Plastic parts, Airbus V Boeing split- cleaning out my 170 parts

[bagarre]

Bruce, I think you invented the modern day 195

[n3833v]

It looks like Bruce has lots of time to design new planes. Some day you might make some money.

John

[n2582d]

I suspect you must be a crewmember on an Airbus?

Hey, I thought we had a don't ask, don't tell policy here! The tone of the question sounds like Airbus pilots should be grouped with alcoholics, child molesters, philanderers and necrophiliacs. Hi, my name is Gary and I'm an Airbus pilot. Over the last 14 years of flying the 'Bus I have around 4700 hrs. (I'm waiting for the B-777 to begin flying Oakland to Fresno before I leave the Airbus for a Boeing.)

Back to the original rabbit trail. Guys like Capt. "Bikini" Bill are a lot more qualified than me to talk about the merits and/or shortcomings of various airframes here. Speaking of bikini, "statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." -Aaron Levenstien. I think that is especially true when it comes to looking at statistics on the relative safety of various airliners--take the early B-737-200 which came in dead last on the fear of flying website for example. What a website like this doesn't show is who is crashing these planes and what part of the world they are coming down. One reason Quatas has such an outstanding safety record is that, in general, they fly where the weather and terrain is more benign than say Pakistan. In this regard compare the safety record of aircraft in Alaska to those in the lower 48. Another huge factor is flight crew training. My brother told me of flying on a Chinese carrier and watching a flight attendant sitting on an armrest casually chatting with a passenger during landing. Take a look at the airlines in red on this website. Poor training has got to be a large part of some of those abysmal safety ratings. Another factor is ground navigation facilities or lack thereof. I flew an SAR mission in eastern Indonesia where we found the charred wreckage of a Vickers Viscount on a hillside. Here's a link to that accident. (Aviation Safety Network looks like a good resource for further study about aircraft accidents.) Over the wreckage the (false) localizer needle was centered. At the base of the tower at that airport was a new radar that had been given by the UN or French - I don't remember. It had been there, uninstalled, for years because nobody knew how to operate or maintain it. Many of these third world countries fly older aircraft such as the A-310 or B-737-200. It's not because of an inherent safety problem with the aircraft that gives them a higher accident rate than other aircraft, it's more often who is operating them, where they are being operated and how they are being maintained. But even at one accident per 500,000 hours I would have to fly for 1400 years before being in a crash. "Aviation accidents are extremely rare, with the probability of a passenger being killed on a single flight at approximately eight million-to-one. If a passenger boarded a flight at random, once a day, everyday, it would statistically be over 21,000 years before he or she would be killed." -from planecrashinfo.com . I'm reminded of a conversation with a check airman over dinner. He was advising me not to help ferry a single-engine H-295 Helio Courier across the Atlantic to Cameroon. This was after telling me all about the new Harley he bought. I maintained that his motorcycle riding was way more dangerous than my ferry flight. My point remains that regardless of how you crunch the numbers, flying on an Airbus or Boeing is very safe. Instead of fearing for our safety riding an Airbus, we should be way more concerned about not wearing sunscreen, not eating our vegetables, irritating our wife/girlfriend, not doing colonoscopies, eating at Burger King, and climbing ladders. It's the latter (and the ladder) that'll kill us. But as Blueldr on his Vespa can attest, sometimes a little risk is worth living for.

P.S. FedEx will begin replacing some of its Airbus fleet with new B-767s in two years. Can't wait!

[n2582d]

In every Airbus incident and accident the airplane did exactly what it was programmed to do ie pilot error.

Runerider I think you forgot about this one.

[GAHorn]

I suspect you must be a crewmember on an Airbus?

Hey, I thought we had a don't ask, don't tell policy here! ...

I have numerous friends and clients who fly/flew Airbus. They all have one thing in common: Each is crazy about that airplane! (They are either crazy in-love with it...or think only crazy guys/gals would fly it!)

Just yesterday I had a client in the sim (retired UA) who hated Airbus and only talked lovingly of his 747-400 experiences.
Just one hour ago, I had a different client (retired TACA) whom I hid my opinion from (imagine that!) who could not speak more highly of his Airbus years. His opinion was that it's a great airplane as long as the operators are properly trained, and he said, "You've got to have faith in the engineering and everything will be fine."

That comment just rubs me wrong. In my opinion, it's the engineers that think themselves infallible who got that airplane wrong. I'll never forget the French who insist the airplane in which people died could not possibly have been part of the problem.

I think training is the key to whatever aircraft is operated. Good airplanes are tolerant and forgiving of human error. The BEST and the GREAT airplanes will get you through even egregious errors. (In my experience, the HS-125 qualifies for that distinction, and so do most Boeing pilots think that of that lineage. I simply cannot recall ANY Boeing-qualified pilot who hated any of their airplanes. Cannot say the same about Airbus pilots.)

[blueldr]

Damn! Three pages of this stuff. All the airbus pilots are P'd off at anyone who ever flew a Boeing and made it home, and george has started studying medicine
all because I suggested the installation of the late type Cessna PLASTIC rudder pedals for replacements.

[jrenwick]

See how much trouble plastic can cause?

[GAHorn]

Medically speaking, excepting heart-valves and stents, I've never had a preference for plastic or silicone for installation.

[bagarre]

See, now my vote would go to silicone

[busav8or]

I simply cannot recall ANY Boeing-qualified pilot who hated any of their airplanes.

Here's one! I flew the 737-200 for a year and couldn't wait to get off of it! Admittedly, I had just come off the 727, which I absolutely loved, and couldn't help but compare the two. Where the 727 felt stable and "heavy", the 737 felt squirrelly (not sure I spelled it right...you know, the bushy tailed nut eater in my backyard). I heard Boeing got it right when they stretched it to create the -300/-400, but I've never flown that version, so I have to go with what I hear from guys that have. (Nomex- ON, for you 737-200 aviators that love that airplane! )

I've been on the A320 since 1998 as a captain and check airman, and absolutely love it. The automation is a great tool that we encourage the use of, but you can't get complacent with it or it will bite you in the butt in a heartbeat! What airplane won't bite you there if you let it? There's an acronym that we teach, CAMI, which means Confirm, Activate, Monitor and, most importantly, Intervene, if necessary.

As far as missing actual hands on flying is concerned, that's why I bought my 170!

Joe

[runerider]

Yep I remember the side stick problem.Sounded like they weren't watching the ECAM while doing the flight control check. At the carrier from which I am happily retired from we had are share of nightmares on the Bus, most if not all were caused by not following SOP or they had a better way of doing it, as for the tray table it was great but the flight attendents were so old and big they wouldn't fit. I enjoyed the Boeing except no room in the cockpit for bags and both the 737 300 and 400 and 757 had the old style out house lavs right behind the captains seat. Brought back memories of my Great grand mothers out house on a hot August day. That Javlin system you sent the info on works great thanks again.

[c170b53]

Probably the most exciting event of my aviation life was on an A310, we had just taken off out of YWG at 2200. The Check pilot was checking out a new captain, I was sitting in the jump seat looking out at the stars. In the climb at climb power ATC issued a quick unexpected alt. restriction and by the time the Capt changed the MCP to Alt hold. we were just attaining that Alt. The aircraft immediately went from a hard climb into trying to attain the attitude to capture the Alt hold. Felt like the airframe was trying to simulate a nuke sub breaching the surface after an emergency ascent. What a ride. The entire cockpit lit up, both pilots immediately demonstrated to the aircraft that they had no weapons, the A/P still engaged, took care of things and eventually the aural, master warnings and Lts went out. I decided then that my moonlighting for this outfit was over.

[hilltop170]

Airbus strikes again!

You bet, I feel safer on an Airbus now! A question to the Airbus pilots, when all the warning lights come on, which one do you look at first? Hopefully the ones that keep the plane from falling apart.

In engineering problem solving, the first solution is to engineer the problem out of the system, not the cheapest solution to satisfy the minimum requirements. The Airbus problem is still there and we're supposed to trust the minimum-time-for-newhire copilot will do the right thing. Yeah, right!

My NO-Airbus philosophy has just been strengthened. If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going.




FAA Finalizes AD For Airbus Rudders

It was November 2001 when an Airbus A300 operated by American Airlines crashed in New York after losing its rudder and vertical stabilizer in flight, killing 265 people, and on Friday, the FAA issued its final rule to address the problem. The FAA revised its proposed rule, which would have required a change to the rudder pedals to limit travel, to allow for an alternative proposed by Airbus -- a warning system and more crew training. The FAA estimates rudder-pedal changes would cost about $200,000 for each of the 215 airplanes affected, but the Airbus warning system would cost just $108,000, or as little as $73,000, depending on the age of the aircraft's computer system. Operators have four years in which to develop and implement the fixes.

Airbus says its alternative system will require the installation of a warning light on the glareshield directly in front of each pilot and an associated "stop rudder inputs" aural warning, in addition to revising the airplane flight manual and reinforced flight-crew training. NTSB chairman Deborah Hersman said in a letter to the FAA that a warning light alone, with no mechanical changes to the rudder system, "will not rectify the unsafe condition." The FAA, however, said it has determined that the warning light, together with a loud verbal warning and flight crew training, "will prevent the flight crew from … exceeding the ultimate design loads that could result in failure of the vertical stabilizer." Besides the 2001 crash, rudder inputs caused excessive loads on the tail in at least two other Airbus incidents, the NTSB said, but no crash or loss of life occurred.

[blueldr]

Richard,

That' just another indication of the lack of belief in Murphys Law in the FAA.
I am acquainted with a young lady that had a severe accident caused by "Fuel Exhaustion" in a small Beech airplane. It had a fuel injection system that returned overpumped fuel to a particular tank. Admittedly, pilot error was involved, but Murphys Law managed to rear it's ugly head. This airplane and the fuel system has been certified by the FAA.
The single engine Cessna airplanes with a fuel injected engine all simply have a header tank that prevents the possibility of this happening.

[GAHorn]

Richard,

That' just another indication of the lack of belief in Murphys Law in the FAA.
I am acquainted with a young lady that had a severe accident caused by "Fuel Exhaustion" in a small Beech airplane. It had a fuel injection system that returned overpumped fuel to a particular tank. Admittedly, pilot error was involved, but Murphys Law managed to rear it's ugly head. This airplane and the fuel system has been certified by the FAA.
The single engine Cessna airplanes with a fuel injected engine all simply have a header tank that prevents the possibility of this happening.

Unfortunately, twin Cessnas do not follow that philosophy. (Use of aux fuel prematurely can result in overflow of the main tanks.)

The WORST fuel system I've ever experienced was the 1962 Beech Debonaire with two 10-gal aux tanks. What a nightmare!
You have to run the right main tank at least an hour before using ANY other tank (including the left main) or you risk running fuel overboard! If you takeoff at gross AND full of fuel ...it is impossible to land within the CG envelope after two hours of flight.