…
Let me tell you that I was shocked when I first flew an A320 I think it was…. They have a freaking tray table ffs, looks like you can legit just stretch out and relax as compared to Boeing where your all cramped in with a gigantic thing between you legs. Plus given the fact that i actually figured out how to turn it on without the in-game systems and can turn on autopilot and all that without using keyboard shortcuts means i more often than not fly Airbuses now… Boeing does have better manufacturer liveries though, barring the Beluga (thing’s kinda cute), which matter a lot to me lol
@@FetidafI almost knew few to nothing about aircrafts but im just interested to know about planes, but based on this video, a much "Big respect" to pilot Boieng air flyers as they are much more experienced than Airbus drivers as Boieng is the traditional design, but watching this video really make sense to choose Airbus over a Boieng as Airbuses were built more automated and reduces human errors....for safety, I would go to Airbus
New MentourPilot video idea: Petter flies an A320 sim and takes us along!
I was just about to say the same thing! Would love to see him fly an Airbus!
I agree it would be a nice video idea... Go for it Peter!
Alternatively, we get together and buy Petter an A320. I mean, we can scrounge some $120M if we combine what we find in our couches, right?
That would be a new channel: SmugtourPilot
Nice idea, but I believe he could and would fly the A series easily, and finding a job as a Pilot or Captain for such a well educated and involved in aviation as Petter is should be any problem if he would wanna get a job on board these A series (that I personally like better to SIM in) ... p.s. Does anybody know what MOD of an Airbus Petter and his crew use in these documentaries?
Boeing pilots: We fly real planes.
Airbus pilots: We fly planes that land with the same number of parts they took off with.
that made me laugh real hard 🤣🤣
@@daci88 eh, what's one door more or less among friends.
@@thatsquidwardfeel5567 indeed, I think it was a weight saving feature for better fuel economy 🤣
Yeah well in Airbus when you deploy your landing gear, you can see your front landing gear turned 90 degree causing a emergency landing. This happened more than once and it is still happening from time to time.
Tell that to the crew of the A400M that pulled power on all 4 engines because the flight management system detected one engine failure and decided that the pilots were making a power adjustment, so when the bad engine rolled back, the computer rolled back the other 3 to prevent an asymmetric thrust profile and killed everyone on board because Airbus thinks pilots are stupid and shouldn't be the final decision makers in an emergency.
"Boeing give the pilot the control" .. except when MCAS is trying to crash a plane into the ground.
"I'm sorry Dave, but I'm afraid I can't let you do that."
@@Wintermute909 Lmao 😂
The new 737s are a disaster lol. I used to love boeing and still do but seeing a 737 gives me flashback now.
Boeing aircraft still give the pilots control. The MCAS controls the stabilizer trim, so do the pilots. But if there's a disagreement, the pilots just follow the runaway stabilizer trim memory items.
When I flew KC-135s, and Airbus joined the market, we all liked the saying "The difference between Boeing and Airbus is the Boeing pilot outranks his airplane." But of course, now, with MCAS and who knows what else the bean counters have hidden or cheaped out on in recent Boeing planes, I think I'd prefer to fly Airbus.
I fly the A320 and we have quite a few former 737 pilots in the fleet. Not one of them would ever go back.
The Bus is way more comfortable, it is quieter and supports its pilots way more. After a 12 hour shift with 4 sectors on an A320 you will be tired, but on a 737 you are done and have to hope that you don't fall asleep on the drive back home.
I guess when it comes to 777 and 787 it's different, but between the A320 and the 737 there is no contest. It's not even close.
@@fsclips v interesting. I wonder if Petrr will respond?
It's all about the comfort of the pilot.
As a passenger, I don't know why this bugs me.
@@glynnetolar4423 Because as a passenger you want your pilots not to be over tired or fatigued (there is a difference!), as then should something go wrong you have people better placed to make critical decisions about your safety in charge.
This is why they are both awful aircraft. It’s like saying “my dad only beats me twice a week not four times”.
Nobody endures more punishment than narrow body drivers. Thats why almost nobody would go from a 737 to an A320.. they just want to get out of there.. either wide body, perpetual reserve, SIM, or management.
@@calvinnickel9995 I assume that is mostly a result of the lots of shorter flights vs actual comfort of the aircraft, since I assume an A320 is probably as comfortable as any Airbus widebody for the pilots.
If there's one things I've spotted it's that it's far more common for Airbus to trickle down their new technologies from the newer aircraft to their older ones and offer as retrofit. For example the Back Up Speed Scale first introduced in the A380 was added to the A320/A330/A340 a few years later and can be retrofitted to older aircraft, when the A350 used the new DBUS and enhanced speed monitoring system, the A320/A330 soon got a modified version of that. To this day only the 787 has an equivalent version.
Certainly agree, but have an inkling that this may be a practical difference - not just “unwillingness” on Boeing’s part (caveats for last decade+ corporate shenanigans)…
The Airbus is (as you and Petter mention) both modular and mainly digital (bus-based) in communications between the cockpit IF/UX and the functional units in the bay.
That way, some retrofits may (!) be more a software and sensor change, running and being displayed within the existing process-units and displays. The B737 - the oldest airframe still in production - these retrofits become convoluted for practical reasons.
The sad outcome from “larger engines -> MCAS” is an example, whereas the A32x is aging, but still new in comparison. New engines were less different to the original ones.
Check out the original B737-200 low bypass engine mounts, engineered only a decade (plus) after some very “creative” airliners…
(I’m 58, about the same as the original B737. Retrofitting “my systems” makes me very unreliable…😂)
This is definitely an advantage to Airbus, especially if they ensure all of one model in an airline's fleet get modified over a short span of time along with pilot training.
Few people know that the B737NG could and should have had a functioning EICAS, but Southwest, Delta and American Airlines didn’t want to spend the money to retrain their pilots, and now, 30 years later, Boeing is crying blood at the prospect of being forced to install it on the MAX -10.
It often boils down to corporate greed, toothless government agencies and weak political will.
Airbus have EASA write the rules for them to push innovation, Boeing has lobbyists stop the FAA from forcing them to innovate on old designs.
Case in point: AoA is information the ADIRUs base their output on. It’s information the system has and that can easily displayed to pilots. Why is AoA display not mandatory? So that Boeing can sell it as an option, easy as that.
Of course airline managers in charge of buying aircraft (they call them “equipment” to further distance themselves from the flying part of their company) don’t want to pay for an option, however safety-improving it would be, so pilots with blocked pitot tubes or faulty ADIRUs are doomed to die and kill everyone on board.
Airbus is very good when it comes to software updates. A lot of the A320NEO features are easily transferable to the A320CEO via just a software update. It allows airlines to standardize all their aircraft features regardless of the age difference between them. Like you said, the BUSS is a great example. Even though (most) NEOs come with a lovely BUSS pushbutton on the MIP, unlike the CEO, where the BUSS is triggered by an ADR1+2+3 FAULT.
@@soffici1 I agree with all you say here, except - “weak political will”…?
As I see our global north economy having changed in 4’ish decades, it’s an outcome of excessive political will! They got what they wanted, or should I say “what their corporate supporters wanted”?
Or… didn’t we understand what they wanted, and thought we (non-corporate people) wanted the same? We (someone did…) called it “freedom” after all, nice catchphrase. It worked! 😅
I have 3500 hrs on the 737MAX, and now 6000+ hrs on the A320/321. I love the fact that the Airbus is so much quieter in the cockpit (I actually ditched my plan to buy noise-cancelling headsets after I switched), but also that the cockpit is more spacious, that I can stretch out over a long flight because there’s no yoke to restrict my legs from moving about. The sidestick also means that I don’t have to crane my neck to see the entire PFD and ND at certain yoke positions, and the tray table that helps me do my paperwork and eat meals more elegantly is certainly a bonus, rather than having to push the seat way back, then wedging the food tray between the yoke and my paunch. Q: how do you tell a Boeing pilot from an Airbus pilot? A: by the food stains on his tie!
I do like the simplicity of the Airbus Flap settings compared to the Boeing’s 1-2-5-10-15-25-30-40, and the simpler brake settings - I remember having agonising debates in my mind over whether autobrake 2 or 3 would be better for this landing! Though I’m sure a lot of these dilemmas have been resolved with the new iPad-based landing distance calculator apps.
Having said that, there were certain features on the Boeing that I still miss on the Airbus. Being able to intercept a DME arc from any intermediate radial rather than just the preset ones on the database was definitely one of them. Being able to capture and track out/in on a VOR radial is another. And the Boeing FMGS is much better than the Airbus in many respects: entering initial data on the FMGS is so much simpler, rather than having the remember D-I-F-S-R-I-P and now A. Or the fact that the VNAV allows the entry of Anti-Ice on/off flight levels for better optimisation of the descent, the expedite climb feature allows the pilot to decide whether they want best Rate of Climb or best Angle of Climb. The Climb 1 & 2 features are also something that I miss sometimes, though Airbus has added an automated version of that in the neo FADEC (not as effective, though).
The 3-digit Mach number displayed on the Legs page allowed me to figure out the practical aspects of Cost Index on my own and the ability of the aircraft to initiate descent on its own (“when ready descend FL260…”) was a bonus that allowed us to focus on other things like traffic or approach briefing. The display of the relative headwind/tailwind and crosswind components on the Approach page was very helpful. I liked the fact that some of the TCAS units installed gave me the option of finding out the actual flight levels of the target aircraft, rather than just their relative altitude. The PFD, ND and Upper/Lower DUs displays were much sharper and the fonts used are very pleasing to the eye - I’m not a fan of the dashed range rings on the Airbus that clutter the screen and can’t even be turned off. The ability to copy a value onto the scratchpad, then paste it to another field (V1 to Vr for example) is something I still miss.
And yes, I do miss the ability to display the cockpit entry camera on the lower DU! Instead, I have to crane my neck to see who wants to enter…
For comparing safety the better ergonomics of the Airbus planes is a serious point - it is not just about pilots enjoying it more. People get tired, noisy uncomfortable cockpits with unintuitive instrument layouts tire them much quicker, and tired people make mistakes.
on the A350, the DIR function is no more radial in/out... its now course in/out... so you dont need to do that mental calculation in your head and enter the radial, just enter the course you want.
Thanks for that comment. Which planes are the safest - a320, a321 or a321neo? I've heard too many bad news about the reliability of the p&w engines and don't know what planes are more safer?
@ Hmm… that’s a tough one. All aircraft are generally safe and get better with age, as the initial teething problems are sorted out. Remember the string of crashes the A320 has when it was first introduced?
Having said that, the p&w engines have not yet sorted themselves out completely, but I fly them often and am not too concerned at falling out of the sky 😀 The CFM LEAP engines neos have had almost no teething problems really, so at the moment they’re safer, but i expect p&w will catch up soon.
A320 vs A321? No difference
@AtulBhatia thanks for your comment, I appreciate all the help that I get.
Is there a website that's accurate to show the history of incidents and accidents that happened to specific commercial jet planes? I know the planes are generally safe but I just want to be that extra safe to soothe my conscience😄 I hardly fly on planes
I can also give some input from the maintenance side being an AMT. Generally Airbus planes are more maintenance friendly and are easier to troubleshoot whereas Boeing planes require a lot more hands-on troubleshooting. On an A320 you can BITE test virtually every system on the plane through the MCDU. On the 737, most BITE functions are local to whatever component they're associated with, as in, you have to crawl into the guts of the plane, the avionics bay, and find whichever computer you need to test. On an A320 it's all done remotely, via the MCDU from the comfort of the cockpit. Physical maintenance tasks and servicing is generally easier on Airbus planes too, they generally provide more room to work, while Boeing planes are notorious for being cramped and affording very limited access to components. The A300 for example actually has a bench in the avionics bay making wiring work much more ergonomic for technicians. The 767 does not sport any such luxuries for maintainers by contrast.
Interesting, especially given how many of my airline's mechanics moan and complain when its one of the Airbuses laid up.
A built in bench for the engineers to perform their work ergonomically. That really shows how they appreciate the importance of everyone's contributions
Strange, when i have an issue the tech do the bite test from the cockpit mcdu, not in the e & e..
@@r0manovic Engineers remembering that what they design has to be maintained by a human being, novel concept 🤣
@@mercurybard9794 They complain less when they have to work on a Boeing?
Lots of time in both Airbus and Boeing (A320, B737, B787, B747). For an office, a place to spend several hours each day, the Airbus wins, no contest. A very comfortable work environment. I flew the Airbus before I flew Boeings, so I found the Airbus philosophy easy to understand and work with. So I have nothing bad to say about Airbus. But if I were to go up and just hand fly for an hour, doing maneuvers, and takeoffs and landings, give me the 737 (I flew the classics, 300s and 400s). So manual flying qualities, the Boeing. For an office in which to make your living for several hours, the Airbus. But honestly, I am flying the 747 now, and even though the office is not as nice as the Airbus, I gotta say that that for airline type flying, it is so cool to fly the Whale.
There's a reason the call the 747 the "Queen"
Thanks for that comment. Which of these planes are more safer:
a320, a321 or a321neo? I've heard many bad news about the reliability of the p&w engines and don't know what planes are more safer?
I flew for 27 years on B737-200-400, B747-100/200, B777-200/300, and A319/320/321 and A380. In almost every regard I preferred Airbus.
that groundspeed mini is pretty nice eh
@ Absolutely brilliant… but when you first make an approach in very windy conditions it takes a bit of faith to believe you’re not ending up with a rushed approach. In a 319 at light weight you could see 160 kt at 200 ft with a VREF of 116 kt or so… and then it all magically works out at the last minute.
@@ClaysonAntoons Where to start? The 777 is pretty bloody good - especially compared with the classic 747 - but the FLCH trap casued a few colleagues a scare (never got caught myself but apparently not nice). The A380 has so many brilliant touches that it would take week... a couple of examples:
1. Going into anywhere with taxi routes that make the runway exit point important, once you know the landing runway, bring up the airfield chart on the ND, select the runway exit you want, and select BTV on the autobrake selector, and the aircraft delays braking until a single moderate application will get you to 20 kt 50m or so before you arrive at the lead-in line to the taxiway.
2. I once landed 60 TONNES over MLW because of a life-or-death medical emergency. At a LW of 452 000kg, I autolanded (AL is demonstrated and calibrated up to MTOW) and touchdown was smooth as silk, with max reverse and manual braking (knocked autobrake off as soon as it touched down in exactly the right place with a safe groundspeed for the runway [KEF - strong headwind]) and the aircraft sent the data to Maintrol and Toulouse before we finished the rollout. The data assessment confirmed no exceedences or excessive accelerations and we carried on to LAX on an ACF for 5 flights. On return to LHR a full data dump and visual inspection confirmed zero issues and the aircraft was cleared for service. Awesome beast.
The A380 ist one of my absolute favourite Airplanes of all time. Such a beast! It looks smaller than you expected when you approach it walking towards the terminal. Then, it's size becomes so giant that you wonder how such a thing could ever fly! And then... when you fly (as a passenger), it is so nice - at least (in my experience) when you fly SIA. :)
@@theboatcheat1204 Thanks for the reply. Now I understand some of your reasoning for preferring Airbus to Boeing. It's really interesting when a pilot who has flown the 777 doesn't say the 777 is their most favorite aircraft since that is the most "worshipped" aircraft, based on all the statements pilots make about it.
Regardless of which aircraft is “better” can we just agree that modern airliners are engineering marvels?
And as a Boeing pilot myself, I’m jealous of the tray table and noise levels in the airbus 😅
Not to mention the quality of the Airbus! Considering the major problems Boeing has, I won't fly them at this point, and my co-workers feel the same way. We have to travel a lot with our company, and stick with an airline who flies Airbus.
@@jamesmyers9285 How do you travel to the airport?
Not to mention the parts not falling off while flying
Aye, as long as the plane is made/designed correctly, it seems the question which is "better" is just preference (or dependant on extremely specifc criteria).
Maybe its actually good to have at least some diversity between plane manufacturers, probably better for innovation.
@@vulpix9210 Being european I have a bias towards Airbus, but plenty of the problems that happened on Boeings in the last months were due to poor maintenance on the airlines' behalves. Granted the one that lost a door shortly after takeoff was like one month old and that is a real issue, but all the others were a couple of years old, that is just bad maintainance. That being said, maybe Airbus makes planes that are designed to be easier to maintain than Boeing's?
An overlooked difference IMHO is the cockpit layout philosophy (consistent color coding on flight instruments, arrangement and design of pushbuttons and system groups, "dark cockpit" philosophy etc.) is really well thought through at Airbus. They studied the human factor very well when designing the A320 human/machine interface and it still shows and is consitant till the A350. If you look at Boing cockpits, you can see a rather confusing arrangement of buttons and indications seeminly random and unintutive compared to Airbus.
I've read reports on cockpit layout philosophy but I have not taken the time to compare. I will look at this. Very informative comment!
@@clairegrube429 a consistent color coding and arrangement of buttons does not make things safer. One button can be mistaken for an adjacent button or a button of the same color.
@@Blank00 An intuitive human/machine interface reduces the mental load in phases of high stress e.g. because of an abnomal situation. This can indeed be a safety factor in such cases.
Boeing pilot here, jeah thats objektively a fair point... but to be honest compared to Airbus, Boeing has less cockpit control confusion incidents most likely due to its organic design. For example the throttle quadrant with its controls...
Cheers.
Porsche did the design of the Airbus cockpit originally
as a sidenote, 22:47 . as an a350 pilot, a350s dont have BUSS anymore when All ADR failure is triggered. its simply called Backup Speed. where it uses AOA probes, engine parameters and weight. at low mach speed, backup speed is computed using AOA sensors while on high mach on engine parameters. all speed and altitude indicators are there but within +/- 10 knots margin of error. laws head to direct law
Oh boy you've opened a can of worms here!
As an engineer I'm going to say Airbus.
I've worked on Boeings from the 707 right up to the present day's 787 I helped build and maintain Airbus' from the A300 up to the present day's A350. The build quality of Airbus and the way that the company just makes incremental design improvemants along with the way the flight deck layout is what edges it for me.
Oh! That and the truly awful build quality of Boeing jets today. I've never seen such a poorly constructed aircraft as the B787 before and the Avionics architechture is just insane. Why so many computers, so many electonics that the aircraft's electronics need liquid cooling, unlike the Airbus with two computers and a conventional cooling system.
As for the paint (Or lack of it) on the wings of the Boeing 787!!! No more words needed.
Yes, the efficiency of Airbus. You only need 2 computers to kill people. Well, there are documented cases of where the computers decided the pilots were wrong and crashed the plane. So...
Liquid cooling? You mean, like a radiator?
@@fjp3305 No. He means like a 1980's mainframe computer.
@@kevintaylor31 the lack of paint on 787s is cosmetic and caused by how novel new materials were at the time. A350 has a very similar issue, but on the fuselage. Neither are safety issues.
That’s because all 787’s are assembled in South Carolina. Different build attitude than Everett where I worked.
Bombardier C-Serie has fly-by-wire and protection laws like Airbus, but also the throttles feedback like Boeing. It doesn't have joystick feedback because the technology is not mature enough. But we can expect the next generation of aircraft to have full fly-by-wire control with force feedback. Then we can say bye-bye 737 Max and its "grandfathering" rule.
Now, no matter what's the technology, a badly screwed bolt or a bug in a programmed line of code will screw up everything. Quality comes first.
"Active sidesticks", as they're apparently called, already exist for some business jets and I think Embraer's new military cargo plane, too. The Russian MC-21 would have had active sidesticks too (made by the same company in France that makes Airbus sidesticks) were it not for the war in Ukraine. They will definitely be part of all future airliners, I think... although technically at least Boeings with fly-by-wire have artificial feel in their yokes, which is "active" in the same sense, except of course that the two yokes are linked mechanically. Check out my previous video on sidesticks for more on this, if you like!
We've had force feedback joysticks for computer gaming for decades. I'm sure they can figure out how to do it on airplanes.
@@MentourNow Well, until they aren't connected anymore. Like in the Air France 777 in Paris CdG not long ago, where both pilots made disagreeing input so hard, that it detached the linkage.
@@quasimodo6860 Which is why you don't want those mechanical but instead FBW. No risk of an unwanted separation.
@@MentourNow An interesting case study would have been indeed Air France Flight 11 where the Pilots managed it to have on a 777 as few feeling what the other pilot is doing as in an Airbus.
As a non pilot intuitively i prefer the Airbus philosophy.
As a future student pilot, the Airbus sounds boring.
@@danielaramburo7648 sure, we all make choices. I would avoid Boeing like the plague if i could.
@@danielaramburo7648 erxactly what a student would say... fly in the airline for a few years on both types and answer that question again.
@@luke515 airbus is boring
@@charlesjw2 why avoid boeing
Vlog of you getting an airbus type rating?
Thank you! I'm not sure about that, but never say never!
@@MentourNowA video of you in an Airbus simulator, just for fun, would be a first interesting step everyone would enjoy to watch. 👍
@@MrPomelo555 Absolutely!
@MentourNow JUST DO IT!
It’s all relative…..I have 14000 hours on the 747-400. It’s a great machine, with its very old-fashioned control architecture and rudimentary automatics and flight management system. By the same token, it had a very uncomfortable air quality that would completely fatigue you at the end of long flights and the pilot seats were just awful. As a current A350 Captain, I’m completely satisfied with this airplane’s ergonomics, handling and safety enhancements. The 787 has had so many issues though certification delays and in it’s initial years of service, that I didn’t rate the engineering and build-quality on it as having been well-executed, thus I couldn’t bring myself to bid onto it. The A350 has been smooth sailing, both through its certification and in service so far, with Airbus carefully utilizing their existing technologies in the design. Well done Airbus!
Airbus came along a lot later and started their planes of with a very forward looking technology first design aproach.
Boeing still has a big legacy in traditional design concepts and their transition has been a lot more difficult and probably caused a lot of conflict within the company about what would be the right way to move forward.
Couldn't have been easy to change that philosophy within boeing.
@@rogerk6180 interestingly, guys and gals I know on the 787 and many of my A350 colleagues agree that both aircraft are starting to come closer in some of the design philosophy when we compare notes…..
AirBus: Slava 🥖
oh no...
Smooth sailing, eh? You might want to actually read up on the development of the A350. You're flying version 2 which used to be called the XWB. Version 1 was roundly rejected by the airlines as "nothing new, go away." And you must've not been around for the 149-hour glitch… had to power down and reboot the airplane before reaching 149 hours of continuous power-on time, else data concentrators would glitch, leading to all primary displays going blank, among other things.
I flew the A330 for 2 years. The one thing I never liked about the Airbus was that there wasn’t any tactile feedback from the autothrottles. Boeing’s move and you can at least tell what the throttles are commanding and easily override them if they aren’t where you think they should be (without disconnecting the auto throttles).
My first aircraft was the Dash 8 (the old models, not the Q400). So, I had a fair amount of conventional experience before I started on the A320. Besides not having to trim, the Airbus controls feel like any other aircraft. That is how they designed it. When you make an approach in gusty conditions, you need to make corrective inputs if you want to keep the aircraft flying the way you want it to. And the flare for landing is as conventional as it gets. As you approach the flare height, you look at the end of the runway and correct the sink with aft stick pressure, just as you do with a Cessna 172. In older A320 models, at 30ft, the computers push the nose down to make the pilot flare. But in the A320 and A321neo models, they removed it. So, the sink that you feel is very real.
From my experience, it is better not to overthink. When you fly an Airbus fly it like any other aircraft.
Did you ever see that famous Q400 rant on Reddit? This pilot had just checked out in the Q400 and another guy congratulated him by hauling off on this INCREDIBLE, stream of consciousness rant on how much he hated the brakes, the air, the displays, the de-icing, basically everything. It’s one of my favorite “aviation internet” things of all time lol
In a perfect world, you would take the benefits of both systems and combine them. Like an Airbus with active side sticks or a Boeing with Airbus protections.
You mean a BoBus ?
I was thinking of Airing 😅
Or Airing?😂
And which documentation is better, the "engineer's cut" Airbus or the "essentials" Boeing. I'd go with the one that keeps my feet warm (fancy a pony plane).
Wouldnt a boeing with airbus protections not end up being an airbus with force feedback side sticks? 😂
the descriptions remind me so much of the debate about manual vs automatic stick shift in cars, albeit on a much smaller scale. i trained on a manual and now drive automatic and i feel like i see both sides of the argument, manual makes you truly feel in control of the car while automatic makes you feel like you're playing a game (but also you need less effort to drive). it's funny how similar arguments exist across different spheres
Boeing: We have better and top of the line future proof aircraft.
Airbus: We have bolts on our door 😎
The majority of Boeing aircraft aren't futureproof at all
@@markblanch2905What about Airbus?
Ouch 😅
@@markblanch2905 And the A380 is?
AirBus and Dassault Aviation: Slava BAGUETTE 🥖 Heroyam Croissant 🥐
I spoke to a training captain on a B747 simulator session at British Airways and his preference was Boeing as he could look away from the instruments, but leave one hand on the yoke and still feel what the aircraft was doing. I can see a case for Airbus bringing in feedback through the sidestick at some point as this is useful feedback to the pilots.
The Airbus will maintain its last flight path using flight control login and autotrim. So as long as you are where you want pitch and bank wise, and don’t move the stick accidentally, to be you can look away and be more flight path stable than there Boeing imo.
They already communicated on the fact they are working on tech around this. If it will ever come to fruition is another story…
@@steve3291 I. can do the same thing without having my hands on the thrust levers or the side stick. Just look out the window or the PFD and you know whats going on with the flight controls. In reality, you often fly the aircraft with the FCU and monitor the aircraft. Its not an issue to not have your hands on the controls. You have other sources of data.
I flew the A320 since 1991 and I have just retired flying as a captain.
First of all...CONGRATULATIONS for this GREAT VIDEO is perfectly explained as far as A320 is concerned.
I can tell you that the weak point of the Airbus fly-by-wire flight control logic is the lack of manual feed back (side stick and throttle handles).
Greetings from Mexico City.
Thanks for that comment. Which of these planes are more safer:
a320, a321 or a321neo? I've heard many bad news about the reliability of the p&w engines and don't know what planes are more safer?
in the recent years, Boeing seems to have more safety issues, several ex-engineers published some severe whistle-blows - and I very much like that you mention the source videos in the description 👍
Yeah but I'm not sure the safety issues in question have anything to do with the aircraft design philosophy, they have to do with the company's philosophy
Aside from the 737 Max where Boeing didn't want pilots to have ultimate control. 🙄
Actually that is not correct. MCAS was intended as a Maneuvering Control Augmentation System. It was supposed to make the airplane feel like the 737 NG not take away control from the pilots. The errors on this system are so outrageous that I expect it was not done by control system professionals.
@@danharold3087 Which is not ultimate control anyways
Yes it is ultimate control once you turn the stab trim off!!!
@@danharold3087you describe what "not in ultimate control" is
@@bocahdongo7769no one is going to debate this with you. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about and just want to argue and ask such a silly question.
I’m an Airbus pilot and I absolutely love flying it. It’s been designed so well and it’s a spaceship that’s also a 1980s Atari. The automation allows you to really think about where the airplane is and where it needs to be and because of this you can do your job of managing the flight path with great precision. BUT! The airplane can be tricky to land in windy conditions because all of the amazing seat of the pants flying skills you earned flying other jets and piston airplanes gets thrown aside. So when you come in to land in a big crosswind for example you need to be thinking ahead of the airplane and anticipate what it’s going to do because you can’t FEEL anything that’s happening. It’s all visual. If you fly it like a regular airplane it will punish you with bad landings. And even when you put in the correct inputs sometimes the landings won’t go super smooth. Therefore you’re thinking minutes ahead of your approach “ok get the right wing down and land upwind wheel first but don’t bank too much to deploy the spoilers and I’m going to kick in left rudder at ten feet and go idle at 20’” in contrast with a regular jet where you’re just landing on instinct and coordination and experience which is better in my opinion. The airplane isn’t as good as a traditional jet in situations where the autopilot and flight directors get turned off because it’s a flight path airplane and really doesn’t give you any feedback. But because we are usually flying into busy airports it’s not an issue. My colleagues that fly the Boeings also greatly respect and admire their jets but complain about the small and loud cockpits.
Yes - it seems really foolish of Airbus not to implement lots of feedback to supplement instrument feedback - ie put some tactility into the joystick and make the throttles move to the position that the engines "see". This might have been difficult to do reliably and safely when the A300 was being built, but not now.
None of that would compromise Airbus' correct philosophy of giving the pilots as little opportunity to stuff up as possible - hard protections ARE better than soft ones because even superbly trained humans are error prone. But especially in Direct Law, when almost by definition relying on visual feedback from instruments is problematic, that haptic feedback will be a real help with the pilots' situational awareness.
15,000 or so hours on the 757/767 and around 6000 on the 330/320. I don't miss that Yoke (control column)stuck between my legs. I'm a side stick convert
This is highly relevant in my case. 12 years on Boeing 737, 757/767, and 7 years left seat in the A320 series. For the narrow body, Airbus 100% all-day every day. Widebody my company has Boeing only after they canceled an A350 order. I am staying on the A320 series because I simply do not want to fly with a big yoke anymore.
Thanks for that feedback!
@@dcxplant
Any idea why your company doesn’t want A350?
@@charlesbruggmann7909 Probably have made a deal with Boeing and got a discount. Airbus do the same with some of their customers.
@@charlesbruggmann7909 My guess is a lack of vision. Official story was to "streamline".
@@charlesbruggmann7909 Usually it comes down to $s
Tack!
In Military Aviation they also do the Airbus approach.
Many US made fighter, pilot is manager. In a fight, they want pilot to focus on the target so many things are done by computer.
that's interesting! i also heard somewhere that some fighter designs are pretty complicated and counterintuitive to the point where the "airbus approach" is more or less the only option. manually flying would result in an immense mental workload (which is probably not ideal for military operations).
I think that's more of a Lockheed thing. They were always first to bring more automation to aviation. It's a shame they left commercial aviation.
As a former US F-16 pilot I couldn’t disagree more. It’s NOT the “Air Bus approach.” (Yes I fly the 350 now as well.) US Fighters go far beyond the strict hard limitations of an Air Bus. A US Fighter would be operating in what Air Bus considers Direct Law. Yes in a modern fighter you are aided by computer, but you are taking in and dealing with MUCH more input and a far more complicated dynamic in a combat environment. Most of that computer function is doing that targeting, not flying.
Actually, control laws in combat jets are not the same as airbus ones.
From what I understand, the fly by wire in those are to help controlling the aircraft in many manouvers like flying sideways and looping.
@@cfzippo It's odd coming from the first (I think) fighter with a sidestick (that didn't move either, how odd to fly is that?) and FBW, which is what Airbus has done for the past 40 years or so.
Of course you have a greater control of your fighter than of an airliner, the mission is different, but you still have a computer that decides HOW to actually interpret your inputs and send it to the actual control surfaces.
I'd say the F-16 and F/A-18 are more like Airbus and the F-14 more like Boeing, a lot more manual and hands on. The F-15 would be a mix.
Now, if we compare the F-35 to Boeing or Airbus, which one do you think is closer?
I have been 320 CA, 767 CA, 777 FO, 787 CA and currently training 777 CA. I still prefer Boeing but absolutely respect the Bus. Your analysis is very thorough and excellent. Really enjoyed it.
Couldn't agree more.
17:32 this I dont really understand...
why is there not just a big fat screen at the top of the cockpit between both monitors thats only shows either "NORMAL LAW", "ALTERNATE LAW" or "DIRECT LAW" in either green, yellow or red.
Why does crucial and important information like this always need to be hidden away on some random screen in the lower left corner with font-size 15px
Airbus: pilot error is unavoidable
Boeing: computer error is unavoidable
Europe: eggs shouldn't be washed to prevent salmonella poisoning.
America: eggs should be washed to prevent salmonella poisoning.
@@anotheruser9876 Me: Eggs
@@anotheruser9876
Not quite: eggs must be washed and refrigerated. Then the US refuses to collect and publish sufficient data to allow for comparisons.
Take 100 computers and 100 humans. Now let them compute something like the total of the first 100 prime numbers. Who can compute faster and is less error prone? Hardware issues are usually related to sensors and not to the computer. "Computer error" is often faulty sensors or software error... and the software is written by humans. Computers are way much more reliable than humans. It's not even on the same scale.
While both is not fully true, I think past accidents have shown that pilots generally make a lot more mistakes than computers. Then again: You need pilots most, when something goes so wrong, that the computer becomes somewhat helpless in the first place. So having a lot of computers to look over what the pilot is doing and even intervene is correct in my opinion. It still means you need good pilots for exactly the situations in which something is so damaged or goes so wrong, that the computer can't act anymore.
To mee it looks like Airbus with active sidesticks and moving thrust levers would be quite optimal.
You get used to the static stick and throttles really fast. Also less chance of a mechanical issue with them.
@@falcodante1114 The fixed thrust levers is not an issue. The EPR guage starts catching your eye and it becomes normal to notice changes. Just takes a little time and it normalizes. The thrust lever philosophy really is better on the bus.
Airbus throttles do move, if you move them 😉
Many Airbus pilots at my airline often disconnected autothrust during an approach to landing.
They’ll act just like Boeing throttles when you do that.
One can always use a MSFS 2020 Fenix A320 to start, and then simply pay couple hundred euros for a real Lufthansa A320 sim (they even do sim sessions for people without any flying experience) in either MUC, FRA, or BER. A great Xmas gift, btw.
Soon we'll have FBW A380 too.
Could you give more info or the link? Living next to FRA, and did not know Lufthansa has doors open for everyone.
At 26:27, I notice that B737, including the Max family, is actually *not* Gen4 aircraft. That means, it actually has much worse safety statistics...
If you like the Airbus Backup Speed Scale (ie A330) you'll love what the A350 provides for the crew. To begin with:
A330 Back Up Speed Scale, great idea based on AOA however:
• Only available below 25,000 ft.
• Crew needs to work through ECAM failure procedures eventually selecting off all three air data functions of the ADIRU's……all during high workload and stress
The A350 provides something truly ingenious. Let me explain:
Normally:
• Air data system 1 (ADIRU 1) feeds the Capts instruments while Air data system 2 (ADIRU 2 ) feeds the First officers instruments. So far, standard Airbus.
If Air data sys 1 becomes unreliable:
• ADIRU 3 automatically feeds the failed side, in this example, the Capts instruments. Two independent sources of information continue to be presented to the crew.
If Air data sys 1 and 3 become unreliable:
• The system automatically displays the FO's air data (ADIRU 2) on the Capts instruments….effectively providing single source air data. For crew awareness, shown beside the PFD speed and/or altitude scales is the source of this single air data. In our example “ADR 2 SPD” and/or “ADR 2 ALT”.
If all three Air data systems become unreliable:
• The system automatically displays Integrated Standby Instrument data. “ISIS SPD” and/or “ISIS ALT” beside the PFD speed and/or alt scales.
• The A350 Standby Instrument doesn’t just sit there and look pretty as on other aircraft…..its data feeds into the network and utilized if necessary.
If all Air data systems become unreliable, including ISIS (AF447):
• The A350 will pull Air data off the engines (FADEC)…….and the way this is done is truly ingenious….. as this source of air data will not ice up. “BKUP SPD” and/or “BKUP ALT” beside the PFD speed and alt scales. “BKUP…..” means engine data.
All of the above is automatically accomplished without crew action.
What chooses the best air data for display? A computer that is hungry for accurate and valid air data….. the Primary Flight Control Computers. The PRIM’s choose what air data the flight crew see and what air data is used to compute flight control laws.
Brillant…..IMHO
The 350 is truly the next generation.
AirBus and Dassault Aviation: Make BAGUETTE Great Again 🥖
What about the A330neo? Exact same as classic A330, and A340?
@@ramyfares9099 the 330 is a relatively new and cutting edge design of its time. 737 dates back to the 60's
Boeing pilot: we fly the aircraft
MCAS: excuse me?
Just switch stab trim off
@@XD-ql2kr tell that to Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302
pilots
@@jagjordi boeing pilot : we crash it
@@jagjordiTHEY TURNED IT OFF THEN BACK ON AGAIN. POOR PILOTS SHOULD HAVE KEPT IT OFF.
@@XD-ql2kr What if MCAS has trimmed it so far that you can't physically turn manual trim wheel? Do you switch electric trim back and try to be faster than MCAS?
Pilots knowing their plane is more important.
Just an enthusiast here. I had heard of the design philosophies of the manufacturers of course, but it's great to have this clear explanation. So thank you!
I haven't done a ton of flying but as a passenger I always noticed the Airbus planes tended to be smoother in all aspects. As a non-pilot, I feel like the automation of Airbus does make their planes safer, but may require a greater technical understanding of the systems in the case of anything abnormal. "The plane is doing a thing we need to correct" becomes "The plane is doing a thing we need to correct, and it's because the automation is in mode X trying to do Y" so training and systematic understanding is paramount.
Except time and time again the pilots like to take control and make the situation worse. Trust your instruments!
Indeed.
I agree with you on this one. The Airbus automation seems to give me as a passenger comfort, but Boeing planes seems to be too noisy and sometimes not feel so stable in the air. Maybe this is the feedback most pilots are referring to in their comments.
> Gen 4 are considerably safer than earlier designs ...
... and all 737s (including the MAX) are Gen 3 aircraft. Hmmm
Good point, I would assume that Airbus has a higher percentage of Gen 4 aircraft in the air than Boeing because Boeing refuses to part with the 737 design even after more than half a century...
That is the big issue. Being aircraft systems, flight control or alarm system, the 737 is an aircraft from the 60's. And this has an impact on safety.
@renaudcharlet yes I thought they will build new plane after 2010 but they did not
Yeah that seamed like a disingenuous take when you could argue that airbus created that 4th generation with it first aircraft while boeing is still selling what is essentially a third gen aircraft.
Safety statistics per Million flights of 737NG and A320 family show no difference at all.
As a passenger I have to admit that I prefer to fly on a airbus plane. This is because I find there interiors tend to be more spaced out compared to Boeing. Not just across airlines but also within airlines that operate with both plane manufacturers. There seating configurations seem to be better on airbus planes
Two different design approaches, plusses and minuses to each - very well explained, thank you.
However quality of manufacturing and testing may have a bigger effect on the outcomes then the design differences.
Yeh, thats definitely the takeaway. When theyre correctly designed, tested and produced, there is pretty little difference in Airbus/Boeing performance, seems to be tiny margins.
And thats still true for most boeing aircraft, luckily enough^^
28 years now at my airline, 727, 737, 757, 767 (Most time 75/76) 330 and now a 350 captain. Safety wise? Really not much difference. Air France 447? Birgenair Flight 301? Virtually the same accident. The Asiana 777 in SFO? So, it’s training, being familiar with your systems, knowing your airplane. So? Yes my favorite to hand fly is the 757. But? Overall I don’t like the yoke as much as the stick. I like the very much more comfortable seats in the Air Bus, and the TV tray 😂 the 350 in particular is a nice flying jet for long haul, quiet and comfortable. But honestly? Give me pay, lifestyle and either airplane is fine. Of those I’ve flown the 737 is probably my least favorite. While the 737-200s flew like a Cessna 310 almost, the 700, 800 and 900? Ya well I’d take the Air Bus over those. But IF you paid me what I make now to fly the 757 to Hawaii the last year of my career? I’d take it!!😅
being equals bad, imperfect, unsafe !!!
@@fredsmith2277 As does poor spelling.
Boeing pilots always seem to be constantly trying to validate themselves to Airbus pilots... Airbus pilots don't even need to respond because they already know they fly the better planes anyway, lol.
Should have had a guest (Airbus) pilot for this episode. As much as you try, some of your subconscious bias did still appear to come through!
Especially that last comment about "safety is better than any tray tables", kind of petty but hilarious 😂 😂
Bearing in mind his feet have stayed firmly in one camp, i pers think Petter was being VERY diplomatic ;)
He's extremely Biased. It was all about what Airbus does wrong
There is one more thing, that wasn't mentioned. The assembly quality or production culture. It doesn't matter how great the feature is when it isn't working. I've flown both Airbus and multiple Boeings, as well as the Embraer and others. And from that perspective, the overall thoughts are not quite matching.
Currently flying the B787, previously flew the A320… let’s be honest, I love both. But at the end of the day, I’ll always choose the bigger aircraft. What really matters to me isn’t just the type of plane-it’s the quality of life and the scheduling that make all the difference.
Passengers prefer living over Boeing.
@@nou7401 tell me how many people have lost their lives on a 787
Flown both, 10000 hrs on the Airbus and 7000 on Boeing including lamentable Max. If 737’s were fridges they would have been banned years ago. Airbus for my money are way more impressive, the cockpit’s are quiet, roomy and well thought out with a great operating philosophy. Many note the static thrust levers are a hazard but because Airbus FMA’s are rigorously called out and acknowledged the operating loop is tight. Protections are brilliant, windshear full back stick and Toga power the jet will look after you as with all the other potential pilot cockpit ups. Most of the Boeings I flew were powerful and had good lift but goodness the cockpits were messy and some (737) noisy and manuals were complete gobbledygook’ flaps are not down they are not up? What?
@@Blueteddy-kq1pj
Fascinating comment. I had heard of the quieter cockpit in the Airbus before. Surely massively important for any flight beyond 90mins?
Maybe you should take the MAX for a ride.. good upgrades.. would change it for one of those busses..
@@ACPilot He said in the original comment that he has flown 7000 hours on Boeing aircraft, including the 737 MAX?
It is clear from pilot comments that 1) Airbus wins in cockpit design, room, and comfort and 2) pilots feel comfortable with what looks like excessive automation.
I think the statistics would favor Bombardier/Canadair and Embraer actually! They have an incredible safety record.
Embraer, too
I would always pick embraer
Airbus and Boeing fly way more planes.
how many airbus/boing per any of those?
maybe less reputable airlines prefere boeings and airbuses, as in most cases it's not the manufacturer fault, but inconpetence of airlines (except double MAX drop)
“Comparison is the thief of joy.” When I first got into flight simming, I started with Airbus because I found them easier to fly and understand while I was still learning. That being said, I do really love Boeing a lot as well. I enjoy both types and like flying both of them. Boeing has a certain 'mechanical' feel to it that is nice, and I find enjoyable. That, and I think that a Boeing 737NG/MAX is more 'exciting' to look at in comparison to an Airbus A320 family airliner. In flight simming, looking cool is half the battle, lol. Jokes aside, I like the layout of the Boeing 737 flight deck, and I have an easier time navigating it. The Airbus' MCDU sometimes felt disorienting, having to go through so many different pages and even having to input certain things into it. Obviously, that's a me issue; I'd have to learn more to fully understand the systems and how they work. But for simply flying along, I get by. Long story short, I like both Boeing and Airbus aircraft. I have a bit more of a Boeing preference, though.
Fly by wire is great, but I disagree with Airbus' choice of summing dual inputs, can't think of any circumstances where this would help in any emergency. Trouble is the only real fix would be to implement expensive and heavy side stick feedback mechanisms. But I think a simple vibration system might be enough in its place. Something, anything, to shake a pilot into realising its happening.
I don’t think they would be heavy or expensive. Even cellphones have haptics these days.
You mean something like flashing lights and audio warning like what airbus implemented for dual input
Summing the inputs of two sticks is the only sensible way if they aren't mechanically linked. An alternative might be the average input, but that's just half of the sum and that would halve your control range during normal operation (zero input from the non-flying pilot).
A mechanism that picks one input and ignores the other based on some criterion would be far worse because it could lead to an abrupt switch from one pilot to the other while the pilot that's actually in control is making a manoeuvre.
If the sticks are virtually linked so that the stick that's not held by a pilot follows the movements of the other stick, then the average would be the right thing.
Maybe Airbus will introduce force feedback with linked sticks some day. Not easy in engineering: the force must be large enough that it's noticeable in a panic situation but it can't take a lot of space and it must be absolutely impossible for the mechanism to jam and render the stick inoperable.
Since the audio warning can be suppressed by other alerts and visual not noticed, some stick vibration could be really useful for dual input. Should be very cheap and bulletproof, probably also easy to retrofit. Although Airbus does not have a stick shaker (?) ideally it should feel quite different than one to prevent confusion for transitioning pilots.
As an American with Boeing stock, I think Airbus is better.
Sell right now
@@egor.smirnov I bought it recently. I’m betting on a comeback. Things often have to get worse before they get better.
🤣🤣🤣
"Oh NO! It's going down IT'S GOING DOWN!!!"
Plane or stock?
"Both!"
As an European with Airbus stocks, i salute you
Q feel IMO is one of the most important feedbacks on fly by wire systems, reminding pilots of their initial training in a direct linkage plane.!
I would say in general I’m more of a Boeing person because the 737 is my favorite airplane. But I think that only happened to be because I know more about the 737 than any other aircraft. Regardless, Airbus has beautiful airplanes with interesting features which are also plenty of fun to learn about. I just wish I had enough time and space in my head to know everything about both!
Yessir
I used to be same as you, but as soon as I got into details of all the systems in Airbus and how they work, it simply flabbergasted me. Now I'm an Airbus guy.
*Pilots pulls up extremely*
Boeing: wanna stall the plane? Do it!
Airbus: no.
hijackers
boeing:no
airbus:yes please
@@planespottingwithabdullah what was the most deadly hijacking again?
@@planespottingwithabdullah abdooool lol
False ! - the worst A330 accident in history was an inflight stall at a high altitude.
@@terrymichael5821 because of pilot error, captain pull side stick and the co pilot push down side stick ,result = zero output
Having flown both Boeing & Airbus, Boeing is by far my preference. Main reason is simple: The Boeing is designed around the human Pilot and Airbus is designed around the Automation!! I find the interface in the Airbus lacking EFFECTIVE & direct communication with the Pilot. As mentor explained very well is that the Airbus interface relies on communication on visual cues. The Boeing communicates very well with the Pilot through visual and more importantly tactile feedback such as moving thrust levers and other controls. In addition, the pilot is able to bring up any non-normal checklist at any time which was not possible on the A320 I flew. Perhaps that is changed, I don't know. The Boeing is also in my opinion an aircraft that is far more intuitive and easier to understand than the Airbus which I think contributes to safety.
Video says safety stats between modern aircraft from both companies are about the same, but by the definition of modern given, most Boeings AREN'T Modern, ie 737. I'd be interested to see comparison between A320 and B737.
@@mog0 the 737 is only one Boeing family in production, the others are 777 and 787. 767 is getting discontinued in 2027.
@@Blank00 I was referring to number of aircraft, rather than number of models. Last year 387 out of 528 aircraft produced were 737s.
The comparison between the 737 and A320 family is day and night. They can do more or less the same and there's where the similarities end.
One is a modern fly-by-wire aircraft, fully computer controlled machine. The other is a cables and pulleys along the airframe old school aircraft that doesn't even have EICAS like every other Boeing.
@@miks564 That's kind of my point. The video is about comparing Boeing and Airbus safety but then ignores the majority of Boeings.
I flew Boeing for 6 years before moving to Airbus and I was very reluctant to leave the 737 but it didnt take me long to realise the Airbus is a way better machine!
So, the frontal lobotomy prior to ground school was successful 😂
I am not a pilot and do not claim to have any knowledge except for the aviation interested person. But one thing that has always puzzled me is that only Airbus (at least until recent models) use digital information on the displays as Quick Reference (check list). I have always wondered why the paper reference manual has survived for so long, in particular when it comes to stressful situations where a lot is going on. Wouldn't it be easier to simply get the right information on a display right in front of you? Perhaps a touch display with some quick look up links to touch for further information. Finding the right information fast is usually quicker on a display where the only thing required is that the computer shows you the right checklist for the situation you are in. You could even (maybe it is already done) make this even easier by a voice control system where the pilots could simply describe the situation in normal language (of course pilot terminology), to have the system bring up links to the most likely pages to look at for solutions. I don't understand why Boeing has kept the paper book for so long. I remember first time I saw that Airbus automatically showed the quick reference on the display in front of the pilot when needed, my first thought was: "But of course! Isn't that the only logical solution in this day and age?". Before someone clever chirps in and point to the situation where the entire cockpit goes dark, I am of course not suggesting you completely trash the analog paper reference handbook with checklists. So of course every cockpit will always have a flashlight (or other emergency light) and a paper manual, for the situation where the entire plane dies on the pilot. But for all the million other scenarios that usually are the ones happening, isn't it much safer to have a digital reference manual that shows the correct page without having to look it up in some paper book?
Another obvious benefit of a digital manual is that it can always remain updated - even in flight if a new instruction is published from the manufacturer. As long as the plane can communicate witht the ground, it is also possible to send live updates to the reference manual. And even if - for security reasons one wouldn't do it in-flight - it is still a safeguard against aged information that a digital manual is synchronized with the newest available information each time a plane is on the ground - even during a simple turn-around.
Is there a reason Boeing is so conservative when it comes to changing checklists to digital checklists on the display?
good that we have both! Both challenge each other constantly. We (consumers) benefit a lot of the development and improvements resulting this "rivalry".
Yes, we need at least two big players. More would be even better...
@@MentourNow I was hoping COMAC would give both of them a kick in the pants
@@mercurybard9794 Where did COMAC borrow their technology from?
@@Tom-xy9yy Everybody borrows from everybody.........the A350 fuel tank arrangement it's B777........the B777 passenger doors....its an Airbus door.......
@@Tom-xy9yy it's less about the product (if I could still fly, you would never catch me on one of them) and more about the economic pressure. I just checked the fleet sizes of 5 Chinese carriers and they have close to 1000 planes combined. That's a lot of business to potentially lose if Airbus and Boeing can't provide quality products.
(Putting aside the pressure the PRC government will put them under to buy local and the tightening restrictions on the export of avionics technology from the USA to China)
Re the S7 incident description; you left out a feature that Airbus have designed into the displays during flight in degraded laws.
They don’t have to look at the ECAM to notice that the aircraft is in Alternate or Direct law. The PFD has indications to help the pilots. As alternate law is no big deal, the indications are subtle (but obvious to a well trained Airbus pilot).
If the aircraft is in direct law, both PFDs (the screen that the Russian pilots would have been glued to during their pitch oscillations) had a hugely obvious message displayed in the blue part of the attitude display that reads “USE MAN PITCH TRIM”.
Maybe it was a language barrier, poor training, or something else - but one of the two pilots should’ve seen this and followed its guidance.
Maybe they did notice it but failed to note that the trim was in the full-up setting.
@@ender22782That's hard to believe as if one of the pilot would have noticed their first tought should be looking at the trim wheel.
Imagine the startle effect the S7 crew faced. Departing in a winter storm from an airport surrounded by mountains, on a fully loaded A321neo, they encountered speed fluctuations almost immediately after takeoff. They were likely experiencing moderate turbulence, adding to the stress and compounding the initial shock that led to the ensuing aircraft upset. This reaction aligns with the urgency and confusion heard in their initial radio transmission.
So I doubt that they didn’t get the message on the FMA due to a language barrier or something.
Other aircraft faced similar weather but managed uneventful departures by following the procedures like unreliable speed. Even if the S7’s fuselage had been de-iced, ice ridges would still have been a problem, as these form primarily from melted on the warmed windows snow. For aircraft like the A321neo, which require more ground time for start-up and warm-up during winter, the prolonged exposure to falling snow makes ice ridges more likely.
Preventing such incidents requires more than just de-icing. Proper training is essential to maintain manual flying skills and combat complacency. Additionally, implementing specific holdover time limits to address ice ridge formation, based on precipitation rates, would also help.
@@marksuslenkov8757 fair comment, but it’s not an FMA indication; it’s a large, red message written across the blue (sky) part of the attitude indicator. It’s designed to be very hard to miss and gets the PF’s attention because he will be flying the aircraft manually at that point.
@@Klink330 Amber message, not red. Mechanical backup is red.
Allowing dual input without tactile feedback is wild. Is that just to stop malicious pilots?
AF 447 was caused by a panicky first officer continually pulling back on the stick, even when told to get off the controls.
Yep. AF447 was all about CRM, not control architecture - that and a dickhead pilot trying to force a fully loaded A330 into an 8000 ft per minute climb at 32,000 ft. But it'll always be brought up by the Boeing is better crowd as the exception that proves the rule
But the first officer would not have pulled back the entire time to begin with if he wasn't lead to believe that hard protection would work 99% of the time. Put yourself in the cockpit that night, brewing storm outside, no visual reference. Try to figure out how fast you were falling before it's too late
Oh, btw, the computer was blaring stall when you push the stick forward
@@chunkyazian just back up there. When the pitot tube blocked, and the aircraft dropped out of normal law, it was flying straight and level in good trim.
All Bonin had to do was hand control over to his mate and go and get a coffee. So long as his mate continued to fly the pitch and power they were already at until the airspeed indication returned, no one would ever have known there was ever an issue.
He had nothing to figure out.
Instead he managed to climb the aircraft into "coffin corner" for absolutely no good reason whatsoever, and all of the subsequent issues you cite from then on are a direct consequence of that dumb decision.
The really stupid thing about AF447 is that in order to avoid it they needed to do nothing - literally.
Just fly pitch and power until airspeed indication returned
@@orlestone yes, it's easy to talk about pitch and power at the comfort of your own home. The first officer made a mistake for sure. Something similar happened in a Boeing before.
All I'm saying is that software has been keeping the human operator away from the machine in the physical world and the human operator has become complacent in trusting the software to do the proper thing. And I'm saying this as a software dev myself.
Humans do make mistake sometimes and the Airbus' design makes it much more difficult to decepher all those messages in the middle of the night. In the case of AF447, the first officer likely to have believed that he could pull back on the stick all he wanted, due to a false drop in altitude, and the computer would handle the pitch and power for him. His mistake was masked by the stall warning when his colleague tried to put in corrective action. The situation was so deteriorated that the computer blared out stall warning when they tried to lower the nose.
Finally, why would Airbus look into active side stick if its design is the ultimate answer?
@@chunkyazian He was told to get off the stick. Doesn't matter what he was lead to believe. It wasn't his aircraft to fly.
Doing a Video like this without mentioning MCAS once is quite an accomplishment...
Stay tuned...
@@MentourNowthat has got to be the most nervous looking peice of text I've seen this month...
@@MentourNowI mean, not mentioning it; guaranteeing this comment…
The intro writes itself.
“A while back I made a video, and one of the comments…”
Having flown both manufacturers. 737, 767, A330 and A380 somewhere between the two would be best. Both do things better and worse than the other. E.g IMHO Side-sticks are better for most controlling (737 aside as cable backup makes leverage essential) but not being interconnected is pretty bad, particularly for training pilots. Thrust levers that move are great, though airbus method of initiating a go-around is more intuitive (thrust levers full forward) than pressing an often slightly difficult to find TOGA button. Most airbus protections are fantastic are much easier to fly time critical manoeuvres than Boeing (EGPWS and wind shear escape) though in a black swan the lack of protections on Boeing could be useful.
Boeing PFD is much better than Airbus PFD.
There are many more.
I have not flown a A220 or a McDonnell Douglas jet (C17 or B717) but those that have say the blend of features is close to ideal.
It was explained to be once that the difference between Airbus and Boeing is a bit like the difference between a European and American car. They both do the same thing, but the indicators and wiper controls are on different sides and how you engage and use the cruise control is different though the functions are the same, the key to remember is that deep down they are both cars. ANC
@@DC-338I’ve much the same experience and couldn’t agree more.
If Airbus could integrate some force feedback and physical indicators into controls that'd be the perfect aircraft imo
Since many(most?) accidents involve human error, removing the possibility of human error as much as possible sounds like a good idea. I work in IT operations, and we automate everything as much as possible and try to avoid manual activity, and one of the reasons for that is that people mess up. Of course, automation can also go wrong but that is significantly rarer than a person making a mistake. So the approach of relying on automation for the most part during normal operations and seeking intervention from a human "administrator" only when that automation goes wrong is more appealing to me personally.
I'm in IT also. Automation exists firstly for cost cutting measures, not to cover mistakes.
@@glynnetolar4423 That's part of it, of course, but it's far from the only reason. Even things that would be easier and faster done manually go into automation. Well maybe it's different in your organization.
@@kloudray Automation, just like mechanical parts, must be maintained periodically. If improperly maintained, then automation will not be reliable. Incidents like wheels falling off old planes, engine cowlings opening after takeoff, and even LA800 go to show how maintainence by the airline or 3rd party isn’t always done properly.
The biggest difference is fatigue for pilots flying multiple legs a day. The Airbus is a lot less fatiguing. The flight deck is much more roomy and easily allows for two jump seaters. The cabin is also 6 inches wider which translates into an economy seat being one inch wider as compared to a 737. Our FA’s even prefer the galleys on our A-320 family aircraft versus the 73.
Fatique, nonsense.. then try fly a long-haul bizjet.. way smaller than a 737 cockpit.
@ I have and the long haul charter is only one take off and landing, maybe two because of a reposition. Not 4 legs in a day like a lot of 73 folks are doing.
i have flown on an a320 and a 737 this year and i preferred being on the 737
I completely agree that if the aircraft is making adjustments to yoke/joystick or throttles, then it should visually move accordingly,
the amount of accidents that could be prevented, if the auto-controls were logical and intuitive to the pilots, is huge.
"feel what the aircraft is doing" is the 1st thing you need to let go if you get an instrument rating. Dont trust your feeling, trust your instruments! But do cross checks. As I learned the hard way in my flight training with an old style attitude indicator that "failed" in the sim, I ended up with a pretty large course deviation before I had 100% identified "the problem" and started ignoring the faulty instrument. Very good lesson!
From my view as a flight sim enthusiast, I find the airbus a much more intuitive kite to fly, things just make sense, some 737 procedures take a good bit of learning imo
The Fenix A320 feels so much more ergonomic than the PMDG 737, but the 737 has more "character" and gives more "feedback" especially during hand flying. Procedures in the Airbus seem far more intuitive though...
737 procedures take long to learn, while it's the automations that takes long on Airbus side.
I think one thing that also could have been mentioned was Airbus' cockpit commonality
I have had the pleasure of flying the Boeing 737 and the Airbus A320 family, so maybe I may be allowed a comment.
Over 3000 hours on the B737 (200 and 3/4/500). The 200 was described to me on the type course as a "Cessna 172 with jet engines" and it was maybe a bit like the Tiger Moth in that it was easy to fly and difficult to fly well. There were all sorts of glitches, being speed unstable at lower speeds being one of them. The 737 400 had less of those sort of problems, but the automation was very much new wine in old bottles.
I then went onto the A319 and hated all the differences (even the switches were upside down!), but learned to get along with it and discovered that slightly different techniques were needed. For example sudden control inputs in the last 50 feet would be at the time the control laws were changing (blending was the Airbus word) into the ground range. You learned to make gentle control inputs preferably a bit higher than you might on a 737.
I then went back on the 737 for a while and was surprised how much I missed the finer points of the Airbus.
My final flying years were spent on the Airbus (a total of 6000 hours) and by the end had learned to love it. so between the two I would always want to fly the A320 in preference to the B737, but I do acknowledge that I have never flown the more recent Boeings.
However, given a totally free choice, can I have the Twin Otter, an aeroplane I still love most.
excellent comment. My only jet experience is on the BAe-146, and large deHavilland types. And small DeHavilland types. So basically I have been flying the same aeroplane for 20,000 hours. I have friends who fly old Boeings, new Boeings, and Airbuses, and they all seem to favour whatever they happen to be flying at the time, which is a great attitude. My happiest hours were spent flying a Twin Otter on CAP floats. Peace, brother.
I enjoyed reading both perspectives above, and your experience paths. I’ve nearly 2000 hrs, since the late ‘80s, mostly on B747 variants-sadly just in MSFS ;-)
In the book "Digital Apollo," many early test pilots (and other military pilots) refused to fly aircraft with FBW. It was perceived that manual controls meant the pilots were actually pilots, whereas FBW meant they were really just passengers with some advisory capacity. Do you want to be the pilot or just a passenger with the ability to gripe?
They had to get used to it. The Lunar Module could only function with FBW; it was determined, early on, that it was be nearly impossible to land it, successfully, had it been strictly manually-controlled.
The F-16 has FBW because the airframe is inherently unstable, such that a pilot would have great difficulty simply keeping it in controlled flight, much less able to conduct combat maneuvers.
5:41 instructions unclear, Petter now set to fly A310
If you would have asked that any aviation fanboy 20 years ago, Boeing and both Airbus, nowadays, it's only Airbus sadly due to all Boeing leadership culture changes in the past decades
There was that point where Mentour went hint hint. I would not be surprised if he soon got an Airbus type rating.
Nah. Boeing invented modern aviation and will always be the king.
@@stussymishka Fr, I still prefer Boeing though... far more actually
@@stussymishka Boeing invented what? Nop, the first passenger commercial jet was the Comet, the first supersonic was the Concorde, the first widebody twin engine was the A300, the first with digital FBW was the A320.
It took fifteen plus years for leadership changes to have an affect on engineering and build operations. This means it will take many years to make an effect back to safety and engineering first.
I absolutely despise basically everything fly by wire. As a heavy equipment operator, we call manual valve controls "pilot" controls (pilot for the low-power hydraulic circuit that amplifies stick movement to operate high flow, high pressure valves) while fly by wire is referred to as EH, or Electric over hydraulic controls, which are fundamentally quite similar to their aviation equipment, though hopefully with lower standards for failure, as these systems do fail and often behave unpredictably when the management computers that filter out sudden inputs and coordinate speed matching and positioning systems get an unexpected position or speed reading from a damp sensor. Needless to say, out 259D is a lemon and we're sending it back to Caterpillar.
Airbus pilot here (320). Airbus is better by a mile. I never want to fly a Boeing. Everyone at my airline that has come from a 73 will never go back.
The 737 is stuck in the past. They could not fully update it because they needed to keep a single type rating.
Im not a pilot but have an honest question if you dont mind? Do you or did you ever find it awkward to change seats and use the other hand on the side stick? I would think a yoke would be more natural right off the bat.
@ It’s ok, you get used to the switch pretty quick. Now what is hard is going back to fly a C172 (I haven’t flown that in 20 years). It’s gonna take a couple times to figure out the height and landing the plane.
Well the MAX is quite nice, best 737 they made.. Airbus, no thanks.. :-)
@ I hope we have lots of people senior to me thinking the same way! 😜. The Max is updated but the overhead panel is still stuck in the 50’s. And it still has the small cockpit. No thanks.
@ Not like the overhead is a piano you touch and move switches all the time. Toogle or push switch.. same one-off-standby-armed whatever. It is just looks, and when we talk looks the MAX, 787, 777X screens and graphics layout beat Airbus on all points. The screens are what we spend our time looking at, not the overhead.
I have dreamed of being an airline pilot since age 3, but that train has long since left the station without me. As a fall-back I developed a keen interest in software development in my teens. And from that background can comment on the differences with the electronic displays and the operating manuals.
Back in the mid 1980s to late 1990s both the hardware *and* the software manuals were very detailed and very extensive. In fact, I was able to build and assemble several computers in that time-frame with just the provided manuals. I was also able to learn several programming languages and build some impressive programs for the hardware limitations I had. By the early 2000s the hardware manuals had evolved (or rather devolved) into a quick reference flyer that was often smaller than an A5 sized piece of paper, and building my own computer became nearly impossible. A similar trend had occurred with software. Even consumer software came with extensive manuals that detailed how to use all the various features of the software, encouraging exploring and learning new features that make your life easier. Nowadays you only get a Quick Installation Guide booklet, if at all. Back in the 1990s the included manuals for a software development tool could easily occupy about one meter of shelf-space. And it was usually possible to find an answer to a startled “Why the heck is this happening (or not happening)?”. Nowadays the included manuals are virtually non-existent, and even the “official” on-line manuals are often sub-par. I find myself more often having to wade through standards documents, then trying to puzzle out how the implementation of my tool differs from the official standard. I also have to search through a huge volume of forum and/or discussion board archives while trying to find an answer my questions.
So with that background in mind, I have to concede the win to the Airbus ECAM and the Airbus Flight Operations Manual.Yes, there might be a danger of information overload, but it will be a huge help when you need to figure out some bizarre fault indication.
If AF447 is anything to go by (and the video from last weekend), I’d prefer flight controls that show me what the other pilot is doing and whether they’re stalling the jet.
Hilarious for Boeing to say "the pilots have authority" in light of MCAS flying their planes into the ground regardless of pilot input
That was before MCAS crashes
it would be a valid argument, except that the pilots regained control by switching the powered trim off, and then lost control again, by switching it back on. which is not to say that the 737 MAX program wasn't an unforced error.
mcas is fixed now.pilots now have authority
@@planespottingwithabdullah tell that to 346 people who lost their lives
@@kenbrown2808 That is a misrepresentation of events the pilots figured out what was causing the issue, turned off. Then realized that they did not have enough altitude to retrim the aircraft properly manually which is what they were going to do. So they turned it back on knowing they needed the computer to help them retrim. Once they turned It back it reverted all the manual trim work they did and they crashed. So it is a valid argument MCAS took control put the aircraft into a situation where it was going to crash, and when it was figured out they didn't have enough altitude to correct the issue manually. Root cause MCAS. How you stated it, it makes it sound like the pilots totally fixed the problem and they would have been fine but they made the choice to turn it back on for some reason not related to them already being in a situation where a crash was inevitable.
Have flown 727, 737, 747, 767, 787 and A380's.
The modern Boeing fly by wire architecture (in my opinion) was alot more intuitive, pilot friendly and easy to understand than the Airbus system.
My personal preference having flown both is the Boeing FBW system, but I've friends who have primarily flown Airbus and swing the other way!
Both have pro's and cons, but the biggest change I would like to see would be to have the Airbus sidesticks linked so you know what the other pilot is doing. Having moving autothrottle levers would also add to situational awareness.
Air France 447 was a classic example of 2 experienced pilots losing control of a perfectly serviceable aircraft.
Loss of situational awareness and not being aware of the flying pilot's inputs were significant factors.
Each to their own, but I've seen alot of very experienced A330 Captains bid for the 787 and been very happy with the change.
Having said that I'd love to see how the A350 has improved above the A380.
have you ever flown commercial aircraft made by other companies like Embraer, Bombardier, Sukhoi, Tupolev, etc? what do you think of them?
Tupolev is not flown by any Western company, I don't think he lived in Russia! ;-)
One thing to note: the pilot who suggested that sidesticks should be used on the A320 was a British pilot named Gordon Corps. He was the Airbus investigator who died during the investigation of Thai 311 due to altitude sickness at Nepal.
Really? That's an unfortunate turn of events.
@@chrisb.2028 Indeed.
As an FAA A&P, and as an EASA B1 RII Mechanic and Inspector, I can honestly say that while I grew up on B727s and 737s, I totally fell in love with A300/310s, A320s, and A330/340s. I love the consistency through Airframe design, engineering, and operation. Boeing tried to re-engineer the wheel on every new airframe.....even when it couldn't or didn't need to.....
Very good video...
I have never flown an Airbus, I fly a B777, so I know my opinion may be a bit biased, but I really think that Airbus is not really solving any problem, for example with the automatic emergency descent of the A350 or the automatic TCAS RA of the A380 (and I suppose A350 too), according to them, these are safety devices, but the reality is that for decades there have been no accidents or incidents related to these events where pilots have performed the maneuver incorrectly, that is, the industry is not really needing them. I think that in aviation, the automatisms are separated into 3 categories, those that really reduce the workload of the pilots, those that make flights more economically efficient for the company and those that are intended to get pilots out of the planes and I think that Airbus is dedicated to this 100%.
Well, after consulting with many friends who have flown Airbus and Boeing (or non-Airbus like Bombardier, Embraer, etc.), practically all of them have told me the same thing...
"WHEN EVERYTHING IS GOOD, AIRBUS IS EXCELLENT, BUT THE DAY YOU HAVE PROBLEMS, YOU WILL WANT TO BE ON A BOEING."
I'll have to disagree with you when it comes to the automatic emergency descent on the A350. The purpose is to be a last safety net in the extremely unlikely chance both pilots get incapacitated due to a depressurization. That is something I wish all modern airliners being built today had. That system alone would have saved the Helios 737 (flight 522) from crashing. So there have been an accident where that system would have saved the day. Automatic TCAS isn't really necessary as it's mainly to reduce workload but it's just part of the future where aircraft gets more automated. I of course don't like the prospect of single pilot or no pilot operations at all but Airbus is ahead when it comes to automation. However now we have new generation aircraft like the Gulfstream G600 where as it's avionics and flight abilities blows the most advanced airliners in service, the 787 and A350 out of the water.
@ The emergency descent in airliners is not "necessary", the Time of Useful Consciousness (TUC) at the altitudes we fly ranges from 1 minute at 30 thousand feet to 30 seconds at 40 thousand feet, more than enough time for us to put on the oxygen mask and make the descent. The Helios case does not count because all the "alarms" that the cabin altitude was ascending failed. It was an old model that did not have EICAS or ECAM. In addition, it was a slow decompression, which is why they did not notice. If it had been an explosive decompression, if they had noticed, I would have started the emergency descent. In any modern airplane, there are signs of (slow) decompression already at 8,500 feet and again, in case of an explosive one, flying at 40 thousand feet, we have 30 seconds to act. It is different in corporate airplanes that fly at 50 or more, there it is useful since the TUC is only a few seconds. Airbus aims to remove pilots from aircraft as soon as possible and for no reason other than the "cost" to airlines. This is quite clear, they are already testing the 350 with Cathay.
@@pabloechavarria2045 Alright, you make your point, especially concerning the lack of EICAS. I can understand where you come from.
He was talking a lot about the issues with the Airbus way. And I'm sure they all true. But does Boing has less accidents with their systems?
At the end I think is the most important is how the pilots are trained and how good they know their systems.
Hi Petter, congratulations on taking on such a controversial subject! Hopefully you’ll get a chance to have a go in an A320 sim at some point. With familiarity the non back driven throttles and unlinked sticks become natural. In your safety comparison you correctly point out all FBW aircraft are similar crash statistic wise. The problem is the vast majority of Boeing production isn’t FBW. The 737. No FBW, no EICAS and crash statistics far worse than the A320. Of the approximately 12000 737s made there have been 234 hull losses. Of the almost identical number of A320s made just 38 have been lost.
Yes! Petter On your @Mentour _pilot_ channel, I was asking you this question on one of your uploads where you asked us viewers and subscribers our opinion, I asked you to opine. I'm glad to be watching this one now...😊
As a software developer, I can’t remember ever being on a team where I didn’t look around at my team and think about at least one of them “thank god they’re not developing life critical systems”. /s
Then at the end of your work day you climb into your car and drive home. All the time relying on safety-critical systems your car, most other vehicles around you, the traffic control systems, etc., etc. Or maybe you take the train... same thing.
Even working from home you have to trust that the team who coded the firmware for your fridge weren't a bunch of psychopaths. /s
No aircraft system is done by one person.
So does that mean that your employer just wanted to cheap out on software developers and considered lower quality software developers acceptable?
@@hammondpickleFirmware for your fridge? If you have firmware in your fridge, you bought the wrong fridge.
When are cars falling from 40,000 ft and filling in bulk?
The safety systems in cars are typically not driving. What world are you living in?
Well there was that one time when someone was decapitated but...
The problem with boeing isnt design, its manufacturing quality assurance. That includes testing new products, that is also lacking.
In some cases it's also design that is at fault.
@purrple.shadows if things were tested properly, those problems would be fixed. Most new engineering designs have problems, thats why testing is so important, but boeing skimps on that to save money, same with basic quality control, and thats why they have problems.
Testing old products too, it seems. Like the 737 fuselage. (They don't come much older than that.)
Nice to know that MCAS wasn't a problem......
@@orlestone if it had been tested properly, it would not of been... all engineering has design flaws, every company and product has them, its how they are tested and fixed which matters, and thats where boeing keeps screwing up. Thats the part other companies do better, they find the faults and fix them before putting them on the market.
What do I prefer as an aerospace engineer and not a pilot? All the modern FBW aircraft. Given the choice of A330, A350, B777, or B787 I'd just say yes. Given the choice of A320 family or B737 family... I have been avoiding the 737 for 20 years. I only fly on them when my employer books them. In the long term they have 5 times the hull loss rate and 4 times the casualty rate despite having less deliveries than the A320 family. By 4th generation do you mean only the MAX or the 737 NG too? I'm pretty sure the MAX proved very dangerous initially.
None of the 737s, MAX included are Gen 4 aircraft
@@unfathomable1876 So Gen 3?
@@cageordie Yes, the 737 in all iterations is a gen 3 aircraft. The US government even had to give it special exemptions for the fact it doesn't even have an EICAS. The 777 and 787 are the only true Gen 4 commercial Boeing airliners. It's sad that the MAX even exists it should've been completely redesigned or replaced.
you are one of those people who forgets the 737 has been around for 20 years more than the a320 and thinks everything is pilot error
3:38 * chuckles *
I typically dont buy into these sorts of “one vs another” things that pop up. I have favorites (747, 757, a340, etc) but it always comes down to the PLANES as opposed to the firms themselves. I’m a GA pilot so I like the stick and rudder aspects of flying but I also appreciate the fact that if necessary, my little RV-12 can fly an RNAV approach on autopilot with relatively minimal hassle…and I absolutely love ADSB and the extra safety it provides. So I don’t think that “one or the other” scenarios are the right outlook. It’s more about flying what you’re given in the safest, most enjoyable manner humanly possible.