Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
TWA772LR wrote:Cue Airstud with "the correct cockpit configuration is..."
It is an intriguing idea. But some cockpits are larger than others (787 vs 737 for example) so it would be hard to make the same cockpit for all airplanes. Maybe a standard widebody cockpit and a standard narrowbody cockpit?
if an industry-wide common cockpit was introduced, what do you think would be cherry-picked from across the aviation spectrum?
zeke wrote:I would like to see common sense being installed in aircraft before a common cockpit, however as we all know common sense is not all that common.
fsnuffer wrote:My concern about a common cockpit would be it's effect on innovation. Once the standard has been agreed to you would need an industry wide consortium to make any changes/upgrades which by nature would be slow. Then you have the issue of once a change to the standard has been adopted, you would now need to retrofit existing cockpits to maintain the commonality throughout the fleet.
SEPilot wrote:I have never flown an airliner, but I have flown a number of different light planes. And while they all have pretty much the same instruments and basic controls, they do not have all the same auxiliaries and other controls. I would suspect that since different airliners have different systems, they would out of necessity have different controls for those systems. Particularly in the case of the 787, with its absence of bleed air and expanded electrics, would necessitate very different instruments and controls. And pilots need to be familiar with the systems of the aircraft they are flying. The common type rating only works when the systems and handling (critical speeds, etc.) are pretty much the same, and with that the cockpit needs to be the same. When the type rating is different I actually think having the cockpit different is a plus, not a minus, so the pilot is constantly reminded of what plane he is flying and will not think of the wrong speed, system, or whatever in an emergency situation.
GeordieFlier wrote:I'm not a real pilot, but I do a lot of flight simming and after a long time "flying" the A320, I've swapped back to the 737 and I understand now why (as far as I know) cross-type flying doesn't happen. In an emergency, you don't want the pilot having to execute a QRH and not be able to find the switch largely by muscle-memory.
For some things I like the Boeing approach (yoke, FMS, flap position indicator), while for others I think the Airbus philosophy is better (auto-throttles, trim-less controls, automated fuel flows on engine start).
Naturally, this isn't about A vs. B, but a thought exercise, if an industry-wide common cockpit was introduced, what do you think would be cherry-picked from across the aviation spectrum?
adanhamidu wrote:GeordieFlier wrote:I'm not a real pilot, but I do a lot of flight simming and after a long time "flying" the A320, I've swapped back to the 737 and I understand now why (as far as I know) cross-type flying doesn't happen. In an emergency, you don't want the pilot having to execute a QRH and not be able to find the switch largely by muscle-memory.
For some things I like the Boeing approach (yoke, FMS, flap position indicator), while for others I think the Airbus philosophy is better (auto-throttles, trim-less controls, automated fuel flows on engine start).
Naturally, this isn't about A vs. B, but a thought exercise, if an industry-wide common cockpit was introduced, what do you think would be cherry-picked from across the aviation spectrum?
I think that experts would take the best of both A and B while trying to mitigate the worst of both A and B (to try and turn those "worsts" into bonus "bests"); here's an example:
The Airbus sidesticks don't move if the other is moved by the pilot or autopilot...this isn't good (lack of force feedback as well as motion feedback)...the fix, Gulfstream Aerospace came up with the digitally linked sidesticks which feature force and motion feedback.
My guess is that somehow, those non-moving throttle levers will somehow get a tweak to help keep some of the pilot's attention on what FADEC is doing to them and the engines connected to them that goes beyond looking at the ECAM/EICAS for animation indicating engine performance trends.
Starlionblue wrote:Regarding the screens in front of the pilots, PFD and ND displays are pretty similar across the industry, and systems display differences are a matter of software, not hardware.
SEPilot wrote:I have never flown an airliner, but I have flown a number of different light planes. And while they all have pretty much the same instruments and basic controls, they do not have all the same auxiliaries and other controls. I would suspect that since different airliners have different systems, they would out of necessity have different controls for those systems. Particularly in the case of the 787, with its absence of bleed air and expanded electrics, would necessitate very different instruments and controls. And pilots need to be familiar with the systems of the aircraft they are flying. The common type rating only works when the systems and handling (critical speeds, etc.) are pretty much the same, and with that the cockpit needs to be the same. When the type rating is different I actually think having the cockpit different is a plus, not a minus, so the pilot is constantly reminded of what plane he is flying and will not think of the wrong speed, system, or whatever in an emergency situation.
SEPilot wrote:zeke wrote:I would like to see common sense being installed in aircraft before a common cockpit, however as we all know common sense is not all that common.
One of my grandfather’s favorite stories was from the building of the Burma road. An American engineer was trying unsuccessfully to explain something to his Burmese counterpart, and finally exclaimed in exasperation, “Hell, man, use your common sense!” The Burmese engineer drew himself up to his full 5’4” and said, “Common sense is the gift of God to the chosen few. I only have a college education.”