It is predictable *:-*But anyone knows/heard anything about the 787 flighdeck???Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

As predictable as the A380 FD may be, I'm sure the 787 FD will have no commonality with other Boeing designs which is just as predictable.:-)Cheers,JohnBoeing 727/737 & Lockheed C-130/L-100 Mechanichttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/ng_driver.jpg

>As predictable as the A380 FD may be, I'm sure the 787 FD>will have no commonality with other Boeing designs which is>just as predictable.:-)>>Cheers,>hmm, the 737NG, 767, 777, and 747-400 are built around the same principles, with evolutionary changes to reflect changes in technology.Same with the 727, 737 classic, and 747 classic...Boeing can't help it they've been around longer than Airbus and therefore have seen more changes in cockpit philosophy over time :)If they had maintained strict commonality we'd be seeing the same cockpit in a 777 that was fitted in a 247 in the 1920s.

I think I have heard in a interview that Boeing has adopted Airbuses idea about commonality so I guess it will be quite similar :)

Although the more recent Boeings are built around a bisic common guideline there are still major differences between the types you noted. The only exception would have to be the 757/767 as they were designed with a common flight deck and the differences training required to be rated on both was quite minimal. The 737NG can't even be put into the same class as the 744, 757, 767 and 777. The main instrument panel maybe but the overhead panel is still essentially a 732 panel.Regardless of the 'Classics', Boeing had more than enough opportunity to get on the common FD band wagon. As one who works on the 'Classics" as well as the NG I can tell you that Airbus does have an advantage in FD design philosophy.Just my proffesional opinion :-)Cheers,JohnBoeing 727/737 & Lockheed C-130/L-100 Mechanichttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/ng_driver.jpg

I must admit that I do not like Airbus for no other reason than these aircraft are no longer pilot machines but characterless flying computers.Even their pilots are loosing basic aviation skills and becoming booring system monitors not pilots.Make the panels the same ? why not.I know a training pilot with a certain airline who just went through a whole group of graduates from a certain selection process training establishment.He referred to these graduates as clones to such an extent he kept forgetting the names of the individuals.They looked alike, thought alike, talked alike and were toatlly charcterless. First step to Robot pilots for these new generation Robot flying computers (yuck :-)Peter

Peter,Why pick on Airbus? Then trend is apparent. All new transport category airplanes with 70 or more seats will be fly-by-wire with flight management systems, flat panel electronic displays, internal navigation systems (and/or GPS), envelope protection, etc.This is as true of the Embraer 170 and 190 airplanes, as it will be for the Boeing 787, as it is for the Airbus airplanes. So, why pick on Airbus?Don S.

Not exactly. I don't think Embraer 170 or 190 have kind of envelope protection that Airbus has. And though 777 is fly by wire it has soft envelope protection versus Airbus' hard one. This makes flying Embraer or Boeing vastly different pilot's experience than flying an Airbus. And there is no iota of evidence that Boeing will adopt Airbus' philosophy in its upcoming 787. And .. lastly Peter was not 'picking' on Airbus - just expressing his own opinion how pilot's role is getting diminished in Airbus aircraft.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

The only instance where "hard" vs "soft" envelope protection enters in is when you come up against these limits, which is hardly a normal occurrence. So it can't be the type of envelope protection that makes flying an Embraer or Boeing a "vastly different pilot's experience."Also, although Embraer has incorporated a different kind of low speed envelope protection than either Airbus or Boeing, it is effectively a "hard" limit.Where the airplanes differ in terms of flying characteristics, it is generally due to the manufacturers choice of control laws incorporated into their fly by wire control systems. It can be argued that Airbus has made the piloting task simpler, which used to be considered an improvement.No comment regarding the 787.All I'm trying to say is that the pilot's role has changed (you may say it has diminished) for all of these modern airliners. When they're on autopilot, there ain't much difference between 'em.Don S.

in a B757 pilot's hands - interestinghttp://x-plane.org/home/ukguybry/bd320.wmvregards,Mark3.2HT/1GIG/X700pro256=> 15fps mostmaxed

Wow that was a great video. Kind of weird having the landing gear out the entire flight lol.

There is intersting difference.U can land a Chessna ? Ok, so you can land a Boeing, too, if it's necessary.Ever tried to land an Airbus (real-world simulator)?If you think the Boeing-way you'll never touch down with anything up from A318 to A380. Some would say in this cirtical phase Airbus has too much computer control. But they say this must be computer-controlled situation at no cost as landing is most critical.It's always funny to see Boeing-freaks in the sim when they want to flare and the Airbuzz starts to refuse this and jumps around in the air at 50 feet refusing to touch down. lolBoeing and Airbus are completely different aircrafts.