Tania W

Thought the same thing until after I'd done 6 months on the 320. You have the choice - let it do it all for you or hand fly, but this is airline flying. Like it or not, you get paid to give the passengers a nice ride. Ideally they shouldn't know you are doing anything other than flying straight and level - wouldn't want to slosh the champers in business class.
The "stupid computer" will do as good a job as the hottest of hot shots, so why not let it? I'm for whatever makes my job easier, and the A320 has a much more comfortable flight deck than the equivilent Boeing, bearing in mind that we are locked in it for up to 9 hours a day (2 sectors with just a one hour turnaround)
I can absolutely see how an Airbus can be flown by someone with minimal experience other than simulator time (200 hour F/Os in Europe). The days of needing to have thousands of hours experience to fly a jet are (perhaps sadly) gone. In 1988 I was an exception in "only" having 2800 hours when I started as a 737-100 F/O. Now I am a "computer operator".....but I have 13000 hours of irreplacable experience. Every day I call on it in one way or another, and every day I learn something new.
Is an Airbus better than a Boeing? I've flown both and one is the way of the past, the other is the way of the future. Boeing will end up using side-sticks. Hell, even the space-shuttle uses them. The only reason they have stuck with control columns is convention. Boeing build a fine product, but don't knock Airbus. It is the way of the future.

95 C4 993

Bunda Boa? Oi, Popokeenya !!!

Dating a Brazilian gal and only know the good Porteguese words.

Boeing 717

" Like it or not, you get paid to give the passengers a nice ride. Ideally they shouldn't know you are doing anything other than flying straight and level - wouldn't want to slosh the champers in business class."
If someone cant give the pax a good ride when theyre hand flying then they have no business being an airline pilot in the first place. I fly with a few who are actually scared to hand fly (even an ils) because they have become so dependent on automation. The b-717 is as automated as anything out there and that can be good at times dont get me wrong.
"Boeing build a fine product, but don't knock Airbus. It is the way of the future."
Personally i believe the way of the future is fuel conservation (cough, cough 787 DREAMLINER) not a behemoth that carries 600 people into only a few airports that can handle it.
Anyhow didnt mean to open a whole can of worms its all just my opinion......IF IT AINT A BOEING I AINT GOING. ......Ok back to porsches now.

"Bunda Boa? Oi, Popokeenya !!!
Dating a Brazilian gal and only know the good Porteguese words."
Hey 95 C4 those brasilian chicks are a handful huh???

JERRY

Tania W

I don't disagree......neither do Airbus. The A380 is just one product, and I'm sure they would be even deeper in the proverbial if that was all they were relying on for the future. Likewise Boeing with the new 747 upgrade.
As for pilots who are automation dependent, that may well (unfortunately) be the way of the future. First action in an EFATO on the A320 is to fly the airplane, but only for long enough to engage the autopilot. Even the 777 requires minimal input from the pilot with a yaw compensation device. I hate to see traditional stick and rudder skills in the decline, but that's exactly what is happening. Put many of the "new breed" of airline pilots in a Cub or 180 and I'm sure you would be horrified.

As for "not going if it's not Boeing", isn't the 717 just a renamed MD95? (can't believe me..of all people.. defending Airbus against Boeing)


So, back to Porsches then

993-CT

Didn't Porsche Engineering work on flightdeck layout and ergonomics for Airbus in the early 80's? looking at the panel on the 993, I would say Porsche Ergonomics is an oxymoron... Now, on the other hand, if they did something on the handling ....

InTheAir

It's perfect--the only thing that matters is the tach.

KRA993tt

Here's my current ride. It makes life pretty nice.

Toga

Nice one KRA993TT!

KRA993tt

It is a pleasure to fly. Except today, looks like I'll be heading into lots of winter weather. Somebody has to do it .

g_murray

Hi,
Touche!
An FO (B737-400) came to our club/flight-school back in January to do the flight portion of his ATP in a Piper Seminole (PA-44-180). There's no autopilot and only 'steam-gauges' (incl. ADF!) in this plane (which I fly a lot).
The instructor said "he was all over the place and so far behind -- he just cringed".
As those of us who who fly twins know, (esp. doing multiple successive practice instrument approaches), you need to be so on top of your game - both in basic flying and in procedures - that if you've been lulled into allowing automation to perform many fundamental tasks you're gonna be in a world of hurt when you have to do ALL of them, at the same time, to exacting standards.
I'm glad to report that Ivan (yes his real name) - after TWO weeks of literally, "intensive daily dual", passed his ATP on the 2nd. try.

Gerry
CP/AS-MEL-IA

md11plt

I'll get in the middle of this automation discussion. The -11 flies like crap. My Grandmother could fly a DC-10. It was great. Flew just like my Archer. You could look out the window for 30 minutes while hand flying and it would be right where you left it. The -11 is all flying all the time. Like a helicopter. Plus, all the computer "help" can make things even more difficult if you are not used to them. Auto trim - I'm pulling a bit, I need some up trim, put some in just as the airplane says, "Man this guy is good, but he needs some up trim". Then it gives me some so now I need down trim. Don't even get me going about LSAS (Longitudinal Stability Augmentation System [anything that needs that has got to be a mess]). It is basically a yaw damper for the elevator. I have had more than one dual to the death with LSAS. That being said, I hand fly it as much as possible. It is a different technique than most other airplanes, but it is certainly possible. BUT, there is a reason the biggest button on the airplane is labeled "AUTOFLIGHT". Which is the point that I think some are missing. When the brown stuff hits the fan, the last thing I want to worry about is stick and rudder. This thing (sim anyway) will fly out of a wind shear better than Bob Hoover. The way it manages energy, that stick oscillating like it’s stirring a cup of Nestle Quick while keeping the speed on the Vmin foot and fighting for every inch of altitude is just amazing. Lost two engines? AUTOFLIGHT and if you’re in a Go-Around when it happens, it’ll even give you rudder. You just clean out your shorts and get back to it when you can. 14-hour flight and your destination has only 600 feet vis? No worries I’ll land it for you and park it on the runway. Why mess with an alternate? I dig the automation. I dig the bunk more!

Boeing 717

The B-717 has the same avionics that the md-11 does... i know what your saying the Autolands the windshear guidance yea all that is cool, im sure airbus has it too thats good stuff. I guess what i should say is that when i put my hand on the yoke i am in direct contact with my flight control surfaces i dont have to tell a computer what I WANT the flight control surfaces to do then the computer decides if thats a good thing or not before IT moves them. Thats where i draw the line with automation.

JERRY

md11plt

I guess I’ll start splitting hairs here. I don’t have “direct control” over my flight controls, and I’ll bet you don’t either. The yoke is connected to cables that run to hydraulic actuators that control the flight controls. While the level of intervention may be more curtailed in the U.S. jets, it is there. Elevator feel, centering springs, LSAS, it’s all designed to make you feel like you have direct control, but we are not flying with trim tabs. Like you say though, it is a far cry from the fly-by-wire systems. Again, just splitting hairs.

SCMomentum

Agree with you here...but wrong, very wrong. Thousands of hours equals airmanship...without it you lack the cognitive ability to prioritize when the "shyte hits the fan". Airmanship is what one relies upon when one of those lovely, "smarter than pilots" computers decides to take a dump....over the ocean, at ETP, with hours to your alternate. I'd rather have someone who instinctively knows what to do....and if he doesn't, can formulate a plan expeditiously.
Simply put....absurd. Have you flown anything Boeing besides the Guppy? How come the 777 and the soon to be developed 787 are being ordered in droves compared to the anything that Airbus is producing?
Oh come on now. Why keep making totally untrue and ridiculous statements? If so, please explain the delays and cost overruns of the A380? That aircraft alone debunks your myopic view of this.

Boeing 717

Md-11 pilot yea we are splitting hairs but there is a big difference between you telling a hydraulic actuator to move a control surface and you telling a computer to do it. Hydraulic actuators are totally proven systems that cannot override a command you make (unless they just fail) whereas a computer has artificial intellegence and can override a command you make if it does not like it. The flight controls on my plane have total manual reversion so no matter what i can get control if other systems fail. Remember that guy that flew the a320 into the trees on that low pass at the airshow??? He wanted to make a low pass the computer wanted to land. The computer won.

Jerry