Ask The Pilot

[Boris spatsky]

I have no Airbus time, only Lockheed, MD and Boeing.

In those terms i would have the Lockheed ECAM (simple and intuitive and modern), FADEC and engine control (best of the lot), HUD (just awesome!); MD FMS and VNAV (simple and logical) and pressurisation system; and Boeing airframe (built like a truck) and PFD/ND displays. No aircraft is perfect!

 

[jb747]

I have Boeing and Airbus time. They both have good and bad features. The biggest difference seems to have been the mind set of the designers. The Boeings are designed to work with the pilot, whilst the Airbus has been designed by engineers, for engineers.

I don't mind the side stick, but I dislike the way the control laws are managed. The fact that the sidesticks don't give feedback of the other pilot's inputs is a major failing. It's directly implicated in the AF447 loss.

The non moving thrust levers are also stupid, and really only exist to save the weight of a thrust lever servo (i.e. the mechanism you need to drive the levers to commanded positions). On the other hand, the use of thrust lever position to initiate TO/GA is better than the Boeing buttons.

The Airbus management of most of the systems is pretty good, and at least as good as the Boeing. The Airbus wing allows lower speeds than the equivalent Boeing, so much nicer behaviour with any flap issues.

Boeing lets you dump ALL of the fuel. Airbus doesn't.

In general, the Airbus coughpit is inferior, with identical switches used for dissimilar (but dangerous) functions. Boeing has paid more attention to ergonomics, whilst Airbus seems to have wanted to make it look tidy. The Boeing displays are also better.

Autopilot modes, I'll give to Airbus. They seem a bit better thought out. In particular their method of flying non precision or GPS approaches is far better.

Doors. Boeing doors are proper plugs, whilst AB are not.

Neither has paid attention to oxygen bottle placement (a topic dear to my heart).

Manuals....Boeing are quite readable. Airbus are gibberish.

 

[JohnM]

The non moving thrust levers are also stupid, and really only exist to save the weight of a thrust lever servo (i.e. the mechanism you need to drive the levers to commanded positions). On the other hand, the use of thrust lever position to initiate TO/GA is better than the Boeing buttons.

How do you apply thrust if the levers don't move? Or, I guess another way of asking such a dumb question, is why have levers for thrust application if they don't move? It kind of sounds like having a car where you can't depress the accelerator pedal (now, that would be horrible!).

 

[A100]

No idea...and I doubt that the information would be readily available. Resolution advisories are very rare (which is good). I've seen two, and both were associated with opposite direction runway operations. Earlier software was more prone to unnecessary (though not spurious) warnings.

Is it standard procedure, at least in say a cruise situation, to follow the TCAS RA and ignore any other instructions say from ATC? Is there any pilot discretion? I think there was an accident in Germany where one of the aircraft didn't follow TCAS

 

[jb747]

How do you apply thrust if the levers don't move? Or, I guess another way of asking such a dumb question, is why have levers for thrust application if they don't move? It kind of sounds like having a car where you can't depress the accelerator pedal (now, that would be horrible!).

Badly phrased by me. The levers do move, but most of the time (99%) they're in the CLB gate, so they sit fixed at about 90% of their potential travel. The levers don't move in concert with auto thrust changes. The auto thrust might be commanding idle, but the levers are still most of the way forward. The Boeing levers move up and down automatically, as they follow any autothrust demands.

 

[jb747]

Is it standard procedure, at least in say a cruise situation, to follow the TCAS RA and ignore any other instructions say from ATC? Is there any pilot discretion? I think there was an accident in Germany where one of the aircraft didn't follow TCAS

There is no discretion to ignore TCAS. It overrides ATC.

 

[AviatorInsight]

Afternoon JB, Boris and AviatorInsight!
Let me preface by saying I know that JB has both Airbus and Boeing experience however Im not sure about both Boris and AviatorInsight.
My question to all three of you is, if you could design an aircraft out of a combination of Airbus and Boeing technology, which of each manufacturers components would you choose for their specific jobs and why?
Im thinking along the lines of the coughpit and the interfaces within (fmc), PFD, ND, EICAS/ECAM etc etc. Also any specific structural designs you feel may be of interest (door types, wing shapes) etc. Bit of a broad question I know, but I'd be very interested in reading the various responses.
All the best,
Joe.

I have only Boeing time, which in the true sense of the word, only get to fly it in the simulator and make climbs and weather deviations in the actual aircraft. So, I'm very junior in relation to JB and Boris (Second Officer). My previous aircraft was the Saab340 and I must say, had it have had an APU, would have made for a great aircraft! It was way ahead of its time.

Having said that, the B777 is the most reliable aircraft I've flown. Barely any defects and great on fuel. With 2 engine aircraft becoming more efficient, I'd have to say that I'd go with a twin. Although this would then depend on the route structure said aircraft was going to fly.

The philosophy of Boeing, is one I really like and I find is centred around the pilot. As JB mentioned with the thrust levers remaining in the CLB detent and the side stick not moving while the other pilot is manipulating the controls, means you need to become very good at picking up everything with your eyes. The advantage of still having the old fashioned control column means I can have my hand on it and can talk to the flight attendant or soemthing like that, and I know exactly what the aircraft is doing.

I could go into more about the FMC and what not, and I'm sorry I couldn't really give you a more direct answer, but I find that I will be somewhat biased to towards the B777, considering my previous aircraft had a very basic GPS and no VNAV!

I'll be going to the B737 next year and also going back in time with that aircraft. I have been spoilt having the B777 as my first introduction to jet flying!

 

[joey1695]

Thanks Boris, JB and AviatorInsight for your answers.
I have a follow up question for each of you regarding your answers.
Boris, you said that the MD VNAV is simple and logical. Could you explain a little further? Ie is it the modes, or the way it manages vertical navigation etc?
JB, you mentioned that the Airbus autopilot modes are a bit better thought out. Interested in your opinion as to why you think that?
And AviatorInsight, I love the 777, but my question is about the Saab 340 and the general reasons as to why you believe it is a great aircraft apart from the lack of APU.
Once again thanks for all your time and effort put into this thread!
Joe.

 

[AviatorInsight]

And AviatorInsight, I love the 777, but my question is about the Saab 340 and the general reasons as to why you believe it is a great aircraft apart from the lack of APU.
Once again thanks for all your time and effort put into this thread!
Joe.

Being a turboprop, the aircraft is very responsive and nimble. It is extremely stable, and funnily enough, loves the cold weather. ATC know this and use it to their advantage, a lot of the time cutting us in in front of jets because they know once we pull the power levers back and those big blades 'disc' it's like someone has put a plate in front of the engines and our sink rate increases a lot without any airspeed increase. This is allows the Saab to get configured easily in very little track miles.

 

[jb747]

JB, you mentioned that the Airbus autopilot modes are a bit better thought out. Interested in your opinion as to why you think that?

Most of the modes are similar. Boeing and Airbus both have vertical speed and heading/track. Managed modes in the AB are approximately the same as LNAV/VNAV. In large part, they're clones of each other.

First big difference that you hit is that the AB will not allow managed vertical mode unless it's in a managed track mode, i.e. if you select heading the vertical mode will also change. When I first moved to the aircraft, I didn't like this, but I've ultimately decided that it makes more sense. The managed path will become increasingly inaccurate the longer you're in heading.

The 777 (and others) can catch people out in what's called the FLCH trap. Basically a mode in which the auto throttle won't wake up when needed. Whilst you shouldn't be reliant upon such automatics, people, especially tired ones, are. This has some level of involvement in the Asiana SFO accident.

The biggest win to AB though, is the way they handle non precision or GPS approaches. Basically, they generate a synthetic ILS (in a mode called FLS). The upshot is that any approach can be made to look like an ILS, with the same procedures and management.

And whilst I love the fact that Boeing thrust levers are driven by the autothrottle, it's interesting to note that it's Boeing that has had a number of accidents in recent times in which thrust lever control has been a direct cause of the accident (Asiana, Turkish, Emirates). I'm tempted to suggest, that like cars, some design features should literally be mandated across all types...in which case I'd have the Boeing throttles with the Airbus TO/GA activation.

On the other hand, Boeing displays what the aircraft is doing in a much clearer manner.

I was thinking about this question in the aircraft last night. Generally I like the way Airbus do their systems, but I like Boeing coughpits. So, I'd get AB to do everything outside of the coughpit, but then get Boeing to actually build it (like a brick ****house). Airbus side sticks, but with proper feedback. Boeing throttles, but with AB TO/GA. Boeing displays and switches. US Navy to write NATOPS style manuals.

 

[Boris spatsky]

I'll be going to the B737 next year and also going back in time with that aircraft. I have been spoilt having the B777 as my first introduction to jet flying!

Ahh you'll love it - i am now on the 737 after a recent swap - built like a truck, 1980s technology, complex VNAV and the autopilot disconnects during a go around in most cases depending on the mode - she's a handful!

 

[Boris spatsky]

Thanks Boris, JB and AviatorInsight for your answers.
I have a follow up question for each of you regarding your answers.
Boris, you said that the MD VNAV is simple and logical. Could you explain a little further? Ie is it the modes, or the way it manages vertical navigation?
Joe.

I am only new to the 737 but it has a very complex VNAV system compared to MD products.

Vertical modes in MD are vertical speed (you tell it the rate of descent), level change (it flies a speed that you set using pitch at idle thrust and gives you whatever rate of descent results), or PROF (essentially VNAV path descent where it sticks to the angle of descent that you tell it to the extent of overspeeding if it needs to to keep the path).

The 737 has vertical speed and level change too, but the VNAV path and VNAV speed. VNAV path does what PROF does in the MD aircraft but once you get too high on profile it gives up, says it can't do it, and converts to VNAV speed (which is sort of like level change). It's an insidious swap as the only annunciation is on the PFD where it switches from VNAV PATH to VNAV SPD. When you are busy it is easy to miss, and when you miss it you end up high and fast and that is a problem.

I think the MD PROF function is far more logical and intuitive than the Boeing logic, but ask me again in a year and i am sure i will give you a different answer.

 

[jb747]

Dunno, but it sounds to me as if the MD system is simplistic. I'd actually forgotten about Vnav speed and path..perhaps I didn't find them all that insidious. I guess you haven't found the vertical path display yet (whatever it's called).

 

[Boris spatsky]

Yes, simplistic but logical - i liked it. If path isn't working, then you fix it yourself by changing modes.

I am sure that the benefits of VNAV SPD will become apparent in the not too distant future!

 

[flyingfan]

What do the pilots think of the new LHR-PER route in terms of diverting in case of some kind of emergency - is Learmonth really the only alternate? How narrow a safety margin for fuel is this route likely to face (would winds ever be an issue?) and would it be on par with a trans-Pacific crossing?

 

[AviatorInsight]

What do the pilots think of the new LHR-PER route in terms of diverting in case of some kind of emergency - is Learmonth really the only alternate? How narrow a safety margin for fuel is this route likely to face (would winds ever be an issue?) and would it be on par with a trans-Pacific crossing?

It really wouldn't be that indifferent to an Abu Dhabi/Dubai. Learmonth is certainly an alternate, then Jakarta, Colombo, Male (if it warranted a southerly route), Mumbai, then a Middle East port and on to LHR from there. Of course I'm only talking about EDTO alternates for planning purposes. Diego Garcia just got changed to an emergency airport only for our operation, (in which case all bets are off). I've only ever used it twice in 4yrs as an EDTO alternate so won't really affect operations anyway.

As far as fuel margins go, I haven't seen any stats on fuel flow and capacity so I can't really comment, but I dare say winds and also weather in LHR would certainly have an effect, especially flying westbound.

 

[D747]

It really wouldn't be that indifferent to an Abu Dhabi/Dubai. Learmonth is certainly an alternate, then Jakarta, Colombo, Male (if it warranted a southerly route), Mumbai, then a Middle East port and on to LHR from there. Of course I'm only talking about EDTO alternates for planning purposes. Diego Garcia just got changed to an emergency airport only for our operation, (in which case all bets are off). I've only ever used it twice in 4yrs as an EDTO alternate so won't really affect operations anyway.

As far as fuel margins go, I haven't seen any stats on fuel flow and capacity so I can't really comment, but I dare say winds and also weather in LHR would certainly have an effect, especially flying westbound.

What would be the number of flight crew required on this mission?

 

[AviatorInsight]

What would be the number of flight crew required on this mission?

Still 4 crew, from my understanding it would really only be just longer than a DFW - SYD around 17hrs or so? We can be an augmented crew rostered 18hrs duty extended up to 20hrs once the duty starts.

 

[mjt57]

Still 4 crew, from my understanding it would really only be just longer than a DFW - SYD around 17hrs or so? We can be an augmented crew rostered 18hrs duty extended up to 20hrs once the duty starts.

Crikey, you guys would be absolutely knackered at the end, being more or less awake for the length of time. And I thought that my 12hr nightshifts were rough...

Still, we look forward to doing the PER-LHR run in 2018 if it's all up and running by then.

Can I ask this here? Will QF be offering premium economy seating on the B787s?

 

[D747]

Can I ask this here? Will QF be offering premium economy seating on the B787s?

I'm not a pilot, so please forgive, but I can answer in the positive. Premium Economy will be available on the QANTAS B787-9s.