AirFrance A330 missing

[KevinAu 441]

Airbus aircraft are not unsafe. Fly-By-Wire is not unsafe. How many Airbus flights take place every day, and how many fall out of the sky? Quite a bit of silliness here.How many of you think twice before getting in your (or someone else's) car? Driving on the roads is a hell of a lot more dangerous than getting in a modern airliner! The fact is if you have got from your home to the airport you have already survived the most dangerous part of the journey!Now if you think an Airbus is the only type that will get into trouble with an IAS indication failure, read up on the Avianca 757 that crashed due to conflicting indications from the cockpit instruments - the exact cause is unknown but the leading theory is the pitot tube was blocked by a wasp nest. Are you afraid to get on a 757/767 because of this?Airbus and the dumb French airplanes! :(

Up until this crash, the crashes attributed to pitot failures have been caused by failures by humans to catch obstructions to the tubes prior to flight. The difference here is that this pitot failure is suspected of being caused by a design defect where there is nothing to catch before a flight. It is an important distinction.

[mabe54 17]

[...the Avianca 757 that crashed due to conflicting indications from the cockpit instruments - the exact cause is unknown but the leading theory is the pitot tube was blocked by a wasp nest....]I think you meant this one:6 February 1996; Birgenair (Alas Nacionales) 757-200; Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic.Because Avianca (Colombian Airline) hasn't lost any B757.Cheers,MAB

[EngineRoom 205]

Ah, my mistake. Thanks.

[Smoky942 1]

Airbus aircraft are not unsafe. Fly-By-Wire is not unsafe. How many Airbus flights take place every day, and how many fall out of the sky? Quite a bit of silliness here.How many of you think twice before getting in your (or someone else's) car? Driving on the roads is a hell of a lot more dangerous than getting in a modern airliner! The fact is if you have got from your home to the airport you have already survived the most dangerous part of the journey!Now if you think an Airbus is the only type that will get into trouble with an IAS indication failure, read up on the Avianca 757 that crashed due to conflicting indications from the cockpit instruments - the exact cause is unknown but the leading theory is the pitot tube was blocked by a wasp nest. Are you afraid to get on a 757/767 because of this?Airbus and the dumb French airplanes! :(

Engineroom...I hear what you're saying, and common sense tells me to mostly agree, however, it's not so much the pitot tubes that worry me...it's more about what I've read about having the tail section built of composite material. I don't know enough about it to argue the point...but what I read worries me a little. One Friday lunchtime, I had a head on collision with another vehicle at, what was determined by the accident investigators...a closing speed of 130+mph. I survived only because my vehicle was much bigger and heavier, the other driver did'nt. I was back behind the wheel on the Monday...but only because I new it was no fault of mine nor the vehicle I was driving. If I'd learned that it had been caused by some inherent fault in the vehicles design, no way would I have driven the type again. However, I will be boarding the Airbus in a couple of weeks...but I know I'll feel a little anxious till we touch down at KJFK.Russell.

[michal 44]

.

[michal 44]

I think you meant this one:6 February 1996; Birgenair (Alas Nacionales) 757-200; Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic.

It is hard to know which one he meant because there were two such accidents and the most famous one was actually Aero-Peru flight 603 that crashed in the Pacific off the coast off Lima on October 2, 1996. In this accident humans taped over the ports in preparation of aircraft waxing. But regardless as Kevin stated above - his bringing of "foreign object blockage of air ports" has nothing to do with alleged design flaws in the case of this Airbus A330. Even my Piper Archer can have its ports blocked (by ice, nests, snakes, etc.) - it is pilot's responsibility before every flight to assure the ports are not blocked. No one invented yet a port that would solve this basic problem.

[JHepburn 0]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2005/ma...ternationalnewshttp://www.netcomposites.com/news.asp?1063http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-0...htm?POE=NEWISVAThis raises my eyebrow a bit, and I don't think I will be flying airbus anymore, at least in real life. Flight Simulator Airbus is fine, although I don't like to fly it that much. I don't like how it intervenes with the pilots control, and what air manufacturing company only allows the COMPUTER to turn ITSELF off, instead of the pilot? ...and no I'm not talking about FBW, I know that you can turn the logic off......What kind of company doesn't test for a hidden flaw, that sickens me, they are putting precious lives at risk. No wonder some Airbus pilots have gone to Boeing.This guy has common sense.

@gman - Sorry, I've read pieces and parts of this thread in the hopes of getting caught up on the investigation. How do the three links (AAL961) relate to this crash? ...I don't see the relationship...Also, does the use of composites change your mind about getting on an Airbus aircraft? If so, how do you feel about the 787?@KevinAU - If you were asked to transition to an Airbus, would you do it? (If I recall, you're flying an RJ now, right? I only ask, because if you're currently flying a 767 then your answer may be very different.) I'm not sure how most line pilots today feel about the airplane....my buddy who is an A320 pilot absolutely loves it.

[BIGSKY 316]

Ultra Sound can be used to detect delaminations,But is very expensive to train ,and to use. Also the paint has to be stripped. As far as Airbus design philosophy,They made a throw away airliner,With their doing away of alcad coating on aluminium panels(ever wonder why you dont see polished skin?) ,and bonded skin joints. A 17 year old bus was parted out,because a heavy structural inspection was not cost effective,due to extensive corrosion. Just wait until these things get even older,with the wire bundle issues that will crop up,Something that people dont think of needing maintenance. And probally the most critical thing on the aircraft. This is not the aircraft that can be outsourced to the lowest bidder.

[palafox 0]

Up until this crash, the crashes attributed to pitot failures have been caused by failures by humans to catch obstructions to the tubes prior to flight. The difference here is that this pitot failure is suspected of being caused by a design defect where there is nothing to catch before a flight. It is an important distinction.

Design defects like these?* Douglas DC-10: unreliable lock mechanism of cargo doors, plus hydraulic lines running thru the cabin's floor: - American Airlines fligth 96 (06-12-1972, Detroit, Michigan) (http://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-full-text/ntsb/aircraft-accident-reports/AAR73-02.pdf) - Turkish Airlines Flight 981 (03-03-1974, Ermenonville, France) (http://www.bea.aero/docspa/1974/tc-v740303/pdf/tc-v740303.pdf, in French) * Boeing 737: uncommanded full rudder deflection: - United Airlines Flight 585 (03-03-1991, Colorado Springs, Colorado) (http://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-full-text/ntsb/aircraft-accident-reports/AAR92-06.pdf) - USAir Flight 427 (09-08-1994, Hopewell, Pennsylvania) (http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1999/AAR9901.htm) - Eastwind Airlines Flight 517 (Richmond, Virginia, 06-09-1996) * McDonnell-Douglas MD-82: CAWS not alerting flying crew of bad takeoff configuration. Initial cause of malfunciont not yet determined. - Northwest Airlines Flight 255 (08-16-1987, Detroit, Michigan) (http://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-full-text/ntsb/aircraft-accident-reports/AAR88-05.pdf) - Spanair Flight 5022 (08-20-2008, Madrid, Spain) (http://www.fomento.es/NR/rdonlyres/9AA08FE0-1151-41A0-9A57-9C5DF8BF6F8E/52877/2008_032_A_INTERINO_01_ENG1.pdf)And so on...Please don't let this thread become a "American/European is good, everyone else is evil" flame war. Every one has his/her share of flawed designs. The real question is to learn from the results of them, fatal or not, and try to get them fixed. As sad as it's the lost of any life, the worst thing about the Air France A330 accident is that probably we'll never know for sure its reason, and we can only speculate. So, if a basic defect is in the root of the accident, you know, most probably it will happen again. We can only hope there will be better luck next time and no one will get hurt.

[vololiberista 205]

As I have said before on this thread the kind of weather in that part of the world is the most violent one can expect. No one would dream of flying a commercial airliner through a hurricane so why did the Air Chance crew decide to fly through what was probably the most violent storm of the day when "everyone" else decided to fly around it! The tropical convergence is a zone that must always be treted with respect.Vololiberista

[michal 44]

* McDonnell-Douglas MD-82: CAWS not alerting flying crew of bad takeoff configuration. Initial cause of malfunciont not yet determined. - Northwest Airlines Flight 255 (08-16-1987, Detroit, Michigan) (http://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-full-text/ntsb/aircraft-accident-reports/AAR88-05.pdf) - Spanair Flight 5022 (08-20-2008, Madrid, Spain) (http://www.fomento.es/NR/rdonlyres/9AA08FE0-1151-41A0-9A57-9C5DF8BF6F8E/52877/2008_032_A_INTERINO_01_ENG1.pdf)

These were not "design" errors. I personally don't care about this Boeing-Airbus stuff but had to correct this obvious misinterpretation of events. For example you can read a very good analysis of NWA flight 255 accident in the book Aftermath (one of many accidents analyzed there, which by the way should be a mandatory reading for every pilot).

[Guest belga1]

Hello,

These were not "design" errors

I agree they are not directly "design" errors.They are pilots errors and additionally not failsafe systems.NWA and Spanair seem's very similars events .. a remake with same results.Regards.Gus.

[mabe54 17]

The stage was set that day. Then the trap just sprang. It amazes me that there are always so many chances to solve the original problem and avoid fatal errors later. Let's hope we can catch the next one on time, ahead of time.Cheers,MAB

[palafox 0]

These were not "design" errors. I personally don't care about this Boeing-Airbus stuff but had to correct this obvious misinterpretation of events. For example you can read a very good analysis of NWA flight 255 accident in the book Aftermath (one of many accidents analyzed there, which by the way should be a mandatory reading for every pilot).

Well, agree. No design issues here. Let's simply say that in the MD-80s the CAWS/TOWS fails to alert the crew from time to time, probably because of unreliable electical components. BTW, there's a third incident similar to those mentioned: on June 5th, 2007 a Mapjet MD-83 took off with flaps & slats retracted from Lanzarote and the TOWS failed again. This time fortunately there were no casualties. No official report by the CIAIAC (the equivalent to the NTSB in Spain) yet. Maybe that's the reason it's not referred to in the Spanair flight 5022 interim report.

[michal 44]

Well, agree. No design issues here. Let's simply say that in the MD-80s the CAWS/TOWS fails to alert the crew from time to time, probably because of unreliable electical components.

This is simply hogwash. Very often pilots simply pull the circuit-brakers to shut down what they consider annoying sounds (as suspected in the Spanair case). And yes, such alerting system can also be down because of other reasons, it is not a mandatory equipment for aircraft to be ready for flight. By the way - any such "alerting" system is purely advisory in nature and per certification rules doesn't have to be fool-proof. There are no additional systems to alert you that alerting system is down - or however many layers of such alerting systems you might dream of. If pilot needs reminding of extending flaps - he should stop flying long ago, he has no business being in this line of work. There are no aircraft Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, Bombardier, or Cessna that can compensate for pilot's stupidity or gross dereliction of duty. Some designers even argue that too much alerting create false sense of security. What you write is typical newspaper stuff - written by folks who have no clue about aircraft systems and what is supposed to work and why.