An important exception for Airbus is the A220: since it was originally designed by Bombardier, the FBW logic (pitch stability, auto trim etc) are not akin to the other Airbus aircraft and are somewhat similar to the 777/787 logic instead.
The A220 is equipped with an EICAS and a dark-cockpit philosophy as well, but can display and then perform automated checklists by itself. Bombardier was not only light-years ahead with this aircraft, but they also packaged the best of Boeing and Airbus into one plane.
Hats off to you guys for compressing this super complicated topic into all of 13 mins or so. Really well done. I am still curious to know more about the Airbus Laws so perhaps a video on them alone will help.
Their description of Airbus laws is simplified but accurate. There's lots more laws too (e.g. flare law). But it all comes down to code, and unless you can read the source code, it'll always be a general description.
I currently fly an A320 and love it. Before this I flew an Embraer 175 which is a bit of mix and mash between Boeing and Airbus philosophies. The only thing I really miss from the Embraer that is a "Boeing" feature is autothrottles over thrust levers. When a pilot is flying an approach is on the outside and also your PFD. You're not really looking over at the EICAS/ECAM in your scan so it's very easy in the airbus to lose track of what the autothrust system is doing. Versus keeping your hand on a throttle and feeling it move, you already know what the engine is trying to do. Even better on the ERJ you could override the inputs with muscle force if you wanted more power before the autothrottles would demand it. Beyond that, I never ever ever want a yoke again. Side stick normal law for life. It makes flying so much more enjoyable for me. I think most people that might tell you the old school Boeing philosophy is superior have either never flown an airbus, or are also not real airline pilots that have to deal with these planes every day. I don't know many people that enjoy the 737 specifically, and I know many many people that would avoid certain airlines with all Boeing fleets simply because they don't want to fly it. The newer Boeings are a different story though.
737 sucks to work in compared the a320 for us luggage loaders and de ice crew(like seruiosly who thought it was a good idea to put the apu inlet on the top and put a nice big hole that fluid can get into the cabin)
Nyaos, thank you for your input. I’m not a pilot but I’ve wondered about the movable thrust levers for awhile now. My closest comparison would be driving a manual car and yeah being able to feel what gear the car is in is essential. Whenever I have to drive a car that’s not my own and is significantly different I hate having to look down to check. And Einar, fellow ground handler I feel your pain. Ugh that is such a pain in the butt! I’ve only recently been trained and signed off as a de-icer and I groan inwardly when we’re assigned a Boeing. They’re a pain in the butt also with connecting and using the water and lavatory trucks and I’m definitely not a fan of the doors. Especially those pesky Ryanair 737s. The extreme lack of space with those retractable stairs honestly make me a little nervous. Being a woman of average height and weight I’m always worried that the weight of the door and inability to form a stable base due to the lack of room will one day just take me with it and I’ll end up either hanging from the door clinging to it for dear life until help reaches me or just falling onto the unforgiving concrete aircraft stand below. I have a healthy respect for the length between door and floor, and I have good reasons for that but those are stories for another day. But if you’re curious then I’ll tell.
I believe (although not 100% sure) the lack of physical movement is why Airbus planes have the 'retard' callout to let the pilots know what the autothrottle is doing.
@@TazerXI our manuals state it’s a reminder not a command. If you don’t pull the thrust levers back the plane will land at flight idle not ground idle and will significantly float or increase the landing distance.
It would be worth making a video on Bombardier, Gulfstream and Embraer FBW systems. The 4th gen FBW in newer airplanes make Airbus and Boeing FBW seem a bit archaic. The C390 uses active, coupled side sticks and back driven auto throttles (similar to the latest Gulfstreams) There are only 2 laws in newer Embraer aircraft. Normal and Direct.. and most protections are still present in direct law.
Both are great! Even tho my preference is Boeing, doesn't mean I hate Airbus. And the aviation industry needs both to succeed. Great video, team simple flying!!
It’s not that both are great - which they can be. It’s more that Airbus makes only good planes. Boeing has the same potential but not always makes them great (787 assembly issues) and sometimes they even make them bad (737). Can you believe the Max is newer and built by the same company that produces the 787?
Very insightful video, thank you! Thinking a bit deeper, you can probably trace the choices and philosophies of each to their respective cultures. Fascinating!
Ideal system would be an Airbus but with sidesticks that are linked together and backdriven by the Autopilot (Like in the Gulfstream G700) as well as thrust levers that are backdriven by the Autothrottle.
@@AquariusTurtle You’re a pilot that has flown both? Would you be willing to answer a few questions? Obviously starting with which specific aircraft, how many hours on both (although years and months would be equally fine for my purposes) and how much of it has been flown as first officer or captain and of course why do you think Airbus is superior. I’m very obviously not a pilot of any kind, nor would I wish to be one even if I could afford to learn and had any aptitude for it. My main interaction with both types of aircraft primarily consists of which is easier to connect the lavatory and water trucks, attach a GPU and perform pushbacks with or open and close the doors and without a doubt Airbus is pretty much the easiest and simplest every time. Anyway I heard somewhere that Airbus has tried to get past the issue of non linked controls with a button that makes the aircraft ignore all inputs by the other pilot while pressed and held so they can’t end up inadvertently cancelling out each other’s attempts to manoeuvre. Does it work like that? And I suppose if one pilot is making a series of mistakes that is starting to endanger the aircraft and isn’t listening or at least not correcting the mistakes could the button be used by the non-erring pilot to take control? Perhaps it doesn’t matter. Design features of aircraft from both manufacturers has brought down planes before and will do again. In the end it’s highly situational. But I’m curious nonetheless.
Well trained pilots wont care about either.Plus Pilots switching between planes is not a good idea We have a BMW and Mercedes and switching cars frequently confuses me endlessly
@@TheGecko213 well trained pilots can operate any aircraft design with a relatively high level of safety. However inherent design deficiencies can cause increased risk especially when the aircraft enters an undesired aircraft state quickly and unexpectedly. Check out Mentour Pilot's review of AF 447 to see how things can quickly get out of hand. (You might be shocked how the lack of a stick shaker can be a serious issue)
@@TheGecko213 I'm a well trained pilot, but also an engineer, and an expert in human factors. The problem with Boeing is that you can't ever be less than perfect. Airlines run pilots pretty hard. Fatigue is a daily reality and we make mistakes in much larger numbers than before. Gone are the days when only Fedex flies all night. Now we routinely fly redeyes then do a complete schedule swap to waking up at 0400 to fly all day. It's the worst possible safety environment (thanks FAA). While the Airbus product has a ton of pilot proof safety features, the Boeing is always actively trying to kill you. Remember that middle eastern 737 that stalled on a go-around from human error? Pilots don't switch from aircraft types. You should learn about that. Flying a different aircraft takes months to initially qualify for, and year to begin to master. Airbus certainly makes it MUCH easier though. There is significant commonality in all Airbus aircraft, by engineering design.
If Airbus had moving throttles and speedbrakes I think it would be perfect. Humans are not sight only beings. Our tactile feedback is rather good. I know what the throttles are doing to the engines just by feel. No need to take my eye of my aimpoint.
Well, pretty big error in my view. Airbus aircraft are not pitch stable. They are flight path stable, which is quite different. For example the aircraft follows a straight and level flight, now the pilot manually (yes, that is possible) reduces thrust, so the speed decreases. In a Boeing the aircraft would pitch down and the speed would stay roughly the same. In an Airbus the aircraft will pitch up to keep the flightpath the same, straight and level. Of course there is a limit to that, if the speed decreases too much it will automatically trigger other laws and eventually alpha floor, which is basically full thrust. However, it is quite important that the aircraft does not keep the pitch, it keeps the flightpath and corrects for external disturbance like gusts. As someone who has flown Boeing 737s for 15 years and now A319-321 for 10, the best would be a mix of both worlds. I love the side sticks, not so much the FBW, I miss the more advanced avionics of the 737 and the bigger and brighter screes, but i absolutely love the table for the ease of paperwork and office stuff, not to mention dignified eating. And of course the automation in many ways is just superior, like automatic system switching and redundancy is something i prefer in the Airbus.
Where did you get that false idea from? The Airbus products are extremely stable in every axis thanks to its modern algorithmic flight control laws (there are many). It's easily the most stable narrowbody and widebody products I've ever flown.
@@anasmaaz5731 Actually, no. The pilot can see clearly the differing pitches, wile the aircraft remains its flight path. That is why we have the indications for it, like the "bird", or flight path vector, which shows the flight path, and the pitch indication in the PFD. The airbus is not pitch stable, it is flight path stable. Those are two very different things and the difference is clearly obvious for anyone with even rudimentary understanding of flying, let alone anyone with a pilot license.
@@Soordhin That is not the point of the bird. If you maneuver the aircraft an put the aircraft on a target pitch, say 10 degrees and leave the stick, it will maintain that pitch attitude. If you idle the thrust in that condition under normal law, you will lose altitude.
@@anasmaaz5731 Actually, no. Not according to the Airbus documentation and real life experience. It will not remain the pitch, it will remain the flightpath until it reaches Valphaprot or Vsw and then it will start to descend, but is in a protection mode at that point.l
Just as important the difference between the 737MAX and the A320neo. After watching the video I would like flying lessons even before flying Boeing and Airbus.
The 737 MAX is an example of the awful Boeing management. The 737 is an old pulleys and cables along the airframe kind of aircraft. It's not an example of modern aviation despite Boeing selling it as such.
As a Check Airman and Instructor for a major airline, my personal opinion is it takes an airman to fly a Boeing. It takes computer management to fly an Airbus. I appreciated the fact you can do a forward slip in a Boeing for a crosswind where you can't cross control in an Airbus.
You shouldn't be forward slipping the Boeing. That's a small aircraft technique that will end in disaster with progressively larger aircraft. Land in a crab or use the rudder at the last moment to take out the crab. When I flew really large Boeings, we could land in a significant crab and the aircraft had a centering tendency and responded well to rudder input to maintain centerline. You *can* cross control in the airbus but you shouldn't for the same reasons you shouldn't in the Boeing.
@@TheGecko213 I'm not really sure what I would trust Boeing to build... after what happened with the 737MAX, the USAF tanker's major grounding problems, the 787 problems, etc., they lost everyone's trust. It's no longer run by engineers, it's run by worthless MBAs.
@@TheGecko213 Although I agree with the idea, we've to remember Boeing designed many of the Space Shuttle systems and still designs some military fly by wire machines. ...they have the know how to do it, but for some reason, they don't use it for the commercial aviation.
@@miks564 Also technology exists in the military avionics to fly a plane like Boeing 777 or the C5 Galaxy, completely by remote from take off to landing. Also technology exists to remotely take over existing flying 777 and military jets via satellite while still over the ocean. Think Malaysian Airlines MH 370 missing plane
for the current generation where mostly everything is automated, thus adding safety. a less cluttered cockpit is a must (like a car dashboard) vision jet , Honda jet?. i cant wait for the next generation of Airbus and Boeing passenger aircrafts.
...Neither is perfect, but at the end of the day, Airbus is well ahead of Boeing due to better automation, less workload for the pilots and better human error proof. It's true we don't fly an Airbus, instead we just operate the computers that fly the thing - maybe it spoils part of the pleasure of flying, but it's easier and safer. We only have this discussion of which is best, because Boeing was a huge reference company for everybody, everywhere. I miss that company!
Agreed. Boeing aircraft are better to "fly". Airbus are better to operate so to speak. As in the boeing flies in the same way as a normal aircraft, so it feels much better and enjoyable from a pure piloting POV. Airbus is more of a work space where yes it is not that fun to hand fly compared to a typical aircraft, but its more comfortable and reduces workload which is actually more important in such a profession.
I really enjoyed this video, and how you discussed the differences between Airbus and Boeing. However, the background music distracts from what you are saying.
Funny how these philosophies extend to MRI and CT machines as well, I work in the medical image field and the same thing happens when working with different machinery, GE(american) and Siemens(European)
I'm disappointed you didn't use the "we'll do our best to make this Simple Flying" pun at the beginning of the video. Other than that, top job as always.
From a passenger comfort perspective I feel more comfortable in an Airbus than I do in a Boeing especially long haul. I find Dreamliners very cramped when compared to say an A350
Aircraft being cramped depends of the Airline configuration. That has nothing to do with the manufacturer. Look as Japan airlines 787 capacity and configuration
@@siyalizwabudaza4652 well I've been on 3 Dreamliners of various operators and 3 A350 operators with same seat layout (well bar 1) and I found very cramped. I know seat pitch can vary but it shouldn't vary that wildly. Another example I can give is the 777-300ER of Emirates and their A380-800. Far more roomier in economy on the Airbus. I have nothing against Boeing, I mean their Dreamliners forced an A350 but I will happily admit I do look at the flight and what's on the roster before booking the tickets to see if its Airbus or Boeing and try and go the former. Probably not the only one out there
If I could have a compromised cockpit I'd have the side stick of the Airbus instead of the yoke of Boeing with the tactile throttle of Boeing instead of the Airbus throttle.
The Airbus throttle is much better for landings, though. In the Airbus, when landing with the auto throttle, the pilot can retard the throttles whenever he likes to cut the thrust and execute the flair. In the Boeing, the auto throttle automatically idles the engines from 25-50 ft AGL. This gives the pilot less control over the landing, which can make a big difference in terms of touchdown smoothness and precisión
@@eamonahern7495 787 sure is the best looking aircraft out there. As an economy class ‘passenger’ I prefer Boeing as their aircraft are not too sterile, you feel the speed and hear the engines more.
@@tungstencarbide7255 is that really better? For the Airbus a350 has better noise reduction so the passengers are much more comfortable and reduces jetlag. btw the A350 is the best looking plane ✌️
@@itsme-vw5yo A350 copied the 787's looks & the latter looks better. I agree that noise reduction leads to a better experience but A350 feels like solitary confinement.
With almost 30 years experience split almost equally between the two manufacturers, I enjoyed flying both products but if I was to choose which to fly in extreme conditions or weather I would choose an Airbus every time.
Possibly because in extreme conditions we easily loose references, and it’s safer to have all the safeties protections from the software. Or because the workload might increase with stress and the computers provide better assistance with said workload. But, I guess it might be more related to modern avionics vs old avionics. Boeing still has some old analogue aircraft.
I much prefer Boeing's philosophy of the pilot having absolute authority over control of the aircraft and physical indication. Meanwhile, from a workload perspective, I prefer Airbus, and would likely prefer them over Boeing if I were to ever have a chance to fly both. I'd have more confidence flying Boeing because I know I can make the aircraft do exactly what I want, but be more comfortable flying Airbus knowing that it'll handle a lot for me.
Boeing in the 20th Century: *Develops legendary aircraft* McDonnell Douglas in the 20th Century: *Develop aircraft which has had dozens of hull loses and has even lost parts* Boeing in 1997: *Merges with the infamous McDonnell Douglas* Boeing in the 21st Century: *Covers up a faulty software system which leads to the deaths of 346 people*
@@JohnZsAviation dont worry, ask any Boeing pilot you know if they eat or not in the cockpit and how many times a day, ill tell you with 100% certainty that theyll choose to eat with a table
Very interesting, I have become interested in aviation technology in the wake of the Boeing MAX crashes. This contains a lot of interesting information. I noted the description of Boeing's EICAS. Whatever the US FAA does near term, I hope the EU's EASA requires Boeing to make EICAS or something similar available on MAX's sold in Europe. It should be mandatory from the start for new operators of the type, with some leeway for transition for existing operators with the old cockpit technology and training. FAA should eventually require a transition as well. The MAX is likely to be manufactured well into the 2040's, and models with be flown well into the 2070s. I can't imagine it would somehow be better for passenger safety to allow aircraft in that time frame to still be flying without a modern alerting system. Boeing should do the right thing and start offering EICAS as an option on the MAX, even without the regulators making it mandatory.
It has been reported that EASA is going to make Boeing pay for damage and install EICAS on the 737 MAX 7 and 10 if they are certified after the end of 2022
Well, your (and mine) and also FAA wishes were overruled by the congress at the end of 2022. I guess they wanted to help Boeing bringing back the Max into the air. Not sure if they helped Boeing at all. But sure enough, the 737s will remain the only Boeing without EICAS. They’re lucky, because most people don’t care about details, nor even what plane they’re flying.
In my opinion there are three types of people in this world. People that love Airbus and people that love Boeing. And of course the people that know the difference!!
To bad they couldn't figure a way to get the front of the 757 nose on the he 737 after all the fuselage is the same width as th 737 707 at least we'd have a cockpit as wide as the 320
I don't like blank positives. I prefer active displays of the normal condition. Otherwise you wonder if the sensor or the indicator has failed. The claim that tactile feedback isn't necessary is BS. Perhaps it isn't necessary but it's desirable.
They can easily check the indicators good operation. ...and when something fails, they usually get the warning from the EICAS, not from lights or lack of them elsewhere.
Some years ago I sat next to a pilot who had recently joined United after retiring from the US Nay where he had flown F-14s. I asked him the difference. He said that, in a Boeing, the pilot could take 100% control, while that was impossible in an Airbus and that it could “fly itself into the ground”
Although thats true, but then when you see practical reasons for incidents and accidents, the number 1 cause is actually human error and not computer gone haywire.
@@ZK-APA Like one pilot doing something like pulling back on his sidestick in coffin corner and the other pilot being unable to diagnose why they are falling out of the sky and he can't get the nose down.
@@k53847 Yes. Because this is flying school 101. That know who is in control. Yes, it is a contributing factor that in an airbus sidestick, both sticks operate independently which makes it impossible to know if someone else is also using the controls with just feel, but it wouldn't count as a design flaw.
Wonder what that guy would've said about the MCAS on the 737-MAX, where the pilots didn't even know it was a feature, didn't have the control over the pitch angle anymore, and those 2 aircraft sadly "flew themself into the ground". Both aircraft have their pros and cons, but using anecdotes like this one offer no value to the conversation as they are just flawed and shortsighted.
@@AmsterdamKayakGuy No defending it, but that's a feature, not a fundamental design philosophy. Theory was that you'd recognize it and treat it as a runaway trim. But it was terribly designed and not effectively tested. The change to the functions of the two trim control switches is another terrible decision.
The Airbus , from your comparative analysis, seems more automated and computerised. Boeing still does more manual controls. Well I think manual control is essential training for every pilot.
@@ObjectiveObserver-xh4vk Because the MAX is an analogue plane (like all 737s before it) where they've tried to introduce computer control using only one computer based on data from a single sensor. Talk about cutting corners...
Manual control is more likely to fail than computers. Computers fail because of flaws in design. Manual controls can fail with more factors, especially with the fact that it has moving parts.
The main difference between Boeing and Airbus is their overall philosophy. When there is a conflict between the computer and the pilot, Airbus defers to the computer and Boeing defers to the pilot.
Incorrect. Even in Airbus if there is a conflict which the computers cannot handle, they give it to the pilot. For example, if the aircraft goes into an undesired state the control laws are downgraded and protections removed so that the pilots can perform the recovery.
Basically Boeing assumes the pilots know what they are doing while Airbus doesn't trust them an inch, reckoning correctly that the computer blunders less often than any human. Offsetting that, though, is that if the computer does blunder then the pilot is in a worse position than than if the thing was less automated. In general if a Boeing falls out of the sky it tends to be pilot error, if an Airbus does something went wrong with the machine. But the rate of them falling out of the sky seems roughly similar.
A few Qantas a330s did a similar thing to the max a couple of years ago but they were able to recover. The computer mixed up altitude and aoa I think. So the plane thought it was at a high aoa when it was actually level and put the plane into several dives.
In the qantas A380 engine release situation, the ECAM checklist took almost AN HOUR to complete - what a complete debacle that was - tying up the crew while they were struggling to stay in the air. In a situation like that (MULTI FAILURES), the software NEEDS TO KNOW what to discard (eg. landing lights on?) and focus on CRITICAL areas ONLY.
That’s one of the advantages of these modern cockpits. Airbus is constantly improving the software, many times based on pilot feedback from less desirable situations like the one mentioned. And because it is just software, we can keep an old aircraft up to date with state if the art software.
There's nothing from a Boeing I would want in my Airbus. It's just a dinosaur, obsolete design. It was great for it's day. I loved the 737-200. I despise the MAX.
@@ACPilot Not the MAX, but others, yes. The MAX is better in some ways but overall the design is antiquated, no matter how fancy the navigation displays are. It doesn't even have a modern EICAS system, which is required by law. Boeing is trying to get an exemption to the law for the MAX.
@@AquariusTurtle You have heard of “grandfather rights” meaning the 737 is stil the same type, but new variant. The sudden requirement for EICAS on all new developments on older based types was made by politicians, still with the intend the MAX 7 and 10 would be certified before the deadline. By the way among others the wing on the 737NG and MAX is of a newer design than the A320 wing basic design ,dating back to the 1980’s, with some slight flap and slat modifications. But i do look forward to what Boeing come up with in the 2030’s as a 737 MAX replacement, a 787 inspired design with common system design, electric system architecture, cockpit, and composite would be awesome..
@@ACPilot You make my point for me. The 737 is a jurassic jet with jurassic problems. I've flown aircraft from both manufacturers and I prefer the Airbus anyday over the Boeing jurassic jets. EICAS is a minimal safety system, and Boeing won't even want to do that. That's why I consider the 737s to be a significant safety risk, beyond just the latest 2 major crashes.
@@AquariusTurtle Have you considered how much work would go into fitting EICAS instead of the current system in the 737. Having EICAS is a convenience item, if it was fitted in a 737, it would not make the big difference in safety. It would be more like having your Jepp chargs on the EFB vs. in the old fine leather binders. I have not flown the Airbus, should i fly something else, i would love to fly the 787. I am not really into the Airbus way of thinking, and their avionics. In the 737 we seem to always outclimb the Airbus 320 that took off before us 😃
Boeing Control: Yoke | Airbus Control: SideStick | Boeing systems when you land: nothing | Airbus systems when you land “retard” your throttle as a reminder, I’d choose Boeing, and I do like Airbus too.
It depends on the type of emergency we're talking about. If it's something critical with the aircraft, then both rely on the pilot. Airbus computers can only keep their normal operation mode while getting reliable data from all the sensors.
Boeing is better ! By far. Airbus... is a bus. No fun to fly, because Airbus engineers overruled the airplane operators (pilots). Regards from the real thing, the Boeing 747-8 flight deck. No silly joystick A380 toy for woke chauffeurs... Just kidding... But, seriously: If it ain't Boeing... I'm not going ! ✈
Both companies build awesome airplanes. The COMAC 919 is a knock-off (copied) version of an A320 and a B787. An A320 and A 787 pilot wouldn't need cross training to fly a COMAC 919 and since NOT too many millions went into development, and a 12 year old little girl made it in a sweatshop, its cheaper.
Airbus aircraft are being designed like a prototype spaceship where the Commander's job is to only input the Glass computer console and flying space is very vast . Its not a good safety mechanism for aircrafts where basic manual flying skills can be very critical in an emergency
Airbus aircraft are designed more so that it doesn't go into a situation where you go into a pure manual flying situation. But yes in terms of hand flying, boeing is universally better.
Boeing is the OG. They revolutionized Air travel for the entire world. EU, Chinese, Indians, and Iranians might disagree but that is the truth. the 747 brought air travel to the masses. The 777 brought Twin engine operations to mainstream commercial aviation. The 737 was the OG Narrowbody Jet way ahead of its time. 787 Revolutionised the new age Jets with its advanced tech later replicated by A350. The 777 was introduced in the 90s and is still comfortable, silent, and stable. No aircraft can beat it so Airbus copied and made a hybrid between the 777 and the 787. The one place where Boeing F'ed up is when they refused to make replacements for the 757. Airbus took advantage of that and made the A321 XLR a nightmare for passengers cause nobody will be comfortable flying on a narrowbody plane for such long durations. Wide bodies will remain the KING.
One thing you totally ignored was that it was airbus that introduced twin engine widebody aircraft concept with its A300. If the 737 is the OG narrowbody jet, then airbus has the OG widebody twinjet. I am not hating on boeing. They have made amazing products, and the 747/777 is of course the success story compared to the A380/A340 respectively. But by just sharing selective facts one is actually lowering the value of their case.
@@ZK-APA Airbus might have introduced A300 but it was B777 that bought the transoceanic Twin Engine Operations into existence. Don’t get me wrong. Airbus has done a good job with the A320 series and their new A350
@@evergrandebestrealestate4854 To be fair, the 777 also had the advantage of a better ETOPS approval when it was launched. So you can say the 777 is more of a right plane launched at the right time. The 777 wasnt a revolutionary aircraft (the 737 and 747 definitely were), but you can say it is the aircraft that evolved the segment to where it is today.
@@ZK-APA You can hate me and you can hate Boeing but you can't hate the 777. It was the perfect plane for international travel. Twin Engine, fewer fuel expenses when compared to the quad jets, much longer range, much more comfortable ride, etc. Airbus A380 and A320 were phenomenal. Boeing 737, 747, 787, and 777 are all excellent and the 757 was and is still preferred but airlines are forced to retire it because of its age and foolish accountants at Boeing who are preventing the NMA development Boeing was in fact doing great before the MD Accountants joined Boeing. Sadly the corrupt MD Accountants are slowly siphoning funds from Boeing and destroying a a great company
@@evergrandebestrealestate4854 LOL I don't hate the 777. It is THE twin engine wide body which actually changed the way we fly. My point is just that its Airbus which started the concept of twin engine wide body, which then boeing reacted with the 767 (same as how airbus reacted to the 737 with the A320), and then the 777 (where airbus made the wrong decision of still keeping a 4 engine aircraft). Basically TLDR is that boeing aircraft changed the way we fly (the 707,737,747,777 and 787), whereas airbus planes changed the way aircraft technology are interpreted in an airliner (the A300, A320, A350 and tbh even the A380)
Looks like Airbus way of doing things is to make it easier for the pilots and reduce their workload whereas Boeing believes at throwing everything at the pilot.
Both are flown by pilots. The airbus philosophy is that in most cases, the computers can take care of trivial tasks. Let's say you want to turn. You bank your aircraft while keeping the altitude until you reached the correct heading; then you level off. It takes some time before the plane has turned, may be 30 seconds. The difference is that the Airbus philosophy is that once the pilots has put the plane in the desired bank angle, he can let the stick and let the computer keep the bank angle and altitude and the plane turning. In the meantime, the pilot can concentrate on other things like completing checklists, talking to ATC or navigating. In a Boeing, the pilot is the boss, but also the worker and the cleaning lady. This means that he has actively fly the plane during the entire turn taking some of his capacity away from other tasks. When both Airbus and Boeing are in fallback/emergency modes, then both are very actively flying by hand, the same way as you pilot a Cessna without autopilot.
When one off the 2 engines blows up in flames , like we seen on 3 SW airline737s if you are over the ocean you will wish you could see 2 more engines on that wing.
@@EdOeunaFirst situation was because the computers were out of the picture. It was a pilot that stalled the aircraft into the sea. A pilot that should have known better. Second situation was suicide + homicide.
@@Milkinporsche people keep complaining about the airbus fly by wire system while forgetting the 737 max crashed twice because of boeing wanting to make more money
Did the narrator really just say "dumb things down for a general audience?" Who let that into the script? Couldn't one have simply said something akin to: "simplify for all aspects of our viewership including our newest aviation enthusiasts"... I mean, come on...
@@ZK-APA as a native English speaker I know the phrase all too well. I’m just saying I would not have included it in the script as it has a negative connotation.
Did you not understand that the reason TWO 737MAXs crashed is precisely because Boeing DIDN'T give control to the pilots? In fact, Boeing didn't even tell the pilots about the MCAS system.
Easy on a technical level Boeing kills the whistleblower that wants them to make safe planes and Airbus are making their planes in accord with the regulations, I think just that is enough to understand everything we need to know.
@@ZK-APA not even close. MCAS was able to operate with the decision of one computer based on data from one single sensor. No other computer or sensor was used to challenge the decisions. You need disagreement between computers (or data from different sensors) for the computers to realize data is not reliable and disengage, leaving the flying to the pilots.
Not really. Older Airbus aircraft have a manual rudder and a trim system. Newer ones have a lot of backups, including a separate emergency generator for flight control computers. So, a catastrophic a failure is almost improbable.
@@animegamingdude Let them ask me what they want to know. The safety and overall quality comparison makes even United and JetBlue understand why Boeing isn’t what is stood for till 5 years ago.
@@sannurtas5893 nearly every single incident that has occurred with uniteds boeing planes this year was the result of maintenance errors on the part of united
![POLYCAT - ข้อความรูปยิ้ม [Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lBhIgPGCgbI/mqdefault.jpg)
An important exception for Airbus is the A220: since it was originally designed by Bombardier, the FBW logic (pitch stability, auto trim etc) are not akin to the other Airbus aircraft and are somewhat similar to the 777/787 logic instead.
The A220 is equipped with an EICAS and a dark-cockpit philosophy as well, but can display and then perform automated checklists by itself. Bombardier was not only light-years ahead with this aircraft, but they also packaged the best of Boeing and Airbus into one plane.
Hats off to you guys for compressing this super complicated topic into all of 13 mins or so. Really well done. I am still curious to know more about the Airbus Laws so perhaps a video on them alone will help.
Their description of Airbus laws is simplified but accurate. There's lots more laws too (e.g. flare law). But it all comes down to code, and unless you can read the source code, it'll always be a general description.
I currently fly an A320 and love it. Before this I flew an Embraer 175 which is a bit of mix and mash between Boeing and Airbus philosophies. The only thing I really miss from the Embraer that is a "Boeing" feature is autothrottles over thrust levers. When a pilot is flying an approach is on the outside and also your PFD. You're not really looking over at the EICAS/ECAM in your scan so it's very easy in the airbus to lose track of what the autothrust system is doing. Versus keeping your hand on a throttle and feeling it move, you already know what the engine is trying to do. Even better on the ERJ you could override the inputs with muscle force if you wanted more power before the autothrottles would demand it.
Beyond that, I never ever ever want a yoke again. Side stick normal law for life. It makes flying so much more enjoyable for me. I think most people that might tell you the old school Boeing philosophy is superior have either never flown an airbus, or are also not real airline pilots that have to deal with these planes every day. I don't know many people that enjoy the 737 specifically, and I know many many people that would avoid certain airlines with all Boeing fleets simply because they don't want to fly it. The newer Boeings are a different story though.
737 sucks to work in compared the a320 for us luggage loaders and de ice crew(like seruiosly who thought it was a good idea to put the apu inlet on the top and put a nice big hole that fluid can get into the cabin)
Nyaos, thank you for your input. I’m not a pilot but I’ve wondered about the movable thrust levers for awhile now. My closest comparison would be driving a manual car and yeah being able to feel what gear the car is in is essential. Whenever I have to drive a car that’s not my own and is significantly different I hate having to look down to check.
And Einar, fellow ground handler I feel your pain. Ugh that is such a pain in the butt! I’ve only recently been trained and signed off as a de-icer and I groan inwardly when we’re assigned a Boeing. They’re a pain in the butt also with connecting and using the water and lavatory trucks and I’m definitely not a fan of the doors.
Especially those pesky Ryanair 737s. The extreme lack of space with those retractable stairs honestly make me a little nervous. Being a woman of average height and weight I’m always worried that the weight of the door and inability to form a stable base due to the lack of room will one day just take me with it and I’ll end up either hanging from the door clinging to it for dear life until help reaches me or just falling onto the unforgiving concrete aircraft stand below. I have a healthy respect for the length between door and floor, and I have good reasons for that but those are stories for another day. But if you’re curious then I’ll tell.
The Embrarer is a great jet and light years ahead of the turbo twin commuter flights. I flew on one for a 550 mile trip. Quiet comfortable.
I believe (although not 100% sure) the lack of physical movement is why Airbus planes have the 'retard' callout to let the pilots know what the autothrottle is doing.
@@TazerXI our manuals state it’s a reminder not a command. If you don’t pull the thrust levers back the plane will land at flight idle not ground idle and will significantly float or increase the landing distance.
Both are great in their own way. They're just applying different philosophies to achieve the same result.
gigachad answer
That's what he said in the video
@@eamonahern7495 Yes, I was agreeing, good spot
Different cost models.. not philosophies. Boeing is obsolete by bean counter choice, nothing more.
Ask any pilot who had flown both Boeing and Airbus and 90% of them will say they prefer Airbus.
It would be worth making a video on Bombardier, Gulfstream and Embraer FBW systems. The 4th gen FBW in newer airplanes make Airbus and Boeing FBW seem a bit archaic. The C390 uses active, coupled side sticks and back driven auto throttles (similar to the latest Gulfstreams) There are only 2 laws in newer Embraer aircraft. Normal and Direct.. and most protections are still present in direct law.
Both are great! Even tho my preference is Boeing, doesn't mean I hate Airbus. And the aviation industry needs both to succeed. Great video, team simple flying!!
It’s not that both are great - which they can be.
It’s more that Airbus makes only good planes. Boeing has the same potential but not always makes them great (787 assembly issues) and sometimes they even make them bad (737).
Can you believe the Max is newer and built by the same company that produces the 787?
Very insightful video, thank you! Thinking a bit deeper, you can probably trace the choices and philosophies of each to their respective cultures. Fascinating!
As an aviation enthusiast, this was quite an interesting topic!
Ideal system would be an Airbus but with sidesticks that are linked together and backdriven by the Autopilot (Like in the Gulfstream G700) as well as thrust levers that are backdriven by the Autothrottle.
Why? I've flown both Airbus and Boeing. Currently Airbus. I have absolutely no issues with the Airbus system, in fact, I find it to be far superior.
@@AquariusTurtle You’re a pilot that has flown both? Would you be willing to answer a few questions? Obviously starting with which specific aircraft, how many hours on both (although years and months would be equally fine for my purposes) and how much of it has been flown as first officer or captain and of course why do you think Airbus is superior.
I’m very obviously not a pilot of any kind, nor would I wish to be one even if I could afford to learn and had any aptitude for it. My main interaction with both types of aircraft primarily consists of which is easier to connect the lavatory and water trucks, attach a GPU and perform pushbacks with or open and close the doors and without a doubt Airbus is pretty much the easiest and simplest every time.
Anyway I heard somewhere that Airbus has tried to get past the issue of non linked controls with a button that makes the aircraft ignore all inputs by the other pilot while pressed and held so they can’t end up inadvertently cancelling out each other’s attempts to manoeuvre. Does it work like that? And I suppose if one pilot is making a series of mistakes that is starting to endanger the aircraft and isn’t listening or at least not correcting the mistakes could the button be used by the non-erring pilot to take control?
Perhaps it doesn’t matter. Design features of aircraft from both manufacturers has brought down planes before and will do again. In the end it’s highly situational. But I’m curious nonetheless.
Well trained pilots wont care about either.Plus Pilots switching between planes is not a good idea
We have a BMW and Mercedes and switching cars frequently confuses me endlessly
@@TheGecko213 well trained pilots can operate any aircraft design with a relatively high level of safety. However inherent design deficiencies can cause increased risk especially when the aircraft enters an undesired aircraft state quickly and unexpectedly. Check out Mentour Pilot's review of AF 447 to see how things can quickly get out of hand. (You might be shocked how the lack of a stick shaker can be a serious issue)
@@TheGecko213 I'm a well trained pilot, but also an engineer, and an expert in human factors. The problem with Boeing is that you can't ever be less than perfect. Airlines run pilots pretty hard. Fatigue is a daily reality and we make mistakes in much larger numbers than before. Gone are the days when only Fedex flies all night. Now we routinely fly redeyes then do a complete schedule swap to waking up at 0400 to fly all day. It's the worst possible safety environment (thanks FAA). While the Airbus product has a ton of pilot proof safety features, the Boeing is always actively trying to kill you. Remember that middle eastern 737 that stalled on a go-around from human error? Pilots don't switch from aircraft types. You should learn about that. Flying a different aircraft takes months to initially qualify for, and year to begin to master. Airbus certainly makes it MUCH easier though. There is significant commonality in all Airbus aircraft, by engineering design.
Seeing the Air Mauritius a350 made me feel some sort of way since im currently studying there.
I've been searching for this kind of video! Thank you so much for made it!
If Airbus had moving throttles and speedbrakes I think it would be perfect. Humans are not sight only beings. Our tactile feedback is rather good. I know what the throttles are doing to the engines just by feel. No need to take my eye of my aimpoint.
I think it´s worth mentioning that the 737 series doesn´t feature Eicas at all
They are both great in their own way, love both of them! ♥️
The original black button Airbus cockpit premiered on the A300-600 the Aircraft the A310 was based on.
Well, pretty big error in my view. Airbus aircraft are not pitch stable. They are flight path stable, which is quite different.
For example the aircraft follows a straight and level flight, now the pilot manually (yes, that is possible) reduces thrust, so the speed decreases. In a Boeing the aircraft would pitch down and the speed would stay roughly the same. In an Airbus the aircraft will pitch up to keep the flightpath the same, straight and level. Of course there is a limit to that, if the speed decreases too much it will automatically trigger other laws and eventually alpha floor, which is basically full thrust. However, it is quite important that the aircraft does not keep the pitch, it keeps the flightpath and corrects for external disturbance like gusts.
As someone who has flown Boeing 737s for 15 years and now A319-321 for 10, the best would be a mix of both worlds. I love the side sticks, not so much the FBW, I miss the more advanced avionics of the 737 and the bigger and brighter screes, but i absolutely love the table for the ease of paperwork and office stuff, not to mention dignified eating. And of course the automation in many ways is just superior, like automatic system switching and redundancy is something i prefer in the Airbus.
I understand what you are saying. But from what pilot sees in the cockpit (from his perspective) the pitch remains the same. It maintains the pitch.
Where did you get that false idea from? The Airbus products are extremely stable in every axis thanks to its modern algorithmic flight control laws (there are many). It's easily the most stable narrowbody and widebody products I've ever flown.
@@anasmaaz5731 Actually, no. The pilot can see clearly the differing pitches, wile the aircraft remains its flight path. That is why we have the indications for it, like the "bird", or flight path vector, which shows the flight path, and the pitch indication in the PFD.
The airbus is not pitch stable, it is flight path stable. Those are two very different things and the difference is clearly obvious for anyone with even rudimentary understanding of flying, let alone anyone with a pilot license.
@@Soordhin That is not the point of the bird. If you maneuver the aircraft an put the aircraft on a target pitch, say 10 degrees and leave the stick, it will maintain that pitch attitude. If you idle the thrust in that condition under normal law, you will lose altitude.
@@anasmaaz5731 Actually, no. Not according to the Airbus documentation and real life experience. It will not remain the pitch, it will remain the flightpath until it reaches Valphaprot or Vsw and then it will start to descend, but is in a protection mode at that point.l
Just as important the difference between the 737MAX and the A320neo. After watching the video I would like flying lessons even before flying Boeing and Airbus.
The 737 MAX is an example of the awful Boeing management. The 737 is an old pulleys and cables along the airframe kind of aircraft. It's not an example of modern aviation despite Boeing selling it as such.
As a Check Airman and Instructor for a major airline, my personal opinion is it takes an airman to fly a Boeing. It takes computer management to fly an Airbus.
I appreciated the fact you can do a forward slip in a Boeing for a crosswind where you can't cross control in an Airbus.
You shouldn't be forward slipping the Boeing. That's a small aircraft technique that will end in disaster with progressively larger aircraft. Land in a crab or use the rudder at the last moment to take out the crab. When I flew really large Boeings, we could land in a significant crab and the aircraft had a centering tendency and responded well to rudder input to maintain centerline. You *can* cross control in the airbus but you shouldn't for the same reasons you shouldn't in the Boeing.
If Boeing ever builds an inter galactic spaceship, cockpit flight controls production should be done by the Airbus.
@@TheGecko213 I'm not really sure what I would trust Boeing to build... after what happened with the 737MAX, the USAF tanker's major grounding problems, the 787 problems, etc., they lost everyone's trust. It's no longer run by engineers, it's run by worthless MBAs.
@@TheGecko213 Although I agree with the idea, we've to remember Boeing designed many of the Space Shuttle systems and still designs some military fly by wire machines. ...they have the know how to do it, but for some reason, they don't use it for the commercial aviation.
@@miks564
Also technology exists in the military avionics to fly a plane like Boeing 777 or the C5 Galaxy, completely by remote from take off to landing.
Also technology exists to remotely take over existing flying 777 and military jets via satellite while still over the ocean.
Think Malaysian Airlines MH 370 missing plane
From a pax comfort point of view, I found Airbus aircraft more comfortable compared to a Boeing.
from a ground handling perspective airbus is much better
From another passenger POV Boeing’s larger windows make them superior in my books.
But I’ll admit that nothing beats the CSeries/A220 for short flights!
@@jatterhog crj's have really good legroom
for the current generation where mostly everything is automated, thus adding safety. a less cluttered cockpit is a must (like a car dashboard) vision jet , Honda jet?. i cant wait for the next generation of Airbus and Boeing passenger aircrafts.
thats going to take a while
...Neither is perfect, but at the end of the day, Airbus is well ahead of Boeing due to better automation, less workload for the pilots and better human error proof.
It's true we don't fly an Airbus, instead we just operate the computers that fly the thing - maybe it spoils part of the pleasure of flying, but it's easier and safer.
We only have this discussion of which is best, because Boeing was a huge reference company for everybody, everywhere.
I miss that company!
Agreed. Boeing aircraft are better to "fly". Airbus are better to operate so to speak.
As in the boeing flies in the same way as a normal aircraft, so it feels much better and enjoyable from a pure piloting POV. Airbus is more of a work space where yes it is not that fun to hand fly compared to a typical aircraft, but its more comfortable and reduces workload which is actually more important in such a profession.
I really enjoyed this video, and how you discussed the differences between Airbus and Boeing. However, the background music distracts from what you are saying.
Funny how these philosophies extend to MRI and CT machines as well, I work in the medical image field and the same thing happens when working with different machinery, GE(american) and Siemens(European)
We all know that Boeing is really just McDonnell Douglas with a different name.
😂
Its more explanation of operational differences then technical differences.
Technical differences would be simply all intellectual property of each manufacturer.
@@ZK-APA I am a Technician on these aircraft Sir , these are operational differences. sure.
Bravo bravo... one of the very few videos found on TH-cam which gave some useful and additional knowledge for an aerospace engineer
I'm disappointed you didn't use the "we'll do our best to make this Simple Flying" pun at the beginning of the video. Other than that, top job as always.
Boeing has the 707 and 747 models that were truly historical. But....I do feel the Airbus is more comfortable as a passenger.
and airbus has the first twin engine wide body the a300
6:55-7:05 reminds me of XL Airways Flight 888T back in 2008. I love both Airbus and Boeing
One has technology in her blood since the beginning. The other even refuses to install EICAS on the most selling model. Technology x greed.
From a passenger comfort perspective I feel more comfortable in an Airbus than I do in a Boeing especially long haul.
I find Dreamliners very cramped when compared to say an A350
Aircraft being cramped depends of the Airline configuration. That has nothing to do with the manufacturer. Look as Japan airlines 787 capacity and configuration
@@siyalizwabudaza4652 well I've been on 3 Dreamliners of various operators and 3 A350 operators with same seat layout (well bar 1) and I found very cramped. I know seat pitch can vary but it shouldn't vary that wildly.
Another example I can give is the 777-300ER of Emirates and their A380-800. Far more roomier in economy on the Airbus.
I have nothing against Boeing, I mean their Dreamliners forced an A350 but I will happily admit I do look at the flight and what's on the roster before booking the tickets to see if its Airbus or Boeing and try and go the former.
Probably not the only one out there
@@TheGodfatherUk You'll have to compare seating on the 777 with the a350. If you want to compare a Dreamliner, it must be with an a330neo.
@@F35Nerd hopefully I'll get to fly on an A330 Neo but they ain't popular. Only Virgin from what I know in the UK have them on order.
Agree
If I could have a compromised cockpit I'd have the side stick of the Airbus instead of the yoke of Boeing with the tactile throttle of Boeing instead of the Airbus throttle.
The Airbus throttle is much better for landings, though. In the Airbus, when landing with the auto throttle, the pilot can retard the throttles whenever he likes to cut the thrust and execute the flair. In the Boeing, the auto throttle automatically idles the engines from 25-50 ft AGL. This gives the pilot less control over the landing, which can make a big difference in terms of touchdown smoothness and precisión
@@anonymoususer3012 in that case give me an Airbus cockpit in a plane as good looking, externally, as the Boeing 787.
@@eamonahern7495 787 sure is the best looking aircraft out there. As an economy class ‘passenger’ I prefer Boeing as their aircraft are not too sterile, you feel the speed and hear the engines more.
@@tungstencarbide7255 is that really better? For the Airbus a350 has better noise reduction so the passengers are much more comfortable and reduces jetlag. btw the A350 is the best looking plane ✌️
@@itsme-vw5yo A350 copied the 787's looks & the latter looks better.
I agree that noise reduction leads to a better experience but A350 feels like solitary confinement.
With almost 30 years experience split almost equally between the two manufacturers, I enjoyed flying both products but if I was to choose which to fly in extreme conditions or weather I would choose an Airbus every time.
Why Airbus in extreme conditions?
It would have been good to know why
Possibly because in extreme conditions we easily loose references, and it’s safer to have all the safeties protections from the software. Or because the workload might increase with stress and the computers provide better assistance with said workload.
But, I guess it might be more related to modern avionics vs old avionics. Boeing still has some old analogue aircraft.
Excellent presentation!
Boeing: You tell the plane what to do.
Airbus: The plane tells you what to do.
Not quite.
Boeing: you do whatever you want.
Airbus: you tell the computers whatever you want.
I much prefer Boeing's philosophy of the pilot having absolute authority over control of the aircraft and physical indication. Meanwhile, from a workload perspective, I prefer Airbus, and would likely prefer them over Boeing if I were to ever have a chance to fly both. I'd have more confidence flying Boeing because I know I can make the aircraft do exactly what I want, but be more comfortable flying Airbus knowing that it'll handle a lot for me.
It goes a bit beyond that.
If you can’t choose or trust the pilot crew, what aircraft do you prefer to be in as a passenger?
Boeing in the 20th Century: *Develops legendary aircraft*
McDonnell Douglas in the 20th Century: *Develop aircraft which has had dozens of hull loses and has even lost parts*
Boeing in 1997: *Merges with the infamous McDonnell Douglas*
Boeing in the 21st Century: *Covers up a faulty software system which leads to the deaths of 346 people*
Great video, I personally prefer boing because of the yoke and more manual style.
Yeah tell that to Boeing pilots who eats on their lap everyday 😂
@@topethermohenes7658 you realize they only eat on some flights. Plus I was never even talking about Boeing pilots.
@@JohnZsAviation you also realize that majority of flights are short haul and they dont have that convenience most of the time?
@@topethermohenes7658 That is what I was saying that they only eat on some flights so they don’t eat on their laps everyday.
@@JohnZsAviation dont worry, ask any Boeing pilot you know if they eat or not in the cockpit and how many times a day, ill tell you with 100% certainty that theyll choose to eat with a table
As a Cessna 172 pilot, I say Boeing for the yokes.
I appreciate your hardwork.
I flew in that exact A350 plane we see at the beginning
wow that's very cool
Very interesting, I have become interested in aviation technology in the wake of the Boeing MAX crashes. This contains a lot of interesting information. I noted the description of Boeing's EICAS. Whatever the US FAA does near term, I hope the EU's EASA requires Boeing to make EICAS or something similar available on MAX's sold in Europe. It should be mandatory from the start for new operators of the type, with some leeway for transition for existing operators with the old cockpit technology and training. FAA should eventually require a transition as well. The MAX is likely to be manufactured well into the 2040's, and models with be flown well into the 2070s. I can't imagine it would somehow be better for passenger safety to allow aircraft in that time frame to still be flying without a modern alerting system. Boeing should do the right thing and start offering EICAS as an option on the MAX, even without the regulators making it mandatory.
It has been reported that EASA is going to make Boeing pay for damage and install EICAS on the 737 MAX 7 and 10 if they are certified after the end of 2022
Well, your (and mine) and also FAA wishes were overruled by the congress at the end of 2022. I guess they wanted to help Boeing bringing back the Max into the air.
Not sure if they helped Boeing at all.
But sure enough, the 737s will remain the only Boeing without EICAS.
They’re lucky, because most people don’t care about details, nor even what plane they’re flying.
Air Mauritius
Geez, Now i can't decide which airplane to buy............
In my opinion there are three types of people in this world. People that love Airbus and people that love Boeing. And of course the people that know the difference!!
Superbes explications merci.
In english (I suppose 😉) :
Great explications, thank you.
Merci pour la traduction
Airbus is way ahead technologically
and ergonomically for ground personell
The 787 is more advanced than any Airbus.
@Clayson Antoons The 787 in pretty much all areas.. not many innovations in the A350.
To bad they couldn't figure a way to get the front of the 757 nose on the he 737 after all the fuselage is the same width as th 737 707 at least we'd have a cockpit as wide as the 320
Very interesting I have learned is that Airbus uses light off instrument panel.
Well, they have dimmed lights around the buttons so that we can see where they are, but the button itself is dark unless it’s “ON”.
I don't like blank positives. I prefer active displays of the normal condition. Otherwise you wonder if the sensor or the indicator has failed.
The claim that tactile feedback isn't necessary is BS. Perhaps it isn't necessary but it's desirable.
They can easily check the indicators good operation. ...and when something fails, they usually get the warning from the EICAS, not from lights or lack of them elsewhere.
Some years ago I sat next to a pilot who had recently joined United after retiring from the US Nay where he had flown F-14s. I asked him the difference. He said that, in a Boeing, the pilot could take 100% control, while that was impossible in an Airbus and that it could “fly itself into the ground”
Although thats true, but then when you see practical reasons for incidents and accidents, the number 1 cause is actually human error and not computer gone haywire.
@@ZK-APA Like one pilot doing something like pulling back on his sidestick in coffin corner and the other pilot being unable to diagnose why they are falling out of the sky and he can't get the nose down.
@@k53847 Yes. Because this is flying school 101. That know who is in control. Yes, it is a contributing factor that in an airbus sidestick, both sticks operate independently which makes it impossible to know if someone else is also using the controls with just feel, but it wouldn't count as a design flaw.
Wonder what that guy would've said about the MCAS on the 737-MAX, where the pilots didn't even know it was a feature, didn't have the control over the pitch angle anymore, and those 2 aircraft sadly "flew themself into the ground". Both aircraft have their pros and cons, but using anecdotes like this one offer no value to the conversation as they are just flawed and shortsighted.
@@AmsterdamKayakGuy No defending it, but that's a feature, not a fundamental design philosophy. Theory was that you'd recognize it and treat it as a runaway trim. But it was terribly designed and not effectively tested. The change to the functions of the two trim control switches is another terrible decision.
The Airbus , from your comparative analysis, seems more automated and computerised.
Boeing still does more manual controls.
Well I think manual control is essential training for every pilot.
99% of accident is from human error
@@tonamg53
Still, what we saw with Max 737 makes full cockpit computerization not advisable.
@@ObjectiveObserver-xh4vk That’s the result of Boeing’s management being criminally absolute dick
@@ObjectiveObserver-xh4vk Because the MAX is an analogue plane (like all 737s before it) where they've tried to introduce computer control using only one computer based on data from a single sensor. Talk about cutting corners...
Manual control is more likely to fail than computers. Computers fail because of flaws in design. Manual controls can fail with more factors, especially with the fact that it has moving parts.
it seems to me that Boeing pilots have a heavier load factor on their hands when having to deal with problems...
Hello can you please so a vid about saudia fleet please
I cannot answer which is better but Airbuses at least do not dive repeatedly against the pilot.
The main difference between Boeing and Airbus is their overall philosophy. When there is a conflict between the computer and the pilot, Airbus defers to the computer and Boeing defers to the pilot.
Incorrect. Even in Airbus if there is a conflict which the computers cannot handle, they give it to the pilot. For example, if the aircraft goes into an undesired state the control laws are downgraded and protections removed so that the pilots can perform the recovery.
the flashing is way too much, spoiled the clip,
It's just if you prefer "old school" vs "new school" philosophy
Basically Boeing assumes the pilots know what they are doing while Airbus doesn't trust them an inch, reckoning correctly that the computer blunders less often than any human. Offsetting that, though, is that if the computer does blunder then the pilot is in a worse position than than if the thing was less automated. In general if a Boeing falls out of the sky it tends to be pilot error, if an Airbus does something went wrong with the machine. But the rate of them falling out of the sky seems roughly similar.
Another thing you forgot to mention is boeings tend to nosedive towards the ground while airbus's dont
A few Qantas a330s did a similar thing to the max a couple of years ago but they were able to recover. The computer mixed up altitude and aoa I think. So the plane thought it was at a high aoa when it was actually level and put the plane into several dives.
After 18 years on Boeings from narrow body to wide body, there is no way I'm going back to a Boeing after being on the Airbus. I love the Airbus!
In the qantas A380 engine release situation, the ECAM checklist took almost AN HOUR to complete - what a complete debacle that was - tying up the crew while they were struggling to stay in the air. In a situation like that (MULTI FAILURES), the software NEEDS TO KNOW what to discard (eg. landing lights on?) and focus on CRITICAL areas ONLY.
That’s one of the advantages of these modern cockpits. Airbus is constantly improving the software, many times based on pilot feedback from less desirable situations like the one mentioned.
And because it is just software, we can keep an old aircraft up to date with state if the art software.
❤Each Aircrafts to its Own functione but not alowd to share 😢
If you look at the windshield of a Boeing plane all boeing planes have a V Shape windshield and Airbus planes have an L shaped windshield
I can appreciate this channel types top right corner video ownership and claims their own videos as is
There's nothing from a Boeing I would want in my Airbus. It's just a dinosaur, obsolete design. It was great for it's day. I loved the 737-200. I despise the MAX.
Do you fly the MAX? I do, love it out of the three 737 generations i have flown, Classic, NG and MAX.
@@ACPilot Not the MAX, but others, yes. The MAX is better in some ways but overall the design is antiquated, no matter how fancy the navigation displays are. It doesn't even have a modern EICAS system, which is required by law. Boeing is trying to get an exemption to the law for the MAX.
@@AquariusTurtle You have heard of “grandfather rights” meaning the 737 is stil the same type, but new variant. The sudden requirement for EICAS on all new developments on older based types was made by politicians, still with the intend the MAX 7 and 10 would be certified before the deadline.
By the way among others the wing on the 737NG and MAX is of a newer design than the A320 wing basic design ,dating back to the 1980’s, with some slight flap and slat modifications.
But i do look forward to what Boeing come up with in the 2030’s as a 737 MAX replacement, a 787 inspired design with common system design, electric system architecture, cockpit, and composite would be awesome..
@@ACPilot You make my point for me. The 737 is a jurassic jet with jurassic problems. I've flown aircraft from both manufacturers and I prefer the Airbus anyday over the Boeing jurassic jets. EICAS is a minimal safety system, and Boeing won't even want to do that. That's why I consider the 737s to be a significant safety risk, beyond just the latest 2 major crashes.
@@AquariusTurtle Have you considered how much work would go into fitting EICAS instead of the current system in the 737. Having EICAS is a convenience item, if it was fitted in a 737, it would not make the big difference in safety. It would be more like having your Jepp chargs on the EFB vs. in the old fine leather binders.
I have not flown the Airbus, should i fly something else, i would love to fly the 787. I am not really into the Airbus way of thinking, and their avionics.
In the 737 we seem to always outclimb the Airbus 320 that took off before us 😃
45 sec in andalready ads
that all very interesting if you a plane nerd ???
yes
Great video! Airbus is Number 1!
And also airbus have detents on their throttles but boeing doesn't have any detents
Boeing Control: Yoke | Airbus Control: SideStick | Boeing systems when you land: nothing
| Airbus systems when you land “retard” your throttle as a reminder, I’d choose Boeing, and I do like Airbus too.
Boeing also states ‘retard’
But it only appears written in the screen.
one of the reasons i’d choose airbus over boeing is the fact that you wouldnt have to deal with a big yoke moving around right in front of your legs.
@@mrverse99 Yep, I also agree, I need to choose again someday Airbus Or Boeing.
Boeing also shows retard in the console. It just doesn’t say it out loud.
Boeing, of course!
How Do Airbus & Boeing Aircraft Differ On A Technical Level?
Boeing, of course!
Just want to know in a sentence :
In a critical emergency, is the pilot in control or the computer
It depends on the type of emergency we're talking about. If it's something critical with the aircraft, then both rely on the pilot. Airbus computers can only keep their normal operation mode while getting reliable data from all the sensors.
Answer is it depends. Usually if its that critical that the computers or automation can't handle, it gives partial or even full control to the pilot.
Boeing is better ! By far.
Airbus... is a bus. No fun to fly, because Airbus engineers overruled the airplane operators (pilots).
Regards from the real thing, the Boeing 747-8 flight deck. No silly joystick A380 toy for woke chauffeurs...
Just kidding... But, seriously: If it ain't Boeing... I'm not going ! ✈
Tell that to those 737 MAX pilots ...
Starting the video by insulting your audience isn’t a good strategy
Summing it up:
The Boeings tend to crash because of cover ups in the technical department; the Airbus don't.
Both companies build awesome airplanes. The COMAC 919 is a knock-off (copied) version of an A320 and a B787. An A320 and A 787 pilot wouldn't need cross training to fly a COMAC 919 and since NOT too many millions went into development, and a 12 year old little girl made it in a sweatshop, its cheaper.
Airbus aircraft are flying robots
Actually they are designed like starwars spaceships.
Airbus aircraft are being designed like a prototype spaceship where the Commander's job is to only input the Glass computer console and flying space is very vast .
Its not a good safety mechanism for aircrafts where basic manual flying skills can be very critical in an emergency
Tell this to the pilots of JT610 and ET302.
Airbus aircraft are designed more so that it doesn't go into a situation where you go into a pure manual flying situation. But yes in terms of hand flying, boeing is universally better.
boeings make you deaf when they start their engines
Boeing is the OG. They revolutionized Air travel for the entire world. EU, Chinese, Indians, and Iranians might disagree but that is the truth. the 747 brought air travel to the masses. The 777 brought Twin engine operations to mainstream commercial aviation. The 737 was the OG Narrowbody Jet way ahead of its time.
787 Revolutionised the new age Jets with its advanced tech later replicated by A350.
The 777 was introduced in the 90s and is still comfortable, silent, and stable. No aircraft can beat it so Airbus copied and made a hybrid between the 777 and the 787.
The one place where Boeing F'ed up is when they refused to make replacements for the 757. Airbus took advantage of that and made the A321 XLR a nightmare for passengers cause nobody will be comfortable flying on a narrowbody plane for such long durations. Wide bodies will remain the KING.
One thing you totally ignored was that it was airbus that introduced twin engine widebody aircraft concept with its A300. If the 737 is the OG narrowbody jet, then airbus has the OG widebody twinjet.
I am not hating on boeing. They have made amazing products, and the 747/777 is of course the success story compared to the A380/A340 respectively. But by just sharing selective facts one is actually lowering the value of their case.
@@ZK-APA Airbus might have introduced A300 but it was B777 that bought the transoceanic Twin Engine Operations into existence.
Don’t get me wrong. Airbus has done a good job with the A320 series and their new A350
@@evergrandebestrealestate4854 To be fair, the 777 also had the advantage of a better ETOPS approval when it was launched. So you can say the 777 is more of a right plane launched at the right time.
The 777 wasnt a revolutionary aircraft (the 737 and 747 definitely were), but you can say it is the aircraft that evolved the segment to where it is today.
@@ZK-APA You can hate me and you can hate Boeing but you can't hate the 777. It was the perfect plane for international travel. Twin Engine, fewer fuel expenses when compared to the quad jets, much longer range, much more comfortable ride, etc.
Airbus A380 and A320 were phenomenal.
Boeing 737, 747, 787, and 777 are all excellent and the 757 was and is still preferred but airlines are forced to retire it because of its age and foolish accountants at Boeing who are preventing the NMA development
Boeing was in fact doing great before the MD Accountants joined Boeing. Sadly the corrupt MD Accountants are slowly siphoning funds from Boeing and destroying a a great company
@@evergrandebestrealestate4854 LOL I don't hate the 777. It is THE twin engine wide body which actually changed the way we fly.
My point is just that its Airbus which started the concept of twin engine wide body, which then boeing reacted with the 767 (same as how airbus reacted to the 737 with the A320), and then the 777 (where airbus made the wrong decision of still keeping a 4 engine aircraft).
Basically TLDR is that boeing aircraft changed the way we fly (the 707,737,747,777 and 787), whereas airbus planes changed the way aircraft technology are interpreted in an airliner (the A300, A320, A350 and tbh even the A380)
Looks like Airbus way of doing things is to make it easier for the pilots and reduce their workload whereas Boeing believes at throwing everything at the pilot.
Sort of. In airbus you ask the computer on how to be flown, in boeing you fly the plane with the help of computers
@@EdOeuna 🤣🤣🤣
Both are flown by pilots. The airbus philosophy is that in most cases, the computers can take care of trivial tasks. Let's say you want to turn. You bank your aircraft while keeping the altitude until you reached the correct heading; then you level off. It takes some time before the plane has turned, may be 30 seconds.
The difference is that the Airbus philosophy is that once the pilots has put the plane in the desired bank angle, he can let the stick and let the computer keep the bank angle and altitude and the plane turning. In the meantime, the pilot can concentrate on other things like completing checklists, talking to ATC or navigating. In a Boeing, the pilot is the boss, but also the worker and the cleaning lady. This means that he has actively fly the plane during the entire turn taking some of his capacity away from other tasks.
When both Airbus and Boeing are in fallback/emergency modes, then both are very actively flying by hand, the same way as you pilot a Cessna without autopilot.
I think boing is better
no arbus is bettr
@@gdmomie2954 wrong, there’s nothing as In “better”
Airbus
Boeing are a bit more “crashy”
And Airbus are government cover ups
Truth
When one off the 2 engines blows up in flames , like we seen on 3 SW airline737s if you are over the ocean you will wish you could see 2 more engines on that wing.
boeing turns you into a fine red mist when it hit the ground at 400meters per second
?
@@EdOeunaFirst situation was because the computers were out of the picture. It was a pilot that stalled the aircraft into the sea. A pilot that should have known better.
Second situation was suicide + homicide.
12:38 airbus: “let’s ignore all human factors and pretend our pilots are robots. Tactile feedback? We don’t need that…”
One has loose bolts and fasteners left behind during manufacture together with shonky workmanship the other doesn’t
Please lend me your crystal ball
🙏
air france flight 447. all that needs to be said
Boeing fanboys probably shouldn’t compare deadly accident numbers with airbus, it’s not gonna end well.
@@Milkinporsche people keep complaining about the airbus fly by wire system while forgetting the 737 max crashed twice because of boeing wanting to make more money
@@gdmomie2954 Boeing 737 max Is the most dangerous plane to get on, they are saying It’s “safe” when It’s not, I hear It malfunctions.
AF447 …ended that way because the computers weren’t flying.
oof this did not age well
Did the narrator really just say "dumb things down for a general audience?" Who let that into the script? Couldn't one have simply said something akin to: "simplify for all aspects of our viewership including our newest aviation enthusiasts"... I mean, come on...
Its one of those "sounds offensive but a commonly used phrase" tbh
@@ZK-APA as a native English speaker I know the phrase all too well. I’m just saying I would not have included it in the script as it has a negative connotation.
I actually caught that too. Thank you for dumbing it down for me. 😅
Simple Airbus thinks the computer should be in control and Boeing thinks the pilot should be in control.
Simple, you don't understand airbus
Simple, you don't understand airbus
That's an oversimplification....also, I'd rather trust the computer- most crashes are due to pilot error
Did you not understand that the reason TWO 737MAXs crashed is precisely because Boeing DIDN'T give control to the pilots? In fact, Boeing didn't even tell the pilots about the MCAS system.
@@topethermohenes7658 Simple , your a IT guy and not a pilot :))
Easy on a technical level Boeing kills the whistleblower that wants them to make safe planes and Airbus are making their planes in accord with the regulations, I think just that is enough to understand everything we need to know.
Irritating music !
Technically Airbus flys you to your destination ,and Boing flys you to your final destination ...
Lol Belli 😂 oh dear.
ah yes, boing
Boeing and Airbus are like Apple and Android
I like apple more but I like airbus more
Boeing should be more like Android than it actually is. 787 and 777 mostly are, but maybe not so the others.
So basically if the Airbus flight computers fails , your are past tense
It the flight computers fails, which is difficult because they're at least three on any Airbus, the flying is left to the pilots.
Technically thats for both companies. MCAS is a good example
@@ZK-APA not even close.
MCAS was able to operate with the decision of one computer based on data from one single sensor.
No other computer or sensor was used to challenge the decisions. You need disagreement between computers (or data from different sensors) for the computers to realize data is not reliable and disengage, leaving the flying to the pilots.
Not really. Older Airbus aircraft have a manual rudder and a trim system. Newer ones have a lot of backups, including a separate emergency generator for flight control computers. So, a catastrophic a failure is almost improbable.
@@anasmaaz5731 but not impossible , a ( big enough)short take out an entire flight bay .... And back ups
Airbus treats its pilots like bus drivers. Boeing treats them as retired naval aviators.
In my untrained eyes a yawk looks far better than a "side" stick.
I heard of 364 people who would've liked to have flown an Airbus instead of a Boeing ...
346
If you are referring to the MAX crashes, then you mean 346
Or had US pilots.
@@billymania11 It's easier to replace Boeing aircraft around the world with Airbus aircraft than to replace pilots around the world with US pilots.
@@todortodorov940 I'm from the US and I put great trust in our pilots. You may not agree but that's okay. We all handle risks in different ways.
BIGGEST AND MOST IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; AIRBUS IS SAFER & DOESN’T FALL APART IN AIR DUE TO UNRELIABILITY & LOW QUALITY??!!!
those united and jetblue a320s that had parts fall off of them recently would like to have a word with you
@@animegamingdude Let them ask me what they want to know. The safety and overall quality comparison makes even United and JetBlue understand why Boeing isn’t what is stood for till 5 years ago.
@@sannurtas5893 nearly every single incident that has occurred with uniteds boeing planes this year was the result of maintenance errors on the part of united
Boeing crashes more often too.