So you're saying a brain dead Airbus is just like a Boeing?

Do we have more material?

If anybody can slide down an ILS to ATP standards on THS and rudder I'll buy the sim time to see that!

 

Essentially. You have to trim. You have to use rudder. You have to move the thrust levers... so yes, like a Boeing.

Nope.. just that it was interesting to fly with one of the Airbus guys at Toulouse and see some things that we never got close to in training. There is a lot of stuff buried on all the automated airplanes and it is never revealed or demonstrated in training. We see the results rpeatedly in the NASA ASRSs. I am reminded of the old axiom of maturing on automated airplanes
Stage 1 -1-3 months "Why is it doing THAT?"
Stage 2 3-6 months "I've NEVER seen that before!!"
Stage 3 6months forward, "Yeah.. it does that sometimes..."

Also, on this point, I doubt many Boeing 737 drivers fully understand the alpha floor. We covered it because of the way we were training for non-precision approaches which at that time, we were using the dive and drive. I understand they have changed that...

Me too and that was my comparison to manual reversion in the Boeing and NO law in the Airbus. Both are a real handful. The secret is to configure early, trim up early and make only minor changes when absolutely necessary.

In training, the problem is always time and to cover all the mandatory stuff that invariably gets added, one has no time to really cover some other stuff. My last sim on the 737, I got my instructor to let me fly the entire ride single engine.. takeoffs, approaches, misses, etc. It was a fun ride...

 

It struck me right away in initial training in the A320 that the whole "manually flown" approach had become at least a partial charade in the Airbus direction for advanced automation. (I don't mean to suggest that the Airbus does not demand a great deal of skill and understanding, it does.) Only Direct Law remained in touch with true instrument flight and even that became much harder with the lack of control force feedback (hence the irreversable relegation to abnormals and emergencies).

I think the future holds an increase in a few recurring and embarrassing accidents where it is discovered that an overall acceptable safety record has encouraged and masked a retirement of true instrument skills.

Perhaps it all means nothing because not enough people will die and the technology's replacement of human skill will continue its successful march.

 

Which brings us to Weiner's Law and that is how the question is posed.
What is the role of the human in the automated machine? The answer is there is NONE and it is the wrong question IF humans are to be IN THE MACHINE.

The question is what is the role of automation in the manned machine. In the past, it seems that often automation was employed because it could be employed, not that it was necessarily useful or needed.

Boeing for some time taught highest automation level available (VNAV) before the feedback showed the best course of action may best level of automation required (VSI or FLCHG). And even now some, if not many, are confused about what is actually the limits and defaults are...and whether the aircraft is in a pitch mode, thrust or combination of both.

Again.. training, training, training. Play to the strengths, know and respect the weaknesses.

 

How did you takeoff single engine? The 737 will not stay on the runway with one engine at T/O power and the other off. It goes straight into the dirt with the nosewheel skidding. If you ever have one spool and the other not in the real aircraft on TO you get a graphic demonstration.

 

people....the bus I fly has a desk, upon this desk this morning I set a sausage egg and cheese bagel, and a cup of coffee. I crossed my legs and ate this bagel, and drank this coffee. The climate was cool and comfortable. when Three hours passed on this flight, I got up and streched my legs.


This things I did on an airbus, not a Boeing 737. I like boeings, but I like the airbus more. I feel safe in both, I just feel more comfortable flying the Airbus.

sad truth is, I would never have belived that I would have said these things a couple of years ago.

 

So on a V1 cut, do you step on the side that the bagel slid to?

 

Simple.. you get a long runway and increase thrust as rudder effectiveness increases. Yes, if you go straight to T/O thrust, you go sideways. But on the -300, you can ease in the power and by 80-90kts you have enough rudder to keep it straight at T/O power.

For the good students who knew how to use rudders, I would dispatch them 'ailerons' inoperative meaning they could not use ailerons just to demonstrate how effective the rudder was. Just put both hands behind the control column and at Vr, rotate by pulling the column aft. NO AILERONS. And after they do that once or twice, give them a V1 cut and again, NO AILERONS.

We did this only when the students were ahead of the training curve and we had hit all the required bases. But it clearly showed the rudder was THE solution to V1 cuts and by introducing lots of aileron, one could really incite an interesting aerial dance.

But the real fun came with V2 cuts just after lift-off.

 

I think most (if not all) would agree that the mini-bus cockpit is a more comfortable cockpit than the 737. But all airplanes are compromises.

I liked the 727 performance and the speed brakes actually had an effect other than just creating some turbulence like on the 757, 737 and Airbus.

I liked the way the slats/flaps came out NOW on the MD-80 unlike the dribble of the Boeings. Also, you could extend the first slats at a much higher speed and thus the old axiom, you slow down in a Boeing to put the flaps out.. in the McDougs, you put the flaps out to slow down.. not that extending the gear/flaps at max extension is best practice.

I liked the scratch pad on the Boeings to do 'what if's' versus only being able to EXEC on the Airbus.

The electrical system on Boeing seemed simpler than the McDougs but the McDougs had a better automation.

The McDoug cockpit is quieter than the Boeing but not as quiet as the 'bus.

For just sheer FLYIN', my vote would be for the 727-200 with -15 engines. Now that was a fun ride! (I never flew the -17 engines on the line and only got to fly the re-engined 727s a couple of times doing some research. Adding the -217s to the Fed-Ex birds was like adding a fourth engine to the Mighty Tri-Motor and it is a screamer. Never got to fly the re-engined Tays). In the A mode you could see slightly over 400 IAS at the lower altitudes.

 

Well, The A320 does have a less cramped cockpit, but I guess that dosen't have anything to do with preformance/profits. The A320 has a lot more range than the 737. It, however does depend on what 737 variant your talking about. If your talking about the 100/200/300/400 or 500 then the A320 would be 100% more profitable but if your talking about the 737NG's then it would be close.