Author Topic: What's up with Airbus? (Read 4759 times)

ravells · « **Reply #90 on:** December 08, 2005, 02:56:21 PM »

That's interesting, Eagl....wasn't it Ford who said that he wanted inbuilt redundancy in his cars so people would by more of them...I seem to remember he said 5 years, but I could be wrong about all of this.

Ravs

eagl · « **Reply #91 on:** December 08, 2005, 03:06:18 PM »

What do you mean by inbuilt redundancy? Do you mean planned obsolescence?

ravells · « **Reply #92 on:** December 08, 2005, 03:08:36 PM »

sorry, yes, that's exactly what I meant.

Ravs

BUG_EAF322 · « **Reply #93 on:** December 08, 2005, 07:00:06 PM »

love the great boeing engine mountings

Staga · « **Reply #94 on:** December 08, 2005, 07:33:24 PM »

Oh yes... wasn't it a cargo plane?

Vulcan · « **Reply #95 on:** December 08, 2005, 09:22:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
I feel sarcasm in your post

Nah, was just pointing out you should have said "built like a B52 wing".

BTW, that Boeing from Hawaii, a kiwi died on that flight.

Debonair · « **Reply #96 on:** December 08, 2005, 11:18:42 PM »

Thats impossible, Kiwis cant fly

Chairboy · « **Reply #97 on:** December 08, 2005, 11:38:28 PM »

I'm surprised nobody here has actually read the accident report for the Airbus. Not a single person here listed the cause correctly.

The pilot had the engines at full idle, not landing idle. On an approach, you have the engines just at the edge of producing power because of turbolag. It takes more time for a jet to develop thrust than a piston, so a jet on approach has to keep the engines partially throttled up so they can respond quickly to things like a go-around.

The Airbus pilot overrode the computer on the approach and went to full idle to control his descent. When he initiated a go-around, the engines began throttling up just like any plane, but there were a few seconds of lag before they started generating thrust. You can actually hear them doing a rapid throttleup as the plane in the video passes out of sight.

Pure pilot error, and the same thing would have happened on a Boeing, Tupolev, or Concorde in the same situation.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #98 on:** December 09, 2005, 12:13:05 AM »

I heard it was a software fix. How did a program change fix turbolag?

Chairboy · « **Reply #99 on:** December 09, 2005, 12:36:24 AM »

You heard wrong.

Yeager · « **Reply #100 on:** December 09, 2005, 02:59:54 AM »

Airbus has done an amazing job considering that not too many years ago, germany, france england and italy were totally devastated by a world war that both Germany and Italy LOST....and England/france DAMN NEAR SO...

Hmmmmm.........who liberated all these POS? oh....Russia...yeah....thats the ticket.......

I guess the big lesson here is be careful who you rescue and liberate, they might just kill off your childrens economy, by cheating and subterfuge half a century later....

Chitownflyer · « **Reply #101 on:** December 09, 2005, 10:43:08 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by FTJR
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

Well, I'm only a general aviation pilot with about 800 hours in pa28140's
and Cessna 150/172's

I do know that in terms of what I would rather be in, My choice
may be dictated by irrational thoughts but,
I know for a fact that Boeing aircraft tend to be built
to "military" specs so as the airplanes can be sold and
used by the military as tankers and cargo aircraft.

Also, I am willing to bet dollar to a donut that the structures
in a Boeing aircraft are more robust and redundant
then that of an Airbus. Considering Boeing has had over
60years experience in large plane structures, B17, b29, b47
B52, Dash-80, 707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777... ect..
that alone speaks for itself...

Now, I would assume since that "incident" with the Airbus
thinking it was landing instead of taking off, the Airbus
boys had changed the controls. Lawsuits tend to push
forward change of designs philosophy, especially when
Pilot complain that they are second fiddle to a computer.
Now, we all know that computers are reliable…etc…
But the French tend to has some "hard luck" with them in
Aviation… see the problems the French had with their
Ariane rockets as example of this.

So, as far as I’m concerned, and I only speak for my self I say…
if it “Aint Boeing, I Aint Going”...

Chairboy · « **Reply #102 on:** December 09, 2005, 10:49:24 AM »

Chitownflyer, it was pilot error. He had retarded the power to full idle, not descent idle, and turbolag prevented the engines from spooling up in time to generate power to avoid the crash.

Of interest to anyone who has seen the video (with the subsequent fireball, etc) is that only 2 or 3 people died out of an almost full plane (I don't remember the exact number). Pretty astonishingly good, considering.

I'm no Airbus fanatic, I think the government subsidies are rotten, but making up stories is bullcrap.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #103 on:** December 09, 2005, 11:05:17 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chitownflyer
So, as far as I’m concerned, and I only speak for my self I say…
if it “Aint Boeing, I Aint Going”...

No worries with your opinions here Chitownflyer...There will be no retribution regarding your opinion. When attacks occur on me regarding my opinion of choice I'd rather fly, they are attacks on Ripsnort rather than my preferences. Not a victim post mind you, just stating facts that are constant with the same small group of posters regardless of the thread subject.

Debonair · « **Reply #104 on:** December 09, 2005, 11:30:01 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chitownflyer
Well, I'm only a general aviation pilot with about 800 hours in pa28140's
and Cessna 150/172's

I do know that in terms of what I would rather be in, My choice
may be dictated by irrational thoughts but,
I know for a fact that Boeing aircraft tend to be built
to "military" specs so as the airplanes can be sold and
used by the military as tankers and cargo aircraft.

Also, I am willing to bet dollar to a donut that the structures
in a Boeing aircraft are more robust and redundant
then that of an Airbus. Considering Boeing has had over
60years experience in large plane structures, B17, b29, b47
B52, Dash-80, 707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777... ect..
that alone speaks for itself...

Now, I would assume since that "incident" with the Airbus
thinking it was landing instead of taking off, the Airbus
boys had changed the controls. Lawsuits tend to push
forward change of designs philosophy, especially when
Pilot complain that they are second fiddle to a computer.
Now, we all know that computers are reliable…etc…
But the French tend to has some "hard luck" with them in
Aviation… see the problems the French had with their
Ariane rockets as example of this.

So, as far as I’m concerned, and I only speak for my self I say…
if it “Aint Boeing, I Aint Going”...

That has to be tough living in a UAL hub town, My only available nonstop between DC & home is a UAL A319 route....kicked your mayor in the nuts over Meigs lately?