That is a plain ignorant, sensationalist statement right there. SWA avoids the Airbus for one reason, and one reason only - they've been flying the 737 since their inception. They go with what they know. That is it. It has NOTHING to do with fear of the Airbus.

Jeez, man. :rolleyes:

So what about FedEx? Out of the 618 aircraft they've ever rostered only 141 have been Airbus and out of those only 93 are still with them. They haven't acquired any more Airbus aircraft since 2009 and they haven't acquired a new Airbus since 1997. The only orders they have open are for a total of 60 Boeing 767 and 777s. The only Boeings they've gotten rid of are 727s, 737-200s, 747-200s and some 757s that came off lease. Obviously FedEx is a profitable well run organization that could operate any brand they want. Why did they only ever operate 2 Airbus models compared to almost the full Boeing freight catalog and why are they shying away from Airbus? Why were they the first to cancel their A380 order and turn around and order 777s?

That being said, If I was starting an airline I'd probably fill my fleet with A320s. I mean after all I wouldn't have to fly or ride the damn things and the vast majority of the flying public doesn't care.

Pretty good question
Money is the 1st answer. (usually)
I do not know anyone upstairs to ask if safety was a concern.
But then again that would equal money too (safety )

SWA uses 737s for business reasons only. They're not afraid of Airbus--well, if the Airbus costs more (which I don't know either way) then they'd be afraid to incur the cost. Cost is what scares businessmen these days--it's the biggest sin. Alaska is now an all-Boeing fleet solely because of cost concerns. If Airbus suits offered cheap A320s or new Neos for rock-bottom prices and also ate the cost of converting from 737s to Buses then yeah, SWA and Alaska would go all-Airbus.

Again, I don't think any of these preferences have to do with safety record. And if you think socialists build the Airbus, that's an opinion and doesn't cause more deaths per million flights.

Back on subject, do you guys think that the black boxes will have anything left on them? The French interior minister apparently said it was damaged but they expect to get something off it. Not surprised looking at the field of rubble, that this was damaged ...

G

The pilot in command had the stick back most of the time and was the least experienced officer on the flight deck. The captain did not come back to the flight deck until seconds before impact. Here is a good transcript.

Air France 447 Flight-Data Recorder Transcript - What Really Happened Aboard Air France 447

as a layperson may I ask in what situation one would try to pull the nose up to get out of a stall?

a situation of disorientation and/or panic.

The only time you would pull back in a stall is when you are inverted. The AF447 was all pilot error. The whole situation is strange since the first thing he did was pull up when the auto pilot disconnected.

The current incident is weird. No radio calls or transponder changes. Will be interesting to see what the boxes tell us.

The pilot's saying "if it is not Boeing I am not going" is just that, a pilot saying, and the reason is that Boeing allows the pilots much more direct control of the aircraft than Airbus. If you knew as many commercial pilots as I do, you would be torn as to what build philosophy is more correct. Somewhere upwards of 90 percent of aircraft fatalities are pilot error. Airbus' aircraft architecture is designed to limit this to some degree.
SW saves money through fleet conformity, and their choice of aircraft is driven almost solely by daily operating costs. Adding Airbus to the mix means more spares, more training etc. etc. etc.
It always amuses me how people latch onto something reported in the media and run with it with so little knowledge or information on the subject. NONE of these aircraft are inherently dangerous, if that were the case they would not be in the air. "if it aint boeing I aint going" is an oft repeated refrain that so few actually understand the root of, and it has nothing to do with safety.....

Thanks Brent. Main point is one of the side-sticks was held full-aft for much of the stall/descent. PIC was the captain and the guy in the left seat was a augmented low-time/experience pilot, right? Captain was out of the flight deck when the fecal matter hit the fan.

I see the problem as training methods and cockpit management issues and it applies to any manufacturer. In the AF447 case the pic was panicked and did not listen to the more senior officer and there was lack of communication as to what each was trying to do.

Pilots get used to the airplane doing the mundane stuff and the junior pilots react differently than seasoned pilots. From AF447 to the crash in San Francisco the pic did not realize what the plane was telling them.

Could a jr officer have made the same landing as Sully in the Hudson? Probably. Maybe not as smooth but they would have probably gotten it down. Would AF447 have crashed with Sully? No. Even the captain of that flight realized the situation shortly after coming to the flight deck and if either of the other pilots had been pic I doubt it would have crashed. Had the aircraft been a Boeing for AF447 I don't think it would have crashed either because the 1st officer would have known the position of the flight controls the entire time.

"could a junior officer have made the same landing as Sully in the Hudson?"


Very unlikely.

Probably not with the precision that Sully did, but that is not an abnormal circumstance like the AF situation but that wasn't the point anyway.

They've not as of yet been able to get anything off of the cvr. Black box also recovered, but memory chip dislodged and not located. Might remain a mystery for a while.

What I find more interesting is the abundance of air accident mysteries in the last few years. Amazing that in this day of 24/7 surveillance and constant communication, that airplanes can either vanish or crash without any known cause.

Money. The airlines don't want to pay for the privilege of receiving the telemetry and the telemetry people don't want to provide it for free.

To the people who claim "if it ain't boeing I ain't going", just curious, do you turn around at the gate when you see an Airbus pull up ? When I book tickets I get airline info, rarely airplane (until I print the ticket anyway). Do you seriously call the airline and ask which plane that is? And if they swap planes on you, not fly ? (incredulous smiley)

As for CNN, they have become ambulance chasers. You could practically see their boner/glee on screen - I wanted to smack their british "expert".... "Oh gee, an airplane crash, our specialty"! That was disgusting. All the more since they knew NOTHING. CNN disgusts me as much as Fox does nowadays, in both cases it's not longer "news" but sensationalism and fear mongering.

I need to watch BBS america more...

Huge Boeing fan here. Here's a few tidbits to chew on:

SWA: One type of aircraft has been strictly adhered to for operational cost reasons - one A/C to train pilots, mechanics, spare parts, etc.

AF477: the very detailed Vanity Fair article by William Langewiesche.

Sully/Hudson: It's been argued that the A320 FBW and controls helped him hold maximum AOA while keeping the plane level to cradle the A/C into the water.

QF32: That's the A380 that had the catastrophic engine failure. I read this book by the pilot, Richard Crespigny, flying back from Melbourne - great read. I will say the A380 is one of the smoothest experiences I've had - attributed to the seagull wing and three ailerons.

Do I like the idea of Boeing's "pilot first" philosophy, and mirrored controls? Absolutely. Will I get on the A320 I am scheduled to fly on Monday? Without hesitation.

This is why I much prefer the Jet Blue A380 on the L.B. to Portland.

Just throwing this out there, but could this be a mis-programed FMS?

This times ten million, I have a $99 dollar Samsung smart phone that can GPS me and direct me to the closest starbucks.

German paper der Spiegel says the voice recordings have been recovered.

They also have some theories. One is that the plane kept on its exact course while going down in elevation in a constant / controlled manner. They speculate the auto pilot was on and the input was to drop elevation. Then whatever technical problem triggering the need to lower the elevation got out of control and communication was no longer possible to fill in traffic control.

http://cdn1.spiegel.de/images/image-...eryV9-hsbk.jpg

G

Um, I don't think JetBlue flies an A380 out of Long Beach for a domestic flight ;)

JB flies A320/A321. A380 are the double decker (hence Motion's "upstairs" comment) behemoth. :)

Both of his comments were a tad bit boorish IMO.

While this may be true, the event would never have occured in a Boeing. On teardown they discovered that the aircraft had two running engines after the bird strikes, the Airbus decided to reduce them to idle in order to preven further engine damage. Both engines were damaged, but a damaged turbine can still make good power. Had it been a Boeing, it most likely would have resulted in an uneventful go around and normal landing.

3500ft/minute descent rate for 8 minutes with no cockpit communication is a bit puzzling. A steep descent that is not consistent with a rapid decompression or glide slope. Hmmmm.

The descent rate is consistent with an emergency descent programmed into the autopilot.

Gordner, what is your source for this statement? And who is to say that even if its correct that the engines wouldn't have had a more destructive failure if they continued to run ?

I am an aircraft maintenance engineer, and understand some of what comes out of the NTSB. The condition of the engines was in a "maintainer" article I read awhile back.
As for destructive failure, the engines were powered back by the aircraft systems to try to reduce them being further damaged. As a result, a 100 million dollar plus airframe was dumped in the river and both the airframe and engines destroyed, so who really cares if they had suffered more damage due to continuing to pull power? They pose very little risk to the airframe during a failure, they are designed to come apart without risking the aircraft.

Sorry, my bad... I am no where near an expert on aircraft.
I just knew that Alaska fly the Boeing and JB fly the airbus (both medium size domestic commuter aircraft)... I obviously got the airbus # wrong.

My point being I prefer the airbus and I have no fear of flying on one.

Carry on. :)

Yes, that was what ze German paper was speculating about. They thought there could have been a rapid cabin pressure loss and apparently the first thing to do is get O2 on the pilots, put plane into descent, and then communicate. Speculation is that they were able to perform at least step 2 but not step 3 before they were incapacitated. The other thing I read was that a cabin air pressure drop can usually be diagnosed by the O2 mask being deployed on the wreckage. Not so sure if that is easily visible on this powdered wreck.

So, what would cause sudden cabin air pressure drop?

On the life of an airframe, I read that they are practically good forever and that planes are usually retired for lower fuel efficiency, cost of remodeling vs. a new purchase.

G

Airframes are good forever essentially because they are so highly inspected. They are good so long as you catch the cracks early....

Gordner, appreciate the input. I'd have to wonder if there isn't some cockpit override available for this event. I'm sure one of the Airbus drivers here could provide some insight.

This has nothing to do with Airbus vs Boeing though. The only plausible theory at this point is something that incapacitated the crew after they were able to dial in an emergency descent. Probably sudden decompression. It seems that at fl380 you'd have about 15 functional seconds, and it's not easy to get the mask on and functional in those conditions. There are plenty of Boeing incidents of decompression, including some where the windscreen departed the aircraft. Imagine have 15 seconds to try to get a mask on with a 350 kt below zero wind in your face.

Sitting in the Delta Sky Club at ATL, unfortunately subjected to the CNN moron talking heads. Their "aviation correspondent" screwed up the name of the FDR company that he interviewed earlier today, is repeatedly referring to ATC as "ground control", and speculating about all of the crazy BS that COULD have happened. I have an idea you stupid a-hole, it was the effing aliens that did it! This conversation was immediately preceded by the CNN crew outside the home of family members of two Americans that were killed, and they had the nerve to say that they "respected their privacy". YGBSM. People watch this schite?

I'm going to finish my beer and get as far away from the tv as possible.

The answer is out there...

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1427322003.jpg

I detect you have a cow in this discussion ?

Just in: Pilot locked out of cockpit.

One pilot on the doomed Germanwings airliner that crashed into the Alps Tuesday apparently was locked out the cockpit moments before the plane crashed, killing all 150 on board, the New York Times reported Wednesday afternoon.

An investigator told the paper that evidence from a voice recorder indicated that the pilot had left the cockpit and could not re-enter. He tried knocking lightly on the door, and when there was no immediate answer, he began knocking more loudly.

ADVERTISEMENT
Finally, the source told the Times, audio on the recorder revealed: “You can hear he is trying to smash the door down.”

The source said investigators did not yet know why the pilot left the cockpit. French aviation investigators said earlier Wednesday that they had not the "slightest explanation" for what happened.....

So the latest is that the voice recorder indicates one pilot got locked out of the cockpit, the other pilot didn't let him back in then the plane made a slow, deliberate descent into the side of a mountain...

Report: Pilot locked out of cockpit before Germanwings crash

Germanwings crash report: Pilot locked out of cockpit - CNN.com