flying dog Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 About these "Scarebusses" Though high in salt it was a semi-interesting article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farri Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 Scarebusses Didn`t see,what`s it about,might help. Cheers, Frank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying dog Posted October 18, 2009 Author Share Posted October 18, 2009 Oh how more and more pilots are saying "If it isn't Beoing, I ain't going" to Airbus. Especially after that QF thing off WA and then the Air France crash in the ocean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spin Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 Scarebusses Didn`t see,what`s it about,might help. Cheers, Frank. You didn't miss much, standard media beat up, long on drama and short on facts.:baldy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkSarcasm Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 It was basically 'the computers are going to kill you' - they compared it to HAL from 2001: A Space Odyessy... i_dunno Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokey Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 Very stronly implied that the Air France loss was attibutable to the same problem QF72(?) suffered from, just held off stating it as a fact, maybe they're scared that Airbus is too big to buy off in a libel case. My understanding is that we don't actually know what happened to the Air France. Nor do they mention that half the QANTAS fleet already has upgraded software to handle the problem and the rest will be in the next couple of weeks. There was also a comment about procedures being changed to handle the problem in the original software, but this was naturally glossed over. Plane Crazy Down Under will probably have something to say about it in their next podcast. Could make interesting listening. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 My preference is always a four engined Boeing ....a preference I developed during the 70s and 80s with many trips across the pacific, and other oceans. Did fly a 767 ER non-stop SF to Cairns once, and it was a many-beer trip ! I don't care how good those engines are...loose one and your down to one...in a big aeroplane over the angry ocean...at night !!. Personally I lost interest in Airbuses after reading the 'Gimli Glider' 767 incident where it was revealed the computers won't even let you slip the damn things. Computers are great in aeroplanes when they are working, but then you need a positive pilot controlled backup flight system, and they all should have one, when you are dealing with hundreds of peoples lives. Intercontental air transport should be the safest form of air travel, but a naked stewardess with two full bottles of VSOP Conac wouldn't get me through a 330 door !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest basscheffers Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Computers are great in aeroplanes when they are working, but then you need a positive pilot controlled backup flight system, and they all should have one, when you are dealing with hundreds of peoples lives. Well, get ready for the future Maj! 747-800 will be FBW also. Just like 787. 777 already is. Intercontental air transport should be the safest form of air travel, but a naked stewardess with two full bottles of VSOP Conac wouldn't get me through a 330 door !!! That is just a completely irrational fear; two engines ETOPS nor FBW have any higher accident rate than 4 engines or direct hydraulics.Yes, there have been some notable computer failures leading to crashes, but nobody takes special notice when a Boeing goes down and asks: "could that accident have been avoided by computers?" Or near-accidents where a computer saved the day? For example; would it have been as easy for "Sully" to ditch at just the right attitude and airspeed without the very precise computer helping him out? In the case of AA965, would the terrain warning followed by full power by the crew also have caused the retraction of the speed brakes by the computer had it been an Airbus? As they say: lies, damn lies and statistics. I'll get in an Airbus any day, in preference over a Boeing, simply because they are more comfortable (quieter) and they are every bit as safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest basscheffers Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Personally I lost interest in Airbuses after reading the 'Gimli Glider' 767 incident where it was revealed the computers won't even let you slip the damn things. Incorrect assumption, Maj! From the universal source of all knowledge: (Direct Law) is entered if there is failure of three inertial reference units or the primary flight computers, faults in two elevators, flame out in two engines (on a two engine aircraft) or when the captain's primary flight computer is inoperable. Direct control is just that, so a Scarebus will sideslip when it runs out of fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying dog Posted October 19, 2009 Author Share Posted October 19, 2009 Quote: Personally I lost interest in Airbuses after reading the 'Gimli Glider' 767 incident where it was revealed the computers won't even let you slip the damn things. End quote: Errr, sorry, that doesn't make sence to me. Why? Ok, I shall say I was (for a long time confusing Gimli glider with another error. One was the airbus over the ocean and the other was another plane flying over yank land and ran out of fuel and landed on an abandondedddeddeed runway which was being used for drag racing. The second one the pilot DID slide slip onto the runway as he was also a glider pilot and they use slide slips to help land. That was a boeing. The other one was an airbus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultralights Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 one of my students a few months ago, who is a 767/DC10/MD11 pilot for American airlines, told me he was being "upgraded" to an Airbus A330, we was not happy about this, i asked him why, his reply was simple and sums up the airbus situation perfectly.. The airbus doesnt have an OFF switch. in a Boeing or MD product, you can turn everything off, and still fly the aircraft the old fashioned way, with good old fashioned cables and pulleys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest basscheffers Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 The Airbus over the ocean was Air Transat Flight 236 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Lucky escape than one. That was due to a fuel leak - and the subsequent gross miss-management of of the situation. Nothing removing FBW or the addition of another two engines would have fixed. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 You can knock yourselfs' out on Scairbuses. I like to be comfortable and relaxed when I fly, so I'll stick to Boeings if you don't mind. Only time will tell if my attitude is correct or not. That 777 did at least make it to Heathrow, the 330 out over the Atlantic didn't............................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest basscheffers Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 One had fuel ice, the other ran out of fuel. Can't compare those incidents; they have nothing in common! Even Boeings don't fly without fuel. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Run out of fuel ?...he was headed across the atlantic for Chis sake !! The one that run out of fuel was the 'Gimli glider', and he run out because the ground refuller didn't put it in in the first place. He simply wouldn't have done what he did on that strip, in an Airbus, and I believe it was the Captain that said so..................................................................:confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest basscheffers Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Which "330 out over the Atlantic" are you talking about? We were talking gliders. In this case Air Transat Flight 236. Do you mean AF440? In that case, it's not exactly like a Boeing has never mysteriously broken into pieces/exploded out over the ocean due to design issues! TWA Flight 800 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 No, I am talking about the last AirFrance Airbus 330 that was around the equator at night and lost all the computers, which put it in the drink....it wasn't that old either, 200 + dead. The other two I was referring to was the 'Gimli Glider' an Air Canada 767, and the Boeing 777 at Heathrow, both of which got down without killing anybody by the way........................................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spin Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Not too many cables and pulleys on a 747, more like multiple hydraulic systems! It's not unusual for Boeing/MD pilots to be anti Airbus before converting, but most of my friends who have done the 737 or 747 switch to the Tupperware aeroplane have come to appreciate the qualities of the latter, in fact they reckon that in today's traffic/noise environment the Airbus is easier to operate and allows them to maintain better situational awareness instead of monitoring the aircraft systems so closely. The sole exception to this was at the end of his career and determined not to like the 'Bus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest basscheffers Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 The cause of the Air France 447 accident is pure speculation. This type has been in production since 1992 and this was the very first crash of an operational aircraft. I'd call that a good safety record. It also glides just as well as a 767 if it runs out of fuel. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236 ) You can't base any conclusion on just a handful of cases. If you were to do that, you would conclude that you can ditch an Airbus, but not a Boeing as with ET961 (a B767) most people were killed while everyone on the A320 that went into the hudson lived. That would be a stupid conclusion. Besides, even if Airbus was several times as likely to kill you, then several times stuff all chance is still stuff all chance. The numbers are too low and too close. You are way more likely to kill yourself flying an ultralight anyway. And I am sure that on your way down you'll be thinking how lucky you are that it was due to a jammed elevator instead of a computer failure! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Hey Basscheffers...You seem to know a bit about these aircraft...is it true that the Airbus computers are not able to be fully over ridden? I believe the Virgin Embraers are FBW...but again like the Boeings the system is able to be switched off physically... Interestingly today at work I actually heard half a dozen people claim they were nervous flying because they had been watching television about airline crashes last night...I was able to assure them that VirginBlues E-Jets and Boeing are very safe.... It seemed very unusual to have so many people comment on an air crash programme...seems that the Sunday night show really sucked them in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerin Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 You are way more likely to kill yourself flying an ultralight anyway. And I am sure that on your way down you'll be thinking how lucky you are that it was due to a jammed elevator instead of a computer failure! Touché bass... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest basscheffers Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 I've done a bit of reading and watching TV over the years. :) As far as I know, Airbusses can not be manually put into direct law, Boeings can. However, don't kid yourself into thinking this is even remotely close to "switched off physically". The controls still linked to a computer only by electrical connection and a computer still needs to tell the control surfaces how to move. It's just that the computer allows full deflection at any time, not overriding the pilot. It also doesn't take a FBW computer to screw things up. There are plenty of auto-throttle incidents. Just last year, a Turkish Airlines 737 crashed on approach to Amsterdam. The cause was that the auto throttle (for auto land) was linked to only one of the radio altimeters and that altimeter was indicating 2000ft too low. The plane flared and stalled 2000ft up! Would this accident have happened on a fully integrated system where all flight computers have access to all data from all sensors, working out which ones can be trusted and which ones can't? I doubt it! So yeah, that was a Boeing killing a bunch of people because its COMPUTER was unable to tell a sensor was faulty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest drizzt1978 Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Safety Both aircraft manufacturers have good safety records on their late-model aircraft. By convention, both companies tend to avoid safety comparisons when selling their aircraft to airlines. Boeing aircraft introduced since the 1990s had several fatal accidents; Airbus aircraft of similar vintage have recorded only one fatal accident.[31] Most aircraft dominating the companies' aircraft sales, such as the Boeing 737-NG and Airbus A320 families (as well as both companies' wide-body offerings) have good safety records as well. Older model aircraft such as the Boeing 727, Boeing 737 Original, Boeing 747, Boeing 757, Airbus A300 and Airbus A310, which were respectively first flown during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, have had higher rates of fatal accidents.[32] Complements Wikipedia: Deal with the fact only a Jabiru is a safer option to cross the atlantic :vis: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Isn't the Boeing 777 flown by wire like the Airbuses and not by hydraulics so how can you turn that off and fly manually Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnm Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 safety ............................but a naked stewardess with two full bottles of VSOP Conac wouldn't get me through a 330 door !!! What about 1/2 bottle VSOP of Conac and 2 naked stewardesses ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now