Airbus reputation, is it becoming tarnished?

[tigermagicjohn]

Having read few responses on various news websites, it seems many people are associating many of the recent accidents and Airbus.

The Yemeni now, Air France from Brazil, US airways in the Hudson river, all relative big headline accidents recently.

Now I am asking the question, does anyone believe there is an agenda to associate bad press and bigger headlines in the news when there is an Airbus involved in such accident, then when Boeing has similar accidents.

The Turkish Airlines accident, also got large headlines, but I do not seem to see similar headlines when Boeing aircrafts are involved.
I also do not read people saying I am never going to fly a Boeing, while you can see many threads of normall passengers who are saying I never want to fly an Airbus. (Even though they probably would not know the difference)

The question must be asked, how solid is Airbus reputation today? Are they treated equal by the press and the media? It seems Airbus's advanced technology is an argument used against them.
I have met several retired airline pilots, who have said they are not to impressed with the Airbus, maybe this is just "old fashioned" mentality for new technology.

However have Airbus taken their technology to far, trying to make the pilot a passenger? I do not want to claim any expertise regarding this, as I am only a PPL holder, who is reading for my ATPL exams, so I might be way of the mark, however observations are based on what I have discussed with other pilots, non pilots and read in newspapers.

Lately there have been many tragic and sad headlines for aviation, not only with Airbus, but it seems Airbus headlines are much bigger then the others! It seems Boeings reputation is more solid, it seems someone in the background makes sure the spin gets greater when an Airbus is involved, or am I just paranoid?

[Dani]

Well, you hear it on all channels: "This is a disaster for Airbus," they say. Most of them don't even get that these are two different aircraft types.

Based on the probability theory, half of all airliner accidents will be Airbus while half of them are Boeings. There were a few Boeings before so now it's Airbus turn.

There's nothing obscure here. And with the worldwide growth of aviation, there will be some accident every few weeks. That's also probability. So you will have an Airbus falling from the skies every month or so. I really don't believe that anyone in his right mind and with at least some insight will see this "series" of accident as a problem or even as a failure of the industry.

Dani

[holteboy]

I wouldnt go as far as to say you are paranoid but inevitably the big events will generate the big headlines ; and Airbus have popped up in a run of them. I truly dont think there is a hidden agenda to discredit the technology and if there is, it will be the 787's turn next as Boeing are taking the next big technology step.

I do however think there may be some contibutory factor from the nature of some of Airbus's customers. Could you imagine a US based operator breaking a journey to utilise an aircraft that cant get in to certain countries ? Im not saying this is the whole reason but Airbus have sold to a lot of fledgling airline/ state start-ups and this may be having an impact now their fleets are tiring.

[mako88sb]

I was watching CNN for awhile today and so far there's been little mention of this tragedy. Certainly not like the latest Air France crash. Mind you, they are still going on & on about Michael Jackson so I guess they have their priorities set.

[ve3id]

If it is a case of bad maintenance, as it having been banned from French airspace would tend to indicate, then it doesn't matter who made the plane, everything from a lawnmower to a big jet will fail if not maintained properly.

Steam locomotives had to be constantly lubricated or they would seize up, and least we have made some progress in that direction!

[steve wilson]

It seems that the two very unfortunate incidents are connected only by the name of the manufacturer.

Even more unfortunate seems to be the headlines that news agencies nowadays try to come up with to try and 'out shock' each other.

It seems that the public nowadays wants their news delivered in 30 second bursts. All whizzbang headlines but with very little substance to follow.

If you spend more than just a few seconds reading the stories behind the headlines then you will see:

Different Aircraft types.
Different Operators
Different Flight profiles
Different Controlling agencies
Different Controlling Aviation Authorities

So we have had two recent accidents both involving Airbus types. They hype and paranoia would be the same if it were two Boeing types that crashed.

Lets hope that the 787 program; if and when it gets into the air isnt accident prone, as the press will then turn on the 787 and composit use in Aircraft. They would probably also damm the A350 too, even though it wont have come off the line yet.

Steve

[11Fan]

TMJ,

I wouldn't suggest that you are paranoid. We've only just met. That said, you need to factor in the following.

1. Every OEM has their day in the sun (putting it nicely)
2. AB builds a fine product (and I work for the other guys)
3. AB has had some tough breaks lately (no stones being cast, glass house and all)
4. Twenty-four hour news cycles and uninformed media "experts"
5. Lastly, it depends on the news source as some are biased.

No "respectable" OEM employee wishes bad for the competitor. We are all in the same business, moving people safely. When something happens to one of us, it affects us all.

In the interest of self disclosure, I usually fly with Airlines that operate Boeing Products but it is simply because they are my customer.

You're going to find good and bad in every product if you look hard enough. It's the nature of the beast.

Good luck with your studies.

11Fan

[Razoray]

I'm not sure any one company would revell in the others misery. The shoe can pass to the other foot quite easily.

Airbus A330 and A340 had no fatalities aboard their flights until AF 447. This stellar safety record may have unfairly raised the publics expectations towards Airbus. Afterall, many Boeing aircraft have crashed over the years.

Airbus advanced technology had made flying so safe and comfortable.....

That said, and the mysterious way AF447 disappeared have really made the flying public nervous. How can a modern marvel of an aircraft, one that practically flies itself....vanish into thin air????

And now all of this information has been discussed about Airbus systems, and how complex they are and how the pilots are just along for the ride..

It's the 2001 Space Odyssey syndrome..."we cant control the computers"!

It has tapped into a very real Human fear....:}

[Michael Birbeck]

It is highly likely that this year's run of accidents is a statistical anomaly and there are few relevant conclusions reference the relative safety of specific aircraft makes, or models that can be inferred from this sample.

Boeing produced an interesting study summarising a number of safety metrics and statistics for the period 1988 - 2007 for those who like reviewing trends across a more meaningful set of data.


http://www.boeing.com/news/techissues/pdf/statsum.pdf

X number of incidents for a particular model over Y years due to a similar root cause (e.g. anomalous readings from a pitot system leading to ADIRU malfunctions leading to AP disconnects) would be significant however, but that is another statistical question.

[lear60fellow]

We have to include also the A320 lost last year close to france in a delivery flight test, any news so far why it went down?

[Basil]

Thre do seem to be one or two PPRuNers scattered around who seem (to put it tactfully) to have it in for Airbus.
I have no connection, having flown British aircraft, Lockheed and Boeing, other than an hour in an A320 sim for a little go at the other side.

[p51guy]

lear, No but that makes three. All three black boxes haven't been recovered yet as I understand so lets see if another vertical stabilizer ends up floating in the Indian Ocean like the AA New York A300 in 2001 and the AF A330 which looked alarmingly similar.

[Brakes on]

I have always wondered about the statement "I'll never fly on XXX or YYY aircraft".
How many passengers do actually decide what aircraft type they will be flying on?
- People on a package tour? Most certainly not. I guess, they have to take what the travel agency puts them on.
- People on a budget? Maybe, maybe not.
- People flying for business or who, for whatever reason have to be at a certain place at a certain time? I would think convenient schedules is their major concern.
So how many does that leave?
And, yes tiger, you are right, most of the passengers in an aircraft have no idea what type they are sitting in. At least, they didn't 10 years ago, when I did a survey for a (non-aviation) customer.

[Porker1]

Hiya - I'm all too often one of those poor saps sitting inside the tube while you're all up the pointy end.

In terms of manufacturer reputation I think:

- Yemeni A310 event is meaningless - older aircraft, "dodgier" operator, questionable maintenance, difficult place to land, bad weather;

- Hudson River event is actually positive. The Airbus "seal penetrations for ditching" feature worked after an unlucky double bird strike. A minor miracle IMHO;

- Rio-Paris A330 loss is very negative. Perceived hazard level for the general public (barring missiles and bombs) is that take off and landing are the most dangerous moments. Once you're cruising at 35 kft all is well, sleep, drink, etc.

In the wake of AF447 even the non-specialist press have realised that this terrible accident poses some new questions. The subsequent revelations are not good: repeated near misses related to common mode airspeed sensor failures, AB recommended but not obligatory pitot tube change outs, AF seemingly dragging their feet to effect the change outs despite incidents within their own fleet, etc.

AB (and AF) may not look good when the BEA report is issued. It seems feasible given the number of other A330 airspeed indication loss events associated with the Thales instruments that in the case of AF447 the same thing happened on a stormy night when the pilot/FO did not have the visual references for a sufficiently rapid seat of the pants response to catch it.

[p51guy]

I know, the official report was the pilot reversed rudders until he broke the stab off. If he was that incompetent the captain would have intervened. I think Airbus used him as a scapegoat to blame him for the faulty vertical stabilizer. Doing what he did would have injured anybody in the back of the aircraft and if the captain didn't intervene he was asleep.

[LeandroSecundo]

Hi,

This particular plane or this company is not banned in any countries.
This particular plane made a flight to London sometime ago.
This is not particular signs of bad maintenance on this plane so far.
It's seem's it's just a go around who finished in tragedy.
Remind .. the airport is not equipped with navigation aid like JFK !
It was a wind of 60 km/h
It was night
It was (so far related) a second attempt to land ... and the plane was flying low.
It's not a good choice to concentrate on a eventual bad maintenance and not study or discard the others parameters.

Bye.

[p51guy]

We have all landed in that wind. It isn't that hard to do. You add whatever you or your company authorizes and land. Companies normally dictate max wind but the AC limitations tells you the crosswind component limits.

[ex-XL-in-exile]

I drive for a lo-co, and I'm relative newbie to the game (two years now), and have absolutely no bias so post without prejudice. As such...

Ask yourself this: a Ford Focus crashes on the M1, then a few weeks later a Ford Fiesta crashes on the M42. Do you refuse to drive Fords? Or only the Ford Focus? Or the Fiesta? Or all cars? Are they ALL flawed?

I have personal friends who are afraid of flying so I really do sympathise with this, I honestly do, BUT there is a problem among the non-aviating public - a big problem and one that I'm getting increasingly cheesed off with.

I heard this today from a friend of my dad who is 62 and reads the Daily Mail avidly, those who are fond of seizing on titbits and reporting them as fact.

Here's what he said to me this evening (not verbatim)

Him: "I see another plane's gone into the sea."
Me: "Yes, terrible news."
Him: "The same type as that Air France one, wasn't it?"
Me: "No, that was an Airbus 330. This is a 310."
Him: "The Daily Mail says it's the same."
Me: "Well it's not, they're two different aircraft."
Him: "Both Airbus though. That seems coincidental."


I was VERY angry. Because of what he reads at "street level" he is of the firm opinion that all Airbus are now dodgy because the Mail dare to point out that both AF447 and this latest disaster are Airbus.

And remember that I'm a Boeing driver. The media are frigging USELESS at reporting these events and even though I have EVERY sympathy with nervous pax I really do wish that just ONE media outlet would do an equation that didn't involve AF447 + Yemani = Airbus are deathtraps.

:ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[Will Fraser]

ex

Look at it this way. The Public is fascinated by air crashes because they are RARE. They also involve a conveyance that is not used by most of them, if so, rarely; the ones who are familiar are the ones posting here in support of Aviation.

Aviation is mysterious, if it was as mundane as auto travel, the problem would solve itself. When hasn't the Media pandered to fear and ignorance??

If two Ford Pintos rolled into a ball on M1 then subsequently caught fire, as they used to, before the tanks were modded, Ford would have some splainin' to do. (They Did).

When ingredients are present and the oven is on, Cake will be baked.

What could the industry do to fight back? Open question.

[411A]

Airbus A330 and A340 had no fatalities aboard their flights until AF 447.
An A330 was lost in flight test during certification.
Fact.

[CargoOne]

As far as incident/accident database on internet is correct, this is only first Yemenia jet loss with fatalities, and 3rd jet write-off, evething else were props in 1970s and earlier. Surely you cannot compare them to major airlines on number of flights or RSK, but I feel too many of you too early jumping on older aircraft, "dodgier" operator, questionable maintenance. Apart from 310s they also have 330s, 738s and 10x A350 on order.

In last 10 years Air France has written off in accidents and incidents 732, 742F, Concorde, A343, A332, i.e 5 airframes incl 2 with fatalities and it is just a miracle A343 accident was no fatalities.

If I was French I would stay away from commenting Yemenia safety level, really.

[Dutch Bru]

Yep, the press are a bit wearisome, since as far as I have seen (even so-called quality) Dutch, Belgian and French newspapers blatantly published pictures of a Yemenia B737 with their reports on the A310 crash.

[ex-XL-in-exile]

I take your point, but I just would have thought that in this day-and-age (where air travel among the general paxing public is RELATIVELY common) people wouldn't blindly be questioning the safety of an a/c producer simply because of two losses - especially when one considers the rarities of such events.

I would venture that most lay people go on one return plane journey a year. I also venture that most lay people are intelligent enough to know that two fatal events in goodness-knows-how-many journeys is no more than tragic coincidence.

Yet still we get threads suggesting Airbus are flawed, that maybe pax should refuse to board them, that the 330 series is doomed, that an entire company is producing rotten aircraft.

My point is this: that while those fears among the non-aviating, nervous pax should be dealt with and not ignored, why on earth should the European media (unsure of "international" coverage) be allowed to give such banner scaremongering as "Airbus are deadly" because two have been lost? They shouldn't. It's lazy journalism. Hence my Ford point.

[Razoray]

411A

Stand corrected.
But there is no arguing over the stellar safety record of the A330.
Until now!

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

People are, as a general rule, at least "nervous" about flying. If pressed to explain how or why a plane flies, they can't - it's akin to technological magic. They can't understand it, so it scares them.

People are also, as a general rule, pretty clueless about computers and any kind of automation. Any kind of AI/self-aware computer in the public mind is closer to some kind of death-dealing psychotic robot a la Terminator than something cute and cuddly. So, people fear automation.

Airbus have, rightly or wrong, gained the reputation as the "automated" aircraft - even on PPrune its a common refrain for people to claim they have more control as a Boeing pilot than flying an AB. (Often with an undercurrent of "thank the Lord" mixed in).

So, if a couple of accidents happen on the scary aeroplanes that are under the control of the scary computers .... is it any surprise that people get scared? And since the media exists to entertain, not to inform, they are going to play to that fear every time.

[ve3id]

Leandro,

Most media outlets ARE reporting that the a/c in quo WAS banned from French airspace. Do you have information to the contrary? Perhaps you should quote your sources. I know journos are not our favourite people, but it is hard to get a quote from a government official so wrong.

[LeandroSecundo]

Hi,

Maybe it's will be better for the aircraft industry to warn people about the danger of flying than tell airliners are the less dangerous way to move. (people seeing regulary basis crashs in their newspapers can't believe that .. and think certainly it's lies)
People are aware .. the cars are very dangerous ... (just go see the figures) but nevertheless they drive happily.

Bye.

[LeandroSecundo]

Hi,

but it is hard to get a quote from a government official so wrong.Actually the government officials of France are telling anything for save their scalp :)
Maybe it was forbidden in france .. but the company is not blacklisted in EU
Anyways ...
http://www.icao.int/fsix/AuditReps/graphs/Yemen_en_graph.pdf
Audit:
http://henrimarnetcornus.20minutes-blogs.fr/media/02/02/341499355.jpg
And BTW .. I don't hold my breath for the premilinary report of AF447 this 2 July ....

Bye.

[rottenray]

Tiger Writes:
However have Airbus taken their technology to far, trying to make the pilot a passenger? I do not want to claim any expertise regarding this, as I am only a PPL holder, who is reading for my ATPL exams, so I might be way of the mark, however observations are based on what I have discussed with other pilots, non pilots and read in newspapers.

Lately there have been many tragic and sad headlines for aviation, not only with Airbus, but it seems Airbus headlines are much bigger then the others! It seems Boeings reputation is more solid, it seems someone in the background makes sure the spin gets greater when an Airbus is involved, or am I just paranoid?I'm not a pilot, and I'm now an infrequent flyer because I no longer travel for business.

I am ex-USAF, and worked communication equipment on C-141, C-5 and KC-135 - all big, beautiful ladies of the sky. An honor to service them.

Airbus has merely followed industry trends: Automate as much as possible, as insurers see automation as being more reliable and consistent than human beings.

Most of the US media is predisposed to banner headlines about Airbus crashes and below-the-fold reporting of Boeing crashes simply because Boeing is a US company. Some call that patriotism.


Both companies build excellent airframes. Any given model and dash-number from either is loaded with idiosyncrasies, but that is the nature of anything so complex.


But...

I would like to *cautiously* say here that Airbus seems to somewhat share the philosophy of the insurance industry regarding human pilot reliability.

More automation = lower chance of error - or should, according to statistics.

I also find it amusing that Airbus has an asymmetrical control layout with regard to the stick: Left chair = left-handed operation, right chair = right-handed operation. That's an example of not enhancing (or ignoring) the man-machine interface, since roughly 82% of the world population is right-handed, including illiterate populations who do not write because they do not have a written language. This layout seems to assume that a human pilot should never have to perform as smoothly as the automation does.



Of course, until you completely replace the human pilot, the more you take flying the aircraft out of the pilots' hands on a day-to-day basis, the more you allow a pilot's skills to atrophy.


That's where the real problem is.

The bean-counters are about 20 years ahead of the line and the technology.

Compared to a skilled human pilot, automated flight systems are really nothing more than savant toddlers - they can do some things smoothly and more accurately, but lack the judgment required to save the day when things truly turn ugly.


I'm 48 now, and I don't expect to be alive and/or flitting around when fully-automated "pilot-free" flights are commonplace.

I'm fortunate in that respect. No matter how good automation gets, I'll much happier with skilled, happy people at the pointy end - warts and all.


I don't think Airbus will suffer a lasting hit because of the recent events - but I do hope the philosophy there becomes a little more "pilot-centric" than it is now.

[tigermagicjohn]

I believe the full automation presented by Airbus does scare me, in the sense humans are not good to just sit and monitor a system - of course certain degree of automation is required, and I love all kind of new "gadgets" and technology.
But when flying an airplane, I do not like the thought of loosing the "feel" of what is a natural response.
Having only been flying light aircrafts so far, I know that I have not enough expertise to comment sufficently in depth about this. However from what I hear, I see it does seem that it is a system that is fantastic as long as all works fine, and maybe it is likely to make fewer mistakes than a human pilot will make, however it seems from the A447, then when things go wrong - there is not much the pilots can do to save the situation.
Now I am not saying this would not be similar with a Boeing, however most pilots spend many years of their lives flying airplanes with natural response and feel, on smaller aircraft with relativly limited amount of automation. They build up hundreds/thousands of hours of experience how to fly smaller aircraft, from what I have been told - Boeing as example has been more "old style" similar to what pilots have gained past experience when climbing the ladder trough various airlines etc.

Airbus - have as someone pointed out assymetrical controls, and Fly-By-Wire, when you start seriously altering the output from the intended input this is where things can go wrong. Simply stated Airbus believes that the computer knows best and its fly by wire systems do not allow the plane to be flown outside the proper flight envelope by the pilot, no matter what mode the software is in.
Boeing on the other hand knows the pilot is in charge and once the auto pilots are disengaged the pilot has full control of the plane. There are two problems with the Airbus approach. First is that the "proper flight envelope" is determined by a host of sensors and God help you if you if they give off false signals. A faulty AOA indicator starts to have deadly consequences. Second is that sometimes, just sometimes the improper flight envelope is what saves your ass. Who knows, perhaps stalling the plane with the gear up 10 feet off the ground
is the best anybody could do but the software would prevent it ...

I have no problem with the computers doing landings/take-offs navigating
and controlling all aspects of the flight but they must be able to
be demoted to the point where they do what they are told. We are not
good enough at writing software yet to even hope to be able to produce
systems reliable enough to do the entire job properly and a human is
still necessary.

Then again this could just be me, because I have no experience with the way the Airbus works, however I feel this is a feeling shared by many pilots/ retired pilots - at least that is what I have heard from others.

[Dawdler]

I was interested to read 11Fan's post.


1. Every OEM has their day in the sun (putting it nicely)
2. AB builds a fine product (and I work for the other guys)
3. AB has had some tough breaks lately (no stones being cast, glass house and all)
4. Twenty-four hour news cycles and uninformed media "experts"
5. Lastly, it depends on the news source as some are biased.

No "respectable" OEM employee wishes bad for the competitor. We are all in the same business, moving people safely. When something happens to one of us, it affects us all.


Which was, I thought a well placed comment
A good salesman knows that by knocking his competitors he somehow diminishes himself.

Our competitors are "our colleagues in the industry" (whatever that industry may be). I always found it to work with the customer.

[Razoray]

I have a question for Airbus pilots.

How easy/difficult is it to hand fly with the joy stick?

Is it better to have two hands on the wheel, or does that not matter?

Finally is the joy stick easy to handle in severe turbulance?

Thanks......:confused:

[Brakes on]

tiger,
the use of 'full automation' or 'automation' with regards to the later generation Airbus aicraft, starting with the A320 (which the Yemenia A310 is not), is misleading and wrong.
Warning: the following is a very simplified and abbreviated description of what fly-by wire stands for;
'Full automation' implies that the pilot pushes a button to start the system and then computers take over and do the rest. Far from it. Airbus aircraft allow the pilots to do everything pilots on other types do, with the exception of going outside the flight envelope.
The flight envelope is based on certificated (certified?) values for a number of things and defines limits beyond which the aircraft is not to be taken, otherwise it may suffer structural failure.
For example, assume you have to sharply bank your aircraft (for whatever reason). In a fly-by-wire aircraft, you push the sidestick to the left or right as far as it goes and the aircraft will go to a max bank angle of 35 degrees (if memory serves) and stay there. In a convential aircraft you move the column left or right, but don't know how far you can/should go. Not far enough and you're not avoiding the problem you're trying to avoid, too far and the aircraft may break up.
I agree, sensors and instruments have been known to fail, but this is not an inherent problem with fly-by-wire. It applies to all aircraft.

The auto-pilot function has nothing to do with fly-by-wire.

As to asymetrical controls, talk to a fighter pilot and ask him about the arrangement of throttle and control stick in his cockpit.

How do you know that fly-by-wire was a contributing factor in the AF447 accident?

With thousands of Airbus aircraft being operated today there are thousands times x pilots who have started their career in aviation flying small aircraft or even 'old-style- Boeing types. Theu don't seem to have any problems adjusting to new technology. Maybe the retired pilots you were talking to haven't a clue how an Airbus aircraft works.

[tigermagicjohn]

Brakes on (http://www.pprune.org/members/147883-brakes-on)

Thanks for the insight on Fly By Wire - one correction I did not want to imply that the Fly By Wire was the cause of the AF447 - that was not my intentions. I do not want to give a theory of something which is beyond my understanding/experience.

However from what you explain it seems that this system give a limitation for a pilot to make a manouvre outside the flight envelope - however in an emergency can not this manouvre "outside the limits" - still be sustainable for the aircraft and maybe save the aircraft against an unpredictable event. Because there is also a safety factor - is this included in the maximum limit of the manouvre?
There have been incidents where aircraft have gone way beyond their design limits, and because of pilot intervention and the ability to manually manouvre the aircraft they have been able to save the aircraft from total disaster.

Crew managment has been improved massively, when the first officer can speak up against the more experienced captain, if he feels there could be a major issue, however who will speak up against the computer, and actually have the ability to shut it down and manually overide all controls - it seems for me the computers authority is the new "person" who always will be right and know better - still no computer can outperform a human being in creative thinking that might save lives in a very unpredictable situation.

[Brakes on]

tiger,

I don't know if there are safety factors worked into the flight envelope protection but would guess there are (there may even be regulatory requirements to use some factors). The limits have been tested but who is to say they apply to every aircraft of the same type and in all conditions or under any circumstances. You cannot possibly test for every potential situation.
As an example: aircraft manufacturers have a test, where they put increasing forces on an aircraft wing, until it breaks. I've seen a video of a test on the A330 wing, which was very impressive. However, although the test tells the manufacturer at what exact force the wing did brake, they are certainly not going to put this exact value into any calculation destined for operational use.
It (the resultant force) is based on a given set of circumstances and not representative for every possible operational environment an aircraft may find itself in.
There may have been incidents, where aircraft or other machines/devices were stressed beyond their design limits and survived, but this, I would guess, was through sheer luck. One cm/inch too far on the control column and it would have been too much for the airframe to hold up.
I don't think luck should enter into the operation of any device where failure means the loss of life.
There has been an accident some years ago over southern Germany between a freighter aircraft and a Russian passenger aircraft, which you may have heard of. I don't remember the exact details but both were on a collision course and were advised by their TCAS (a computer!) to take appropriate action. However, one of the pilots decided to ignore the computer and do what ATC told him, which was the contrary of the TCAS advice, resulting in the crash.
I'm sure we can throw examples for both scenarios at each other for some time, in the end, it's probably a personal thing. You 'like' it or you don't.

[Clandestino]

However have Airbus taken their technology to far, trying to make the pilot a passenger?

No. Claim that anyone can fly the Airbus is clumsy and strictly unofficial sales hype that bears no resemblance to real world. FBW airbi still need two pilots for safe takeoff and one pilot for safe landing. FBW doesn't enable training departments to cut the groundschool/sim/line training hours, compared to classic types, for first FBW bus training.

Simply stated Airbus believes that the computer knows best

This is common misunderstanding, usually stemming from being completely ignorant of how digital computer works. Computer is a very sophisticated machine that knows nothing. Rottenray has put it it down very well:
Compared to a skilled human pilot, automated flight systems are really nothing more than savant toddlers - they can do some things smoothly and more accurately, but lack the judgment required to save the day when things truly turn ugly.

We have to include also the A320 lost last year close to france in a delivery flight test, any news so far why it went down?

Preliminary report got out couple of months ago so those who read it know what happened. I just hope that the final report will answer how could it possibly happen.

I know, the official report was the pilot reversed rudders until he broke the stab off. If he was that incompetent the captain would have intervened. I think Airbus used him as a scapegoat to blame him for the faulty vertical stabilizer. Doing what he did would have injured anybody in the back of the aircraft and if the captain didn't intervene he was asleep.

Sorry to hear that, sir. As your notions about AA582 are very distinctly at odds with facts listed in report, would you be so kind to provide us with your alternative set of facts that preferably don't boil down to oblique insinuations? AA582 has left its trace in every transport category aeroplane's flight manual. Pick any you like and read the note below Va value in limitations section. It was very expensive lesson to forget.

It seems feasible given the number of other A330 airspeed indication loss events associated with the Thales instruments that in the case of AF447 the same thing happened on a stormy night when the pilot/FO did not have the visual references for a sufficiently rapid seat of the pants response to catch it.

Well if every twin engined widebody is Airbus, then LOT's Airbus 767-300 suffered similar problems recently. Problems with blocked pitots near convective weather are: a) luckily rare b) not limited to A330. Incidentally, flying any high performance aeroplane by seat of the pants is actively discouraged as it was found that flying by reference to instruments leads to increased active life.

Second is that sometimes, just sometimes the improper flight envelope is what saves your ass.


Maybe it's just my lack of imagination, but I fail to see how could any exceedance of the envelope be beneficial. As a return from beyond the envelope is not always guaranteed, I prefer to put such a romantic notions aside, try to fly my aeroplane in a manner that will never make such an excursion necessary and leave such maneuvers to gentlemen whose cockpit seats are supplied by Martin Baker, Zvezda and similar.


How easy/difficult is it to hand fly with the joy stick?

Very easy.

Is it better to have two hands on the wheel, or does that not matter?

Usually it's one hand on the wheel, the other on throttles - except for take-off and go around. So it doesn't matter at all.

Finally is the joy stick easy to handle in severe turbulance?

Never been in severe but it's quite easy to handle in moderate turbulence. Sadly, as it's pretty light it's also very easy to mishandle but then I've seen
guys stickstirring wildly and yet making good landings.

I don't think luck should enter into the operation of any device where failure means the loss of life.

Unfortunately it does. And if it comes into play in one departure per couple of billions we have to accept that we are doing very good job, no matter if it doesn't sound right for Joe Public or marketing department. Absolute safety is just as achievable as absolute zero but it doesn't mean that we should ever abandon our attempts to achieve it.

[globdriver]

I have flown all 3 types of ACFT and I can tell you that both the 340/330 are great acft, the 320 is different ACFT.

just A lesson in facts in 2002 a A340 had a unreliable speed problem on T/O
the ACFT landed normaly.

all I can say is what ever happen to those guys could have happen to any ACFT

you have to kwon that 7 minutes after AF 447 an iberia A340 flew the same route and an Other AF 330 was also on the same route all those ACFT got home with not a problem.

So before saying that airbus is better or worse then Boing, well for that I don't know all I kwon is that I will fly anywhere in my A330 :ok:

[jb5000]

Tigermagicjohn,

Flight envelope limits (for A320) are +30 / -15 degrees of pitch, and 66 degrees of bank. These limits are reduced during other speed protection modes.

There is a load factor limitation of +2.5 / -1g (clean).

There is also high speed and low speed protection, as well as an autothrust function that gives you full power if you get too slow.

It's hard to imagine a scenario where you would actively want to fly outside these limits, exposing the aircraft to significant structural damage or loss of control.