Airbus is the suck

[Ankf00]

Ann Decrozals, an Airbus spokeswoman at the aircraft manufacturer's headquarters in France, said the A320 was designed to be able to land with front wheel problems.

I mean, it's true, that's just good design practice... but it's still a stupid thing to quote after such a crash.... "oh, well this isn't an issue, standard operationg procedure folks, nothing to see here, move along..."

[Gnam]

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2005/09/22/mn_jetbluelanding104.jpg

Glad it worked out. Next Airbus will claim poor maintenance by JetBlue.

[jcollins28]

I fly a lot for work and being 6-3 200lbs. I have to say I really like flying on a Airbus over a Boeing. There just seems to be more room on the Airbus then the Boeing.

[Ankf00]

I fly a lot for work and being 6-3 200lbs. I have to say I really like flying on a Airbus over a Boeing. There just seems to be more room on the Airbus then the Boeing.

I prefer a properly affixed vertical stabilizer, but hey, to each their own :)

[Insomniac]

I fly a lot for work and being 6-3 200lbs. I have to say I really like flying on a Airbus over a Boeing. There just seems to be more room on the Airbus then the Boeing.

That's more of an airline configuration than the actual plane. They can put as much or as little spacing as they desire.

[Ankf00]

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2005/09/22/mn_jetbluelanding104.jpg

failure modes & effects analysis, anyone? anyone? bueller?

[KLang]

Pretty impressive job getting that thing down in one piece. :thumbup:

[Insomniac]

It will be interesting to see how that actually happened.

[Insomniac]

Pretty impressive job getting that thing down in one piece. :thumbup:

Definitely a great job by the pilots. Kept the front off the ground as long as they could and used the entire runway to slow down.

[Ankf00]

It will be interesting to see how that actually happened.

the more operations and moving parts, the more stuff to mess up... what's new? stupid french...

[rabbit]

Pilot = bad@$$ :thumbup:

[jcollins28]

I prefer a properly affixed vertical stabilizer, but hey, to each their own :)


LOL Yeah I prefer that as well!...lol

[TedN]

That certainly was compelling live TV. Enough so that I missed the kickoff episode of LOST.

Ted

[JoeBob]

There are few sounds like the creaking and groaning of a scarebus taking off.

I usually try to look around to see if there's a nervous flyer who has never heard that before. The look on their face is usually pretty good. :eek:

[indyfan31]

There are few sounds like the creaking and groaning of a scarebus taking off.

I usually try to look around to see if there's a nervous flyer who has never heard that before. The look on their face is usually pretty good. :eek:
I've heard those are the hydraulic pumps screaming as they bring up the landing gear. Does that sound right? I know a former Douglas engineer that always said he'd rather fly a Boeing than Airbus.
I've never been on an Airbus and never wanted to but we're going to Greece this fall and we don't have a choice. I'm not looking forward to it. :eek:

[TKGAngel]

Who knew that watching a plane fly around LA would be such engrossing television? The pilot gets huge kudos for keeping the thing in control down the runway.

[Cam]

I've heard those are the hydraulic pumps screaming as they bring up the landing gear. Does that sound right? I know a former Douglas engineer that always said he'd rather fly a Boeing than Airbus.
I've never been on an Airbus and never wanted to but we're going to Greece this fall and we don't have a choice. I'm not looking forward to it. :eek:

Flew in one from Melbourne to HKG in July.... 4 center seats to yourself is about the best way to fly! :p

[Insomniac]

the more operations and moving parts, the more stuff to mess up... what's new? stupid french...

You're not a little jealous are you? :)

[FTG]

I prefer a properly affixed vertical stabilizer, but hey, to each their own :)

I prefer vehicles which don't blow up. Don't you work for NASA?

[Ankf00]

I prefer vehicles which don't blow up. Don't you work for NASA?

yes, because you see me riding on the back of a rocket.... :rolleyes: also, Rockwell designed the shuttle...


You're not a little jealous are you? meh, not really, there's not a single school there I'd want to go to, switzerland germany holland or england however, different story :D besides, I like non-socialist pay :)

[nrc]

Does the gear on those turn as it's retracting and it just got stuck, or is that just completely busted?

Evidently the aircraft has TVs in the seatback and passengers were able to watch themselves circling on the news. The three hours of circling were necessary because this model Airbus can't dump fuel. How common is that?

[FTG]

So what's your point? If you're not riding in it, you don't care if its safe.

[Don Quixote]

The three hours of circling were necessary because this model Airbus can't dump fuel. How common is that?
That seems crazy unsafe. So if they had to belly land immediately due to some problem, i.e. were not able to circle for 3 hours, we are taking ball of fire? :saywhat:

[Ankf00]

So what's your point? If you're not riding in it, you don't care if its safe.

what's your point? that you think vehicles that can reach orbital altitudes should be as safe as commercial air traffic?

just for you: GM sucks too ;)

[oddlycalm]

Imagine a giant phonograph needle bearing a 50 ton load playing a piece of sidewalk.... :gomer: I really wanted to hear the sound that titanium front LG strut made as it plowed the pavement after the wheels were gone.... musta been some serious screeching going on.


Pretty impressive job getting that thing down in one piece. :thumbup: The pilots did fine, but it's actually pretty routine actually. Kinda like a reverse taildragger for most of the rollout. Just keep the nose in an elevated attitude until the speed drops it to the deck. Steering is via the rudder at anything above taxi speeds in any case, so keeping it centered is a no brainer. Folks have landed large transport planes on several occasions after the front gear falling entirely off without serious incident. Now losing one of the main gears is a real challenge, but that too has been accomplished, although not live on prime time TV. ;)

oc

[Dr. Corkski]

Who knew that watching a plane fly around LA would be such engrossing television? The pilot gets huge kudos for keeping the thing in control down the runway.Once that got on TV I kept waiting for the police helicopters to follow the plane.

For the record I blame the FIA. If they had installed a chicane on the runway that tire would not have blown up. :gomer:

[FTG]

what's your point? that you think vehicles that can reach orbital altitudes should be as safe as commercial air traffic?

just for you: GM sucks too ;)

The X Prize guys made it up and back without killing anyone.

[FTG]

the more operations and moving parts, the more stuff to mess up...

I agree with you on this. I can see how the shuttle is simpler than an Airbus:

When parts fall off, the NASA engineers simply say "they probably won't hit anything important."

I can't imagine a simpler solution, but then again I'm not an engineer. You can probably do a much better job of explaining the shuttle's elegant simplicity.

[Ankf00]

The X Prize guys made it up and back without killing anyone.

the x-prize wasn't even an orbital flight and never came anywhere near the velocity and thermal loads that any orbital vehicle experiences during re-entry

Vostok 1 was the first ship in space, too bad it was 40 years before x-prize and all these fancy supercomputers and CFD programs people can run these days Last I checked Yuri Gagarin came back in one piece :gomer:

[FTG]

the x-prize wasn't even an orbital flight and never came anywhere near the velocity and thermal loads that any orbital vehicle experiences during re-entry

Vostok 1 was the first ship in space, too bad it was 40 years before x-prize and all these fancy supercomputers and CFD programs people can run these days Last I checked Yuri Gagarin came back in one piece :gomer:

So you're agreeing with me: the soviets did a better job 40 years ago than NASA can do today.

[Insomniac]

meh, not really, there's not a single school there I'd want to go to, switzerland germany holland or england however, different story :D besides, I like non-socialist pay :)

I guess the only thing that stinks about Airbus is it's a French company. :)

[Insomniac]

Does the gear on those turn as it's retracting and it just got stuck, or is that just completely busted?

Evidently the aircraft has TVs in the seatback and passengers were able to watch themselves circling on the news. The three hours of circling were necessary because this model Airbus can't dump fuel. How common is that?

That's Jet Blue, aside from having the newest fleet, you can watch DirecTV during your flight.

I thought it could dump fuel, but they chose not to dump it (in the ocean) since they didn't need to land immediately.

[Insomniac]

I agree with you on this. I can see how the shuttle is simpler than an Airbus:

When parts fall off, the NASA engineers simply say "they probably won't hit anything important."

I can't imagine a simpler solution, but then again I'm not an engineer. You can probably do a much better job of explaining the shuttle's elegant simplicity.

I don't want to turn this into another NASA/Shuttle thread but NASA grounded the whole fleet because foam came off the last time, even though nothing happened. We all know they have had a "broken saftey culture" but they are not taking any known risks with the shuttle right now.

[Insomniac]

So you're agreeing with me: the soviets did a better job 40 years ago than NASA can do today.

I guess that depends on your definition of better job. I don't see the Russians sending up pieces for the ISS.

[oddlycalm]

Vostok 1 was the first ship in space, too bad it was 40 years before x-prize and all these fancy supercomputers and CFD programs people can run these days Last I checked Yuri Gagarin came back in one piece :gomer: Ah yes, the days of chemical rockets with hardwired relay logic controls and near-zero telemetry. :eek:

The one thing that always comes back to me every time I look at the early manned space vehicles first hand is that we used to consider 50% up time really good with similar equipment in industry. ;) First gen transister logic was the suck. :thumdown: Going to the moon with that kinda technology took real stones.

oc

[Ankf00]

So you're agreeing with me: the soviets did a better job 40 years ago than NASA can do today.

na, I'm just calling you a clueless GM driver... I don't see the soviet shuttle flying anymore, do you? In fact I don't see it ever doing anything more than a test flight...

but keep searching for worthless analogies, i'm sure you'll find something out there one day... reach for the stars. :gomer:

heads up, it's orbital space flight, it's dangerous :gomer:

[mapguy]

Next Airbus will claim poor maintenance by JetBlue.

It's practically a brand new plane.

[mapguy]

That's Jet Blue, aside from having the newest fleet, you can watch DirecTV during your flight.

I thought it could dump fuel, but they chose not to dump it (in the ocean) since they didn't need to land immediately.

The A320 cannot dump fuel.

[mapguy]

So you're agreeing with me: the soviets did a better job 40 years ago than NASA can do today.

The Soviet space program have lost a LOT more cosmonots than NASA has lost astronauts. Lots.

[Ankf00]

The A320 cannot dump fuel.

the french think their elan will compensate for all troubles and guide them through their troubles :gomer: or so that's why their army was lightly armored before the Great War, apparently they think the same today :gomer:

[Sean O'Gorman]

When I saw it on TV I figured there was a bomb on the jet that would go off if it went under 40 mph. :gomer:

[coolhand]

When I saw it on TV I figured there was a bomb on the jet that would go off if it went under 40 mph. :gomer:
lol

anyway, that airbus crash on toronto ahs disapeared from the news.

what happened there?

[mapguy]

lol

anyway, that airbus crash on toronto ahs disapeared from the news.

what happened there?

Pretty much pilot error. Landed late on the runway and waited 12 seconds before braking. Apparently no thrust reversers.

[Insomniac]

Pretty much pilot error. Landed late on the runway and waited 12 seconds before braking. Apparently no thrust reversers.

Yup. He approached for landing and inexplicably commited to it even when he had time to change his mind.

[pchall]

I've heard those are the hydraulic pumps screaming as they bring up the landing gear. Does that sound right? I know a former Douglas engineer that always said he'd rather fly a Boeing than Airbus.
I've never been on an Airbus and never wanted to but we're going to Greece this fall and we don't have a choice. I'm not looking forward to it. :eek:

The hydraulics for all the flaps and the gear make a lot of noise in any airliner I've flown in. I think a lot of it comes from the noise abatement strategies that bank the planes early, tightly, and often on take off and landing to keep the noise away from the expensive subdivisions.

[pchall]

The Soviet space program have lost a LOT more cosmonots than NASA has lost astronauts. Lots.

See Mark Orberg's Red Star in Orbit, a pretty good history of the Soviet space program given the difficulties in getting accurate information in the time it was written. Not an easy book to find in the library, but worth the searching and the reading.

[Gnam]

It's practically a brand new plane.
7th failure for Airbus front landing gear. link (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-jetblue23sep23,0,1294624.story?coll=la-home-headlines)

"This happens all the time. There is no pattern. Do not concern yourselves. All is well."

[FCYTravis]

There are few sounds like the creaking and groaning of a scarebus taking off.
Especially those made by a US Airways Airbus 321 on a red-eye out of LAX after you've just taxied past the deranged jetBlue 320 sitting on the runway. :eek:

[FCYTravis]

snipped rant
None of the Boeing 737 series - the direct counterpart to the A320 series - can dump fuel either. They must be no-failure-mode hunks of junk too, eh?

Scarebus or Blowing, either way it's an aluminum tube made of a couple jillion parts, moving or otherwise, attached to each other in such a fashion that that they make said aluminum tube travel through the air.

The miracle of modern flight never ceases to amaze me.

[devilmaster]

"Don't worry about a thing honey, I'm going to help you through this.......

Those are all normal noises.....

Luggage comparment closing.....

Cross-checking.... just sit back and relax.....

That's just the engine powering up......

That's just the engine struggling.......

That's just a carp swimming around your ankles......"

[TorontoWorker]

Does the gear on those turn as it's retracting and it just got stuck, or is that just completely busted?

Evidently the aircraft has TVs in the seatback and passengers were able to watch themselves circling on the news. The three hours of circling were necessary because this model Airbus can't dump fuel. How common is that?

Here is the problem:

1/ An A320 cannot dump fuel as they never designed / installed this equipment into the aircraft. Thats why it did race track patterns around LA.


From and earlier incident over Ohio - NTSB report quote:

2/
the external hydraulic O-ring seals on the steering control module's selector valve were extruded (distorted out of the seal's groove). A small offset was found in the steering control valve.

Airbus further reported that while the offset would have been measurable, it would not have been noticeable under normal operations. Additionally, during landing gear extension, the brake and steering control unit (BSCU) would have been energized and hydraulic pressure would have been directed toward the steering servo valve. The BSCU would have then commanded a small rotation of the nose wheel to check for proper movement. Any disagreement between the commanded position and actual position of the nose wheel would have deactivated the nose wheel steering. However, if hydraulic pressure had bypassed the steering control valve, there would have been continued pressurization to the servo valve, and because of the servo valve's inherent offset, in-flight rotation of the nose wheels.


3/ This is the FOURTH incident of this nature. After incident #3, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A320-32-1197 on October 8, 1998, to recommend replacement of the external seals on the steering control module's selector valve on A320 and A321 airplanes within 18 months of the SB's issuance.


4/ Memo to Airline Lawyers: It's always the O Rings fault - not the maintenance - remember that! :flame:

[nrc]

Seems that the 380 might quite literally be the suck.

Here a story about an American engineer who is finding out the hard way that there's no protection for whistle-blowers in Austria.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-whistleblower27sep27,0,7486292.story?track=tottext

Evidently in order to cut costs and weight the 380 uses a single part not originally designed for aircraft use to control cabin pressure where most current airliners use multiple redudent parts from different suppliers.

[Methanolandbrats]

Seems that the 380 might quite literally be the suck.

Here a story about an American engineer who is finding out the hard way that there's no protection for whistle-blowers in Austria.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-whistleblower27sep27,0,7486292.story?track=tottext

Evidently in order to cut costs and weight the 380 uses a single part not originally designed for aircraft use to control cabin pressure where most current airliners use multiple redudent parts from different suppliers.Geezus, I'd rather walk than ride in one of those cattle cars. Must be plenty of French doods still designing those things.

[coolhand]

that sounds like the soviet union protecting one of their engineering disasters