Need of detailed comparison between 737NG and A320?

[Airbus Commander 563]

Hello Ró,

 

Can you elaborate a little on the 'flight deck enviroment' advantages/disadvantages of the A320 and the B737? Thanks.

 

Ray

The 737 flight deck is of it's age, its cramped, it uses dark colours, with two large pilots in the cockpit and a check examiner, there's hardly room to swing a cat in there. In the Airbus flight deck, the colours are bright, there is no yoke so you have a feeling of space in front of you (And a tray table, gotta love a tray table ^_^ ), there is space behind the pilots as well, you could probably lie down in the space behind the pilots, if you tried that in a 737 you'd be crushed by the Captains seat if he slid it back... :wacko: These brighter colours and feelings of space help reduce the feeling of fatigue.

 

Just my €0.02

 

Regards,

Ró.

[momtchil 32]

I have requested a reference for comparison between airbus and boeing technology! My nick name is a very famous rhyme of boeing company and ATP pilots who spend his life on one of the boeing aircrafts !! Could you explain why did you went off the main topic?? and a shame ?? i have selected the two top leaders in aviation industry and that doesn't mean the other manufacturers are missed out!

 

Aviation Expert.....

 

Not_Boeing_Not_Going,

 

First:

thank you for your tirade of reports into this thread about how you're getting offended here................... (frankly in my opinion there's no abuse going on here at all) - forgive my little snip here but I do hate to see the report function misused.....

 

Second:

How would you feel if I decided my display name to be: Not_Airbus_Not_Going, Not_Sukhoi_Not_Going, Not_Tupolev_Not_Going, etc.... I like all aircraft, including Boeings, and love all aviation - I fail to see why we have to spit ourselves in to little groups at times and flame each other.

 

Your display name combined with the many reports you've sent in, the topic you've started (which is terribly like another Boeing v Airbus thing - seen plenty of those and they usually don't end well), and your posts show a possible flame thread building here - this is a kind warning not to go there.

 

I hope you can understand that this is an international forum, where many are not aware of the Boeing slogans and what's sold in their gift shops, this does result in many folk who may take some offence (or discomfort) at your chosen display name, especially as your very first post on these forums is a nicely worded around, but simply put 'Boeing vs Airbus' topic.

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

there's hardly room to swing a cat in there.

 

Why would you want to do that? Get's things all gummed up and gooey.

 

And... Boeing not going... Momtchil gave you a pretty subtle hint or two. I won't be so subtle (genetically impossible for me)... You might want to pull in your horns a bit. Okay, a lot.

[Sweetwater 11]

:Hug:

[MacAviator 6]

thank you....i think that the number of airbus ECAM messages that appear when engine failure occurs for example are extensive and more complicated than Boeing and this may give the pilot the feel that airbus is more safer although the two jets are AIRLINERS and DO their jobs!

 

The issue with ECAM messages is that they can be overwhelming and cause fixation. The messages can be very useful, but there is such thing as having too much information to sort through and not enough time. There have been accidents involving pilots becoming overwhelmed with information. Another problem with many ECAM messages is the possibility of becoming fixated on them. There have also been accidents in which pilots fixated on such things and ignored the bigger picture.

 

I think ECAM warnings are great, but more doesn't always mean safer. Displaying the relevant is probably more important. The problem with is that the relevant can change depending on the situation. Coming up with an algorithm to determine what is the most relevant in any given situation can be a big task.

[WR269 367]

How long is a piece of string? The Swissair MD-11 that crashed off Nova Scotia resulted in the investigation being critical as the pilots were following a paper QRH with procedures that would have taken some 30 minutes looking up page by page.

 

Same with the 737s, and 747s are worse. You can fly with whatever tools you are given, provided you have the correct training and have learnt the right procedures to use them. The more recent A380 incident with Qantas over Bantam Island is a clear example of this...they went through over 100 ECAM actions, and it got overwhelming, but considering the amount of damage to the airframe from the exploding engine, they were glad the aircraft itself was telling them what actions needed to be taken.

 

There are Boeing crews who have only ever used the QRH and swear by them, and are very proficient with them, they have the right training and have practiced using them. This is the key with whatever equipment you fly.

 

Some people can use an abacus faster than a calculator....who is right??? really....who cares? As long as they can both get the right result.

[Mickel 42]

The more recent A380 incident with Qantas over Bantam Island is a clear example of this...they went through over 100 ECAM actions, and it got overwhelming, but considering the amount of damage to the airframe from the exploding engine, they were glad the aircraft itself was telling them what actions needed to be taken.

 

A couple of examples of airmanship came through here. One action directed was to pump fuel from right to left. Fortunately they didn't do that, since that would have dumped the fuel out the holes. This is why there should always be a pilot in the cockpit. The computer clearly didn't consider that. The other was getting to the point of saying 'Right, we've dealt with everything critical. Whatever else is in the list is not important. So what DOES work?'

 

The captain on the BA 747 that lost all four engines said he would have hated to have that happen in a glass cockpited plane. Then again... He had a flight engineer as well.

 

Mike

[Airbus Commander 563]

Why would you want to do that? Get's things all gummed up and gooey.

It's the First Officers, they know I'm allergic and love making me sneeze... :blush:

 

The issue with ECAM messages is that they can be overwhelming and cause fixation.

They shouldn't, not with proper CRM on the Flight Deck.

"Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, Manage - In THAT order." - Sums it up.

 

You should know and trust your FO to let them do the job at hand. In any situation like that it's procedure for the Captain to call out: "I have controls and communications, you have ECAM actions", from that point out, the Captains does the aviating, navigating and communicating, while the FO manages the situation. Only for flight safety critical items will the Captain have to do anything such as confirming the correct Engine Master switch before it's turned off, or the correct engine fire handle before it's depressed, other than that, the FO is the one running around pushing all the buttons.

 

With regards to the QF32 incident, airmanship played a critical role in that situation, ECAM was never supposed to replace your airmanship, but to enhance and augment it. At the end of the day, she's just a great big bird, wings, engines ect. Not that different to a 152. Also, they had a 5 member flight deck crew, something that only happens once in a blue moon, I think the last time that ever happened to me was almost 5 months ago and probably won't happen for another 5, so that helped them on the day and was a lucky coincidence.

 

Regards,

Ró.

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

If it ain't Boeing, i ain't going...

 

To me it just sounds like corporate culture rivalries. I remember working for Cummins and the executives used to give out plush toys of squashed cats. Reason being is Cummins biggest rival is Caterpillar or 'Cat'

 

So therefore they used to give squashed cat's out to employees and say 'Squash the Cat'....You know, Team building Exercises....LOL

 

I choose not to take part in this type of corporate culture.

[Airbus Commander 563]

If it ain't Boeing, i ain't going...

 

To me it just sounds like corporate culture rivalries. I remember working for Cummins and the executives used to give out plush toys of squashed cats. Reason being is Cummins biggest rival is Caterpillar or 'Cat'

 

So therefore they used to give squashed cat's out to employees and say 'Squash the Cat'....You know, Team building Exercises....LOL

 

I choose not to take part in this type of corporate culture.

I think a friendly rivalry between the competition is fine, in fact, I think it keeps everyone on their toes, however when the other publicly humiliates you or tries to take you over, then that friendly competition can rapidly deteriorate to people literally putting others out of their way, or threats to physically trip up the other companies CEO, and when competition gets to that stage, it's time to step back and look at the situation again.

 

Regards,

Ró.