Do Pilots Prefer AIRBUS over BOEING?!

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 25 січ 2025

КОМЕНТАРІ • 3,5 тис.

  • @MentourNow
    @MentourNow  2 місяці тому +96

    Go to saily.com/mentournow and use the code mentournow to get an exclusive 15% off your first purchase.

    • @ArchimedesDaVinci
      @ArchimedesDaVinci 2 місяці тому +14

      Captain Hornfeldt, why do you refer to aviation maintenance technicians and aircraft mechanics as *_"engineers"_* ? Is it because in your native Swedish language there doesn't exist separate words or terminology in the Swedish vocabulary to distinguish between the two different professions of aerospace engineers and A&P mechanics ?

    • @josedearimateiayjesus2178
      @josedearimateiayjesus2178 2 місяці тому +4

      What is Boeing??!!! Sounds familiar! Something from the past, maybe?

    • @RalphCunha
      @RalphCunha 2 місяці тому

      I think it does matter now more than ever. Not only is it a debate on which is safer but now we have to worry about Boeing flying a crew up to its destination and then returning without its crew all the way back to its destination. I mean it can’t stay safe within Earth’s atmosphere, now we know that it’s even unsafe out of Earth’s gravity. Forget about the “Fly-By-Wire” debate, let’s get the “Fly and stay flying by a stale aircraft” debate going…. 🤣🤣🫡✈️

    • @risharehraje793
      @risharehraje793 2 місяці тому +1

      You forgot very important point. While "modern" Airbus is on same safe level as "modern" Boeing, the issue is that most of the flying Airbuses are the modern type like A320, but most of the flying Boeings are still missing the modern features like fly-by-wire, for example 737. You also forgot to mention that the "old" 737 is currently the only Boeing in production.
      Yes, Renault has an F1 race car same as Ferrari, but most Renaults on the road are not race cars.

    • @AlejAndro-zg7bz
      @AlejAndro-zg7bz 2 місяці тому

      5:43 I would really like to see your impressions about to flying an Airbus plane, so I hope you achieve that hit very very soon!

  • @peteorengo5888
    @peteorengo5888 2 місяці тому +1944

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

    • @phil_nicholls
      @phil_nicholls 2 місяці тому +76

      @peteorengo5888 also a 787 driver here. Agree with most of your preferences, other than ECAM vs EICAS - they both work just fine.
      Probably a good thing your airline doesn’t operate the A350, as it’s saved you from drying out like a lizard. As the 78 is your first LongHaul type, you probably don’t realise just what a difference having air from the CACs makes, rather than bleed air. I flew the 744 for 10 years (great aircraft), and positioned many times on our 777’s and A350’s - and I can categorically state that the 787 is a far more pleasant place to be, and leaves you feeling far more refreshed (as much as one can be after 14+ hours) than any other type, Boeing or Airbus.
      I don’t care who makes ‘my’ aircraft, but table or no table, for me, the CAC’s win every time! 👍🏼

    • @The_ZeroLine
      @The_ZeroLine 2 місяці тому +42

      For a pilot doing long haul, the comfort of Airbus cockpits make this an easy choice. For regional flights, as a pilot, Boeing is preferable IMO.

    • @anilakman
      @anilakman 2 місяці тому +16

      Thank you for your valuable comments on this sensitive subject.

    • @sandy_knight
      @sandy_knight 2 місяці тому +41

      I have a friend who's a long haul pilot for BA, his experience was entirely Boeing (747 and 777) at the time of this anecdote. About 8 years ago we were both living in the French Alps and he'd regularly commute from GVA to LHR on another airline who flew A320s to get to work. I asked him about the classic hypothetical scenario of both pilots being incapacitated and could he land the plane safely, his answer was that the differences are big enough that someone with enough hours on an A320 in a home flight sim would probably have a better chance than he would!
      There might have been some beers involved so I don't know how serious he was and I expect it depends a lot on how many hours the amateur spent in their flight sim but personally I'd prefer it if they were both in the cockpit.

    • @HellStr82
      @HellStr82 2 місяці тому +9

      @@phil_nicholls that`s what Boeing mannagment said to the pilots when they did not tell them about MCAS. They probably don`t care

  • @jakeschroeder1553
    @jakeschroeder1553 2 місяці тому +1717

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

    • @marybarry2230
      @marybarry2230 2 місяці тому +48

      I was just about to say the same thing! Would love to see him fly an Airbus!

    • @PanosDim11
      @PanosDim11 2 місяці тому +16

      I agree it would be a nice video idea... Go for it Peter!

    • @inamortz2372
      @inamortz2372 2 місяці тому +26

      That would be a new channel: SmugtourPilot

    • @GudmundurKristjansson
      @GudmundurKristjansson 2 місяці тому +4

      Nice idea, but I believe he could and would fly the A series easily, and finding a job as a Pilot or Captain for such a well educated and involved in aviation as Petter is should be any problem if he would wanna get a job on board these A series (that I personally like better to SIM in) ... p.s. Does anybody know what MOD of an Airbus Petter and his crew use in these documentaries?

    • @mrvwbug4423
      @mrvwbug4423 2 місяці тому +3

      @@GudmundurKristjansson I'm pretty sure the sim videos that Petter uses in his videos are recorded in MSFS

  • @demetriob.losoha9398
    @demetriob.losoha9398 2 місяці тому +302

    As a long haul pilot today, I wouldn’t willingly go Boeing. I can’t imagine sitting for 8hrs+ with a moving yoke in between my legs. All respect to my Boeing colleagues, but the A350 experience is simply unbeatable today in my view. I Wouldn’t change it

    • @Fetidaf
      @Fetidaf Місяць тому +10

      I know little to nothing about aircraft, if I looked at two planes I couldn’t tell you what’s a Boeing 777 or an Airbus A320 but I’ve been playing flight sim off and on since 2020 and Boeing has more name recognition for me so I’ve always flown Boeings…
      Let me tell you that I was shocked when I first flew an A320 I think it was…. They have a freaking tray table ffs, looks like you can legit just stretch out and relax as compared to Boeing where your all cramped in with a gigantic thing between you legs. Plus given the fact that i actually figured out how to turn it on without the in-game systems and can turn on autopilot and all that without using keyboard shortcuts means i more often than not fly Airbuses now… Boeing does have better manufacturer liveries though, barring the Beluga (thing’s kinda cute), which matter a lot to me lol

    • @rhianavanessaamoin1276
      @rhianavanessaamoin1276 26 днів тому +3

      ​@@FetidafI almost knew few to nothing about aircrafts but im just interested to know about planes, but based on this video, a much "Big respect" to pilot Boieng air flyers as they are much more experienced than Airbus drivers as Boieng is the traditional design, but watching this video really make sense to choose Airbus over a Boieng as Airbuses were built more automated and reduces human errors....for safety, I would go to Airbus

    • @cmfrtblynmb02
      @cmfrtblynmb02 3 дні тому

      Interesting. Years ago I used to hear how yoke was more preferred by the pilots.

    • @jerryKJose
      @jerryKJose 2 дні тому

      Well said

  • @Uldihaa
    @Uldihaa 2 місяці тому +2833

    Boeing: pilot has ultimate authority.
    Also Boeing: MCAS

    • @AnetaMihaylova-d6f
      @AnetaMihaylova-d6f 2 місяці тому +174

      Yes last 10 years or so Boeing has been shit really

    • @dantetre
      @dantetre 2 місяці тому +376

      Money Comes Above Safety.

    • @BubblesTheCat1
      @BubblesTheCat1 2 місяці тому +286

      MCAS=May Crash Anytime Soon 😮

    • @Alexanderius
      @Alexanderius 2 місяці тому +18

      @@dantetre Brilliant!

    • @jayanspaliwal5907
      @jayanspaliwal5907 2 місяці тому +82

      ​​@@dantetre You really dived nose down into the issue

  • @thatsquidwardfeel5567
    @thatsquidwardfeel5567 2 місяці тому +2198

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

    • @daci88
      @daci88 2 місяці тому +101

      that made me laugh real hard 🤣🤣

    • @thatsquidwardfeel5567
      @thatsquidwardfeel5567 2 місяці тому +133

      @@daci88 eh, what's one door more or less among friends.

    • @daci88
      @daci88 2 місяці тому +86

      @@thatsquidwardfeel5567 indeed, I think it was a weight saving feature for better fuel economy 🤣

    • @j.e.f4808
      @j.e.f4808 2 місяці тому +13

      Yeah well in Airbus when you deploy your landing gear, you can see your front landing gear turned 90 degree causing a emergency landing. This happened more than once and it is still happening from time to time.

    • @ImpendingJoker
      @ImpendingJoker 2 місяці тому +21

      Tell that to the crew of the A400M that pulled power on all 4 engines because the flight management system detected one engine failure and decided that the pilots were making a power adjustment, so when the bad engine rolled back, the computer rolled back the other 3 to prevent an asymmetric thrust profile and killed everyone on board because Airbus thinks pilots are stupid and shouldn't be the final decision makers in an emergency.

  • @AtulBhatia
    @AtulBhatia 2 місяці тому +137

    I have 3500 hrs on the 737MAX, and now 6000+ hrs on the A320/321. I love the fact that the Airbus is so much quieter in the cockpit (I actually ditched my plan to buy noise-cancelling headsets after I switched), but also that the cockpit is more spacious, that I can stretch out over a long flight because there’s no yoke to restrict my legs from moving about. The sidestick also means that I don’t have to crane my neck to see the entire PFD and ND at certain yoke positions, and the tray table that helps me do my paperwork and eat meals more elegantly is certainly a bonus, rather than having to push the seat way back, then wedging the food tray between the yoke and my paunch. Q: how do you tell a Boeing pilot from an Airbus pilot? A: by the food stains on his tie!
    I do like the simplicity of the Airbus Flap settings compared to the Boeing’s 1-2-5-10-15-25-30-40, and the simpler brake settings - I remember having agonising debates in my mind over whether autobrake 2 or 3 would be better for this landing! Though I’m sure a lot of these dilemmas have been resolved with the new iPad-based landing distance calculator apps.
    Having said that, there were certain features on the Boeing that I still miss on the Airbus. Being able to intercept a DME arc from any intermediate radial rather than just the preset ones on the database was definitely one of them. Being able to capture and track out/in on a VOR radial is another. And the Boeing FMGS is much better than the Airbus in many respects: entering initial data on the FMGS is so much simpler, rather than having the remember D-I-F-S-R-I-P and now A. Or the fact that the VNAV allows the entry of Anti-Ice on/off flight levels for better optimisation of the descent, the expedite climb feature allows the pilot to decide whether they want best Rate of Climb or best Angle of Climb. The Climb 1 & 2 features are also something that I miss sometimes, though Airbus has added an automated version of that in the neo FADEC (not as effective, though).
    The 3-digit Mach number displayed on the Legs page allowed me to figure out the practical aspects of Cost Index on my own and the ability of the aircraft to initiate descent on its own (“when ready descend FL260…”) was a bonus that allowed us to focus on other things like traffic or approach briefing. The display of the relative headwind/tailwind and crosswind components on the Approach page was very helpful. I liked the fact that some of the TCAS units installed gave me the option of finding out the actual flight levels of the target aircraft, rather than just their relative altitude. The PFD, ND and Upper/Lower DUs displays were much sharper and the fonts used are very pleasing to the eye - I’m not a fan of the dashed range rings on the Airbus that clutter the screen and can’t even be turned off. The ability to copy a value onto the scratchpad, then paste it to another field (V1 to Vr for example) is something I still miss.
    And yes, I do miss the ability to display the cockpit entry camera on the lower DU! Instead, I have to crane my neck to see who wants to enter…

    • @kenoliver8913
      @kenoliver8913 2 місяці тому +11

      For comparing safety the better ergonomics of the Airbus planes is a serious point - it is not just about pilots enjoying it more. People get tired, noisy uncomfortable cockpits with unintuitive instrument layouts tire them much quicker, and tired people make mistakes.

    • @luke515
      @luke515 2 місяці тому +3

      on the A350, the DIR function is no more radial in/out... its now course in/out... so you dont need to do that mental calculation in your head and enter the radial, just enter the course you want.

    • @r.k862
      @r.k862 24 дні тому +1

      Thanks for that comment. Which planes are the safest - a320, a321 or a321neo? I've heard too many bad news about the reliability of the p&w engines and don't know what planes are more safer?

    • @AtulBhatia
      @AtulBhatia 24 дні тому +5

      @ Hmm… that’s a tough one. All aircraft are generally safe and get better with age, as the initial teething problems are sorted out. Remember the string of crashes the A320 has when it was first introduced?
      Having said that, the p&w engines have not yet sorted themselves out completely, but I fly them often and am not too concerned at falling out of the sky 😀 The CFM LEAP engines neos have had almost no teething problems really, so at the moment they’re safer, but i expect p&w will catch up soon.
      A320 vs A321? No difference

    • @r.k862
      @r.k862 24 дні тому +1

      @AtulBhatia thanks for your comment, I appreciate all the help that I get.
      Is there a website that's accurate to show the history of incidents and accidents that happened to specific commercial jet planes? I know the planes are generally safe but I just want to be that extra safe to soothe my conscience😄 I hardly fly on planes

  • @tomstravels520
    @tomstravels520 2 місяці тому +466

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

    • @musiqtee
      @musiqtee 2 місяці тому +37

      Certainly agree, but have an inkling that this may be a practical difference - not just “unwillingness” on Boeing’s part (caveats for last decade+ corporate shenanigans)…
      The Airbus is (as you and Petter mention) both modular and mainly digital (bus-based) in communications between the cockpit IF/UX and the functional units in the bay.
      That way, some retrofits may (!) be more a software and sensor change, running and being displayed within the existing process-units and displays. The B737 - the oldest airframe still in production - these retrofits become convoluted for practical reasons.
      The sad outcome from “larger engines -> MCAS” is an example, whereas the A32x is aging, but still new in comparison. New engines were less different to the original ones.
      Check out the original B737-200 low bypass engine mounts, engineered only a decade (plus) after some very “creative” airliners…
      (I’m 58, about the same as the original B737. Retrofitting “my systems” makes me very unreliable…😂)

    • @rolfhauser3190
      @rolfhauser3190 2 місяці тому +7

      This is definitely an advantage to Airbus, especially if they ensure all of one model in an airline's fleet get modified over a short span of time along with pilot training.

    • @soffici1
      @soffici1 2 місяці тому +17

      Few people know that the B737NG could and should have had a functioning EICAS, but Southwest, Delta and American Airlines didn’t want to spend the money to retrain their pilots, and now, 30 years later, Boeing is crying blood at the prospect of being forced to install it on the MAX -10.
      It often boils down to corporate greed, toothless government agencies and weak political will.
      Airbus have EASA write the rules for them to push innovation, Boeing has lobbyists stop the FAA from forcing them to innovate on old designs.
      Case in point: AoA is information the ADIRUs base their output on. It’s information the system has and that can easily displayed to pilots. Why is AoA display not mandatory? So that Boeing can sell it as an option, easy as that.
      Of course airline managers in charge of buying aircraft (they call them “equipment” to further distance themselves from the flying part of their company) don’t want to pay for an option, however safety-improving it would be, so pilots with blocked pitot tubes or faulty ADIRUs are doomed to die and kill everyone on board.

    • @blumac9801
      @blumac9801 2 місяці тому +9

      Airbus is very good when it comes to software updates. A lot of the A320NEO features are easily transferable to the A320CEO via just a software update. It allows airlines to standardize all their aircraft features regardless of the age difference between them. Like you said, the BUSS is a great example. Even though (most) NEOs come with a lovely BUSS pushbutton on the MIP, unlike the CEO, where the BUSS is triggered by an ADR1+2+3 FAULT.

    • @musiqtee
      @musiqtee 2 місяці тому +2

      @@soffici1 I agree with all you say here, except - “weak political will”…?
      As I see our global north economy having changed in 4’ish decades, it’s an outcome of excessive political will! They got what they wanted, or should I say “what their corporate supporters wanted”?
      Or… didn’t we understand what they wanted, and thought we (non-corporate people) wanted the same? We (someone did…) called it “freedom” after all, nice catchphrase. It worked! 😅

  • @fsclips
    @fsclips 2 місяці тому +542

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

    • @charlesbruggmann7909
      @charlesbruggmann7909 2 місяці тому +4

      @@fsclips v interesting. I wonder if Petrr will respond?

    • @glynnetolar4423
      @glynnetolar4423 2 місяці тому +15

      It's all about the comfort of the pilot.
      As a passenger, I don't know why this bugs me.

    • @cjmillsnun
      @cjmillsnun 2 місяці тому +104

      @@glynnetolar4423 Because as a passenger you want your pilots not to be over tired or fatigued (there is a difference!), as then should something go wrong you have people better placed to make critical decisions about your safety in charge.

    • @calvinnickel9995
      @calvinnickel9995 2 місяці тому +16

      This is why they are both awful aircraft. It’s like saying “my dad only beats me twice a week not four times”.
      Nobody endures more punishment than narrow body drivers. Thats why almost nobody would go from a 737 to an A320.. they just want to get out of there.. either wide body, perpetual reserve, SIM, or management.

    • @mrvwbug4423
      @mrvwbug4423 2 місяці тому +7

      @@calvinnickel9995 I assume that is mostly a result of the lots of shorter flights vs actual comfort of the aircraft, since I assume an A320 is probably as comfortable as any Airbus widebody for the pilots.

  • @rjgmedia6298
    @rjgmedia6298 2 місяці тому +418

    "Boeing give the pilot the control" .. except when MCAS is trying to crash a plane into the ground.

    • @Wintermute909
      @Wintermute909 2 місяці тому +57

      "I'm sorry Dave, but I'm afraid I can't let you do that."

    • @shubhamcweb
      @shubhamcweb 2 місяці тому +3

      @@Wintermute909 Lmao 😂

    • @CRINGE_EDITS_
      @CRINGE_EDITS_ 2 місяці тому +2

      The new 737s are a disaster lol. I used to love boeing and still do but seeing a 737 gives me flashback now.

    • @DominickWalenczak
      @DominickWalenczak 2 місяці тому +8

      Boeing aircraft still give the pilots control. The MCAS controls the stabilizer trim, so do the pilots. But if there's a disagreement, the pilots just follow the runaway stabilizer trim memory items.

    • @isfredutube
      @isfredutube Місяць тому +9

      When I flew KC-135s, and Airbus joined the market, we all liked the saying "The difference between Boeing and Airbus is the Boeing pilot outranks his airplane." But of course, now, with MCAS and who knows what else the bean counters have hidden or cheaped out on in recent Boeing planes, I think I'd prefer to fly Airbus.

  • @roberts9095
    @roberts9095 2 місяці тому +140

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

    • @mercurybard9794
      @mercurybard9794 2 місяці тому +6

      Interesting, especially given how many of my airline's mechanics moan and complain when its one of the Airbuses laid up.

    • @r0manovic
      @r0manovic 2 місяці тому +22

      A built in bench for the engineers to perform their work ergonomically. That really shows how they appreciate the importance of everyone's contributions

    • @ACPilot
      @ACPilot 2 місяці тому +1

      Strange, when i have an issue the tech do the bite test from the cockpit mcdu, not in the e & e..

    • @roberts9095
      @roberts9095 2 місяці тому +15

      @@r0manovic Engineers remembering that what they design has to be maintained by a human being, novel concept 🤣

    • @roberts9095
      @roberts9095 2 місяці тому +3

      @@mercurybard9794 They complain less when they have to work on a Boeing?

  • @anasmaaz5731
    @anasmaaz5731 2 місяці тому +26

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

    • @manifestgtr
      @manifestgtr Місяць тому

      Did you ever see that famous Q400 rant on Reddit? This pilot had just checked out in the Q400 and another guy congratulated him by hauling off on this INCREDIBLE, stream of consciousness rant on how much he hated the brakes, the air, the displays, the de-icing, basically everything. It’s one of my favorite “aviation internet” things of all time lol

  • @pablopeter3564
    @pablopeter3564 2 місяці тому +23

    I flew the A320 since 1991 and I have just retired flying as a captain.
    First of all...CONGRATULATIONS for this GREAT VIDEO is perfectly explained as far as A320 is concerned.
    I can tell you that the weak point of the Airbus fly-by-wire flight control logic is the lack of manual feed back (side stick and throttle handles).
    Greetings from Mexico City.

    • @r.k862
      @r.k862 24 дні тому

      Thanks for that comment. Which of these planes are more safer:
      a320, a321 or a321neo? I've heard many bad news about the reliability of the p&w engines and don't know what planes are more safer?

    • @rayedali2232
      @rayedali2232 17 днів тому

      ​@@r.k862 you talking about engines which don't have to do anything with aircraft. A321 usually have CFM ... also Airbus families have a choice between CFM and PW

  • @jsmith1746
    @jsmith1746 2 місяці тому +108

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

    • @mercurybard9794
      @mercurybard9794 2 місяці тому +8

      There's a reason the call the 747 the "Queen"

    • @r.k862
      @r.k862 24 дні тому

      Thanks for that comment. Which of these planes are more safer:
      a320, a321 or a321neo? I've heard many bad news about the reliability of the p&w engines and don't know what planes are more safer?

  • @PsRohrbaugh
    @PsRohrbaugh 2 місяці тому +54

    Vlog of you getting an airbus type rating?

    • @MentourNow
      @MentourNow  2 місяці тому +32

      Thank you! I'm not sure about that, but never say never!

    • @MrPomelo555
      @MrPomelo555 2 місяці тому +18

      @@MentourNowA video of you in an Airbus simulator, just for fun, would be a first interesting step everyone would enjoy to watch. 👍

    • @infinitewisdom9619
      @infinitewisdom9619 2 місяці тому +2

      @@MrPomelo555 Absolutely!

    • @GiovanniPietro9000
      @GiovanniPietro9000 2 місяці тому +2

      @MentourNow JUST DO IT!

  • @francoisjackson
    @francoisjackson 2 місяці тому +60

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

  • @beuvue
    @beuvue 2 місяці тому +160

    Bombardier C-Serie has fly-by-wire and protection laws like Airbus, but also the throttles feedback like Boeing. It doesn't have joystick feedback because the technology is not mature enough. But we can expect the next generation of aircraft to have full fly-by-wire control with force feedback. Then we can say bye-bye 737 Max and its "grandfathering" rule.
    Now, no matter what's the technology, a badly screwed bolt or a bug in a programmed line of code will screw up everything. Quality comes first.

    • @MentourNow
      @MentourNow  2 місяці тому +67

      "Active sidesticks", as they're apparently called, already exist for some business jets and I think Embraer's new military cargo plane, too. The Russian MC-21 would have had active sidesticks too (made by the same company in France that makes Airbus sidesticks) were it not for the war in Ukraine. They will definitely be part of all future airliners, I think... although technically at least Boeings with fly-by-wire have artificial feel in their yokes, which is "active" in the same sense, except of course that the two yokes are linked mechanically. Check out my previous video on sidesticks for more on this, if you like!

    • @mediocreman2
      @mediocreman2 2 місяці тому +13

      We've had force feedback joysticks for computer gaming for decades. I'm sure they can figure out how to do it on airplanes.

    • @quasimodo6860
      @quasimodo6860 2 місяці тому +18

      @@MentourNow Well, until they aren't connected anymore. Like in the Air France 777 in Paris CdG not long ago, where both pilots made disagreeing input so hard, that it detached the linkage.

    • @MBSteinNL
      @MBSteinNL 2 місяці тому +3

      ​@@quasimodo6860 Which is why you don't want those mechanical but instead FBW. No risk of an unwanted separation.

    • @NicolaW72
      @NicolaW72 2 місяці тому +2

      @@MentourNow An interesting case study would have been indeed Air France Flight 11 where the Pilots managed it to have on a 777 as few feeling what the other pilot is doing as in an Airbus.

  • @skogis06
    @skogis06 2 місяці тому +288

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

    • @jamesmyers9285
      @jamesmyers9285 2 місяці тому +24

      Not to mention the quality of the Airbus! Considering the major problems Boeing has, I won't fly them at this point, and my co-workers feel the same way. We have to travel a lot with our company, and stick with an airline who flies Airbus.

    • @perfection-r
      @perfection-r 2 місяці тому +7

      @@jamesmyers9285 How do you travel to the airport?

    • @vulpix9210
      @vulpix9210 2 місяці тому +3

      Not to mention the parts not falling off while flying

    • @termitreter6545
      @termitreter6545 2 місяці тому +3

      Aye, as long as the plane is made/designed correctly, it seems the question which is "better" is just preference (or dependant on extremely specifc criteria).
      Maybe its actually good to have at least some diversity between plane manufacturers, probably better for innovation.

    • @branlotin
      @branlotin 2 місяці тому +7

      @@vulpix9210 Being european I have a bias towards Airbus, but plenty of the problems that happened on Boeings in the last months were due to poor maintenance on the airlines' behalves. Granted the one that lost a door shortly after takeoff was like one month old and that is a real issue, but all the others were a couple of years old, that is just bad maintainance. That being said, maybe Airbus makes planes that are designed to be easier to maintain than Boeing's?

  • @gelbisch1021
    @gelbisch1021 2 місяці тому +13

    I have been 320 CA, 767 CA, 777 FO, 787 CA and currently training 777 CA. I still prefer Boeing but absolutely respect the Bus. Your analysis is very thorough and excellent. Really enjoyed it.

    • @panam747
      @panam747 2 місяці тому

      Couldn't agree more.

  • @clairegrube429
    @clairegrube429 2 місяці тому +539

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

    • @jonathanhernandez4304
      @jonathanhernandez4304 2 місяці тому +9

      I've read reports on cockpit layout philosophy but I have not taken the time to compare. I will look at this. Very informative comment!

    • @Blank00
      @Blank00 2 місяці тому +20

      @@clairegrube429 a consistent color coding and arrangement of buttons does not make things safer. One button can be mistaken for an adjacent button or a button of the same color.

    • @clairegrube429
      @clairegrube429 2 місяці тому +109

      @@Blank00 An intuitive human/machine interface reduces the mental load in phases of high stress e.g. because of an abnomal situation. This can indeed be a safety factor in such cases.

    • @memeswithoutcontext4716
      @memeswithoutcontext4716 2 місяці тому +46

      Boeing pilot here, jeah thats objektively a fair point... but to be honest compared to Airbus, Boeing has less cockpit control confusion incidents most likely due to its organic design. For example the throttle quadrant with its controls...
      Cheers.

    • @roquemocan
      @roquemocan 2 місяці тому +10

      Porsche did the design of the Airbus cockpit originally

  • @steve3291
    @steve3291 2 місяці тому +33

    I spoke to a training captain on a B747 simulator session at British Airways and his preference was Boeing as he could look away from the instruments, but leave one hand on the yoke and still feel what the aircraft was doing. I can see a case for Airbus bringing in feedback through the sidestick at some point as this is useful feedback to the pilots.

    • @rossfletcher711
      @rossfletcher711 2 місяці тому +7

      The Airbus will maintain its last flight path using flight control login and autotrim. So as long as you are where you want pitch and bank wise, and don’t move the stick accidentally, to be you can look away and be more flight path stable than there Boeing imo.

    • @FraiseVache
      @FraiseVache 2 місяці тому +1

      They already communicated on the fact they are working on tech around this. If it will ever come to fruition is another story…

    • @Lumpschlevot
      @Lumpschlevot Місяць тому

      @@steve3291 I. can do the same thing without having my hands on the thrust levers or the side stick. Just look out the window or the PFD and you know whats going on with the flight controls. In reality, you often fly the aircraft with the FCU and monitor the aircraft. Its not an issue to not have your hands on the controls. You have other sources of data.

  • @rammoxigen
    @rammoxigen 2 місяці тому +9

    the descriptions remind me so much of the debate about manual vs automatic stick shift in cars, albeit on a much smaller scale. i trained on a manual and now drive automatic and i feel like i see both sides of the argument, manual makes you truly feel in control of the car while automatic makes you feel like you're playing a game (but also you need less effort to drive). it's funny how similar arguments exist across different spheres

  • @SEOTeamBerlin
    @SEOTeamBerlin 2 місяці тому +98

    in the recent years, Boeing seems to have more safety issues, several ex-engineers published some severe whistle-blows - and I very much like that you mention the source videos in the description 👍

    • @Scoopta
      @Scoopta Місяць тому +1

      Yeah but I'm not sure the safety issues in question have anything to do with the aircraft design philosophy, they have to do with the company's philosophy

    • @sigiligus
      @sigiligus 5 днів тому +1

      @@ScooptaLet’s not beat around the bush, the entire problem with Boeing’s aircraft in the past decade (and it’s only been the past decade) is 100% due to DEI. Lo and behold, DEI became a big thing in 2013, and Boeing’s safety issues have only really come into the spotlight in the last few years. Facts are facts.

  • @theboatcheat1204
    @theboatcheat1204 2 місяці тому +275

    I flew for 27 years on B737-200-400, B747-100/200, B777-200/300, and A319/320/321 and A380. In almost every regard I preferred Airbus.

    • @luke515
      @luke515 2 місяці тому +3

      that groundspeed mini is pretty nice eh

    • @theboatcheat1204
      @theboatcheat1204 2 місяці тому +7

      @ Absolutely brilliant… but when you first make an approach in very windy conditions it takes a bit of faith to believe you’re not ending up with a rushed approach. In a 319 at light weight you could see 160 kt at 200 ft with a VREF of 116 kt or so… and then it all magically works out at the last minute.

    • @theboatcheat1204
      @theboatcheat1204 2 місяці тому +1

      @@ClaysonAntoons Where to start? The 777 is pretty bloody good - especially compared with the classic 747 - but the FLCH trap casued a few colleagues a scare (never got caught myself but apparently not nice). The A380 has so many brilliant touches that it would take week... a couple of examples:
      1. Going into anywhere with taxi routes that make the runway exit point important, once you know the landing runway, bring up the airfield chart on the ND, select the runway exit you want, and select BTV on the autobrake selector, and the aircraft delays braking until a single moderate application will get you to 20 kt 50m or so before you arrive at the lead-in line to the taxiway.
      2. I once landed 60 TONNES over MLW because of a life-or-death medical emergency. At a LW of 452 000kg, I autolanded (AL is demonstrated and calibrated up to MTOW) and touchdown was smooth as silk, with max reverse and manual braking (knocked autobrake off as soon as it touched down in exactly the right place with a safe groundspeed for the runway [KEF - strong headwind]) and the aircraft sent the data to Maintrol and Toulouse before we finished the rollout. The data assessment confirmed no exceedences or excessive accelerations and we carried on to LAX on an ACF for 5 flights. On return to LHR a full data dump and visual inspection confirmed zero issues and the aircraft was cleared for service. Awesome beast.

    • @Matrixxxdancer
      @Matrixxxdancer 2 місяці тому +15

      The A380 ist one of my absolute favourite Airplanes of all time. Such a beast! It looks smaller than you expected when you approach it walking towards the terminal. Then, it's size becomes so giant that you wonder how such a thing could ever fly! And then... when you fly (as a passenger), it is so nice - at least (in my experience) when you fly SIA. :)

    • @ClaysonAntoons
      @ClaysonAntoons 2 місяці тому +7

      @@theboatcheat1204 Thanks for the reply. Now I understand some of your reasoning for preferring Airbus to Boeing. It's really interesting when a pilot who has flown the 777 doesn't say the 777 is their most favorite aircraft since that is the most "worshipped" aircraft, based on all the statements pilots make about it.

  • @crooney82
    @crooney82 2 місяці тому +20

    I’m an Airbus pilot and I absolutely love flying it. It’s been designed so well and it’s a spaceship that’s also a 1980s Atari. The automation allows you to really think about where the airplane is and where it needs to be and because of this you can do your job of managing the flight path with great precision. BUT! The airplane can be tricky to land in windy conditions because all of the amazing seat of the pants flying skills you earned flying other jets and piston airplanes gets thrown aside. So when you come in to land in a big crosswind for example you need to be thinking ahead of the airplane and anticipate what it’s going to do because you can’t FEEL anything that’s happening. It’s all visual. If you fly it like a regular airplane it will punish you with bad landings. And even when you put in the correct inputs sometimes the landings won’t go super smooth. Therefore you’re thinking minutes ahead of your approach “ok get the right wing down and land upwind wheel first but don’t bank too much to deploy the spoilers and I’m going to kick in left rudder at ten feet and go idle at 20’” in contrast with a regular jet where you’re just landing on instinct and coordination and experience which is better in my opinion. The airplane isn’t as good as a traditional jet in situations where the autopilot and flight directors get turned off because it’s a flight path airplane and really doesn’t give you any feedback. But because we are usually flying into busy airports it’s not an issue. My colleagues that fly the Boeings also greatly respect and admire their jets but complain about the small and loud cockpits.

    • @kenoliver8913
      @kenoliver8913 2 місяці тому +4

      Yes - it seems really foolish of Airbus not to implement lots of feedback to supplement instrument feedback - ie put some tactility into the joystick and make the throttles move to the position that the engines "see". This might have been difficult to do reliably and safely when the A300 was being built, but not now.
      None of that would compromise Airbus' correct philosophy of giving the pilots as little opportunity to stuff up as possible - hard protections ARE better than soft ones because even superbly trained humans are error prone. But especially in Direct Law, when almost by definition relying on visual feedback from instruments is problematic, that haptic feedback will be a real help with the pilots' situational awareness.

  • @jumboneil
    @jumboneil 2 місяці тому +193

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

    • @rogerk6180
      @rogerk6180 2 місяці тому +12

      Airbus came along a lot later and started their planes of with a very forward looking technology first design aproach.
      Boeing still has a big legacy in traditional design concepts and their transition has been a lot more difficult and probably caused a lot of conflict within the company about what would be the right way to move forward.
      Couldn't have been easy to change that philosophy within boeing.

    • @jumboneil
      @jumboneil 2 місяці тому

      @@rogerk6180 interestingly, guys and gals I know on the 787 and many of my A350 colleagues agree that both aircraft are starting to come closer in some of the design philosophy when we compare notes…..

    • @KamBar2020
      @KamBar2020 2 місяці тому

      AirBus: Slava 🥖

    • @HarmonyLife787
      @HarmonyLife787 2 місяці тому

      oh no...

    • @petep.2092
      @petep.2092 2 місяці тому +3

      Smooth sailing, eh? You might want to actually read up on the development of the A350. You're flying version 2 which used to be called the XWB. Version 1 was roundly rejected by the airlines as "nothing new, go away." And you must've not been around for the 149-hour glitch… had to power down and reboot the airplane before reaching 149 hours of continuous power-on time, else data concentrators would glitch, leading to all primary displays going blank, among other things.

  • @richardfic
    @richardfic 2 місяці тому +106

    In a perfect world, you would take the benefits of both systems and combine them. Like an Airbus with active side sticks or a Boeing with Airbus protections.

    • @TommyRaines
      @TommyRaines 2 місяці тому +29

      You mean a BoBus ?

    • @robelteshome1544
      @robelteshome1544 2 місяці тому +19


      I was thinking of Airing 😅

    • @robelteshome1544
      @robelteshome1544 2 місяці тому +6

      Or Airing?😂

    • @Juan-qv5nc
      @Juan-qv5nc 2 місяці тому

      And which documentation is better, the "engineer's cut" Airbus or the "essentials" Boeing. I'd go with the one that keeps my feet warm (fancy a pony plane).

    • @experimentalcyborg
      @experimentalcyborg 2 місяці тому +3

      Wouldnt a boeing with airbus protections not end up being an airbus with force feedback side sticks? 😂

  • @midknight1978
    @midknight1978 23 дні тому +6

    as a sidenote, 22:47 . as an a350 pilot, a350s dont have BUSS anymore when All ADR failure is triggered. its simply called Backup Speed. where it uses AOA probes, engine parameters and weight. at low mach speed, backup speed is computed using AOA sensors while on high mach on engine parameters. all speed and altitude indicators are there but within +/- 10 knots margin of error. laws head to direct law

  • @kevintaylor31
    @kevintaylor31 2 місяці тому +283

    Oh boy you've opened a can of worms here!
    As an engineer I'm going to say Airbus.
    I've worked on Boeings from the 707 right up to the present day's 787 I helped build and maintain Airbus' from the A300 up to the present day's A350. The build quality of Airbus and the way that the company just makes incremental design improvemants along with the way the flight deck layout is what edges it for me.
    Oh! That and the truly awful build quality of Boeing jets today. I've never seen such a poorly constructed aircraft as the B787 before and the Avionics architechture is just insane. Why so many computers, so many electonics that the aircraft's electronics need liquid cooling, unlike the Airbus with two computers and a conventional cooling system.
    As for the paint (Or lack of it) on the wings of the Boeing 787!!! No more words needed.

    • @glynnetolar4423
      @glynnetolar4423 2 місяці тому

      Yes, the efficiency of Airbus. You only need 2 computers to kill people. Well, there are documented cases of where the computers decided the pilots were wrong and crashed the plane. So...

    • @fjp3305
      @fjp3305 2 місяці тому +4

      Liquid cooling? You mean, like a radiator?

    • @lours6993
      @lours6993 2 місяці тому +26

      @@fjp3305 No. He means like a 1980's mainframe computer.

    • @Blank00
      @Blank00 2 місяці тому +8

      @@kevintaylor31 the lack of paint on 787s is cosmetic and caused by how novel new materials were at the time. A350 has a very similar issue, but on the fuselage. Neither are safety issues.

    • @peterzarkowskyl2752
      @peterzarkowskyl2752 2 місяці тому +6

      That’s because all 787’s are assembled in South Carolina. Different build attitude than Everett where I worked.

  • @JPR3D
    @JPR3D 2 місяці тому +36

    I haven't done a ton of flying but as a passenger I always noticed the Airbus planes tended to be smoother in all aspects. As a non-pilot, I feel like the automation of Airbus does make their planes safer, but may require a greater technical understanding of the systems in the case of anything abnormal. "The plane is doing a thing we need to correct" becomes "The plane is doing a thing we need to correct, and it's because the automation is in mode X trying to do Y" so training and systematic understanding is paramount.

    • @RainBoxRed
      @RainBoxRed 2 місяці тому

      Except time and time again the pilots like to take control and make the situation worse. Trust your instruments!

    • @NicolaW72
      @NicolaW72 2 місяці тому

      Indeed.

    • @mandandi
      @mandandi 2 місяці тому

      I agree with you on this one. The Airbus automation seems to give me as a passenger comfort, but Boeing planes seems to be too noisy and sometimes not feel so stable in the air. Maybe this is the feedback most pilots are referring to in their comments.

  • @JoeAchilles1
    @JoeAchilles1 2 місяці тому +501

    Aside from the 737 Max where Boeing didn't want pilots to have ultimate control. 🙄

    • @danharold3087
      @danharold3087 2 місяці тому +31

      Actually that is not correct. MCAS was intended as a Maneuvering Control Augmentation System. It was supposed to make the airplane feel like the 737 NG not take away control from the pilots. The errors on this system are so outrageous that I expect it was not done by control system professionals.

    • @Infiltator2
      @Infiltator2 2 місяці тому +47

      @@danharold3087 Which is not ultimate control anyways

    • @Gaferr-r4r
      @Gaferr-r4r 2 місяці тому +8

      Yes it is ultimate control once you turn the stab trim off!!!

    • @bocahdongo7769
      @bocahdongo7769 2 місяці тому +9

      ​@@danharold3087you describe what "not in ultimate control" is

    • @zappulla4092
      @zappulla4092 2 місяці тому

      @@bocahdongo7769no one is going to debate this with you. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about and just want to argue and ask such a silly question.

  • @der.Schtefan
    @der.Schtefan 2 місяці тому +24

    One can always use a MSFS 2020 Fenix A320 to start, and then simply pay couple hundred euros for a real Lufthansa A320 sim (they even do sim sessions for people without any flying experience) in either MUC, FRA, or BER. A great Xmas gift, btw.

    • @filipesiegrist
      @filipesiegrist 2 місяці тому

      Soon we'll have FBW A380 too.

    • @btwosoft
      @btwosoft 2 місяці тому +1

      Could you give more info or the link? Living next to FRA, and did not know Lufthansa has doors open for everyone.

  • @Tioaik
    @Tioaik 5 днів тому +2

    Great comparation. Just one smal remark: Airbus Aircrafts do not use auto throtle (servoi movement of throtle levers) but autothrust, taht`s to say, throtle levers have no feedback respect to the thrust selected, which is digotally sent to the engine computers. Thank you for your videos.

  • @seriouscoderedmoon
    @seriouscoderedmoon 2 місяці тому +205

    Boeing: We have better and top of the line future proof aircraft.
    Airbus: We have bolts on our door 😎

    • @markblanch2905
      @markblanch2905 2 місяці тому +10

      The majority of Boeing aircraft aren't futureproof at all

    • @ginger_breadman
      @ginger_breadman 2 місяці тому

      @@markblanch2905What about Airbus?

    • @chrisb.2028
      @chrisb.2028 2 місяці тому +1

      Ouch 😅

    • @ninofromkitchennightmares1497
      @ninofromkitchennightmares1497 2 місяці тому

      @@markblanch2905 And the A380 is?

    • @KamBar2020
      @KamBar2020 2 місяці тому

      AirBus and Dassault Aviation: Slava BAGUETTE 🥖 Heroyam Croissant 🥐

  • @MutheiM_Marz
    @MutheiM_Marz 2 місяці тому +43

    In Military Aviation they also do the Airbus approach.
    Many US made fighter, pilot is manager. In a fight, they want pilot to focus on the target so many things are done by computer.

    • @codorion7
      @codorion7 2 місяці тому +5

      that's interesting! i also heard somewhere that some fighter designs are pretty complicated and counterintuitive to the point where the "airbus approach" is more or less the only option. manually flying would result in an immense mental workload (which is probably not ideal for military operations).

    • @kingcrimson5483
      @kingcrimson5483 2 місяці тому +5

      I think that's more of a Lockheed thing. They were always first to bring more automation to aviation. It's a shame they left commercial aviation.

    • @cfzippo
      @cfzippo 2 місяці тому +7

      As a former US F-16 pilot I couldn’t disagree more. It’s NOT the “Air Bus approach.” (Yes I fly the 350 now as well.) US Fighters go far beyond the strict hard limitations of an Air Bus. A US Fighter would be operating in what Air Bus considers Direct Law. Yes in a modern fighter you are aided by computer, but you are taking in and dealing with MUCH more input and a far more complicated dynamic in a combat environment. Most of that computer function is doing that targeting, not flying.

    • @filipesiegrist
      @filipesiegrist 2 місяці тому +1

      Actually, control laws in combat jets are not the same as airbus ones.
      From what I understand, the fly by wire in those are to help controlling the aircraft in many manouvers like flying sideways and looping.

    • @valrond
      @valrond 2 місяці тому +1

      @@cfzippo It's odd coming from the first (I think) fighter with a sidestick (that didn't move either, how odd to fly is that?) and FBW, which is what Airbus has done for the past 40 years or so.
      Of course you have a greater control of your fighter than of an airliner, the mission is different, but you still have a computer that decides HOW to actually interpret your inputs and send it to the actual control surfaces.
      I'd say the F-16 and F/A-18 are more like Airbus and the F-14 more like Boeing, a lot more manual and hands on. The F-15 would be a mix.
      Now, if we compare the F-35 to Boeing or Airbus, which one do you think is closer?

  • @apinakapina
    @apinakapina 2 місяці тому +1

    Just an enthusiast here. I had heard of the design philosophies of the manufacturers of course, but it's great to have this clear explanation. So thank you!

  • @dcxplant
    @dcxplant 2 місяці тому +190

    This is highly relevant in my case. 12 years on Boeing 737, 757/767, and 7 years left seat in the A320 series. For the narrow body, Airbus 100% all-day every day. Widebody my company has Boeing only after they canceled an A350 order. I am staying on the A320 series because I simply do not want to fly with a big yoke anymore.

    • @MentourNow
      @MentourNow  2 місяці тому +25

      Thanks for that feedback!

    • @charlesbruggmann7909
      @charlesbruggmann7909 2 місяці тому +4

      @@dcxplant
      Any idea why your company doesn’t want A350?

    • @cjmillsnun
      @cjmillsnun 2 місяці тому

      @@charlesbruggmann7909 Probably have made a deal with Boeing and got a discount. Airbus do the same with some of their customers.

    • @dcxplant
      @dcxplant 2 місяці тому

      @@charlesbruggmann7909 My guess is a lack of vision. Official story was to "streamline".

    • @MarkCdib-h8u
      @MarkCdib-h8u 2 місяці тому

      @@charlesbruggmann7909 Usually it comes down to $s

  • @falcodante1114
    @falcodante1114 2 місяці тому +29

    To mee it looks like Airbus with active sidesticks and moving thrust levers would be quite optimal.

    • @UserDefaultEurope
      @UserDefaultEurope 2 місяці тому +2

      You get used to the static stick and throttles really fast. Also less chance of a mechanical issue with them.

    • @Lumpschlevot
      @Lumpschlevot Місяць тому

      @@falcodante1114 The fixed thrust levers is not an issue. The EPR guage starts catching your eye and it becomes normal to notice changes. Just takes a little time and it normalizes. The thrust lever philosophy really is better on the bus.

    • @Narnian77
      @Narnian77 23 дні тому

      Airbus throttles do move, if you move them 😉
      Many Airbus pilots at my airline often disconnected autothrust during an approach to landing.
      They’ll act just like Boeing throttles when you do that.

  • @av8rgrip
    @av8rgrip 2 місяці тому +21

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

  • @TommyRaines
    @TommyRaines 2 місяці тому +14

    Two different design approaches, plusses and minuses to each - very well explained, thank you.
    However quality of manufacturing and testing may have a bigger effect on the outcomes then the design differences.

    • @termitreter6545
      @termitreter6545 2 місяці тому

      Yeh, thats definitely the takeaway. When theyre correctly designed, tested and produced, there is pretty little difference in Airbus/Boeing performance, seems to be tiny margins.
      And thats still true for most boeing aircraft, luckily enough^^

  • @LuxPlanes
    @LuxPlanes 2 місяці тому +12

    I would say in general I’m more of a Boeing person because the 737 is my favorite airplane. But I think that only happened to be because I know more about the 737 than any other aircraft. Regardless, Airbus has beautiful airplanes with interesting features which are also plenty of fun to learn about. I just wish I had enough time and space in my head to know everything about both!

    • @euloge996
      @euloge996 2 місяці тому +1

      Yessir

    • @eyupbninuydurukgrafigi43
      @eyupbninuydurukgrafigi43 2 місяці тому

      I used to be same as you, but as soon as I got into details of all the systems in Airbus and how they work, it simply flabbergasted me. Now I'm an Airbus guy.

  • @mikaeljohansson6335
    @mikaeljohansson6335 2 місяці тому

    Tack!

  • @paulchen9145
    @paulchen9145 2 місяці тому +6

    17:32 this I dont really understand...
    why is there not just a big fat screen at the top of the cockpit between both monitors thats only shows either "NORMAL LAW", "ALTERNATE LAW" or "DIRECT LAW" in either green, yellow or red.
    Why does crucial and important information like this always need to be hidden away on some random screen in the lower left corner with font-size 15px

  • @cfzippo
    @cfzippo 2 місяці тому +30

    28 years now at my airline, 727, 737, 757, 767 (Most time 75/76) 330 and now a 350 captain. Safety wise? Really not much difference. Air France 447? Birgenair Flight 301? Virtually the same accident. The Asiana 777 in SFO? So, it’s training, being familiar with your systems, knowing your airplane. So? Yes my favorite to hand fly is the 757. But? Overall I don’t like the yoke as much as the stick. I like the very much more comfortable seats in the Air Bus, and the TV tray 😂 the 350 in particular is a nice flying jet for long haul, quiet and comfortable. But honestly? Give me pay, lifestyle and either airplane is fine. Of those I’ve flown the 737 is probably my least favorite. While the 737-200s flew like a Cessna 310 almost, the 700, 800 and 900? Ya well I’d take the Air Bus over those. But IF you paid me what I make now to fly the 757 to Hawaii the last year of my career? I’d take it!!😅

    • @fredsmith2277
      @fredsmith2277 2 місяці тому

      being equals bad, imperfect, unsafe !!!

    • @Tom-xy9yy
      @Tom-xy9yy 2 місяці тому +2

      @@fredsmith2277 As does poor spelling.

    • @ramongutierrez-gq4cq
      @ramongutierrez-gq4cq 15 днів тому

      What will you prefer A320 vs 737?

  • @Ghosty.300BLK
    @Ghosty.300BLK Місяць тому +3

    “Comparison is the thief of joy.” When I first got into flight simming, I started with Airbus because I found them easier to fly and understand while I was still learning. That being said, I do really love Boeing a lot as well. I enjoy both types and like flying both of them. Boeing has a certain 'mechanical' feel to it that is nice, and I find enjoyable. That, and I think that a Boeing 737NG/MAX is more 'exciting' to look at in comparison to an Airbus A320 family airliner. In flight simming, looking cool is half the battle, lol. Jokes aside, I like the layout of the Boeing 737 flight deck, and I have an easier time navigating it. The Airbus' MCDU sometimes felt disorienting, having to go through so many different pages and even having to input certain things into it. Obviously, that's a me issue; I'd have to learn more to fully understand the systems and how they work. But for simply flying along, I get by. Long story short, I like both Boeing and Airbus aircraft. I have a bit more of a Boeing preference, though.

  • @geoffreycoury1171
    @geoffreycoury1171 2 місяці тому +12

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

  • @GThu1
    @GThu1 2 місяці тому +13

    At 26:27, I notice that B737, including the Max family, is actually *not* Gen4 aircraft. That means, it actually has much worse safety statistics...

  • @verdunluck1578
    @verdunluck1578 2 місяці тому +62

    I have had the pleasure of flying the Boeing 737 and the Airbus A320 family, so maybe I may be allowed a comment.
    Over 3000 hours on the B737 (200 and 3/4/500). The 200 was described to me on the type course as a "Cessna 172 with jet engines" and it was maybe a bit like the Tiger Moth in that it was easy to fly and difficult to fly well. There were all sorts of glitches, being speed unstable at lower speeds being one of them. The 737 400 had less of those sort of problems, but the automation was very much new wine in old bottles.
    I then went onto the A319 and hated all the differences (even the switches were upside down!), but learned to get along with it and discovered that slightly different techniques were needed. For example sudden control inputs in the last 50 feet would be at the time the control laws were changing (blending was the Airbus word) into the ground range. You learned to make gentle control inputs preferably a bit higher than you might on a 737.
    I then went back on the 737 for a while and was surprised how much I missed the finer points of the Airbus.
    My final flying years were spent on the Airbus (a total of 6000 hours) and by the end had learned to love it. so between the two I would always want to fly the A320 in preference to the B737, but I do acknowledge that I have never flown the more recent Boeings.
    However, given a totally free choice, can I have the Twin Otter, an aeroplane I still love most.

    • @jetporter
      @jetporter 2 місяці тому +3

      excellent comment. My only jet experience is on the BAe-146, and large deHavilland types. And small DeHavilland types. So basically I have been flying the same aeroplane for 20,000 hours. I have friends who fly old Boeings, new Boeings, and Airbuses, and they all seem to favour whatever they happen to be flying at the time, which is a great attitude. My happiest hours were spent flying a Twin Otter on CAP floats. Peace, brother.

    • @Michael.Chapman
      @Michael.Chapman 2 місяці тому +2

      I enjoyed reading both perspectives above, and your experience paths. I’ve nearly 2000 hrs, since the late ‘80s, mostly on B747 variants-sadly just in MSFS ;-)

  • @krasberg
    @krasberg 2 місяці тому +31

    Pilots knowing their plane is more important.

  • @jessicanicolebelmonte6252
    @jessicanicolebelmonte6252 2 місяці тому +10

    I have dreamed of being an airline pilot since age 3, but that train has long since left the station without me. As a fall-back I developed a keen interest in software development in my teens. And from that background can comment on the differences with the electronic displays and the operating manuals.
    Back in the mid 1980s to late 1990s both the hardware *and* the software manuals were very detailed and very extensive. In fact, I was able to build and assemble several computers in that time-frame with just the provided manuals. I was also able to learn several programming languages and build some impressive programs for the hardware limitations I had. By the early 2000s the hardware manuals had evolved (or rather devolved) into a quick reference flyer that was often smaller than an A5 sized piece of paper, and building my own computer became nearly impossible. A similar trend had occurred with software. Even consumer software came with extensive manuals that detailed how to use all the various features of the software, encouraging exploring and learning new features that make your life easier. Nowadays you only get a Quick Installation Guide booklet, if at all. Back in the 1990s the included manuals for a software development tool could easily occupy about one meter of shelf-space. And it was usually possible to find an answer to a startled “Why the heck is this happening (or not happening)?”. Nowadays the included manuals are virtually non-existent, and even the “official” on-line manuals are often sub-par. I find myself more often having to wade through standards documents, then trying to puzzle out how the implementation of my tool differs from the official standard. I also have to search through a huge volume of forum and/or discussion board archives while trying to find an answer my questions.
    So with that background in mind, I have to concede the win to the Airbus ECAM and the Airbus Flight Operations Manual.Yes, there might be a danger of information overload, but it will be a huge help when you need to figure out some bizarre fault indication.

  • @charlesjw2
    @charlesjw2 2 місяці тому +40

    As a non pilot intuitively i prefer the Airbus philosophy.

    • @danielaramburo7648
      @danielaramburo7648 2 місяці тому +3

      As a future student pilot, the Airbus sounds boring.

    • @charlesjw2
      @charlesjw2 2 місяці тому +6

      @@danielaramburo7648 sure, we all make choices. I would avoid Boeing like the plague if i could.

    • @luke515
      @luke515 2 місяці тому +4

      @@danielaramburo7648 erxactly what a student would say... fly in the airline for a few years on both types and answer that question again.

    • @animegamingdude
      @animegamingdude Місяць тому +1

      @@luke515 airbus is boring

    • @animegamingdude
      @animegamingdude Місяць тому +1

      @@charlesjw2 why avoid boeing

  • @pavelastashkin3530
    @pavelastashkin3530 2 місяці тому +24

    There is one more thing, that wasn't mentioned. The assembly quality or production culture. It doesn't matter how great the feature is when it isn't working. I've flown both Airbus and multiple Boeings, as well as the Embraer and others. And from that perspective, the overall thoughts are not quite matching.

    • @selinan3077
      @selinan3077 16 днів тому

      So which one is better in your opinion?

    • @pavelastashkin3530
      @pavelastashkin3530 16 днів тому

      @selinan3077 it's like comparing a truck to the executive saloon. They are both good for what they were made for. From the comfort and ergonomics standpoint the Airbus is a clear winner in my humble opinion.

  • @Mark-oj8wj
    @Mark-oj8wj 2 місяці тому +33

    I flew Boeing for 6 years before moving to Airbus and I was very reluctant to leave the 737 but it didnt take me long to realise the Airbus is a way better machine!

    • @jimm3379
      @jimm3379 2 місяці тому +2

      So, the frontal lobotomy prior to ground school was successful 😂

  • @junksails814
    @junksails814 15 днів тому +1

    Another reason - Sully flew his A320 into the Hudson for perfect ditching 11 degree pitch up and gear up. The real reason for the safe splash was AIRBUS design. After the APU powered the AC Busses, the Flight Control Law activated as designed. Sully had the side stick at 14-16 degrees fluctuating pitch up all the way . BUT the AC pitched only 11 degrees to maintain the green dot speed. That 11 degree was a constant pitch by the computers, regardless of what Scully had his side stick input of 14-16 full aft side stick input. The computers over rode and gave him the best pitch to fly with out stalling. This alone put thw AirBus techonology way ahead of Boeing.

  • @H3liosphan
    @H3liosphan 2 місяці тому +11

    Fly by wire is great, but I disagree with Airbus' choice of summing dual inputs, can't think of any circumstances where this would help in any emergency. Trouble is the only real fix would be to implement expensive and heavy side stick feedback mechanisms. But I think a simple vibration system might be enough in its place. Something, anything, to shake a pilot into realising its happening.

    • @Wargasm54
      @Wargasm54 2 місяці тому

      I don’t think they would be heavy or expensive. Even cellphones have haptics these days.

    • @2adamast
      @2adamast 2 місяці тому +1

      You mean something like flashing lights and audio warning like what airbus implemented for dual input

    • @hankwangn
      @hankwangn 2 місяці тому +2

      Summing the inputs of two sticks is the only sensible way if they aren't mechanically linked. An alternative might be the average input, but that's just half of the sum and that would halve your control range during normal operation (zero input from the non-flying pilot).
      A mechanism that picks one input and ignores the other based on some criterion would be far worse because it could lead to an abrupt switch from one pilot to the other while the pilot that's actually in control is making a manoeuvre.
      If the sticks are virtually linked so that the stick that's not held by a pilot follows the movements of the other stick, then the average would be the right thing.
      Maybe Airbus will introduce force feedback with linked sticks some day. Not easy in engineering: the force must be large enough that it's noticeable in a panic situation but it can't take a lot of space and it must be absolutely impossible for the mechanism to jam and render the stick inoperable.

    • @szdorant
      @szdorant 2 місяці тому +1

      Since the audio warning can be suppressed by other alerts and visual not noticed, some stick vibration could be really useful for dual input. Should be very cheap and bulletproof, probably also easy to retrofit. Although Airbus does not have a stick shaker (?) ideally it should feel quite different than one to prevent confusion for transitioning pilots.

  • @ramon3221
    @ramon3221 2 місяці тому +11

    "feel what the aircraft is doing" is the 1st thing you need to let go if you get an instrument rating. Dont trust your feeling, trust your instruments! But do cross checks. As I learned the hard way in my flight training with an old style attitude indicator that "failed" in the sim, I ended up with a pretty large course deviation before I had 100% identified "the problem" and started ignoring the faulty instrument. Very good lesson!

  • @David1212-p9d
    @David1212-p9d 17 днів тому +1

    I remember that in the Air France crash over the ocean that one pilot was pushing down on his joystick and the other pilot was pushing up which then canceled them both out. Both pilots had no idea what the other pilot was doing. That always made me nervous about the airbus planes. But I think both boeing and airbus are both so advanced in technology that they are both really safe.

  • @Blank00
    @Blank00 2 місяці тому +142

    Airbus: pilot error is unavoidable
    Boeing: computer error is unavoidable

    • @anotheruser9876
      @anotheruser9876 2 місяці тому +19

      Europe: eggs shouldn't be washed to prevent salmonella poisoning.
      America: eggs should be washed to prevent salmonella poisoning.

    • @Sonny_McMacsson
      @Sonny_McMacsson 2 місяці тому +8

      @@anotheruser9876 Me: Eggs

    • @charlesbruggmann7909
      @charlesbruggmann7909 2 місяці тому

      @@anotheruser9876
      Not quite: eggs must be washed and refrigerated. Then the US refuses to collect and publish sufficient data to allow for comparisons.

    • @FrancisFjordCupola
      @FrancisFjordCupola 2 місяці тому +10

      Take 100 computers and 100 humans. Now let them compute something like the total of the first 100 prime numbers. Who can compute faster and is less error prone? Hardware issues are usually related to sensors and not to the computer. "Computer error" is often faulty sensors or software error... and the software is written by humans. Computers are way much more reliable than humans. It's not even on the same scale.

    • @TheGerudan
      @TheGerudan 2 місяці тому +4

      While both is not fully true, I think past accidents have shown that pilots generally make a lot more mistakes than computers. Then again: You need pilots most, when something goes so wrong, that the computer becomes somewhat helpless in the first place. So having a lot of computers to look over what the pilot is doing and even intervene is correct in my opinion. It still means you need good pilots for exactly the situations in which something is so damaged or goes so wrong, that the computer can't act anymore.

  • @Klink330
    @Klink330 2 місяці тому +47

    Re the S7 incident description; you left out a feature that Airbus have designed into the displays during flight in degraded laws.
    They don’t have to look at the ECAM to notice that the aircraft is in Alternate or Direct law. The PFD has indications to help the pilots. As alternate law is no big deal, the indications are subtle (but obvious to a well trained Airbus pilot).
    If the aircraft is in direct law, both PFDs (the screen that the Russian pilots would have been glued to during their pitch oscillations) had a hugely obvious message displayed in the blue part of the attitude display that reads “USE MAN PITCH TRIM”.
    Maybe it was a language barrier, poor training, or something else - but one of the two pilots should’ve seen this and followed its guidance.

    • @ender22782
      @ender22782 2 місяці тому +3

      Maybe they did notice it but failed to note that the trim was in the full-up setting.

    • @Asp3ct_260
      @Asp3ct_260 2 місяці тому +3

      ⁠@@ender22782That's hard to believe as if one of the pilot would have noticed their first tought should be looking at the trim wheel.

    • @marksuslenkov8757
      @marksuslenkov8757 2 місяці тому +3

      Imagine the startle effect the S7 crew faced. Departing in a winter storm from an airport surrounded by mountains, on a fully loaded A321neo, they encountered speed fluctuations almost immediately after takeoff. They were likely experiencing moderate turbulence, adding to the stress and compounding the initial shock that led to the ensuing aircraft upset. This reaction aligns with the urgency and confusion heard in their initial radio transmission.
      So I doubt that they didn’t get the message on the FMA due to a language barrier or something.
      Other aircraft faced similar weather but managed uneventful departures by following the procedures like unreliable speed. Even if the S7’s fuselage had been de-iced, ice ridges would still have been a problem, as these form primarily from melted on the warmed windows snow. For aircraft like the A321neo, which require more ground time for start-up and warm-up during winter, the prolonged exposure to falling snow makes ice ridges more likely.
      Preventing such incidents requires more than just de-icing. Proper training is essential to maintain manual flying skills and combat complacency. Additionally, implementing specific holdover time limits to address ice ridge formation, based on precipitation rates, would also help.

    • @Klink330
      @Klink330 2 місяці тому +3

      @@marksuslenkov8757 fair comment, but it’s not an FMA indication; it’s a large, red message written across the blue (sky) part of the attitude indicator. It’s designed to be very hard to miss and gets the PF’s attention because he will be flying the aircraft manually at that point.

    • @robertoescalante5767
      @robertoescalante5767 2 місяці тому

      @@Klink330 Amber message, not red. Mechanical backup is red.

  • @Cptbaraa
    @Cptbaraa 2 місяці тому +6

    Currently flying the B787, previously flew the A320… let’s be honest, I love both. But at the end of the day, I’ll always choose the bigger aircraft. What really matters to me isn’t just the type of plane-it’s the quality of life and the scheduling that make all the difference.

    • @nou7401
      @nou7401 2 місяці тому +1

      Passengers prefer living over Boeing.

    • @animegamingdude
      @animegamingdude Місяць тому +2

      @@nou7401 tell me how many people have lost their lives on a 787

    • @leebenjamin5790
      @leebenjamin5790 15 днів тому

      ​@@animegamingdude0

  • @mog0
    @mog0 2 місяці тому +38

    Video says safety stats between modern aircraft from both companies are about the same, but by the definition of modern given, most Boeings AREN'T Modern, ie 737. I'd be interested to see comparison between A320 and B737.

    • @Blank00
      @Blank00 2 місяці тому

      @@mog0 the 737 is only one Boeing family in production, the others are 777 and 787. 767 is getting discontinued in 2027.

    • @mog0
      @mog0 2 місяці тому +9

      @@Blank00 I was referring to number of aircraft, rather than number of models. Last year 387 out of 528 aircraft produced were 737s.

    • @miks564
      @miks564 2 місяці тому +5

      The comparison between the 737 and A320 family is day and night. They can do more or less the same and there's where the similarities end.
      One is a modern fly-by-wire aircraft, fully computer controlled machine. The other is a cables and pulleys along the airframe old school aircraft that doesn't even have EICAS like every other Boeing.

    • @mog0
      @mog0 2 місяці тому +6

      @@miks564 That's kind of my point. The video is about comparing Boeing and Airbus safety but then ignores the majority of Boeings.

  • @userdec1974
    @userdec1974 2 місяці тому +19

    good that we have both! Both challenge each other constantly. We (consumers) benefit a lot of the development and improvements resulting this "rivalry".

    • @MentourNow
      @MentourNow  2 місяці тому +11

      Yes, we need at least two big players. More would be even better...

    • @mercurybard9794
      @mercurybard9794 2 місяці тому +1

      ​@@MentourNow I was hoping COMAC would give both of them a kick in the pants

    • @Tom-xy9yy
      @Tom-xy9yy 2 місяці тому

      @@mercurybard9794 Where did COMAC borrow their technology from?

    • @KimberleyM-w7p
      @KimberleyM-w7p 2 місяці тому +1

      @@Tom-xy9yy Everybody borrows from everybody.........the A350 fuel tank arrangement it's B777........the B777 passenger doors....its an Airbus door.......

    • @mercurybard9794
      @mercurybard9794 2 місяці тому +1

      @@Tom-xy9yy it's less about the product (if I could still fly, you would never catch me on one of them) and more about the economic pressure. I just checked the fleet sizes of 5 Chinese carriers and they have close to 1000 planes combined. That's a lot of business to potentially lose if Airbus and Boeing can't provide quality products.
      (Putting aside the pressure the PRC government will put them under to buy local and the tightening restrictions on the export of avionics technology from the USA to China)

  • @stewartread4235
    @stewartread4235 Місяць тому +1

    Q feel IMO is one of the most important feedbacks on fly by wire systems, reminding pilots of their initial training in a direct linkage plane.!

  • @gRocketOne
    @gRocketOne 2 місяці тому +64

    > Gen 4 are considerably safer than earlier designs ...
    ... and all 737s (including the MAX) are Gen 3 aircraft. Hmmm

    • @Blex_040
      @Blex_040 2 місяці тому +9

      Good point, I would assume that Airbus has a higher percentage of Gen 4 aircraft in the air than Boeing because Boeing refuses to part with the 737 design even after more than half a century...

    • @renaudcharlet
      @renaudcharlet 2 місяці тому +10

      That is the big issue. Being aircraft systems, flight control or alarm system, the 737 is an aircraft from the 60's. And this has an impact on safety.

    • @AnetaMihaylova-d6f
      @AnetaMihaylova-d6f 2 місяці тому +1

      @renaudcharlet yes I thought they will build new plane after 2010 but they did not

    • @COCOniTOOOOOO
      @COCOniTOOOOOO 2 місяці тому +3

      Yeah that seamed like a disingenuous take when you could argue that airbus created that 4th generation with it first aircraft while boeing is still selling what is essentially a third gen aircraft.

    • @FFO2107
      @FFO2107 2 місяці тому +6

      Safety statistics per Million flights of 737NG and A320 family show no difference at all.

  • @Blueteddy-kq1pj
    @Blueteddy-kq1pj 2 місяці тому +43

    Flown both, 10000 hrs on the Airbus and 7000 on Boeing including lamentable Max. If 737’s were fridges they would have been banned years ago. Airbus for my money are way more impressive, the cockpit’s are quiet, roomy and well thought out with a great operating philosophy. Many note the static thrust levers are a hazard but because Airbus FMA’s are rigorously called out and acknowledged the operating loop is tight. Protections are brilliant, windshear full back stick and Toga power the jet will look after you as with all the other potential pilot cockpit ups. Most of the Boeings I flew were powerful and had good lift but goodness the cockpits were messy and some (737) noisy and manuals were complete gobbledygook’ flaps are not down they are not up? What?

    • @charlesbruggmann7909
      @charlesbruggmann7909 2 місяці тому +5

      @@Blueteddy-kq1pj
      Fascinating comment. I had heard of the quieter cockpit in the Airbus before. Surely massively important for any flight beyond 90mins?

    • @ACPilot
      @ACPilot 2 місяці тому

      Maybe you should take the MAX for a ride.. good upgrades.. would change it for one of those busses..

    • @aat1172
      @aat1172 2 місяці тому +1

      @@ACPilot He said in the original comment that he has flown 7000 hours on Boeing aircraft, including the 737 MAX?

    • @kentbetts
      @kentbetts 2 місяці тому

      It is clear from pilot comments that 1) Airbus wins in cockpit design, room, and comfort and 2) pilots feel comfortable with what looks like excessive automation.

  • @edwinstolk6289
    @edwinstolk6289 Місяць тому +4

    Having flown both Boeing & Airbus, Boeing is by far my preference. Main reason is simple: The Boeing is designed around the human Pilot and Airbus is designed around the Automation!! I find the interface in the Airbus lacking EFFECTIVE & direct communication with the Pilot. As mentor explained very well is that the Airbus interface relies on communication on visual cues. The Boeing communicates very well with the Pilot through visual and more importantly tactile feedback such as moving thrust levers and other controls. In addition, the pilot is able to bring up any non-normal checklist at any time which was not possible on the A320 I flew. Perhaps that is changed, I don't know. The Boeing is also in my opinion an aircraft that is far more intuitive and easier to understand than the Airbus which I think contributes to safety.

  • @jagjordi
    @jagjordi 2 місяці тому +268

    Boeing pilot: we fly the aircraft
    MCAS: excuse me?

    • @XD-ql2kr
      @XD-ql2kr 2 місяці тому +4

      Just switch stab trim off

    • @jagjordi
      @jagjordi 2 місяці тому +16

      @@XD-ql2kr tell that to Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302
      pilots

    • @Osiris57
      @Osiris57 2 місяці тому +4

      @@jagjordi boeing pilot : we crash it

    • @GeordieBoy69
      @GeordieBoy69 2 місяці тому

      ​@@jagjordiTHEY TURNED IT OFF THEN BACK ON AGAIN. POOR PILOTS SHOULD HAVE KEPT IT OFF.

    • @HVM_fi
      @HVM_fi 2 місяці тому +2

      @@XD-ql2kr What if MCAS has trimmed it so far that you can't physically turn manual trim wheel? Do you switch electric trim back and try to be faster than MCAS?

  • @priceyA320
    @priceyA320 2 місяці тому +8

    Hi Petter, congratulations on taking on such a controversial subject! Hopefully you’ll get a chance to have a go in an A320 sim at some point. With familiarity the non back driven throttles and unlinked sticks become natural. In your safety comparison you correctly point out all FBW aircraft are similar crash statistic wise. The problem is the vast majority of Boeing production isn’t FBW. The 737. No FBW, no EICAS and crash statistics far worse than the A320. Of the approximately 12000 737s made there have been 234 hull losses. Of the almost identical number of A320s made just 38 have been lost.

  • @tensevo
    @tensevo Місяць тому +1

    I completely agree that if the aircraft is making adjustments to yoke/joystick or throttles, then it should visually move accordingly,
    the amount of accidents that could be prevented, if the auto-controls were logical and intuitive to the pilots, is huge.

  • @tjsynkral
    @tjsynkral 2 місяці тому +51

    I think the statistics would favor Bombardier/Canadair and Embraer actually! They have an incredible safety record.

    • @Paqza
      @Paqza 2 місяці тому +5

      Embraer, too

    • @yeeeaaahmayneee3808
      @yeeeaaahmayneee3808 2 місяці тому +5

      I would always pick embraer

    • @knabbagluon
      @knabbagluon 2 місяці тому +21

      Airbus and Boeing fly way more planes.

    • @U5mR
      @U5mR 2 місяці тому +4

      how many airbus/boing per any of those?

    • @Caprimulga
      @Caprimulga 2 місяці тому +1

      maybe less reputable airlines prefere boeings and airbuses, as in most cases it's not the manufacturer fault, but inconpetence of airlines (except double MAX drop)

  • @kloudray
    @kloudray 2 місяці тому +12

    Since many(most?) accidents involve human error, removing the possibility of human error as much as possible sounds like a good idea. I work in IT operations, and we automate everything as much as possible and try to avoid manual activity, and one of the reasons for that is that people mess up. Of course, automation can also go wrong but that is significantly rarer than a person making a mistake. So the approach of relying on automation for the most part during normal operations and seeking intervention from a human "administrator" only when that automation goes wrong is more appealing to me personally.

    • @glynnetolar4423
      @glynnetolar4423 2 місяці тому +3

      I'm in IT also. Automation exists firstly for cost cutting measures, not to cover mistakes.

    • @kloudray
      @kloudray 2 місяці тому

      @@glynnetolar4423 That's part of it, of course, but it's far from the only reason. Even things that would be easier and faster done manually go into automation. Well maybe it's different in your organization.

    • @Blank00
      @Blank00 2 місяці тому +1

      @@kloudray Automation, just like mechanical parts, must be maintained periodically. If improperly maintained, then automation will not be reliable. Incidents like wheels falling off old planes, engine cowlings opening after takeoff, and even LA800 go to show how maintainence by the airline or 3rd party isn’t always done properly.

  • @ohheyitskevinc
    @ohheyitskevinc 2 місяці тому +2

    If AF447 is anything to go by (and the video from last weekend), I’d prefer flight controls that show me what the other pilot is doing and whether they’re stalling the jet.

  • @Proefkonijntje
    @Proefkonijntje 2 місяці тому +4

    28:30 I can't scan the QR-code because the end screen info card is blocking that QR-code, there's no way to close them too. Please remove the end screen cards, or make them closable.

    • @arne_wrs4155
      @arne_wrs4155 2 місяці тому

      Or just use the link in the description

  • @cageordie
    @cageordie 2 місяці тому +10

    What do I prefer as an aerospace engineer and not a pilot? All the modern FBW aircraft. Given the choice of A330, A350, B777, or B787 I'd just say yes. Given the choice of A320 family or B737 family... I have been avoiding the 737 for 20 years. I only fly on them when my employer books them. In the long term they have 5 times the hull loss rate and 4 times the casualty rate despite having less deliveries than the A320 family. By 4th generation do you mean only the MAX or the 737 NG too? I'm pretty sure the MAX proved very dangerous initially.

    • @unfathomable1876
      @unfathomable1876 2 місяці тому +2

      None of the 737s, MAX included are Gen 4 aircraft

    • @cageordie
      @cageordie 2 місяці тому

      @@unfathomable1876 So Gen 3?

    • @unfathomable1876
      @unfathomable1876 2 місяці тому +6

      @@cageordie Yes, the 737 in all iterations is a gen 3 aircraft. The US government even had to give it special exemptions for the fact it doesn't even have an EICAS. The 777 and 787 are the only true Gen 4 commercial Boeing airliners. It's sad that the MAX even exists it should've been completely redesigned or replaced.

    • @planespottingwithabdullah
      @planespottingwithabdullah 2 місяці тому

      you are one of those people who forgets the 737 has been around for 20 years more than the a320 and thinks everything is pilot error

  • @KatieBlue16
    @KatieBlue16 2 місяці тому

    Yes! Petter On your @Mentour _pilot_ channel, I was asking you this question on one of your uploads where you asked us viewers and subscribers our opinion, I asked you to opine. I'm glad to be watching this one now...😊

  • @mickthefixer2010
    @mickthefixer2010 2 місяці тому +6

    Mentour pilot I think you need to gain the experience of flying an Airbus and then remake this video, I appreciate you are relying on your colleagues for input on the Airbus but I would prefer your comparison after you have flown both ....👍

  • @css0076
    @css0076 2 місяці тому +18

    As an FAA A&P, and as an EASA B1 RII Mechanic and Inspector, I can honestly say that while I grew up on B727s and 737s, I totally fell in love with A300/310s, A320s, and A330/340s. I love the consistency through Airframe design, engineering, and operation. Boeing tried to re-engineer the wheel on every new airframe.....even when it couldn't or didn't need to.....

  • @Meower68
    @Meower68 2 місяці тому

    In the book "Digital Apollo," many early test pilots (and other military pilots) refused to fly aircraft with FBW. It was perceived that manual controls meant the pilots were actually pilots, whereas FBW meant they were really just passengers with some advisory capacity. Do you want to be the pilot or just a passenger with the ability to gripe?
    They had to get used to it. The Lunar Module could only function with FBW; it was determined, early on, that it was be nearly impossible to land it, successfully, had it been strictly manually-controlled.
    The F-16 has FBW because the airframe is inherently unstable, such that a pilot would have great difficulty simply keeping it in controlled flight, much less able to conduct combat maneuvers.

  • @ovimir9667
    @ovimir9667 2 місяці тому +89

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

    • @bikers_path
      @bikers_path 2 місяці тому +5

      Especially that last comment about "safety is better than any tray tables", kind of petty but hilarious 😂 😂

    • @petegaslondon
      @petegaslondon 2 місяці тому +3

      Bearing in mind his feet have stayed firmly in one camp, i pers think Petter was being VERY diplomatic ;)

    • @CW-rx2js
      @CW-rx2js Місяць тому +1

      He's extremely Biased. It was all about what Airbus does wrong

  • @connorbnjgg67754
    @connorbnjgg67754 2 місяці тому +139

    As an American with Boeing stock, I think Airbus is better.

    • @egor.smirnov
      @egor.smirnov 2 місяці тому +3

      Sell right now

    • @connorbnjgg67754
      @connorbnjgg67754 2 місяці тому +4

      @@egor.smirnov I bought it recently. I’m betting on a comeback. Things often have to get worse before they get better.

    • @williamyamm8803
      @williamyamm8803 2 місяці тому +3

      🤣🤣🤣

    • @totalrecone
      @totalrecone 2 місяці тому +12

      "Oh NO! It's going down IT'S GOING DOWN!!!"
      Plane or stock?
      "Both!"

    • @AnimaChronix3
      @AnimaChronix3 2 місяці тому +2

      As an European with Airbus stocks, i salute you

  • @StefanBacon
    @StefanBacon Місяць тому +1

    I absolutely despise basically everything fly by wire. As a heavy equipment operator, we call manual valve controls "pilot" controls (pilot for the low-power hydraulic circuit that amplifies stick movement to operate high flow, high pressure valves) while fly by wire is referred to as EH, or Electric over hydraulic controls, which are fundamentally quite similar to their aviation equipment, though hopefully with lower standards for failure, as these systems do fail and often behave unpredictably when the management computers that filter out sudden inputs and coordinate speed matching and positioning systems get an unexpected position or speed reading from a damp sensor. Needless to say, out 259D is a lemon and we're sending it back to Caterpillar.

  • @Sanginius23
    @Sanginius23 2 місяці тому +114

    Doing a Video like this without mentioning MCAS once is quite an accomplishment...

    • @MentourNow
      @MentourNow  2 місяці тому +55

      Stay tuned...

    • @lillithyukiutacrow2532
      @lillithyukiutacrow2532 2 місяці тому +16

      ​@@MentourNowthat has got to be the most nervous looking peice of text I've seen this month...

    • @Ticklestein
      @Ticklestein 2 місяці тому +6

      @@MentourNowI mean, not mentioning it; guaranteeing this comment…
      The intro writes itself.
      “A while back I made a video, and one of the comments…”

    • @DC-338
      @DC-338 2 місяці тому +6

      Having flown both manufacturers. 737, 767, A330 and A380 somewhere between the two would be best. Both do things better and worse than the other. E.g IMHO Side-sticks are better for most controlling (737 aside as cable backup makes leverage essential) but not being interconnected is pretty bad, particularly for training pilots. Thrust levers that move are great, though airbus method of initiating a go-around is more intuitive (thrust levers full forward) than pressing an often slightly difficult to find TOGA button. Most airbus protections are fantastic are much easier to fly time critical manoeuvres than Boeing (EGPWS and wind shear escape) though in a black swan the lack of protections on Boeing could be useful.
      Boeing PFD is much better than Airbus PFD.
      There are many more.
      I have not flown a A220 or a McDonnell Douglas jet (C17 or B717) but those that have say the blend of features is close to ideal.
      It was explained to be once that the difference between Airbus and Boeing is a bit like the difference between a European and American car. They both do the same thing, but the indicators and wiper controls are on different sides and how you engage and use the cruise control is different though the functions are the same, the key to remember is that deep down they are both cars. ANC

    • @cfzippo
      @cfzippo 2 місяці тому +1

      @@DC-338I’ve much the same experience and couldn’t agree more.

  • @LTLGamer1
    @LTLGamer1 2 місяці тому +16

    One thing to note: the pilot who suggested that sidesticks should be used on the A320 was a British pilot named Gordon Corps. He was the Airbus investigator who died during the investigation of Thai 311 due to altitude sickness at Nepal.

    • @chrisb.2028
      @chrisb.2028 2 місяці тому

      Really? That's an unfortunate turn of events.

    • @LTLGamer1
      @LTLGamer1 2 місяці тому

      @@chrisb.2028 Indeed.

  • @cavok1984
    @cavok1984 2 місяці тому +1

    Although I am not a pilot I have been fortunate to be able to fly both the 737NG and A320 Level D simulators. I have to say both types have their pros and cons. In the 737, you certainly do have the sense that you are flying very hands on with the aircraft and you feel it through the yoke. But where there the 737 is quite a dated design now in my opinion compared to modern types it does lack the creature comforts where the A320 does excel in. The A320 is very spacious and does feel ergonomic in it's design. Once you get used to how the aircraft feels in flight and understand the protections offered by the Fly By Wire systems it is a joy to control. For me it does come down to where the individual's personal preference lies. I like both types but because it is slightly more modern and offers that little bit of extra comfort the Airbus slightly edges out the Boeing. If I was a pilot (God knows i would love to be!) I would be happy flying either. To those who fly Boeing, enjoy the motorized thrust levers and to those on the Airbus, enjoy your steak on your tray table! 😂😂

  • @cpgoef6
    @cpgoef6 2 місяці тому +8

    The biggest difference is fatigue for pilots flying multiple legs a day. The Airbus is a lot less fatiguing. The flight deck is much more roomy and easily allows for two jump seaters. The cabin is also 6 inches wider which translates into an economy seat being one inch wider as compared to a 737. Our FA’s even prefer the galleys on our A-320 family aircraft versus the 73.

    • @ACPilot
      @ACPilot 2 місяці тому

      Fatique, nonsense.. then try fly a long-haul bizjet.. way smaller than a 737 cockpit.

    • @cpgoef6
      @cpgoef6 2 місяці тому

      @ I have and the long haul charter is only one take off and landing, maybe two because of a reposition. Not 4 legs in a day like a lot of 73 folks are doing.

    • @animegamingdude
      @animegamingdude Місяць тому

      i have flown on an a320 and a 737 this year and i preferred being on the 737

  • @rjdelatado2250
    @rjdelatado2250 2 місяці тому +8

    I think one thing that also could have been mentioned was Airbus' cockpit commonality

  • @Dingeraye1
    @Dingeraye1 2 місяці тому +1

    Flew both, about 5K hours each (320/330, '57/'67). Also instructed on helicopters and gliders. Still teach on the ''67. I prefer the 330 to the '67 for the "whistles and bells". All that said, the major problem is the lack of feedback on the stick. The Air France accident proved that (along with several other incidents). As we go into the future, where the people flying the aircraft have less and less experience with, well, flying, and may never have been upside down, I would wish for an Airbus with stick and feedback. But, it won't happen. You hit the nail on the head though. In fact, your analysis is dead on. I believe that nothing can fix people who weren't taught how to fly an aircraft that doesn't forgive, like maybe a glider. It sounds simplistic, but I spend a fair amount of time explaining that "attitude+power=performance". Even in a Boeing.

  • @Zestyclose-Big3127
    @Zestyclose-Big3127 2 місяці тому +7

    5:41 instructions unclear, Petter now set to fly A310

  • @1174-v2m
    @1174-v2m 2 місяці тому +6

    From my view as a flight sim enthusiast, I find the airbus a much more intuitive kite to fly, things just make sense, some 737 procedures take a good bit of learning imo

    • @rshvkkt91
      @rshvkkt91 2 місяці тому

      The Fenix A320 feels so much more ergonomic than the PMDG 737, but the 737 has more "character" and gives more "feedback" especially during hand flying. Procedures in the Airbus seem far more intuitive though...

    • @eyupbninuydurukgrafigi43
      @eyupbninuydurukgrafigi43 2 місяці тому

      737 procedures take long to learn, while it's the automations that takes long on Airbus side.

  • @James1095
    @James1095 2 місяці тому +2

    From a quality standpoint I think both are just fine. Personally though I have a strong preference for a yoke. The Airbus sidestick fly by wire system is just too automated and gadgety for me. I'm a manual transmission guy too, I really like that direct feel where I am in control and there's no "middleman".

  • @slah1.0
    @slah1.0 2 місяці тому +76

    *Pilots pulls up extremely*
    Boeing: wanna stall the plane? Do it!
    Airbus: no.

    • @planespottingwithabdullah
      @planespottingwithabdullah 2 місяці тому +3

      hijackers
      boeing:no
      airbus:yes please

    • @slah1.0
      @slah1.0 2 місяці тому +21

      @@planespottingwithabdullah what was the most deadly hijacking again?

    • @rtx0011
      @rtx0011 2 місяці тому +2

      @@planespottingwithabdullah abdooool lol

    • @terrymichael5821
      @terrymichael5821 2 місяці тому +3

      False ! - the worst A330 accident in history was an inflight stall at a high altitude.

    • @rtx0011
      @rtx0011 2 місяці тому +3

      @@terrymichael5821 because of pilot error, captain pull side stick and the co pilot push down side stick ,result = zero output

  • @christianbuczko1481
    @christianbuczko1481 2 місяці тому +17

    The problem with boeing isnt design, its manufacturing quality assurance. That includes testing new products, that is also lacking.

    • @purrple.shadows
      @purrple.shadows 2 місяці тому +2

      In some cases it's also design that is at fault.

    • @christianbuczko1481
      @christianbuczko1481 2 місяці тому +2

      @purrple.shadows if things were tested properly, those problems would be fixed. Most new engineering designs have problems, thats why testing is so important, but boeing skimps on that to save money, same with basic quality control, and thats why they have problems.

    • @geminian7846
      @geminian7846 2 місяці тому

      Testing old products too, it seems. Like the 737 fuselage. (They don't come much older than that.)

    • @orlestone
      @orlestone 2 місяці тому

      Nice to know that MCAS wasn't a problem......

    • @christianbuczko1481
      @christianbuczko1481 2 місяці тому +3

      @@orlestone if it had been tested properly, it would not of been... all engineering has design flaws, every company and product has them, its how they are tested and fixed which matters, and thats where boeing keeps screwing up. Thats the part other companies do better, they find the faults and fix them before putting them on the market.

  • @karstend.3356
    @karstend.3356 2 місяці тому

    First of all, thank you for these very interesting videos. Everybody can see that the producer really knows the stuff. I'm not a pilot. I'm a engineer and ACAM-Inspector and work for a national aviation authority. I have various licences on Boeing 777s, on several Airbus variants and also on an Embraer type.
    I spend a lot of time dealing with the logic in the respective computer systems. Of course, I can't judge how the various aircraft types feel at flight, but I can certainly understand the idea of ​​artificial feedback and also evaluate it. I'm more of an advocate of the Airbus philosophy, especially due to the evaluation of many accidents. But I like Boeing's approach of reporting back the control inputs through movement.
    And now... think about these Idea: In theory, a big step in flight safety would be to banish people from the cockpit completly. I'm well aware that this would have a big impact on passengers, so please note the reference to the theory here. But I want to know what do you think about?

  • @Watchingyou-daily
    @Watchingyou-daily 2 місяці тому +4

    I have worked on both Boeing and Airbus and can say the functional test are a lot different. If I was to fly both I would prefer Boeing for the feedback.

  • @frankpinmtl
    @frankpinmtl 2 місяці тому +8

    AF 447 was caused by a panicky first officer continually pulling back on the stick, even when told to get off the controls.

    • @orlestone
      @orlestone 2 місяці тому +7

      Yep. AF447 was all about CRM, not control architecture - that and a dickhead pilot trying to force a fully loaded A330 into an 8000 ft per minute climb at 32,000 ft. But it'll always be brought up by the Boeing is better crowd as the exception that proves the rule

    • @chunkyazian
      @chunkyazian 2 місяці тому +1

      But the first officer would not have pulled back the entire time to begin with if he wasn't lead to believe that hard protection would work 99% of the time. Put yourself in the cockpit that night, brewing storm outside, no visual reference. Try to figure out how fast you were falling before it's too late
      Oh, btw, the computer was blaring stall when you push the stick forward

    • @orlestone
      @orlestone 2 місяці тому +1

      @@chunkyazian just back up there. When the pitot tube blocked, and the aircraft dropped out of normal law, it was flying straight and level in good trim.
      All Bonin had to do was hand control over to his mate and go and get a coffee. So long as his mate continued to fly the pitch and power they were already at until the airspeed indication returned, no one would ever have known there was ever an issue.
      He had nothing to figure out.
      Instead he managed to climb the aircraft into "coffin corner" for absolutely no good reason whatsoever, and all of the subsequent issues you cite from then on are a direct consequence of that dumb decision.
      The really stupid thing about AF447 is that in order to avoid it they needed to do nothing - literally.
      Just fly pitch and power until airspeed indication returned

    • @chunkyazian
      @chunkyazian 2 місяці тому

      @@orlestone yes, it's easy to talk about pitch and power at the comfort of your own home. The first officer made a mistake for sure. Something similar happened in a Boeing before.
      All I'm saying is that software has been keeping the human operator away from the machine in the physical world and the human operator has become complacent in trusting the software to do the proper thing. And I'm saying this as a software dev myself.
      Humans do make mistake sometimes and the Airbus' design makes it much more difficult to decepher all those messages in the middle of the night. In the case of AF447, the first officer likely to have believed that he could pull back on the stick all he wanted, due to a false drop in altitude, and the computer would handle the pitch and power for him. His mistake was masked by the stall warning when his colleague tried to put in corrective action. The situation was so deteriorated that the computer blared out stall warning when they tried to lower the nose.
      Finally, why would Airbus look into active side stick if its design is the ultimate answer?

    • @frankpinmtl
      @frankpinmtl 2 місяці тому

      @@chunkyazian He was told to get off the stick. Doesn't matter what he was lead to believe. It wasn't his aircraft to fly.

  • @NongBenz
    @NongBenz 2 місяці тому +5

    Allowing dual input without tactile feedback is wild. Is that just to stop malicious pilots?

  • @aviatorb77w
    @aviatorb77w 2 місяці тому +8

    3:38 * chuckles *

  • @PaulTomblin
    @PaulTomblin 2 місяці тому +64

    As a software developer, I can’t remember ever being on a team where I didn’t look around at my team and think about at least one of them “thank god they’re not developing life critical systems”. /s

    • @hammondpickle
      @hammondpickle 2 місяці тому +14

      Then at the end of your work day you climb into your car and drive home. All the time relying on safety-critical systems your car, most other vehicles around you, the traffic control systems, etc., etc. Or maybe you take the train... same thing.
      Even working from home you have to trust that the team who coded the firmware for your fridge weren't a bunch of psychopaths. /s

    • @Infiltator2
      @Infiltator2 2 місяці тому +9

      No aircraft system is done by one person.

    • @FrancisFjordCupola
      @FrancisFjordCupola 2 місяці тому +1

      So does that mean that your employer just wanted to cheap out on software developers and considered lower quality software developers acceptable?

    • @mediocreman2
      @mediocreman2 2 місяці тому +2

      ​@@hammondpickleFirmware for your fridge? If you have firmware in your fridge, you bought the wrong fridge.

    • @glynnetolar4423
      @glynnetolar4423 2 місяці тому

      When are cars falling from 40,000 ft and filling in bulk?
      The safety systems in cars are typically not driving. What world are you living in?
      Well there was that one time when someone was decapitated but...

  • @danielmikkelsen5470
    @danielmikkelsen5470 2 місяці тому

    Great video! When I flew with Ryanair last time, I flew out on a Lauda A320 and back on a Ryanair 737, and I have to say to say the experience on the A320 was more comfortable in all. On the 737 it got hot and everyone started taking their shoes off

  • @ChrisKr-ue3ke
    @ChrisKr-ue3ke 2 місяці тому +5

    He was talking a lot about the issues with the Airbus way. And I'm sure they all true. But does Boing has less accidents with their systems?
    At the end I think is the most important is how the pilots are trained and how good they know their systems.