LH Another Hard Landing A340-600 KIAH
 

Rumor: Lufthansa A340-600 grounded in KIAH due to a very hard landing. Aircraft: D-AIHA

Strongest winds at Houston in the last 36 hrs.

Yesterday afternoon (local time):
KIAH 132053Z 17013G20KT 10SM BKN040 OVC075 22/15 A2979 RMK AO2 SLP087 T02220150 57026

This afternoon (local time):
KIAH 142053Z 20010G17KT 10SM CLR 31/13 A2959 RMK AO2 SLP020 T03060133 56042

Don't remember Houston well, but AvBrief indicates possible runways with that wind direction might be 15L/R, 26L/R, or 27; all long enough, but I don't know their LCNs or the A340-600's PCN.

The curse of Managed Speed has struck again.Is the A340-600 a jinxed design?It has had a lot of incidents since its launch.

This happened before the 11th. I spend a great deal of time in KIAH. The plane was parked at the Continental Airlines MX Hangar.

Correct, the landing has happened several days ago.

D-AIHA was ferried to Munich in the meantime; reportedly, replacement of R/H MLG required.

Another troublesome feature of the A346... :\

Cheers,
J.V.

"The curse of Managed Speed has struck again.Is the A340-600 a jinxed design?It has had a lot of incidents since its launch."

A bit cryptic for the non-cognoscenti to follow, tubby linton?

If the A/THR response is anticipated to be poor near the threshold, do your SOPs (on the A330) ban you from using manual thrust? And does your GE/RR engine spool-up similarly to the Trents on the A340-600?

And are you entering the mean wind on the PERF page, or inflating any reported headwind?

Maybe a bit technical for this thread, but would be interested to have your (less-cryptic) contribution regarding Airbus FBW Managed Speeds/ GS-Mini/AutoThrust-ManualThrust here:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=316201

I was a bit surprised since I flew on LH441 IAH-FRA yesterday. Not much wind and a straight and good looking Bus it was.
Per

I have only flown Boeings; what exactly is the problem with the A340-600 that is being referred to on this thread?

French, or whatever...
 

Folks,

I remember when you could still get decent food, even on Delta, which means I'm speaking of the 1960s and 1970s.

We still have tons of good pilots, but with FBW fully accepted, how long are we going to have men and women who can really fly the craft by the seat of their pants?

[Before we flame this idea, I'm not saying that this is the way scheduled flights should be flown - unless there are circumstances like weather, aircraft problems, et cetera]

It seems like we're fastly approaching a point where anything not covered by a checklist might be a huge problem...


Any comments?


...

Well, they just extended the retirement age to 65. That might help some.

The industry in the U.S. is slowly reverting back to having the crew demonstrate their ability to fly the airplane without the automation. Before, all the emphasis on training was to use the automation. The problem is that the automation fails occasionally or the automation cannot be used for certain runways, i.e. 25 L/R @ ANC and the Canarsie to 13 @ JFK, for example.

Frankly, I think the folks who fly the highly automated airplanes need more professional discipline to hand fly the airplanes more often, rather than allowing themselves to be 'dogs watching television' and passengers in their own airplanes. After all, there are times when you just have to be a pilot, instead of a typist.

Rottenray and Desert, I agree with you 100%!!! I became a pilot because I like to fly! I didnt become a pilot to be flown by an autopilot. I've flown the occasinal flight in my jet in its entirety by hand with no flight director. Typically I Just take it up to altitude and fly it back down though. Its amazing how smooth and precise you can fly an jet by looking at the horizon... Keep in mind, its one thing to handfly, but its another do to so smooth! Some people dont know the difference...

Ive read numerous posts on here and other websites complaning about Airbus's autothrottles. So if Airbus has autothrottle issues on approach, dont use it! Its pretty simple. As pilots we need to stay ahead of our machine. Strapping in and taking control is the best way to stay in front!

This plane can be built everywhere, but the concept of the plane is 100% french, because only the french has a twisted mind to do a machine so complex and no human friendly like this.

I think that the main problem of the Airbus is that is not an airplane at all, is a machine that resembles an airplane that flyes. Exacly is a money making machine that flyes. :D

This has rotten the roots of a "Could be a good aircraft", and this problem surfaces in extreme flying conditions, when a plane has to give 100% of is capability.
Because it is no really a plane, in this conditions the bus touchs the margins of it´s envelope, so unexpected or no human preparer situations or departures occur.
All new generation Airbus has problems in this conditions, remember the crosswind landings of Air France, TAP, Iberia and Lufthansa and the hard landings of Iberia.
It also have problems in machine management conditions, examples of this are the unexpected fuel transfers or no tranfers at all that ended in flameouts, and the problems of miscomunications with the machine that have ended in CFITs.
In the Gulf Air accident do you think that the F/O was perceiving that the Captain was pushing the sidestick foward?
This thing is not stated in the final report of the accident. But think about it. The other sidestick doesnt move, and the other guy dont know what the PF or the flying controls are doing, only what the plane do.
In an B757 for example, if I´m going down and I see the joke fully foward, I know in one second that something strange is happening with the PF, and I think that 99% of the PNFs will pull the joke backwards as instinc reaction.

The Airbus golden rules are another lie, or better said, half lie. You will never fly this airplane like a conventional plane, because is not a plane. The A/THR never will work like a conventional throttle, and if you use high power like TOGA, the plane will enter in GO AROUND mode in any condition, and you PNF need extra work to take this plane from this mode, and go back on CRUISE or CLB mode, performing unlogical actions in the MCDU, that in other aircraft are not necesary.

In trainning I usually see the pilots have more problems dealing with the aircraft that dealing with the failures.

Ergonomy, another lie. The only ergonomy are the tray and the seats. The lights can be better. The primary flying control are small and displaced, they are designed to not touch it. Another example, look at the spoilers, the are small and not located in a practical position, I have to extend my arm downwards and back to reach it, and I´m not seated very foward and high. You need to monitor de ECAM to confirm its deployment, while in other aircraft, only with the movement of the lever with you periferical vision you, or moving you free arm without loooking you can confirm this.

But these are my opinions as pilot and TRI of the A320. I been only flying this thing two years, and I been always flying boeings and Mc Douglas.

I know that this discursion is carried out since the begining of times, but in my case, If I have to face dificult conditions or operations, I prefer anything that Airbus. Plain and simple, just an airplane that is going to do what I command it to do, and that is going to respond as I expect.

Is there any information about what happened or what damage was caused?

I hear Virgin 346 do many hard landings at Heathrow, 27R with a little wind from the south sets it up good.

Airbus have to be contacted when these hard landings occour to review the data, Airbus must have lots of data by now, but the hard landings continue, think I heard that new gear (landing) will be fitted in the future to reduce all the hard landing checks.

Has anyone got the data of rate of hard landings for the 346?

Despite of the usual nagging about Airbus, I can only say that an A346 is rather easy to land. You fly it above the RWY and slowly reduce the thrust at about 30 feet +- a little bit, depending on the energy state of the aircraft (here the pantsbottom flying comes into play).
Landing the machine hard is just as likely or unlikely as any other aircraft. I found the 346 the easiest of all the airbusses to land, and I have flown everything except 318 and 380.

So in my opinion, the design is not at fault, and it is not only strong winds, that account for up or downdrafts. It can get quite bumpy in spring and summer, especially in Texas, if I remember correctly...

Nic

Airbus FBW: the Trainer's Influence
 

Quotes from Strongresolve:
(1) I think that the main problem of the Airbus is that is not an airplane at all, is a machine that resembles an airplane that flyes. Exacly is a money making machine that flyes.
(2) The A/THR never will work like a conventional throttle, and if you use high power like TOGA, the plane will enter in GO AROUND mode in any condition, and you PNF need extra work to take this plane from this mode, and go back on CRUISE or CLB mode, performing unlogical actions in the MCDU, that in other aircraft are not necesary.
(3) But these are my opinions as pilot and TRI of the A320. I been only flying this thing two years, and I been always flying boeings and Mc Douglas.
[Unquote]

So far, we seem to know nothing about what may have happened to this A340-600 at Houston, so your post is OFF-TOPIC.

But, as you have chosen to cast a slur against the entire current generation of Airbuses - despite the fact that you claim to be a Training Instructor on A320 - I hope the Moderators will allow me to answer some of your accusations.

(1) Total rubbish. During a period of 21 years I flew many types of large aeroplane; Dakota to DC10, BAC 1-11 to A310, VC10 to B707. I then spent the next 14 years flying the A320 family, and I can assure you that it is very much an aeroplane, and - like all successful aircraft - has its good points and its not-so-good ones.

(2) If you find yourself needing as much thrust as TOGA; I've got news for you - it IS time you were "going around"...

(3) So, aged 32 years, you have perhaps spent 5 - 10 years flying fine airplanes like MD80 and B757? Maybe even the B727? [That one can bite.] Perhaps you came on to the A320 because your old favourite aeroplane was being phased out? I know the feeling very well. Is it possible that you believed all the scare stories about Airbus FBW - mainly from people who have never flown it - so you did not study your new aeroplane with as much enthusiasm as you did the last one?

If you want to put your criticisms about Airbus FBW aeroplanes in a constructive way, there are several Threads in the "Tech Log" section where we are waiting to hear from you.

But, for the time being, please ask yourself if you are the right person to be training a young and impressionable new generation to fly an aeroplane when you, the instructor-pilot they look up to, have so little confidence in what you describe as "this thing"?

Your negative attitude to the aircraft will inevitably make an impression on your pupils, and this is potentially dangerous. It does not sound like "strong resolve" to me.

Thanks Chris Scott
 

I really appreciate your moderate comment to this b...s..t !

Strongresolve,
I am just amazed by your casual approach to this event, and it seems that you are certainly NOT the right person to be training the new generation of pilots on "This Thing" in which you have so little confidence.
Despite your young age you should plan an early retirement from managing and trying to teach advance technology in such complex and "No human firendly machine" that "only the french has a twisted mind to do".

Strongresolv,

are you an armchair pilot with a Boeing fetish? Given your first sentence about Airbus=French I suspect you have no idea of how the fine engineers of Airbus actually work and frankly your comments overall are, well, another poster put it quite well already...b......

I'm training to move from E145 to A32x and so far have enjoyed every moment of learning the differences and similarities between these two aircraft. That is assuming you consider Brazil's finest to be aircraft of course...

...as for Airbus being difficult to fly in xwind situations ... yes, but then again so is my E145 and some of the Ryanair and KLM landings I've had over the past week so is the 737-800.

Anyway, my instructor said quite simple,"if it looks like an aircraft it flies like an aircraft so damn well fly it like an aircraft!"

Seems to work for me...

Been flying these for four years now and it is usually not a hard plane to land but in strong gusty cross wind conditions it can be a little unpredictable.

Virgin had a lot of hard landings compared to other operators and it turns out that all the 346 operators were having hard landings but apparently only Virgin had set up the pin program that produced the hard landing reports (report 15) to be included in the printed post flight reports.

Airbus then looked at all the 346 operators data and sent out a few letters pointing this out...

I wonder if this felt like a hard landing or if it was a computer generated report which has to be checked out prior to the aircraft's next flight and maybe didn't feel that bad....!

I have flown 320 and 330 for 8 years. The 320 was a lovely machine. The 330 was also a great pleasure to fly. The only thing being, the autothrust on the 330 was not so good in gusty conditions. Nothing that adding 5 kts to Vapp couldn't solve, just saved it from going into Vls then adding boot fulls of power, which was a pain to manually fly (however I would always recommend autothrust out when hand flying as it is fun, and why I started flying in the first place).

However, I now fly the 757, which is so much fun. Both have their pros and con's. The only thing I would say, is that a new captain on the 757, I do enjoy having feedback as to what the f/o is doing, as opposed to the airbus, where I would have to see what the aircraft is doing.

Load 15's can be given for many reasons, not just for heavy landings. I have had them for greasers, but it has been closure rates that have issued the load 15.

Chris Scott, Thanks very much for post. :ok:

Every time there is an incident with an Airbus, the Boeing willy wagging brigade comes out of the woodworks.

Never read so many ill informed posts about the Airbus FBW system as in the last couple of weeks. Very scary to see that a fair amount of these posts are from people who claim that they fly the Airbus!.

Flown the minibus and the bigbus for over 5 years now and it's a lovely machine to operate. Yes, it has its problems but if you are PROPERLY trained than you know how to deal with them.

so much bull***t, Strongresolv
 

Have you ever flown an Airbus ?

This is not the plane, but a failure of the pilot.

I have flown the complete Airbus family except the A380 and 300+310.

Now I have to fly a MD11.. and let me tell you what the statistics are with hard landings.

The MD11 out beats the Airbus 340/330 by far more then 100 to 1 !! ( not taking into account the number of a/c in each fleet ! )

There haven´t been any hard landings in the past 7 years at Lufthansa A340 fleet as of my knowledge ( and I am well informed ! ), now suddenly there has been a series on the A340 fleet. Training knows about it and is working on it. The problem has been localized to a certain pilot group on the A340 and training has been changed already.
I can not say more to it. By the way, the hard landing is triggered on all Airbus and MD11 and I guess also the Boeing a/c ( if they have it ) at Lufthansa. There is also a very rigid FODA readout on every flight at Lufthansa.

The airbus is by far the superior airplane compared to the MD11 and the Airbus is definitely much better to land then a MD11 for example or a Boeing airplane.

Don´t ever blame it on the Airbus or the FBW System.
I agree on not using the autothrust system in gusty conditions and personally I think a autothrust approach is to be done with caution and knowledge about the dangers of it.

So please don´t beat up the Airbus, if you do not know the plane. If you just know the plane from hearing, ask the guys flying it or the ones who flew it.

I am sad to read so much bulls**t from Strongresolv on this thread in an aviation specialist forum.

Be happy I do not have a delete button.

Various responses and more general statements...
 

Ok, here are some of my thoughts...:

Joetom,
> Airbus must have lots of data by now
As a "landing" is an incredibly complex actvivity, I suppose they still are in the process of data gathering. Think about parameters such as CofG, LW, crab angles, rate of descent, wind conditions, bouncing, shock absorber properties etc.

>new gear (landing) will be fitted in the future to reduce all the hard landing checks.
A new gear is under development, correct. We will see if it helps in this issue. ;)

> Has anyone got the data of rate of hard landings for the 346?
AI says the "hard landing rate" is about ten (!) times higher than on the classics.

Admiral346,
When you say that the A346 is easy to land, I must believe it (being an engineer). However: Your feeling may show a disconnect between the pilot sensations in the cockpit and what the landing gear has to sustain at landing (I´ll come back to this in the last paragraph).

Fundi-Ya-Ndege,
correct, with the exceptions: Auto-print-out of the report 15 is activated in the software (not via pin programming) to the best of my knowledge, and it is not part of the PFR (although printed after the flight).

Engine3firehandle,
It is definitely not true that Lufthansa hasn´t had any hard landings on the A340 in the past seven years. :cool:
The hard landing report is not yet automatically made visible on the whole Lufthansa Airbus fleet (i. e. auto print out not activated); I understand A333/A343 are such fleets at the moment.
FODA review: Well... Most of the time two weeks behind, and algorithms different to the airplane´s software. We´ll see how this route will develop...

Now, on a more general view:
Airbus has entered a different playing field with the A346 concerning hard landings. They had to realize in the past years, that the previous decision mode (flight crew to decide hard landing yes/no) is prone to misinterpretation, possibly to the length of the aircraft and the associated dampening of any loads into the landing gear until it has arrived in the cockpit. Secondly, the landing gear itself is not as robust as on other aircraft types, when you see it in relation to the aircraft and the loads of course.
If you consider for a moment that above said is true (not MY thoughts, but Airbus´thoughts), you don´t have a different choice than to develop another means than the pilots´ butts to detect loads that sooner or later will impair the safety of the aircraft. And I am not only talking about static strength here, but also about effects that you would see in the fatigue properties of the steel!
The software is certainly not top notch at the moment and needs improvement. But I can see that AI has found something that worries them (flight crew indications not being 100% reliable), and they need to do something to prevent ... well... landing gear collapses sooner or later.

Cheers,
J.V.

"17013G20KT KIAH 142053Z 20010G17KT "

And then comes a scare from the Bus !

After seeing other LH Bus landing technique few weeks ago,

all that one can say is that:

For a lousy Dick the design problems and a scare
will come even from a pubic hair,
especially when gusty and thick

17013G20 realy isn't a very strong wind at all. I'm not sure what i'm missing here. I have flown various types from B727-200 to A320 series to B747-400 and now A340-200/300 and 600. It's rather easy to see from above posts that the anti-Airbus brigade that they suffer from a blatant lack of knowledge. It's not worth trying to explain anything technical to them. The closed mind mentality will make it a pointless exercise. We would still be flying Sopworth Camels if it were up to some.

There is a great post on the Tech-Log forum which explains the G/S mini function on the airbus(Norman Stanley Fletcher is the auther). New Airbus drivers will do well to read through this.

I am sad to read so much bulls**t from you, too, Engine3firehandle :ugh::{

Only if flaps lever is out of zero.

Engine3firehandle

Yes

No, both! But that's MY opinion......

Great Cockpit the MD11, ain't it? And, i see, you're telling us already .....

Okey doke. Where is that statistic? If it's yours, then good enough.
It takes a pilot to land the MD11, agreed. But 100 to 1!! Ridiculous, - or you should quit aviation for good. I've flown both and my personal statistic is 0 to 0 (yeahhhhh, i'm proud of it). But i felt more in control in the MD11.

Well said, same for me!

MD-11
 

Agreed. I also flew the Mad Dog and loved it; after all it is an airplane and I love all airplanes. Flew the others too and loved them for all their individual nuances. How boring would it be if they were all the same? Nothing new to look forward to.

We don't know the incident W/V
 

Hi Chaps,

Forgive my intrusion into your fascinating :rolleyes: MD11/A340 argument, but just want to point out that the moderate winds quoted in Green Guard's #25 are not for the probable day of the incident, so they are irrelevant.

When this Thread was started on the evening of the 14th, I dug out the strongest winds for the 13th and 14th, on the assumption that the hard landing had happened in the previous 36 hours. [I didn't have access to anything older.] I then posted them immediately (post #2).

As you can see from JuniorMan's #4, the incident seems to have taken place on or before Mar 11th.

Sorry not to be more helpful.

@jettison valve:

What I said was that I found the A346 the EASIEST to land out of all the busses I have been on, not just easy to land. It surely requires it's own technique to do it right, and my impression is purely subjective.

But one still feels, if a landing was hard or soft, despit of the length of it. It's called experience, and after having spent years on whatever you fly, you can judge it. You also get the Flight Attendants bitching at you on the way to the hotel.

Like I said before, I don't believe there is any design flaw at all responsible for hard landings on an A346. What might be an issue is doing tight turns on the ground, without the main gear assisting like on a 747, but that is a different story...

And the most difficult plane to land for me is tha CRJ200, light like a leaf being played by the autumn winds, negative pitch because of no slats and being flown way too fast... a challenge every time...

Nic

Admiral346,
Although your name is quite impressive ;), I nevertheless may object.
It has been clearly stated by Airbus that they see a disconnect between the pilots´ sensations and what the airframe / landing gear has to sustain.

This falls in line with line maintenance observations: The flight crew walks off the airplane after a "smooth" landing (from their point of view!); however, FODA has come along a few days or weeks later citing a hard landing. Plus, we know for a fact that (from a technical point of view justified) report 15s have "disappeared" from the cockpit; and DFDR data have indicated a hard landing iaw the AMM in the past, while the flight crew insists it´s been a "normal" landing.
The length of the fuselage certainly is a factor, as well as the rocking bogie concept that may mask some of the loads from the pilots´ "sensors".

So again: AI is worried about A346 hard landings, and I understand their concerns.

Tight turning radii and the 300M stell mess doesn´t help boosting my confidence in this landing gear. :(

Cheers,
J.V.

I´m sorry if I hurt the feelings of the bus lovers.

But this is what I feel and see.

Chris Scott, I appreciate your coments. You were right on the bullseye, my beloved B757 was pashed out, and I started as B727 driver, so you may imagine what are my throughts about the bus.

Also, I´m a A320 TRI against my will, I resigned since my appointment, but in this part of the world things works this way, and I have not other choice than continue or go to the unemployment office.

I recognize that some of the bus lovers have a lot of knowledge and tech info to defend the plane, but other have nothing, because they havent flown anything than the C172 and the A320. If you have tasted planes like the B727 and B757, you would know what I´m talking about.

I´m not talking ****, some of you feel my points of view like hits, because you only see the pros of your aircraft, without even want to look at the cons until is to late.

The Airbus is not the worlds worst aircraft, but is far from being one of the best. We, pilots, always want to feel like as we drive the best aircraft in the market. Now is the first time I´m not feeling in this way. I feel that I am a Ford Fiesta driver. May be, this is happening to me because I come from the 727 and I fly a lot without the AP.
I´m trying, but I´m not finding the point to the bus. My beloved 757 and 727 were real sports cars.

I´m sorry, but I become a pilot because I liked to fly, not managing the path of an aircraft.:confused:

Dont blame on me.

Admiral346,

Forget what the book says about going to flight idle in the CRJ200 at 50 ft... Just prior to the 100 ft call, slam the thrust levers to flight idle, trim in the flare and it lands like a dream! However, I doubt you will leave the A340 for the CRJ...

Strongresolve

You are entitled to your opinion however, it is a great worry that you are a TRI on an aircraft that you obviously know very little about and from your comments have no wish to learn. How can you teach on the aircraft when you know so very little about it. Before joining my present company I flew the B757 and 767 and they were very nice aircraft. In my present company I fly the A330/340-300 and 340-600 as a TRI/E so I feel qualified to comment. I rarely comment on PPRUNE now as some of the comments and threads are sadly lacking in Professional Pilot comment.

Amazing statement from a TRI. Heard of the little red button on the side-stick and the A/THR disconnect buttons. I could then go on to explain in great detail how to recover the various situations quickly however, once the A/P and A/THR are out YOU put the aircraft where YOU want it and re-engage modes.:ugh:

Back to topic for all the "Airbus Bashers" it is not the aircraft that has a problem more a lack of understanding or dare I say it training / ability due lack of training on the handling pilot. What you cannot do in the final 2-300 feet is input large corrections in pitch / ROD as you will set yourself up for a hard landing. Remember the auto-trim? It stops at 100' so if you have set up this high ROD you will have insufficient pitch authority to reduce the ROD without trimming the tail-plane - not a good idea in the flare. Remember the Iberia A346 "crash" landing in Quito, high ROD set up (plus high altitude) in final stages to go for the touchdown point. As there is the problem you say, well try doing it in a 747 and you might find you have the same results - these are BIG aircraft and have inertia!! Comparing the A346 to a A320 / B757 or B727 is apples and oranges. :rolleyes:

One of the major problems seems to be that some pilots actually believe that the "Airbus" will save them no matter how bad a pilot they are - wrong. It is an AIRCRAFT and you still have to fly the aircraft. Normally through the A/P but if the automatics are not doing what you want or expect disconnect and FLY the aircraft. Goes for a Boeing as well, I first heard "whats it doing now" on a Boeing flight deck!!!

Does anybody know what really happened to the LH A346 in IAH and when?
Also, LH has just had a really bad landing in HAM (A320) damaging the winglet. Shouldn't there be a thorough discussion of limiting operations in strong winds. That may not apply to the Houston case, but certainly does to HAM and many other incidents...

Some of the airlines I deal with have the automatic cockpit print out of the report 15, as well as an alert/print out (varies company to company) in their Maintenance control office (or whatever its called at that airline) that way if the report in the cockpit is not produced (printer failure etc) then it is still generated and maintenance are alerted. Don't forget that the reports are designed to be generated at below the max limits. The landing maybe have felt OK to the crew, but by looking at the report we can tell if the limits have been exceeded, ie depending on the roll angle etc. More often than not if the Maint control are on the ball, the report can be assessed before the aircraft arrives at the gate even, and this info passed to maintenance at the aircraft. I believe Airbus change some f/ctrl software/response etc to deal with the large number of hard landings. I am not anti airbus at all, but it is the -600 that I have done more heavy landing inspections on since they were introduced than I have on any other type in my 38 year career. This may be because it has the best recording/reporting system....?

Strongresolve thanks for sharing your opinion and experience about flying the Airbus.
As you will have discovered by now, open criticism of an aircraft brand, whichever it is, will be met by strong reactions of its supporters. I once had a go as well and let you be judge, just have a look under http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=300959

What about the reasons one may ask?
First, and it is of great pity to the community of real professional pilots, these Flight Deck Forums are infected by a majority of simmers, spotters, armchair pilots, wannabe to never be, PPLs and other aviation bugs. Unfounded, "make the post meter rise", ridiculous, unqualified posters use my time, your time and the moderator's time.
Second, as is more the case in this thread, what could be an open and honest communication is lost against aggressiveness of the superior type. Some answers posted here are by people that do know nothing else but the Bus. Did the direct entry CTC or whatever other school, fly the Bus as direct entry pilot from another airline such as SN or else. Xthousand hours Bus flying, never flew another craft but the C150 and Seneca, how can one analyze the pro and con of the Bus if you don't know else :ugh:
Third, by reading the posts of a few of the Airbus supporters here makes me suspect them to be EADS employees :p


live 2 fly 2 live