It's the age old debate; Ford vs. Chevy or the the more upscale; Mercedes vs. BMW, etc. Which do you prefer ?
Having flown both, there are advantages and disadvantages with each. I like the structural integrity and design process that Boeing uses in constructing their aircraft; however, the Airbus cockpit is more comfortable, quietier and user friendly than most Boeing products. In my view, it's strictly personal preference.
As an observation, most pilots who knock "the 'Bus" have never flown the Airbus and Jungle, please don't bring up the Airbus accident in Toulouse where it went into the trees. That was strictly pilot error and it can happen with any aircraft.
... Jungle, please don't bring up the Airbus accident in Toulouse where it went into the trees. That was strictly pilot error and it can happen with any aircraft.
G'Day Y'all
I thought it had to do with computer logic that "assumed" the airplane would land (close the ground) so the power went to idle and it was too late when the pilots realized it and attempted to add power... It's been a while, maybe I got it all wrong?
...Jungle, please don't bring up the Airbus accident in Toulouse where it went into the trees. That was strictly pilot error and it can happen with any aircraft.
G'Day Y'all
Agree, but it isn't exactly good public relations when a factory demo pilot can't figure out the autopilot.
It did perk up interest from logging companies.
__________________
Just another slave on the Marxist plantation. With the "joint Reptilian-Bavarian Illuminati" crew.
In general, the propensity to mow down trees during demo flights, loss of vertical stab, total or multiple partial loss of rudder surface in flight, and recent loss of and near loss of aircraft due to possible pitot static problems come to mind. There is that French thing too..
Many of the comments are not apples/apples. I flew the 737 for quite some time and was in the training dept during the hard-over rudder period. Very interesting to say the least.
and while we are talking about not understanding airplanes and airplanes doing odd stuff, we might not want to mention the 737 in Amsterdam with a radio altimeter fault. Or the Helios where the crew went hypoxic because they didn't realize the packs were not on. ??? Or the BA 777 going into London.
The oft cited Habsheim(sp?) crash is a good example of people being very ill-informed. Watch the video and you will not hear the engines spool up until the 'bus is in the trees (17 seconds). (disregard the invisible talking head who knows zilch) That is not a computer problem. That is someone sitting on their thumbs, in idle and then getting caught by slow spooling engines. This event would have happened in almost any aircraft.
I thought it had to do with computer logic that "assumed" the airplane would land (close the ground) so the power went to idle and it was too late when the pilots realized it and attempted to add power... It's been a while, maybe I got it all wrong?
The video interviews Harry Hopkins who for quite some time did flight checks for Flight International, the magazine. Harry was a good guy and an enjoyable fellow to be around. Anyway, Harry notes at 3:30 in the video the throttles are in idle and power is applied 'quite late'.
Earlier in the video the narrator says the crew turned off the computers. Well.. uh, no. Can't do that. And the computers don't idle the engine. The pilot pulls the thrust to idle and if s/he forgets, the 'bus reminds with "RETARD, RETARD".
__________________
Simple solutions are seldom either.
we might not want to mention the 737 in Amsterdam with a radio altimeter fault. Or the Helios where the crew went hypoxic because they didn't realize the packs were not on. ??? Or the BA 777 going into London.
or loose bolts from poor factory assembly puncturing fuel tank and causing aircraft to explode (CAL 737 in Japan), or spontaneously exploding center fuel tanks (TWA 747 & Thai 737), or cargo door blowouts from poorly designed latches sucking passengers into engines (United 747), or loss of control and inflight breakup from uncommanded reverser deployment (Lauda 767)...
Both sides have blood on their hands - its just the nature of the industry and no one is infallible.
or loose bolts from poor factory assembly puncturing fuel tank and causing aircraft to explode (CAL 737 in Japan), or spontaneously exploding center fuel tanks (TWA 747 & Thai 737), or cargo door blowouts from poorly designed latches sucking passengers into engines (United 747), or loss of control and inflight breakup from uncommanded reverser deployment (Lauda 767)...
Both sides have blood on their hands - its just the nature of the industry and no one is infallible.
A balanced argument? Airplanes are ALL compromises and each is trying to create the best machine possible based on certain assumptions. Contrary to popular view, pilots are not tossed out of the process during development.
Boeing, Airbus, Fokker, McDoug, Saab, Embraer, Bombardier all build good airplanes. But many arguments, as evidenced here, are based on incorrect info. Not company demo pilot. Not computers taking thrust to idle.
I enjoyed flying the 'bus. I enjoyed flying the 757/767 (the 737 was never a favorite due to the small noisy cockpit and slow speed [0.74 trans-can??] but it was/is a good machine or Boeing would not have convinced so many to buy and fly it. And Boeing wisely agreed to Kelleher's demands for a faster, higher flying, longer ranged 737.. the NG.
In the end, for an airline pilot, the BEST airplane is the one flying the trips that pay the most, have the best layovers, the nicest FAs and the least number of days/month. At least that was the way I saw it.
__________________
Simple solutions are seldom either.
...In the end, for an airline pilot, the BEST airplane is the one flying the trips that pay the most, have the best layovers, the nicest FAs and the least number of days/month. At least that was the way I saw it.
Bingo! Agree 100% Of course, since we don't have any FAs at ups we're screwed!
Similar Threads
Ford vs. Chevy -or- Mercedes vs. BMW ????
Linear Mode
