Boeing returns to drawing board on portion of 787 wing fix , page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 19-10-2009 @ 03:28 AM by Harlequin
reply to post by ecoparity


actually the thread is about another delay with the 787 due to the fix with the stringers not working out as intended


the A350 hasn`t been built yet - and i can pretty much guarentee there will be delays also , recent experience with the A380 shows just that.


as for your comments about the A310

the aircraft was introduced in 1982 - the russian crash was in 1994 - thats 12 years , which is not a new aircraft.

it was the pilots 15 year old son which disconnected the auto pilot - and whilst there was no audible warning there was a visual warning which the pilot `failed to notice`

and that is pilot error - a warning the aircraft auto pilot had disconnected which the pilot(s) failed to see.



reply posted on 19-10-2009 @ 10:57 AM by Lonestar24
Originally posted by ecoparity
...My point was that I disagree with your claim that the majority of Airbus incidents have been due to "pilot error", I read over the incident reports listed and it seems most of them were due to new systems which did not behave as experienced pilots expected them to. (Such as auto pilot disengaging if the controls are moved).


Even if that is true, it is still a human error. When there is a change in technology, the user is supposed to learn to know the differences. This applies to each and every generation change in each possible technical product, from a pocket calculator to an airplane. And especially to professionals who are responsible for many passengers.

And some of the most remarkable crashes resulting from "mis-use" of newer technology did happen precisely because of those "experienced pilots" you name - it is a well understood psychological condition where too much confidence in their own abilities and experience coupled with boring routine will blind those pilots to correctly assess critical events.

I didn't realize the point of the thread was only to bash Boeing and that any other discussion of the two companies (comparisons which were brought in by other posters, not me) was off topic. I'll leave you to it, then.


The thread title might have been a hint. Your theory has its place, in the Boeing vs. Airbus thread that you quoted yourself. And by the way, it was you who derailed the thread, in the 4th post. You see, the AvsB debate is nothing new and has been revamped over and over by the regulars in this part of the forum; it has led to an informal cease fire in which new arguments pro or contra have to be supplied by established facts.

One of these facts is that it is impossible to quantify which of the two planemakers makes the safer planes. You cannot quantify the crashworthiness, you cannot quantify the quality of every single component in every single plane built, and you can absolutely never quantify the margin of error introduced by the human factor, be they pilots, mechanics, ATCs, passengers. Add to that the chaotic nature of weather. OTOH you also cannot quantify how many times a catastrophe has been averted because a failure in one of these aspects has been compensated for by the others.

The logical result has to be give both A and B the benefit of the doubt.

Yet every now and then a B-man stumbles into a thread and claims they think Airbus is "unsafer, as a general feeling". Expect people to be dumbfounded.


reply posted on 19-10-2009 @ 07:14 PM by ecoparity
reply to post by Lonestar24


Yes and it was demanded I back up my opinion with hard facts, (this being ATS and all. blah. blah) so I did and rather than say, OK I guess you weren't just pulling stuff out of your ass I get even more hostility. I even tried to assuage the Airbus fans a little bit.

I'm finding that entire set of behavior all too common on ATS. There's always someone in a discussion who demands "proof" and even when they're given that proof it never, ever results in an apology or reduction in hostilities, instead the people who engage in that routine always seem to find something else to bitch about.

I don't have an issue agreeing to disagree. Where you might blame the pilots I would blame the mfr or the airline for not training them properly and for making a drastic change to flight systems which they might find counterintuitive. I'd be willing to bet the investigating agency recommendations on the case in question include making sure training on that aircraft focuses more on the issue.

I have my own reasons for feeling Airbus shares some fault there. That's my opinion which I'm every bit as entitled to as you and the other posters are. And for the record, I'd hardly call my initial post "derailing the thread". Comparisons between Airbus and Boeing were already being discussed.

Rather than playing mod why don't both of you use the alert function and let the real mods decide who is violating the T&C. Last I checked none of the people complaining are mods or ATS owners.


reply posted on 20-10-2009 @ 07:13 AM by RichardPrice
Originally posted by ecoparity

On the other hand his top rated planes for safety include two Airbus models, slightly more Boeing and a commuter jet. The Airbus A340 had a perfect record going up until two planes in a row went down in short order this past year.


I would be interested in which two A340s you think 'went down in short order'.

To my knowledge, only five A340 hulls have been lost, including one that was lost in a fire, one that were destroyed on the ground by Tamil Tigers, one destroyed by a runway overrun at Toronto, one destroyed by a runway overrun in Ecuador and one destroyed during testing at Airbus.

None of which had anything to do with the airframe itself.


I did find it interesting that the Airbus fly by wire only allows pilot over ride as long as the plane is within the "operating envelope".


This has been covered time and again - the FBW system Airbus operates is easy to override or ignore. How do you think the Toronto A340 crash happened?


I once spent a summer flying on a certain Phoenix based carrier twice per week on nothing but Airbus jets and I have to say, the quality was not impressive. A value carrier might have more maintenance issues than most but almost every flight was delayed for mechanical problems and the interior of the planes was trashed. For all that the airline had a perfect safety record at that time though so once again - perception has an effect.


The manufacturer has nothing to do with the interior, thats the airlines pervue, as is the maintenance of the aircraft.

Your quality comment is overshadowed by the fact that the worlds top airlines continue to buy Airbus aircraft - they would hardly do that if the quality and dispatch rate was poor.

[edit on 20/10/2009 by RichardPrice]


reply posted on 20-10-2009 @ 10:39 AM by ecoparity
reply to post by RichardPrice


Amazing how much inaccurate info there is on aviation websites about Airbus planes... The last two to go down weren't even the same model apparently and AFIAK aren't even in the same airframe family.

I was more concerned about the constant delays from repairs being made at the gate. They did have free nuts and sodas in first class though.

Airbus makes some sweet deals, as for the airlines IMO they're "penny wise and pound foolish".



reply posted on 20-10-2009 @ 11:06 AM by RichardPrice
Originally posted by ecoparity
reply to post by RichardPrice


Amazing how much inaccurate info there is on aviation websites about Airbus planes... The last two to go down weren't even the same model apparently and AFIAK aren't even in the same airframe family.


I'm sorry, but you aren't making any sense, I have no idea what you are saying with this.

Your previous post directly referenced the A340s safety record.


Airbus makes some sweet deals, as for the airlines IMO they're "penny wise and pound foolish".


Ahh back to the same old rubbish about Airbus simply being cheaper.

Go back to your cave, troll.


reply posted on 20-10-2009 @ 05:11 PM by ecoparity
reply to post by RichardPrice


So anyone who disagrees with you is a troll then? When you're a bit older and wiser you'll be able to accept the fact that people don't always see eye to eye on things. Its OK, the World will continue to spin and life will go on.

A few posts back Allowances had to be made for all the "developing countries" who use Airbus products. I'm sure that's because they all bought the most expensive airplanes they could get. That's reality for all the airlines, however. As long as the equipment meets the requirements they will buy the best deal, if that means discounting then all mfrs will do so.

Sometimes an aircraft is cheaper on the front end yet more expensive on the back end. The variables are numerous - who, where, how many, which model, etc.

If it makes you feel any better Boeing would move lock, stock and barrel to China in a heartbeat and probably will the minute can do so without paying for it in American backlash. The day they do so my perception of the safety and quality of Boeing planes will suffer massively. Then again an industry basing itself entirely on being the cheapest it can possibly be is doomed to failure, IMO.

Alternative propulsion, alternative flight systems, perhaps even a return to the days of "posh service" are all worthy areas to explore.

I was quite clear in stating that a lot of the "safety issues" with Airbus are perception based. Maybe it's not fair but there are a great many people among the "uninformed public" who think Airbus planes are unsafe. I think it has more to do with the relative youth of the company than anything else. If it makes you feel better to deny those perceptions exist then please do so. Only the passing of time and Airbus remaining in business will change that.


reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 04:56 AM by RichardPrice
Originally posted by ecoparity
reply to post by RichardPrice


So anyone who disagrees with you is a troll then? When you're a bit older and wiser you'll be able to accept the fact that people don't always see eye to eye on things. Its OK, the World will continue to spin and life will go on.


No, but you have trotted out all the standard trolling lines:

1. The airlines are stupid and just want a quick saving, and thats why they buy Airbus.

2. The Airbus FBW 'issue'.

3. Crashes, specifically asserting that Airbus will have the first.

4. Airbus quality and reliability.

5. Trying to turn a 787 thread into one about bashing Airbus (congratulations there).

6. 'Horrendous loss of life' with regard to, I assume, the A380 (despite the fact that 747s have gone down, and will continue to go down without this argument being applied).

... among others.

Thats why I class you as a troll, not because you have a differing opinion, but because you are using the standard anti-Airbus ones.


reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 03:03 PM by weedwhacker
reply to post by ecoparity


Oy, vey!

A few posts back Allowances had to be made for all the "developing countries" who use Airbus products. I'm sure that's because they all bought the most expensive airplanes they could get.


This is such a prime example of poor reading and comprehansion...

I suppose I am to blame, because I floated the idea of "developing countries" and Airbus 'crashes'...BUT, what I though should have been implicit in that was...these "developing countries" buy the Airbuses SECOND- or THIRD-HAND....and I was specifically responding to the post WAY back that brought up the A-310...which is PREDOMINATELY flown by 3rd-world operators....the LAST USA carrier to ever have them was PanAm....and think about how long ago that was....
____________________________________________________________

Flag Airline Orders Delivered Still in operation*
Russia  Aeroflot 5 5
Côte d'Ivoire  Air Afrique 4 4
Algeria  Air Algérie 2 2 2*
Myanmar  Air Bagan 2
India  Air Deccan Cargo 3
France  Air France 11 11
India  Air India 8 8 11*
Papua New Guinea  Air Niugini 2 2
Canada  Air Transat 14
Afghanistan  Ariana Afghan Airlines 2
Austria  Austrian Airlines 4 4
Switzerland  Balair 4 4
Bangladesh  Biman Bangladesh Airlines 2 2 2*
United Kingdom  British Caledonian 2 2
China  China Eastern Airlines 5 5
Germany  Condor Airlines 5 5
Cyprus  Cyprus Airways 4 4
Northern Cyprus  Cyprus Turkish Airlines 1
Czech Republic  Czech Airlines 2 2 2*
United States  Delta Air Lines 9 9
Ecuador  Ecuatoriana 2 2
United Arab Emirates  Emirates Airline 8 8
United States  FedEx Express 66
Germany  Hapag-Lloyd Flug 7 7
Portugal  Hifly 2
German Democratic Republic  Interflug 3 3
United States  ILFC 7 7
Iran  Iran Air 8
Jordan  Jordan Aviation 2
Kenya  Kenya Airways 2 2
Netherlands  KLM 10 10
Kuwait  Kuwait Airways 11 11 3*
Kyrgyzstan  Kyrgyz Trans Avia 3
Germany  Lufthansa 20 20
Iran  Mahan Air 4
Netherlands  Martinair 2 2
Egypt  Midwest Airlines 1
Mongolia  MIAT Mongolian Airlines 1
Nigeria  Nigeria Airways 4 4
Colombia  Oasis Group 2 2
United Arab Emirates  Overseas Cargo FZE 3
Pakistan  Pakistan International Airlines 6 6 12*
United States  Pan Am 18 18
Jordan  Royal Jordanian Airlines 6 6 5*
Russia  S7 Airlines 7
Belgium  Sabena 3 3
Turkey  Saga Airlines 2
Portugal  SATA International 4
Singapore  Singapore Airlines 23 23
Somalia  Somali Airlines 1 1
Sudan  Sudan Airways 1
Switzerland  Swissair 9 9
Portugal  TAP Portugal 5 5
Romania  TAROM 2 2 2*
Thailand  Thai Airways 2 2
Belgium  Trans European Airways 1 1
Turkey  Turkish Airlines 14 14 4*
Turkey  ULS Airlines Cargo 3
Uzbekistan  Uzbekistan Airways 1 1 3*
Canada  Wardair 12 12
Portugal  White Airways 3
Yemen  Yemenia 2 2 3*



[edit on 21 October 2009 by weedwhacker]


reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 10:19 PM by ecoparity
reply to post by weedwhacker


I've tried to be diplomatic and really did not want to get into the whole Airbus vs. Boeing thing. Other participants in the thread chose to challenge my opinion as if it was made as a statement of fact.

Here's a clue since my "reading comprehension" is so much poorer than those who prefer Airbus -

If I say, "I'd be willing to bet the A380 will suffer a crash before the 787" it is not the same thing as saying "The A380 will most certainly suffer a crash before the 787".

One is a statement of personal opinion, the other an assertion of an unsupported fact.

I don't know why the Airbus fans are so sensitive if there's no negative perception (correct or not) about the quality of their aircraft.

Sorry, I disagree completely with the excuses given why the crash per million flights rate of Airbus planes is so much higher than the Boeing planes and beyond my own personal opinion and bias really don't give a damn.

Boeing has been around for a very long time and there are huge numbers of very old models in use around the World, including in developing countries.

I also don't see why pilot error would be more "excusable" on Airbus planes rather than Boeing but it seems the explanation for the disparity in crashes per million flights is that "lower quality pilots in lower quality countries are flying them".

It sounds like complete and total bull crap to me but whatever works for you I suppose. IMO, the geographic distribution of both products is roughly equal especially given the CPM stats for the Boeing planes include models going back into the 1950s, models acquired from mergers / buyouts and use in those same "less developed" countries back when they were even less "developed".

I realize its not fair but if a couple of 800 passenger plus versions of the A380 are lost in a short time span the modern business model of lowest costs possible may very well find itself under public and media scrutiny in a bad way. (Now notice I've said "may", once again my personal opinion which you can feel free to agree or disagree with).

I really wasn't aware there was such a "Napoleon complex" at play among the Airbus community. Attacking people for having a different opinion is usually reserved for politics, in an airplane discussion I just find it horribly rude and a bit immature.

I certainly disagree with several people on this thread but I haven't resorted to attacking and insulting any of them. I suspect a couple of people here are employed by or from Airbus, not because of their defense of the company but rather because the arrogance displayed matches well with my perception of the company.


reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 03:22 AM by C0bzz
The statistics for aircraft are garbage as they fail to take into account chance, or any of the other variables that cause crashes. Notice the A300 rate is 0.53, while the A310 rate is 1.47. That doesn't mean the A310 is worse - the only difference between the two aircraft is fuselage lengths. All A310 crashes were pilot error operated by no-name airlines. As far as a brand new Boeing being safer than an Airbus (or vice versa); there is absolutely no evidence suggesting so.

I realize its not fair but if a couple of 800 passenger plus versions of the A380 are lost in a short time span the modern business model of lowest costs possible may very well find itself under public and media scrutiny in a bad way. (Now notice I've said "may", once again my personal opinion which you can feel free to agree or disagree with).


Well given their will be far more Boeing 787 aircraft (over the A380), the change of a crash is significantly higher. None of that stuff is limited to the A380 at all, and applies to all aircraft. As far as either crashing - the 777 hasn't, while the A330 and A340 have but these crashes have had nothing to do with the aircraft.

One is a statement of personal opinion, the other an assertion of an unsupported fact.

It doesn't matter if it's a personal opinion if it's wrong. I can also disagree with it.

I really wasn't aware there was such a "Napoleon complex" at play among the Airbus community.

What is this Airbus community you speak of? It doesn't exist.

Sorry, I disagree completely with the excuses given why the crash per million flights rate of Airbus planes is so much higher than the Boeing planes and beyond my own personal opinion and bias really don't give a damn.

It's higher in one aircraft. What's your point?

[edit on 22/10/2009 by C0bzz]


reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 04:14 AM by ecoparity
reply to post by C0bzz


Statistics are garbage? Hey, you know what? Whatever makes you feel better. If that works for you then

No one is claiming there is any evidence that the 787 will be safer than the A380. I was challenged, quite rudely in fact, to quantify my personal perception and opinion.

I'm not surprised that someone who thinks mathematical facts are "BS" would also think someone's perception is subject to debate. Perceptions are based on individual experiences, history and preferences. They cannot be "right" or "wrong" and cannot be changed by argument.

I'd recommend the posters who believe otherwise spend a few minutes researching basic psychology. The act of trying to debate people's perceptions or demand they defend them is a strong indication of issues w/ interpersonal boundaries and a "control freak" mentality.

It's my opinion that the statistics as managed in the link I provided are fair and do an acceptable job of quantifying the results. The same random, "immeasurable influences" you claim would not impact one set of data any more than they would another.

The passing of time combined with a continued trend of fewer incidents involving Airbus products will improve the publics perception of safety as well as the statistics.

We can agree to disagree, unlike you I don't feel a need to change your perception of either mfr and respect the fact you are entitled to your own feelings, opinions and yes, perceptions.


reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 04:39 AM by ecoparity
Originally posted by Mogget
Yet another thread where a die hard Boeing fan tries to slag off Airbus. When will it end?


I'm not a Boeing "fan" at all. This entire mess started because an "Airbus fan" got his panties twisted in a knot over a personal opinion and demanded it be justified.

I'm just a very frequent flyer, someone who travels the globe, normally flying 3-4 times per week. Like a great many of the airline clients out there I developed a poor perception of Airbus safety due to a seemingly high number of crashes in relatively new planes from a new mfr. An entire summer spent flying on nothing but Airbus planes and experiencing flight line repair delays on almost every single flight pretty much sealed that perception in stone for me.

I made the mistake of wandering into a Boeing slagging thread and apparently became the primary source of entertainment since the delay turned out to be of no consequence.

I'm slightly amused at the range of excuses the non existent Airbus fan community provide but I've tried to politely end the festivities several times. I had no clue there were so many Airbus fans who were so sensitive. Its really quite amazing.

examples:

They can collect fatality statistics on automobiles but airplane safety cannot be measured...

There is no public perception of safety problems with Airbus planes....

My POV on this entire thing is that the Airbus fans have some serious anger issues. If the idea is to change people's perception of the products it might be a good idea to represent it with less anger, hostility and rudeness. (Just a suggestion). Time and less crashes will address the problem just fine.


reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 04:56 AM by ecoparity
reply to post by C0bzz


That has to be one of the most ridiculous and inane attempts at a strawman argument I've ever seen.

In every news article online which covers the loss of an Airbus and mentions the growing concern among the traveling public the comments section reminds me of your posts. There's always some Airbus defender who thinks the best approach to changing people's perceptions is to berate them and tell them how stupid they are.

Its a wonder the tactic hasn't worked.

Automotive fatality rates are collected every year and the results are published as the overall safety ratings according to actual fatal collisions.

They don't try to build in allowances for the vehicle models people like to speed in, or drive drunk in or that teen agers do stupid things in. Despite all these "unrelated" influences they go ahead and collect the statistics.

Why? Because people who do stupid, dangerous things do them no matter what they are driving or flying. The math doesn't lie - if the math says you are more likely to die in "x" car or plane then statistically that's the fact.

If people want to decide which car to drive or plane to fly in based on the stats that is each individuals right to do so. Period.

If I accept your argument that Airbus planes crash because pilots do stupid things in them or less qualified pilots from less developed countries fly them more often then it would seem the smart thing to do would be to avoid the planes people feel compelled to act that way in.

If only it were that simple. The premise is ridiculous, pilot error will happen and the only difference will be if the plane or the training somehow makes this more likely to occur. Airlines will skip making needed repairs or lobby for more time to do them in because they need to save money. Every now and then it bites them in the ass. This happens regardless of which brand of airplane the fix is needed on.

Maybe realizing that is a function of maturity....
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



In Case Of Videos Of Flying People
  Posted 11 days ago with 9 member flags
First flight for \'flapless\' plane - the Evolution of Aviation
  Posted 14 days ago with 4 member flags
F22 mishap or more that meeets the eye?
  Posted 2 days ago with 4 member flags
Boeing X-37 and X-40 - the ultimate history
  Posted 7 days ago with 3 member flags
Its a bird, its a plane, no its a ....
  Posted 15 days ago with 0 member flags