Airbus vs. Boeing: A Tale of Two Flying Philosophies
If you step onto any commercial jet airliner anywhere in the world, chances are the aircraft will have been manufactured by one of two companies: Airbus (a European company) or Boeing (an American company). These two companies dominate the modern jet airliner market, but their control designs reflect completely different philosophies about how a plane should be flown.
Most Boeing aircraft are designed similarly to conventional light aircraft on which pilots are initially trained. The pilots input controls via a central column (see picture below), which directly move the plane’s control surfaces. The controls naturally provide the pilots with tactile feedback based on the aircraft’s maneuvers–for example, the central column feels “heavier” as a Boeing aircraft accelerates. Additionally, the control columns on both pilot seats are mechanically synced, so both pilots are made aware of what inputs are going into the plane.
In contrast, Airbus aircraft use a “fly-by-wire” system, in which pilot inputs are converted into electronic signals that a flight control computer interprets to determine how to optimally move the control surfaces to execute the command. Airbus cockpits lack a central column altogether, but instead receive inputs from a side stick (see picture below), which importantly, does not provide the pilot with tactile feedback about the aircraft’s current maneuvers.¹ The side sticks for each pilot operate independently, so each pilot has a harder time seeing what inputs the other is making, and opposing inputs entered simultaneously are canceled out.
The other major difference between Boeing and Airbus design philosophies is that a Boeing aircraft puts the pilot in complete control of the plane, even if a pilot executes an unsafe maneuver. Airbus, on the other hand, incorporates “flight envelope protection” as a safety measure, placing hard limits on what a pilot can execute to safeguard the aircraft from operating outside predefined parameters.
While there’s no single “right” way to design an aircraft, both approaches have important advantages and disadvantages. Both Airbus and Boeing place ultimate responsibility for flying the plane on the pilot, but this can look different in practice. In particular, Airbus automates much of the flying and safety processes, reducing the potential for human error. This automation makes the aircraft easier and safer to fly under normal conditions, but when its systems are degraded, the aircraft becomes less intuitive for a pilot to control.
One infamous incident that highlighted this difference was the case of Air France Flight 447. While flying from Rio de Janeiro to Paris on June 1, 2009, the Airbus A330 encountered severe weather over the Atlantic and lost accurate airspeed measurements, crippling its automated capabilities. The co-pilot flying the aircraft took manual control and struggled to make the necessary inputs to keep the plane flying, and within 5 minutes, the plane crashed into the ocean, killing everyone on board.
While the advantages of automated safety systems are obvious, this incident underscored a few key disadvantages of Airbus’ design philosophy:
- Less intuitive interface — The Airbus cockpit was not designed with manual flying in mind. Flying with a side stick instead of a central column differs from most traditional aircraft on which pilots are initially trained. The Airbus controls don’t give the pilots tactile feedback on what the plane is actually doing, and they don’t allow for co-pilots to easily see each other’s inputs.
- Automation complacency — When most flying is handled automatically, a pilot’s duties shift from actively flying the plane to simply monitoring its systems. Even though pilots are trained to fly manually, these competencies can erode over time if they don’t practice them regularly.
- Situational awareness — Pilots relying on automated systems to fly a plane lack full situational awareness, and when forced to take control on short notice, need time (which isn’t always available) to assess and react appropriately.
Despite outlining these disadvantages, I am not suggesting that Airbus uses an inferior design philosophy to Boeing.² In fact, Airbus’ automated safety systems have almost certainly protected more lives than they’ve unintentionally harmed. However, these human factors-related risks are not entirely obvious, and they point to the merits of Boeing’s seemingly less-innovative, but more pilot-centric, design.
¹Some Boeing aircraft have introduced fly-by-wire systems as well (i.e., 777, 787), but the controls are artificially designed to give pilots feedback on what the plane is doing.
²Additionally, I’m not making any comparisons about the merits of the companies themselves, as Boeing aircraft that have incorporated similar safety automation features (most infamously, the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System [MCAS] on the Boeing 737 MAX) have faced some of the same disadvantages as Airbus.
Further Reading
https://simpleflying.com/airbus-boeing-major-differences-list/
https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/boeing-airbus-difference-inside/
https://www.flightdeckfriend.com/ask-a-pilot/airbus-vs-boeing-from-a-pilots-perspective
https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/stories/2023-02-safety-innovation-7-flight-envelope-protection
https://humanfactors101.com/2020/05/24/the-ironies-of-automation/
