Is the Airbus approach technology more friendly to a new pilot or passenger than a Boeing haptic approach?

| improve this question | | | | |
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ See: Can a passenger realistically replace suddenly incapacitated pilots? $\endgroup$ – ymb1 Dec 2 '19 at 19:24
  • $\begingroup$ Is this a filosofical question? $\endgroup$ – Transistor Dec 2 '19 at 19:40
  • $\begingroup$ No , just witch one of this two a/c is friendly user for non pilot's . $\endgroup$ – George Geo Dec 2 '19 at 19:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Spelling errors aside, your question doesn't make sense. Are you asking if it is easier for an opportunistic new pilot to transfer into Boeing or Airbus, or which one would be easier to fly by a passenger if the pilot was incapacitated? $\endgroup$ – Michael Hall Dec 2 '19 at 20:06
  • $\begingroup$ I just googled the word "heptic" and uhhh... is that what you really meant? $\endgroup$ – Ben Dec 2 '19 at 20:17

If they have to pilot it manually, without training or guidance, a passenger has about as much chance to land an airliner as the airliner has to just happen to land on its own as it runs out of fuel. At least there will be less of it to burn.

It's not a ground vehicle, you can't wing it, and the runway is tiny compared to the sky.

Talkdown landings are a thing in GA and in a modern airliner it would come down to setting up the autoland system. However, the talkdown landing would be performed by the cabin crew, not a passenger. Cabin crew is trained in basic operation of the radios for emergencies including this one.

| improve this answer | | | | |

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.