While waiting for a great A320 version to be released, this video caught my attention on youtube:

 

 

It shows the difference between A320 simulator cockpit and B737 300/400/500 simulator cockpit. First I thought this comparison was quite unfair, until I realized that these planes are from the same time period. A320 released in 1988 and B737 classics between 1984 and 1988.

 

Just wanted to share as I wasn't aware that A320 was so much ahead of it's time.

Haha the 737 was designed in the 1960's. Nothing that is in the A320 was available in the 60's.

 

I've flown both panel types, Boeing designed Dash-8 and Airbus designed ATR. Both have their Pro's and Con's but I do like the lights out philosophy that Airbus has. However I would change the colors that are used. I don't know why green is used for an abnormal situation since green should be ok.

 

In the book Naked Pilot: The Human Factor in Aircraft There is a chapter titled Green for Danger which talks about the Airbus cockpit flaws.

on the A3xx Ecam cautions are amber, emergency items are red. Green is for normal items and blue is for an incorrect config and ECAM actions.

 

Overhead is dark, white or amber.

 

What Green items are you refering to?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kind regards

Haha the 737 was designed in the 1960's. Nothing that is in the A320 was available in the 60's.

 

Just to clarify that a bit for those who might not be aware; although the 737-300/400/500 were indeed produced in the 80ies, to keep commonality with the earlier models (so new type ratings / certification was not required) a lot of the original cockpit design from the sixties was kept.

Green is listed as backup basically an 'other than normal situation.' One example of the problem with using green is that our first indication of running low of fuel is a green fuel pump is running. Not really a great warning for such a big problem.

 

Here is the philosophy page from our FCOM:

 

Thanks for the info, very interesting and indeed strange. A very close friend of mine flew the ATR in Africa up until a few years ago, I may have to hassle him for a copy of the FCOM.

Thanks for the info, very interesting and indeed strange. A very close friend of mine flew the ATR in Africa up until a few years ago, I may have to hassle him for a copy of the FCOM.

 

Check your PMs :smile:

Thanks :smile:

I think the philosophy in question has to account for different tasks. If it wants to show that a system is running, green actually makes sense. If this happens within a dark panel concept, the attention getter is the light itself, not the colour.

 

The reason for pointing that out is that, when designing human to machine (and the other way around) interfaces, you will always run into a tradeoff situation at times.

 

Namely, letting a running pump come up in amber although the status of the item displayed (the pump itself) is 'green'. If there was a light for 'dangerous fuel situation', things would look different.

 

Now that dark panel concept actually helped a lot when it comes to quickly allow for an overview and draw attention to the items in need. The colours are the second stage of it, so to speak. And with the older methods being used on e.g. the 737, one instantly sees how progress in understanding the humans in the cockpit lead to a better design. Not to mention the sheer ergonomics on more modern flight decks.

 

As you guys have pointed out, Boeing is bound to the old philosophy on that deck as the customers may have voiced the demand for keeping it. I doubt that the engineers themselves are happy about the large variations among the fleet (737 vs 757 vs 747 and later) or the old-ish concept itself, with lots of lights and switches which don't 'tell' their condition in the first place.

 

I think the 747(400,8), 777 and 787 decks then show how Boeing sees a current setup. Although I wonder about the colour changes. On the 737, it really feels like being stuck in the past. Mainly for those rating reasons you folks mentioned.

Well, there's certainly no doubt which of the two the young student doing the narration prefers! :LMAO:

 

I was a bit taken back about the fact that in case of complete electrical failure the throttles would be stuck at thrust "until you run out of gas..." :rolleyes:

Boeing designed Dash-8

 

Just gotta correct you there.

 

Boeing had no input on the initial design of the Dash. It was a DeHavilland Canada product to the core. Boeing did eventually pick up DeHavilland Canada as (it's argued) leverage for the then nationalized Air Canada narrow-body contract. This was well after the design and introduction of the Dash-8. They did introduce some new cabin equipment and other misc. furnishings though. When Airbus got the orders, Boeing promptly dumped it's DHC division on Bombardier's lap.

Just gotta correct you there.

 

 

 

I guess I should say, Boeing inspired cockpit layout to be more correct.

 

Boeings have a towards-the-window-on switch philosophy and for the Airbus has for the very few switches it does have up is on.