Airbus reputation, is it becoming tarnished?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Belgium
Age: 63
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
XXLXile
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.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Saigon
Age: 44
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will Fraser
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: SPAIN
Age: 65
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: SPAIN
Age: 65
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
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/g...n_en_graph.pdf
Audit:
http://henrimarnetcornus.20minutes-b.../341499355.jpg
And BTW .. I don't hold my breath for the premilinary report of AF447 this 2 July ....
Bye.
but it is hard to get a quote from a government official so wrong.
Maybe it was forbidden in france .. but the company is not blacklisted in EU
Anyways ...
http://www.icao.int/fsix/AuditReps/g...n_en_graph.pdf
Audit:
http://henrimarnetcornus.20minutes-b.../341499355.jpg
And BTW .. I don't hold my breath for the premilinary report of AF447 this 2 July ....
Bye.
Last edited by LeandroSecundo; 1st Jul 2009 at 01:52.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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 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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Age: 54
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rugby
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was interested to read 11Fan's post.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bangkok,Thailand
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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......
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......
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Age: 54
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
However have Airbus taken their technology to far, trying to make the pilot a passenger?
Simply stated Airbus believes that the computer knows best
Originally Posted by Rottenray
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.
Originally Posted by p51guy
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?
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Second is that sometimes, just sometimes the improper flight envelope is what saves your ass.
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?
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.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: in the sun
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
good or bad
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
