Out of the following, what order would you put the following tubeliners that is the most automated?

Boeing 737, 747, 777, 787

Airbus A320, A330, A350, A380

MD11 

Flip a coin.  You could put them in any order depending on which lens you use.

aaron

to what end do you ask .... real or simming, short or long haul, the options list goes on !

 

Surely it's the Airbuses.

Check that one out, it is not automated :-)

 

Take the timeline and when the aircrafts was constructed, the newest is often more automated.

In civil-aircrafts, Airbus was the first to make flying model full automated because studies was deducted of concorde team experience. With rapid success of A320, Boeing understand that automation of cockpits, electrics commands and automation of flight model are the future as in their military-aircrafts.

Some aircrafts (as new bombers) are unable to fly without computer-assist.

Actualy after 767, Boeing is on same level of automatisation that airbus... Except that in airbus, a pilot can't decide over the limites of flight-laws to avoid destruction of the aircraft. On the web is a lot of reports about that question and I don't want here in sim a discution pro and con... (because each one... stay on their position)

I would say out of the airliners you name, it would be the A350. Beyond all the FBW stuff of which most people are aware, it has a more advanced IMA system than the A380, with approximately twice as much automated management of systems than is found in the A380s IMA. Not all of that is to do with flying the thing, for example it also adjusts the climate control for the cabin, monitors and operates the fire detection systems and also provides improved maintenance scheduling. But that does make more systems automatic on the A350 than is the case on the A380.

The closest equivalent Boeing is of course the 787, but without wishing to oversimplify things too much, there is a fundamental difference in how EADs and Boeing go about things: Airbuses have the ethos of taking the decisions out of the pilot's hands and then providing the crew with information on what is occurring so they can monitor that functionality and choose suitable alterations to those automated processes, whereas typically for Boeing, they do it the other way around, i.e. providing the pilots with information so that the crew can choose the best course of action to proceed with usually in a more hands-on way in terms of control. There are arguments for both choices and downsides to both too, but it does mean that an Airbus is typically more automated than a contemporary Boeing and pretty much always has been ever since the A320 first showed up.

This is why pilots of airliners these days tend to refer to crew members being a 'good operator' as opposed to a 'good pilot', which was the phrase typically used thirty years ago. As we know however, the piloting bit is enjoying a bit of a renaissance these days following a few incidents and accidents where basic stick and rudder piloting skills with a few airliner crews have been found to be lacking, and also occasions where good skills in that area have saved the day, most famously embodied by the A320 which landed on the Hudson as a result of the PIC having a large amount of experience flying gliders amongst other things.

It is interesting to note here that airliner crew logbook hours have been one of the things contributing to problems, i.e. a pilot might 'fly' an A340 across the Pacific and log ten hours as PIC in their logbook, but the actual amount of time they were genuinely flying the thing - as in not using an autopilot - might be no more than a few minutes of that entire flight. Yes they were in command of the aeroplane, but their flying skills might never have been needed at all on that flight in any significant manner, and this is one of the issues with automation, which fortunately, airlines are now recognising and attempting to do something about.

 

Interesting question. If you mean for flightsim then it would have a different answer than if for real life.

6 hours ago, Chock said:

It is interesting to note here that airliner crew logbook hours have been one of the things contributing to problems, i.e. a pilot might 'fly' an A340 across the Pacific and log ten hours as PIC in their logbook, but the actual amount of time they were genuinely flying the thing - as in not using an autopilot - might be no more than a few minutes of that entire flight. Yes they were in command of the aeroplane, but their flying skills might never have been needed at all on that flight in any significant manner, and this is one of the issues with automation, which fortunately, airlines are now recognising and attempting to do something about.

This is one of the ironic things about the age old airline seniority system. You have the old T7 captain making close to $280 an hour, in some cases more, on a intercontinental spending hours of the trip laying on the bunk while some ten year MD80 captain draws ten less an hour while working his butt of flying maybe six legs in a day in and out of busy terminal areas.  I guess it is what it is. I don't know what a better solution would be but seems there could be a more equitable system.

1 hour ago, PATCO LCH said:

This is one of the ironic things about the age old airline seniority system. You have the old T7 captain making close to $280 an hour, in some cases more, on a intercontinental spending hours of the trip laying on the bunk while some ten year MD80 captain draws ten less an hour while working his butt of flying maybe six legs in a day in and out of busy terminal areas.  I guess it is what it is. I don't know what a better solution would be but seems there could be a more equitable system.

Whilst partially true - it also bears remembering that the widebody Captain is a leader/manager of a team of perhaps as many as 20 on-board staff, responsible for maybe three times the number of passengers as on the MD-80, plus the commercial decisions on a long-haul flight which by their nature are going to involve much bigger numbers and, over longer distances and more remote/inhospitable terrain, may have far-reaching consequences. In a larger aircraft there are often fewer options available enroute, and he (or she) is still the Captain and still responsible for all of those things even when in the bunk!

That is not to diminish the role of the short-haul pilot - it is simply a different type of flying with different hazards and demands. But ultimately, as with any job - the more staff/more high-value assets/more high-value commercial decisions you are responsible for, the greater the reward tends to be.

1 hour ago, PATCO LCH said:

This is one of the ironic things about the age old airline seniority system. You have the old T7 captain making close to $280 an hour, in some cases more, on a intercontinental spending hours of the trip laying on the bunk while some ten year MD80 captain draws ten less an hour while working his butt of flying maybe six legs in a day in and out of busy terminal areas.  I guess it is what it is. I don't know what a better solution would be but seems there could be a more equitable system.

Happens in the private pilot world too.  I've been stuck for many minutes with the engine running in the freezing cold waiting for the engine to warm up before I could start taxiing.  Other times I've been stuck for ages waiting to take-off.  It all goes as hours in the logbook.

 

Not on the same scale as a 10 hour flight, but relevant and adds up. :)