Another Airbus crashes

Rosaudio said:
Yes they chose Rolls Royce to power their aircraft? So what? So did Boeing. In fact the Boeing 787 basically uses the same RR engines as the A380 in the Qantas incident.

Airlines also have a choice between RR and GE for their engines. EK and AF use GE. LH, SQ and QF use RR

http://images.theage.com.au/2010/09/01/1897008/Engine-420x0.jpg
That is the result of the exact same problem as on today's incident happening on a 747, 2 years ago (also Qantas) This was also a Rolls Royce engine. Is Boeing now to blame for that incident as well? Or should we start looking at the engine manufacturers rather?
Click to expand...

People have been questioning the reliability and safety of the A380 since it was still in the testing phase. What are you going to do about it? Run a one man PR campaign? Good luck with that.
 
Boeing can actually fit engines to their planes - that's the difference.

2649%20-%200featured-image%20anime%20doing-it-wrong%20facepalm.jpg
 
Garyvdh said:
People have been questioning the reliability and safety of the A380 since it was still in the testing phase. What are you going to do about it? Run a one man PR campaign? Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

Really? Well that's news to me.

I'm off to bed, looking forward to my A340-600 flight in Dec. :p Night
 
Rouxenator said:
Boeing can actually fit engines to their planes - that's the difference.

2649%20-%200featured-image%20anime%20doing-it-wrong%20facepalm.jpg
Click to expand...

And Airbus cant?

I can count many times where Engines have actually fallen off Boeing planes including the famous El Al cargo flight. Airbus? None
 
Rosaudio said:
Really? Well that's news to me.

I'm off to bed, looking forward to my A340-600 flight in Dec. :p Night
Click to expand...

Playing with people's lives is not funny. Nobody is questioning the performance of the airbus for any other reason than we don't want to see people die a pointless death. There is no ulterior motive other than safety. To defend something that needs to be scrutinised for safety reasons is plain stupid. If the plane proves to be sound, then all well and good.... but if problems are uncovered.... better they sort it out now. The builders of the Titanic also defended their ship out of hand. History tells a different tale.
 
Has anyone heard what actually happened to that Air France A330 that crashed into the atlantic? I really hope it is not a case again of a ground staff member having forgotten to remove the duct tape from the altitude tubie thingies again.
 
Rouxenator said:
True - Airbus tends to just crash into the Atlantic for no reason.
Click to expand...

A self proclaimed genius I see. :rolleyes:

Planes don't just fall out the sky, regardless what you might think or which manufacturer involved - 9 times out of 10 often it comes down to human error.

The cause of the Air France flight 447 crash, although not fully concluded in the investigation, was believed to have been caused by pilot error and poor weather, as the pilots pushed the aircraft beyond its safe operating threshold.

During harsh economic times, when jobs are at risk, it's understandable that pilots are going to kick in and assist by making operations more economical. The best way for long-haul pilots to do that is to fly right up there in coffin corner despite their heavy weights, i.e. where the margin between the aerodynamic stall and mach buffet is minimal (or even negligible). That gives best engine and airframe fuel economy (air nautical miles per pound) however it's also an exercise in stroking the razor's edge. Do that above the 55,000 foot tops of the ITCZ (Inter-Tropic Convergence Zone) and your environment-related controllability hazards become very real. Even at night, you can fly around the intense cells visually (or by radar) dodging the CB tops; however it's also possible to strike Clear Air Turbulence associated with the ITCZ..... or to stumble into a CB thunderhead that you didn't see ahead (courtesy of its electrical activity and sheet lightning flashes).

If that happens, what's next? Well...in fact you don't even need to bumble into a thunderstorm's tops in order to come unstuck. All you need is some turbulence or a sudden unexpected air temperature change (affecting both airspeed and thrust output) - or an engine surge. Quite simply it becomes a sudden loss of control on a dark night..... and only a few thousand feet below you are the solid unfriendly cloud tops of the ITCZ's solid thunderstorm activity. Once inside that maelstrom of cloud below, with its severe turbulence, hail, lightning and electrical activity, a successful recovery from an unusual attitude would be unlikely. At this point you must recall that a FBW Airbus is limited in its manoeuvrability by its control laws. That feature is designed to stop pilots creating situations - however equally it can limit their ability to recover from out-of-control "unusual attitudes" (e.g. inverted or spinning). Control Laws cannot stop cataclysmic overstress however.

A non-Airbus airliner may be able to recover from an upset that an Airbus cannot (due to the limits of its control laws).
Click to expand...

http://www.iasa-intl.com/folders/belfast/AF447.htm
 
Last edited:
Garyvdh said:
Playing with people's lives is not funny. Nobody is questioning the performance of the airbus for any other reason than we don't want to see people die a pointless death. There is no ulterior motive other than safety. To defend something that needs to be scrutinised for safety reasons is plain stupid. If the plane proves to be sound, then all well and good.... but if problems are uncovered.... better they sort it out now. The builders of the Titanic also defended their ship out of hand. History tells a different tale.
Click to expand...

The problem you have though is that you believe this incident was all to do with Airbus and it was Airbus putting peoples lives at risk. This is most definitely not the case. Im defending Airbus because I believe they did nothing wrong. I would defend Boeing if it was a Boeing aircraft in the incident.

You dont see me defending Rolls Royce though. That is because the problem occurred on their product, not Airbus', not Boeings.
 
Mmm, very good question. I think the explanation is that Boeings have accidents and Airbusses fail ?
 
I've never been a fan of Airbus. I don't enjoy flying, much - OK, rephrase - I enjoy flying, I don't like crashing.

Airbuses have always seemed a bit wobbly to me. A Boeing just gives a solid performance. I feel a lot safer in a Boeing than an Airbus.
 
FlatspinZA said:
I've never been a fan of Airbus. I don't enjoy flying, much - OK, rephrase - I enjoy flying, I don't like crashing.

Airbuses have always seemed a bit wobbly to me. A Boeing just gives a solid performance. I feel a lot safer in a Boeing than an Airbus.
Click to expand...

I have flown on a 747 (granted a long time ago....when we still had the Flying Springbok), and this year I flew on a Airbus A340-600 to London. If I knew then what I knew now about RR engines, I might have been a bit worried, but the planes performance was great. Very smooth ride, take off, mid flight and landing. I think Airbus is great. :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X