I probably shouldn't even ask this question, but....

[Alpha Floor 237]

 

 

However the point was being made about the general automation of an Airbus, which I contend is no greater than any other current airliner apart from the 737. Only simmers (and real world pilots with no experience of Airbus) claim otherwise. Jimmy Helton was talking about having more to do in the NGX, but in reality this isn't the case in normal operation, and even in non-normal operation the Airbus requires pilots to take control of overhead panel systems, just as in the 737.

 

Yes, agreed.

[Boeing or not going 578]

As you very well know, if you set a lower altitude it descends automatically when it reaches the TOD. The Airbus requires you to initiate the descent. If you set a greater altitude in a Boeing it won't climb by itself, even if a step climb is due.

That wasn't what you claimed. The airplane does not descend when it wants, it descends when you tell it to descend. - David Lee

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

That wasn't what you claimed.

 

It was precisely what he said.

 

He was making the point that, in a Boeing, it'll automatically descend if you give it permission to. In this case, by rolling the altitude down. In an Airbus, you must roll the altitude down and make an additional press, I believe. He wasn't saying it'll just go down when it wants to without pilot input at all. He was highlighting a difference in design methodology.

[Jimmy Helton 4]

Some really interesting replies, mostly distorting the points that were being made.

 

1.  There is no question that the Airbus automates 90% of the overhead panel functions on the Boeing 737, which is a throwback from the 60s.  If everything is set to auto, all you really have to do in the bus is turn on the batteries, turn on the pumps, turn on the ADIRS, and manage the APU and lights.  You aren't dealing with most of what else MUST be handled manually in a 737 overhead panel.  So, can you turn off the automatic managing of most of these functions: yes, certainly, but, why would you?  That's the whole reason they are there.  That doesn't mean you don't "manage them" through a checklist, but you certainly aren't flipping switches to change your bus ties as you go from ground to APU to generators, manually turning on your hydraulics, turning on your window heats and yaw dampeners, or entering your pressurization altitude, etc.  These functions have been simplified and modernized in a modern FBW airliner.  If you examine the overhead panel on a 737 versus a 767 versus a 777, you can really see the generational progression of automating of the overhead workload, and really, the entire workload of the plane.  I think I counted 14-18 steps to set up the NGX for a CatIII approach, whereas in the bus or the 777 you might have 5-7 steps.  By the time you get to the 777 or bus, you won't find manual course dials or nav radios.  It's all done by the flight management system.  Point being it's not a less work vs. more work argument:  it's a less automation vs. more automation argument, and if you choose to utilize all the automated features of a modern FBW airliner, you WILL have less to manage. I believe that is the design philosophy.

 

2.  Yes, there is an extra step to descend in the Airbus.  Instead of resetting the MCP and letting the FMC take the airplane automatically down its descent profile at T/D, the Airbus makes you sit there and wait for the exact moment to press the descend button after resetting the altitude to initiate descent.  For all its automation, not even having the option to auto descend at T/D seems like an odd design choice to me.

 

3.  ATC descent clearance hasn't been a factor in my vatsim flying, although perhaps in the real world it is.  Centers rarely micromanage my altitudes, and leave that to the approach controllers.  There have been a few occasions where I've requested permission to descend, but usually you are either allowed to descend at pilots discretion if you have published a STAR in your flight plan, or often on standard routes, you are given a crossing point (i.e. on the Boston to JFK route you always cross Calverton at 250/12000).  How you get there is up to you, as long as you make the crossing and don't violate any speed or altitude restrictions.

 

4.  Given that this thread has disintegrated into an Airbus vs. Boeing forum, I think we can mark it closed.  The original questions were answered: yes, try Prepar3d, and yes, try the airbus. The NGX cockpit is a 1960's cockpit with a digital bandaide thrown on it to compete with the bus, which is an entirely new FBW digital aircraft.  If and when Boeing designs a true 737 replacement, such as the 787 is for the 767, then I think we will see the analog switches go away.  However, as long as they continue to update the 737, I believe their design philosophy of commonality will keep the switches where they are even in the MAX. Both airplanes work perfectly fine and are acceptable approaches to getting from point A to point B safely.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Given that this thread has disintegrated into an Airbus vs. Boeing forum, I think we can mark it closed.

 

 

Agreed. The thread drift here is real...