"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.

Did airbus not bang on about how safe all of their automation would make things?
And then watch one fly itself in to the trees:confused:

Umm. It hasnt got a name yet has it.

Can I suggest Titanic?

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 ;)

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

doom and gloom already what are we journos

come on let us give scarebus a chance :yuk:

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 :)

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.

The operative words here are single failure - Something for which all commercial aircraft are designed. Its normally a combination of more than one which causes problems.

I think you'll find that the "Zero-Crash-Aircraft" was in regards to its systems. That excludes the human factor from the flight of one of those things.

Wow
 

"No one item will make the aircraft crash". Great.
No go read an accident report and in 99% of all accidents there are 3 factors involved. Good luck Airbus.

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

I thought those things were used to analyse CRASH data? Muahahah!!

Basically Airbus have stated no one failure will lead to a crash, just like every other airliner out there then? :E

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 :ok:

"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?

Typical uninformed anti-airbus rubbish.

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?

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

Blue Skies,
Brian

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.

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 ;)

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