Do Pilots Prefer AIRBUS over BOEING?!

----------------------------------------------------
The Airbus vs Boeing debate has now been raging for decades. Not just between the manufacturers but also the pilots who fly them.

Boeing pilots claim that they fly ‘real’ aircraft, while Airbus pilots point towards their comfy seats and tray tables with a smug smile on their face!

BUT which company makes the safest planes and is there really a difference? Let’s find out!
-----------------------------------------------------

If you want to support the work I do on the channel, join my Patreon crew and get awesome perks and help me move the channel forward!

737 Course:

Our Connections:

Social:

Download the FREE Mentour Aviation app for all the latest aviation content

Below you will find the links to videos and sources used in this episode.

SOURCES
-----------------------------------------------------

#A350 XWB - New Touch Screens Cockpit Displays
“Family flight” – Five Airbus A350 XWBs together in flight
A320 Celebrating 30 years of success
A350 XWB first flight - best of 14 June 2013
Airbus widebody family flight with the A350 XWB, A380 and A330
Farnborough Airshow 2024 - Highlights
Learning is fun: Introduction to MinutePhysics’ Airbus visit
Paris Air Show 2013: Avionics and A350 cockpit workshop
Paris Airshow 2023 - JetBlue A321LR Cabin
Peter Chandler visits the A350 XWB cockpit
777-9 Practice Flight
Boeing 747-8 performs ultimate rejected takeoff
Boeing 777, from A to B
Boeing 777x: Long Folding Wings Based On Flying Birds For Greater Fuel Economy
Boeing 787-10 Dreamliner and 737 MAX 9 Fly Together in Dramatic Display
Final 747 departs Boeing
Flying on 787's first flight to Japan
See the Boeing 777-9 from a Bird's Eye View
The Beauty of Boeing’s 787-9 Dreamliner on Display
What Happened To The Boeing 747?
GE Aviation On Wing Support – Keeping You Flying
A special flight from L.A. to Amsterdam | Cockpit Tales | KLM
[REAL ATC] Brickyard SUFFERS TRIM RUNAWAY | CONTROL ISSUES at Atlanta
Air France flight 447 crash details
From the archives: 2009 "Miracle on the Hudson" plane landing
United – Career Spotlight Series: Aircraft Maintenance Technicians
NOVA: Crash of Flight 447 - PBS

#Mentourpilot #pilot #aircraft #boeing #airbus

[peteorengo]

So, I test flew airplanes at Boeing and Northrop and then later became an air line pilot and logged over 15000 hours in the A320 family and now have been flying the 787 for the last 3 years.
The analysis presented in this video is excellent and there is not much to add.
At this point it mostly comes down to personal preference although in at least one area, I think one system is clearly superior.
So, here are my preferences:
-Yoke vs stick: stick
-Moving vs non moving controls: moving
-ECAM vs EICAS: ECAM
- Handling qualities:
Boeing
- Ergonomics/cockpit layout: Airbus
-And last, hard vs soft protections: hard. And I have to elaborate a little on this subject. When I worked at Northrop in the early 1990s the Air Force paid for a study to determine if soft or overridable protections offered an advantage over hard protections as most everyone thought that soft protections would allow the pilots to squeeze some more performance out of the airplane in an emergency. The study was very thorough and well documented and it indicated that in every case, hard protections were better. And, having dealt a lot with that subject, I am a firm believer.
To me, both Airbus and Boeing’s systems are very good but not perfect. I really love flying the 787 as it is a fantastic airplane with great performance and economics. Given the choice, I would prefer to fly the A350. Alas, my airline does not operate the type so I will finish my career on the 787 or 777.
Thanks Peter for another great video!

[jakeschroeder]

New MentourPilot video idea: Petter flies an A320 sim and takes us along!

[verdunluck]

I have had the pleasure of flying the Boeing 737 and the Airbus A320 family, so maybe I may be allowed a comment.

Over 3000 hours on the B737 (200 and 3/4/500). The 200 was described to me on the type course as a "Cessna 172 with jet engines" and it was maybe a bit like the Tiger Moth in that it was easy to fly and difficult to fly well. There were all sorts of glitches, being speed unstable at lower speeds being one of them. The 737 400 had less of those sort of problems, but the automation was very much new wine in old bottles.

I then went onto the A319 and hated all the differences (even the switches were upside down!), but learned to get along with it and discovered that slightly different techniques were needed. For example sudden control inputs in the last 50 feet would be at the time the control laws were changing (blending was the Airbus word) into the ground range. You learned to make gentle control inputs preferably a bit higher than you might on a 737.

I then went back on the 737 for a while and was surprised how much I missed the finer points of the Airbus.

My final flying years were spent on the Airbus (a total of 6000 hours) and by the end had learned to love it. so between the two I would always want to fly the A320 in preference to the B737, but I do acknowledge that I have never flown the more recent Boeings.

However, given a totally free choice, can I have the Twin Otter, an aeroplane I still love most.

[skogis]

Regardless of which aircraft is “better” can we just agree that modern airliners are engineering marvels?
And as a Boeing pilot myself, I’m jealous of the tray table and noise levels in the airbus 😅

[thatsquidwardfeel]

Boeing pilots: We fly real planes.
Airbus pilots: We fly planes that land with the same number of parts they took off with.

[Uldihaa]

Boeing: pilot has ultimate authority.

Also Boeing: MCAS

[tomstravels]

If there's one things I've spotted it's that it's far more common for Airbus to trickle down their new technologies from the newer aircraft to their older ones and offer as retrofit. For example the Back Up Speed Scale first introduced in the A380 was added to the A320/A330/A340 a few years later and can be retrofitted to older aircraft, when the A350 used the new DBUS and enhanced speed monitoring system, the A320/A330 soon got a modified version of that. To this day only the 787 has an equivalent version.

[francoisjackson]

15, 000 or so hours on the 757/767 and around 6000 on the 330/320. I don't miss that Yoke (control column)stuck between my legs. I'm a side stick convert

[jumboneil]

It’s all relative…..I have 14000 hours on the 747-400. It’s a great machine, with its very old-fashioned control architecture and rudimentary automatics and flight management system. By the same token, it had a very uncomfortable air quality that would completely fatigue you at the end of long flights and the pilot seats were just awful. As a current A350 Captain, I’m completely satisfied with this airplane’s ergonomics, handling and safety enhancements. The 787 has had so many issues though certification delays and in it’s initial years of service, that I didn’t rate the engineering and build-quality on it as having been well-executed, thus I couldn’t bring myself to bid onto it. The A350 has been smooth sailing, both through its certification and in service so far, with Airbus carefully utilizing their existing technologies in the design. Well done Airbus!

[jsmith]

Lots of time in both Airbus and Boeing (A320, B737, B787, B747). For an office, a place to spend several hours each day, the Airbus wins, no contest. A very comfortable work environment. I flew the Airbus before I flew Boeings, so I found the Airbus philosophy easy to understand and work with. So I have nothing bad to say about Airbus. But if I were to go up and just hand fly for an hour, doing maneuvers, and takeoffs and landings, give me the 737 (I flew the classics, 300s and 400s). So manual flying qualities, the Boeing. For an office in which to make your living for several hours, the Airbus. But honestly, I am flying the 747 now, and even though the office is not as nice as the Airbus, I gotta say that that for airline type flying, it is so cool to fly the Whale.

[fsclips]

I fly the A320 and we have quite a few former 737 pilots in the fleet. Not one of them would ever go back.
The Bus is way more comfortable, it is quieter and supports its pilots way more. After a 12 hour shift with 4 sectors on an A320 you will be tired, but on a 737 you are done and have to hope that you don't fall asleep on the drive back home.
I guess when it comes to 777 and 787 it's different, but between the A320 and the 737 there is no contest. It's not even close.

[clairegrube]

An overlooked difference IMHO is the cockpit layout philosophy (consistent color coding on flight instruments, arrangement and design of pushbuttons and system groups, "dark cockpit" philosophy etc.) is really well thought through at Airbus. They studied the human factor very well when designing the A320 human/machine interface and it still shows and is consitant till the A350. If you look at Boing cockpits, you can see a rather confusing arrangement of buttons and indications seeminly random and unintutive compared to Airbus.

[KimberleyM-wp]

If you like the Airbus Backup Speed Scale (ie A330) you'll love what the A350 provides for the crew. To begin with:

A330 Back Up Speed Scale, great idea based on AOA however:
• Only available below 25, 000 ft.
• Crew needs to work through ECAM failure procedures eventually selecting off all three air data functions of the ADIRU's……all during high workload and stress

The A350 provides something truly ingenious. Let me explain:

Normally:
• Air data system 1 (ADIRU 1) feeds the Capts instruments while Air data system 2 (ADIRU 2 ) feeds the First officers instruments. So far, standard Airbus.

If Air data sys 1 becomes unreliable:
• ADIRU 3 automatically feeds the failed side, in this example, the Capts instruments. Two independent sources of information continue to be presented to the crew.

If Air data sys 1 and 3 become unreliable:
• The system automatically displays the FO's air data (ADIRU 2) on the Capts instruments….effectively providing single source air data. For crew awareness, shown beside the PFD speed and/or altitude scales is the source of this single air data. In our example “ADR 2 SPD” and/or “ADR 2 ALT”.

If all three Air data systems become unreliable:
• The system automatically displays Integrated Standby Instrument data. “ISIS SPD” and/or “ISIS ALT” beside the PFD speed and/or alt scales.
• The A350 Standby Instrument doesn’t just sit there and look pretty as on other aircraft…..its data feeds into the network and utilized if necessary.

If all Air data systems become unreliable, including ISIS (AF447):
• The A350 will pull Air data off the engines (FADEC)…….and the way this is done is truly ingenious….. as this source of air data will not ice up. “BKUP SPD” and/or “BKUP ALT” beside the PFD speed and alt scales. “BKUP…..” means engine data.

All of the above is automatically accomplished without crew action.
What chooses the best air data for display? A computer that is hungry for accurate and valid air data….. the Primary Flight Control Computers. The PRIM’s choose what air data the flight crew see and what air data is used to compute flight control laws.

Brillant…..IMHO

[roberts]

I can also give some input from the maintenance side being an AMT. Generally Airbus planes are more maintenance friendly and are easier to troubleshoot whereas Boeing planes require a lot more hands-on troubleshooting. On an A320 you can BITE test virtually every system on the plane through the MCDU. On the 737, most BITE functions are local to whatever component they're associated with, as in, you have to crawl into the guts of the plane, the avionics bay, and find whichever computer you need to test. On an A320 it's all done remotely, via the MCDU from the comfort of the cockpit. Physical maintenance tasks and servicing is generally easier on Airbus planes too, they generally provide more room to work, while Boeing planes are notorious for being cramped and affording very limited access to components. The A300 for example actually has a bench in the avionics bay making wiring work much more ergonomic for technicians. The 767 does not sport any such luxuries for maintainers by contrast.

[anasmaaz]

My first aircraft was the Dash 8 (the old models, not the Q400). So, I had a fair amount of conventional experience before I started on the A320. Besides not having to trim, the Airbus controls feel like any other aircraft. That is how they designed it. When you make an approach in gusty conditions, you need to make corrective inputs if you want to keep the aircraft flying the way you want it to. And the flare for landing is as conventional as it gets. As you approach the flare height, you look at the end of the runway and correct the sink with aft stick pressure, just as you do with a Cessna 172. In older A320 models, at 30ft, the computers push the nose down to make the pilot flare. But in the A320 and A321neo models, they removed it. So, the sink that you feel is very real.

From my experience, it is better not to overthink. When you fly an Airbus fly it like any other aircraft.

[jessicanicolebelmonte]

I have dreamed of being an airline pilot since age 3, but that train has long since left the station without me. As a fall-back I developed a keen interest in software development in my teens. And from that background can comment on the differences with the electronic displays and the operating manuals.

Back in the mid 1980s to late 1990s both the hardware *and* the software manuals were very detailed and very extensive. In fact, I was able to build and assemble several computers in that time-frame with just the provided manuals. I was also able to learn several programming languages and build some impressive programs for the hardware limitations I had. By the early 2000s the hardware manuals had evolved (or rather devolved) into a quick reference flyer that was often smaller than an A5 sized piece of paper, and building my own computer became nearly impossible. A similar trend had occurred with software. Even consumer software came with extensive manuals that detailed how to use all the various features of the software, encouraging exploring and learning new features that make your life easier. Nowadays you only get a Quick Installation Guide booklet, if at all. Back in the 1990s the included manuals for a software development tool could easily occupy about one meter of shelf-space. And it was usually possible to find an answer to a startled “Why the heck is this happening (or not happening)?”. Nowadays the included manuals are virtually non-existent, and even the “official” on-line manuals are often sub-par. I find myself more often having to wade through standards documents, then trying to puzzle out how the implementation of my tool differs from the official standard. I also have to search through a huge volume of forum and/or discussion board archives while trying to find an answer my questions.

So with that background in mind, I have to concede the win to the Airbus ECAM and the Airbus Flight Operations Manual.Yes, there might be a danger of information overload, but it will be a huge help when you need to figure out some bizarre fault indication.

[Klink]

Re the S7 incident description; you left out a feature that Airbus have designed into the displays during flight in degraded laws.

They don’t have to look at the ECAM to notice that the aircraft is in Alternate or Direct law. The PFD has indications to help the pilots. As alternate law is no big deal, the indications are subtle (but obvious to a well trained Airbus pilot).

If the aircraft is in direct law, both PFDs (the screen that the Russian pilots would have been glued to during their pitch oscillations) had a hugely obvious message displayed in the blue part of the attitude display that reads “USE MAN PITCH TRIM”.

Maybe it was a language barrier, poor training, or something else - but one of the two pilots should’ve seen this and followed its guidance.

[ovimir]

Should have had a guest (Airbus) pilot for this episode. As much as you try, some of your subconscious bias did still appear to come through!

[avrgrip]

I flew the A330 for 2 years. The one thing I never liked about the Airbus was that there wasn’t any tactile feedback from the autothrottles. Boeing’s move and you can at least tell what the throttles are commanding and easily override them if they aren’t where you think they should be (without disconnecting the auto throttles).

[geoffreycoury]

Have flown 727, 737, 747, 767, 787 and A380's.
The modern Boeing fly by wire architecture (in my opinion) was alot more intuitive, pilot friendly and easy to understand than the Airbus system.
My personal preference having flown both is the Boeing FBW system, but I've friends who have primarily flown Airbus and swing the other way!
Both have pro's and cons, but the biggest change I would like to see would be to have the Airbus sidesticks linked so you know what the other pilot is doing. Having moving autothrottle levers would also add to situational awareness.
Air France 447 was a classic example of 2 experienced pilots losing control of a perfectly serviceable aircraft.
Loss of situational awareness and not being aware of the flying pilot's inputs were significant factors.
Each to their own, but I've seen alot of very experienced A330 Captains bid for the 787 and been very happy with the change.
Having said that I'd love to see how the A350 has improved above the A380.