Airbus vs. Boeing: which is best, really ?

[Tim Hancock]

Beautiful Boeing 307 Stratoliner in the foreground with fugly Airbus part hauler in the background. This pic is from Oshkosh a few years ago when the Airbus was used to visit Oshkosh and was full of a bunch of small French airplanes.

IIRC, the restored Stratoliner ended up ditching in water somewhere a couple years ago and I think is being restored again.

[Jim727]

For whatever it's worth, I have rather strong opinions on the matter. I've been in and out of the cockpit - mostly large jets - since the early '70s in the USAF and with two major airlines. My degrees are aero and mechanical engineering and now develop software for a living. I give you the background because I won't leave the ground in an Airbus with a model number above 310, and it's not because of ignorance, technophobia, or nationalism.

My objection is to the Airbus philosophy which is that (1) the computers should have more control over the lives of the passengers than the crew, and, (2) there is no need to provide a backup to the computers. That said, there are parts of the world where relying on the computer would be a good decision, but not where the vast majority of us fly. Airbus claims to have statistics that show it's safer that way, but that discussion is long and I thing the assumptions used are flawed. Hence the joke that the next Airbus will have a crew of a Captain and a dog. The Captain is there to feed the dog and the dog is there to bite the Captain if he tries to touch something.

At any rate, the ergonomics of an Airbus cockpit from a comfort standpoint are superb; however, from an operational standpoint they leave much to be desired. Example: the pilots make suggestions to the flight control computers via two joysticks - so what happens if both pilots use their joysticks simultaneously? I asked that question of an NTSB accident investigator I had in my jumpseat, and he stated that first there was no tactile feedback to allow each pilot to know the other was on the controls (ouch!) and second the joysticks are additive - move them opposite directions and they cancel; move them together and the results are amplified (ouch again!). The Airbus cockpit is far too heavily dependent on referencing the correct computer display to let the pilots know what is going on, and deprives the crew of many of the non-visual cues (like control yoke motion) that are so helpful to the crew.

Having an aircraft which is designed to be dynamically unstable allows for reduced fuel burn, but does so at the cost of safety - a computerized flight control system is required to keep the aircraft flying. The safety consequence is that total failure of the flight control computers leaves you with only life insurance as a backup. It was beaten into us in engineering school that a single point of failure is bad design and that a backup system has to be of a different type and with a different failure mode (use manual to back up hydraulics, not hydraulics to back up hydraulics, for example) or else it really isn't a reliable backup. Airbus uses computers to back up the computers. Lightning strike or electronics bay fire, anyone? I asked a friend who is a Captain on an A-320 what he would do in the event of full computer failure. After dancing around the "it's unlikely" responses and facing the reality that if it can happen eventually it will happen he said: "it will be a hell of an airshow". Yep, that's what the passengers paid for.

I could go quite a bit further on this subject, including avoidable accidents in Airbuses, plus friends - and their passengers - who would be dead had they been flying an Airbus instead of a Boeing, but I need to get back to work and I think the point has been made.

~~~~~

Tim - yes, the aircraft was ditched and re-restoration has been finished. I need to see it some time - what a beautiful aircraft!

Supe - The wing failure test is done to all aircraft. When the 767 (iirc) was destruct-tested the wing did not fail, the fuselage failed where it was clamped to the test rig.

Joe - Good point on the AA crash. Controls you can't use are not worth having. The report is a whitewash - I know no pilots of large aircraft who would move the rudder stop-to-stop in flight. You'd have pax and flight attendants bouncing off bulkheads and generating injuries like crazy. The pilots were, in all likelihood, responding to the failure of the vertical stab, not causing it.



Boeing builds airplanes;
Lockheed builds systems;
Douglas builds character.
~~~~~

[Drago]

Originally posted by IROC
I work for Boeing....subscribing. :>)

+1. I'm a tube jockey for them (airframe design).

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by Jeff Alton
When all is said and done about the debate, I will always just point to the press demo flight at the Paris Airshow when the Chief Pilot made a perfect landing in the A320, only it touched down in the forest instead of the concrete............

Cheers

Most of us remember watching the video of the airplane fly into the forest. This was caused by the pilots over-riding a safety system then the system over-rode the pilots and even when the captain pushed the throttles forwards the engine's did not respond immediately because the frigging computer did not tell them to!

Like Jim says above, I want an airplane that a pilot controls the systems, not one controlled by a computer that feels that the pilots are backup at best. In 37 years of flying I have proven that I can fly the plane, while the computer is still learning at times...

[Superman]

So it's true, Jim, what I heard about pilots. I heard they like having something between their legs.

[Jeff Alton]

Joeaksa, I agree with you and Jim 100%. I think Airbus intitially got it 100% ass backwards. Their model is a human monitoring a computor. It should be the other way around.

From where I sit at work, I want to be talking to pilots who are using the controlls. We see better response which helps us out. Nothing worse then trying to fit one on the downwind into a hole between two on final and the plane does not turn or descend like the last one did. Next thing you know you are at the wrong end of a long table explaining your actions.......

Now, RNP is another story. We have designed and are using some pretty impressive RNP approaches to places you could not get to with out it. But that is a little off topic.

Here is one reason I like the Boeing...... Lets say we are departing of 08L/R and a A340 takes off for the Orient (due west). We can't turn for noise until 3000. Well 5 miles later a B67 hops into the air going the same route. The B767 will be westbound on course and 15 miles ahead and 5000 feet higher when the A340 finally gets pointed westbound. (Assuming we turn them both crosswind at 3000)

Cheers

[Zef]

The Airbus surely got something we don't know...they are a big number of them flying around...!

[Jim727]

Originally posted by Zef
The Airbus surely got something we don't know...they are a big number of them flying around...!

We know what is up. By making an aircraft neutrally stable (or even dynamically unstable) fuel consumption can be slightly reduced. We also know that the aircraft are not being selected by the Operations (pilots and engineers) side of the house.

[Jeff Alton]

I will be careful what I say here so........

AirCanada (when gov't owned) bought a whole pile of A320's right after the Paris airshow "incedent". The PrimeMinister of the day (who bought the planes) was later charged with accepting a kick back. (which everyone pretty much assumed took place, though not proven.. )

He later sued the RCMP and it got too expensive so they settled out of court with the former Prime Minister pocketing a big wack of change.

Now, Air Canada had B767 Aircraft in their fleet for a few years before they bought some A340/A330 twin aisle heavies. They are still going to have the same B767 in their fleet a few years after they get rid of the last of their A340/A330's. They are moving their twin aisle heavy fleat to B767, B777 and B787 aircraft.

They are also bringing online a bunch of E190 aircraft to replace the A319/320/321 fleet.

Now, I will not comment on the cockpit side of things, as I have only a couple of simulator hours, but the A319 is a pretty good performer in our world, much like a late model B737, but an A321 makes wish they would put the B727 back into production......

Like I said, just my observations from the other end of the radio.....

Cheers

[legion]

E190?

Embraer?

I flew one of those from Bloomington to Atlanta--a few times. I've hit bad weather dozens of times, but I've never been so scared as when I hit bad weather in that plane. Probably a function of it being so small...

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by Superman
So it's true, Jim, what I heard about pilots. I heard they like having something between their legs.

Supe, close...

We are used to having something large inbetween our legs. Some pilots have nuggets so large that they need a wheelbarrow to move them around, the rest of us just drag them along...

[Jeff Alton]

Yep that is the one....

turbulence? I love flying in bumpy weather, infact as a passenger I admit to once in a while trying to make the scared passengers even more scared........ (childish I know)

Flying over the Alps once between Frankfurt and Faro in an A321, I nearly crapped my pants from the ride. First time I was scared. Mind you, I blame it on the Captain who was acutally yelling through the PA to fasten seatbelts and for the waitresses to buckle up!!

I wish I knew if he decribed the turbulence as moderate or severe to the controllers. We react to both, but often wonder just what an airline pilot considers severe.....

Cheers

[Jeff Alton]

Joeaksa, next time you are up my way, PM me and I would love to get together and talk the industry. If you have a bit of a layover of course!

Cheers

[on-ramp]

Hopefully the Airbus computers don't run Microsoft Windows...

[Jim727]

Originally posted by on-ramp
Hopefully the Airbus computers don't run Microsoft Windows...

[Jim727]

Originally posted by Superman
So it's true, Jim, what I heard about pilots. I heard they like having something between their legs.

Maybe you should ask these pilots:
http://www.pattywagstaff.com/
http://www.aafo.com/racing/2003/Mary_Dilda_Interview/

[450knotOffice]

Legion, the Embraer 190 looks almost exactly like an Airbus A320 to the General Public and is can even fool seasoned airline pilots due to it's size and shape (over 100,000 pounds and almost an Airbus clone). Are you sure you were on an EMB-190? The Embrare fleet consists of the EMB-120 Brasilia 30 passenger turboprop, the EMB-135/140/145 37 to 50 passenger Regional jets, and the EMB-170/175/190 70 to 110 passenger mainline sized jets.

Just wondering because that 190 is not a small plane.

[jeffgrant]

Originally posted by Stutzdriver
Every Airbus I have flown in seems to have a tail "wag" that is more pronounced in the rear of the plane hence I won't sit in the back of an Airbus. the Boeing planes seem to be more "solid" and stable in flight.

I remember the good old days of flying in "stretch" 9's... you could see the floor move like a snake when you sat at the back.

Of course that's a good thing, but try telling that the the "anxious" flyer who gets stuck at the back. They tended to ring up a pretty hefty bar tab.

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by Jim727
Maybe you should ask these pilots:
http://www.pattywagstaff.com/
http://www.aafo.com/racing/2003/Mary_Dilda_Interview/

Jim,

Have known Patty for years. She lived in Tucson when I did and very nice person and very good pilot. She is also kinda easy on the eyes...

[Tim Hancock]

Originally posted by Joeaksa
Jim,

Have known Patty for years. She lived in Tucson when I did and very nice person and very good pilot. She is also kinda easy on the eyes...

Good thing you qualified easy on the eyes with "kinda"