Airbus = Bad airplane to fly

[SUBMAN1]

k - Spent 12 hours on Airbus aircraft exclusively in the last 2 weeks, and I can honestly say - I'll never fly them again if at all possible. I couldn't get first class on such short notice, but even the first class seats weren't much better than coach anyway (cloth seats for first class??). I dunno. It got me where I was going, but everything in the plane is not only uncomfortable (Boeing provides much better seat options to its customers), but incredibly noisy. The isles are tiny to and every time the stewardess walked by, she bumped the hell out of me.

The Aux APU also had an issue, so mechanics running up and down the plane trying to fix it.

Anyway, you Europeans can have your Airbus aircraft. I won't fly them ever again if at all possible. I'll pay extra to fly Boeing and this is the first Airbus I've flown in 10 years with similar experiences to what I flew 10 years ago.

They did fix the water dripping on my leg problem though - By drying the plane out so much with A/C that you practically get a nose bleed.

-S

[HunterICX]

Cant see the problem as I experienced them in a Boeieng as well.
especialy the last time , as I was half deaf for 2 days because the Pressure mecanism didnt work so well on that flight (it felt like my head was going to be split into 2 parts and my ears hurted like hell then ever before)

but you dont hear me complain about it, whats the point in that?. as NONE of the planes (boeing or Aurbus) are perfect.

[TteFAboB]

The point is: Airbus planes have a cheap joystick instead of a yoke. Compare:

http://img03.picoodle.com/img/img03/8/5/15/f_yokem_8319c27.jpg
----------------------------------------
http://img02.picoodle.com/img/img02/8/5/15/f_stickcopym_db805f4.jpg
http://img02.picoodle.com/img/img02/8/5/15/f_cockpitairbm_56df111.jpg

Case closed.

[DAB]

I was under the impression that seats and internal configeration is largely down to the individual airlines - not the aircraft builders. Like blaming the builder of a house for the occupants taste in decor

I've flown in BA Airbuses and Boings (on the same day) - the seats that were used in both were identical

[robbo180265]

#Yawn# Who Cares?

[joea]

#Yawn# Who Cares?

:up: It's the airline not the plane.

[CCIP]

I smell brand loyalty. I don't really like brand loyalty :hmm:

As I said in the other thread, my experiences flying airbus so far have all been good, and I dare say generally more comfortable than my trips in Boeings.

[Tchocky]

I've had good trips and horrible trips on both, my criteria runs PRICE -> airline -> type (maybe)

[FIREWALL]

The point is: Airbus planes have a cheap joystick instead of a yoke. Compare:

http://img03.picoodle.com/img/img03/8/5/15/f_yokem_8319c27.jpg
----------------------------------------
http://img02.picoodle.com/img/img02/8/5/15/f_stickcopym_db805f4.jpg
http://img02.picoodle.com/img/img02/8/5/15/f_cockpitairbm_56df111.jpg

Case closed.:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: I'm a 747 guy all the way.

[AntEater]

http://www.stentorian.com/sheep1.jpg
Four legs good, two legs baaaaaaaaad....

[Payoff]

I like any plane that has the same number of landings as take offs.

[JSLTIGER]

I like any plane that has the same number of landings as take offs.

Allow me to amend that statement: safe* landings.

[Chock]

There are plus points to both aircraft makes from passenger, airline and aircrew's points of view.

If the passenger experience is not a pleasant one, you'll probably find that's got more to do with the airline's policies than the maker of the aircraft. Seat pitch, trim and configuration options are the domain of the airline when it specs up its order. And it is simply not true to suggest that Boeing provides much better seating options than Airbus Industrie; if that were really so, no airline would buy an Airbus product, in fact, if anything Airbus slightly edges things in terms of design at the moment, having just massively revamped this area of its product, although this is a neverending to-and-fro battle between both companies.

With regard to it being a case of whether a Boeing or an Airbus is used and this reflecting the customer's experience, both can be good or bad depending on the Airline. If you want proof of this, perhaps the most criticised of all the well-known high-frequency carriers - RyanAir - make almost exclusive use of the Boeing NG 737 series. And having flown with them twice (from the UK to Finland and back), I can assure you that I'll not be doing so again! But the Boeing 737 is one of the most popular aircraft in the world, with airlines, pilots and passengers. so ther's both a good and bad example of a seat on a Boeing.

In any case, it'll be SAS all the way next time, an airline incidentally, which prefers neither Boeing nor Airbus, but rather the Douglas DC-9 and its derivatives, the most recent models of which, despite the marketing, merely masquerade as Boeings.

Which leads us to the cockpit and avionics; something of an issue with many pilots. Being a pilot myself, I'm not a fan of the notion of Airbus' sidestick-controller, as it requires the pilot (seated on the left) to use his left hand on the stick when flying the aircraft manually. The sidestick controller has been criticised for its lack of 'feedback feel', which is artificially generated from the fly-by-wire system via a series of dampers.

Nevertheless, the cockpit is generally a roomier and less stressfull environment in most Airbus aircraft, certainly roomier than their Boeing counterparts (which have a grand tradition of tiny cockpits), but one has to weigh against this the general preference of most pilots for a traditional 'yoke' in a large aircraft, despite the fact that it can often obscure some of the primary flight displays and leave no room for you to put stuff on your lap. But this is the way Boeing, and virtually every other manufacturer does it, apart from Airbus Industrie.

Cockpit commonality is a big plus in Airbus aeroplanes, and this has advantages for crew familiarisation between models, and is thus a good safety feature. But on the downside, the Mode Control Panel (MCP) - i.e. the control panel up on the front of the 'dashboard' with which you generally fly an airliner via the autopilot - is unecessarily 'fussy' in the Airbus and has been widely criticised in comparison to the one found in Boeings. This not-very-intuitive control is among the culprits for several well publicised Airbus accidents, however it is fair to say that much of the cause was also a lack of familiarity with the system when it was newly introduced, and many of the same features now reside on Boeing flight decks, albeit in a better 'haptic' form.

On balance, there appears to be very little to choose between the two manufacturers with regard to safety these days, the statistics may show more Boeing crashes than Airbus ones, but that's probably because there are more Boeings around.

Boeing and Airbus have adopted differing long-term strategies for which aircraft they will concentrate on producing, with Boeing going for more regional-sized aircraft, and Airbus striving to take the lead in the long-haul market. Although both manufacturers are also attempting to dent the others' share of their respective first choice too! Because of this, one interesting development for Airbus, is that they are getting into the military aircraft market too, with large logistical transport aircraft starting to come off their production lines as well as commercial jets.

There is a definite difference in cultures between the two companies, with Boeing having the tradition and all the great benefits that such a position offers it, whereas many Airbus company people see it as purely a job in a consortium, and there are most definitely language barriers and cultural clashes between the European partners that don't exactly help things at Airbus. Nevertheless, sometimes the lack of constraints born of not being concerned about breaking with traditions can free up creativity.

So in the future, if Boeing go for the short haul, and Airbus for the long haul, much of the time, you'll already have the decision made for you on which make of aeroplane you fly on!

Personally, I wish they'd bring the DC-3 back, so there!

[perisher]

... you Europeans can have your Airbus aircraft. I won't fly them ever again if at all possible.

I see the USMC is buying European when it replaces the MARINE ONE fleet.

[Skybird]

Subman = Bad passenger to fly :smug:

Chock,

I find it interesting what you say about the MCP in Airbus and the different cockpit philosophies. I'm no pilot, and can only watch at it from the better modules for flihgtsims on the market, but there are some packages both for Airbus and Boeings that are complex and representative enough for the overhead and frontal panels that you get an idea of the differences. And from that simulator perspective, I see it exactly like you. I was more busy with Boeing cockpits (767) first, and later found it difficult to adopt to the Spartan style and the changes in handling in the airbus 320. I cannot say if that is just because of the order in which I learned both planes, but I find the european cockpit philosophy - as you said - a bit anti-intuitive in some details, especially with the MCP and the flight management computer (was it named FMS or FMC? :lol:)

From a pro pilot's perspective I assume it is a great argument that with one certification for an Airbus, you get flight permissions for several other Airbus models as well, since their cockpits share so many similiarities. It also saves the carriers the money to re-instruct and retrain their pilots on different plane models.

I never flew myself in an airliner, and hopefully never will (small planes always, but no flying bricks please :lol:), but my father did a lot of flights when his orchestra was touring, and they had both Airbusses and Boeings, as well as others. He found the carrier they used (and weather and pilot) to be the decisive variable concerning comfort, not the aircraft type.

By the numbers on paper, the A380's cabin will be the most silent, best-air conditioned cabin of all flying planes, with small advantages in seat space. So far carriers have not ordered the maximum number of seats possible, and the plane usually will be equipped with fewer additonal seats than there is additional space. this will give additonal 15-40% in individual seat space per passenger even in economy class, depending of specifications demanded by the carrier.

Available to first carriers in autumn 2007.

[wireman]

And proudly behind schedule.

[Skybird]

You would have boarded it if it would have been released one year ago...? Well, you better would have had not :lol:

[wireman]

My point exactly.

[Chock]

You know, one funny thing that is not often pointed out about 'cockpit commonality' and something which you see in the Standard Operating Procedures books for various Airbus models quite a lot, is a warning about remembering which one you are actually flying!

There have been instances of pilots forgetting which Airbus they are in because the cockpits all look so similar, and over-rotating it on take-off - causing a tail strike - because they thought they were in one of the smaller models with a shorter fuselage!

Joking aside, this is actually a fairly serious worry, since a tail strike can seriously damage the aircraft's rear pressure bulkhead, and in fact was the cause of the loss of a JAL Boeing 747, when a repair to the rear pressure bulkhead (following a tail strike some years earlier) failed and blew most of the horizontal stabiliser off. The loss of control eventually causing the aircraft to crash, but not before the passengers had spent a horrifying amount of time knowing what a stuggle the guys up front were having, many of the paseengers writing farewell letters to their families. As far as I recall, there was only one survivor in this accident (might be wrong about that bit though).

[gnirtS]

A brainless post from someone either biased or someone genuinely without a clue how things work.

k - Spent 12 hours on Airbus aircraft exclusively in the last 2 weeks, and I can honestly say - I'll never fly them again if at all possible. I couldn't get first class on such short notice, but even the first class seats weren't much better than coach anyway (cloth seats for first class??). I dunno. It got me where I was going, but everything in the plane is not only uncomfortable (Boeing provides much better seat options to its customers), but incredibly noisy. The isles are tiny to and every time the stewardess walked by, she bumped the hell out of me.

So why not blame the airline who is responsible for ALL those problems. Absolutely NOTHING to do with the aircraft. Seat pitch, width, numbers, decor, covering, other facilities, noise proofing is ALL down to the airline and nothing to do with the plane maker who provide an aluminium tube ready to be fitted with what the AIRLINE request.


The Aux APU also had an issue, so mechanics running up and down the plane trying to fix it.

One of the most common faults for all commercial airlines, be it boeing, airbus, McD or anyone else. Also the APUs come from many manufacturers and can be the same unit fitted on boeing or airbus. Again, absolutely nothing to do with the aircraft.


Anyway, you Europeans can have your Airbus aircraft. I won't fly them ever again if at all possible. I'll pay extra to fly Boeing and this is the first Airbus I've flown in 10 years with similar experiences to what I flew 10 years ago.

Thats fine but i doubt they'll miss someone as clearly poorly educated as that who cant distinguish between the aircraft and the airline.


They did fix the water dripping on my leg problem though - By drying the plane out so much with A/C that you practically get a nose bleed.
-S

So that'll be the same A/C parts fitted to boeings then.

[gnirtS]

I was under the impression that seats and internal configeration is largely down to the individual airlines

It is, entirely. Airlines specify all of that.


I've flown in BA Airbuses and Boings (on the same day) - the seats that were used in both were identical

Same here, connecting flights and so on. Same seats, same decor, same seat pitch. You wouldnt know what aircraft type you were on without reading the safety card.

[Penelope_Grey]

Ah well... look at it this way, if a plane goes down you're toast whether its a Boeing or an Airbus. So don't critique the plane too much, simply say, any landing you can walk away from is a good one. Personally, the flight itself doesn't bother me at all, its the landing that is of paramount importance to me.

I hate flying.

[Tchocky]

Looking at Subman's last thread on this, it appears he was expecting to be disappointed.

Confirmation bias, much?

[gnirtS]

Looking at Subman's last thread on this, it appears he was expecting to be disappointed.

Confirmation bias, much?

Yes, pre conceived bias before even leaving. It was obvious the mind was made up well before going.

Comparing 1st class with one airline with cargo class on a totally different airline and then blaming the airCRAFT for it. Lunacy.

[Fish]

Ah well... look at it this way, if a plane goes down you're toast whether its a Boeing or an Airbus. So don't critique the plane too much, simply say, any landing you can walk away from is a good one. Personally, the flight itself doesn't bother me at all, its the landing that is of paramount importance to me.

I hate flying.

Last flight, let me think, ..before seven years. A small two prop plane, no seats, I sat on the floor. Decided to leave at 12000 feet, oops, no chute. :damn:

Glad my partner had one. :rock:

[Chock]

Only ever made one parachute jump myself, with the Army, static line from a tethered balloon.

Unless my glider ever explodes for some reason, I can assure you it'll be the last one I ever make too. Scared the crap out of me.

As far as I'm concerned, my parachute is an overpriced cushion with an airworthiness certificate.

Chock :D

[Platapus]

Personally, I wish they'd bring the DC-3 back, so there!

Do you know of any place in the United States where I can get a ride on one?

I crawl through them any chance I get at Airshows but I would really like to fly in one. And even though I was only certified SEL I would love to take the controls in level flight.

[Fish]

Only ever made one parachute jump myself, with the Army, static line from a tethered balloon.

Unless my glider ever explodes for some reason, I can assure you it'll be the last one I ever make too. Scared the crap out of me.

As far as I'm concerned, my parachute is an overpriced cushion with an airworthiness certificate.

Chock :D

Glider he, had a flight with a glider ones (two sitter), absolutely fabulous.
You really feel like a bird.

The parachute jump was a tandem. Gift from my children for my 60 birthday. 300 feet free fall. A ones in a live time experience. :cool:

[geetrue]

You can't even see the runway in a DC-3, unless your landing. They were just eaiser to fix in those days before you needed
your own ET to figure out what was wrong ... :yep:

[Chock]

Platapus, try this site, it has a link to DC-3 flights and training..

http://www.centercomp.com/cgi-bin/dc3/gallery?720

[Platapus]

Platapus, try this site, it has a link to DC-3 flights and training..

http://www.centercomp.com/cgi-bin/dc3/gallery?720

Thank you! what a cool site.

who needs porn when I can see DC-3s!!!!!!

[SUBMAN1]

I read about how airlines outfit the aircraft - that is to a point only because the manufacturers have a selection. Boeing has theirs and Airbus has theirs. Otherwise you go custom interior which is not economical, so I don't want to hear that its the same between the two - it is not.

On another note, I read someone saying cockpit conformity across models in Airbus as a plus, but fails to mention that Boeing has been doing this same thing since the early 90's.

Probably my biggest complaint between Boeing and Airbus has to do with safety however. Airbus has hard set limiters on what you can and can't do with the aircraft. Boeing also has the same thing, but the end is where things are a major problem - Airbus will not let you ever exceed them given an emergency - if you are going to crash, and you go up against the limiters, you are going to die because that is all you get. Boeing however has a different philosophy - they also have this same limiters, but if its an all or nothing situation, Boeing aircraft allow the pilot to exceed them by using excessive force on the controls.

To me, this mentality by Airbus is an arrogant one to not give the pilot the final say.

-S

PS. Again I am sick after getting back off an airplane. Its like a recycled cigar tube of bacteria and viruses. Boeing and Airbus should find a way to address this issue. Last couple days had a temp of over 100 F.

[CCIP]

Probably my biggest complaint between Boeing and Airbus has to do with safety however. Airbus has hard set limiters on what you can and can't do with the aircraft. Boeing also has the same thing, but the end is where things are a major problem - Airbus will not let you ever exceed them given an emergency - if you are going to crash, and you go up against the limiters, you are going to die because that is all you get. Boeing however has a different philosophy - they also have this same limiters, but if its an all or nothing situation, Boeing aircraft allow the pilot to exceed them by using excessive force on the controls.

Sounds sorta like F-16 vs. MiG-29 :88)

[gnirtS]

I read about how airlines outfit the aircraft - that is to a point only because the manufacturers have a selection. Boeing has theirs and Airbus has theirs. Otherwise you go custom interior which is not economical, so I don't want to hear that its the same between the two - it is not.

Bull****, its entire down to the airlines preference and ordering. There is no default interior. Every airline specifies exactly what they want. Thats how they budget for it and how they maintain conformity between the entire fleet.



On another note, I read someone saying cockpit conformity across models in Airbus as a plus, but fails to mention that Boeing has been doing this same thing since the early 90's.

So they both do it? Whats the issue? 757/767/777 yes. The 737 and others dont follow it.


Probably my biggest complaint between Boeing and Airbus has to do with safety however. Airbus has hard set limiters on what you can and can't do with the aircraft. Boeing also has the same thing, but the end is where things are a major problem - Airbus will not let you ever exceed them given an emergency - if you are going to crash, and you go up against the limiters, you are going to die because that is all you get. Boeing however has a different philosophy - they also have this same limiters, but if its an all or nothing situation, Boeing aircraft allow the pilot to exceed them by using excessive force on the controls.

Firstly lets see exactly how many incidents have happened due to that. Exactly zero. Seconly you appear blisfully unaware that hard limits arent a feature in the newer airbus aircraft.
You also appear to ignore the incidents where boeing planes have been damaged by flight crew accidentally taking the airframe over its limits which would not have occurred on an airbus. 737 and rudder reversal comes to mind a lot.




PS. Again I am sick after getting back off an airplane. Its like a recycled cigar tube of bacteria and viruses. Boeing and Airbus should find a way to address this issue. Last couple days had a temp of over 100 F.

Or work on your diet and general fitness. If aircraft made people sick every time they fly the world would have a real problem. HEPA filters and so on cut most of the bugs but at the end of the day its a confined space with 300 people on board just like a train, cinema, sports ground and so on. No way to avoid that without giving everyone their own little space suit.

[wireman]

737 rudder reversal had nothing to do with the built in limits you were refering to.

[HunterICX]

Mmm..

limiters ,

cant refer any situation where a boeing survived a crash by overrunning the set limiters.

if a airliner has a big problem and the only way the plane wants to go to is Down, you can pull as hard as you can on the sticks the plane will go down.

indeed I agree, the Airliners are the biggest threat for your own healthy especially as they dont refresh the air so much in the cabins. I had seen a documantary about this issue, and it made me wanna buy myself a gasmask for the next flight.
you just dont wanna know how unhealthy the air in the cabin is after a while flying at 10.000 meters. but still if you are perfectly healthy , you have a low risk of getting a fever

[SUBMAN1]

Bull****, its entire down to the airlines preference and ordering. There is no default interior. Every airline specifies exactly what they want. Thats how they budget for it and how they maintain conformity between the entire fleet.

I've worked next to the Boeing interior design for nearly 5 years and Boeing's options are going to be different from Airbus's options. They make their own seats / interior's and no they are not the same. Matter of fact, new versions are even kept secret. Wait till you see the 787! I've seen things that are not yet released! I'll fly that aircraft every day of the week if I could!

So they both do it? Whats the issue? 757/767/777 yes. The 737 and others dont follow it.

Lets see here - 737/747 share, as well as the 757/767/777 share. The logic here? It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that if you are certified on one 737, it is a bad idea to change things around. So you really only need two cockpits - and of course, if all aircraft had been designed in the same period, this would have probably only been one.

This is all pointless though - you are still dealing with shared cockpit designs - where you have 2 total. Its not like the old days where each aircraft had its own! I remember those days.

Firstly lets see exactly how many incidents have happened due to that. Exactly zero. Seconly you appear blisfully unaware that hard limits arent a feature in the newer airbus aircraft.
You also appear to ignore the incidents where boeing planes have been damaged by flight crew accidentally taking the airframe over its limits which would not have occurred on an airbus. 737 and rudder reversal comes to mind a lot.

737 Rudder reversal can not be contributed to the pilots. Boeing denies this, but they need to face it. Period. The black boxes do not show pilot commanded input causing the problem (hydraulic issue?). There was one case of rocking by a pilot who liked to use hard rudder inputs for some unknown reason, but only one. Scratch that - just found it - it was an Airbus that he was flying and he snapped the rudder off. Sorry - my mistake. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1436374,00.html

Still the 737 is one of the safest airplanes to fly, with the 600 series and up showing only 0.14 fatal accidents per million takeoffs and landings - better than its Airbus counterparts, especially the A310 which has a score of 1.39. By the way, the only aircraft flying commercially even that has not only never killed anyone, but also never even had an incident like sliding off a runway is a 777.

Oh - On your hard limiter not causing crashes - Something to watch - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b1pkKR-Acc

By the way, where is it said that they removed the hard limiters? I can find no evidence to support that claim.


Or work on your diet and general fitness. If aircraft made people sick every time they fly the world would have a real problem. HEPA filters and so on cut most of the bugs but at the end of the day its a confined space with 300 people on board just like a train, cinema, sports ground and so on. No way to avoid that without giving everyone their own little space suit.

Agreed - except the fitness part. Can't help the guy sitting next to you coughing up a storm! You sit there in the terminal and hope that guy doesn't sit next to you, and when he does... :shifty: I guess it could be worse - It could be a 300 pounder who has to sit in the seat sideways! :D

[HunterICX]

@Video.

Air France Flight 296

and on that speed no matter what it would have crashed

Official report
The official report states the causes of the accident were 1) very low flyover height, lower than surrounding obstacles; 2) speed very slow and reducing to reach maximum possible angle of attack; 3) engine speed at flight idle; 4) late application of go-around power. This combination led to impact of the aircraft with the trees.
The Commission believed that if the descent below 100 feet was not deliberate, it may have resulted from failure to take proper account of the visual and aural information intended to give the height of the aircraft.

a Pilot error.

[SUBMAN1]

@Video.

Air France Flight 296

and on that speed no matter what it would have crashed

Official report
The official report states the causes of the accident were 1) very low flyover height, lower than surrounding obstacles; 2) speed very slow and reducing to reach maximum possible angle of attack; 3) engine speed at flight idle; 4) late application of go-around power. This combination led to impact of the aircraft with the trees.
The Commission believed that if the descent below 100 feet was not deliberate, it may have resulted from failure to take proper account of the visual and aural information intended to give the height of the aircraft.

a Pilot error.
You are reading the official Airbus explanation - pretty much a cover up. Read what the pilot has to say about whaqt happened - he was prevented from saving his aircraft!

-S

A320 operation anomalies

Third-party investigations into the crash dispute the official findings[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296#_note-crash).Captain Asseline asserted the altimeter read 100 feet (30 m) despite video evidence that the plane was as low as 30 feet (10 m). He also reported that the engines didn't respond to his throttle input as he attempted to increase power. The month prior to the accident, Airbus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus) posted two Operational Engineering Bulletins (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operational_Engineering_Bulletin&action=edit) indicating anomalous behavior noted in the A320 aircraft. These bulletins were received by Air France but not sent out to pilots until after the accident:

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_France_Flight_296&action=edit&section=4)] OEB 19/1: Engine Acceleration Deficiency at Low Altitude

This OEB noted that the engines may not respond to throttle input at low altitude.

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_France_Flight_296&action=edit&section=5)] OEB 06/2: Baro-Setting Cross Check

This OEB stated that the barometric altitude indication on the A320 did not always function properly.
These malfunctions could have caused both the lack of power when the throttle was increased, and the inability of the crew to recognize the sharp sink rate as the plane passed 100 feet into the trees.

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_France_Flight_296&action=edit&section=6)] Investigation irregularities

According to French Law, the Flight Data Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_data_recorder) are to be immediately retrieved by the police in the event of an aircraft accident. However, the recorders were taken by the civil aviation authorities and held for 10 days until they were finally confiscated. When the recorders were returned, they had been physically opened and the magnetic tape tampered with. 8 seconds of tape was removed, including the 4 seconds immediately prior to the crash, and the voice recorder and data recorder were 4 seconds out of sync at the time of the crash. This has led to allegations that the flight data recorder was seriously tampered with, or even replaced.


PS. I also find this quote interesting:
No fewer than 52 provisional flight notices have been published by Airbus Industry between April 1988 and April 1989. Hardly any new aircraft type has manifested such a large number of malfunctions.

[SUBMAN1]

Wow! Check this out:

Due to these anomalies, and the fact that the Black Boxes were in the hands of the DGAC, it has always been supposed, and is finally proven since May 1998, that the Flight Data Recorder confiscated on July 5 from the DGAC is NOT the one which was taken from the aircraft after the crash.

[SUBMAN1]

The more I read, the funnier this gets!:

Norbert Jacquet

Norbert Jacquet, an Air France pilot who spoke out in Asseline's support, was suspended from duty and had his licence withdrawn by Air France on the grounds of "mental instability". Meanwhile he has got five psychiatric certificates which unanimously state that he is completely sane and does not have any signs of mental trouble. One understands that co-pilot Pierre Mazière, who has continued to fly for Air France after the accident, cannot dare to express himself on the subject.

This is from over at Air Disaster .com

-S

[Chock]

The www.airdisaster.com (http://www.airdisaster.com) site is aimed at rubber-necking morons, the name of the site says it all.

If you are interested in serious treatments of air accident and aviation safety matters, try looking at: flight safety, FIA, NTSB or AIIB sites, where sensationalist rubbish is not the main motivation for the site.

[SUBMAN1]

The www.airdisaster.com (http://www.airdisaster.com) site is aimed at rubber-necking morons, the name of the site says it all.

If you are interested in serious treatments of air accident and aviation safety matters, try looking at: flight safety, FIA, NTSB or AIIB sites, where sensationalist rubbish is not the main motivation for the site.

Hardly - it is for people that want to know what happened and have an interest in a subject. That is like saying The Register knows nothing about computers since they are not quoting from a government source! Get real!

Besides, all the data on the crash is easily verifyable offsite - that should be good enough for any researcher.

-S

[Chock]

I didn't say it didn't contain any accurate data, I'm merely pointing out that it concentrates on the shock value, rather than concentrating on being a serious research tool.

Take a look at the navigation bar on the air disaster site on the left, you'll notice that all the sensationalist stuff appears first (videos, photos, cockpit voice recordings etc). Last time I checked, Investigation came before Video if you list things alphabetically. I think it's an appalling site.

And with regard to research, since I was a writer for a daily newspaper for ten years, I do know a little about finding facts and verifying them :D

[SUBMAN1]

I didn't say it didn't contain any accurate data, I'm merely pointing out that it concentrates on the shock value, rather than concentrating on being a serious research tool.

Take a look at the navigation bar on the air disaster site on the left, you'll notice that all the sensationalist stuff appears first (videos, photos, cockpit voice recordings etc). Last time I checked, Investigation came before Video if you list things alphabetically. I think it's an appalling site.

And with regard to research, since I was a writer for a daily newspaper for ten years, I do know a little about finding facts and verifying them :D
If some people like this stuff or are obsessed by it, I'd have to say that this site offers a lot of info on the subject! But to put it into perspective - it is little different than subsim.com, but only with what you may call objectionable content. It even has a forum.

Now what really doesn't jive with your assessment - it looks for solutions to current problems, and it looks for ways to help you deal with your fear of flying for example.

So, I do not agree on your perspective in relation to the site. Taking a look at the data provided for the Air France disaster - it is not over hyped or over sensationalized (which is typical of your industry). It has all the data, and that is it. Just because it has links in one section vs another is not reason to discount it as you do.

-S

PS. Incase you didn't notice - it also links out to the NTSB for example.

[Chock]

Well, I guess we can agree to differ on how we perceive the air disaster site, being a pilot, I don't particularly like its ghoulish qualities, others are free to disagree with me of course, so it's 'whatever floats your boat'.

Incidentally, I left the newspaper industry because of a disagreement over my dislike of the poor journalistic integrity which had become the editorial policy of the paper I was working for. Specifically, they didn't want to publish a piece I wrote warning about the danger of poisoning from a particular substance, because they felt it would affect advertising revenue. So it is no longer 'my industry' and I'm sincerely glad about that.

Chock :D

[SUBMAN1]

Well, I guess we can agree to differ on how we perceive the air disaster site, being a pilot, I don't particularly like its ghoulish qualities, others are free to disagree with me of course, so it's 'whatever floats your boat'.

Incidentally, I left the newspaper industry because of a disagreement over my dislike of the poor journalistic integrity which had become the editorial policy of the paper I was working for. Specifically, they didn't want to publish a piece I wrote warning about the danger of poisoning from a particular substance, because they felt it would affect advertising revenue. So it is no longer 'my industry' and I'm sincerely glad about that.

Chock :D
Good to hear that you stuck to your guns on that! :up: Sorry it cost you what you like to do for a living however. :down:

-S

PS. Did you take a look at their sister site? Check this thread:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=114811

[Chock]

Not a big deal, I still write freelance pieces in addition to my main job of training people on software. In any case, teaching people stuff is far more rewarding than writing, and so like a lot of things in life, it turned out for the best.

I guess honesty really is the best policy sometimes eh?

[SUBMAN1]

Not a big deal, I still write freelance pieces in addition to my main job of training people on software. In any case, teaching people stuff is far more rewarding than writing, and so like a lot of things in life, it turned out for the best.

I guess honesty really is the best policy sometimes eh?

It is the best policy in more ways than one, since I find honesty has actually gotten me out of quite a bit of trouble at times. Honesty to cops for example when you are obviously speeding etc. - do you know that most cops will let you off with a warning if you're just straight up with them? Every cop hears all day long denial and negativity, and when you are straight up and fess up, they are so blown away that they have what I describe as shock! The end result is getting off whatever you did, or taking a lesser hit at the very least.

A long story short - I told this to my brother in law about a month back and he got caught later doing 70 km/h in a 30 km/h (It was about the time school let out but no children were out). This was bad because they could take his license, throw him in jail, etc., so he was in a world of hurt. Hit didn't deny any of it, and the cops were so blown away, they let him off (though he was already in the computer, so they had to write him something - so they gave him no registration instead - something that would be dropped in court), and saying we need more citizens like you, yadda yadda yadda.

Trust me - honesty works! But I think you already know that. Good to hear you like your new job better. I always been asked, but I avoid teaching people myself. It's more I lack the patience then the ability though. The ability to teach effectively day in and day out is a very good trait! :up:

-S