MissJ

Wow, they really need to try a little proofreading. Just a simple spellcheck would have made that article less of a "disaster" lol.

knit-in

Aren't the changes to aircrafts after accidents and/or incidents, made in an attempt to fix the problem(s)?

If they're selling their product to multiple companies, all over the world, Airbus can't be completely unreliable.

jrl767

some folks wax hyperbolic ... after a while you reach for the salt shaker to read some posts

Dawgfan6291

Prove that with data please.
So you are just making stuff up eh?
"resets" are just as normal in Boeings as they are in Airbus. You might not have had it happen to you, yet, but I have reset just as many 737NGs as I have A319/A320s. (and for the record, its a very low number for both, and work on the A319/A320 (and MDs) a lot more than I do on the 37)
New generation aircraft, both A and B, are flying computers. On 737NGs and 777s they are just as much like a computer as an A320/A330.

he/she doesn't.
readywhenyouare is a known airbus hater and post opinions as fact all the time. Plenty of people who, you know, WORK ON THE AIRPLANES(both flying and fixing) have tried, all have failed.
Every OEM (aircraft, engine, component) rolls out changes almost DAILY to their product. They are called service bulletins. (and in some cases the FAA gets involved and makes said SBs into ADs )

And guess what, none of them issue PRs every time they issue an SB. That includes Boeing.
FWIW AA wasn't the only airline using fork lifts to change engines. IIRC CO and UA both changed engines the same way.
And wasn't the fault of the OEMs (airframe, engines and the bolts used) but it was simply science. IMHO we are very lucky they figured it out when they did. (as I believe this could have been an issue later in life with other engines/aircraft.)

and the other big issue in the US for the DC10 was when a UA 10's number 2 decided to throw a disk, which again isn't really the fault of the airplane but the fault of the GE CF6-6D.

readywhenyouare

Yes, I have never tried to hide the fact that I dislike Airbus. Their philosophy is radically different than Boeing, MD, Embraer, Bombardier. Are these four manufacturers stupid for not adopting the Airbus flight augmentation philosophy? Also, the problem isn't so much the aircraft itself. It seems some Airbus pilots believe that the aircraft won't let itself get into a dangerous situation. That is only true during "normal law". If the aircraft degrades into "alternate" or "direct" law then all bets are off. We've had two recent accidents where the flight crew didn't recognize that they were no longer in normal law. I prefer a flight crew that prefers to stay ahead of the game and has an aircraft that will behave the same way at all times.

LaserSailor

It's a good thing we had a glider pilot on Cactus 1549 and not Airbus software...

(Scans Report)

How do i delete a stupid post??

Dawgfan6291

and just like when Boeing has had training related issues for its aircraft, Airbus has made changes to its training programs.

Sorry, Boeing isn't perfect. They have had just as many issues as Airbus, if not more.

jrl767

probably more, since Boeing has been in the commercial airliner business about 30 years longer than Airbus ...

readywhenyouare

Ah, I see you didn't read all of my posts in this thread. I stated in post #18 that Boeing has had their share of problems. I'm not sure why Airbus fans get so worked up and take things personally. Fly what you like, it makes no difference to me. Arrogance is what I dislike most about Airbus. They were formed by a joint project between the UK, France, and Germany and were subsidized by the taxpayers. They were never subjected to market forces the way Boeing, MD, and Lockheed were. Cash or going under was never a problem for Airbus since they are backed by their governments. It's also why I take issue with Richard Anderson berating the ME3 for being subsidized but yet he has no problem buying subsidized Airbus jets. He only wants a level playing field when it benefits him.

brocklee9000

Exactly, several airlines were cutting corners and employed a similar practice of using lifts and other tricks to try and make engine overhauls/swaps "easier" but ultimately ended up causing damage. I just couldn't remember the other airlines off the top of my head, so I didn't want to speculate.

Dawgfan6291

I am not an airbus or a boeing fan, its an airplane. I happen to prefer working on the little bus over the 737 because the little bus is a bit bigger, and easier to work on. (example, bag bin on the 737 is very low and long, the bus it high enough i can sit on a small stool. Also the 737 is so low to the ground you basically have to lay on the ground to close up the under body panels, where the bus is high enough you can stay standing (but have to bend over))
but for flying I tend to prefer MDs (if up front) or Boeings.

I am not a fan of biased people posting opinions as fact when that fact is 100% wrong, however.

I know the story, but first, lets not act like Boeing and LM are not too big to fail. Both are key .mil suppliers, they aren't going anywhere. (and it looks like Boeing is going to end up being able to buy NG on top of it)
Second Airbus is not the old Airbus. While they also are to big to fail, they aren't any more "backed" by the EU counties than Boeing or LM is by the US.
Third the WTO has found both AB and Boeing have gotten plenty of subsidies in the past.

Oh and finally, we all know congress wouldn't ever approve Airbus winning a big .mil contract if NG/Boeing/LM offer a competing product.(example, no one thought that, even if the GAO didn't rule in Boeing favor, a A330 based tanker in the USAF would really happen) Oh and let us not forgot plenty of examples of Congress forcing airplanes on the USAF and USN they don't want. The C17 is a perfect example. (also pretty sure the F/A-18 is another example)


and we wont even talk about the s**t show that is the F-35
Again, airbus is no more subsidized than Boeing.

(and of course the ME3 are in violation of open skies acts and Airbus isn't breaking any laws, but that is for a different thread.)
Sometimes that happens. Its sad it had to cost lives, but speeding up turn times is never bad, if its done safely.

Also have to remember that it was in a different time and place than the industry is now. Lot less inspection methods than we have today for example.
Should have been more clear, I meant in the same time frame.

KRSW

Don't forget modern cars. My new car is basically Debian Linux on wheels. Brakes? Steering? Gas pedal? Horn? All controlled via Linux. In full automation mode, it steers, brakes, accelerates, uses turn signals and even slows down to get rid of tailgaters. Even in manual mode, you're not really driving the car, but it does try hard to give the impression that you are.

When I first got it, the car REFUSED to pull forward in drive-through restaurants in auto mode. The computer thought it was a toll booth and maintained a reasonable distance rather than pulling forward. I'd put my foot on the gas and it'd fire up the engine, but wasn't willing to move forward. A call to Germany and they updated the car's programming a week or so later to include drive-throughs. Similarly, the car protests quite a bit if you try to kiss the garage wall with the bumper. It'll get within 3" of it then shuts the engine off.

All of that said, the safety systems have successfully avoided 3 accidents since I've had the car. 1) Deer running across the road with me driving @ 45mph at night. 2) Some old lady blowing through a side road stop sign at full speed, I was doing 45mph, car successfully swerved & stood on the brakes. 3) It jumped into the turn lane when I was about to be rear-ended by someone who wasn't stopping.

What Yahoo should have reported is how WELL and efficiently the safety systems engaged. So there were a couple of pillows tossed from pax seats. Boo-hoo. Has no one here had to brake/swerve hard enough in a car to cause objects inside to move? Did the systems trigger falsely? We assume so, but haven't been told what the plane saw. My car saw the deer before I did. I've also used the car's radar to 'see' what's ahead of me and let the car do the driving when weather conditions severely limited visibility.

My only "under the hood" experiences with large aircraft are minimal, but I've gotten to play with the A320 and 30-year-old Boeing aircraft. Not a fair comparison, but Airbus aircraft filter the 400Hz interference from the avionics & IFE. Boeing does not. Where else are they cutting costs? To me, the pilot's ability to communicate with tower is secondary to them being able to fly the aircraft, but right up there in importance.

knit-in

I can see what you mean.

readywhenyouare

100% wrong? So the accident investigations of AF 447 and Air Asia are false? Those flight crews stalled the Airbus by not recognizing they were no longer in "normal law". They thought they could just pull back on the side stick and the airplane would get them out of the mess. That doesn't work in "alternate" or "direct" law. In my opinion it is better to have an aircraft that behaves in the same way at all times. When you are dealing with an emergency I don't think it is a good idea to add an additional step of finding out what sort of flight law the aircraft is in at the moment. Whatever flight law you are currently in will determine the recovery procedure. If you are a passenger you better hope they get it right.

avcritic

Are you suggesting RA buying Airbus even after Boeing offered similar price they are offering to ME3?

Why would RA complain about USEXIM/Boeings Buy 7 Get 1 Free offer to ME3.

It is up to Boeing to create level playing field for US carriers in terms of aircraft purchases.

USEXIM may have created an unfair advantage to ME3, but there are always other ways Boeing can match that offer to US3. Barring that US3 are free to buy any manufacturer.