pacer142

Except the Airbus will prevent certain (by no means all) pilot errors being able to cause danger to the aircraft.

For instance, on an Airbus if you pull right back on the stick the engines will be spun up automatically, AIUI, and the aircraft will only allow the nose to go up as far as is safe. On a Boeing, you have to do it yourself and the angle is not limited, so pulling right back might cause a stall. You'll be warned but nothing will stop you.

But sometimes, in an emergency, it's best for the pilot to be able to try something unconventional to save the aircraft. There have also been cases where, while doing something unconventional, the computer has made an incorrect assumption.

The above is quite a good example, actually. If you're about to hit a mountain, you want the best rate of climb possible even outside what is normally safe (so the Boeing). But if you just made a mistake and pulled back a bit too hard, the Airbus will prevent it being dangerous.

So as I say it goes both ways. My preference between the aircraft types is based on the passenger accommodation[1], not on safety factors. Both are safe to fly.

[1] As I said I prefer A319/A32x over B737, but I prefer B777 over the larger Airbuses. I haven't flown on an A380 yet so can't comment on whether I'd rather one of those or a B747.

Neil

belfordrocks

Both are equally safe, but I prefer Airbus for comfort- the A320 is wider than the 737, and the A330/A340s are so much quieter than the 777's, not to mention I hate the 3-3-3 layout. I haven't flown the A380 yet (sadly) so can't comment there

BOH

They are my Airbus preferences too - particularly the large (IMHO) difference between the 777 and 330 ranges regarding cabin noise levels. I went out a 777 to the USA last year and back on a 330 just 2 says later - and that short period between flyng each types made me really notice how much quieter the Airbus was ^

I know the 320 series is very slightly wider than the 737 and 757 range...but can't say I can actually notice or remotely appreciate it though.

As far as safety, they clearly both make excellent aircraft with superb safety records so have no hesitation in flying on either. Such is the safety record of modern airliners the days of DC10 style disasters due to some inherent design flaw thankfully seem long gone...

pacer142

It's noticeable on EZY, as they chose the wider aisle rather than wider seats, which means you can get past the trolley if you need to, without having to get into a row of seats and have it go past you.

I also found the seats noticeably wider when I flew on Kingfisher's A320 in India (they chose the wider seats option). But then I'm a tight fit in aircraft seats, so I suppose I would.

EZY's A319s seem rather quieter than their B737s, but the latter are getting on a bit now (and the interiors are getting bare minimum maintenance as they're going soon) so the comparison might not be entirely fair.

Neil

belfordrocks

Yep, the 777's are LOUD.

I FROM EUROPE

YES friends, but airbus much computer? How pilot control computers?

Computers not always friends, sometime enemy. Also lazy pilots reliant in computers and this why there much accidents.

Also Beoing has big sticks, also feedbacks like Playstation control however much best. Airbus has small sidesticks no feedbacks. Same throttles - no feedbacks. Pilot information much important, unless new pilots fly Airbus like computer game no basics trainings if computer mistakes . Big differences

See?

raph

Obvious troll is obvious. See?

I prefer Airbus 31x/32x on my European commute.

Airbus Aircraft are (slightly) more spacious, the interiour (and overall appearance) is more modern, my perception is that they are quieter (maybe subject to engine config) - But FRs 737s for example sound just as nasty as their Service is...

I loved the 346 and like 330s... I also don't like 3-3-3 configs on Boing Aircraft.

Having said that, I currently much prefer the 747 over the 380... The 747 is the Queen of the Skies, the 380 just looks butt ugly, but that's personal perception and may be subject to change when I fly it for the first time (booked for Nov at the latest).

acunningham

Allright, I'll take the hook...

All modern airliners, Airbus, Boeing, and other manufacturers, use computer control extensively, for control surfaces (Fly By Wire), engines (FADEC), and pretty much everything else on board. It's one of the reasons airline travel continues to get safer and safer.

Accidents caused by computer failure are EXTREMELY rare, much less than pilot error. Automation has proven itself as a valuable contribution to safety.

This is, or at least was, a problem. During the transition from manual control to FBW, there were several accidents caused by pilots misunderstanding what automation would and would not do for them. Two crashes spring to mind:

1. The Airbus A320 that crashed at an airshow in 1988, due to the pilot flying at low altitude and low speed, incorrectly assuming that the automated flight envelope protection would save the aircraft from stalling.

2. The Airbus A330 that crashed on a test flight during ETOPS certification due to the first officer misunderstanding the autopilot modes and asking the aircraft for a rate of climb that it wasn't capable of on a single engine.

This is primarily a pilot training problem, and as automation has been common-place for a while now, such accidents have become very rare.

No, a handful of accidents, and the airline industry (at least in developed countries) gets safer and safer over time. The current level of safety is extremely impressive.

This is irrelevant. I fly light aircraft with a mixture of yoke with lots of feedback (Cessna, Piper), centre stick (Diamond, various gliders), and side stick with little feedback (Cirrus), and all are easy to use after a few minutes practice and all are perfectly safe. I personally prefer the Cirrus style side stick as it give a clear flew of the primary flight display and allows me to sit a chart on my lap.

From talking to airline pilots who fly both Airbus and Boeing, the consensus seems to be that both systems are very good, with a slight majority moderately preferring yokes.

Indeed, and both the Airbus and Boeing cockpits give the pilots a wealth of information regarding situational awareness, status of aircraft systems, etc, etc.

No pilot flies an aircraft "like computer game". Whatever gave you that idea?

Pilots are extensively trained (and regularly retrained) on handling equipment failures.

No.

As a final comment, may I suggest having someone who speaks fluent English review and correct your posts for you before you post them? Using correct English will greatly enhance your credibility on forums such as this, and considering the content, language, and readability of your posts you need all the credibility you can get.

TWA884

Let alone spelling Boeing correctly.

Wally Bird

May one inquire how good your Czech is ? Speaking, writing, spelling, any one will do.

acunningham

About 10 words in total, but then I'm not posting controversial posts on a Czech language internet forum!

pacer142

FBW can provide other advantages. There have in the past been crashes caused by damage severing control cables. With FBW, you could (I don't know if they actually do) have backup connections or put the connections in less vulnerable places than under the floor.

Though that said, FBW and the Airbus "computer says no" stuff aren't totally interwoven - you need the former to have the latter, but you don't need the latter to have the former. Isn't the 777 FBW without the latter? That said, I don't consider that stuff unsafe at all. I have flown many miles safely on both Airbus and Boeing aircraft (and Embraer, and Bombardier, and Fokker, for that matter), and as noted elsewhere in the thread my preferences are entirely relating to passenger comfort and nothing to do with safety. All of them are safe.

Neil

LondonElite

Wow, lots of people falling for obvious troll thread.

CX HK

I don't think anyone is really getting tricked, but rather we love these kind of debates. We've all got an opinion, and we know that although our arguing probably won't change the opinion of 99% of people who read this thread, we do it anyways. And, as usual, I read it anyways

acunningham

They do. Airbus aircraft have triple hydraulic systems, called green, blue and yellow. This part doesn't really require FBW though.

There's also redundancy on the controlling computers, whereby the level of sophistication and automation (called "laws" by Airbus) drops as computers fail, but the aircraft remains controllable. A good summary is here:

http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus_fltlaws.htm

Yes, my understanding is that the 777 FBW is somewhat similar to Airbus's direct law, though my understanding may be faulty.