Merged: A330 safety beatup on SUNDAY
Air France also lost a 340 landing in YYZ. That was due to long landing on very wet runway. Aeroplane written off all on board got out.
Don
Don
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ctg777
I am appalled and embarrassed by the moronic ramblings posted here.
It's not just me; I think that most readers here are always "appalled and embarrassed" about ALL your moronic ramblings!
Cheers...
Lets be honest,
Yes, very unlikely an A330 will crash. Yes, they are very safe. Yes, I have and would fly Qf330's when they have the cheapest tickets.
But...... The incident is very serious. Many people were injured. You have to understand the media has to dumb it down for Joe average. Journalist are not pilots so their interpretation of the facts will not always be 100%.
I think it is good that this program brought to light the serious nature of the glitch/bug/problem/whatever you want to call it. It reduces the chance of the problem been putting in the "too hard basket" and then coming back to bite some poor bastards in the bum. They need to find out what went wrong and stop it from happening again. I don't think the attitude that "A330s have a comparable safety rating to a 737 so its ok" is good enough. It won't be good enough when you or a family member is sitting on the one that statistically has to crash.
It was very dramatised but they must do this to keep their ratings. What would you prefer, program like this to keep the Qf management and airbus team on the toes or it to be swept under the rug and forgotten until the next one goes splash. Can't have it all your way.
Yes, very unlikely an A330 will crash. Yes, they are very safe. Yes, I have and would fly Qf330's when they have the cheapest tickets.
But...... The incident is very serious. Many people were injured. You have to understand the media has to dumb it down for Joe average. Journalist are not pilots so their interpretation of the facts will not always be 100%.
I think it is good that this program brought to light the serious nature of the glitch/bug/problem/whatever you want to call it. It reduces the chance of the problem been putting in the "too hard basket" and then coming back to bite some poor bastards in the bum. They need to find out what went wrong and stop it from happening again. I don't think the attitude that "A330s have a comparable safety rating to a 737 so its ok" is good enough. It won't be good enough when you or a family member is sitting on the one that statistically has to crash.
It was very dramatised but they must do this to keep their ratings. What would you prefer, program like this to keep the Qf management and airbus team on the toes or it to be swept under the rug and forgotten until the next one goes splash. Can't have it all your way.
mikk_13
No one has said the incident wasn’t serious. You have completely missed the point. Airbus together with their suppliers are working around the clock to fix this problem. I think I am now on at least my third OEB regarding this issue so people are working on it tirelessly. All this program did was grossly over sensationalise an issue for their own pathetic ratings war. In the process they have probably scared the crap out of the general public who now thing they will die if they hop in an A330 when if the truth be know they are considerably more likely to die driving to the airport to catch that said A330. It is irresponsible journalism at its finest and your support for such journalism is mind-blowing.
No one has said the incident wasn’t serious. You have completely missed the point. Airbus together with their suppliers are working around the clock to fix this problem. I think I am now on at least my third OEB regarding this issue so people are working on it tirelessly. All this program did was grossly over sensationalise an issue for their own pathetic ratings war. In the process they have probably scared the crap out of the general public who now thing they will die if they hop in an A330 when if the truth be know they are considerably more likely to die driving to the airport to catch that said A330. It is irresponsible journalism at its finest and your support for such journalism is mind-blowing.
Last edited by 404 Titan; 19th Oct 2009 at 16:12.
over sensationalise an issue
In the process they have probably scared the crap out of the general public who now thing they will die if they hop in an A330
I didn't like the story, I thought is was dramatised. However, as I tried to point out, the media will do this as they must keep the ratings, so they can keep their station profitable. What would you prefer? Go live in North Korea or China if your not happy to accept that when you have a serious incidents with one of your jets the media is going to report it. And it will be dramatised so the viewers don't switch to channel nine.
I think the problem isn't the report, I think the problem is that the incident occurred, and they still don't know how to fix the issue.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reply to Mikk 13 Lets be honest,
Mikk 13 you have got to the essence of this post better than anyone else - well done !! 
It is refreshing to see there is someone here, with a brain amongst many cynical, mono thinking “ BOZOS ”
Bet this will get a reaction from them, you know who I am talking about when they begin to spit their venom at me . .
It is refreshing to see there is someone here, with a brain amongst many cynical, mono thinking “ BOZOS ”
Bet this will get a reaction from them, you know who I am talking about when they begin to spit their venom at me . .
Thread Starter
The story would have had more credibility if they had found a Qantas A330 pilot (or ex-pilot) willing to face the camera and say they don't want to pilot A330s ever again due to the computers. Instead, they interviewed an American ex pilot trying to drum up interest for his next book. My bet is they just couldn't find a Qantas pilot to do so, or if they did his interview lies on the editing suite floor because it wasn't dramatic enough.
(Could you imagine doing your job with a voice yelling at you in the background? )
(Could you imagine doing your job with a voice yelling at you in the background?
)
The story would have had more credibility if they had found a Qantas A330 pilot (or ex-pilot) willing to face the camera
I am sure the blokes flying the beast on the day have a story to tell.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good journalism
FlyBoy737800,
You seem ignorant to the un-commanded rudder hardovers on the 737 that others have refered you to. Here is a link you might like to follow if you would like some further information. The Seattle Times: Safety at issue: the 737
This might also show you the difference between a well researched, un-biased and rational piece of journalism and the cr@p that is the topic of this thread.
You seem ignorant to the un-commanded rudder hardovers on the 737 that others have refered you to. Here is a link you might like to follow if you would like some further information. The Seattle Times: Safety at issue: the 737
This might also show you the difference between a well researched, un-biased and rational piece of journalism and the cr@p that is the topic of this thread.
Thread Starter
Unfortunately for SUNDAY their promo sold the story based on "pilots don't want to fly them". The book toting pilot they interviewed was akin to me giving safety recommendations about Fords when I have always driven Holdens. All I'm saying is if this was such a big problem then surely there would be an A330 driver somewhere (ANYWHERE?) willing to go on record that they don't want to fly an A330 again due to one weird ADIRU glitch in 15 years.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not cast iron?
From Tim Hamilton;
I don't think you got a clue about aircraft design. You haven't exactly revealed any insider Airbus secret there. EVERYTHING in an aircraft is made as light as possible. Of course it still has to meet the regulatory structural requirements regardless of the material used. Weight considerations are why they've been building aircraft out of aluminium alloys rather than cast iron or house bricks. To put it in simple terms for you; Aircraft built lighter = better aircraft from engineering AND commercial point of view.
The reason Airbus adopted Carbon fiber tails is - to save weight and the airlines can carry more passengers. It is a “Commercial” not a engineering consideration
mikk_13
I never said it wasn’t an issue. Just like the journalist that made this report, you have conveniently left out one of my quotes:
The reality is there is responsible journalism and irresponsible journalism. Responsible journalism tells the whole story, not just the bits that suit them so as to spice it up. Did it mention that it is the only time since the aircraft was launched that this has happened? No. Instead they show the Air France accident which is totally unrelated. One caused by an unheard of before ADIRU problem and the other by a known pitot problem that most airlines were aware of back in 1996 but Air France chose to ignore. Did it mention that Airbus has produced a procedure for pilots so they can deal with this problem if it is to on the very unlikely chance happen again? No. Instead they produce some dim witted idiot who is trying to peddle his book and in the process scare the crap out of the general public by screaming “STALL, STALL”.
The reality is that Airbus and their suppliers of the relevant components are working around the clock to fix this problem. In the mean time though we now have a procedure to deal with it. That is the story but it was never told.
As a former Aussie ATC’er you should know better than most how bad the Australian media is at reporting serious issues.
FlyBoy737800
Are you really a B737-800 pilot? If you are you would know what the ACN is for the B737-800 and its relationship to PCN. If you can answer this question then we can all presume you are as you say. If you can’t then I suspect you are a journalist trolling this forum and therefore can be ignored.
I never said it wasn’t an issue. Just like the journalist that made this report, you have conveniently left out one of my quotes:
No one has said the incident wasn’t serious.
The reality is that Airbus and their suppliers of the relevant components are working around the clock to fix this problem. In the mean time though we now have a procedure to deal with it. That is the story but it was never told.
As a former Aussie ATC’er you should know better than most how bad the Australian media is at reporting serious issues.
FlyBoy737800
Are you really a B737-800 pilot? If you are you would know what the ACN is for the B737-800 and its relationship to PCN. If you can answer this question then we can all presume you are as you say. If you can’t then I suspect you are a journalist trolling this forum and therefore can be ignored.
Nuthinondaclock
And our little mate Tim keeps glossing over the point the tail on the American Airlines A300 failed not because of a fault with its construction but because the rudder inputs were mishandled by the pilot flying and subjected the tail to loads for which it wasn’t designed to bare. Maybe he should have a read of the Lauda Air 004 crash in 1991 and see what happens to a B767 when load limits are exceeded.
And our little mate Tim keeps glossing over the point the tail on the American Airlines A300 failed not because of a fault with its construction but because the rudder inputs were mishandled by the pilot flying and subjected the tail to loads for which it wasn’t designed to bare. Maybe he should have a read of the Lauda Air 004 crash in 1991 and see what happens to a B767 when load limits are exceeded.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure why everyone mentions A300s, 737, 777s or any other jet/fleet (why not mention lockeeds, avros, or comets aswell!) .
Yes they all have or have had problems - the information and reports on most are freely available from the respective air investigation units around the world.
The report (dramatically over sensationalised as it was and full of the preverbal channel 7 crap) was on the A330.
All these comparisons reek of a holden vs ford debate - and airbus vs boeing debates on this website get tiring at the best of times.
The A330 has an unsolved problem. It needs to be rectified. The story essentially said that. The delivery method of the story was cra.p.
Yes they all have or have had problems - the information and reports on most are freely available from the respective air investigation units around the world.
The report (dramatically over sensationalised as it was and full of the preverbal channel 7 crap) was on the A330.
All these comparisons reek of a holden vs ford debate - and airbus vs boeing debates on this website get tiring at the best of times.
The A330 has an unsolved problem. It needs to be rectified. The story essentially said that. The delivery method of the story was cra.p.
blueloo
No one here would argue that the problem doesn’t need rectification. Of course it does. What most of us object to is that the story didn’t mention the important stuff like what is being done by Airbus and the fact we as pilots now have a procedure in place to deal with it if it should, in the unlikely event ever happen again. In this world of instant gratification many expect an instant fix. The media thrive of it. The reality is that instant fixes are very rare especially when it comes to aviation.
The point is we as pilots have now been given the tools to deal with it and Airbus are working tirelessly on a permanent fix which won’t happen overnight.
No one here would argue that the problem doesn’t need rectification. Of course it does. What most of us object to is that the story didn’t mention the important stuff like what is being done by Airbus and the fact we as pilots now have a procedure in place to deal with it if it should, in the unlikely event ever happen again. In this world of instant gratification many expect an instant fix. The media thrive of it. The reality is that instant fixes are very rare especially when it comes to aviation.
The point is we as pilots have now been given the tools to deal with it and Airbus are working tirelessly on a permanent fix which won’t happen overnight.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Sin City
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anti-airbus basher reporting for duty.
The reason Airbus adopted Carbon fiber tails is - to save weight and the airlines can carry more passengers. It is a “Commercial” not a engineering consideration.
The A330 is a safe a/c. Period. It has flaws, but so do other a/cs flying out there in the same age group as the 330. Just one uncommanded drop and a show is dedicated to the " unsafeness" of the A330.
As many ppl have mentioned in this thread, the 737s had several uncommanded rudder hardovers killing many ppl. Was any show dedicated to the "unsafeness" of the 737 in Australia ?The 777s, esp the GE90s powered ones, had a spate of IFSDs a few years ago. Was anyone baying for its blood or having shows to show its unreliabilty then.
Ppl seem to have forgetten that two other near disasters involving Q,s a/c were Boeings'. (744 runway overun in BKK and 744 incident over MNL skies last year.)
It just seems to me that ppl's concerns for safety are suddenly heightened when an A is involved but not so when it involves other a/c manufacturer.
