What's up with Airbus?

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Staga
Guess I have to answer my own question

02.03.2005 Kam Air Boeing 737-242(A) 104 died
08.14.2005 Helios Airways Boeing 737-31S 121 died
08.23.2005 TANS Peru Boeing 737-244(Adv) 40 died
09.05.2005 Mandala Airlines Boeing 737-230(Adv) 101 died
10.23.2005 Bellview Airlines Boeing 737-2L9(Adv) 117 died

Source "Airdisaster.com"; not including few passengers who drowned into a river when they were evacuated from a Boeing which skidded off from the runway.

At this year nobody has died in crashing Airbus.

Yeah; just keep on repeating that idiotic mantra Ripsnort, it makes You look really bright guy  

Funny how statistics work in your favor when you leave out important information, such as:

How many Airbus planes are in the market being flown, compared to Boeing?
How many total hours of each make for each year?
How many were Pilot error or weather related?
How many hours are on an airframe?

I could go on and on but you'll continue to pull statistics that suite your argument.

Its MY choice that I not fly Airbus, due to having a relative that works closely with both aircraft type. Got a problem with that? Go tell someone who cares.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Same to you Ripsnort, same to you old buddy.

[Staga]

Rip it's my choice to fly all of them, including Boeings, Airbusses and Russian Tupolevs, as long as the carrier is trustworthy.
At this year no'one has been killed in Airbus so like it or not it has been safer aircraft.
Of course even childrens do understand it's the level of maintenance and pilots who are the key to keep modern aircrafts up there and not really about the manufacturer. Do You understand that?

"Got a problem with that? Go tell someone who cares."

Same to You buddy, same to You

[Staga]

btw I just checked...

over 1000 Tu-134s and another 1000 of Tu-154's have been manufactured but none has came down this year even if the type is mostly used by ex-Soviet countries which haven't had the best reputation when thinking about safety of planes and passengers.

Looks like it would be safer to fly in a Tupolev than in a Boeing...

[Chitownflyer]

My simple thought on this thread is....

If it aint Boeing, I aint Going....


Philosophy of the French vers the American aviation designers is simply…

The French believes the PIC (Pilot In Command) is just a backup for the computer
systems, and that the computer should  overrides the PIC.

Where as, the American designers believe the PIC is the ultimate authority and
Will allow the PI C to “over ride” the computer and “put it the red” if
the pilot so desire.

Now this was demonstrated a few years back, when an Airbus was taking
off and then the onboard computers, for their own reasons, decided that
the plane should be in “landing mode”… on film you see the Airbus
taking off, and promptly landing in the grove of trees and crashing and
burning.  The PIC being helpless to do any thing but go along for the ride.

The was an incident, awhile back, involving an Boeing 727.  A pilot by
the name of “Hoot Gibison” had to “put it in the red” in order to save the plane
as a consequence, due to a highly non-standard procedure, he was able to
lower the landing gear, even though the plane was diving at supersonic speeds,
slow up the plane enough to allow the plane recover from an other wise
”lawn darting” is famous.   The PIC is the Ultimate authority and should always
able to override a computer.

In a Boeing, the PIC is that authority, In an Airbus, the PIC is just a back up for
the computer system.  For me , I will, if I absolutely can help it, will not fly an Airbus.

Chi

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Staga
"Got a problem with that? Go tell someone who cares."

Same to You buddy, same to You

Its pretty obvious you cared, after I made a statement that if ain't Boeing I ain't going.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Chitownflyer
My simple thought on this thread is....

If it aint Boeing, I aint Going....


Philosophy of the French vers the American aviation designers is simply…

The French believes the PIC (Pilot In Command) is just a backup for the computer
systems, and that the computer should  overrides the PIC.

Where as, the American designers believe the PIC is the ultimate authority and
Will allow the PI C to “over ride” the computer and “put it the red” if
the pilot so desire.

Now this was demonstrated a few years back, when an Airbus was taking
off and then the onboard computers, for their own reasons, decided that
the plane should be in “landing mode”… on film you see the Airbus
taking off, and promptly landing in the grove of trees and crashing and
burning.  The PIC being helpless to do any thing but go along for the ride.

The was an incident, awhile back, involving an Boeing 727.  A pilot by
the name of “Hoot Gibison” had to “put it in the red” in order to save the plane
as a consequence, due to a highly non-standard procedure, he was able to
lower the landing gear, even though the plane was diving at supersonic speeds,
slow up the plane enough to allow the plane recover from an other wise
”lawn darting” is famous.   The PIC is the Ultimate authority and should always
able to override a computer.

In a Boeing, the PIC is that authority, In an Airbus, the PIC is just a back up for
the computer system.  For me , I will, if I absolutely can help it, will not fly an Airbus.

Chi

Good post. ANd if you ever have a chance to study the wing design of each brand of aircraft, you'll see that the Boeing wing is a very study design. The Airbus wing is designed to enable it to be produced very fast, very cheap.  Yeah, it lifts, but how would it do in inverted flight with more than 1 G on it? Not sure, but I'm not willing to take the chances especially when I'm offered choice.  Oh, and I have two very close friends both whom are pilots, both whom have flown both Airbus and Boeing. Want to guess what their favorite brand is?

[FTJR]

   In a Boeing, the PIC is that authority, In an Airbus, the PIC is just a back up for

Im sorry, but that is simply not true. 2 simple clicks of the button reverts the plane to manual, and I mean manual, control.. 1st click autopilot disconnect, 2nd click the autothrust.

Then there is no way known for the plane to do anything other than what the pilot wants. The computers are there to make the aircraft lighter and smarter, i dont think its that smart, having flown Boeing, but it is not In command.

The French incident refered to, was simply a lack of knowledge, french engineering and an over reliance on the automatics, and happened when the plane was first launched. That was when 18 years ago?

I sound like an apologist for airbus believe me Im not, I still have 4 times the hours in 767's and 73's than i do in the airbus.

regards

[straffo]

FTJR don't try to add sense in this chest thumping thread.

Btw Chi do you have ever seen the stats about airplanes accident ?

Originally posted by Ripsnort
"Airbus uses alot of glue where Boeing uses rivets". He won't fly them, neither will I.

I won't fly in a plane were the composite part is "glued" with rivet.

It appear my father worked on this part ... and he fly often on Airbus

Maybe overconfidence ?

gay smilley =>

[Yeager]

didnt an airbus once take off from algiers with no one on board and land several hours later in portugal?

[john9001]

have any more glued on tails fallen off airbuses lately?

 (actualy the glue didn't fail, it was the lamination that bonds the metal mounting plate in the tail that failed, the mounting plate is what holds the tail on to the rest of the plane)


don't move your rudder pedals so fast.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by john9001
have any more glued on tails fallen off airbuses lately?

 (actualy the glue didn't fail, it was the lamination that bonds the metal mounting plate in the tail that failed, the mounting plate is what holds the tail on to the rest of the plane)


don't move your rudder pedals so fast.

That also had rivets. But Rivets and composites are compatible, however the preparation of the composite material, assembly of, is critical in a high sonic area, or area where resonance tubulance (I think thats the term) can occur...

[Dago]

Originally posted by john9001
have any more glued on tails fallen off airbuses lately?

 (actualy the glue didn't fail, it was the lamination that bonds the metal mounting plate in the tail that failed, the mounting plate is what holds the tail on to the rest of the plane)


don't move your rudder pedals so fast.

Kind of ignores the problem Boeings had with rudder hard-overs that put a few 737s into Mother Earth.

And I think you will find with the case of the tail seperation on the Airbus, the mount structure was still in place, the composite failed around the mount brackets if my memory serves me right.  I examined pictures of it at work.

[Dago]

Originally posted by Chitownflyer

Now this was demonstrated a few years back, when an Airbus was taking
off and then the onboard computers, for their own reasons, decided that
the plane should be in �landing mode�� on film you see the Airbus
taking off, and promptly landing in the grove of trees and crashing and
burning.  The PIC being helpless to do any thing but go along for the ride.

The was an incident, awhile back, involving an Boeing 727.  A pilot by
the name of �Hoot Gibison� had to �put it in the red� in order to save the plane
as a consequence, due to a highly non-standard procedure, he was able to
lower the landing gear, even though the plane was diving at supersonic speeds,
slow up the plane enough to allow the plane recover from an other wise
�lawn darting� is famous.   The PIC is the Ultimate authority and should always
able to override a computer.

Chi

If memory serves me right, the A320 that went into the trees had not just taken off, but rather was making a low pass.  The pilot wanted to illustrate the fact that Airbus would accelerate the engines and climb when he pulled back on the stick, but he failed to understand or remember that when you get below 200ft AGL with the gear and flaps extended, the aircraft thinks you are flaring to land, and it will not accelerate the engines and fly away.  He pulled up, but it didnt accelerate until he pushed the throttles forward, too late.

Yes, more than one Boeing has been recovered from an extreme high speed dive by lowering gear and flaps.  A China airline I believe it was did it once in a 747 over the Pacific after the pilot let it get into a high speed stall, if memory serves me right.

Here is the differance, the Airbus A320s and A330s wont allow you to stall it, high speed or not, but I do believe it will allow flap and gear extension at overspeed, but I might be wrong on that.

Actually, the A320s and A330s wont allow you to loop it, dive into an overspeed,  wont allow a stall, wont allow you to roll past about 65 degrees.  It will limit the aircraft to maneuvers that are inside the design flight envelope.  It helps protect your from pilot error, not prevent pilot correction from pilot error.  Not that any airplane is perfect, but this does a pretty good job of keeping you as safe as it can.  Most all of this is done through the Flight Management Guidance Envelope computers (FMGECs). (two installed for cross monitoring and system reduncancies).

dago

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Dago
Kind of ignores the problem Boeings had with rudder hard-overs that put a few 737s into Mother Earth.

 

That was a condition of defective design combined with piloting. The pilots were re-instructed how to react to windshear in a certain situation with 737's and the design was repaired so that there wasn't as much travel in the rudders...if memory serves right.