"A380 is a zero-crash aircraft" say Airbus

[DozyWannabe]

4. Lufthansa/Landing Over Run

At the risk of further divergence, didn't a similar issue almost claim a 146 at EGLC (had it been a wet runway it would have almost certainly run off the end)?

[Joetom]

Am only pointing out 380 will not suffer same as early 320's.

Had 320 Aircraft/Pilot interface training been up to scratch at the start of 320 ops, Airbus sales would be through the roof now.!!!

[PAXboy]

Am only pointing out 380 will not suffer same as early 320's.

True, the law of experience says that it will suffer differently to the early 320s. Perhpas, in ten years time, folks will be saying, "These new ones are so much better than the early 380s."

That is not to invite such things but any new machine as complicated as the 380 (nothing to do with size) will have teething troubles. Nothing works straight out of the box - not even 100% of matches! So, we must just guard against the failures and be watching out for things going wrong. For, go wrong they will.

[Hangin' on]

So, using the last 50 years advances in technology as an example....in 50 years time the 'advanced technology' of the A380 will be the equivalent of.....a Comet? a DC3? (and that doesn't take into account the obvious acceleration in tech over the next 50 years)

[PAXboy]

Hang. You naughtly leg-pulling little devil you!!! But I shall take the bait. My suggestion is not to do with the generation of technology but the newness of it.

When typewriters were invented they would have gone wrong quite a bit until people worked out how to make them and better and operate them better. Trains, planes and automobiles all followed the same process. The difficulty for new a/c is that they will have systems (or variations of) that are new and they cannot be right 100% first time. The Comet taught us some lessons and any series of related prangs will teach a lesson.

When developing a new motorcar, it is cheap and simple to test them to destruction and to drive them into walls to see how they behave. With a/c we have to (generally speaking) model on computer and then wait to see if any real prangs occur. Who knows what lessons the A380 will teach? Perhaps none. Perhaps only less critical systems will fail but empirical testing is the only one that we learn by.

Naturally, no one wants a prang but only a few admit that they will happen. The commercial world understands as well politicians that, customers/voters do not want to know the truth.
--------------------
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different." Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

[Grunf]

Thinking of the advanced tech and A380 I assume you will see more of this debate with 787 and A350 then on A380.

What is really "new technology" on 380 is very questionable. Size is not the matter, apart from the operational side (passenger loading/unloading) - meaning that this size of a/c are flying for some time (see the issue of vortex generation).
Anyway new technologies will appear with 787 and 350 so let us see how good will be the application of stuff used on CFR 23 built models (GA, some of the business aviation models) in large commercial type a/c.

What I specifically mean is the new engine and the all-composite fuselage of that size.

To claim for that absolute safety (and reliability) will be a challenge.

For 380 it is quite a safe estimate.

Cheers,

[DingerX]

Many other 320s had the close shave? How many 737s have been lost due to rudder hardover?

Whenever somebody fouls up in an Airbus they immediately blame 'the technology'. Why didn't we seem the same damning of the 757 after 'the technology' flew a 757 into a mountain in Cali? If you tell the autopilot to do daft things it'll do them unerringly. It's not a substitute for airmanship and common sense.

In the same period from first flight, the 737 suffered three hull losses: one was CFIT on an attempted landing with visibility below minima; the other two (1. singe engine failure past V2, Captain throttled up, but noticed no engine response, aborted T/O at 50ft AGL resulting in an overrun; 2. on a non-precision approach, letting the airspeed and altitutde drop -- ordered to go around, they throttled up and raised flaps), are likewise incidents of operator error, but in which one might speculate that the pilots' experience on DC-6/7s did not help them with the response and acceleration characteristics of first-generation jets.

In the same time, there are 4 A320 hull losses. Once again, to any reasonable person, operator error is the cause -- dumb things that people do from time to time. But an unfamiliar interface philosophy can and does help people do dumb things, particularly if the years of training the operators have received in the past now becomes negative training.

What's amazing about the A320 is that, even with an airshow crash a few months after its certification, it managed to sell pretty well.

It took the 757 13 years to crash. That might be why people don't think immediately of automation-related crashes with it; or maybe it's just that it doesn't feature a full glass cockpit and fly-by-wire control system.

Technological advance has its pitfalls, above all when "experienced" humans are thrown in the mix. For the A380, I'm sure Airbus has many competent people working on trying to find the problems before fate does. But the stakes are high, especially since the pride of European Industry is riding on this. The closest parallels to such political stake being put in an airliner are the Concorde and the Tu-144.

[Algy]

Joetom,

Airbus narrowbody sales 3,700 and counting; Airbus total sales 5,700 and counting. What would count as "going through the roof" in your view?

[747FOCAL]

Are you sure they didn't mean no cash return for Airbus?

[African Tech Rep]

The closest parallels to such political stake being put in an airliner are the Concorde and the Tu-144.

And basically the French caused the demise of these

[er340790]

Just hope they don't have to rearrange the following before long ....
A BEFORE COMETH PRIDE FALL

[Boy]

This thread, which started as a result of a poor translation and / or a misunderstanding, continues unabated. (Long live free speech!). It has thus become less a matter relating to Airbus than to the continuing need for PPRuNe to service the needs of those who just need to express their notions, prejudices and hang ups.

I say this as the latest posters don't seem to have read the early part of the thread. They just seem to dip in to express their 2.5 pence worth regardless. An undoubted consequence of free speech ...

[barit1]

"This is your computerized crew speaking. Welcome aboard your Air Erroneous flight 678 this morning - the most advanced aircraft in the skies. Your captain and first officer have been superseded by computers.

"So fasten your seat belts, sit back and relax, and know that nothing can possibly go wrong (click) ... possibly go wrong (click) ... possibly go wrong (click) ..."

[Ignition Override]

As for design flaws or trouble spots etc, how about the DHL A-300 which was hit outside of the left engine on departure from Baghdad a couple of years ago? It still amazes me that those pilots were able to fly it back arouhd by using the throttles for all primary control, never mind airspeed. What did they consume later to reduce the huge adrenaline surge? Does any other airline now fly into Iraq?

Maybe this was not a design flaw, because the aero. engineers never anticipated a heat-seeking missile impact, but if all hydraulic lines ran together (fusing?) in one small area, is this sort of hydraulic "junction" common in McD. Douglas, Boeing, Fokker, Dornier, Embraer and CRJ aircraft? Maybe it is far enough from the engines to minimize the chance of damage from turbine blade shrapnel ?

[DozyWannabe]

JAL123 (747SR) had it's 'hydraulic nexus' in the tail, which protected well from engine disintegration, but unfortunately left it very vulnerable to aft pressure bulkhead failure.

IIRC newer aircraft (certainly SLF-carrying ones) have valves in the hydraulic system to prevent leakage in case of a damaged hose.