How can you say it's not an irrational aeroplane?

Any aeroplane that you might have to engage the autopilot to get you out of trouble is irrational to me.

A recent Airbus fatal runway excursion in South America was caused by the thrust lever system design.

Too many Airbuses are going off doing their own thing.

Motorola;
Well, if you can provide us with your notion of "too many" by citing Airbus accidents that support your claim that the airplane is indeed 'irrational' and doing its own thing in spite of a flight crews' best efforts to deny the airplane its 'will', I will concede your point. I accept that the example of QF72 may qualify but so far that is a once-off. In your argument you need to keep in mind that there are roughly an equal number of counter-examples of other types which have been in accidents and there is the much larger set of counter-examples which includes all types in the multi-millions of transport flights which never made headlines and which instead completed their missions uneventfully.

For your statement to be true, you need to show that Airbus is a distinct outlier in the accident record and then you need to show that the cause of such accident(s) was specific to the Airbus design and that such cause did not occur in any of the counter-example accidents.

I don't think this is possible because the published accident record will not support the point.

If I may, it is this kind of uninformed, off-handed anti-Airbus sentiment that motivates this response, not a "pro-Airbus" bias or stance which claims the Airbus can do no wrong. I have flown both types for years and they both work extremely well. Both Airbus and their design may warrant strong criticism (and I have done so in other venues and while flying them), but here at least, any criticism must be both informed and clearly stated.

Over to you.

PJ2

failure modes have consequences. Too little thrust and you are a glider. Too much thrust and you have to be able to turn it off or use breaking actions. Either way the designer has already anticipated the workload and in an attempt to lessen the workload has developed procedures in concert with the capability of the aircraft systems. If you don't like the system as recommended you can always go back to what you would have done in a legacy B737

PJ2,
My last post was not a critic of the airplane, not this time at least ;) but merely a neutral comment.
When time permits, it could be interesting to hear more about your false warnings experience on the 330 ... ?


On the Fragant Harbour side, it seems we're not at the end of the story yet ...............

CONF iture, I hasten to add, nor did I see it that way - my response was just a way of 'carrying on the dialogue', as it were. ;-)

Believe me, there is much to criticize in the Airbus design but no other manufacturer gets off lightly either, although I do like Boeing's bread-and-butterness...Wonder what the B787 will be like in this regard?

Will pm the rest. Will also take a look at Fragrant Harbour, thank you. - PJ2

does it make sense to do some sort of engine response functional check during the descent, say prior to 10,000' agl?

at least if the engine didn't respond, you would have a few more seconds to look for a place to land.

pth...

re your comments about adding thrust at some point during descent -- didn't that become SOP in certain situations for Trent powered 777s after BA038? Or am I imagining again...?
Anybody?

Super job by the flight crew.
Cathay have corrected their previous statement and said that the right Rolls Royce trent 700 was at idle during the entire approach and the left one was stuck at 70%.Also at no point were both engines shut down during flight.

From some posts that I have read lets not make this into another Airbus bashing forum :ugh:

lomopaseo
 

Will the bus let you?

Sounds as though the guys at Airbus need to give Toyota a quick call.

cx 330
 

Exactly if they had engine trouble just after TOC, what the hell were they doing carrying on to Hkg.

ANOTHER . . Failure of an AIRBUS A 330
 

Airbus’s beleaguered A330 - has had yet another, failure !!
This time in Hong Kong. Thanks to the skills of the two Aussie Boys upfront, they got this, heap of . . "airplane", down safely.

The Air France A330 that crashed into the South Atlantic has not been located.
The tragic crashes, incidents and shortcomings of this lemon just keep happening.
- FlyBoy737800

@ChrisVJ
 

Flyboy737800
 

I see the TROLL is back.:ugh::ugh:

Hmm! Not shutting down the troubled engine to land at 230 knts for an EVAC. Am I missing something here? :confused:

Try reading the press release from Cathay. There is a link on post #41.

Thanks. Yes, I read it but am still puzzled. Wouldnt a planned single engine approach be a better option. Maybe other factors were in play here. :confused:

Fatfish

One engine was stuck at sub-idle power from TOD and the other was stuck at 70% power. What would be the point of shutting any engine down? You shut the one down at 70% and you are ditching. You shut the other down and you are depriving yourself of a source of bleed, hydraulic and electrical power. You are only complicating things when you eliminate a source of these services. Think spoilers, flap speed, gear speed etc.

Yeah right, go to the Fragrant Harbour page and listen to all the CX morons rave on about how superior they are to all the other pilots in the world and that any other airline would have crashed in the same scenario.

Whatsit Doingnow

I think you will find CX pilots don’t think that at all and the two gentlemen that landed our A330 the other day would be embarrassed by those comments.