A320 Down

[450knotOffice]

Originally Posted by Jrboulder

The problem with your comparison is that you've lumped all of the 737s together even though they span several generations of aviation technology. Back in the day flying was dangerous. The -100/-200 were little basically snub nose 707s an as such they even had windows for navigating with sextants. At a minimum you need to compare the CFM56-powered 737s to the A320.

And yeah, established, financially well-off airlines like Southwest avoid the scarebus like the plague.

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.

[Jrboulder]

Originally Posted by 450knotOffice

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.

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.

[afterburn 549]

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 )

[BE911SC]

Originally Posted by 450knotOffice

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.

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.

[aigel]

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

[flipper35]

Originally Posted by BE911SC

In the Air France crash over the Atlantic the first officer kept yanking his side-stick to full nose-up each time the stall warning sounded. The captain had come back into the cockpit and was trying to recover the jet from the deep stall and when they'd lower the nose the stall warning, which went silent when the jet was fully stalled, came back on. The FO panicked and yanked his stick back. The captain overrode the FO's stick input at least once--each stick has an override button for the other stick--but the panicked FO overrode the captain's override and kept the jet in the deep stall. I hate to admit pilot error as an airline pilot but pilot error played a major part in the Air France loss.

I'm a Boeing guy so the Airbus guys are welcome to correct or clarify my explanation.

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

[berettafan]

Originally Posted by flipper35

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?

[pavulon]

a situation of disorientation and/or panic.

Originally Posted by berettafan

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

[flipper35]

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.

[gordner]

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.....

[BE911SC]

Originally Posted by flipper35

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

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.

[flipper35]

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.

[gordner]

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


Very unlikely.

[flipper35]

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.

[greglepore]

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.

[onewhippedpuppy]

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.

[flipper35]

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.

[Deschodt]

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...

[Don Plumley]

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.

[scottmandue]

Originally Posted by motion

Upstairs in an A380 is about as nice as it gets. Amazing ride. Much nicer than anything by Boeing.

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