Comparing the 757-200 and the 737 Max10

[Emmet]

... and the A380 is - from a passenger perspective - the most comfortable plane I have been flying in..

[Bluevalley]

18 hours ago, cliffy said:

Has anyone besides me ever actually been able to compare the two going down an ILS on a perfectly dead calm morning while guided by the autopilot?

The Boeing flies like its on rails while the AB wallows like a drunken sailor

The AB stability program in the AB is a joke in this instance. On those occasions I'd uncouple and hand fly which I could do better than the AP in the AB. The wallowing and hunting drove me nuts. 

To be honest I can't recall, been to many years. What I do recall is trying to make a good landing in a stiff X wind. When crossing the threshold and taking out the crab, lowering the wing into the wind and rudder input for alignment, there was nothing left for pitch! The thing would "plant itself " and no amount of up stick input would raise the nose! After a couple of "carrier landings" I called engineering to find out what was happening. They said they had no idea, and I was the first to report it (we had just started using the Airbus). They said they would find out and get back to me. About a week later they called and said they had to call AB in France to track down an answer. I was told I was giving it too many large flight control inputs at once and the FCC couldn't handle it!! The solution was to set up a crab a few seconds early so the computer can take a "snapshot" of the approach and this would then allow pitch input! It worked. I'm sure they reprogrammed the "pilot", sorry, I mean autopilot since then. After that it was back to Boeing!

 

[GeeBee]

28 minutes ago, Bluevalley said:

To be honest I can't recall, been to many years. What I do recall is trying to make a good landing in a stiff X wind. When crossing the threshold and taking out the crab, lowering the wing into the wind and rudder input for alignment, there was nothing left for pitch! The thing would "plant itself " and no amount of up stick input would raise the nose! After a couple of "carrier landings" I called engineering to find out what was happening. They said they had no idea, and I was the first to report it (we had just started using the Airbus). They said they would find out and get back to me. About a week later they called and said they had to call AB in France to track down an answer. I was told I was giving it too many large flight control inputs at once and the FCC couldn't handle it!! The solution was to set up a crab a few seconds early so the computer can take a "snapshot" of the approach and this would then allow pitch input! It worked. I'm sure they reprogrammed the "pilot", sorry, I mean autopilot since then. After that it was back to Boeing!

 

The best way to land an Airbus in a X wind is to the greatest extent possible, land with the established crab (you can do that up to about 20 knots X wind). Lower the wing just slightly if you need it, you do not and Airbus tells you, align the longitudinal axis with the runway. You cannot slip it until below 75' anyway and by then you better be quick especially in the big bus. The airplane was designed to take the side load for this very reason.

It was not that you were "putting in too many inputs" but that you were inputting while the control laws were changing to from flight to landing control and you would get caught in the middle. Which is why the technique I just described works and is in the Airbus Volume 2.

 

[Bluevalley]

19 hours ago, GeeBee said:

When would that be?

 

How about flying the arrival into LAX on a cavu day and without any warning a Cessna 210 fills the windshield! Jerking the nose up put the flight attendants on the floor but thankfully no one was hurt. I don't know how we missed him but we did obviously. The guy had on a red baseball cap and that was the last thing we saw of him as he passed under the nose! About the same time ATC calls "traffic 2 oclock less than a mile, he's not talking to us". I would rather be lucky than good any day!

[GeeBee]

Okay..... but did you exceed the limits of the airplane?  Did you write it up as an exceed in the log book? If you did how extensive was the damage?  It is actually, quite hard to do and if you do in a modern transport, you likely will become a glider because. the engines will be the first to detach, especially if they were at power do to the precession from the fan disks. As fans get larger it makes them a larger vulnerability.

[Oscar Avalle]

On 1/20/2020 at 8:01 PM, bradp said:

I used to be pax on 752s out of SNA “rocketship departure” quite often.  What the 75s did, they did extremely well. 

I was posted in La Paz, Bolivia. The airport is at 13,325 feet. American flew into La Paz with its 757 from Miami. I don't know if there is another plane that could fulfill the same mission, carrying 200 pass. For the 757 it was not an issue. The 737s and 320s and 319 had more difficulties and limitations. 

[GeeBee]

Other airlines served LaPaz with 727s in the past. They were JATO equipped which was wired to the AutoPack Trip system. So if you lost an engine the JATO would light automatically. Mexicana had all their 727s equipped mostly to up their payload out of Mexico City.

The real challenge in LaPaz is not so much aircraft performance, that can be penciled out to work. The challenge is the crew. Crew has to be on O2 going in and going out because they are above 10K. (You also have to modify the pax ox system so it will not auto deploy) Crew has to wear walk around bottles on the ground. If they layover, they have to re-saturate, before starting their duty period.

[Immelman]

4 hours ago, GeeBee said:

The best way to land an Airbus in a X wind is to the greatest extent possible, land with the established crab (you can do that up to about 20 knots X wind).

 

I experienced no issues just kicking out the crab. Works great. Very little need for any roll input unless it was near limits. Given that its been nearly a year since I've flown Fifi I have trouble remembering exactly where I'd kick it out, but I seem to recall it was after the round-out began... quite late, so I must have been in the flare pitch law, or whatever they call it.... but I am an FO with 2500hrs on the bus, sounds impressive to GA pilots but as you know that is not all that much time in line flying, so take my comments with a grain of salt

Some folks liked to use a little sidestick input to help grease their landings.... one MLG down, delaying full ground spoilers, and all that. Cheaters

Edited January 20, 2021 by Immelman

[cliffy]

Eastern flew to La Paz with 727-200s and they only sent the 72s that had the -17R engines, (reserve thrust if an engine failed it would push up the power on the remaining 2  engines automatically).

They had "escape routes" after takeoff to get them to lower ground if they lost one.

The crew lived on a walkaround bottle while doing the turn around. 

You fly a Boeing, you can only ask permission in a Bus.

[jlunseth]

Its the Lawrencium in the 737 that makes it stronger and lighter.

[Bluevalley]

6 hours ago, GeeBee said:

Okay..... but did you exceed the limits of the airplane?  Did you write it up as an exceed in the log book? If you did how extensive was the damage?  It is actually, quite hard to do and if you do in a modern transport, you likely will become a glider because. the engines will be the first to detach, especially if they were at power do to the precession from the fan disks. As fans get larger it makes them a larger vulnerability.

It was in a 727 and was not about exceeding the limits, I was referring to the rate of pitch change. I don't know if the laws in the bus would have allowed a rapid enough pitch up to save the day. We'll never know. It's good you like you're airplane, just not my cup of tea. Enjoy it as much as you can before you're all replaced with computers!

[GeeBee]

1 hour ago, Bluevalley said:

It was in a 727 and was not about exceeding the limits, I was referring to the rate of pitch change. I don't know if the laws in the bus would have allowed a rapid enough pitch up to save the day. We'll never know. It's good you like you're airplane, just not my cup of tea. Enjoy it as much as you can before you're all replaced with computers!

When you pull back on the stick on an Airbus you are commanding a load, if you pull back suddenly the airplane will, in normal law, command a 2.5 g pull up. That is what you got in your 727 because those are the maneuvering load limits for a transport category aircraft. If you had done more, you would have bent it. Obviously that did not happen.

I'll tell you a really good story about the Bus protecting itself. One night over the North Atlantic I hit some really bad CAT. Over a period. of about 10 seconds,  the airplane at several points, extended all speed brakes up and both ailerons up to unload the wing and protect itself from excessive loading all the while maintaining straight and level. Try that in your Boeing.

 

 

[Andy95W]

5 hours ago, Immelman said:

I experienced no issues just kicking out the crab. Works great. Very little need for any roll input unless it was near limits. Given that its been nearly a year since I've flown Fifi I have trouble remembering exactly where I'd kick it out, but I seem to recall it was after the round-out began... quite late, so I must have been in the flare pitch law, or whatever they call it.... but I am an FO with 2500hrs on the bus, sounds impressive to GA pilots but as you know that is not all that much time in line flying, so take my comments with a grain of salt

Some folks liked to use a little sidestick input to help grease their landings.... one MLG down, delaying full ground spoilers, and all that. Cheaters

I do the same.  I start the flare at about 30 feet, as I’m pitching up I kick out the crab.  If I inadvertently flared a little too much and float too far down the runway, I’ll drop the upwind wing to get the boards to partially deploy.  Works great.

About 7,000 Airbus hours, about half F/O and half Captain.  I can honestly admit I land better from the right seat.  Airbus is the only airplane with a stick I know of that you fly with your left hand!

[Will.iam]

I’ve flown both A320 and B757/767 and the argument for airbus being more roomy is only from a B737 view as the 767 is so big you even have your own bathroom in the cockpit. The airbus makes great pilots average pilots and poor pilots average pilots because the great and the poor both go through the computer that outputs and moves the flight control surfaces a set amount and rate per its programming. The VNav path in Boeing I have only seen once miss calculate a descending altitude in 2500 hours where as Airbus routinely hits altitudes at up to 200 feet and misses the altitude by greater than that enough times that it is our number one ASAP report matrix every year. Boeing also starts down at the top of descent automatically where as Airbus flashes for 10 seconds and then doesn’t say another thing about it. That’s why the Northwest crew that over flew MSP had to be in an Airbus as the Boeing would have started down instead of letting them over fly the airport. I hate that I’m limited to FL 390 in an A320 when a B757/767 can do FL420/430 and that extra height can sometimes really help when turbulence is 390 and below. Speaking of turbulence with B757/767 being .86 Mach compared to A320 .82 since we routinely fly at .80 you have a lesser margin for gusts in say a mountain wave that can result in an over speed. Or how anemic the climb rate in an A320 is through the FL200-300 even when it’s a ferry flight you can’t get more than 2500vvi substained where as a B767 is doing at least 3000 and ferrying one you can get up to 5000vvi with a 757 doing better than that. Speaking of which if you go through a big enough temperature inversion FIFI will actually start descending in a climb to keep airspeed you have set. In order to avoid this you have to go to climb rate or decrease your target airspeed to keep the climb going so as to not get questioned by ATC. I have never seen a Boeing aircraft descend in a climb to honor airspeed but that’s probably because of the better climb rates Boeing is able to achieve in the first place. 
Ground school breaks new hires Fantasy when they explain that even though you have all this fancy flight computers to help you out, you will need to calculate your 3 to 1  descent ratio in your head to verify that the computers going to meet the next set of altitude restrictions. And try setting a cost index of 999 and let the airbus do the arrival into dfw you better get out your ASAP report because fifi computer will go over 350 knots and over speed the aircraft trying to stay on the star with the autopilot on! Have numerous FOQA data to prove that to where company no longer issues cost index higher than 99. So much for that envelop protection. The sim does a great job with automation the real airplane not so much.  One time leveling off at 2000ft and starting base leg 90 degree turn with the autopilot and auto thrust engaged and fifi was so slow to bring up thrust that the turn with leveling at the same time triggered low speed protection (A. floor) and fifi was screaming speed speed speed. Now I’m sure the A350 with a modern processor is better but the A320 processor sucks to put it mildly and to certify a new faster processor is way more money then my airline wants to spend so we live with the limitations. You would have thought with getting the NEO engines they would have gotten better FIFI computers but nope same slow clunker as the original but at least with those big fan blades they help to slow you down better than the old engines.  I tell new guys relax this is job security, if the computer did a better job we would not have pilots anymore. And finally on a gusty cross wind there are times that fifi can’t keep up. With Boeing once you have the plane trimmed for the 3 degree path with thrust set the airplane keeps the trim you set and constant energy. I. E. If your slow you will be high on glide slope, lower the nose and get back on the 3 degree slope and look there your speed is back where it needs to be same with if your fast you will be low, climb back up to the glide slope and your speed will be on the approach speed thus you don’t need to touch the trust levers. Airbus if you make the mistake of not disengaging the auto thrust it will fight you as the plane is trimming for 1 g that you can’t help but if you get low the auto thrust also kept you at approach speed so climbing back up it has to increase thrust but it’s being run by an 8088 processor I think so now your slow and you can’t move the thrust levers up a little bit because they are already set at climb power and don’t move with the percentage of power like Boeing so you get no feedback in your hands like you do in Boeing aircraft that have auto thrust engaged. And if you are high on the glide path when you go down to glide slope fifi is just now bringing back the thrust but you are way too fast. Disconnecting the auto thrust helps a lot but you still have the trim to deal with. Don’t get me started with the speed brakes on an A320 that only deploy 50% with autopilot on or flaps 1 that don’t deploy the flaps just the slats and bump up your flight idle to make slowing down even harder.  And last issue I’ll say when you already have the thrust levers at idle dumb fifi has to say retard in the flare at least once I think as an inside joke airbus wanted to tell pilots on every landing. 
 

[Bluevalley]

When I went through AB training at Lufthansa in Frankfurt years ago, I told the sim instructor to "turn all the flight  computers off". He argued with me and said a failure of that kind could never happen (famous last words). Once I had direct control (laws off) it felt more like an airplane. You could actually develop some kind of feel for it. I do agree I think the AB is certified to close to its limits. Mountain wave over the rockies taught me that real quick! Oh, and don't forget to have your feet off the rudder pedals when the F/O switches to APU power on taxi in! If not, you'll think you just hit a concrete barrier. But I did like the tray. Makes it easier to fill out those NASA forms. LOL

[Mooneymite]

3 hours ago, Will.iam said:

.....The airbus makes great pilots average pilots and poor pilots average pilots because the great and the poor both go through the computer that outputs and moves the flight control surfaces a set amount and rate per its programming. . ...
 

Interesting.  I never flew an Airbus, but we have a lot of 'bus pilots in the neighborhood.  Generally, they like 'em.

Thanks for the comparison.

Airbus kind of set the stage with its Toulouse intro-flight into the trees with the chief pilot flying.  AF447 confirmed the flaws.

[GeeBee]

"That’s why the Northwest crew that over flew MSP had to be in an Airbus as the Boeing would have started down instead of letting them over fly the airport. "

Sorry, I have to throw the BS flag. NEITHER airplane would have started down because unless you have clearance for lower and enter that altitude in the MCP altitude window, neither airplane will start down regardless of the VNAV programing. 

[GeeBee]

1 hour ago, Mooneymite said:

Interesting.  I never flew an Airbus, but we have a lot of 'bus pilots in the neighborhood.  Generally, they like 'em.

Thanks for the comparison.

Airbus kind of set the stage with its Toulouse intro-flight into the trees with the chief pilot flying.  AF447 confirmed the flaws.

AF447 had showed no flaws other than PP pilot performance. I unwittingly was served up the AF447 profile in the sim and flew it flawlessly. All the pilot had to do was put the airplane 2.5 degrees pitch up and set the power at 83% and the airplane will fly. Basic attitude instrument flying. Keep the shiny side straight and level, sort everything else out later. I was served up a similar situation when I was an F/O on the 757 with a total AC power loss. After grabbing the airplane when the Captain let go of it, without announcement to focus on the electrical panel, I simply pulled the power back and started descent in JAX leaving the airplane in speed trim, about 240 knots, flying the airplane from the right seat on the standby AI. When the CA decided to come out of the fog and took the airplane back from me we went everywhere from stick shaker to clacker, despite giving it back to him lined up on the localizer ready to intercept the G/S using the standby needles. All he had to do was drop the gear and flaps and keep the shiny side up and he couldn't do that just as those two AF F/O's could not attitude instrument fly. Needless to say, I was dismissed in the debrief with an "UP" and the Captain stayed behind. Bottom line in both cases? There is no substitute for attitude instrument flying proficiency.

I highly recommend reading "Understanding Air France 447" by Bill Palmer. Bill was a LCA for my line.

https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Air-France-Bill-Palmer/dp/0989785726/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Understanding+Air+France+447&qid=1611321251&sr=8-1

[Mooneymite]

3 hours ago, GeeBee said:

AF447 had showed no flaws other than PP pilot performance. I unwittingly was served up the AF447 profile in the sim and flew it flawlessly.

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the AF447 debacle and have read a lot including the article you recommend.  I agree it was a good article.

However, as you know, there were no inexperienced pilots on board AF447.  What they all had in common was their training.  It is an old mantra that "pilots fly as they are trained" particularly in stressful situations.

The Airbus training is one of the culprits in this accident, but the training flows from the Airbus philosophy of "machine over man".  Even today, Airbus pilots (at least at the airline I'm familiar with) are imbued with trusting the machine.  That pilot who held the stick back all the way into the drink did as he was trained:  trust the machine.

Yes, we could argue this accident forever.

To think that the three pilots on the cockpit were incredibly dumb pilots is avoiding a very big elephant in the room.  Airbus is supposed to excel in providing safe passage, no matter how dumb the pilots.  The Airbus "flight into the trees" made the chief pilot look pretty dumb, when obviously he wasn't; he, too probably flew many difficult profiles "flawlessly" just like you to get to where he was chosen for that fateful flight.  He flew the Airbus right into the trees....flawlessly.

[Will.iam]

4 hours ago, GeeBee said:

"That’s why the Northwest crew that over flew MSP had to be in an Airbus as the Boeing would have started down instead of letting them over fly the airport. "

Sorry, I have to throw the BS flag. NEITHER airplane would have started down because unless you have clearance for lower and enter that altitude in the MCP altitude window, neither airplane will start down regardless of the VNAV programing. 

Well gee bee throw that BS flag all you want that just shows me you have never set the MCP in a Boeing 757/767 sim or real aircraft and watch it do it’s magic. Maybe the 737 doesn’t automatically do it as it is older software but i was never comparing the 737 only what i flew 757 and 767. Set the MCP to a lower altitude and Airbus will not automatically start down at Top Of Descent (TOD) but a Boeing 757/767 will! You don’t get clearance for lower 10 to 15 mins before TOD of descent? That’s 80 to 120 miles out and our SOP  tells us to not only set the MCP but you have to announce it and the other pilot has to announce it like a couple of parrots in the cockpit. So we do fly for some time with the MCP set to a lower altitude than what we are flying at. Since the northwest pilots say they were arguing about a subject and not sleeping, they could have set the MCP and then not remembered to push the knob to start the descent when tge time came up a requirement of airbus but automatically done in a boeing 757/767.  I know because one time i took a bathroom break and when i came back the FO was distracted with talking to the FA and a quick 3 to 1 descent ratio showed we were way behind and needed to get down now. It was speedbrakes all the way to the IAF. Its a verbal vomit of words all the way to landing. Even in an autoland you have to announce no flare and go around if the flare box disappears! Boeing doesn’t have this requirement. Either boeing figured out a more reliable system it does use all three computers coupled to the autopilot for a coupled ILS autoland left center and right (LCR) and airbus only couples to 2 computers or they don’t know its an issue.  I Jumpseated the other day on a Boeing and forgot how quiet the pilots were not having to announce everything the computer did or pilots changed. 

 

I enjoy flying the Airbus and it would be the most awesome plane i have ever flown if it wasn’t for the fact i flew the 757/767 before hand. If i had my choice of planes to fly i would pick the 757/767 hands down everyday of the week and twice on Sunday. The Boeing 737 would be a different story because of the cramped cockpit i would stay with Airbus only wishing i was flying the 737 when landing with gusty crosswinds. 

[GeeBee]

I think you and I both know the airlines try to reduce the training footprint to the absolute minimum. For that reason we see even experienced pilots have basic flying skills atrophy. Even a 20,000 hour grizzled veteran takes a gulp of coffee when he has to fly that "hand flown single engine ILS" every other year in the simulator. How many times have you seen an experienced pilot placed on a  down wind, CAVU in the sim and struggles to make a visual approach without any aids? Couple a  limited training footprint, along with little opportunity to practice hand flying skills in line operations and you have what you have in AF447 regardless of experience.   You and I both know on international, it is a struggle just to stay 90 day current let alone practice the panoply of skills.

We have plenty of evidence that the outcome in AF447 would be no different in a Boeing.

Birgien Air 301, a 757 departing Puerto Plata, same thing, loss of pitot instruments (due to a wasp nest) entire airplane was lost into the sea with all souls on board

Turkish 1951 Landing in AMS throttles retarded early due to faulty RA readout, even with the altimeter showing the airplane well above touchdown and at a high and abnormal attitude.

https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/test-article-the-crash-of-turkish-airlines-flight-1951-440326b3bd9a

 

Thus I am skeptical to blame the airplane, but I do agree with the training. However the evidence shows it is not just Airbus training the lacks in basic attitude instrument flying.

As for the Paris Airshow crash, I liken it to how often the a private pilot kills himself doing a buzz job. Low fly by(s) in a complex aircraft has to be carefully briefed and executed. Like the private pilot who kills himself in the "moose turn" off a buzz job, this guy did not execute the fly by properly by allowing the airplane to descend below 75' with the auto thrust engaged WHILE at the same time looking back at the would be customers saying "see, it won't stall". If he had paid attention to the 75' hard deck, he would not have come to grief. Equally so if he was looking at the flight deck and not grinning back at the customers he would have saw the auto thrust retarding as he busted the hard deck and hit the TOGA.

[GeeBee]

18 minutes ago, Will.iam said:

Well gee bee throw that BS flag all you want that just shows me you have never set the MCP in a Boeing 757/767 sim or real aircraft and watch it do it’s magic. Maybe the 737 doesn’t automatically do it as it is older software but i was never comparing the 737 only what i flew 757 and 767. Set the MCP to a lower altitude and Airbus will not automatically start down at Top Of Descent (TOD) but a Boeing 757/767 will! You don’t get clearance for lower 10 to 15 mins before TOD of descent? That’s 80 to 120 miles out and our SOP  tells us to not only set the MCP but you have to announce it and the other pilot has to announce it like a couple of parrots in the cockpit. So we do fly for some time with the MCP set to a lower altitude than what we are flying at. Since the northwest pilots say they were arguing about a subject and not sleeping, they could have set the MCP and then not remembered to push the knob to start the descent when tge time came up a requirement of airbus but automatically done in a boeing 757/767.  I know because one time i took a bathroom break and when i came back the FO was distracted with talking to the FA and a quick 3 to 1 descent ratio showed we were way behind and needed to get down now. It was speedbrakes all the way to the IAF. Its a verbal vomit of words all the way to landing. Even in an autoland you have to announce no flare and go around if the flare box disappears! Boeing doesn’t have this requirement. Either boeing figured out a more reliable system it does use all three computers coupled to the autopilot for a coupled ILS autoland left center and right (LCR) and airbus only couples to 2 computers or they don’t know its an issue.  I Jumpseated the other day on a Boeing and forgot how quiet the pilots were not having to announce everything the computer did or pilots changed. 

 

I enjoy flying the Airbus and it would be the most awesome plane i have ever flown if it wasn’t for the fact i flew the 757/767 before hand. If i had my choice of planes to fly i would pick the 757/767 hands down everyday of the week and twice on Sunday. The Boeing 737 would be a different story because of the cramped cockpit i would stay with Airbus only wishing i was flying the 737 when landing with gusty crosswinds. 

I have been an LCA on the 757/767, 737 and the A330. I know this, YOU DON"T SET the lower altitude in the MCP until you have clearance to a lower altitude and those two guys never received and acknowledged a clearance for a lower altitude. I don't care what airplane you are flying, it will not fly away on autopilot from the MCP altitude unless you SET a lower altitude and they never had a reason set a lower altitude regardless of the airplane they were flying. Yes the 757/767 will automatically enter a VNAV descent BUT it has to see a lower MCP altitude to depart its existing altitude and that would not happen without receiving a lower altitude clearance from ATC and setting it in the MCP. That did not happen.

[Will.iam]

5 hours ago, GeeBee said:

AF447 had showed no flaws other than PP pilot performance. I unwittingly was served up the AF447 profile in the sim and flew it flawlessly. All the pilot had to do was put the airplane 2.5 degrees pitch up and set the power at 83% and the airplane will fly. Basic attitude instrument flying. Keep the shiny side straight and level, sort everything else out later. I was served up a similar situation when I was an F/O on the 757 with a total AC power loss. After grabbing the airplane when the Captain let go of it, without announcement to focus on the electrical panel, I simply pulled the power back and started descent in JAX leaving the airplane in speed trim, about 240 knots, flying the airplane from the right seat on the standby AI. When the CA decided to come out of the fog and took the airplane back from me we went everywhere from stick shaker to clacker, despite giving it back to him lined up on the localizer ready to intercept the G/S using the standby needles. All he had to do was drop the gear and flaps and keep the shiny side up and he couldn't do that just as those two AF F/O's could not attitude instrument fly. Needless to say, I was dismissed in the debrief with an "UP" and the Captain stayed behind. Bottom line in both cases? There is no substitute for attitude instrument flying proficiency.

I highly recommend reading "Understanding Air France 447" by Bill Palmer. Bill was a LCA for my line.

https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Air-France-Bill-Palmer/dp/0989785726/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Understanding+Air+France+447&qid=1611321251&sr=8-1

No flaws really? One of the biggest flaws we identified was when the FO was holding full back stick the capt has no physical feedback because the sticks are not connected like the yokes in a boeing. I promise you an FO holding the yoke full back would be immediately recognized and the capt would try to correct the issue either with the FO or physically with his yoke. And when the capt used the override button the FO just pressed his override button and took control back unbeknown to the capt because we don’t train to look at the priority arrow on the instrument panel but we do now. We now have specific sim training for this very issue and it is eye opening for the pilots that are exposed to this issue for the first time. 
airbus arrogance that the airbus can’t be stalled has since had to choke down those words since there have been at least 2 crashes i know of that the primary cause was stalling the aircraft. 
Airbus even had to admit that sometimes the computer can get incorrect data and push the nose down trying to kill you. They have an emergency procedure to shut 2 computers off to force the other computer to give control back to the pilot. Boeing had no such issue until they made the 737Max more like airbus trying to compensate for that below average pilot. Look at what that got them a computer trying to kill them. Stab cutout switch is the Boeing equivalent to airbuses shutting down 2 computers to get out of normal Law mode. 

both airplanes have their unique issues. I just prefer to have more physical feedback through the movement of the controls than a fly by wire that is isolated and give artificial feedback through the computer. 

[GeeBee]

You don't train to look at the arrow? Really? That was drilled indelibly into my brain!

Boeing did not try to make the airplane like an Airbus, they tried to use a "little bit of Airbus". If Boeing had went full fly by wire, the stability would have been. built in and no MCAS would have been needed.

As for the Airbus pitch down issue, it shows the superiority of the Airbus triple redundant system vs Boeings single or even optional dual. By using three, you can "dual poll" safely and if there is still a problem, you have an out while still keeping the protections in place. There is a reason why the 75/76 has triple autopilots but Boeing does not extend that very good philosophy system wide. 

 

[Will.iam]

49 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

I have been an LCA on the 757/767, 737 and the A330. I know this, YOU DON"T SET the lower altitude in the MCP until you have clearance to a lower altitude and those two guys never received and acknowledged a clearance for a lower altitude. I don't care what airplane you are flying, it will not fly away on autopilot from the MCP altitude unless you SET a lower altitude and they never had a reason set a lower altitude regardless of the airplane they were flying. Yes the 757/767 will automatically enter a VNAV descent BUT it has to see a lower MCP altitude to depart its existing altitude and that would not happen without receiving a lower altitude clearance from ATC and setting it in the MCP. That did not happen.

Yea they were probably sleeping. And yes i never said Boeing would descend if the MCP was still at current altitude. The mistake i see Airbus pilots forgetting to press the knob to start a descent. Boeing you Never have to press the knob to start the descent see the difference. Would not be an issue if it didn’t happen to pilots getting distracted at that time to start down. Just one more thing boeing does better in my opinion. And this happens because you don’t usually get your clearance to descent at the TOD its usually 10 to 15 mins early and a cruise descent or how about pilot discretion descent i have received over an hour away internationally so yes we do set the MCP to a lower altitude sometimes over an hour before time to start down it’s nice boeing will start down airbus will not. 
speaking of other differences where are those known pitch and power settings they teach you when learning to fly the airbus? Ah they don’t. Boeing does different philosophies for sure but makes hand flown approaches much easier with known pitch and power setting memorized.