A300 is 50
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Bonvoy Marriott
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"the problem of the A300 was it’s limited range. For the operators the 767-300 made more sense."
But the A300 was 10 years ahead of even the basic 767 in service. One of the reasons for the slow take-up of course was a lot of the '70's airlines and economies were in recession - especially in the UK. Shelling out for a big new airliner when you could keep that BAC111 running wasn't attractive
But the A300 was 10 years ahead of even the basic 767 in service. One of the reasons for the slow take-up of course was a lot of the '70's airlines and economies were in recession - especially in the UK. Shelling out for a big new airliner when you could keep that BAC111 running wasn't attractive
Yes Channel Express.
G-CEXC, XH, XI, XJ, XK, and one for TNT that I cannot remember the registration before it went OO-
Happy days until PM decided to go pax with Jet2.
G-CEXC, XH, XI, XJ, XK, and one for TNT that I cannot remember the registration before it went OO-
Happy days until PM decided to go pax with Jet2.
https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Channel-Express
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,597
Received 275 Likes
on
153 Posts
Only ever managed one flight on an A300/310 - had booked Miami/Gatwick via Newark, Continental 727 and 747; the Newark leg was cancelled so they sent me via Houston on an A300. Can't say I remember it all that well (the Houston/Gatwick leg was notable for being quite rough as we flew NE across the US which meant a delay in serving dinner - and I was hungry!).
Made quite a few A.300 trips on SIA around SE Asia - big step up from the 727's they started with!
Garuda also had a few IIRC
Garuda also had a few IIRC
SWISSAIR
Took 12 around 1984..The foreigner course in front of me were drafted or offered system operator on the DC10. When it came to my turn I avoided it like the plague..not only halbeshiem, nor the routes but also because a mate who was following through on the stick during a landing in FŌhn conditions ran out of elevator control and thumped it down on the nose..Engineering found no fault but an engineer said that the hydraulic reservoir was too small and it wasn't a good idea if you wiggled the stick too much.
We had some unheard off industrial action with trainers resigning and even a captain taking the company to court because we didn't have the crews to integrate 12 aircraft in a fleet of 50 in such a short time with the result that some didn't have any leave in 18 months.
We had some unheard off industrial action with trainers resigning and even a captain taking the company to court because we didn't have the crews to integrate 12 aircraft in a fleet of 50 in such a short time with the result that some didn't have any leave in 18 months.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,597
Received 275 Likes
on
153 Posts
Bit confused by that Blind Pew, Swissair did indeed acquire 11 A310s from 1983 but the Habsheim accident involved an A320 and was in 1988. Swissair A320 deliveries began in 1995...
Sorry..my use of stick is from the old days before side sticks were invented…
Amongst my group in the early 80s the control philosophies of Airbus were anathema (and still are).
The VC10 was bad enough where you trimmed the stick to a central position (as against neutralising the stick load) and one called power settings with the levers moving on their own - engines had his own set.
I suppose it all comes on learning on airplanes with conventional controls then in latter life one has to accept different control philosophies.
Which then ends up with the 737 MAX fiasco where a bodged up system was introduced to increase stick load approaching the stall to mirror stalling a Cherokee or like; not that it was needed imho as who reduces speed in an airliner towards the stall and will only realise that the aircraft is about to stall by increasing stick pressure (didn’t work with a glider pilot and side stick on AF).
SR fleet; I included the initial Balair aircraft because as far as flight crew all of Balair aircraft were part of the Swissair fleet, in my time I flew the DC934, MD80 and their DC10.
Searching for the numbers I discovered that a 300 variant became the 310.
The 12 aircraft in 12 months was significant as it spurred limited industrial action, court action and being advised by crewing to use sickness creatively. With a lot of DC10 last minute cancellations the company were forced to temporally employ SAS pilots.
It was the start of the rot in the company.
Amongst my group in the early 80s the control philosophies of Airbus were anathema (and still are).
The VC10 was bad enough where you trimmed the stick to a central position (as against neutralising the stick load) and one called power settings with the levers moving on their own - engines had his own set.
I suppose it all comes on learning on airplanes with conventional controls then in latter life one has to accept different control philosophies.
Which then ends up with the 737 MAX fiasco where a bodged up system was introduced to increase stick load approaching the stall to mirror stalling a Cherokee or like; not that it was needed imho as who reduces speed in an airliner towards the stall and will only realise that the aircraft is about to stall by increasing stick pressure (didn’t work with a glider pilot and side stick on AF).
SR fleet; I included the initial Balair aircraft because as far as flight crew all of Balair aircraft were part of the Swissair fleet, in my time I flew the DC934, MD80 and their DC10.
Searching for the numbers I discovered that a 300 variant became the 310.
The 12 aircraft in 12 months was significant as it spurred limited industrial action, court action and being advised by crewing to use sickness creatively. With a lot of DC10 last minute cancellations the company were forced to temporally employ SAS pilots.
It was the start of the rot in the company.
Last edited by blind pew; 4th Nov 2022 at 08:29. Reason: Fleet details 300/310
"Amongst my group in the early 80s the control philosophies of Airbus were anathema (and still are)."
odd then that flight safety has improved so much since then..................
odd then that flight safety has improved so much since then..................
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Bonvoy Marriott
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’m just a simple pilot but as far as I’m concerned it’s pretty much the same as conventional Boeing aircraft that I flew since. Only much better executed.
Probably my ignorance
But there would appear to be a few accidents where those concerned did not understand the control philosophies in normal law let alone alternate law.
Not only Hableshiem nor AF447 then the China Air? Where trim was wound on not understanding that the autopilot was counteracting said trim and after the autopilot disconnected the aircraft stood in its tail and stalled iirc.
Another disconcerting tale whilst sitting on a mountain waiting to paraglide was from the skipper who had recently declared an emergency and done a quick circuit at LHR after he had started loosing all hydraulic systems according to his TV screens to subsequently discover it was a single computer fault. Now forgive me for being a dinosaur but the now junk that I flew generally had completely separated control systems and my biggest worry was the three adjacent hydraulic lines in the main gear bays in the DC10 although unknowingly Douglas had routed them around engine 2 as well with dire consequences.
Not only Hableshiem nor AF447 then the China Air? Where trim was wound on not understanding that the autopilot was counteracting said trim and after the autopilot disconnected the aircraft stood in its tail and stalled iirc.
Another disconcerting tale whilst sitting on a mountain waiting to paraglide was from the skipper who had recently declared an emergency and done a quick circuit at LHR after he had started loosing all hydraulic systems according to his TV screens to subsequently discover it was a single computer fault. Now forgive me for being a dinosaur but the now junk that I flew generally had completely separated control systems and my biggest worry was the three adjacent hydraulic lines in the main gear bays in the DC10 although unknowingly Douglas had routed them around engine 2 as well with dire consequences.
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Bonvoy Marriott
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But there would appear to be a few accidents where those concerned did not understand the control philosophies in normal law let alone alternate law.
Not only Hableshiem nor AF447 then the China Air? Where trim was wound on not understanding that the autopilot was counteracting said trim and after the autopilot disconnected the aircraft stood in its tail and stalled iirc.
Another disconcerting tale whilst sitting on a mountain waiting to paraglide was from the skipper who had recently declared an emergency and done a quick circuit at LHR after he had started loosing all hydraulic systems according to his TV screens to subsequently discover it was a single computer fault. Now forgive me for being a dinosaur but the now junk that I flew generally had completely separated control systems and my biggest worry was the three adjacent hydraulic lines in the main gear bays in the DC10 although unknowingly Douglas had routed them around engine 2 as well with dire consequences.
Not only Hableshiem nor AF447 then the China Air? Where trim was wound on not understanding that the autopilot was counteracting said trim and after the autopilot disconnected the aircraft stood in its tail and stalled iirc.
Another disconcerting tale whilst sitting on a mountain waiting to paraglide was from the skipper who had recently declared an emergency and done a quick circuit at LHR after he had started loosing all hydraulic systems according to his TV screens to subsequently discover it was a single computer fault. Now forgive me for being a dinosaur but the now junk that I flew generally had completely separated control systems and my biggest worry was the three adjacent hydraulic lines in the main gear bays in the DC10 although unknowingly Douglas had routed them around engine 2 as well with dire consequences.
"But there would appear to be a few accidents where those concerned did not understand the control philosophies in normal law let alone alternate law."
true but overall the stats show that the change was a real step up in overall aircraft safety - its very very few "confusion" accidents over hundreds of avoided accidents.
I don't think anyone thinks the DC-10 was a safer aircraft than an A.300 - remember Paris?
true but overall the stats show that the change was a real step up in overall aircraft safety - its very very few "confusion" accidents over hundreds of avoided accidents.
I don't think anyone thinks the DC-10 was a safer aircraft than an A.300 - remember Paris?
It strikes me that there are a lot of "entrenched" views expressed on here!
Why no criticism of "fly by wire" B777 or B787 control law quirks?
As someone with almost equal experience of both manufacturers ~ 10,000hrs B707/737/747 and ~ 10,000hrs A319/320/330/340 I have no doubts as to which have the sweetest handling!!
Why no criticism of "fly by wire" B777 or B787 control law quirks?
As someone with almost equal experience of both manufacturers ~ 10,000hrs B707/737/747 and ~ 10,000hrs A319/320/330/340 I have no doubts as to which have the sweetest handling!!
Last edited by Meikleour; 5th Nov 2022 at 14:02. Reason: addition