A380 first flight on Wednesday!

[buckdanny]

I read in news that the A380 will be taking it's first flight on Wednesday! Just thought I would share the info

Buck

 

[Steveair]

First A380 Crash Wednesday Afternoon

I read in news that the A380 will be taking it's first flight on Wednesday! Just thought I would share the info

Buck

A little contradicting to be excited about the FRENCH having their money pit fly on Wens. and then having an avatar with an American Eagle and Flag.

PS - On Thursday, the French will be having a sale on guns. It's a great deal; they've never been fired but they were dropped once.

 

[HughBeamont]

A little contradicting to be excited about the FRENCH having their money pit fly on Wens. and then having an avatar with an American Eagle and Flag.

Aren't we an enlightened positive individual this morning.

I, for one, can't wait to see one of these pigs fly into JFK.

 

[SPIM]

It is sad that you have allowed yourself to be sold on cheap american propaganda. The french are one the United States' allies and furthermore economic partners. You should be happy to see the Airbus 380 fly because it means that the world is again attaining equilibrium.

 

[buckdanny]

On Thursday, the French will be having a sale on guns. It's a great deal; they've never been fired but they were dropped once.

Sweet where do I sign up? Last week I got myself one of those tanks with 5 reverse gears!

Ps: to go with your reasoning, if I like to watch an AN-225 does it make me a communist?


Buck

 

[Steveair]

It is sad that you have allowed yourself to be sold on cheap american propaganda. The french are one the United States' allies and furthermore economic partners. You should be happy to see the Airbus 380 fly because it means that the world is again attaining equilibrium.

The French are an ally? That's laughable seeing as 1, they were against liberating Iraq and 2, they don't fight... they get invaded... we liberate them... and that makes them an ally? I think not.

The REALLY hilarious thing was when the French got pissed because the US didn't allow them to participate in the reconstruction of Iraq.

The world in equilibrium? Hardly... the US will dominate. Airbus products are inferior. They can NOT fly with a full cago load and full fuel. They are TERRIBLE on reliability & maintenance. They're service life is much less. The A380, which is able to fly into what, 6 airports in the world, is gonna flop hard.

PS - ANY airplane that has a go-around procedure of sliding your 3 position throttle to full and pulling all the way back on the "stick" and having a computer decide where to put the nose can go to h$ll. We're pilots for god sakes.

I look forward to the day when parts of the A380 are flown to the desert in a FedEx 727.

 

[405]

A380

I look forward to seeing the A380 fly also. I too like to see the big Antonov's.

 

[buckdanny]

The world in equilibrium? Hardly... the US will dominate. Airbus products are inferior. They can NOT fly with a full cago load and full fuel. They are TERRIBLE on reliability & maintenance. They're service life is much less. The A380, which is able to fly into what, 6 airports in the world, is gonna flop hard.

PS - ANY airplane that has a go-around procedure of sliding your 3 position throttle to full and pulling all the way back on the "stick" and having a computer decide where to put the nose can go to h$ll. We're pilots for god sakes.

Please don't hijack the thread unless you have something educated to say. For the reccord hardly any jet can take off with a full payload and full fuel; and that applies to Boeings as well. As far as go around procedures go on a jet, there is a very high workload and the more automations there are, the more the pilot can concentrate on flying the airplane. Keep in mind that a go around is not a hard thing to do and anybody can easily fly one. It is rather when something happens at the same time (such as an uncommended thrust reverser deploy in icing conditions and a 30 knots crosswind) that things start happening fast and the more automations you have, the more time you can dedicate to running checklists and dealing with the emmergency. I guess when you start flying jets you will understand what I mean, after all I was in your shoes 6 months ago and didn't know until I saw it for the first time in the sim...

Buck

 

[Yank McCobb]

The French are an ally? That's laughable seeing as 1, they were against liberating Iraq and 2, they don't fight... they get invaded... we liberate them... and that makes them an ally? I think not.

The REALLY hilarious thing was when the French got pissed because the US didn't allow them to participate in the reconstruction of Iraq.

The world in equilibrium? Hardly... the US will dominate. Airbus products are inferior. They can NOT fly with a full cago load and full fuel. They are TERRIBLE on reliability & maintenance. They're service life is much less. The A380, which is able to fly into what, 6 airports in the world, is gonna flop hard.

PS - ANY airplane that has a go-around procedure of sliding your 3 position throttle to full and pulling all the way back on the "stick" and having a computer decide where to put the nose can go to h$ll. We're pilots for god sakes.

I look forward to the day when parts of the A380 are flown to the desert in a FedEx 727.

You have serious issues. Not satisfied with the size of your co*k, so therefore you have to post this crap about an Airbus? I fly Boeings. Always have. Always will (since I retire soon...) But I'm not so naive to belive they are 100% American any more than I am to believe that Airbus is 100% French.

What a putz.

I guess your 1000 hours in single engine pistons makes you an authority on the safe operating procedures in transport jets.

 

[CapnVegetto]

I wonder if the rudder will stay attached in this one?

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

Jesus Christ, you guys. It's a neat, big, new airplane. Who gives a flying fark who built it? I am interested in seeing the big thing fly. Would you be more interested if the brits built it? How about the israelis? The japs? Whatever, I look forward to seeing someones idea on paper come to fruition in successful flight. Hope it's a safe flight for 'em! (friggin' cheese-eating surrender monkeys)

 

[cforst513]

i second hugh jorgan's comments.

what time is it supposed to fly? will it be televised live?

 

[Steveair]

Please don't hijack the thread unless you have something educated to say. For the reccord hardly any jet can take off with a full payload and full fuel; and that applies to Boeings as well. As far as go around procedures go on a jet, there is a very high workload and the more automations there are, the more the pilot can concentrate on flying the airplane. Keep in mind that a go around is not a hard thing to do and anybody can easily fly one. It is rather when something happens at the same time (such as an uncommended thrust reverser deploy in icing conditions and a 30 knots crosswind) that things start happening fast and the more automations you have, the more time you can dedicate to running checklists and dealing with the emmergency. I guess when you start flying jets you will understand what I mean, after all I was in your shoes 6 months ago and didn't know until I saw it for the first time in the sim...

Buck

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/Airbus320_trees.mpg

Need I "say" more.

 

[buckdanny]

You have serious issues. Not satisfied with the size of your co*k, so therefore you have to post this crap about an Airbus? I fly Boeings. Always have. Always will (since I retire soon...) But I'm not so naive to belive they are 100% American any more than I am to believe that Airbus is 100% French.

What a putz.

I guess your 1000 hours in single engine pistons makes you an authority on the safe operating procedures in transport jets.

To add to Cobb's lesson:


The Airbus is assembled in France, and the parts come from the UK, Germany, France and Spain. I believe the engines are GE but don't quote me on this.

The Boeing 777 had parts builts from all over the world. For example the vertical stabilize is Australian. It was a revolution because of the way it was engineered. The engineering software, CATIA (or with a K?) is French and has been used by Dassault for at least 15 years to design the Falcon series aircraft such as the F-2000.

Buck

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/Airbus320_trees.mpg

Need I "say" more.

Please do, tell us about all the problems EVERY OTHER AIRCRAFT MFGR HAS HAD. That's what makes test flights interesting. We know no matter who made the thing, unexpected things can happen. Airbus doesn't have the corner on design problems, just as you don't have the corner on idiocy.

 

[buckdanny]

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/Airbus320_trees.mpg

Need I "say" more.

I did a 10 pages research paper on this in college some years back for my aviation safety class. They where doing things they were not supposed to do with the airplane. Just like any airplane, if you f*ck around too much with it and have it do things it's not supposed to do you get hurt.

Now if you really want to get into a pissing contest, how about the 767 that hit a mountain in South America 10 years ago? The missed approach called for a 180. Pilot turned the heading bug slightly beyond 180 degrees and the plane changed the turn in the other direction, unfortunately the direction towards the mountain and not away from it. The Airbus will always turn in the direction you initiate the turn even beyond 180 degrees and will not reverse the turn to go the shortest way.

Once again, don't post unless you have something educated to say and can backup your argument.

Buck


Ps: the TSA is hiring.

 

[601Pilot]

To add to Cobb's lesson:


The Airbus is assembled in France, and the parts come from the UK, Germany, France and Spain. I believe the engines are GE but don't quote me on this.

The Boeing 777 had parts builts from all over the world. For example the vertical stabilize is Australian. It was a revolution because of the way it was engineered. The engineering software, CATIA (or with a K?) is French and has been used by Dassault for at least 15 years to design the Falcon series aircraft such as the F-2000.

Buck

True, the A380 has a lot of the parts made here in the USA. Every high-end aircraft company uses CATIA (you spelled it correctly!) for design drafting. It's a global community for a reason. I can't wait for FedEx to get their first A380. Hopefully I'll retire on that thing in about 30 years!

 

[Steveair]

I did a 10 pages research paper on this in college some years back for my aviation safety class. They where doing things they were not supposed to do with the airplane. Just like any airplane, if you f*ck around too much with it and have it do things it's not supposed to do you get hurt.

Ohh I see. So those pilots who made a low pass and then tried to apply power but the computer said "no, we're landing" and cut the power. Personally, I think an airplane should respond to control inputs.

As for your 767 example... that happens with any airplane.

Last time I checked, the Constituion still had freedom of speech. Maybe you should do something EDUCATED and put this in a Forum that isn't titled "Regional Interviews," as it has NOTHING to do with that subject.

PS - No there not moron... they're going out of business; just like Airbus would if it weren't subsidized so heavely.

 

[buckdanny]

Ohh I see. So those pilots who made a low pass and then tried to apply power but the computer said "no, we're landing" and cut the power. Personally, I think an airplane should respond to control inputs.

As for your 767 example... that happens with any airplane.

PS - No there not moron... they're going out of business; just like Airbus would if it weren't subsidized so heavely.

Like I said, they were doing things the airplane was not supposed to do. The plane just was not designed to play low passes like that and the pilot did not set it correctly. The plane didn't know what it was doing and the pilot did not take it completely manual in time. In order for an airplane to respond to control inputs, you have to disconnect the autopilot. If you look for the cvr transcripts, you will see that they were having a party in there. The pilot called his buddy saying something like "hey, come up here it's gonna be great." The guy was just standing inside the cockpit watching and obviously died on impact.

As far as the 767 is concerned, I believe you are wrong and it's not like that with any aircraft: the 767 will take the shortest turn towards the heading bug and will change the direction of turn if the bug turns beyond 180 degrees. Maybe Cobb can elaborate on this? The Airbus will turn the direction you turn the bug regardless. And so does the CRJ for that matter.

Buck

 

[soup can]

The French are an ally? That's laughable seeing as 1, they were against liberating Iraq and 2, they don't fight... they get invaded... we liberate them... and that makes them an ally? I think not.

The REALLY hilarious thing was when the French got pissed because the US didn't allow them to participate in the reconstruction of Iraq.

The world in equilibrium? Hardly... the US will dominate. Airbus products are inferior. They can NOT fly with a full cago load and full fuel. They are TERRIBLE on reliability & maintenance. They're service life is much less. The A380, which is able to fly into what, 6 airports in the world, is gonna flop hard.

PS - ANY airplane that has a go-around procedure of sliding your 3 position throttle to full and pulling all the way back on the "stick" and having a computer decide where to put the nose can go to h$ll. We're pilots for god sakes.

I look forward to the day when parts of the A380 are flown to the desert in a FedEx 727.

You don't know what you are talking about. Just cause there 's a computer in front of you, it doen't mean you have to use it.
Its bar lowerers like you that give real pilots a bad name.

 

[Steveair]

Like I said, they were doing things the airplane was not supposed to do. The plane just was not designed to play low passes like that and the pilot did not set it correctly. The plane didn't know what it was doing and the pilot did not take it completely manual in time. In order for an airplane to respond to control inputs, you have to disconnect the autopilot. If you look for the cvr transcripts, you will see that they were having a party in there. The pilot called his buddy saying something like "hey, come up here it's gonna be great." The guy was just standing inside the cockpit watching and obviously died on impact.

You tell the airplane to do something and it should. Pilots should have the ability to overpower the autopilot at any time / any place. I think you'll agree that time, in many aspects of flight, is critical. I don't think that I should have to program a computer to initiate a go around.

I believe Airbus has since fixed this "programming glitch" and installed some kind of cockpit switch so that the pilot has the final say.

What concerns me is the other "bugs" that have yet to be discovered and how many lives it will cost to find them.

 

[R2D cup]

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/Airbus320_trees.mpg

Need I "say" more.

Pilot Error

 

[buckdanny]

You tell the airplane to do something and it should. Pilots should have the ability to overpower the autopilot at any time / any place. I think you'll agree that time, in many aspects of flight, is critical. I don't think that I should have to program a computer to initiate a go around.

I believe Airbus has since fixed this "programming glitch" and installed some kind of cockpit switch so that the pilot has the final say.

What concerns me is the other "bugs" that have yet to be discovered and how many lives it will cost to find them.

Yes, I agree with you that one should be able to take over quick. One main problem when the first 320 came out was the lack of training, and failure from Airbus to list everything the plane does. There has been instances where the plane did something to the surprise of the pilots and it was not in the manuals. Those major bugs were fixed. The problem is that with fly-by-wire technology the pilot has to be one step further ahead of the game as it is a much different environment.

Seriously, there is a ton on the net about that crash in the trees, that explains in details the different aspects of fly-by-wire.

Buck

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

What concerns me is the other "bugs" that have yet to be discovered and how many lives it will cost to find them.

Regardless of who built the thing.

 

[Yank McCobb]

Ohh I see. So those pilots who made a low pass and then tried to apply power but the computer said "no, we're landing" and cut the power. Personally, I think an airplane should respond to control inputs.

.

Read the full report, and get the full story, moron.

The pilots did not "make a low pass and then tried to apply power but the computer said "no, we're landing" and cut the power".

What a stupid, uniformed statement. If you had even 1/16th of a clue as to what actually happened, and why the aircraft reacted as it did, you would know just how stupid that statement sounds.

Go back to your 152. Try and figure it out first, THEN maybe read up on this accident, and the workings of the A-320, fly-by-wire technology, Alpha Floor, etc...etc. And the pilot of that particular flight's huge misunderstanding of the system and huge mistake. A mistake that in a "conventional" aircraft that you so desire to fly, would have most likely resulted in the deaths of everyone aboard.

 

[328dude]

Read the full report, and get the full story, moron.

The pilots did not "make a low pass and then tried to apply power but the computer said "no, we're landing" and cut the power".

What a stupid, uniformed statement. If you had even 1/16th of a clue as to what actually happened, and why the aircraft reacted as it did, you would know just how stupid that statement sounds.

Go back to your 152. Try and figure it out first, THEN maybe read up on this accident, and the workings of the A-320, fly-by-wire technology, Alpha Floor, etc...etc. And the pilot of that particular flight's huge misunderstanding of the system and huge mistake. A mistake that in a "conventional" aircraft that you so desire to fly, would have most likely resulted in the deaths of everyone aboard.

Steve: I'm not one for bashing other people, but really dude. Did you read the accident report on that crash? Your profile shows you being a flight instructor and never flown a transport catagory aircraft. That's great, but making statement's about a type of aircraft you have never flown or how they should be flown isn't very smart.

Is this about you not liking the French rather than the Airbus? Buck was just pointing out that the 380 was supposed to TF on Wednesday, I don't see the point in jumping on him over it.

 

[Steveair]

Yes, I like alot of people in here, read the report on the crash and had a nice, big group discussion on the matter. No, I don't fly transport category aircraft but I still have some knowledge on the subject. For example, I know that Airbus uses hard limits which allow the computer to have the final say. On Boeing aircraft, soft limits are utilized: thus, the pilots have the final say.


Despite what you say, I also know that when the A320 is below 50', it commits to the landing and that's what happened in Habsheim. Did the pilots there know that? No. If they'd been in a 737, would they have been able to do what they were trying to do? Yes!

Assuming that someone doesn't know what they're talking about is a good idea on this site. I can understand if you want me to back it up, but give me a chance to explain before you call me a moron! I'm not an ATP but I only say things that I can back up.

I really don't like the french and I really don't like airbus. Here's the safety record for a few of the more popular aircraft. The numbers speak for themself but if you really want to think, look at the # of aircraft out there and years in service and it REALLY says a lot.

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Boeing 777 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]0.00[/font]
1 [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Airbus 340 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]0.00[/font]
3 [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Airbus 330 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]0.00[/font]
4 [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Boeing 767 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]0.32[/font]
5 [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Saab 340 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]0.33[/font]
6 [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Boeing 757 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]0.35[/font]
7 [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]McDonnell MD-80 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]0.43[/font]
8 [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Boeing 737 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]0.60[/font]
9 [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]BAE 146 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]0.64[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]10 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Airbus 319/320/321 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]0.67[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]11 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Fokker 100 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]0.71[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]11 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Embrader 120 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]0.71[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]13 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]L-1011 Tristar [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]0.91[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]14 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Boeing 747-400 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.04[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]15 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Boeing 727 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.05[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]16 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]McDonnell DC-9 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.29[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]17 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Airbus 300 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.34[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]18 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Airbus 310 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.83[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/font]​

 

[say again]

What concerns me is the other "bugs" that have yet to be discovered and how many lives it will cost to find them.

Don't fly on it then!!! You sound like a complete moron. Do you feel the same way when Embraer comes out with a new A/C, how about Boeing?

What about the 737's uncommanded rudder deflections, 767 reverse thrust deployment in flight, and many more? These were so called "bugs" that cost people their lives. Do you not like Boeing A/C anymore? Things are going to happen no matter who builds it. I personally think that Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, Canadair, and others are exceptional companies who make extraordinary products.

If it happens that you are against Airbus because you don't like the French, then you're even more of a moron. Like others said, it's manufactured all over the world. Same as Boeing, and most A/C.


Sorry Steve, but you need to wake up and take the advice of everyone else on this thread.

 

[Steveair]

Don't fly on it then!!! You sound like a complete moron. Do you feel the same way when Embraer comes out with a new A/C, how about Boeing?

What about the 737's uncommanded rudder deflections, 767 reverse thrust deployment in flight, and many more? These were so called "bugs" that cost people their lives. Do you not like Boeing A/C anymore? Things are going to happen no matter who builds it. I personally think that Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, Canadair, and others are exceptional companies who make extraordinary products.

If it happens that you are against Airbus because you don't like the French, then you're even more of a moron. Like others said, it's manufactured all over the world. Same as Boeing, and most A/C.


Sorry Steve, but you need to wake up and take the advice of everyone else on this thread.

Statistics son.. .statistics. Boeing is a safer, more reliable product and there's proof! Profits... where does the money go. Pride.

 

[say again]

Yes, I like alot of people in here, read the report on the crash and had a nice, big group discussion on the matter. No, I don't fly transport category aircraft but I still have some knowledge on the subject. For example, I know that Airbus uses hard limits which allow the computer to have the final say. On Boeing aircraft, soft limits are utilized: thus, the pilots have the final say.


Despite what you say, I also know that when the A320 is below 50', it commits to the landing and that's what happened in Habsheim. Did the pilots there know that? No. If they'd been in a 737, would they have been able to do what they were trying to do? Yes!

Assuming that someone doesn't know what they're talking about is a good idea on this site. I can understand if you want me to back it up, but give me a chance to explain before you call me a moron! I'm not an ATP but I only say things that I can back up.

I really don't like the french and I really don't like airbus. Here's the safety record for a few of the more popular aircraft. The numbers speak for themself but if you really want to think, look at the # of aircraft out there and years in service and it REALLY says a lot.

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Boeing 777 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]0.00[/font]
1 [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Airbus 340 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]0.00[/font]
3 [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Airbus 330 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]0.00[/font]
4 [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Boeing 767 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]0.32[/font]
5 [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Saab 340 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]0.33[/font]
6 [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Boeing 757 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]0.35[/font]
7 [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]McDonnell MD-80 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]0.43[/font]
8 [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Boeing 737 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]0.60[/font]
9 [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]BAE 146 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]0.64[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]10 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Airbus 319/320/321 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]0.67[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]11 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Fokker 100 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]0.71[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]11 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Embrader 120 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]0.71[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]13 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]L-1011 Tristar [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]0.91[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]14 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Boeing 747-400 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.04[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]15 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Boeing 727 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.05[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]16 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]McDonnell DC-9 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.29[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]17 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Airbus 300 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.34[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]18 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Airbus 310 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.83[/font]

​

How many crashes are due to the ACTUAL A/C failing? Most crashes are due to human factor, not A/C "taking over". These stats don't prove a dang thing in my mind.