Katoom Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 I am starting to become less and less shocked by reports of Airbus accidents. I wonder why? :roll: Bless their souls wherever they may be at this moment... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GAV Posted July 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Airbus fleet may be grounded Charles Bremner | July 01, 2009 Article from: Times Online AIRBUS is expected to face calls to ground its worldwide fleet of long-range airliners tomorrow when French accident investigators issue their first account of what caused Air France Flight 447 to crash off Brazil on June 1. It is believed that the accident bureau will report that faulty speed data and electronics were the main problem in the disaster, which killed 228 people. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) is likely to be asked why it had never taken action to remedy trouble that was well known with the Airbus 330 and 340 series. Nearly 1,000 of the aircraft are flying and until last month, no passenger had been killed in one. "EASA has a legal and moral obligation to get to the bottom of this problem now," said James Healy-Pratt of Stewarts Law in London. "If there is a defective system and the aircraft is unsafe then it should be grounded." Stewarts Law, which specialises in aviation, is representing the families of 20 victims of the Air France disaster. Only 11 bodies of the 50 recovered from the Atlantic have been identified. They include Captain Marc Dubois, 58, who is believed to have been resting when his two co-pilots lost control of the aircraft in a storm. Suspicion over the air data systems on the Airbus 330 and 340 series has increased after the disclosure that the aircraft had experienced 36 episodes similar to the one that brought the aircraft down as it flew from Rio de Janeiro to Paris. Airbus first reported problems with the speed sensors - known as pitot tubes - in 1994. The company advised remedies, but no mandatory action was taken. Last weekend, the US National Transportation Safety Board began looking into two incidents in which Airbus A330s flying from the US suffered critical episodes apparently similar to that of the Air France flight. The fate of the aircraft would probably have remained a mystery had it not automatically transmitted data back to the Air France base. In the final four minutes, they told a story that was familiar to the airline. Ice particles or water had blocked the three pitot tubes. This upset the air data computers, which in turn caused the automatic pilot to disconnect. The pilots would have had to fly manually in near-impossible conditions. Clients are reminded that they are expressly forbidden to take and publish items from our website that are not included in this service Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony69 Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 You know,... I fly THAI air all the time and they also use the airbus,...Now that you mention it,.. they delayed our departure at least 2 times that I can recall because they had to change an instrumentation module. The delays were only about 15-20 minutes,... which to me would indicate that its a common occurrence. Hmmm,...interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grezzzy_greer Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 I recently saw a documentary about some military aircraft development and in one sequence the test pilot for a very advanced fighter jet had to bail out because the aircraft could not be controlled. It turned out that the heaters that prevent the pitot tube in the nose of the aircraft from icing up had been disconnected during a maintenance procedure and the technicians had "forgotten to plug them back in". As a result the flight computers thought the aircraft speed was different from what it really was, and they could no longer assist the pilot, so they started to issue control commands that disrupted the stability of the aircraft. Eventually the pilot ejected. Pitot tubes and the data they provide are critical to the automation that works with the pilot, or in some cases, flies the aircraft. If the Airbus has an inherrent design flaw with the pitot tube systems, it really is incredible that it has not been noticed and fixed long ago. Greer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grezzzy_greer Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 ...Talking about that, Longreach is not the name of the plane. It's plastered on all Qantas long haul planes, or at least at that time it was. OK, didnt know that...interesting...obviously they made use of the play on words associated with the origins of the airline...good one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibel Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 If you gather information in a way to prove your point, you sound always right. The article the OP refers to is very short-sighted. If you google a little you'll find the same about Boeing. I think both manufacturers make good and safe planes nowadays. I have flown in both and they're all quite good and safe. Most aircraft's that have an accident is a combination of a lot of factors: maintenance, reliable airline, skills and experience and training of the pilots ........ I'll give you a few incidents with Boeing's from last year and there was also a lot of media hype about it. 10 January, 2008 Qantas incident sparks safety probe BANGKOK ? Safety investigators as well as manufacturer Boeing will want to know how water leaking from a galley appliance was able to jeopardise the lives of 344 passengers aboard a Qantas Boeing 747-400 descending into Bangkok on Monday. The leakage, which shorted the aircraft's electrical system, forced the crew to ensure a safe landing after 15 minutes running on a one-hour emergency battery back-up system. July 26 2008 - 2:00 pm UTC Qantas Boeing 747 with a hole of an emergency landing A hole the size of a small car in the underside of a Qantas jumbo jet carrying 346 passengers forced the pilot to make an emergency landing Friday after a rapid descent over the South China Sea. Feb 11 2008, 07:12 AM Qantas Boeing 'wrinkled' in hard landing in Darwin Ben Sandilands Qantas is in damage control this morning trying to hide a Qantaslink Boeing 717 that was so severely damaged in a hard landing at Darwin last Thursday that it may be a write-off. No reports, no photos, no survivor interviews, indeed no recognition of any sort has appeared in the media for almost four days. No-one was injured in the "incident" that dared not show its face until an inquiry into it was officially listed on the air safety data base today. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau says it is investigating the incident which happened in a jet configured with 115 seats and flown by National Jet under contract to Qantas. The air safety investigator says on its website that "On final approach the aircraft entered an area of high sink and made a heavy landing. Wrinkling was later found in the aft fuselage. Damage: Substantial". On July 28 2008, a Qantas Boeing 737-800 returned to Adelaide after a landing gear door failed to retract. In early August a Boeing 767 bound for Manila turned back to Sydney after developing a hydraulic fluid leak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibel Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 If you gather information in a way to prove your point, you sound always right. The article the OP refers to is very short-sighted. If you google a little you'll find the same about Boeing. I think both manufacturers make good and safe planes nowadays. I have flown in both and they're all quite good and safe. Most aircraft's that have an accident is a combination of a lot of factors: maintenance, reliable airline, skills and experience and training of the pilots ........ It's just bad luck to be on the wrong time in the wrong place. I'll give you a few incidents with Boeing's of Qantas from last year and there was also a lot of media hype about it. (and I'm sure it isn't complete) 10 January, 2008 Qantas incident sparks safety probe BANGKOK ? Safety investigators as well as manufacturer Boeing will want to know how water leaking from a galley appliance was able to jeopardise the lives of 344 passengers aboard a Qantas Boeing 747-400 descending into Bangkok on Monday. The leakage, which shorted the aircraft's electrical system, forced the crew to ensure a safe landing after 15 minutes running on a one-hour emergency battery back-up system. July 26 2008 - 2:00 pm UTC Qantas Boeing 747 with a hole of an emergency landing A hole the size of a small car in the underside of a Qantas jumbo jet carrying 346 passengers forced the pilot to make an emergency landing Friday after a rapid descent over the South China Sea. Feb 11 2008, 07:12 AM Qantas Boeing 'wrinkled' in hard landing in Darwin Ben Sandilands Qantas is in damage control this morning trying to hide a Qantaslink Boeing 717 that was so severely damaged in a hard landing at Darwin last Thursday that it may be a write-off. No reports, no photos, no survivor interviews, indeed no recognition of any sort has appeared in the media for almost four days. No-one was injured in the "incident" that dared not show its face until an inquiry into it was officially listed on the air safety data base today. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau says it is investigating the incident which happened in a jet configured with 115 seats and flown by National Jet under contract to Qantas. The air safety investigator says on its website that "On final approach the aircraft entered an area of high sink and made a heavy landing. Wrinkling was later found in the aft fuselage. Damage: Substantial". On July 28 2008, a Qantas Boeing 737-800 returned to Adelaide after a landing gear door failed to retract. In early August a Boeing 767 bound for Manila turned back to Sydney after developing a hydraulic fluid leak. Give me the beer option any time :twisted: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amarone Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 I´ve spent almost 6000hours in A340/330 and still go to work without being worried. Airbus makes excellent aircrafts and so does boeing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodKarma Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 staff bares all New Zealand http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSWEL50004620090702 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.