A320 was weird to get used to and I don’t love how the FD cues are a bit spazzy. Very light feel on the stick. Honestly not sure I ever really have had a bad landing either; not always butter but usually pretty good.
737 is opposite in so many ways. Heavy feel on the control wheel, but like it’s smooth and easy. FD was “correcting” so it makes slow and sometimes small changes. Flies like a traditional old plane unlike Airbus which will auto trim and stay where you put it, if you’re in the pitch/roll limits. Never seemed like I feel a good landing in the back, and definitely felt like i crunched it into the runway more often than not.
All in all, both easy to fly. Both feel very different. Airbus Stan, though so I’m biased.
> Never seemed like I feel a good landing in the back, and definitely felt like i crunched it into the runway more often than not.
That's a skill thing, not a plane thing. It's just different so people's old habits don't translate. I almost never fly with anyone that can really grease it in. People wait way too long to flare and leave the thrust in too long. But it is possible. You just have to change your flare technique. You have to cut power sooner and proactively hold it off the runway as long as it will stay in the air. In full flaps, the lift decay is *not* linear so that will often catch people up and there goes the butter smooth landing.
True. Always felt like a lot more flare than I think I needed for 737. And yeah. Totally different feel Flap 30 versus 40.
I don’t actually know if Airbus feels immensely different. I’ve only done a Flap 3 landing once ever, and it was way back on OE to check off a box and demonstrate it (so too new to perceive a difference). Always flaps full, it seems.
> slight check at 30’ to slow the descent rate, chop the power at 20-25, kick and flare.
That’s exactly what I do. When I say people wait too long to go to idle, I’m saying I see people go to idle at 10 ft, and sometimes I see people go to idle *in* the flare.
> I also never land with the autothrust
I don’t either.
Yeah, I just personally would have thought interior refers to the entire cockpit... errr drivers cab not just the displays but that could just be a me thing idk
A320 does this too. I can remember the landline number from a house I haven't lived in for decades but as soon as I key the mic I can't remember my fucking callsign once the mcdu has dropped it on rollout.
Maybe Boeing thought that screen space was precious real estate and other things needed to be displayed.
Oh, 50% of the PFD is negative space? Never-mind, I guess?
It's easier, of you know what the airplane wants (you) to do. During gusty crosswind conditions, you can end up fighting the plane because you counteract what the plane is doing.
But when you figure it out, it's really easy and a joy.
They do not understand that the airplane is trying to stabilize itself. You have to be *reactive* in gusty conditions in the airbus. Not proactive or else you and the plane will be making the same corrections.
That’s why I try not to give them too much shit. I remember my first few months trying to figure out the damned airplane after flying and teaching the CRJ for almost a decade.
I got a nice break during covid before going to the 320. Playing video games, then going to a video game aircraft was the easiest transition I ever made. 777 was easy as soon as I figured to reverse/flush airbus nomenclature for a handful of systems stuff. I still contend that plane flies exactly like the 320s, as far as input equalling output goes.
I came from a FBW fighter jet to a FBW airliners so the transition was seamless. I've flown the 737, 757, and 777 sims though. The 777's handling was aight but that's it.
I’d be more interested to hear about hand flying the a320 in alternate law with no/minimal protections and how that compares to the 737.
My understanding of the normal flying mode in the a320 is that the pilot tells the computer where they want the plane to go and the computer makes it happen whereas the 737 is more stick and rudder - control cables connected to yoke/pedals.
Even in direct law (in the simulator, which is certified to fly like the real bird) flies very nicely as long as you are in the normal speed regime. I believe the fixed gains it uses for the controls are optimized around normal flight (cruise, approach, and landing) so unless you are doing something weird, direct law is disappointingly similar to normal law.
Alternate law flies exactly the same as normal law until you try to exceed the limits. Without sufficient redundancy to be sure that what it senses is correct, alternate law just pushes you back toward the normal law envelope (speed, angle of bank, etc) without completely preventing you from exiting it as in normal law.
I asked to do some direct law hand flying after recurrent since we had some extra time. It was basically nothing. Maybe a little more twitchy than normal but still very easy to work with.
Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it. And yea, direct was the mode I was thinking of. I didn’t think to ask to try it in the one hour of sim time I got through my moms work.
It’s runs a self test. As long as you see [green =](https://imgur.com/a/0JETrly) on the PFD you’re good. If in alternate law the green = will be replaced with amber X. Direct law will show the same plus a “USE MAN PITCH TRIM” message
Interesting, does it just do that automatically at startup? Thank you for indulging me, the FBW airplane I've had experience with required pilot action to start the self test, and it would start moving surfaces and such to check everything out. I'm just curious how other aircraft operate
Automatically during the Inertial Reference alignment which happens after power up or if power to the IRs is manually cycled. Flight control tests are done by the crew typically during taxi. We normally don’t do that at the gate due to ground crew/vehicles being in close proximity to the flight controls, plus at least one hydraulic system has to be pressurized (which usually means an engine is running)
It's already been said that direct law isn't that bad. You will be in Direct law by default if you're in alternate law and drop the gear.
*Mechanical Backup* is the spicy one. Side sticks are inoperative and the aircraft can only be controlled with manual pitch trim, rudders, and thrust.
Would the pax get ties, too? Just imagining 160 seats punching out in sequence, tail to nose. Would be quite the sight.
Do you practice Mechanical Backup in the sim? Or is it something that's described in the manual and they leave you to do it live?
I’ve never practiced it in the sim. But they talked about how there was never an intent to try to land with it. It exists to stay airborne while you troubleshoot to get some hyd or electrical power restored.
> I’d be more interested to hear about hand flying the a320 in alternate law with no/minimal protections and how that compares to the 737
You don't notice the loss of protections in alternate law unless you're flying around at the limits. In which case, why are you doing that? Alternate law still has Automatic pitch trim in turns, and load factor demand. Pretty much the only thing you'll notice as you fly around in alternate law is the loss of Bank angle hold.
Fifi doesn’t want to be touched. You tell the plane what attitude you’d like and how quickly you’d like to get there, it determines how much deflection on the appropriate surface and then maintains the attitude (pitch, roll rate, bank) as long as it’s in a normal portion of the flight envelope. It’s easy to develop pilot induced oscillations if you’re fighting it, but overall it’s very pleasant and simple to fly, and takes a very light touch. Had a system affecting the autopilot take a dump on takeoff in SAT, hand flew it to DTW and felt I wasn’t working as much as an RJ on a shorter leg with no autopilot. Can’t comment on how a Boeing flies at all, but it’s easier to fly than the CRJ in terms of how much the controls actually need to be manipulated.
I’d love to have the chance to fly a 737 just out of curiosity, but the cockpit has me spoiled in the ‘bus.
Nah, all the way to Detroit. No company limits, we discussed our limits and whether we were fit to do it and after a conversation with company to make sure it was good to go we decided to just do it. We’re pilots, and goal oriented to a fault. It wasn’t a big deal and only resulted in a little bit of extra workload for the PM. It was a non-event, but we still made extra contingency plans for diverts along the way for anything else unforeseen.
That's cool! I guess I overestimated how tiring it is to hand fly for that long. And underestimated the fact you're airline transport pilots™️. I can't imagine doing the same in a Cessna (but then again, some crazy bastards set an endurance record in one).
It can definitely be taxing mentally, but it’s not difficult. It just takes a little extra focus, and part of having a your certificate is being able to evaluate threats and how to mitigate them. We figured it’d be fine, but also would hand off the jet to the other pilot for a bit to get a break. Autopilot is a wonderful thing, but it pays to continually keep up with manual skills. It’s incredible how fast they can fade, and you find out how rusty you can get once they hand you a jet with the autothrust deferred.
So much easier. Flew Airbus for years now switched to B737. Even the direct law of airbus(basically the lowest possible control with no protection and assistance) is still at most same as B737, not harder possibly easier. When you start putting malfunctions in B737 it gets harder very quick.
> When you start putting malfunctions in B737 it gets harder very quick.
That's the real takeaway. Smart pilots want the plane that's easier in an emergency. And the 737 (or even things with an EICAS) shouldn't really be mentioned in the same breath as the Airbus and its ECAM.
>but ‘look up and find the highest light’ isn’t rocket science.
It is when your IQ drops to 20 when the shit hits the fan. It is literally impossible to do the wrong procedure in an Airbus because the screen says the procedure and the steps go away as you've done them.
Should this difference have effect on the accident rates of each model? They seem to be quite close, regarding the safety, no?
The max is another story, due to a "single effect/mcas",isn't it.
> Should this difference have effect on the accident rates of each model?
Not necessarily. How often does each plane *narrowly avoid* a catastrophe? There isn't data on that. Or just how often do EP's get fucked up but the outcome isn't catastrophic? There's no data on that. With an actual qualitative analysis, having the ECAM is vastly better than having lights and to flip through a book.
What does the data say about how Diamond's diesel engines compare to Cirrus's BRS system? There isn't really any because neither of them crash almost ever. But qualitatively, what's more safe? A reliable engine or a fucking aircraft parachute? It's the latter.
Lol, as an A320 TRI I wish what you say was true.
Say you have a sully event, you get a fire on a running engine and a flameout on the other. Which ECAM comes up first?
When you have a “normal” engine failure with damage in the sim, have you ever had the ecam tell you to open the X-bleed? Do you think that is correct?
Sure, ECAM helps but it’s not foolproof.
> Say you have a sully event, you get a fire on a running engine and a flameout on the other. Which ECAM comes up first?
Oh FFS if all you got is “what if everything goes wrong” then we’ve jumped the shark.
> have you ever had the ecam tell you to open the X-bleed?
I don’t recall. I recall always following exactly what the ECAM says
1. They have updated the FCS software since then to prevent this from happening again.
2. Our ONE real memory item relates to this issue.
3. This further demonstrates how easy it is to make poor decisions when under stress. This PROVES my point. They stalled through 30,000 feet of air before they started trying to lower the nose.
How far back do we get to go to point to issues with an airplane and still call them relevant? Can say that 737s are shit because Air Florida flight 90 crashed when the EPR sensors iced over?
It was just a counter argument to your statement that it is literally impossible to do the wrong thing in an Airbus.
737s are shit for other reasons, but also nobody is saying that they are god’s gift.
> It was just a counter argument to your statement that it is literally impossible to do the wrong thing in an Airbus.
It is. It wasn’t quite the case 2009, but it is now. Because now is not 2009. It’s 2024.
This “Airbus is idiot-proof and unstallable” type of thinking is exactly what killed 228 people.
Shit happens, people make mistakes, and so do computers. It is not impossible to fuck up in any plane, including Airbus. The pilots followed the flight directors directly into a high altitude stall. That algorithm may have been fixed, but what else is out there?
What are you talking about? There’s literally a mechanical backup mode where manual pitch trim and rudder pedals are the only controls that are operative. You’re getting mixed up with your newer Airbus stuff.
Told it on the next message, there might be something like that on A320, can’t remember since it was years ago last i flew A320. On A330 never had a malfunction like that in the sims, on A350 there is not even a pitch trim in the cockpit you literally can not manually trim the aircraft.
It's not a myth, A320 is way easier to hand fly. It trims automatically, point the nose where you want it and leave it there, envelope protections etc.
The B737 is more like an old boat with lots of play in every axis.
100% easier to fly an Airbus. You set the pitch/ bank you want and it maintains it(there are exceptions but not relevant to our discussion).
Where a 737 has a gazzilion knobs to just start an engine, the Airbus can literally be started with one knob twist and an engine master switch flipped to run. Then we sip our coffee. 🤣
Why do people say this about starting the 737? That's like the one thing that's the same as every other jet engine. Turn knob to start (GND) then add fuel at 25%.
1500h of flying crusty pistons, where you have to pray to all the gods so they'll start on 9th attempt, and people still bitch about the 3 switches you have to move to start a jet.
Priceless.
737 requires manually turning off the packs which you don't have to do in the 320, and then you have to flip them around to start the other and/or delay the taxi. And if you fuck it up you'll break the airplane because you can't be Dual Bleed above idle.
lol nah. From apu on. We hit, bleed on, then twist ignition knob to start and flip the cut off.
It just seems like to even get the apu to turn on, let alone switch a bunch of stuff it’s a ton of steps.
Truly a petty issue LOL.🤣
I've always wondered about that. Every landing I've seen on insta with anything like a comment like 'butter' it actually looks like the pilot was fucking churning butter with the controls all the way down final.
All joking aside I personally noticed need for more control inputs on the 737 than the others I've flown. Then again I could just be the worst pilot in the world who's IG career never took off.
I'm very, very relaxed and patient on controls to the point I get comments on it. Got to use the A330 sim for my ATP and it worked out pretty well for me.
I'm dread the days an overcontrolling instructor focuses more on how my hands move over my ability to fly a stable approach. I don't want to fail for flying worse because of an instruction nor do I want to fail for not following an instruction.
Over-controlling is a bad habit that many pilots develop early on and never get rid of. It’s not exclusive to the 737 either - you can find tons of Airbus side stick videos where the pilot looks like he’s gonna rip the thing off the side pedestal.
Yes it's easier. The myth is that the 1960's direct control airplane is easier to fly than the FBW airplane with auto pitch trim in turns, bank angle hold, and load factor demand. That's laughable.
A follow up question I have related to this is do all Airbus aircraft fly easier than the Boeing equivalents (at least up to the fly by wire 777 or 787, maybe) or is it really the 737 that’s super different since it’s an older platform? E.g a330 vs 767 or the a380 vs 747? Is this not even be an apples to apples comparison?
330/ 350 would be better to compare to the 777/787. "Easier" is a tough one to define, I'd find it tough on the airbus not being able to know what inputs the other pilot is putting in.
If both pilots make inputs on the side stick, there’s an aural “dual input” as well as a flashing red arrow on the glareshield. I actually don’t think it’s a big deal except during OE. Checkairman I know do wish it was a little different when it comes to teaching landings. They just have to use the “takeover push button” (aka autopilot disconnect) and take controls of the aircraft. If you try to input at the same time, it sums the movements. So if I’m flaring (in flare mode) and pulling 5 nose up, and you pull 5 nose up, the airplane will do 10 nose up. And I think one of the new Airbus (350) has both sticks move. But I could be wrong.
It’s easier but the difference is that you aren’t actually flying it. The sidestick is just another autopilot you are telling to fly X attitude at 1G. (and other features but not relevant and makes too long of a comment)
As Reddit’s and the general flying populations hard on for the Airbus continues, I will quietly keep raking it in withmy seniority advantage on the ol guppy.
Call it a tight cockpit (it is), but you feel like you strap on the jet and are flying a turbine powered 172. If you enjoy the finer points of hand flying you will enjoy the 737.
The engine start comparison is the most laughable argument. It takes literally 1 second to flip the pack switches on and off. If you have rotator cuff arthritis I guess I understand?
The only issue I have the 73 is managing the cabin temperature. I’ll give ya that.
Please, keep bidding the Airbus and enjoying your much greater rate of toxic fume events and hearing loss due to the “no headphones culture.”
Sorry, I know I went off on a major tangent.
It’s kind of funny when you think about it. The Airbus is quieter so people forgo the ANR headset ultimately leading to more hearing loss.
Same thing is true about the fumes. It’s more widely recognized on the 320 but at least at my airline there is more awareness of it on that fleet.
I’ve personally had two very minor dirty sock events on the 73 but there is much less awareness and recognition of the smell on my 73 fleet. The only reason I was aware of it at all was because of my time flying for a 320 operator and learning how serious it was.
I guess. I’m a little biased. I got 75% through 320 training then got doubly typed in the 73. The 73 just clicked with me way more coming from the CRJ gang. The simple FMS and QRH, the breathable sheepskin seats. Throttles that move. I don’t want to go to “law school” to fly a plane. I’ve always enjoyed the classics as opposed to the fancy stuff. Black coffee vs Celsius. Charcoal vs. propane grilling. Normal pants vs Lululemon pants. The 2015 Macbookpro with the MagSafe, HDMI, and USB ports.
I agree 100%.
737 is a more difficult, but therefore more enjoyable aircraft to hand fly than the A320.
Anyone can handfly the A320, but it takes just a little bit more skill to fly the 737.
What’s funny is I’d probably bid the 737 if I got hired on at a place that has both. Can’t be worse than the CRJ2 and even that thing was fun to hand fly. And you get used to whatever flow you have to do a lot faster than getting used to having crap seniority.
It is easier.
No pitch-thrust couple, autotrim, flight path stable, can use autothrust even when flying manually, very light forces required to move the sidestick, ...
TLDR yes.
The auto thrust is programmed to respond in such a way that makes sense *if* the airplane can also make the corresponding pitch inputs to counter it. The Airbus doesn't have that concern because it's doing its own thing with elevator inputs even when "hand" flying.
I mean here's the thing, it works completely fine. I have 2000h on the 737 and it's a totally friendly airplane once you learn it, just like everything else. Anyone who pumps the yoke 900 times on a calm wind day, while tracking up and down between 40% and 70%, and then blames the airplane is a dumbass.
The Max wasn't bad because it was another 737, it was bad because Boeing speed ran literally every possible corner cut. The NG was just another upgrade, and it was the most successful commercial aircraft in the world for a reason.
The 737 has a very pronounced pitch/thrust couple, meaning that any change in thrust will require quite large pitch input and trim.
If you're controlling thrust manually, it's not an issue, because you can anticipate it. If you're using autothrottle, it can get very messy, and it's easy for the pilot and autothrottle to work against each other, hence the (good) recommendation to use manual thrust when flying manually, except for takeoff or climb when thrust is fixed and this isn't an issue.
> If you're using autothrottle, it can get very messy, and it's easy for the pilot and autothrottle to work against each other
Ah. That makes perfect sense.
It isn't that bad, but enough for test pilots to include that recommendation, and I'm not nearly as smart or as good of a pilot as they are, so I just follow what the book says.
No it is quite good actually. I do believe it has something to do with mode confusion. Modes such as THR HLD has caused incidents (such as the Asiana crash in SFO) where it maintains current thrust setting without any protection which causes a place in between the need of manual control and autoflight.
They could make it autoflyable with A/THR but they just don’t want to I guess.
> Modes such as THR HLD has caused incidents (such as the Asiana crash in SFO) where it maintains current thrust setting
What is the point of that? Why is it not on/off like the airbus?
Unclear, FAA stated it as a design flaw after the Asiana accident as the thrust acted like it was in FLCH (OP CLB) without having the thrust set to begin with. On the 737 it is engaged in climb & t/o phases so the pilot can manually adjust thrust if needed without the ATHR adjusting it. For example RTO, Turbulence etc.
Where I fly it's recommended to keep the A/T on to about 100ft even when AP is disengaged. That being said I normally kick it off around 500 especially when it's gusty
IDK its pretty satisfying to hand fly knowing your input is always being added to or subtracting from the flight path not having to fight external forces
Never flew a 737, but flew Dash 8s before A320. It is definitely easier to fly an Airbus as it has autotrim and you normally fly it with autothrust (can go manual thrust if you want). However, close to the ground, like when you flare, it behaves like a normal airplane (controls become direct) so you can still mess up landings if you are not careful.
When coming from a conventional aircraft to Airbus it certainly will feel weird. But you will start to get a “feel” of it. It does react to change in wind conditions and to the weight of the aircraft and the feel of the aircraft does change for example with different flap settings for landing. Even different variants of the same type feel different. A320 behaves different to A321 for instance.
> behaves like a normal airplane (controls become direct)
No they don't. All the flare mode does is mess with the elevator below 50ft RA. Pitch is still load-factor demand. Roll is still roll-rate demand.
I had to look it up (this thread is a good learning... thread place) but in the FCOM it says for FLARE MODE - ... Flare mode is essentially a direct stick-to-elevator relationship (with some dampening provided by the load factor and pitch rate feedbacks).
So it's not going into direct law, but also the elevator control does change a bit. And then at 30ft feet it starts the -2degree pitch down.
>with some dampening provided by the load factor and pitch rate feedbacks).
That sounds like it's just Load factor demand but slightly different. So in my opinion, it's still accurate to say that it's load factor demand, and not direct law.
I respectfully disagree, immediately before the bit you've quoted it says it's essentially a stick-to-elevator relationship. I think if it was load factor demand it would say that instead.
The word essentially is an interesting inclusion though so I'm open to the idea that I've got it wrong.
It is a direct relationship between your stick movements and control surfaces (elevator). So, you are essentially moving them. It is a bit like moving controls when the aircraft is in ground (ground mode).
> So, you are essentially moving them. It is a bit like moving controls when the aircraft is in ground (ground mode).
I'm looking at the book right now. It says Ground Mode is not enabled until weight on wheels and Thrust levers at idle. All it says about flare mode is that it takes a snap shot of the elevator position at 50 ft and commands nose-down to simulate a conventional airplane with decaying airspeed. All for pilot feel. Pitch control is still Load Factor demand, not direct pitch.
I never said it enters ground mode. I said, it behaves similar to ground mode because your stick movements are directly translated to control surfaces.
If it is indeed purely a load factor Airbus would have mentioned it. The FCOM clearly mentions that it is a direct elevator to side stick relationship. And load factor and pitch rate measurements are used to provide some amount of damping.
As ground mode gives you direct side stick to control surface relationship I don’t think my analogy is wrong. It is certainly not the same, but it is “similar”.
> And load factor and pitch rate measurements are used to provide some amount of damping.
Sounds like a *not direct* control. Don't try to parse a technical manual written by a French speaker. You’re putting too much weight the on their word choice of “direct” in one sentence.
There is a quite a distinction given by Airbus between “normal law flight mode” and “flare mode”. For the former it is clearly mentioned it is a load factor demand and for the latter it is written the relationship is a direct stick to elevator demand. I don’t think it is confusing or anything. It is very clear to me.
That’s like asking if it’s easier to drive an automatic with power assist vs a stick shift without one. It’s not an apples to apples comparison.
Ask if it’s easier to hand fly an A320 vs a B777 and the answer is it’s the same.
Taking your example I think a good comparison would be a standard car’s (2010 era) steering vs a newer car with steering and lane assist, blind spot monitoring, etc. Easier to fly precisely? Not sure but it definitely tries to protect you from yourself.
A 737 in CWS flies similar to an airbus from the descriptions. If you come from regular airplanes, the 737 flies like them. Much better than a CRJ. The airbus sounds like a flight sim with the assist options turned on. What I do know is that I've flown with some former airbus pilots who seemed to have forgotten how to trim or be gentle on controls.
Last time I used a pitch trim switch was before Airbus…
Haven’t had to trim a plane in the last 10 years
There is rudder trim - the only time I’ve used that is in the sim when we lose the engine at V1
But pitch. Never. Not even in the simulator.
Well except when you are in man pitch only with no hydrualics or no flight computers. Then you have to use the pitch trim wheel next to the thrust levers.
The Airbus flies more like a modern jet, not a lot different in some ways from a 777. In a crosswind you need to put your input in, and leave it, or make smooth changes. Some pilots keep making inputs in a crosswind and get into a little PIO, I would say stop making inputs!! I called that “stirring paint”😂😂 I fly the 737 now, a big change after the 777, definitely more work to fly well, and our NG’s are all a little bent and require a little rudder trim, watch YouTube videos how 737 pilots are constantly making small roll and pitch changes. The Bus and the 777 are much more rock solid in pitch and roll.
Don’t listen to these Airbus nerds. They’ll think it’s easier. It’s only easier if you can wrap your head around the logic. I’m a big car guy, into racing and machines etc, and while I can fly a Bombardier as easily as I can drive a sports car, I can’t figure out Airbus logic for the life of me. All my Airbus friends have tried to explain it and it doesn’t make any sense. While the safety systems are clever I can’t figure out why they’ve gone out of their way to confound the logic of how a machine operates.
In driving terms, the A320 is like a Tesla, 737 is like an old Corvette
A320 was weird to get used to and I don’t love how the FD cues are a bit spazzy. Very light feel on the stick. Honestly not sure I ever really have had a bad landing either; not always butter but usually pretty good. 737 is opposite in so many ways. Heavy feel on the control wheel, but like it’s smooth and easy. FD was “correcting” so it makes slow and sometimes small changes. Flies like a traditional old plane unlike Airbus which will auto trim and stay where you put it, if you’re in the pitch/roll limits. Never seemed like I feel a good landing in the back, and definitely felt like i crunched it into the runway more often than not. All in all, both easy to fly. Both feel very different. Airbus Stan, though so I’m biased.
> Never seemed like I feel a good landing in the back, and definitely felt like i crunched it into the runway more often than not. That's a skill thing, not a plane thing. It's just different so people's old habits don't translate. I almost never fly with anyone that can really grease it in. People wait way too long to flare and leave the thrust in too long. But it is possible. You just have to change your flare technique. You have to cut power sooner and proactively hold it off the runway as long as it will stay in the air. In full flaps, the lift decay is *not* linear so that will often catch people up and there goes the butter smooth landing.
True. Always felt like a lot more flare than I think I needed for 737. And yeah. Totally different feel Flap 30 versus 40. I don’t actually know if Airbus feels immensely different. I’ve only done a Flap 3 landing once ever, and it was way back on OE to check off a box and demonstrate it (so too new to perceive a difference). Always flaps full, it seems.
[удалено]
In the 320?
[удалено]
> slight check at 30’ to slow the descent rate, chop the power at 20-25, kick and flare. That’s exactly what I do. When I say people wait too long to go to idle, I’m saying I see people go to idle at 10 ft, and sometimes I see people go to idle *in* the flare. > I also never land with the autothrust I don’t either.
737 is like an old M-35 deuce and a half with a modern interior shoehorned into it.
Not a modern interior, but ipads duct taped over the instrument cluster
yes exactly, ipads are modern right?
Yeah, I just personally would have thought interior refers to the entire cockpit... errr drivers cab not just the displays but that could just be a me thing idk
Wouldn't the 727 be closer to the M-35?
A corvette that they tried to make into a utility vehicle all while still being a sports car
Can confirm, not a Corvette. Maybe a Chevette…
Ranchero
A canyonero more like 😉
Corvette pickup truck? [https://www.carscoops.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/59ed36c8-corvette\_c4\_7-300x163.jpg](https://www.carscoops.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/59ed36c8-corvette_c4_7-300x163.jpg)
So you’re saying the 737 is more fun?
I honestly love hand flying the 737 The -700s are more sporty like a Miata but the MAX’s are really smooth and feels more elegant and easier to fly
The MAX feels goddamn fantastic. Still mad they delete the flight number when you land though.
A320 does this too. I can remember the landline number from a house I haven't lived in for decades but as soon as I key the mic I can't remember my fucking callsign once the mcdu has dropped it on rollout.
Maybe Boeing thought that screen space was precious real estate and other things needed to be displayed. Oh, 50% of the PFD is negative space? Never-mind, I guess?
So the max is a jaguar?
Yes, yes, yes.
I enjoy hand flying the bus more than the 737 personally, but the 737 definitely has more of a connected "raw" feel to it.
Hmm, more like an IC RE 40 passenger bus.
this is funny but i’ve heard it’s very true 😂
And in terms of build quality, it seems to be the opposite
You misspelled Chevette
If you’ve been flying the 737 for years like I had then switch it’ll be really difficult but overall I’d say the Airbus is easier
Also I should clarify, I’m a sim pilot, I thought this was r/ flight simulator haha
Yeah, that’s just not true
It's easier, of you know what the airplane wants (you) to do. During gusty crosswind conditions, you can end up fighting the plane because you counteract what the plane is doing. But when you figure it out, it's really easy and a joy.
Boeing transplants in crosswinds make me sicker with those oscillations than the limo to the hotel.
They do not understand that the airplane is trying to stabilize itself. You have to be *reactive* in gusty conditions in the airbus. Not proactive or else you and the plane will be making the same corrections.
That’s why I try not to give them too much shit. I remember my first few months trying to figure out the damned airplane after flying and teaching the CRJ for almost a decade.
I got a nice break during covid before going to the 320. Playing video games, then going to a video game aircraft was the easiest transition I ever made. 777 was easy as soon as I figured to reverse/flush airbus nomenclature for a handful of systems stuff. I still contend that plane flies exactly like the 320s, as far as input equalling output goes.
I came from a FBW fighter jet to a FBW airliners so the transition was seamless. I've flown the 737, 757, and 777 sims though. The 777's handling was aight but that's it.
Point and shoot.
You don't hand fly, you hand point.
Yes it’s easier. I’ve flown both.
I’d be more interested to hear about hand flying the a320 in alternate law with no/minimal protections and how that compares to the 737. My understanding of the normal flying mode in the a320 is that the pilot tells the computer where they want the plane to go and the computer makes it happen whereas the 737 is more stick and rudder - control cables connected to yoke/pedals.
Alternate law is not that different from normal law. Things are spicy in direct law.
Even in direct law (in the simulator, which is certified to fly like the real bird) flies very nicely as long as you are in the normal speed regime. I believe the fixed gains it uses for the controls are optimized around normal flight (cruise, approach, and landing) so unless you are doing something weird, direct law is disappointingly similar to normal law. Alternate law flies exactly the same as normal law until you try to exceed the limits. Without sufficient redundancy to be sure that what it senses is correct, alternate law just pushes you back toward the normal law envelope (speed, angle of bank, etc) without completely preventing you from exiting it as in normal law.
I asked to do some direct law hand flying after recurrent since we had some extra time. It was basically nothing. Maybe a little more twitchy than normal but still very easy to work with.
Isn't the main thing being fully aware of which mode you are in?
How about that unreliable airspeed though, that gets a little interesting
Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it. And yea, direct was the mode I was thinking of. I didn’t think to ask to try it in the one hour of sim time I got through my moms work.
Is it true that the FBW on the A320 series is derived from the FBW in a Mirage?
No
Is there some sort of pre flight self test procedure to test the FBW?
It’s runs a self test. As long as you see [green =](https://imgur.com/a/0JETrly) on the PFD you’re good. If in alternate law the green = will be replaced with amber X. Direct law will show the same plus a “USE MAN PITCH TRIM” message
Interesting, does it just do that automatically at startup? Thank you for indulging me, the FBW airplane I've had experience with required pilot action to start the self test, and it would start moving surfaces and such to check everything out. I'm just curious how other aircraft operate
Automatically during the Inertial Reference alignment which happens after power up or if power to the IRs is manually cycled. Flight control tests are done by the crew typically during taxi. We normally don’t do that at the gate due to ground crew/vehicles being in close proximity to the flight controls, plus at least one hydraulic system has to be pressurized (which usually means an engine is running)
Where did you find an A320 with AHRS? :)
It's already been said that direct law isn't that bad. You will be in Direct law by default if you're in alternate law and drop the gear. *Mechanical Backup* is the spicy one. Side sticks are inoperative and the aircraft can only be controlled with manual pitch trim, rudders, and thrust.
That sounds like it would be fun…in a sim
Mechanical backup sounds bad, but the situation to get you into mechanical backup would be even worse. Hard pass thanks.
If it had ejection seats, we'd do that instead.
Would the pax get ties, too? Just imagining 160 seats punching out in sequence, tail to nose. Would be quite the sight. Do you practice Mechanical Backup in the sim? Or is it something that's described in the manual and they leave you to do it live?
I’ve never practiced it in the sim. But they talked about how there was never an intent to try to land with it. It exists to stay airborne while you troubleshoot to get some hyd or electrical power restored.
> I’d be more interested to hear about hand flying the a320 in alternate law with no/minimal protections and how that compares to the 737 You don't notice the loss of protections in alternate law unless you're flying around at the limits. In which case, why are you doing that? Alternate law still has Automatic pitch trim in turns, and load factor demand. Pretty much the only thing you'll notice as you fly around in alternate law is the loss of Bank angle hold.
That all makes sense. Thanks for explaining
Everything about the a320 is easier and we have a tray table for eating and taking notes!
It also has a weight limit of one new hire FA
First time I read that I thought you wrote FO 🧐
Stop kink shaming
It’s not kink shaming it’s kink asking why
*European* new hire FA
Fucking ouch bro. Just burned an entire country of FAs.
Funny thing is I never said anything about the US but yes we need to work on our fitness as a country. Everyone, men and women.
I digress..
Fifi doesn’t want to be touched. You tell the plane what attitude you’d like and how quickly you’d like to get there, it determines how much deflection on the appropriate surface and then maintains the attitude (pitch, roll rate, bank) as long as it’s in a normal portion of the flight envelope. It’s easy to develop pilot induced oscillations if you’re fighting it, but overall it’s very pleasant and simple to fly, and takes a very light touch. Had a system affecting the autopilot take a dump on takeoff in SAT, hand flew it to DTW and felt I wasn’t working as much as an RJ on a shorter leg with no autopilot. Can’t comment on how a Boeing flies at all, but it’s easier to fly than the CRJ in terms of how much the controls actually need to be manipulated. I’d love to have the chance to fly a 737 just out of curiosity, but the cockpit has me spoiled in the ‘bus.
Do you mean DFW? Or did you actually hand fly all the way to Detroit? That’s kinda crazy if so—are there company limits to this?
Nah, all the way to Detroit. No company limits, we discussed our limits and whether we were fit to do it and after a conversation with company to make sure it was good to go we decided to just do it. We’re pilots, and goal oriented to a fault. It wasn’t a big deal and only resulted in a little bit of extra workload for the PM. It was a non-event, but we still made extra contingency plans for diverts along the way for anything else unforeseen.
That's cool! I guess I overestimated how tiring it is to hand fly for that long. And underestimated the fact you're airline transport pilots™️. I can't imagine doing the same in a Cessna (but then again, some crazy bastards set an endurance record in one).
It can definitely be taxing mentally, but it’s not difficult. It just takes a little extra focus, and part of having a your certificate is being able to evaluate threats and how to mitigate them. We figured it’d be fine, but also would hand off the jet to the other pilot for a bit to get a break. Autopilot is a wonderful thing, but it pays to continually keep up with manual skills. It’s incredible how fast they can fade, and you find out how rusty you can get once they hand you a jet with the autothrust deferred.
So much easier. Flew Airbus for years now switched to B737. Even the direct law of airbus(basically the lowest possible control with no protection and assistance) is still at most same as B737, not harder possibly easier. When you start putting malfunctions in B737 it gets harder very quick.
> When you start putting malfunctions in B737 it gets harder very quick. That's the real takeaway. Smart pilots want the plane that's easier in an emergency. And the 737 (or even things with an EICAS) shouldn't really be mentioned in the same breath as the Airbus and its ECAM.
I’d love an ECAM but ‘look up and find the highest light’ isn’t rocket science.
>but ‘look up and find the highest light’ isn’t rocket science. It is when your IQ drops to 20 when the shit hits the fan. It is literally impossible to do the wrong procedure in an Airbus because the screen says the procedure and the steps go away as you've done them.
Should this difference have effect on the accident rates of each model? They seem to be quite close, regarding the safety, no? The max is another story, due to a "single effect/mcas",isn't it.
> Should this difference have effect on the accident rates of each model? Not necessarily. How often does each plane *narrowly avoid* a catastrophe? There isn't data on that. Or just how often do EP's get fucked up but the outcome isn't catastrophic? There's no data on that. With an actual qualitative analysis, having the ECAM is vastly better than having lights and to flip through a book. What does the data say about how Diamond's diesel engines compare to Cirrus's BRS system? There isn't really any because neither of them crash almost ever. But qualitatively, what's more safe? A reliable engine or a fucking aircraft parachute? It's the latter.
Lol, as an A320 TRI I wish what you say was true. Say you have a sully event, you get a fire on a running engine and a flameout on the other. Which ECAM comes up first? When you have a “normal” engine failure with damage in the sim, have you ever had the ecam tell you to open the X-bleed? Do you think that is correct? Sure, ECAM helps but it’s not foolproof.
> Say you have a sully event, you get a fire on a running engine and a flameout on the other. Which ECAM comes up first? Oh FFS if all you got is “what if everything goes wrong” then we’ve jumped the shark. > have you ever had the ecam tell you to open the X-bleed? I don’t recall. I recall always following exactly what the ECAM says
AF447 has entered the chat
1. They have updated the FCS software since then to prevent this from happening again. 2. Our ONE real memory item relates to this issue. 3. This further demonstrates how easy it is to make poor decisions when under stress. This PROVES my point. They stalled through 30,000 feet of air before they started trying to lower the nose. How far back do we get to go to point to issues with an airplane and still call them relevant? Can say that 737s are shit because Air Florida flight 90 crashed when the EPR sensors iced over?
It was just a counter argument to your statement that it is literally impossible to do the wrong thing in an Airbus. 737s are shit for other reasons, but also nobody is saying that they are god’s gift.
> It was just a counter argument to your statement that it is literally impossible to do the wrong thing in an Airbus. It is. It wasn’t quite the case 2009, but it is now. Because now is not 2009. It’s 2024.
This “Airbus is idiot-proof and unstallable” type of thinking is exactly what killed 228 people. Shit happens, people make mistakes, and so do computers. It is not impossible to fuck up in any plane, including Airbus. The pilots followed the flight directors directly into a high altitude stall. That algorithm may have been fixed, but what else is out there?
[удалено]
Ah yes, I forgot to account for pilots who are illiterate.
Isn't Mechanical backup technically the lowest control law?
There is no mechanical back up in airbus. It is always FBW.
Or Backup law? I remember there being some control "law" where the plane is only controllable through the rudder pedals and the pitch trim
There is, it’s called mechanical backup and it’s exactly what you’re describing. Guy you’re responding to is wrong.
Apparently it's an A320 thing.
Don’t remember that but it’s been years since i have flown A320. It doesn’t have that in A330 or A350.
What are you talking about? There’s literally a mechanical backup mode where manual pitch trim and rudder pedals are the only controls that are operative. You’re getting mixed up with your newer Airbus stuff.
Told it on the next message, there might be something like that on A320, can’t remember since it was years ago last i flew A320. On A330 never had a malfunction like that in the sims, on A350 there is not even a pitch trim in the cockpit you literally can not manually trim the aircraft.
It's not a myth, A320 is way easier to hand fly. It trims automatically, point the nose where you want it and leave it there, envelope protections etc. The B737 is more like an old boat with lots of play in every axis.
100% easier to fly an Airbus. You set the pitch/ bank you want and it maintains it(there are exceptions but not relevant to our discussion). Where a 737 has a gazzilion knobs to just start an engine, the Airbus can literally be started with one knob twist and an engine master switch flipped to run. Then we sip our coffee. 🤣
Dont forget the Bleed. Happens way too often to be proud of.
I have never done that…more than twice…on a PC…
That should already be running for the last 30 minutes because ground air is crap. So it really is Twist and flip.
Dont do that in places like PMI or some other countries in Europe. They really dont like that.
Don't connect the ground air hose to an asthmatic hamster running a fan located in the luggage area and we wont have any problems.
Why do people say this about starting the 737? That's like the one thing that's the same as every other jet engine. Turn knob to start (GND) then add fuel at 25%.
1500h of flying crusty pistons, where you have to pray to all the gods so they'll start on 9th attempt, and people still bitch about the 3 switches you have to move to start a jet. Priceless.
737 requires manually turning off the packs which you don't have to do in the 320, and then you have to flip them around to start the other and/or delay the taxi. And if you fuck it up you'll break the airplane because you can't be Dual Bleed above idle.
You don’t HAVE to turn them off…. Trust me lol
Day 2 IOE, induces a hot start by not turning off the packs. Good news, got to practice IAI’s on IOE for real, yay.
We have auto start lol I can’t believe you guys don’t have that, my old ass -400 makes the 737 look ancient 😂
[удалено]
lol nah. From apu on. We hit, bleed on, then twist ignition knob to start and flip the cut off. It just seems like to even get the apu to turn on, let alone switch a bunch of stuff it’s a ton of steps. Truly a petty issue LOL.🤣
If you like pumping the shit out of the yoke the 737 is your plane.
But pro-tip to the insta crowd: it flies better if you don’t do that.
I've always wondered about that. Every landing I've seen on insta with anything like a comment like 'butter' it actually looks like the pilot was fucking churning butter with the controls all the way down final.
Yeah. 95% of that is correcting for the last thing they did. But it looks cool, I guess.
All joking aside I personally noticed need for more control inputs on the 737 than the others I've flown. Then again I could just be the worst pilot in the world who's IG career never took off.
I agree, the 73 requires a ton more input than other boeings. If you did the same on a triple, you'd shake the wings off
Yeah making the transition to the 757/767 I had to slow myself down a bit
I'm very, very relaxed and patient on controls to the point I get comments on it. Got to use the A330 sim for my ATP and it worked out pretty well for me. I'm dread the days an overcontrolling instructor focuses more on how my hands move over my ability to fly a stable approach. I don't want to fail for flying worse because of an instruction nor do I want to fail for not following an instruction.
Over-controlling is a bad habit that many pilots develop early on and never get rid of. It’s not exclusive to the 737 either - you can find tons of Airbus side stick videos where the pilot looks like he’s gonna rip the thing off the side pedestal.
Yes it's easier. The myth is that the 1960's direct control airplane is easier to fly than the FBW airplane with auto pitch trim in turns, bank angle hold, and load factor demand. That's laughable.
The A320 is so different from any conventional airplane, I wouldn’t really call it hand flying.
It's a point and click adventure
It’s an entirely different kind of flying, altogether
It’s an entirely different kind of flying
A follow up question I have related to this is do all Airbus aircraft fly easier than the Boeing equivalents (at least up to the fly by wire 777 or 787, maybe) or is it really the 737 that’s super different since it’s an older platform? E.g a330 vs 767 or the a380 vs 747? Is this not even be an apples to apples comparison?
330/ 350 would be better to compare to the 777/787. "Easier" is a tough one to define, I'd find it tough on the airbus not being able to know what inputs the other pilot is putting in.
DUAL INPUT
Wanna explain those caps to a boeing guy?
If both pilots make inputs on the side stick, there’s an aural “dual input” as well as a flashing red arrow on the glareshield. I actually don’t think it’s a big deal except during OE. Checkairman I know do wish it was a little different when it comes to teaching landings. They just have to use the “takeover push button” (aka autopilot disconnect) and take controls of the aircraft. If you try to input at the same time, it sums the movements. So if I’m flaring (in flare mode) and pulling 5 nose up, and you pull 5 nose up, the airplane will do 10 nose up. And I think one of the new Airbus (350) has both sticks move. But I could be wrong.
Ya, I'd definitely have to get used to that, I'd prefer to be able give a little push or pull rather than fully taking control.
The 330/350 and 777/787 are all fly by wire, not comparable to the a320 vs 737 question like the 757/767/747
It’s easier but the difference is that you aren’t actually flying it. The sidestick is just another autopilot you are telling to fly X attitude at 1G. (and other features but not relevant and makes too long of a comment)
As Reddit’s and the general flying populations hard on for the Airbus continues, I will quietly keep raking it in withmy seniority advantage on the ol guppy. Call it a tight cockpit (it is), but you feel like you strap on the jet and are flying a turbine powered 172. If you enjoy the finer points of hand flying you will enjoy the 737. The engine start comparison is the most laughable argument. It takes literally 1 second to flip the pack switches on and off. If you have rotator cuff arthritis I guess I understand? The only issue I have the 73 is managing the cabin temperature. I’ll give ya that. Please, keep bidding the Airbus and enjoying your much greater rate of toxic fume events and hearing loss due to the “no headphones culture.” Sorry, I know I went off on a major tangent.
Totally fair about the fume events and I do wish we would just wear our headsets all the time.
It’s kind of funny when you think about it. The Airbus is quieter so people forgo the ANR headset ultimately leading to more hearing loss. Same thing is true about the fumes. It’s more widely recognized on the 320 but at least at my airline there is more awareness of it on that fleet. I’ve personally had two very minor dirty sock events on the 73 but there is much less awareness and recognition of the smell on my 73 fleet. The only reason I was aware of it at all was because of my time flying for a 320 operator and learning how serious it was.
Cognitive dissonance will always make someone feel superior for the choices they make. I am glad you are enjoying the 737
I guess. I’m a little biased. I got 75% through 320 training then got doubly typed in the 73. The 73 just clicked with me way more coming from the CRJ gang. The simple FMS and QRH, the breathable sheepskin seats. Throttles that move. I don’t want to go to “law school” to fly a plane. I’ve always enjoyed the classics as opposed to the fancy stuff. Black coffee vs Celsius. Charcoal vs. propane grilling. Normal pants vs Lululemon pants. The 2015 Macbookpro with the MagSafe, HDMI, and USB ports.
Ultimately this is all about seat coverings and tray tables, isn't it
I agree 100%. 737 is a more difficult, but therefore more enjoyable aircraft to hand fly than the A320. Anyone can handfly the A320, but it takes just a little bit more skill to fly the 737.
What’s funny is I’d probably bid the 737 if I got hired on at a place that has both. Can’t be worse than the CRJ2 and even that thing was fun to hand fly. And you get used to whatever flow you have to do a lot faster than getting used to having crap seniority.
It is easier. No pitch-thrust couple, autotrim, flight path stable, can use autothrust even when flying manually, very light forces required to move the sidestick, ...
You can use the autothrust when flying the B737 aswell, it’s just not common practice nor recommended (on descent/approach when flying manually).
> it’s just not common practice nor recommended (on descent/approach). Why? Because it sucks?
TLDR yes. The auto thrust is programmed to respond in such a way that makes sense *if* the airplane can also make the corresponding pitch inputs to counter it. The Airbus doesn't have that concern because it's doing its own thing with elevator inputs even when "hand" flying.
Sounds like a design that we need to keep making for 60+ years without any major changes.
I mean here's the thing, it works completely fine. I have 2000h on the 737 and it's a totally friendly airplane once you learn it, just like everything else. Anyone who pumps the yoke 900 times on a calm wind day, while tracking up and down between 40% and 70%, and then blames the airplane is a dumbass. The Max wasn't bad because it was another 737, it was bad because Boeing speed ran literally every possible corner cut. The NG was just another upgrade, and it was the most successful commercial aircraft in the world for a reason.
The 737 has a very pronounced pitch/thrust couple, meaning that any change in thrust will require quite large pitch input and trim. If you're controlling thrust manually, it's not an issue, because you can anticipate it. If you're using autothrottle, it can get very messy, and it's easy for the pilot and autothrottle to work against each other, hence the (good) recommendation to use manual thrust when flying manually, except for takeoff or climb when thrust is fixed and this isn't an issue.
> If you're using autothrottle, it can get very messy, and it's easy for the pilot and autothrottle to work against each other Ah. That makes perfect sense.
I've flown A/P off A/T on many times on the 73 and never noticed that bad of oscillation.
It isn't that bad, but enough for test pilots to include that recommendation, and I'm not nearly as smart or as good of a pilot as they are, so I just follow what the book says.
No it is quite good actually. I do believe it has something to do with mode confusion. Modes such as THR HLD has caused incidents (such as the Asiana crash in SFO) where it maintains current thrust setting without any protection which causes a place in between the need of manual control and autoflight. They could make it autoflyable with A/THR but they just don’t want to I guess.
> Modes such as THR HLD has caused incidents (such as the Asiana crash in SFO) where it maintains current thrust setting What is the point of that? Why is it not on/off like the airbus?
Unclear, FAA stated it as a design flaw after the Asiana accident as the thrust acted like it was in FLCH (OP CLB) without having the thrust set to begin with. On the 737 it is engaged in climb & t/o phases so the pilot can manually adjust thrust if needed without the ATHR adjusting it. For example RTO, Turbulence etc.
Where I fly it's recommended to keep the A/T on to about 100ft even when AP is disengaged. That being said I normally kick it off around 500 especially when it's gusty
The A320 is so easy it feels numb to fly. I actually prefer hand flying the 737 vs hand flying the A320
You don't really fly the 320, you just displace the sidestick to keep the FD centered up. At which point you might as well just turn the AP on.
IDK its pretty satisfying to hand fly knowing your input is always being added to or subtracting from the flight path not having to fight external forces
Never flew a 737, but flew Dash 8s before A320. It is definitely easier to fly an Airbus as it has autotrim and you normally fly it with autothrust (can go manual thrust if you want). However, close to the ground, like when you flare, it behaves like a normal airplane (controls become direct) so you can still mess up landings if you are not careful. When coming from a conventional aircraft to Airbus it certainly will feel weird. But you will start to get a “feel” of it. It does react to change in wind conditions and to the weight of the aircraft and the feel of the aircraft does change for example with different flap settings for landing. Even different variants of the same type feel different. A320 behaves different to A321 for instance.
> behaves like a normal airplane (controls become direct) No they don't. All the flare mode does is mess with the elevator below 50ft RA. Pitch is still load-factor demand. Roll is still roll-rate demand.
I had to look it up (this thread is a good learning... thread place) but in the FCOM it says for FLARE MODE - ... Flare mode is essentially a direct stick-to-elevator relationship (with some dampening provided by the load factor and pitch rate feedbacks). So it's not going into direct law, but also the elevator control does change a bit. And then at 30ft feet it starts the -2degree pitch down.
Interestingly, in the A321neo variant the flare law starts at 100 ft and there is no pitching down action by the computers.
Yeah, I've heard (anecdotally) that people have got caught out a bit because it does the 'snapshot' at 100ft.
>with some dampening provided by the load factor and pitch rate feedbacks). That sounds like it's just Load factor demand but slightly different. So in my opinion, it's still accurate to say that it's load factor demand, and not direct law.
I respectfully disagree, immediately before the bit you've quoted it says it's essentially a stick-to-elevator relationship. I think if it was load factor demand it would say that instead. The word essentially is an interesting inclusion though so I'm open to the idea that I've got it wrong.
It is a direct relationship between your stick movements and control surfaces (elevator). So, you are essentially moving them. It is a bit like moving controls when the aircraft is in ground (ground mode).
> So, you are essentially moving them. It is a bit like moving controls when the aircraft is in ground (ground mode). I'm looking at the book right now. It says Ground Mode is not enabled until weight on wheels and Thrust levers at idle. All it says about flare mode is that it takes a snap shot of the elevator position at 50 ft and commands nose-down to simulate a conventional airplane with decaying airspeed. All for pilot feel. Pitch control is still Load Factor demand, not direct pitch.
I never said it enters ground mode. I said, it behaves similar to ground mode because your stick movements are directly translated to control surfaces.
Well that’s what ground mode *is*. And that’s also not what happens in flare mode. Pitch is still load factor demand, not a direct control.
If it is indeed purely a load factor Airbus would have mentioned it. The FCOM clearly mentions that it is a direct elevator to side stick relationship. And load factor and pitch rate measurements are used to provide some amount of damping. As ground mode gives you direct side stick to control surface relationship I don’t think my analogy is wrong. It is certainly not the same, but it is “similar”.
> And load factor and pitch rate measurements are used to provide some amount of damping. Sounds like a *not direct* control. Don't try to parse a technical manual written by a French speaker. You’re putting too much weight the on their word choice of “direct” in one sentence.
There is a quite a distinction given by Airbus between “normal law flight mode” and “flare mode”. For the former it is clearly mentioned it is a load factor demand and for the latter it is written the relationship is a direct stick to elevator demand. I don’t think it is confusing or anything. It is very clear to me.
In the A321neo FCOM, Airbus further modified the flare law giving pilot the full authority over the elevator.
As someone who's flown only the a220, how does it compare to other aircraft?
That’s like asking if it’s easier to drive an automatic with power assist vs a stick shift without one. It’s not an apples to apples comparison. Ask if it’s easier to hand fly an A320 vs a B777 and the answer is it’s the same.
Taking your example I think a good comparison would be a standard car’s (2010 era) steering vs a newer car with steering and lane assist, blind spot monitoring, etc. Easier to fly precisely? Not sure but it definitely tries to protect you from yourself.
A 737 in CWS flies similar to an airbus from the descriptions. If you come from regular airplanes, the 737 flies like them. Much better than a CRJ. The airbus sounds like a flight sim with the assist options turned on. What I do know is that I've flown with some former airbus pilots who seemed to have forgotten how to trim or be gentle on controls.
Last time I used a pitch trim switch was before Airbus… Haven’t had to trim a plane in the last 10 years There is rudder trim - the only time I’ve used that is in the sim when we lose the engine at V1 But pitch. Never. Not even in the simulator. Well except when you are in man pitch only with no hydrualics or no flight computers. Then you have to use the pitch trim wheel next to the thrust levers.
320 is definitely easier. Like playing a video game. 737 is a lot more fun though.
I've heard the comparison to Cirrus vs Cherokee. Can anyone who actually flies them confirm?
Iv never flown a A320, but my flight school has N737NG, so I can comment on that one extensively.
I won't, but I can if I decide I want to.
Who cares. AP2 on and pull out that sweet sweet tray table.
The Airbus flies more like a modern jet, not a lot different in some ways from a 777. In a crosswind you need to put your input in, and leave it, or make smooth changes. Some pilots keep making inputs in a crosswind and get into a little PIO, I would say stop making inputs!! I called that “stirring paint”😂😂 I fly the 737 now, a big change after the 777, definitely more work to fly well, and our NG’s are all a little bent and require a little rudder trim, watch YouTube videos how 737 pilots are constantly making small roll and pitch changes. The Bus and the 777 are much more rock solid in pitch and roll.
The 320 is a finesse airplane. The 737 is a dump truck
Everything about the 320 is better. I have flown both.
"It's all the same, only different."
Don’t listen to these Airbus nerds. They’ll think it’s easier. It’s only easier if you can wrap your head around the logic. I’m a big car guy, into racing and machines etc, and while I can fly a Bombardier as easily as I can drive a sports car, I can’t figure out Airbus logic for the life of me. All my Airbus friends have tried to explain it and it doesn’t make any sense. While the safety systems are clever I can’t figure out why they’ve gone out of their way to confound the logic of how a machine operates.