Yet another Airbus fatal plane crash

rusvik

rusvik

New member
Jan 21, 2011
2,404
29
0
That's it, I am not flying Airbus any longer. This simply can't be co-incidence that basically all fatal plane crash in recent times are Airbus.

Germanwings Airbus A320 plane crash: Live updates - Mirror Online
Around 150 people are feared dead after a plane crashed in the French Alps.
Flight 4U9525 disappeared from radar around 45 minutes after leaving Barcelona in Spain for Dusseldorf in Germany at 10am local time.
It is believed to have come down in the Digne area of southern France.
French President Francois Hollande confirmed the crash and said he expects there to be "no survivors".
Reports suggest there were 144 passengers and six crew on board.
Click to expand...
 


Yeah I don't care what you say:

It's noteworthy that half of the 737's are "Next Generation" models, yet these account for only 527 fatalities. The remaining 3760 fatalities were in earlier models. Of course, these planes have flown more miles, so the difference in fatalities per passenger-mile is most likely lower than 5x.
Click to expand...

It's clear to anyone with a brain that Airbus has a problem and as the investigation of the last Airasia crash and the AirFrance crash proved, this has everything to do with design flaws of the cockpit.
 
Dates and all that adjusted since year 2000 or so Airbus 320's are still (not statistically significant though) safer than Boeing 737 next-gen...

I'm not saying that there aren't design flaws with those models. There are likely dozens of things seriously wrong with both aircraft. We just don't know about most of them.
 
correlation-does-not-imply-causation.jpg



.
 
rusvik said:
That's it, I am not flying Airbus any longer. This simply can't be co-incidence that basically all fatal plane crash in recent times are Airbus.
Click to expand...

Basically you must be trolling. What are you calling "recent times"?

Yes, there have been two fatal A320 crashes in the last two years, but prior to that the last ones were in 2010 and 2008 (a test flight). There have been 12 fatal crashes of A320s since it entered service in 1987 with more than 6000 planes in service, 5000 more on order, and two million flights under it's wings.

There have been three fatal A330 crashes since it entered service, one of which was, again, a test flight.

There have been a few more A300 and A310 crashes, most notably the A300 that crashed in Queens in 2001 and an A310 that crashed into the sea off Comoros in 2009.

Almost all of the accidents were caused by human error, as is the case with most plane crashes.

rusvik said:
Yeah I don't care what you say:

It's clear to anyone with a brain that Airbus has a problem and as the investigation of the last Airasia crash and the AirFrance crash proved, this has everything to do with design flaws of the cockpit.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you must be trolling.

Here...

List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2010 - kind of a shitty year for lots of aircraft
2011 - plenty of crashes, no incidents involving Airbus
2012 - better year, no incidents involving Airbus
2013 - better year, one incident involving Airbus, a cargo plane with 2 fatalities
2014 - possibly the safest year on record with only 8 major incidents, and only one incident involving Airbus, the one that crashed into the sea near Borneo
2015 - one incident involving Airbus, the one today

There were a lot more accidents involving manufacturers other than Airbus.

More...

http://aviation-safety.net/database/type/index.php
 
Fact: Airbus has had serious and consistent issues with pitot tubes (measuring altitude and other stuff) freezing

Fact: Airbus cockpit has two independent joysticks unlike Boeing which lead to the AirFrance crash

Fact: AirAsia Airbus and AirFrance crashed in part due to the above

Fact: Modern pilots can't fly worth a damn without computers
 
Fatbat said:
Basically you must be trolling. What are you calling "recent times"?

Yes, there have been two fatal A320 crashes in the last two years, but prior to that the last ones were in 2010 and 2008 (a test flight). There have been 12 fatal crashes of A320s since it entered service in 1987 with more than 6000 planes in service, 5000 more on order, and two million flights under it's wings.

There have been three fatal A330 crashes since it entered service, one of which was, again, a test flight.

There have been a few more A300 and A310 crashes, most notably the A300 that crashed in Queens in 2001 and an A310 that crashed into the sea off Comoros in 2009.

Almost all of the accidents were caused by human error, as is the case with most plane crashes.



Yeah, you must be trolling.

Here...

List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2010 - kind of a shitty year for lots of aircraft
2011 - plenty of crashes, no incidents involving Airbus
2012 - better year, no incidents involving Airbus
2013 - better year, one incident involving Airbus, a cargo plane with 2 fatalities
2014 - possibly the safest year on record with only 8 major incidents, and only one incident involving Airbus, the one that crashed into the sea near Borneo
2015 - one incident involving Airbus, the one today

There were a lot more accidents involving manufacturers other than Airbus.

More...

Aviation Safety Network > ASN Aviation Safety Database > Aircraft type index
Click to expand...


The human error side can be prevented - Airbus has a strange method of handling dual input issues, where it takes the average of the pilot and copilot's input, rather than the pilot overriding. I don't get it.
 
papajohn56 said:
The human error side can be prevented - Airbus has a strange method of handling dual input issues, where it takes the average of the pilot and copilot's input, rather than the pilot overriding. I don't get it.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know this, and it clearly has had some problems, but there are systems built in to deal with that which are pretty straight forward and the pilot can override if he needs to...

1. Normal mode: both side sticks are active. Either one can be used to make inputs. And when both pilots make an input simultaneously a "Dual Input" warning sounds and the sum of the inputs are algebraicaly added up to max input of just one stick, I.e. if both pilots input half right it sums to one full right input, if either then adds more right stick nothing will happen, the aircraft is rolling at its maximum of 15 degrees/sec. This is how the plane is flown 99.99% of the time

2. Temporary priority: if one pilot presses and holds the red takeover button he has priority, the other side stick is deactivated. When the button is pushed you hear: "priority right/left". When e pilot lets go of the red pushbutton The other sidestick becomes active again and They both operate normally, either stick can be used. Here's the thing: THE LAST PILOT TO PUSH HIS TAKEOVER BUTTON GETS PRIORITY. So if the captain pushes his first and then the FO, the FO has priority.

3. Latched priority: happens after the pilot holds his takeover PB for more than 40 seconds. He can then let go and will remain having priority. This is immediately disengaged as soon as the other pilot presses his takeover PB and the sticks return to the normal mode.

The whole logic behind is this: if a pilot feels that he/she needs to take control, let's say a pilot in training is messing up a landing, by simply pressing and holding the takeover PB the pilot can have complete control of the aircraft. This allows immediate action to be take, there is never a dual input. Dual inputs are very dangerous, and are a serious no no. This is what must have happened in the case of the Hudson flight. It wasnt necessarily that the captain needed to push the button to take control, he must have instinctively pushed the takeover button because he realised he needed to fly the plane, and there was no time to spare.

As for the latched priority mode, it is basically for the unlikely event of one pilot being incapacitated and falling over on his stick. The other pilot can simply press and hold the take over push button at which time the other stick will deactivate, and after 40 seconds he can let go and not have to keep a force on the button.
Click to expand...
 
^ Yes, but if you read the transcript from the AirFrance crash you'd see these guys were completely clueless and acted like they had never flown a plane, which technically some of them had not since the inhouse pilots are basically IT people with very little actual flying experience outside simulators and assisted flying/autopilot.
 
rusvik said:
Fact: Airbus has had serious and consistent issues with pitot tubes (measuring altitude and other stuff) freezing

Fact: Airbus cockpit has two independent joysticks unlike Boeing which lead to the AirFrance crash

Fact: AirAsia Airbus and AirFrance crashed in part due to the above

Fact: Modern pilots can't fly worth a damn without computers
Click to expand...

True that - and those who have the experience with actual flying demand a higher paycheck which these airlines skimp on (So they just pilot chartered planes). But they've done all the maths and worked out that it's cheaper just to have a few minor mishaps from cheap pilots rather than having experienced pilots. Of course it just takes one major accident to burn through all the costs saved - but because it's considered extremely, extremely unlikely they don't bother to account for it.
 
rusvik said:
^ Yes, but if you read the transcript from the AirFrance crash you'd see these guys were completely clueless and acted like they had never flown a plane, which technically some of them had not since the inhouse pilots are basically IT people with very little actual flying experience outside simulators and assisted flying/autopilot.
Click to expand...

If you've read the transcript you must also know the captain walked into the cockpit and knew they were stalling right away. Unfortunately it was too late by then but I can assure you that a cessena 152 pilot with 4000 hours over 30 years would be in just as much trouble as a jetliner pilot if he flew into clouds and lost a vacuum pump for example.

Although every pilot starts out flying a single piston stick and rudder airplane I will give you a 747 pilot jumping into a piper cub probably won't be much chop but this is normal. Airplanes aren't like cars you must be rated for each model. That doesn't mean that the pilot can't fly. All pilots fly by procedures, commercial pilots strictly so. They fly the same route, the same type, the same procedures using all the systems at their disposal day in day out and this is why flying is so safe.

Are there shit pilots? Sure, but the propensity is far lower than other industries and whiles its clear you have no idea what you're talking about proclaiming Airbus A320s aren't safe and commercial pilots can't fly is idiotic.
 
Is the dual input thing that unusual? When I flew an RAF trainer plane (school cadets), it had the same system.

And I wouldn't imagine having to disengage the training of the pilots would've made a huge difference, the landing/takeoff are the hard parts, surely it doesn't take a top level pilot to avoid crashing into the ground mid flight, where that's possible.
 
Sucks, I'll have to be flying a lot later on down the line and definitely don't like seeing plane crashes of any kind.......
 
So apparently the co-pilot locked the captain out and deliberately crashed the plane. That leads to the question: suicide mission, or terrorism?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom