View Single Post
  #4  
Old 06-11-2009, 03:58 PM
Akula2ssn's Avatar
Akula2ssn Akula2ssn is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,454
Default

Personally I don't care for the Airbus approach. From a business standpoint, the Airbus approach is potentially more appealing in that you don't necessarily need pilots to maintain certain flight proficiency standards which reduces cost of overhead.

With the Boeing approach, you do have to maintain a certain proficiency level, and pilots are suppose to regularly enter the simulator to train in emergency procedures. Also the pilot is required to be in direct control of the plane for a certain amount of hours rather than sitting there with the computer in control. Boeing establishes certain course criteria the pilots must meet in their training otherwise they are grounded. Boeing does make its simulators available to the airlines for training. Furthermore, major airlines also purchase the simulators from Boeing, and usually make the simulators available to airlines that can't afford to buy their own simulator. Naturally to maintain pilots of that level of proficiency, it costs more money which cuts into profits. And personally I wouldn't want to have to wait for an unpredictable catastrophic systems failure in order to arrest control from the computer.
__________________

"Don't confuse facts with reality."
-Robert D. Ballard
Reply With Quote