"A380 is a zero-crash aircraft" say Airbus
Thread Starter
"A380 is a zero-crash aircraft" say Airbus
http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_...StoryId=115501
Seems a bit of the sort of comment that comes back to haunt you.
Seems a bit of the sort of comment that comes back to haunt you.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
judging by the invasion of windows into the A380's flightdeck, it's a matter of time surely before some computer geek ruins the day for everyone and hacks the flight controls
Airbus doesn't even trust pilots anymore, what a strange world we are evolving into
AT
Airbus doesn't even trust pilots anymore, what a strange world we are evolving into
AT
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Titantic is very apt. Both distastefully large, and both their companies made such crass statements. Just gotta wait for the A380 disaster.
I'm not anti airbus/pro boeing by any strech of the imagination. But to make a claim an aircraft is a 'zero-crash aircraft' is a bit Radio Rental when so many factors can contribute to a crash
AT
I'm not anti airbus/pro boeing by any strech of the imagination. But to make a claim an aircraft is a 'zero-crash aircraft' is a bit Radio Rental when so many factors can contribute to a crash
AT
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An excellent piece of mis-quoting and incorrect translation.
What was actually said was no single failure tech or human will cause it to crash.
Interesting to see each aircraft has a service life of 50 years.
What was actually said was no single failure tech or human will cause it to crash.
Interesting to see each aircraft has a service life of 50 years.
Mmmmm PPruuune!
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"It is as safe as it can be. We have tested the aircraft fully by conducting various failure scenarios and checking the systems extensively to avoid any single failure from happening which would cause a plane to crash,"
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And when has one failure ever brought down an airliner, every disaster I can think of is usally a chain of events and errors, both human and mechanical.
50 years is quite a long service life though, must be a fairly advanced beast under the skin.
AT
{EDIT} I think about 4 people replied to manintheback's post at the same time there
50 years is quite a long service life though, must be a fairly advanced beast under the skin.
AT
{EDIT} I think about 4 people replied to manintheback's post at the same time there
The Cooler King
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: In the Desert
Posts: 1,703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fully computerised, the A380 is equipped with 100 black boxes, also known as flight data recorder (FDR) and cockpit voice recorder (CVR).
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basically Airbus have stated no one failure will lead to a crash, just like every other airliner out there then? 
I think they are trying to make Joe Public feel safer on such a huge aircraft by making this 'no one failure will lead to a crash' seem like a new development to the A380.
My opinion anyway
AT
Farrell's observation was excellent
I think they are trying to make Joe Public feel safer on such a huge aircraft by making this 'no one failure will lead to a crash' seem like a new development to the A380.
My opinion anyway
AT
Farrell's observation was excellent
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"and we made sure that it carries passengers safely to and from their destinations,"
I would like to think that is a guiding principle when designing ALL Airbuses, but maybe not...???
Scary - I didn't fancy it before, but, history teaches us that statements like this are just asking for trouble!
Superstitious, moi?
I would like to think that is a guiding principle when designing ALL Airbuses, but maybe not...???
Scary - I didn't fancy it before, but, history teaches us that statements like this are just asking for trouble!
Superstitious, moi?
Plumbum Pendular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Avionics Bay
Age: 55
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And then watch one fly itself in to the trees
OK so it did fly itself into the trees, but only because the Captain sat there and let it happen, only taking action when it was too late.
I believe that he went to prison for it?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Titantic is very apt. Both distastefully large, and both their companies made such crass statements
Blue Skies,
Brian
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ummmm...surely the following events, on aircraft manufactured by a certain non-European company, can be put down to single component failures. Strange how rarely these are mentioned (compared with the A320 that the pilot flew into trees):
1. Aircraft crashed because of in-flight thrust reverser operation;
2. Aircraft crashed because it broke up over the South China Sea;
3. Aircraft crashed because of an uncommanded rudder movement (more than one occurrence...)
4. Aircraft crashed because the main fuel tank exploded
Etc., etc.
1. Aircraft crashed because of in-flight thrust reverser operation;
2. Aircraft crashed because it broke up over the South China Sea;
3. Aircraft crashed because of an uncommanded rudder movement (more than one occurrence...)
4. Aircraft crashed because the main fuel tank exploded
Etc., etc.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dr Dave, valid points, but surely there has to be a chain of events in order for your points to occur. I would hope these things don't just happen spontaneously. Events have to line up. Example you state an uncommanded rudder movement. This would trace back to maybe incorrect parts fitted or lack of/poor maintenance or even a design flaw within the aircraft. I would say any incident or accident has several events in conjuction or in series that caused it, not one totally singular event. (unless of a bizarre or unforeseen event like a terrorist bomb, but thats nothing to do with the aircraft or its systems anyway)
Brian, very true with your statement, I was merely poking a bit of fun there with that statement But its true, the A380 isn't pretty!
Bulbous would be my choice of words, but i was never a fan of even the B747's look so its not an anti airbus statement!
Still, if i was offered the RHS seat of either in the future I wouldn't say no... lol
AT
Brian, very true with your statement, I was merely poking a bit of fun there with that statement
But its true, the A380 isn't pretty!Bulbous would be my choice of words, but i was never a fan of even the B747's look so its not an anti airbus statement!
Still, if i was offered the RHS seat of either in the future I wouldn't say no... lol
AT
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brazil
Age: 61
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK so it did fly itself into the trees, but only because the Captain sat there and let it happen, only taking action when it was too late.
Wasn’t there one that went down with CVR showing the crew constantly trying to rest CB’s / re-programme computers rather than try and fly it?
Didn’t only today an A319 guy (or two) earn his money when his cockpit went dark? – fortunately it seems he didn’t fall into the trap of “the technology will save us”.
Automation is fine – but a couple of the problems are :-
People become compliant and rely too heavily on it.
I’ll eventually do away with pilots as we know them.
(I used to be asked how difficult it was to become a pilot – recently I’ve been being asked why pilots are needed – this by members of the public)
The article is sure right about one thing – they can’t AFFORD one to crash.
Sad thing is one day one will – if it’s during early service we may be saying au reviour to Airbus – they need a few years safe service under their belts.