Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Scootter on December 05, 2005, 04:54:44 PM
-
This is troubling
almost everything went away for two min.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/Special%20S2-2005%20G-EUOB.pdf
When is to much electric just to much?
-
complex machines tend to act complicated, at times...so it seems.
-
If it ain't Boeing I ain't going...
-
China just ordered 150 new A320's.
-
Lets not ignore the fact that the aircraft didnt crash, the pilots didnt lose control and they landed safely.
Funny thing, I know what all those parts are and what they do, even the AC Ess Feed. :)
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
China just ordered 150 new A320's.
Wow that's reassuring, with China's great record of air safety and concern for human life.
-
[usual ainti-airbus commentary here]
I swear, I'll never set foot in one, but I'll be glad to buy tickets for some folks I know.
-
OK, so the most likely cause for the power crash is?
-
Jigger bugs in the CB panel?
Airbus make great copies of Boeing airliners. In many cases they have improved on the original designs and concepts but Boeing wrote the book on commercial airliners.
Airbus benifits from being able to sell planes at a loss, undercuting Boeing in the sales dept, but Boeing 737NG, 747-8, 777 and 787s are/will be the better product for the future.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Airbus make great copies of Boeing airliners. In many cases they have improved on the original designs and concepts but Boeing wrote the book on commercial airliners.
Airbus benifits from being able to sell planes at a loss, undercuting Boeing in the sales dept, but Boeing 737NG, 747-8, 777 and 787s are/will be the better product for the future.
How about facts for a change..
I don't understand whats the problem with having competition - it has actually motivated the industry to design NEW planes.
Without the competition you'd be prolly still flying 737-200's and such, because nobody has had the motivation to develop 737NG.
Just take a look at the GA planes - designs are still back in the 60's.
Besides Boeing has hardly done anything for all these boingboing fanbois, except collected money for their own purposes.
Same with all the industry... so whats the purpose of becoming a fanboi of something that doesn't care about you.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
...Just take a look at the GA planes - designs are still back in the 60's....
You'd take that back if you'd been in the cockpit of a 172SP with NavIII.
Pure 21st Century, except for the 20th century attitude indicator, airspeed indicator & altimeter.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Just take a look at the GA planes - designs are still back in the 60's.
Damn...I sure would have enjoyed myself back then playing with these. Wonder why Cirrus is so far behind the times. :furious
(http://www.cirrusdesign.com/aircraft/gallery/avionics/MFDPFD.jpg)
(http://www.cirrusdesign.com/aircraft/gallery/avionics/SR22GTS-cockpit.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Debonair
You'd take that back if you'd been in the cockpit of a 172SP with NavIII.
Pure 21st Century, except for the 20th century attitude indicator, airspeed indicator & altimeter.
....and sporting the fuselage of a C172, not so pure 21st century.
Golfer,
Cirrus is only one of the rare newer models...
Most designs are oldish.
-
Sounds like the Airbus just needed rebooting! ;)
If it ain't Boeing I ain't going...
Why is it always the most fervent gun-loving neo-cons who repeat this mantra? :confused: What I want to know is how do you go about booking a flight with a guarantee that the aircraft will be a Boeing, when the major US airlines like American and United (plus a lot of the smaller ones) also operate Airbus, and even McDonnell Douglas? The MD80 is the backbone of AA, so would be pretty hard to avoid.
-
beetle, please stop making sense... it's so unnatural here.
-
You beat me to it, Beet.
Maybe the windows update launched a reboot of the glass cockpit ;)
About the dumb "I only fly X" stance, I'll take a well maintained Airbus from a safe US or european airline over a derelict Boeing from an african airline any time... and vice versa.
-
(http://www.shoujorobot.com/archival/sadatroll.gif)
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Airbus benifits from being able to sell planes at a loss
What? Is this a whine on subsidies and tax breaks from the Land of the Free and Subsidised?
-
Wow that's reassuring, with China's great record of air safety and concern for human life.
Yeah that is exactly why they bought 100+ Boeings first. :D :aok
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Sounds like the Airbus just needed rebooting! ;)
Why is it always the most fervent gun-loving neo-cons who repeat this mantra? :confused: What I want to know is how do you go about booking a flight with a guarantee that the aircraft will be a Boeing, when the major US airlines like American and United (plus a lot of the smaller ones) also operate Airbus, and even McDonnell Douglas? The MD80 is the backbone of AA, so would be pretty hard to avoid.
Of course they refuse to board to the plane if it's not Boeing :)
Oh... How many Boeings took their passengers to their last trip this year? And how many died in Airbusses?
-
when you book your flight, the web site tells you what aircraft you will be flying on, so you can pick what plane to fly on should you chose to.
-
Originally posted by Staga
Oh... How many Boeings took their passengers to their last trip this year? And how many died in Airbusses?
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 :aok
-
Can't a guy show pride in a company he works for? At least I thought he worked for Boeing.
I rode on an NWA (Who got the bright idea to put a big NWA on the side of Northwest's airplanes anyway? N***as with Attitude they must be) Airbus 319. The only two thing I can say I really liked about the experience was the woman sitting next to me and the A/C system. I wouldn't have ever been on this trip since it was for an interview with a MSP based airline and I had a nonrev ticket that I couldn't exchange. It was August and I was wearing a suit after jumping through the hoops all morning at the interview so I was a good bit toasty. Thanks for making a good A/C System.
I didn't have a view out the wing to verify what might have been what but there were several motors that were excessively loud in the cabin. One for flaps, the landing gear and one more I couldn't figure out what the heck it ws. A guess would've been elevator trim but I don't know for sure. It came on in a longer spurt and then a couple short ones at the end like you might if you were fine tuning for takeoff setting. Didn't hear it in flight or really pay attention since the woman mentioned above actually provided good conversation. :)
-
of course he can show his proud of the company and the products they're manufacturing but it won't make him look any wittier when the disaster numbers are what they are.
Of course any sane people understands that most of the disasters which happened were human related and not because of aircraft itself but why use brains when you can just repeat idiotic slogans and wave flags :aok
-
Not to bring up an obvious point, but has anyone even heard of those airlines?
-
i think some of them are finnish
-
I think not.
-
Heh. Sounds like the F-15E.
*blink* everything goes dark
*heard from the back seat* "dude, what did you do?"
*from the front seat* "Crap"
*from back seat* "You got it? Try a CC reset."
*from front seat, mumbled...* "CC MPDP AUI damned flashlight f**k"
*from the front seat, louder* "Dude I've turned everything off and on again, and nothing works. Think we should cycle the generators off?"
*From the back* "Nooooooo!!!!!!!!!!! Are the backups working?"
*From the front* "Yea but they suck"
*From the back* "deal with it and lets go home... Better tell lead" (or call the SOF if single-ship)
Sometimes there's a known problem, and it can't be fixed. What, you gonna ground the entire fleet? Bah!
-
staga, that has mostly to do with the fact that Aibrus has manufactured only about %10 of the worlds flying commercial airline fleet and most of those planes are less than 10 years old. Boeing has a thousands of older 737s out there. many older ones should have been retired but due to other countries failure to retire them, they get worn out and crash, or third world airlines have poorly trianed mechanics, and both. Nice try but your boat dont float, and remember...Airbis is just copies of Boeing airframes. Boeing wrote the book.
-
I thought Lockheed and Grumman wrote the book... Boeing just made it weigh more.
Think about it... Just saying "Boeing F-15E" or "Boeing JSF prototype" makes the plane automatically sound like it's gained about 50,000 lbs. And did you see the Boeing JSF competitor? 2 words... slim fast.
-
eagl, the lead designer on the Boeing JSF had actually been the the lead guy in Charge of the MD JSF project. When Boeing got Bought by MD the previously MD but now Boeing managers put the MD guy in charge of the JSF design. This pissed off the Boeing lead designer who went to Lockheed and was instrumental in designing the Lockheed JSF.
So I am told.......
Plus I was just referring to the Commercial Business. The 707 is the grandfather of modern commercial aviation, including Airbus.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Sounds like the Airbus just needed rebooting! ;)
Why is it always the most fervent gun-loving neo-cons who repeat this mantra? :confused: What I want to know is how do you go about booking a flight with a guarantee that the aircraft will be a Boeing, when the major US airlines like American and United (plus a lot of the smaller ones) also operate Airbus, and even McDonnell Douglas? The MD80 is the backbone of AA, so would be pretty hard to avoid.
Its very easy, every flight has an aircraft type associated with it when booking a flight. I take the flight with a Boeing aircraft. why? Because I trust my brother-inlaws judgement as a certified FAA airframe inspector who's been "inside" both makes of aircraft from an inspectors point of view, and a mechanics point of view. To distill his comments, he said "Airbus uses alot of glue where Boeing uses rivets". He won't fly them, neither will I.
-
glue?
testors glue :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
To distill his comments, he said "Airbus uses alot of glue where Boeing uses rivets". He won't fly them, neither will I.
I would think that the 787's extensive use of composites (which will require an extensive use of bonding agents rather than rivets for key assemblies) will keep you off that model?
Bonding technology has come a long way. Used within parameters it is a good way to go.
-
Errrr.... some of the most valued sportscars and limousines are using aluminium structures which are glued together and not welded or riveted.
It's just modern way to make stronger structures instead of using technics from thirties.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
....The 707 is the grandfather of modern commercial aviation, including Airbus.
That could just as easily be said about the Dh Comet, but yeah, all modern large airliners look like modified 707s with turbofans. They all look like enlarged 262s also...somehow this will become a thread about how 190s are better/worse than Spitfires, I'm sure of it
-
Originally posted by Golfer
Can't a guy show pride in a company he works for? At least I thought he worked for Boeing.
I rode on an NWA (Who got the bright idea to put a big NWA on the side of Northwest's airplanes anyway? N***as with Attitude they must be) Airbus 319. The only two thing I can say I really liked about the experience was the woman sitting next to me and the A/C system. I wouldn't have ever been on this trip since it was for an interview with a MSP based airline and I had a nonrev ticket that I couldn't exchange. It was August and I was wearing a suit after jumping through the hoops all morning at the interview so I was a good bit toasty. Thanks for making a good A/C System.
I didn't have a view out the wing to verify what might have been what but there were several motors that were excessively loud in the cabin. One for flaps, the landing gear and one more I couldn't figure out what the heck it ws. A guess would've been elevator trim but I don't know for sure. It came on in a longer spurt and then a couple short ones at the end like you might if you were fine tuning for takeoff setting. Didn't hear it in flight or really pay attention since the woman mentioned above actually provided good conversation. :)
Not to sure I want to spend all the time explaining how many things are wrong with your assumptions, but I will share with you this one fact, the Airbus 319 doesnt have flight control trim systems.
I have extensive experience with Boeing and Airbus, and I fly either.
dago
-
Did you not read the part you quoted where I said...and I re-quote...
A guesswoulld've been elevator trim but I don't know for sure. It came on in a longer spurt and then a couple short ones at the end like you might if you were fine tuning for takeoff setting. Didn't hear it in flight
It's still not an assumption that the motors were loud. It's a fact. Since you're our resident Airbus expert...what was it then? Wasn't flaps heard those go down. Wasn't landing gear since we were on the ground.
-
Yep, that noise is present in every Airbus I've flown. It definitely comes from the belly. I'm assuming something to do with the undercarriage or the cargo bay, but I'm not sure.
Daniel
-
You were hearing a hydraulic pump.
Probably hearing the yellow system electric hydraulic pump, it runs when cargo doors are opened or closed. Makes a high pitch whine.
Flaps are normally driven with hydraulic pressure from the engine driven pumps.
dago
-
its the bomb bay doors.
-
Ive flown B767 then moved to A320 from there to the B737NG, and now back to A320.
From my pov, airbus are like porche, great to work in quiet and comfortable, The Boeings like tractors, ugly strong and sturdy.I was never so disappointed to move to the New Generation, exactly like the -200 I flew briefly 8 years ago. I was glad to get back on the A320/319. So thats my background.
Now All I can say is when things go wrong I prefer boeings simple logic and systems. But for the other 99% of the time, Airbus. As to the above episode, eh gad, I haven't heard about it and shall look it up.
Basicaly airbus have 7 computers with the various back ups and millions lines of code probably just need to be re racked (re booted). What alarms me is the typical airline attitude "it works now"and kept the plane flying for another 6 days before the CAA took it off line.
Airbus or Boeing.. if its maintained as it should be, they will go on forever.
-
Originally posted by FTJR
Airbus or Boeing.. if its maintained as it should be, they will go on forever.
I think that's the whole point; too bad some morons aren't able to understand that.
-
Originally posted by Golfer
there were several motors that were excessively loud in the cabin. One for flaps, the landing gear and one more I couldn't figure out what the heck it ws. A guess would've been elevator trim but I don't know for sure. It came on in a longer spurt and then a couple short ones at the end like you might if you were fine tuning for takeoff setting. Didn't hear it in flight or really pay attention since the woman mentioned above actually provided good conversation. :)
If you want to hear excessively loud electrical motors try flying in a 767, and look at the other passengers faces when the flaps are lowered.
-
Originally posted by Dago
You were hearing a hydraulic pump.
Probably hearing the yellow system electric hydraulic pump, it runs when cargo doors are opened or closed. Makes a high pitch whine.
Flaps are normally driven with hydraulic pressure from the engine driven pumps.
dago
Thanks Dago, I was guessing something like that. Still, it's not the pitch but the irregular tempo of the noise that makes it so noticeable.
Daniel
-
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 :aok
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.
-
Same to you Ripsnort, same to you old buddy. :D
-
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 :rofl
-
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... :rofl
-
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
-
Originally posted by Staga
"Got a problem with that? Go tell someone who cares."
Same to You buddy, same to You :rofl
Its pretty obvious you cared, after I made a statement that if ain't Boeing I ain't going.
-
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?
-
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
-
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 => :rolleyes:
-
didnt an airbus once take off from algiers with no one on board and land several hours later in portugal?
:rofl
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Dago
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
So you're saying that Tex Johnston won't be able to fly an airbus in a slow roll to sell more aircraft? :D
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
So you're saying that Tex Johnston won't be able to fly an airbus in a slow roll to sell more aircraft? :D
heheh, not normally no, Tex would not be an aerobatic airliner pilot in an Airbus.
:aok
-
The really interesting thing about this post is that Rip (who as I recall helps design boeing aircraft) hasn't responded to FTJR who actually flies both aircraft.
FTJR: One of my best mates is a QANTAS pilot who swears that airbuses are 'japanese' in that they are built of inferior quality components and thinks its only a matter of time that an airbus will suffer a catestrophic failure once they've been through enough cycles. He is definitely a 'If it's not Boeing I'm not going kind of guy' (he's flown both too).
I don't have enough knowlege to comment but all I can say is that I have a real fear of flying but the only time I felt really safe was when I was 14 years old and we picked up a brand new Boeing 737 from Seattle and did the ferry flight from there through Gander to Shannon and Heathrow...I've never felt safer in my life: there were no seats fitted in economy so we played football in the space at 30,000 feet: good fun.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by Chitownflyer
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 upset was caused by an assymmetric leading edge slat extension. A possible cause was that he tripped the CB of the leading edge slats on purpose, in order to set the trailing edge flaps to 1 independently. This was supposed to make the plane perform better. He did it while the FE was in the lavatory, and when the FE came back he reset the CB. The other slat extended but other failed to do so and that caused the upset.
-
I posted this to point out that the complete faith and total reliance on electronics can be taken to what is in my opinion an extreme.
I use a PC every day as does everyone here and frankly they do weird things (thanks Bill Gates) and had what I shown in the PDF file happened in heavy weather on short final things would have been hairy.
I know my Cessna has cables and pulleys as well as ancient things called magnetos for ignition and is in the dark ages. But is using all the high tech. stuff really making things better and safer when an unexplained bug can take away EVERYTHING in the cockpit and leave the pilot with an un-powered, unlighted attitude indicator that will spool down in less then 5 minutes really right?
The good old DC-3 (Douglas product not Boeing) is still shouldering on and I would not hesitate to go on a long trip in one, given the time.:D
I like my computer but trust it with my life at night in heavy weather at minimums with low fuel nope.
I think Airbus is the cats butt with their electric jets and I know Boeing is also going down the same road as well, I just want nothing to do with them if they start using Microshaft for software.
As for the TU- products they will fly forever if anyone can afford the fuel as from what I understand they are built like a truck and have avoided the glits and glamour of the high tech electric jets.
I have and will fly Airbus, I like Boeing for emotional reasons really but I prefer my Cessna when simplicity is safety.
my two cents.
-
Originally posted by ravells
The really interesting thing about this post is that Rip (who as I recall helps design boeing aircraft) hasn't responded to FTJR who actually flies both aircraft.
FTJR: One of my best mates is a QANTAS pilot who swears that airbuses are 'japanese' in that they are built of inferior quality components and thinks its only a matter of time that an airbus will suffer a catestrophic failure once they've been through enough cycles. He is definitely a 'If it's not Boeing I'm not going kind of guy' (he's flown both too).
I don't have enough knowlege to comment but all I can say is that I have a real fear of flying but the only time I felt really safe was when I was 14 years old and we picked up a brand new Boeing 737 from Seattle and did the ferry flight from there through Gander to Shannon and Heathrow...I've never felt safer in my life: there were no seats fitted in economy so we played football in the space at 30,000 feet: good fun.
Ravs
My specialty before doing what I do now was tool design, not mechanical engineering or aircraft design. But I've seen my share of drawings that I've had to use to get my job done, and I've seen comparisons of the Airbus wing and the Boeing wing. I know enough that both will fly, but one is built like a B-17 while the other is built to lower costs.
As for FTJR's post, we already discussed on this BBS the Airbus mishap in France years ago...don't feel much like getting back into that again..besides, Pilots fly planes, they don't design them. Most wouldn't know the process for assembling a Krueger flap.
Your cycle time on airframe analogy by your friend is spot on. Lets wait until these airbuses have 30 years on the frames, then we'll see who has more airframe failures.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
but one is built like a B-17 while the other is built to lower costs.
Hey rip, isn't a B-17 a 1940's era bomber with a very old tech wing, with poor high speed and high altitude performance? :D
-
Rip what I didn't tell you was that my mate who is the pilot has a friend who works on maintenance and agrees with him about Airbus aircraft. Hell what do I know, I'm no specialist but my view is that 'if it's not boeing I'm not going' but 'If I'm going to miss the bus then I'll take an Airbus'
Death is such a random thing, so I'm prepared to take my chances, because in this conversation we are much more likely to die in car accidents than plane accidents so it's really like counting angels on a pinhead.
Ravs
-
Dont get me wrong, I prefer to ride Boeing myself for all my own reasons, I just think you should know the truth about both.
dago
-
Me too, but aircraft design and safety is such an opaque issue we will never know.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Hey rip, isn't a B-17 a 1940's era bomber with a very old tech wing, with poor high speed and high altitude performance? :D
I feel sarcasm in your post :D
Seriously though, Boeing has always prided itself for redundency, if X breaks, Y holds it together, if Y breaks, Z holds it together. A good example is when the corroded frame of a 19 year old 737 ripped off over the Pacific in Hawaii, the plane was landable...had that been any other aircraft I'm afraid all would have perished. (And that accident was due to airframe negligence.)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/53/Alohaairlinesdisaster.jpg)
After the accident, a full-scale investigation was launched by the NTSB. It concluded that the accident was caused by metal fatigue and stress fractures exacerbated by crevice corrosion [1]. The age of the aircraft became a key issue (the aircraft was 19 years old at the time of the accident and had sustained a remarkable number of takeoff-landing cycles - in excess of 80,000). Consequently, all major United States air carriers decided to retire their oldest aircraft to prevent a recurrence. Also, aircraft now receive additional maintenance checks as they age.
In addition, Congress passed the Aviation Safety Research Act of 1988 in the wake of the disaster. This provided for stricter research into probable causes of future airplane disasters.
-
The americans build things with lots of over engineered and inefficent redundacy (Cadillac) the Europeans build them with panache (Ferrari) ... if there was a collision, I'd want to be in the Caddilac.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by ravells
The americans build things with lots of over engineered and inefficent redundacy (Cadillac) the Europeans build them with panache (Ferrari) ... if there was a collision, I'd want to be in the Caddilac.
Ravs
Yep. Thus my reason for rather flying a truck/tractor :D
-
You shall not rule the world!
but....
I'm inclined to make you my second in command!
Ravs
-
Oh yeah guys, dont bring up maintenance, because nobody asks about who maintains a plane when they are buying a ticket, they just ask who has the cheapest tickets.
The American public would rush to buy tickets on "Jihad Airlines" if they would save $5.
dago
-
09.05.2005 Mandala Airlines Boeing 737-230(Adv) 101 died
I forgot this bit, in the rush to compare the 2 manufacturers crash record dont forget the pilots/ground staff, who on the above occassion combined to cause this crash. The ground staff overloaded the plane by 2000 kilos, and the pilots forgot to set the takeoff flap.:( Its not the planes fault it got to the end of the runway and wasn't ready to fly.
Ravels, with respect to your Qantas mate, well IF he equates finely engineered to cheap and nasty, well I dont think thats the case.
However, his life cycles comment has some merit. As the airbus IS a high maintenance machine, I dont think you'll see too many airbus bumping around the skies of the 3rd world, like you do the old -200. When Indian Airlines A320's start falling apart then Ill take notice, since I am pretty sure they are the oldest fleet in service, and in a fairly harsh environment
But we're in the 21st century now, when Airbus come out with their fly by wire it was a jump in technology and faith. Now Boeing have their own version of it, and have improved on the Airbus version. Everyone has their own view (as planely seen here) but every year there is improvement in aviation design/manufacturing from lessons learnt over the recent years. Composites is a big one of those advancements, so we will have to live with aeroplanes made less robust than they were 20years ago. Lets just all hope that aircraft crashes for whatever cause decrease.
regards
-
Originally posted by ravells
The americans build things with lots of over engineered and inefficent redundacy (Cadillac) the Europeans build them with panache (Ferrari) ... if there was a collision, I'd want to be in the Caddilac.
Ravs
Well in my case I prefer to be in the Volvo/Mercedes you didn't mention :)
-
You misspelled Volvo... it's spelled f-o-r-d
-
Why did they go with AIRBUS as a name anyway. Riding a bus is not traveling in style if you know what I mean. Might as well be AIRTAXI...or AIRRAIL.....
What would a good name be today for Airbus? something that has some class...
Dassault sounded pretty cool. Hell...Luftwaffe sounded cool.
Come on folks, chime in here. Lets give Airbus a name worthy of a great copier of Boeing! :rofl
-
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.
...
Now this is a seriously misinformed statement: this happened during an airshow and the pilot was "showing off" and ended up doing a gross mistake, putting the plane beyond its limits.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Now this is a seriously misinformed statement: this happened during an airshow and the pilot was "showing off" and ended up doing a gross mistake, putting the plane beyond its limits.
How is a "go around" putting any plane beyond its limits??
I dont want an aircraft to continue to land when I want a go around, but that is just me.
The plane was NOT put beyond its limits, the programing of the computer was, there is the problem.
-
I felt really safe was when I was 14 years old and we picked up a brand new Boeing 737 from Seattle
How old are you? If it was a first generation 737 you could well have died on that maiden flight as it sports a flawed elevator control valve. If the valve freezes during landing the action is reversed and the pilot will lawndart the plane when the controls push down as he pulls the stick up.
:D
So you see, feeling and being are two different beasts.
-
Originally posted by Scootter
How is a "go around" putting any plane beyond its limits??
I dont want an aircraft to continue to land when I want a go around, but that is just me.
The plane was NOT put beyond its limits, the programing of the computer was, there is the problem.
The laws of physics applied in the Air France Airbus case. There is no appeal when it comes to the laws of physics. You are right, the aircraft was NOT put beyond it's limits. When the pilot went to go around, our old friend inertia came into play. It takes a critical few seconds to stop the descent, level and then climb. Unfortunately there was a forest in the way.
The accident happened because the pilot tried to go around too late. That will kill anyone whether in a Boeing or Airbus.
It is true to say that the same accident wouldn't happen in a contemporary Boeing. Simply because the pilot would never made such a low, slow, high alpha pass. In an Airbus, you can because of the built in stall prevention.
This whole Airbus/Boeing argument is all very amusing. But at the end of the day both manufacturers make excellent aircraft with a superb safety record. I could care less about the manufacturer. I'm more interested in the fares I pay and the safety record of the airline flying them. Of course I have no patriotic interest either as neither are built in my country.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Why did they go with AIRBUS as a name anyway. Riding a bus is not traveling in style if you know what I mean. Might as well be AIRTAXI...or AIRRAIL.....
What would a good name be today for Airbus? something that has some class...
Dassault sounded pretty cool. Hell...Luftwaffe sounded cool.
Come on folks, chime in here. Lets give Airbus a name worthy of a great copier of Boeing! :rofl
Airbus is a copy of a Boeing name, I'll take a picture when I get home of the first 747 on its maiden flight, the name on the plane, believe it or not, is "Airbus".
-
See Rules #4, #5
-
Originally posted by straffo
Well in my case I prefer to be in the Volvo/Mercedes you didn't mention :)
Well if it was a choice between being in a volvo and a boeing in a collision, I'd probably pick the volvo :)
We always had volvos in our family when I was a kid. One of them was an estate car we had for 8 years and never gave us any trouble. Back in the 1970s I was in the boot of the estate along with some other kids when my mum hit a Toyota. We had a scratch on the bumper, the Toyota was a write off. It's a shame Volvo don't make planes!
Beetle! Good to see you!
Ravs
-
ravells,
One of the reason that volvo was so safe was because some of the euro car manufacturers caught on to the concept of having the body dissipate and distribute the force of an impact around the whole car except for the passenger compartment. One manufacturer, either volvo or bmw or mercedes, went so far as to set the passenger compartment in a steel cage, attached to the rest of the car and floor pan with shear bolts. In the event of a major impact, the passenger compartment would partially detach and lift as the force of the impact was taken by the rest of the car.
This had an unfortunate side effect though... On rare occasions, these cars would be involved in a relatively minor impact causing no visible damage, but the car would be in fact totalled. The impact would be transferred to these deliberately weak links, and they'd fail even though there was pretty much no external evidence except for clues like the doors not closing quite right, the gas/brake pedals being slightly out of place, etc.
Under the car though, if you knew where to look you could find major buckling and sheared bolts, as it was designed to do. A very safe design, but an impact that might be repairable in other less advanced cars could total one of these.
-
Thanks Eagl, that's news to me...I just thought they were built like tanks.
We sold her in the end not because she was failing but because they just wern't making spare parts for her anymore and my parents were worried about maintenance costs. Blow me, when I saw her some 6 years later painted blue and still driving around the streets of Kuala Lumpur!
Ravs
-
9 out of 10 Volvos ever made are still being used in traffic.
-
If you get a good one, some of those older cars will just keep running forever.
My parents got a 1980 Ford Fairmont wagon in a year that was later determined to be a banner year for lemon law enforcement, and their car model was usually considered a complete piece of crap. Strangely enough though, they managed to get the exact right combination of options and avoided almost all of the problems. They had the 3-speed auto which never gave them real problems except for simply wearing out after 120k miles of hauling trailers up mountains, etc., the 255 V8 which was waaaay overbuilt and only died because my Dad didn't change the oil often enough and it chucked a rod at 105k miles, and the rest of the car was pretty much stripped of options except they got the "squire" model which had crappy fake wood paneling and a nice bonus, a thick and very effective underbody coating from the factory.
Due to the coating, the car went 20 years in southern california and colorado without rusting. They coated almost the entire underbody and bottom 12 inches of the doors, unlike most cars today which only get underbody coatings in specific "problem areas". It survived almost 200k miles (on it's second engine and second transmission) and several coast to coast road trips, when my sister in law wrecked it.
It needed some interior work due to the fabrics and vinyl falling apart, but there was pretty much nothing mechanically wrong with the car after all that time. If it hadn't been crashed, it would probably still be running. Yea, I had to swap out the occasional part, but never anything that I couldn't do in a parking lot with the toolkit I kept in the car.
-
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
-
What do you mean by inbuilt redundancy? Do you mean planned obsolescence?
-
sorry, yes, that's exactly what I meant.
Ravs
-
love the great boeing engine mountings
(http://www.wvb.nu/images/monument.jpg)
-
Oh yes... wasn't it a cargo plane?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I feel sarcasm in your post :D
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.
-
Thats impossible, Kiwis cant fly
-
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.
-
I heard it was a software fix. How did a program change fix turbolag?
-
You heard wrong.
-
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....
-
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”...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Chitownflyer, it was pilot error.
Chairboy, what do you think of this?
source (http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml#official)
Since May 1998, it is proven that the Flight Data Recorder was switched after the accident. The Lausanne Institute of Police Forensic Evidence and Criminology (IPSC) comes to the conclusion that the recorder presented to the Court is NOT the one taken from the aircraft after the accident.
-
All this chest thumping (on both sides) got me to thinking.....of the folks in this thread who said either is great or bad....how many airmiles do you fly a year.
I'm just curious really. I don't fly as much as I used to, but not too long ago, I used log close to 100k airmiles a year, and I never gave alot of thought to the type of plane I flew in. I did, however, care more about the airline and it's practices.
I can remember not choosing to fly NWA if I could, because of the average age of their fleet, stuff like that.
So, let's see an informal poll on the posters in this thread....how many airmiles to you average per year?
-
This year: HEL-EWR-HEL JFK-FLL-JFK. None of those legs in a Boeing or an Airbus, thankfully it's still possible to avoid them.
-
I dont know how many airmiles I fly a year, but in the last year I have been averaging 3 airline flights a week. Slowing down now though thankfully, but will be flying on Monday and Tuesday.
Doesnt bother me who made the airplane. I prefer Boeing, but dont hesitate to fly Airbus.
dago
-
Originally posted by Stringer
All this chest thumping
Originally posted by Stringer
I don't fly as much as I used to, but not too long ago, I used log close to 100k airmiles a year, and I never gave alot of thought to the type of plane I flew in.
:rofl
Anyway, back to the point, ummm, last I checked, airmiles did not equate preference. Nor did business airmiles equate that you had a choice, either. You're usually driven by schedule or by an office administrator (we used to call those "secretaries"but I guess that is no longer politically correct) who is instructed to book with certain airlines.
I'd like to say my preference once again. I prefer Boeing Aircraft (aka, if it ain't Boeing I ain't going)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
:rofl
Anyway, back to the point, (aka, if it ain't Boeing I ain't going)
Hehe...Rip, you chose to respond but not to answer. It's a non-threatening question.
-
Not sure about miles, but I fly about 6-7 times a year for business.
I never check to see which plane, and I rarely check the Airline (except Southwest, I hate the cattle car). I do like seat (IIRC) 22A on the 757. Exit row window with 1st class leg room.... ahhhhhhhhhh.
-
My overseas flights are almost always on 747's. I like that airplane. I fly mostly United on those.....United is ok, but I prefer Singapore Airlines or even Cathay Pacific. BA isn't too bad, I guess, but the Asian Carriers know what service is all about. SwissAir is ok too...took them from Karachi to Dubai and then to Zurich and finally back to Boston.
Once though I had to fly from Karachi to Lahore and you can only use Pakistani Air....freaking scary!
On the leg out to Lahore, I was on a 747 that still had the circular staircase to Business Class in the upper deck. Interior knobs weren't working, all kinds of stuff. Plus, and I apologize to Straffo, but before we left the gate a French business man was making a scene because he bought a business class ticket, but there were no seats left there when he boarded. Long story short, they took him off with armed guards....scared the crap out of me.
On the way back to Karachi, I flew on an Airbus. Brand new...was really nice. I draw the comparison not because of manufacturers but because of how Pakistani Air maintained their fleet.
Now I did refuse to fly from Shenzhen to Shangai once because it was going to be on China South Airlines.
Thai Airlines is ok....used to fly them from Bangkok to Sri Lanka a few times.
I fly mainly to Europe these days....to Brussels of all places....and yes Saw has been my tour guide once......just once..hehe. I fly United for that and I think they use Boeings..777 or 767 maybe. Very nice airplane. I use American for my Mexico City flying, but after my last trip, I'm thinking of switching to Continental.
My wife used to fly Alitalia alot when she would go back to Italy to visit her family. She said two things about them....They Never EVER left on time, but the food was pretty decent.
But the BEST by far Domestic airline for me is Midwest Express!!! Especially when they used to have the meal service and those chocolate chip cookies. If you ever have the chance to fly Midwest Express, you should absolutely do it. They us an MD designation airplane, I believe.
EDIT** Oh and one airport I don't ever want to have to fly into again is Roanoke. Was on a turbo-prop into there about 2 years ago, and the winds were blowing about 30 mph in that bowl were the airport sits.....Holy crap was that a ride to the runway....we hit turbulence so bad that my head hit the overhead compartment, and a lady a couple of rows ahead of me kept screaming that the pilot was trying to kill us.
An airport I wish would still be in service is the old HK airport...man that was fun flying between apartment buildings seeing people hang laundry on the approach to landing.
-
Hah... If you don't like southwest, don't bother trying ryanair if you're ever in Europe. Cross a southwest flight with a European soccer match, and that's ryanair. They even have plans to try giving away the tickets for free, and making their profit with inflight gambling. That'll sure raise the average quality of the passengers...
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
China just ordered 150 new A320's.
Of course China has a habit of shooting it's own people...kind of abortion after the fact.
-
I'd like to hear Rip's comment about Tupolevs having better statistics this year than his admired Boeing.
Boy it must hurt; a commie junk plane being more reliable than his precious Boeing :rofl
-
I love Tupolev's. Built for 3rd class runways, lowest ground pressure of any type in existance. Sure they crash, get blown up, mishandled - but so do MD-80s, Boeings of all types, Airbus's and Saabs, and Embrairs, Douglas's, Folker's, Cessna's, Beechees', Mooneys, Augusta's, Sikorsky's.
Eh ****, ya know - all types crash. IT DEPENDS ON maintnence and crew training if you live. But certainly heavier on the latter.
I fly because life is boring without being around 4000 spare parts in close formation.
Wolf
-
Originally posted by Staga
I'd like to hear Rip's comment about Tupolevs having better statistics this year than his admired Boeing.
Boy it must hurt; a commie junk plane being more reliable than his precious Boeing :rofl
Why do you focus on this year? Why not air safety since 1920? Care to compare that? Whats special about this year? Is it due to a stellar year for Tupolev?
-
Incidently, every 5 seconds, a 737, one model type of a Boeing aircraft, takes off from an airport somewhere in the world. Think about that Staga, when you compare stats. If you have 100 Volvos racing around a track, and 10 BMW's, which model is more likely to have a higher chance of an accident? I made this a simple scenario so you'd understand the power of statistics.
-
when will the A380 crash?what will the crash site look like?
-
Raider, probably like a 747 wreck. What do you expect?
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
when will the A380 crash?what will the crash site look like?
That's not funny.
-
That's not funny.
I wasn't trying to jynx the brand new aircraft.
Like If a cargo carrying A380 had to do a belly landing it would be impossible for the pilots to get hurt since there so high up
-
Like If a cargo carrying A380 had to do a belly landing it would be impossible for the pilots to get hurt since there so high up
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Might sound funny...might wish it to be funny...not funny.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Why do you focus on this year? Why not air safety since 1920? Care to compare that? Whats special about this year? Is it due to a stellar year for Tupolev?
Why not? This is the year we're living now so it's quite appropriate to use this year isn't it?
I know it's like calling the devil but like I said Tupolev hasn't been in any crash where people lost lives in this year and there's couple thousand -134 and -154 manufactured and flying quite often under colours of third world carriers.
When was last year when nobody didn't die in a Boeing?
-
Originally posted by Debonair
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?
Well, the mayor of Chicago (King of Chicago) want to turn
meigs (Northly Island) in to a Gambling mecca.
Right now There is a group fighting the King on this.
If they can return meigs to the airport
is a question that mayl be answered some time in
the future...
BTW, I would be very happy to kick him in the nuts as you suggest
and in fact some are trying to as we speak... see link
http://64.143.36.15/html/news/news_curr.html
-
Originally posted by Yeager
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....
LOLOL!!!
Ohhh....I think you lot did alright out of lend-lease.
According to Hansard, the record of note for the debates that take place in the UK the Houses of Parliament, the debate in the Commons on 28th February 2002 shows that the UK expected to complete its repayment of its monetary debt to the USA on 31st December 2006, over 61 years from the conclusion of World War II
-
Originally posted by Staga
Why not? This is the year we're living now so it's quite appropriate to use this year isn't it?
I know it's like calling the devil but like I said Tupolev hasn't been in any crash where people lost lives in this year and there's couple thousand -134 and -154 manufactured and flying quite often under colours of third world carriers.
When was last year when nobody didn't die in a Boeing?
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Incidently, every 5 seconds, a 737, one model type of a Boeing aircraft, takes off from an airport somewhere in the world. Think about that Staga, when you compare stats. If you have 100 Volvos racing around a track, and 10 BMW's, which model is more likely to have a higher chance of an accident? I made this a simple scenario so you'd understand the power of statistics.
There are 953 Tup's in active commercial service. There are 14,000 Boeing aircraft in service. So your statistics are a bit skewed, can you admit that or are you going to pretend not to see the facts and look foolish?
-
So those thousand Tupolevs aren't having any take-offs?
Okay
LOL
-
Originally posted by Staga
So those thousand Tupolevs aren't having any take-offs?
Okay
LOL
Now your starting to look stupid.
I dont think anybody died in a Ford Edsel last year, does that make it the safest car ever built?
-
The answer to the original Question is...NOTHING!
Aircraft will always suffer malfunctions and fall out of the sky,it has happened to Boeing it has happended to Airbus.
What he should have said is Boeing make fantastic aicraft and we in Europe make aircraft that..err SUCK.
Thx,we needed telling.:aok
-
Originally posted by Dago
Now your starting to look stupid.
I dont think anybody died in a Ford Edsel last year, does that make it the safest car ever built?
Starting?
He just can't admit when he's wrong about something. Comparing the stat of people dying on an aircraft that has 14 times more planes in the air than a competitor is just plain rediculous, but Staga will never admit it. Fragile egos rarely do.
-
Have you read the news from Nigeria? Another Boeing written off from the books.
-
The Boeing 737 is the world's most popular medium range - narrow body commercial passenger jet aircraft. With 5,851 ordered and 4,867 delivered, it is the most ordered and produced commercial passenger jet aircraft of all time. It has been continuously manufactured by Boeing Commercial Airplanes since 1967.
Accidents summary
Statistics as of October 21, 2005:
* Hull-loss Accidents: 114 with a total of 3065 fatalities
* Other occurrences: 6 with a total of 242 fatalities
* Hijackings: 96 with a total of 325 fatalities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737#Trivia
-
Originally posted by Staga
Have you read the news from Nigeria? Another Boeing written off from the books.
I heard on BBC that it was DC-9.
Not really a Boeing.
-
The Tupolev equivalent to the 737 is the Tu-134, right? Airdisaster.org has 26 accidents on record, and about 1,000 were built. 2.6% crashed.
4,867 737s have been delivered, with 114 hull loss accidents with just over 3,000 total fatalities, according to wikipedia. 2.3% crashed.
The direct Airbus equivalent is the A320 series. Of 2,571 delivered, there have been 11 hull loss accidents with 327 fatalities. .4% crashed.
Considering how unscientific this is, the numbers are remarkably similar between the Tupolev and the 737, and unusually low for the Airbus.
Mitigating factors, the A320 has been in service since 1987 while the 737 has been in service since 1967, so airframe age and total service hours have to skew it, but it's still interesting.
BTW, I'm from a Boeing family and have no particular love for Airbus, before anyone jumps down my throat. I'd love to see some numbers analysis that include airframe hours, I'm sure we can produce a fact based comparison to replace the innane "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going".
-
easy. if your really interested just do a hull loss/fatalities review on the 737 from 1967 to 1984. Compare that to the airbus a320, which has only been in service since 1988.
-
Well, Yeager, thanks for rephrasing my last two paragraphs!
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
The Tupolev equivalent to the 737 is the Tu-134, right? Airdisaster.org has 26 accidents on record, and about 1,000 were built. 2.6% crashed.
4,867 737s have been delivered, with 114 hull loss accidents with just over 3,000 total fatalities, according to wikipedia. 2.3% crashed.
The direct Airbus equivalent is the A320 series. Of 2,571 delivered, there have been 11 hull loss accidents with 327 fatalities. .4% crashed.
Considering how unscientific this is, the numbers are remarkably similar between the Tupolev and the 737, and unusually low for the Airbus.
Mitigating factors, the A320 has been in service since 1987 while the 737 has been in service since 1967, so airframe age and total service hours have to skew it, but it's still interesting.
BTW, I'm from a Boeing family and have no particular love for Airbus, before anyone jumps down my throat. I'd love to see some numbers analysis that include airframe hours, I'm sure we can produce a fact based comparison to replace the innane "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going".
Also one must consider that the A320 since inception has benefitted from the tremendous gains in aviation safety due to introductions of new systems and programs, not the least include GPWS and EGPWS, TCAS, better radar including color radar, windshear detection systems, GPS, CRM programs, deicing programs, sterile cockpits etc etc.
-
Originally posted by Staga
Have you read the news from Nigeria? Another Boeing written off from the books.
The news is saying it was a DC9, but according to a Wikipedia link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosoliso_Airlines) for Sosolito who operated the flight, they had a fleet of just one aircraft - an MD81.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
The news is saying it was a DC9, but according to a Wikipedia link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosoliso_Airlines) for Sosolito who operated the flight, they had a fleet of just one aircraft - an MD81.
To the average person, an MD81 is just a long DC9. Basically that is what it is.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
The news is saying it was a DC9, but according to a Wikipedia link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosoliso_Airlines) for Sosolito who operated the flight, they had a fleet of just one aircraft - an MD81.
MD81 = DC-9-81
-
ah - rgr that.
-
Apparently it was 5N-BFD, DC-9-32
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/719374/L/
-
Spooky photo.
-
Cryano - that was probably the Hydraulic crossdrive pump you heard. It is frikking loud and sounds odd because it pulses. As I understand it (I'm avionics and not that familiar with A320 hydraulics) the aircraft has three independant hydraulic systems and if the drive to one system fails the other systems drive a pump which tries to maitain pressure in the other system. On the ground when they shut an engine down you can hear this running.
In terms of what I will fly in - it's the quality of staff I look for. Ryanair is all Boeing and run by a crook with unprofessional staff and I won't touch them with a barge pole. I've flown on old A320's with British Airways without a worry.
If it's dependancy on electrics you're worried about then better look closely at the new Boeings as well - B777 systems are an interesting learning curve .......
I was in the jump seat of a 747-400 some years ago going into Heathrow and we got assigned to a hold. The pilots looked at each other and selected the hold pattern and entry and then hovered their hands over the yoke. The auto-pilot flew the plane straight thorugh the hold and then tried to enter a high G turn to enter the far side - software bug - the pilots had seen it before and were ready to dis-engage the auto .....
Airbus hasn't got exclusive rights to major electrical gremlins and I'm sure with 787 Boeing will keep the competition hot.