36 hurt in Qantas mid-air incident

This is what you get for dealing with Airbus and touting them as being so "Revolutionary" in regards to Commercial Aviation. They have well known wiring flaws within their Aircraft, and the Airbus A380 is an Airplane I was advised not to step one foot on. The last Qantas "Explosion" incident was on a Boeing, but ever since I learned more about the modern Airbus designs, the more I distrust them.

reply to post by TheAgentNineteen

---

May I ask why?

Airbus has never had ANY wiring flaws on ANY aircraft. None of their designs are ANY much different than other aircraft. Explain.

[edit on 10/10/2008 by C0bzz]

reply to post by TheAgentNineteen

---

Does your brain hear what your mouth is saying?
Explain that to me in simple terms, I must be too dumb to understand what you're talking about.

Initial reports are that it was a bad INS unit giving erronious altitude information to a primary flight computer. It was actually two drops, the first was 600 feet, the second 400 feet.


www.usatoday.com...

Qantas is saying that it was a manufacturing error.

You probably should have waited for the facts before you jumped in to kill the thread, Zaphod58.

Clear air turbulence it definitely WASN'T.

The world's Airbus operators have been warned about this incident and the potential problems with the air data recorder.

and what of the boeing trip 7 fuel pumps and there issues? the BA flight wasn`t thr first to have problems

all aircraft can and do experience problems at times

reply to post by Zaphod58

---

I completely agree with zaphod here. Qantas is still (IMO) the best airliner I've ever flown. I admittedly have only flown with them twice (to and from AUS), but both were 16+ hour flights. We experienced some CAT on the way there, and I saw from their data we dropped well over 500 feet. It was intense.. It happened probably 3 times over a couple hour period.

Thankfully, no one was thrown around much, as everyone seemed to be sleeping and woken up by the instance. There was a loud gasp and everyone was back to sleep in 10 minutes.

reply to post by tezzajw

---

Yeah you're right. I was just trying to kill the thread. My EXPERIENCE doesn't have anything to do with it. The fact that 99% of the time it IS CAT had NOTHING to do with it. The fact that this is the first time a computer has caused this had NOTHING to do with it. Sorry for trying to bring my knowledge into this.

reply to post by Zaphod58

---

No problem, Zaphod. I'm sure with all of your experience that you'll get it right next time.

Thanks for your contribution.

Gee tezza, since you know so much, why don't you tell me just how many times this particular flight computer has caused this type of accident. And then why don't you tell me how many times clear air turbulence has caused this EXACT SAME TYPE of accident in the last 10 years.

Let me save you the trouble of dodging this one. Counting this accident, this has happend ONE TIME with this particular flight computer. Without even looking up the accidents, I can think of 6 clear air turbulence related accidents, most of them out over the Pacific, or heading through the South Pacific.

Airbus themselves have said that while they warned operators as to how to respond to this type of incident if it happens again, they don't expect to see more of this type. And they aren't expecting to see any groundings due to a UNIQUE accident.

[edit on 10/15/2008 by Zaphod58]

I don't know anything about aviation, Zaphod. That's why I didn't jump to any conclusions (unlike you) about what it was.

I asked if it could have been turbulence in my OP, as I didn't know what could have caused this. I was prepared to wait for the facts to surface.

Also, I was heavily distracted while watching the TV news last night. There was a segment about this report. It was mentioned that this defect may also have happened earlier on a Malaysian Airlines plane, also forcing it to land. I have no details, as I only had half an ear trying to listen to the segment.

And if you had asked ANYONE that knows aviation, that didn't have access to the report or the plane they would have said clear air turbulence, because with the exception of THIS ONE accident to date it HAS been clear air turbulence. And based on the initial reports, I stand by the assumption I made, and I would make it again. I was wrong, I'm big enough to admit it. There have been plenty of cases when I have been right, this wasn't one of them. The initial report of this accident fit a clear air turbulence accident to a T. I'd be willing to put money down that the investigators went into it thinking the same thing until they found a possible computer problem.