System knowledge

ATN_Pilot said:
Never say anything bad about a Douglas product! Blasphemy! Woe unto you!

I avoid 737s because, well, they suck. :) But I do tend to get stuck on them a lot since Fort Widget in its vast wisdom somehow thinks it's a swell idea to fly them across the country. I'll go out of my way to ride a 75/6. Once they're retired, it's really going to suck. I think I'm going to need to buy a jet before then. :)

The issues with the jackscrews and the rudder hardovers are obviously well in the past, but they could have happened to any airplane. The problem with Airbus is the entire design philosophy, not a specific mechanical malfunction. Airplanes should behave like airplanes, not what software engineers think airplanes should behave like.
Click to expand...

They did a nice job on the 717... the 80 series... Well, the saying goes that Boeing and Airbus build airplanes, Douglas builds character.

The 767 sure is super comfy in the back. I find myself having some stank face when I get in a 757 after so long seeing the interior of the bus. That thing is naaaarrrrrow! It sure was fun to fly, though.

And last I checked, fifi flies like an airplane and feels like one. But what do I know, I've only flown it for 7 years. ;)
 
Glad we can refuse instructors here, @ppragman your PERSONAL dream list would not fly at most airline's. Either you meet the standards set through your companies training program or you don't. No one should have play your BS game to stroke your ego because you think you are a vault of information and know more than the pilots you are quizzing.

I hope before you start your game of jeopardy that you tell your students they passed so they don't think they are failing while you sit and ask unneccesary questions.
 
Last edited:
PeanuckleCRJ said:
They did a nice job on the 717... the 80 series... Well, the saying goes that Boeing and Airbus build airplanes, Douglas builds character.

The 767 sure is super comfy in the back. I find myself having some stank face when I get in a 757 after so long seeing the interior of the bus. That thing is naaaarrrrrow! It sure was fun to fly, though.

And last I checked, fifi flies like an airplane and feels like one. But what do I know, I've only flown it for 7 years. ;)
Click to expand...

Dude, you've spent the thread talking about switching the airplane into different "laws." That's not how a regular airplane works. Regular airplanes obey only one set of laws: the laws of physics.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Dude, you've spent the thread talking about switching the airplane into different "laws." That's not how a regular airplane works.
Click to expand...

It's how all FBW ones work... Boeing, Airbus, Canuck....

I do find it cool that we don't obey the laws of physics in the bus. ;)
 
PeanuckleCRJ said:
It's how all FBW ones work... Boeing, Airbus, Canuck....

I do find it cool that we don't obey the laws of physics in the bus. ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, and I'm not a fan of any of it. But Boeing's idea of FBW is decidedly different than Airbus's. For example, move a 777 yoke, the other yoke moves also. Turn on the autothrottles, the throttles actually move. Etc. In other words, it still acts like a pilot would expect it to act, instead of how a software engineer would expect it to act.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Yes, and I'm not a fan of any of it. But Boeing's idea of FBW is decidedly different than Airbus's. For example, move a 777 yoke, the other yoke moves also. Turn on the autothrottles, the throttles actually move. Etc. In other words, it still acts like a pilot would expect it to act, instead of how a software engineer would expect it to act.
Click to expand...

Boeing actually pirated a lot of what Airbus did with the 777 and just named it something different. Reading through the protections and how it responds, it's pretty funny "I've seen this before..."

I do think interconnected side sticks would be an improvement. I think BBD with the C-series has absolutely nailed it. It's amazing how much better the ergonomics are with a side stick over a yoke. You sit in there and immediately feel right at home with that placement.

As far as moving thrust levers/throttles... that's not as beneficial as you might think. I can't count the amount of times I've been on a (you name it) with moving auto throttles, and there they are at basically climb power with the boards still out trying to descend... with zero idea even though they are full forward. Airbus has them sitting in the detent because they want you looking at the screen which is the truth.

Personally, I turn off the auto thrust for every approach unless I need to have it on for an autoland...
 
trafficinsight said:
Bid a Boeing ;)



Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So you’re climbing out in a B-747 and you notice the airspeed is getting higher and the flight controls are getting heavy (not pitching down, just “stiffer”. What is happening and how do you fix it?
 
ATN_Pilot said:
I suspect it would be less pleasant if you were plunging towards the ocean and one pilot didn’t know what the other pilot was doing with the controls as their inputs cancelled each other out with no tactile feedback.
Click to expand...

That actually has not been a factor in any of these events.
 
PeanuckleCRJ said:
I can't count the amount of times I've been on a (you name it) with moving auto throttles, and there they are at basically climb power with the boards still out trying to descend... with zero idea even though they are full forward.
Click to expand...

As always, Douglas did it best. :) Do that in a 717 and the boards automatically retract and you get a message telling you to stow the handle.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
I love these threads. They remind me to never step foot on an Airbus unless absolutely necessary.

Now I’ll wait for the bizarre Airbus nerdfest to to tell me how much they love their tray table.
Click to expand...

The Airbus system has saved a lot more lives. The fact is neither a Boeing or Airbus are perfect. Both systems have prevented accidents, both have also led to problems and contributed to accidents.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Yes, and I'm not a fan of any of it. But Boeing's idea of FBW is decidedly different than Airbus's. For example, move a 777 yoke, the other yoke moves also. Turn on the autothrottles, the throttles actually move. Etc. In other words, it still acts like a pilot would expect it to act, instead of how a software engineer would expect it to act.
Click to expand...

As was stated, not as different as you think, and the design leads you to think it is giving you feedback when it really isn’t.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Come on, I thought you were more of a data driven guy that that. You can’t possibly quantify what you just claimed. It’s supposition at best, and pure BS at worst.
Click to expand...

Yes, and in fact we did exactly that! It resulted in Boeing adding envelope limiting features.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Never say anything bad about a Douglas product! Blasphemy! Woe unto you!

I avoid 737s because, well, they suck. :) But I do tend to get stuck on them a lot since Fort Widget in its vast wisdom somehow thinks it's a swell idea to fly them across the country. I'll go out of my way to ride a 75/6. Once they're retired, it's really going to suck. I think I'm going to need to buy a jet before then. :)

The issues with the jackscrews and the rudder hardovers are obviously well in the past, but they could have happened to any airplane. The problem with Airbus is the entire design philosophy, not a specific mechanical malfunction. Airplanes should behave like airplanes, not what software engineers think airplanes should behave like.
Click to expand...

The point is that the next issue that kills you is not what is predicted based on what has happened before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top