Frog airplanes. Can you really trust them?...
 

I do know it has been a lot of media beat up about the recent Qantas incidents around the skies but if you look at the facts the largest percentage involved Airbuses. It has been involved in many controversial crashes since day one and i am getting very uncomfortable in travelling with airlines that operates them(to be honest i never really trusted them, all that fly by wire technology always worried me).
Now... I am a professional pilot and i have to live with it....but it is only a matter of time till the public wakes up to it and start to panic.
So... if you do fly one ....
Are you worried?... Be honest!

If you are worried by fly by wire technology then I'd take the train, or a classic boeing, AFAIK all the NG Boeing gear is all fly by wire also, with no manual reversion.

j3

Yeah, Qantas never has problems with its Boeing fleet.

Airbus = EVIL!!!!

I think you will find the NG's have manual reversion

From my understanding the NG does have manual reversion on both elevator and ailerons

Righto, sorry about that. So the 73NG has manual reversion, 777? Drealiner?

Nothing wrong with the bus.

However the computers that fly them, wellll that is another story alltogether.

This PDF page 20 has a graph on loss rates per aircraft type, produced by boeing but includes most jet types current to 2007.

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

Also a quick search regarding accident rates will reveal a few other sites with statistic pages covering some turboprops as well.

As indicated it really depends which models you choose to compare.

Friends.... Don't let their friends fly Airbus.

Frog airplanes
 

Well, let's see.........

Aerospatiale helicopters - smooth, efficient, lots of passenger appeal

Falcon jets - best built aircraft in their class, anyone who has flown one loves them

Sud Caravelle - a revolutionary first-generation jet; beautiful too

Concorde - never beaten, and (sadly) never will be

Nord - some innovative designs

Should I go on?

I'd suggest it is wrong to generalise on the subject of French aircraft. If you have a beef with the 'bus, stick to criticising that.

Hey j3piper the B737NG is not a FBW aircraft. It has cables and pulleys.

Other the latest B737, I've not heard of any other Boeing aircraft referred to as "NG" types but then I am not a Boeing groupie so maybe I need to read more.

The B777 has a basic manual reversion function involving just enough control surfaces to keep it flying straight and level until higher levels of control are regained.

The FBW logic of Boeing and Airbus has certain important differences which allow or do not allow certain activities. For example, the B777 can be rolled inverted by pilot input while an Airbus cannot.

Concorde was the first fly-by-wire airliner.

Airbus is a consortium from France, Germany, Spain and UK.

Well it's been almost 40 years now, the public may need a nudge! :uhoh:

Don't have a beef with the airframe. Computers rely on humans for programming. Need I say more.

Firstly it's aeroplane in the Aussie vernacular.
Secondly after having done the ground school & some sim work on the 330 I came to see that they're a damn clever peice of gear - and this is coming from a previous Airbus-hater. I still prefer Boeings though as they are built better, are faster, and are a bit more practical for todays world.

statistics
 

A380-800 driver A raw comparison of hull losses can be misinterpreted.

The 737 family has been flying since around 1968, the A319/320/321 from around 1988, and the 737's have done a heck of a lot more air-miles and cycles.

AirDisaster.Com: Statistics

I am sorry but the title of this thread is downright offensive. Having flown boings, airbus' and bombardier's there is absolutely no basis for suggesting that Airbus' are any more/less safe than the others. I for one feel a little hesitation about flying in a 737 due to the as yet unexplained rash of rudder hard overs, I flew on a 777 last month and couldn't help but feel a little apprehensive about unexplained double engine failures. Let's also wait for the report into this crash, the likelyhood that it was a mechanical failure is slim at best, more than likely some human factor contribution.

Frog aircraft? The Tobago leaks through the Gull Wing door seals and the POH is always soggy as a result.

Then there are those tiny bar type gauges that you have to tap to get any reaction.......

And the overly sensitive elevator.

Biggles - Very correct that statistics can be misleading, when comparing the A320 and 737 you would have to discount the 737 100-200 models as they were effectively a different era. That would leave the following stats;

A320/319/321 35 million flights and rate of loss of 0.37 per million flights (approx. 1 every 3 million flights)


737-300 through 900 78 million flights at a rate of 0.42 per million flights (approx. 1 every 2.5 million flights)

That is the statistics, however when you look at the accident reports the A320 almost entirely suffers from CFIT or some other factor which would have occured irrellevent of aircraft type, more related to poor training or operational procedure. The 737 even up to the late models still has strange and re-occuring accidents more related to type and mechanical failure, as well as the obligatory CFITs and stuff ups.

Based on air disasters stats we should all fly on the SAAB!

Anyone ever flown the Tin parachute?

i.e the Socata Rallaye?

Says it all really! what a French POS

I'm not a fan of Airbus products. No technical reason, just asthetics, but it wouldn't stop me from flying on them. As long as they are professionally maintained by quality engineers, then why would you worry. I'd pay more attention to the airline's standards than the aircraft's manufacturer.

(On a personal note, perhaps there's a better time to discuss this than immediately after recent events...)