Hi Folks,

 

I know more than one real world ATP that has time in Boeing and Airbus - and they much prefer Boeing's way of doing business...

 

Regards,

Scott

Hi Folks,

 

I know more than one real world ATP that has time in Boeing and Airbus - and they much prefer Boeing's way of doing business...

 

Regards,

Scott

 

Opinions are like asses, everybody has his own xD

 

I know pilots who prefer Airbus and there's no point in starting an Airbus vs. Boeing debate, at least I don't see it fitting into the topic of this thread

 

For the record: I prefer Boeing

I don't like Airbus because they think a computer is smarter than a human, always. (They've been wrong several times).

 

This is a typical flawed reasoning. It is true that automation sometimes caused accidents, but we don't actually know how many times that same automation helped avoid other possible accidents.

 

There's also a psychological factor at play: an accident caused by automation, is psychologically much harder to accept than an accident caused by human error, even in the hypothesis that the automation produced a lower accident rate in total. This is true not only for the general public, but also for those more knowledgeable or closely involved (pilots, aviation enthusiasts, etc.).

 

Here's Boeing data on commercial aircraft accident statistics:

 

http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/company/about_bca/pdf/statsum.pdf

 

At page 20, here are the stats:

 

The B737NG series has a marginally better accident rate compared to A320 series: 0.10 vs 0.14 hull losses, 0.23 vs 0.26 hull losses w/ fatalities. Considering that the NG has been introduced 10 years after (in a world where the aviation safety has been always constantly increasing), and that the A320 has been the first FBW commercial aircraft in operation, I think it's done pretty well.

 

The B777 has somewhat better stats compared to the A330 with regard to hull losses w/ fatalities, and somewhat worse with regard to hull losses without. But the A340 has better stats compared to the B777 with regard to hull losses w/fatalities, and worse with regard to hull losses without.

 

All of them are much, much better than the B747-400 (introduced 4-5 years before the A340/A330) that is (statistically speaking) less safe than any newer Airbus or Boeing.

 

So at the end of the day, the FBW automation doesn't seem to have negative consequences on the overall safety of the airliners if we look at the stats.

 

 

It's like saying "seriously......insert any global news agency here"

 

seriously..... Avsim forums ? 

 

 

For the record: I prefer Boeing

me too, until fslabs finally releases !

 

This is a typical flawed reasoning. It is true that automation sometimes caused accidents, but we don't actually know how many times that same automation helped avoid other possible accidents.

Actually... your reasoning is flawed. You assumed I have issues with automation. I do not. I have issues where automation can not be overridden and/or inhibited. Automation is not controlled by a system that has the ability to accomplish the reasoning the human mind is capable of. It is impossible for automation to always make the correct choice and thus to design a system where one is forced to accept automation's decisions without the ability to reject it... is foolhardy, at the least.

 

I can think of several Airbus crashes where the automation made decisions it simply should not have made and lives were lost.

 

I could go on and on... but bottom line... automation isn't the issue... it's making the automation so you can't control it when it makes bad choices... that's the issue.

Oh my God, the same idiotic Al Jazeera 787-video topic returning after two years? I can't believe it.

Al Jazeera is as good as Russia Today (RT).

I can think of several Airbus crashes where the automation made decisions it simply should not have made and lives were lost.

 

And probably there are cases where the forced automation of the Airbus prevented an accident with loss of lives, that would not have been prevented in the absence of that forced automation.

 

However, bottom line I was demonstrating with data, is that the safety of the corresponding later generations of Airbus and Boeing aircrafts is pretty much in line one with the other, to the point that the differences between their accident rates is probably due to other factors other than automation.

 

So the reasoning that an Airbus should be less safe than a Boeing, because it's more pervasively automated, don't have a basis, statistically speaking.

So I've seen the video and nothing really surprises me. Stuff like that happens in Airbus as well.

 

What I believe is that we are in a technology transition. It happened with metal alloys 100 years ago, it's happening with carbon fiber now. The industry is just gathering knowledge and will master this technology in the coming generations of aircrafts, not in this one though.

 

Just an example: The assumption is being made that carbon fiber does not fatigue. Not completely true.

Al Jazeera is as good as Russia Today (RT).

And may be closer to the turth then the networks we watch in North America.

 

 

 

Oh my God, the same idiotic Al Jazeera 787-video topic returning after two years? I can't believe it.

Al Jazeera is as good as Russia Today (RT).

 

 

Amazing that it got a couple of pages of debate out of it. Gave me a laugh with my morning tea

 

And in other 2014 news......Germany won the FIFA World Cup

 

 

And may be closer to the turth then the networks we watch in North America.

I beg to differ.

I beg to differ.

I beg to differ with your differ.

I beg to differ.

I respect and understand your view point as I once stood in your shoes a long time ago....

 

 

 

Propaganda in our media.  You may find this real life aviation blind spot informative.

I skipped to the relevant point in this video...

 

 

 

Propaganda in our media.

Please spare me your propaganda ...