Hi Jason!As far as I know, you can still move the throttle between the "Idle" and "Flex" gate, which makes flying manual approaches possible. Of course, this is not total freedom but makes sense from an engineer's point of view (longer engine life, more precise thrust... even with the dumbest pilot who doesn't know how to smoothly operate a throttle)Don't even think about the possibility of major system failure. Should all the fancy fly-by-wire, ELAC, FADEC and FMGS systems collapse, you're pretty much helpless in a modern jetliner (I think Boeing is no exception here). That's why engineers create such a high level of redundancy nowadays.My PPL flight instructor told me an interesting story about a Lufthansa Airbus some years ago: Due to a strange software problem combined with maintenance error, aileron control was inverted. After takeoff the pilot wanted to initiate a right turn... and guess what happened. Of course they returned immediately and landed. Don't ask why they hadn't noticed the problem during the pre-takeoff flight control check, I don't know. But this is just an excellent example what COULD happen when you simply rely on fly-by-wire.Hmm... Some interesting information in this thread so far. Keep the good posts coming before the inevitable Airbus vs. Boeing war starts ;-)Cheers,Holger

HolgerThat problem isn't restricted to fly-by-wire. Many an aircraft has left the factory or maintenance with cables wrongly connected, so that everything's reversed. But yes, you don't expect a modern airliner crew to miss something as basic.Ian

>Don't even think about the possibility of major system>failure. Should all the fancy fly-by-wire, ELAC, FADEC and>FMGS systems collapse, you're pretty much helpless in a modern>jetliner (I think Boeing is no exception here). That's why>engineers create such a high level of redundancy nowadays.Modern Airbus planes have a system where they can control the rudder and tailplane in the event of a total FBW failure :)

Fascinating post. Glad to see we can have a good discussion here without the Boeing vs. Airbus bashing that often devolves from such questions.Oh, and I think the A340, the shorter versions, are the most elegant airliners flying. I love the tapered wings and winglets - almost bird-like in their lines and elegance. Boeings look much more businesslike to me. The 777 is a brute, with those monster engines and agressive nose-down angle.

I'm not too sure about the statement that airlines buy airplanes which the pilots like to fly. I guess this is something like a 75th element in the big list of pro's and con's. The most important things they look at are the price, the economy, the capacity and the range, I think. If they find an airplane which fits all their needs in the criterias I just mentioned, they will not ask the pilot's decision. The pilot who wants to fly a Boeing instead of an Airbus gets fired and the place will be simply filled with the one who prefers Airbus. Well, this was a rather nonsense example as the pilots usually get used to every aircraft they have to fly, but hey, everything is possible! :)

I think some people are making some very fundamental mistakes when it comes to understanding the Airbus philosophy when it comes to commercial aircraft.To say Airbus wish to remove the pilot could not be further from the truth.The flight regime protection is there so that a crew who get distracted handling an engine fire will not stall and kill both themselves and there 130-580 passengers.The same cannot be said for Boeing which offers none of those protections.Flight laws are there not there to remove the ability of the crew to fly the aircraft but to stop a catastrophic chain of errors leading to a disaster.As a commercial aircraft Airbus very early on realised that the one thing that makes airlines money is efficiency.Not pilots enjoying themselves havinga great time flying an aeroplane.From that point of view the aircraft are designed to be flown by the automatics.Why?Because there is no pilot in the world who can fly an aircraft to the same level of efficiency as a good autoflight system.The Airbus system has added layers of safety and efficiency which the airlines of the world are lapping up as we can see with the growth in Airbus's market share.The added bonus of this philosophy of the is the Airbus system actually lets the crew focus on the real job of managing the aircraft of which flying is only one aspect.Overall the Airbus system makes the aircraft safer,more efficient and allows the crew to deal with any problems without the added burden of having an aeroplane which is difficult to fly.Is it any wonder that they are selling so well?Darren

I agree. The 200 and 300 versions of the A340 is the best looking airliner out there. I can just picture it in the classic Pan American livery (just like the old 707-320s). RH

I'm sure I should know Bruce, but who's cockpit is that?I wonder why it makes Airbus blue/grey appear brown at night and for that matter, why you think it more realistic? Just curious :-)http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...BANNER_PAUL.jpg

Whilst agreeing with most of this, I can't help wondering how this level of 'built in safety' allowed a certain airline to simply dump all it's fuel and become an A330 glider?Maybe it's a case of no manufacturer being able to foresee all problems?http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...BANNER_PAUL.jpg

Bruce wrote:> the colours look a bit strange in that pictureJudging from the distinctly yellowish tint on the pilots' presumably white shirts, the problem is that the incandescent cockpit lighting is not properly registering in the camera's white-balance detector.Here's a crop of the original image:http://www.pbase.com/pricklypear/image/42328622/original.jpgAnd here's the same crop after white-balance correction in Photoshop:http://www.pbase.com/pricklypear/image/42328665/original.jpg

Indeed, and apparently Airbus has since this incident issued a service bulletin re effecting changes to the A330 warning systems, which update is supposed to supply the flight crew with earlier and more precise warnings re fuel load anomalies.The warnings were there, but the crew were at pains to interpret/localize what 'fuel imbalance' and a faster than normal fuel depletion meant...exactly...until an engine starved, then the other.that was one helluva piece of flying though, gliding that almost dead RAT-powered 330 to a hispeed landing - pranged the mains but everybody walked away.regards,MarkXPHomeSP2/FS9.1/3.2HT/1GIG/X700pro256

And, how about that airshow incident with the A320 (I believe) in France a few years back with the aircraft locked onto the ILS during a flyby and landed in the woods killing all those folks? The pilot could not unlock it apparently.RH

Another accident I heard about is that the airbus plane would not allow the pilot to retard the engines and engage reversers because the touchdown was very light...so light that the computer considered the airplane still airborne. It overran the runway.No system is perfect. When incidences like these happen, the pilot should have the ability to save the day with nothing much more than a pure reflex to push on the right hand and pull on the left. If the pilots can't override the system with simple movements, we are asking for problems.Jason Zhang

I suppose Airbus would refer you to incidents where pilots of traditional aircraft have refused to believe their instruments or systems, or deliberately exceeded the design limitations of their aircraft, and thereby flown themselves - and others - into disaster. Is that a fair point? It sounds plausible to me. And surely pilot error is the chief cause of accidents. So isn't keeping the pilot out of things the way it's going to go? One-pilot planes? No-pilot planes? No, I wouldn't get on one either.Ian

this particular spin is a new twist - the cause was too-late application of toga power at too low altitude and speed - few if any turbofan powered airliners could have recovered.regards,MarkXPHomeSP2/FS9.1/3.2HT/1GIG/X700pro256