777 cockpit vs Airbus cockpit

kimberlyanne546

kimberlyanne546

Final Approach
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
7,730
Location
California
Display Name
Display name:
Kimberly
So I got to sit in both (LONG STORY).

I was told the pilots designed the 777 or had major inputs.

Airbus, not so much.

Don't know if that is true but the picture of the 777 didn't come out (I was blinking).

So I can only show you the Airbus picture.

I liked the 777 cockpit because:

- A place for your personal stuff
- A cupholder
- 2 jumpseats
- Way more head room
- A large handle above your head to help you get in and out of your seat (at first I thought it was the OH **** handle)
- A really big yoke instead of that side stick, because when the co-pilot moves the controls yours move so you know what is going on. Apparently in the airbus you don't get that movement on the captain's side.


What is your favorite cockpit?
 
Apollo space capsule cockpit.
 
You look pretty cute Kimberly. Let me know when you need a copilot. I just got new dentures, a new hip, a knee cap and a new toupee. Oh yes I also have an airplane.:D

José
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
What is your favorite cockpit?
Click to expand...
Definitely not the Airbus.
If it ain't Boeing, it ain't going!

I'm not much into Glass panels anyway and it doesn't have anything to do with flying them because I have many hours
in them, I'm just old fashion and prefer a decent mixture of steam gauges with MFD's. :yes:
And don't get me started on joysticks vs. yokes. :nono:

Here's a real cockpit...


 
Last edited:
kimberlyanne546 said:
A really big yoke instead of that side stick, because when the co-pilot moves the controls yours move so you know what is going on. Apparently in the airbus you don't get that movement on the captain's side.
Click to expand...

Apparently that was a factor in the Air France A330 accident. The co-pilot was pulling back on the stick, despite being in a stall, while the captain pushed forward not realizing what the co-pilot was doing. The brilliant engineers at Airbus programmed the software to average out control inputs from either side when they conflict.
 
Sigh. There's really no point in this common anti-Airbus/Boeing sentiment.

Both are great airplanes. More importantly, the pilots I've talked to who actually fly either kind really like them. Just last week, I had a longer chat with some BA pilots while we were waiting for the crazy 64 kt winds at 4000' in London to subside. I really like the auto-trim functionality in the A319.
 
Art VanDelay said:
It's been my observation that most females tend to object to the term "cockpit".
Click to expand...
I have never heard a female object to the word "cockpit" in fact that is what they still call it in smaller airplanes, even officially. The word "cockpit" is all over the checklists.
 
MassPilot said:
The brilliant engineers at Airbus programmed the software to average out control inputs from either side when they conflict.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that. I thought the stick was either / or. One side or the other but no intermixing or interpolation.
 
docmirror said:
I didn't know that. I thought the stick was either / or. One side or the other but no intermixing or interpolation.
Click to expand...

There IS an override button. Push the button and you have control, but the other side can take control back just as easily.
 
sba55 said:
Sigh. There's really no point in this common anti-Airbus/Boeing sentiment.

Both are great airplanes. More importantly, the pilots I've talked to who actually fly either kind really like them. Just last week, I had a longer chat with some BA pilots while we were waiting for the crazy 64 kt winds at 4000' in London to subside. I really like the auto-trim functionality in the A319.
Click to expand...


Do those pilots have anything to compare it to though? I mean have they flown any big plane other than an Airbus? :dunno:

All the old timers I've talked to who have flown both ALWAYS prefer the Boeing or MDouglass. In the Airbus they all complain that they're just "systems operators"
 
Piloto said:
You look pretty cute Kimberly. Let me know when you need a copilot. I just got new dentures, a new hip, a knee cap and a new toupee. Oh yes I also have an airplane.:D

José
Click to expand...

Now how can you argue with that??? Hahahaha!
 
Flynmid said:
All the old timers I've talked to who have flown both ALWAYS prefer the Boeing or MDouglass. In the Airbus they all complain that they're just "systems operators"
Click to expand...

I've flown both. Like them both. 777 and Airbus about the same as far as "systems manager" thing goes.
 
Flynmid said:
Do those pilots have anything to compare it to though? I mean have they flown any big plane other than an Airbus? :dunno:

All the old timers I've talked to who have flown both ALWAYS prefer the Boeing or MDouglass. In the Airbus they all complain that they're just "systems operators"
Click to expand...

Yeah. The first time I heard the term "systems management" was when I met the Pilatus pilot at my home airport. I asked the usual dumb questions that a newbie asks who has only ever driven a 152. I said, "so how much is hand flying and when do you switch on the auto pilot?"

He gave me some really low altitude number and he talked about systems management and passenger comfort and such.
 
Art VanDelay said:
It's been my observation that most females tend to object to the term "cockpit".
Click to expand...

I've met many girl pilots now. I don't remember any of them having a problem.

The only problem (girl related) that I ever saw was when a member of the 99 organization sent an email with a link to a new aviation site selling women's clothes. One of the things they sold was that "remove before flight" tank top.

At the time, I didn't get it, since my rental company where I learned was too cheap to cover up the pitot tube or buy cowl plugs. But I "got it" later when we did a tour of a military base and I saw all those red ribbons.
 
Greg said once the 777 would let you barrel roll it but it would express unhappiness over the event. Airbus won't let you do that at all.
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
The only problem (girl related) that I ever saw was when a member of the 99 organization sent an email with a link to a new aviation site selling women's clothes. One of the things they sold was that "remove before flight" tank top.

At the time, I didn't get it, since my rental company where I learned was too cheap to cover up the pitot tube or buy cowl plugs. But I "got it" later when we did a tour of a military base and I saw all those red ribbons.
Click to expand...

What?! They had a problem with those tank tops? I've always viewed them as a "safety of flight" issue.
 
LDJones said:
What?! They had a problem with those tank tops? I've always viewed them as a "safety of flight" issue.
Click to expand...

No no no. Not THEY. I cannot speak for THEM. I did, however, used to belong and therefore signed up for the mailing list (email). That means you could mass email thousands of women. What I then saw was the above response. That was one woman's opinion and then others replied. I do not think they were "in charge" of the organization. I can only report my observation.
 
Airbus designs to protect the airplane from the pilot while Boeing (and McD, etc) designs to protect the pilot from the airplane. Most noticeable in the setting of flight control limits like g and bank angle limiters. Airbus tends to have hard limits while Boeing has limits that can be exceeded if required (or by being stupid).

This was a minor factor in the tanker competition when the AMC pilots squawked about not being able to use extreme maneuvers in the Airbus in an emergency. Could be fixed by a software charges but it did show the design approach.

BTW, the F-16 has a hard G limiter while the F-15 does not. But that's not much of a problem at a 9 g's "limit".

Both build good Commercial airplanes but I prefer being the ultimate Pilot in COMMAND. ;)

Cheers
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
- A large handle above your head to help you get in and out of your seat (at first I thought it was the OH **** handle)
Click to expand...
An Air Force friend of mine who had started in B-52s and flown U-2s for much of his career ended up flying T-43's (military 737's). He got in the pilot seat and looked around and noticed this was the first time he'd flown a plane without an ejection seat in decades. On the brighter side, he could get up and use the bathroom.
 
MassPilot said:
Apparently that was a factor in the Air France A330 accident. The co-pilot was pulling back on the stick, despite being in a stall, while the captain pushed forward not realizing what the co-pilot was doing. The brilliant engineers at Airbus programmed the software to average out control inputs from either side when they conflict.
Click to expand...

It was a positive factor. That came right after the right seater who was flying said, "This is really happening isn't it?" and moved his hand from the commanded falling leaf stall he had held for the last 20,000' and the left seat dude regained controll of the falling leaf. This was about 12,000'. I bet if he had pushed the throttles forward or pushed TOGA at that moment he may still have saved that flight. The control system itself cannot be faulted in AF 447, it functioned impeccably. It allowed full control of the airframe in a stall so deep the stall warning computer didn't consider it possible and shut up. The big problem with the plane was that one failure in human interface. If the stall warning system hadn't have shut up while still deep in stall with no indication that it was not stalled, there wouldn't have been that confusing moment early when he put the nose down and started to recover and as the plane gained speed, the stall warning system sounded off again promptly eliciting a response in the PF to return the stick back to the position that shut up the stall horn. That exact spot is where the PF held the stick for the next 20,000' while the fly by wire system flew an exacting standards falling leaf stall with enough reserve left the PNF was able to regain control when the PF's hand shook at the final realization of impending death and lost it. These bits of human interface are under the directive of the chief test pilot. His was the first of the six links in that accident chain.
 
When I worked for Virgin Atlantic Airways. We had 747(400 was the most current we had when I was there), and A-340s. Several times I was allowed to fly jump seat when the plane was full. I liked the A-340 cockpits better. The fact that they could pull out a tray right in front of them to eat was a nice feature. Now those silly European Flight crews did have a nice joke regarding the tray table. However, I will not say it now do to the offensiveness to women. I have not experienced the 777 Cockpit, so I can not compare. However, the 747 cockpits were awesome for the shear height off the ground you sit.
 
Henning said:
It was a positive factor. That came right after the right seater who was flying said, "This is really happening isn't it?" and moved his hand from the commanded falling leaf stall he had held for the last 20,000' and the left seat dude regained controll of the falling leaf. This was about 12,000'. I bet if he had pushed the throttles forward or pushed TOGA at that moment he may still have saved that flight. The control system itself cannot be faulted in AF 447, it functioned impeccably. It allowed full control of the airframe in a stall so deep the stall warning computer didn't consider it possible and shut up. The big problem with the plane was that one failure in human interface. If the stall warning system hadn't have shut up while still deep in stall with no indication that it was not stalled, there wouldn't have been that confusing moment early when he put the nose down and started to recover and as the plane gained speed, the stall warning system sounded off again promptly eliciting a response in the PF to return the stick back to the position that shut up the stall horn. That exact spot is where the PF held the stick for the next 20,000' while the fly by wire system flew an exacting standards falling leaf stall with enough reserve left the PNF was able to regain control when the PF's hand shook at the final realization of impending death and lost it. These bits of human interface are under the directive of the chief test pilot. His was the first of the six links in that accident chain.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Training and human factors. My one "AvB" comment is something which, with proper CRM and training, should not matter, but I still believe that the same situation in an aircraft with a traditional yoke, no way no how the other pilot would not realize what was happening, with that big ol' yoke in his belly. Could be wrong.

Differing design philosophies, but it's hard to argue with the safety record.
 
I currently fly the 777 and have flown the 320. People love to get all hot and bothered over the design differences, but in reality there really isn't much of one. Either airplane will let you get out of a bad situation. The 'bus is a little better about keeping a pilot out of one (meaning over G, high and low speed protection). The 777 flies like a A320 that has lost some of its flight control protections, that's about the only difference. It makes absolutely no difference in day to day or even most abnormal situations. To me it comes down to what airplane would I want to sit in for 5-16hrs. Airbus, hands down.
 
Rex Kramer said:
I currently fly the 777 and have flown the 320. People love to get all hot and bothered over the design differences, but in reality there really isn't much of one. Either airplane will let you get out of a bad situation. The 'bus is a little better about keeping a pilot out of one (meaning over G, high and low speed protection). The 777 flies like a A320 that has lost some of its flight control protections, that's about the only difference. It makes absolutely no difference in day to day or even most abnormal situations. To me it comes down to what airplane would I want to sit in for 5-16hrs. Airbus, hands down.
Click to expand...

Having seen the systems performance of the FBW in that incident, I no longer have any qualms with flying. I seriously believe they ha the ability to save that flight as low as 7000' by hitting TOGA or just advancing the throttles. It wasn't until he chopped the throttles that they were in deep trouble and I can't believe that wasn't the captains first action arriving on the flight deck to realize the plane cannot fly without power and advance the throttles.
 
My favorite airliner cockpit was the 747-200. It was the last of the old steam gauge panels where everything was mostly mechanical. The closest thing to an electronic display were the nixie-tubes in the INS. So there were all these analog gauges and mechanical instruments with exquisitely intricate flags and bars and pointers that made all kinds cool clicking sounds.

It was all very rich and exotic looking in three dimensions. Glass displays are so dull in comparison.

2281574122_385e777bd8.jpg
 
Rex Kramer said:
I currently fly the 777 and have flown the 320. People love to get all hot and bothered over the design differences, but in reality there really isn't much of one. Either airplane will let you get out of a bad situation. The 'bus is a little better about keeping a pilot out of one (meaning over G, high and low speed protection). The 777 flies like a A320 that has lost some of its flight control protections, that's about the only difference. It makes absolutely no difference in day to day or even most abnormal situations. To me it comes down to what airplane would I want to sit in for 5-16hrs. Airbus, hands down.
Click to expand...

What are ergonomic differences that would make you choose the Airbus over the Boeing for long hauls?
 
Silvaire said:
My favorite airliner cockpit was the 747-200. It was the last of the old steam gauge panels where everything was mostly mechanical. The closest thing to an electronic display were the nixie-tubes in the INS. So there were all these analog gauges and mechanical instruments with exquisitely intricate flags and bars and pointers that made all kinds cool clicking sounds.

It was all very rich and exotic looking in three dimensions. Glass displays are so dull in comparison.

2281574122_385e777bd8.jpg
Click to expand...

I've flown that sim at NWA. It's an impressive array of things to monitor. The only similar cockpit was the DC-9.
 
Henning said:
Having seen the systems performance of the FBW in that incident, I no longer have any qualms with flying. I seriously believe they ha the ability to save that flight as low as 7000' by hitting TOGA or just advancing the throttles. It wasn't until he chopped the throttles that they were in deep trouble and I can't believe that wasn't the captains first action arriving on the flight deck to realize the plane cannot fly without power and advance the throttles.
Click to expand...

No, Henning, they were at TOGA power all the way to the ocean's surface. When the pilots iced and the autopilot kicked off (normal), the PF pulled back on his stick, zoom-climbed more than 7,000' and put the aircraft into a deep stall, with a very steep angle of attack which was maintained pretty much all the way down. Airspeed was so low, that the stall warning was inhibited even after the pitot tubes came back on line, because the computer assumed they were too slow or flight (it was correct!).

The PNF almost saved it when he took over control at one poinr, but the first guy kept his stick back and the computers averaged.

Had they just flown pitch and power, they'd have been fine. The airplane did as they demanded.
 
No nixie tubes in the delco ins, just seven segment plasma displays like a KX-155.
 
Your right, it's been awhile. Now I'm trying to remember what the last piece of equipment I saw that used nixie tubes was :dunno: They're pretty old tech.
 
Silvaire said:
Your right, it's been awhile. Now I'm trying to remember what the last piece of equipment I saw that used nixie tubes was :dunno: They're pretty old tech.
Click to expand...

Didn't the Collin's Radio Nav-Comm units use those? We had an Arrow with those radios in it. It had a frequency save lever. Not a true flip flop (in my mind, anyway) because you tuned the active freq and couldn't see the saved one until you switched.

John
 
SCCutler said:
No, Henning, they were at TOGA power all the way to the ocean's surface. When the pilots iced and the autopilot kicked off (normal), the PF pulled back on his stick, zoom-climbed more than 7,000' and put the aircraft into a deep stall, with a very steep angle of attack which was maintained pretty much all the way down. Airspeed was so low, that the stall warning was inhibited even after the pitot tubes came back on line, because the computer assumed they were too slow or flight (it was correct!).

The PNF almost saved it when he took over control at one poinr, but the first guy kept his stick back and the computers averaged.

Had they just flown pitch and power, they'd have been fine. The airplane did as they demanded.
Click to expand...

Incorrect, from the point where he put the nose down and got the stall to come back on, he pulled the nose up and power to Flight Idle and the power levers never went forward again through over 30,000' of falling leaf stall. At 12,000' where PF lost it and PNF took over, the right seater gave it over to him. The left seater was the one who flew it the last 12,000' into the water.
 
Last edited:
Rex Kramer said:
I currently fly the 777 and have flown the 320. People love to get all hot and bothered over the design differences, but in reality there really isn't much of one. Either airplane will let you get out of a bad situation. The 'bus is a little better about keeping a pilot out of one (meaning over G, high and low speed protection). The 777 flies like a A320 that has lost some of its flight control protections, that's about the only difference. It makes absolutely no difference in day to day or even most abnormal situations. To me it comes down to what airplane would I want to sit in for 5-16hrs. Airbus, hands down.
Click to expand...

Concur. Never flown the 777 but flown the B-52G/H, B-737-300/500, 757-200, 767-200/300 and plummed the 727-200. Currently on the A319/320 but transitioning to the 75/767 again. With out a doubt, the Airbus cockpit is quieter, roomier and better designed ergonomically. It also has the cup holders and grab handles Kimberly liked plus the tray table.
I like the side stick and auto trim. All airliners have some degree of automatic protections that limit what the pilot is allowed to do. The Airbus flys like any other aircraft in the maneuvers required for normal or even emergency operations and even better than most in the low speed regime. Saying the 777 or Boeing is better because you can roll it is pretty pointless.
 
maddog52 said:
Concur. Never flown the 777 but flown the B-52G/H, B-737-300/500, 757-200, 767-200/300 and plummed the 727-200. Currently on the A319/320 but transitioning to the 75/767 again. With out a doubt, the Airbus cockpit is quieter, roomier and better designed ergonomically. It also has the cup holders and grab handles Kimberly liked plus the tray table.
I like the side stick and auto trim. All airliners have some degree of automatic protections that limit what the pilot is allowed to do. The Airbus flys like any other aircraft in the maneuvers required for normal or even emergency operations and even better than most in the low speed regime. Saying the 777 or Boeing is better because you can roll it is pretty pointless.
Click to expand...


Said it perfectly. You answered Jonesy's question for me.
 
jsstevens said:
Didn't the Collin's Radio Nav-Comm units use those? We had an Arrow with those radios in it.
Click to expand...

Nope, those aren't nixie tubes either, though they sort of look like it. The key is the segmented display, nixie tubes were not segmented and had their own unique look because the numerals were stacked in the tube so if you had a 3 next to a 9 the 3 would look farther away.

On the Boeing vs Airbus cockpit, I've never flown either but as a mechanic I've probably spent about as much time in both cockpits as the pilots do. The 777 was the only Boeing fly-by-wire until the 787 came out and yes, it was designed with pilots involved. Although it has a traditional yoke it didn't need to have that and in fact there is a complex dual redundant system of elaborate backdrive actuators under the floor whose only purpose is to move the yoke as if it were connected to the flight controls with cables. It does this either in tandem with the opposite yoke or under autopilot commands.

The fact is that in either of these modern airliners we are just one step away from complete pilotless operation and you have to realize that manual control is not really needed most of the time. The Airbus sidestick almost looks like an auxiliary control device when you get down to it.

But there is the public stigma of a pilotless aircraft, we simply are not ready to accept that. I don't even like riding on those driverless tram cars at the terminal!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top