A380 first flight on Wednesday!

[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.

 

[Steveair]

True... there is no seperation of those stats between mechanical failure and human error but there's no arguement out there that Airbus isn't a quality aircraft. My uncle works for NWA Mx in Duluth and never has anything nice to say about the 320. The Jurrassic Jet (dc9), has fewer mx issues than the at the oldest 12 year old 320.

 

[coolyokeluke]

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

A spelling and grammar error in a sentence where you accuse somebody of being a moron. Priceless.

Sure Airbus was subsidized and still is. It's not a completely baseless argument to say that some of the government defense contracts act as somewhat of a subsidy to Boeing. The A380 has what 150-200 orders? I think that will pay back their investment. There is a lot of content in the A380 that comes from the United States. Do you know how many jobs the 787 is going to keep in Everett? About 1200. That's chump change when you look at the scale of the overall project. A very large percentage of the 787's content is coming from other countries. Japan is a very big player, they make the wings.

The design and manufacturing of an aircraft of this scale is quite an accomplishment and it's no suprise there are delays. If I were given a choice I'd rather fly a Boeing but I'd never look down my nose at an opportunity to fly a Bus.

 

[uba757]

Buck, budy are you talking about the AA Boeing 757 in Cali Colombia? If you are that was pilot error. Nothing to do with the airplane all pilot error.
Uba757

 

[Midnight Flyer]

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.

I've been lucky enough to say that all I've flown are steam-guage aircraft. Furthermore, I probably couldn't even fly one of those new C182's that come with the fancy glass cockpits.

Computers crash all the time. Computers are the backbone of fly by wire and glass cockpit technology. I just hope the next time I'm a passenger on an Airbus, the computer system doesn't decide to have a problem. I agree with SteveAir, you should be able to manually overtake the computer inputs. I don't like planes that are so overly automated that they pretty much think for me. This limits me to simply being a babysitter for the aircraft.

I'm not a fan of the French and I don't like Airbus all that much, however, I have to be honest, I am mesmerized by this new Airbus A380. It's amazing how something this large can fly.

I don't understand how some people on here who obviously have the love of aviation in their blood can't find it in them to be interested in the A380 just because the French are one of the many countries that make up Airbus. Get over it, guys, cause this country is continuing to buy foreign made aircraft.
How many American made planes do the regionals fly? heh heh. Some of them don't fly any. For instance:
1. CRJ is a Canadian made aircraft. (Canadiar, Bombardier; whatever they're calling themselves),
2. ATR is in Toulouse, France.
3. Embraer is a Brazilian company.
4. Ba-146 British Aerospace is in the United Kingdom.
5. SAAB 340, Sweedish company.
4. DeHavilland Dashes, Canadian company.
I'm sure there's more.
I know the United States play a large part in the manufacture of these aircraft (engines, parts, etc), but for the most part, these are all foreign made aircraft. Some of the pilots on here who are so opposed to French made aircraft are the same ones who currently fly foreign made aircraft!

If the regionals continue buying foreign aircraft and taking routes from the majors, eventually the majority of the Boeings left will probably be operated by the cargo companies. Unfortunately, IMO, the Legacy carriers will probably be reduced to International & long haul and will keep thier Boeings (777's, 767's, 737's) for those routes.

 

[uba757]

Cool they need to sell 300 A380 just to be brake even. Uba757

 

[cforst513]

someone should go back through this thread and count how many times someone was called "stupid" or a "moron". you are adults, act like it.

 

[Steveair]

How many?

I see only 139 orders as of 3/31/05. Still have a long way to go.

http://www.airbus.com/media/orders_n_deliveries.asp

 

[cforst513]

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

What a stupid, uniformed statement..

and he had the nerve to call someone else a moron...

 

[mynameisjim]

Cool they need to sell 300 A380 just to be brake even. Uba757

Say again?

I was on the land line.

----

On another note, saying that you don't like airplane protections or stabilities is like saying you don't want a rev limiter in your car. Why would you want to overspeed your car's engine?

Why do I need to exceed 30 degrees nose up, or 15 degrees nose down? Why do I need to exceed VMO by more than 15 knots? Keep in mind we're bus drivers here.

Edit: If you need more than 30 degrees nose up, you messed up. The last thing the passengers need is to be scared before they die. You could just let them die peacefully.

 

[uba757]

Because of the value of the Dollar against the Euro. The weaker the Dollar the more airplanes Airbus has to sell to make a profit on tha particular aircraft. Is like an airline predicting costs with the price of oil at $40 instead of at $55 dollars a barrel. They sell their airplanes in Dollars just like Boeing so there is an equal price comparison. Uba757