From: Jean-Francois Mezei <MEZEI_JF@Eisner.DECUS.Org> Organization: DECUServe Date: 30 Jun 95 03:47:13 References: 1 2 Followups: 1
View raw article or MIME structure
> As a side note, the A310 shares some of the A320/330/340's interfaces, > so it is worth considering the A310 in this discussion, just as the 777 > shares much of the 757/767 interface, which has proven less problematic > than the A320. Maybe we should change the subject to "Flight Deck Human > Interfaces" and include the 757/767 as well? > When someone is talking about FWB and how bad Airbus is and uses all AIRBUS crashes compared to only a few select Boeing ones, it looks very biased and it gives the note the image that the poster's purpose is to blast Airbus instead of study it. If you are also going to include equivalent Boeing or MDC planes, that is fine by me. However, if you are talking about providing feedback to the pilot on how the computer thinks the pilot should fly (eg: you can't turn left this abruptly because it is dangerous), then only true FBW planes should be included. My reactions are caused by some posts that make claims about Airbus to make it look bad (such as "Airbus gives no feedback to the pilot"). Now, I know that Airbus does provide feedback that is both aural and visual but not tactile. I cannot claim that Airbus is better than Boeing or vice versa. But I dislike seing rash statements about airbus that make their planes look like toys designed by inexperienced kids.