"A380 is a zero-crash aircraft" say Airbus

[DozyWannabe]

Think the story is it was the jurnos of the day that came up with the unsinkable line

True

because of the for then new technology - water proof doors, except if the compartment flooded completely the water went over the top into the next compartment.

Not entirely accurate. Brunel's "Great Britain" and "Great Eastern" had watertight compartments all the way up to the main deck. Engineering standards had already started to slip due to complacency (and, ironically, a desire on the part of the shipping companies to make their customers feel that they were in floating hotels rather than oceangoing vessels) by the late 19th/early 20th century.

Also attempting to break the crossing record the speed gave no time to to take avoiding action ie no ship could survive. Stand to be corrected as its from a very fallible memory.

The "record crossing attempt" of the Titanic is a myth - she was never built for speed, having only three turbines and screws to the Mauretania and Lusitania's four.

That being said, it's true that it was tradition for westbound mail steamers to not slow down in that region of the Atlantic - which was a very bad tradition.

Back on-topic, I do wonder how many of Airbus's more infamous comments have been attributable to mistranslation when I see threads like this.

J.

[MarkD]

Sadly Airbus types from Leahy down seem to be overexcited when placed in front of a microphone.

[Algy]

The A319 story here www.flightinternational.com will no doubt add to this debate.

[fiftyfour]

I hope its better than the A320. I've had more 'scares', 'surprises'and 'frustrations' on this aircraft in my 4 years on the aircraft than any other type I've flown over the previous 30 years.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Had an Airbus go-around at Heathrow once, for no reason I could see and having cleared it to land... Asked the crew the reason.. "We don't know; the aircraft did it, not us"!!!

[Groundloop]

"Wasn’t he one of AI’s own test guys ?"

It was one of Air France's senior A320 training captains, I believe.


"The "record crossing attempt" of the Titanic is a myth - she was never built for speed, having only three turbines and screws to the Mauretania and Lusitania's four."

On the Olympic, Titanic, etc only the centre screw was powered by a steam turbine. The two outer screws were reciprocating engines - hence views of giant pistons slamming up and down in Cameron's film. No way was the Titanic anything like the speed of the Mauretania and Lusitania.

After the early accidents with the A320 didn't Airbus learn their lesson and greatly modify their pilot training programme?

[DozyWannabe]

Mode confusion is a major ouch le derriere, but it's by no means restricted to Airbus. They made a few less-than-stellar design decisions in the early days of the aircraft, and the attitude during the Air Inter investigation was all wrong, but I don't think you can blame the aircraft for that.

Remember it was mode confusion that brought down the first TriStar, and that is still considered one of the best-engineered airliners in history.

J.

[Mr_Grubby]

I had a similar thing happen to me as the Heathrow Director did.
Few years back sitting on TMA SE DEPS (DVR) an Airbus took off from 26 at Gatwick on a DVR SID and called me in the left turn. Not right.
I asked the crew what was going on and had a similar reply to HD.
'Don't know, the aircraft is doing it's own thing'


Clint.

[FlapsOne]

FDRs and CVRs are not simply there for post crash analysis. That's what journalists think!

They are constantly referenced to provide data for monitoring and subsequent improving of systems.

Hardly an excellent observation!

[fmgc]

These stories of "the airbus is just turning left even though I want to go right" and "it went around even though we didn't want it to" are utter rubbish.

If you are flying an aeroplane with the autopilot enaged and it doesn't do what you want it to do no decent piot will sit there and do nothing, he will take the autopilot out and fly the aeroplane, be it an Airbus or Boeing, that is what pilots are paid to do.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<These stories of "the airbus is just turning left even though I want to go right" and "it went around even though we didn't want it to" are utter rubbish.>>

fmgc.. I take great exception to your statement as far as my story is concerned. I'm not in the habit of lying. I just stated a fact - it happened. So, DON'T say I'm talking rubbish. OK??

[Carnage Matey!]

Had an Airbus go-around at Heathrow once, for no reason I could see and having cleared it to land... Asked the crew the reason.. "We don't know; the aircraft did it, not us"!!!

I don't think he meant your story was rubbish HD, just the crews explanation of it! There are no TOGA switches on the A320/330/340 series so no means to inadvertantly initiate a go-around. The aircraft can't go into TOGA mode itself as it can't command the engines to TOGA power unless the alpha floor engages. The above scenario sounds rather like somebody fouled up the approach and either went around themselves or activated the alpha floor though poor handling.

Airbus took off from 26 at Gatwick on a DVR SID and called me in the left turn. Not right........'Don't know, the aircraft is doing it's own thing'

Anyone with any sense will check the SID in the box against the chart and the map display to ensure the aircraft is going to do the right thing. Every now and then one of these incidents appears on the notice board at work. Invariably the investigation reveals the crew had the wrong SID in the FMC.

The left/right confusion is a human error, not an Airbus one. We had a spate of 767s going the wrong way round the LAM hold recently, and if memory serves me correctly those aircraft are built by Boeing.

[Mr_Grubby]

fmgc.

I stand by my story.

After 32 years as an Area Radar Air Traffic Controller I do not make up stories like that.


Clint.

[Farrell]

FlapsOne.....

I am now cowering in the corner, waiting for my punishment.

"Humour will not be tolerated in this régime!!"

[EAL747]

Once around the Pattern

It sure would be nice to get one trip around the pattern in the left seat, and I don't mean the simulator. Unfortunately, some non aviator bureaucrat has decreed that I am too old.
Speaking of old, our EAL Capt Johnny Miller turns 100 December 15. he plans to fly his Bonanza around....solo. And no, Johnny doesn't particularly care what the FAA thinks.
1. Titanic is not a appropriate nickname. The Tri-tanic was named over 30 years ago. The L1011 was a fine flying machine...once you got it away from the gate. That was the problem...getting it away from the gate. It was well nicknamed.
2. Next time you watch the video of the A320 going into the woods, watch the angle of attack change throughout the entire flight, right into the woods. I think the pilot indeed tried to go around; the computer was disagreeing saying, "no-no.... gotta get best L/D first." I think those guys were along for the ride.
3. Seems to me that more than several wrecks have occurred from one glitch. I can think of the Comet, Electra, ATR72, A300, DC10, 747 as being examples. Yes I understand more than one if design defect or shoddy maintenance or bad wx is included.

[d2k73]

think you'll find it was an Air France Captain that flew the aircraft into the trees, not the automation.

From what i recall the systems on board the aircraft interpreted the pilots actions as a landing, and when the pilot tried to pull up the systems would not allow him full power and when they did it was too late, she was already in the trees!

[Bus429]

EAL 747 - could you break down your analysis of the "one glitch" accidents? (For example, to which DC-10 accident do you allude, American 191 in 1979 or Sioux City in 1989? Both crashed because of maintenance and design error).

[Carnage Matey!]

From what i recall the systems on board the aircraft interpreted the pilots actions as a landing, and when the pilot tried to pull up the systems would not allow him full power and when they did it was too late, she was already in the trees!

The systems do not second guess the pilots actions or 'interpret' manouevres as a landing. The system disengages the angle of attack protection at 100R to prevent it activating during landing. The AF captain thought he's be a smart @rse and do a 50ft fly by when even the Airbus test pilots only did it above 100R. Unfortunately he did not appreciate the widely publicised fact that the alpha protection he was relying on to complete the manouevre wouldn't activate, and when he finally cottoned on to the fact it was too late to do anything. If you watch the video the engines were still spooling up as he went into the forest. No amount of back stick was going to get him out of that situation without stalling the plane, he had neither the speed nor the thrust to recover. You couldn't recover from that in a Boeing either.

I think the pilot indeed tried to go around; the computer was disagreeing saying, "no-no.... gotta get best L/D first." I think those guys were along for the ride.

Yes he did try to go around, but look how late he did it, in a low speed, low thrust, high drag configuration with about 400 feet to fly to the tree line. The computers don't go for best L/D, they'll give you as much angle of attack as is aerodynamically possible without stalling the plane then no more. Those guys weren't along for the ride, they could have gone around any time if they chose to do so. Instead they chose to fly like morons and do a display without adequate planning and preparation resulting in a crash.

[barit1]

(For example, to which DC-10 accident do you allude, American 191 in 1979 or Sioux City in 1989? Both crashed because of maintenance and design error).

AA191 lost its pylon because of maintenance management error. The shop was using an unapproved technique to remove/replace the pylon & engine as an assembly, and overstressed the wing attachments beyond their design loads.

(Remember NTSB Chief Elwood Driver holding up a broken bolt before TV cameras less than 24 hrs. after the accident, claiming he had found the culprit? )

UA232 burst a fan disk also because of maintenance management error. The disk was classified "prime reliable", but that was contingent on an adequate inspection program which the shop failed to implement. The subsequent total hydraulic failure cannot be considered a design problem in the context of aircraft certification.

[sweeper]

"a380 is a zero-crash aircraft"

if this topic is a boeingVairbus contest, would airbus not have to have two 380,s in teneriffe on a foggy day to catch up?
and that tragedy had nothing to do with the a/c type!
a thought......