Boeing uses conventional column on the 777, with full fly by wire primary flight controls.

Airbus does the same with a sidestick. Both provide full envelope protection. Who has the better system? Over the weekend, I got together with old friends, one is a pilot, and two are aerospace engineers. We got into an interesting discussion: which fly by wire has more value in terms of operating costs? Boeing 777/787 Philosophy Full fly by wire using conventional control column and yoke. Artificial forces and electromechanical systems are added to retain the traditional feel of flying and airplane. Airbus Philosophy Flying philosophy is vastly different. Pilot no longer applies a force on the controls to achieve maneuvering, but the sidestick displacement is a rate command. There is no need to provide the pilot with a feedback force or stick shaker as the plane will always fly within its structural and aerodynamic limits. The engineers went on to say that the Airbus philosophy is lighter and requires less maintenance as there is no artificial feel systems, the sidestick is lighter, etc. They also said that it is easier to tune the software that makes the A320/330/340 to fly the same with a "no artificial feel force" flying philosophy and less simulator time is required for pilots to get acquainted to the handling qualities. I even read somewhere (can't remember where) that the Boeing system requires about 8 inches of increased cockpit length to make space for the column displacement. I would have to say that the Boeing method would make training easier, as the pilot still can "feel" the airplane. I think that the Airbus method, without any feel, would require more initial training, and more sim time. Once the flightcrew is trained, though, I feel that it would not make much of a difference. It would be easier to over control the Airbus The Airbus is really easy to fly I think the Airbus way is safer and better. that airbus has drastically changed the piloting way : moving the sidestick is in reality flying atrajectory, regardless of speed or altitude. most of them like Boeing for its "real" airplane feel I wonder why Boeing chose the stick and yoke when they went full FBW on the 777? safety reasons? both pilots know what the other is doing perhaps? Is that an issue on the Airbus types? Can anyone explain? "conventional" aircraft is the Flight Surface Control in a FBW aircraft is done via automation (electronically via a computer), whereas a conventional aircraft its a either via a human or autopilot. Basically all new aircraft coming out now are FBW, eg A318/19/20/21/30/40/50/80, 777, 787, 748 (my understanding), Embraer ERJ-170/190, C-17 all all examples of modern transport aircraft with FBW. This gave the A320/330/340 excellent control of flight path during all flight phases and especially during landing, however the down side is that has poor-average speed control. Boeing chose to introduce an FCS based on airspeed on the 777 like the F/A-18 gear down mode. By using an FCS that mimics conventional aircraft, the 777 has similar handling characteristics to other Boeing aircraft and all other conventional aircraft. B777 pilots must 'trim' the aircraft longitudinally, The advantage for the 777 is during all flight phases especially during landing it has good speed control, but poor-average flight path control. Airbus FBW aircraft autotrim, which as you can see from the posts above causes many strange misinterpretation of what the aircraft does when you flare for landing, or are below 100/50 ft rad alt. The landing is conventional, however behind the scenes unknown to the pilot a bias is added to the flight control system so when the pilot comes into land, the tactile feel on the stick mimics a conventional aircraft. The reasons for switching to FBW include : Flight test savings. FBW offers the prospect of using software changes to solve otherwise difficult and expensive handling problems uncovered during flight test. Uniform handling characteristics. One of the advantages offered by Airbus and Embraer with their family of aircraft concept is uniform cockpit layouts and uniform flying characteristics. This is achievable only through FBW and offers reduced flightcrew training costs as well as increased crew scheduling flexibility. Weight and complexity savings. FBW along with FADEC technology reduces the requirement for direct cable linkages between the flight deck and engines and control surfaces. Improved fuel efficiency. Airbus are designing the A380 to operate at a greater aft centre of gravity position than is safely possible on conventional aircraft. This reduces the tail down force requirement with a reduction in drag and fuel consumption. The Airbus design solution makes it simple for flightcrews to achieve the aircraft's limit performance of 2.5Gacross the flight envelop, the cost of such simplicity being that no more than 2.5G can be achieved. The conventional design solution (Boeing and all other designs without hard limits) makes it possible for the pilot to achieve any G loading, however the onus is on the pilot to do just that.

After reading all the great information, I must say that the Airbus system has more advantages with less disadvantages than the Boeing system. Here is why: * Easier to program handling characteristics of vastly different family types with the sidestick concept versus the force feel concept * Lower overall components and parts weight with the sidestick, while the column also requires a few more inches of cockpit length for column displacement. *Less parts, and less wear and tear with the sidestick concept * Flying a flight path trajectory with auto trim reduces pilot workload more than the 777 philosophy * The Airbus system can deliver all it can out of the airplane in emergency situations by more automation with less workload to the pilots: emergency descent, traffic collision avoidance, windshear escape, etc. * The 777 philosophy on the other hand seems to make the pilot more connected to the flying automation * The 777 controls give a better idea to both crews on what the other guy is doing * I am not sure that having the pilot the capability to override has any benefit in the 777. For example, if the pilot want maximum lift, he gets maximum attainable lift on the Airbus, if the pilot wants to avoid a potential collision, the Airbus system still provides huge bank and g limits.