Ahmedabad plane crash: How Boeing and Airbus cockpits differ and why it matters

• Boeing favours pilot control with manual override capabilities. Their design trusts pilot judgment, allowing them to override the system in emergencies.
• Airbus adopts a fly-by-wire approach with automated systems prioritising safety logic. The aircraft may refuse pilot input if it deems it unsafe.

• Boeing uses a traditional yoke in front of the pilot, which moves both physically and visually when either pilot makes an input.
• Airbus uses a sidestick, mounted to the side of the pilot seat, with no physical feedback between the two — requiring verbal communication for coordinated input.

• Boeing cockpits generally present information in a more traditional format, with separate screens for different parameters.
• Airbus cockpits lean toward minimalism, integrating digital displays with a consistent layout across aircraft models.

• Airbus automates more aspects of flight by default, with systems controlling pitch, thrust, and navigation unless manually overridden.
• Boeing allows greater manual flying flexibility even with autopilot engaged — pilot authority is central to its design.

Pilots transitioning between Airbus and Boeing require specialised training to adapt to cockpit controls, system logic, and situational responses. A Boeing-trained pilot may expect different behaviours in emergency situations than an Airbus-trained one.

During emergencies, Boeing pilots may have more control but also more responsibility to interpret and react. In Airbus, the system may prevent potentially dangerous pilot commands — but overreliance on automation can create delays in manual intervention.

Flight AI-171 was operated using a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, known for its complex electronic systems but traditional yoke controls. As investigations continue, cockpit interactions and whether automation or manual override were factors are expected to come under scrutiny.