Poneke says avoid Airbus
January 19th, 2009 at 1:23 pm by David FarrarPoneke, a dedicated transport wonk, says the initial details of the Air NZ Airbus crash are so disturbing that he recommends people avoid travelling on any Airbus model until they are sorted:
This is, as I said, deeply disturbing. Until this issue is fully sorted out and the computer issues resolved, I will not be going on any Airbus model again and will be advising everyone I know to follow suit. And I say this as someone who has always argued that flying in large passenger jets is incredibly safe. My faith in Airbuses is not that positive any longer.
January 19th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
People have the right to crash with any airline they choose. This is plain racism from Poneke! Someone call the HRC!
Vote:January 19th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Eurotrash
Vote:January 19th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
I have always argued that the chances of being in an incident are remote but that said Airbus do seem to be having a few too many incidents at the moment.
I have to wonder if the haste to get the A380 into the air may have resulted in some faults in the computer system being overlooked and now some chickens are coming home.
I am a travel broker and the number of incidents does have me worried. Maybe Air New Zealand’s plan to go with the dreamliners (delays and all) was a good one. Call me old fashoned but I have always liked the Boeings.
Vote:January 19th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Was it Branson who said “if it aint Boeing, we aint going”
Vote:January 19th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
chfr what does a new plane like the a380 have to do with a 5yr old model of a plane designed 25 years ago. Thats right some people havent a clue about what type of plane it is.
Ans as for Poneke scare mongering about ‘rumours’ from the accident investigation. He has no details to speak of. he should stick to his trolley buses.
Boeing had a lot of problems with faulty rudders on its 737 up till 5 years ago which led directly to planes diving into the ground. The plane should have been grounded till the cause was established but Boeings clout meant this didnt happen
Vote:January 19th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
The overall safety record is still very good, I wouldn’t stop flying in Airbuses due to rumour and speculation about 1 crash.
Vote:January 19th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
jacob van dumbass the Dreamliner is the new Boeing not a revamped 747 but don’t let the facts get in the way…..
CC yes it was and I do think he has a point.
Vote:January 19th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
“Was it Branson who said “if it aint Boeing, we aint going”
Well he has changed his mind if it was him as he curently had 25 A340 in his airline with 6 A380′s on order!
Vote:January 19th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
I’ve got 8 flights in the next two weeks, 2 are on airbus planes. anyone want to take a bet on me not coming home?
I’m more worried about the gondola’s on the Canadian ski fields at the moment
Vote:January 19th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Worth noting that there are differences. On the A320 (and I believe all Airbus models) if the computer systems DOES have a bug and inappropriately controls the aircraft (as it would seem at first impressions happened here), you basically sit back and hope it can recover, there is no way to override the computer as an option. On Boeing aircraft including the DL, the pilots do have the option of selecting an override mode that allows manual input. Whether in the ANZ case there would have been time to apply corrective action is unclear.
As for the 737 and rudder problems, Boeing was involved in trying to limit the changes, at some risk to safety no doubt. As of 2008 (notice issued 2002 with 6 years to comply), all 737′s were supposed to be retro-fitted with a new rudder control assembly. At least 4 fatal crashes are linked to the fault. However it should be noted that 737s are typically very safe, and the fault apparently surfaces (cannot be confirmed in all cases) when the rudder servo actuator is improperly maintained or excessively worn.
In this case, I would rather have a standard manual override available, but maybe it is too soon to conclude on a cause. However this is not the first problem to surface, we need to see if Airbus can react differently and actively promote safety by making any necessary changes, if of course any are found to be necessary.
Vote:January 19th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
chfr , you wouldnt know a boeing from bed, I didnt mention the 747 or dreamliner ( both of which are having delays as Boeing works out what is riveted to what)
as for the 45 year old 737 design ( which still uses control rods and wires like the wright bros) heres a synopsis from flightsafety.com
http://www.airlinesafety.com/faq/B-737Rudder.htm
And well after the problem..
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737 Series Airplanes
Applicability: All Model 737 series airplanes; certificated in any category.
To prevent an uncommanded rudder hardover event and consequent loss of control of the airplane due to inherent failure modes, including single-jam modes, and certain latent failure or jams combined with a second failure or jam; accomplish the following:
Vote:January 19th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
i’d have more faith in airbus than i would in an ageing left-wing bus-spotter
Vote:January 19th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
I think Poneke gets it wrong. A320s are still much safer than many of the alternatives. According to this page, A320s are about 30% safer than the 737-300s that Air NZ operates and about 6 times safer than 747s.
Model Rate
Airbus A330 0
Airbus A340 0
Boeing 717 0
Boeing 777 0
Boeing 737-600/700/800/900 0.11
Airbus A320/319/321 0.13
Boeing 737-300/400/500 0.2
…
Boeing 747 0.76
(That data is to 31 Dec 2007. There has since been two A320 fatal incidents, each killing 5 and 7 people respectively. In that time there was also one 737-300/400/500 incident, which killed 82 people. No 747 fatal incidents since 2005.)
Vote:January 19th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Ed the Boeing 737 and Airbus 320 models are as different as chalk and cheese are far as computer flight controls . Essentially the boeing 737 doesnt have any modern computer controls where software flys the plane and the pilots have a general ,takeoff,climb, cruise, descend or turn functions only ( not the same as autopilot).
I would propose that the plane that ditched( with no functioning engines due to bird strike) in the hudson intact couldnt be done by a 737, as the fine control by software isnt there ( plus the pilot helped a lot).
Vote:January 19th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Ed Snack
you basically sit back and hope it can recover, there is no way to override the computer as an option.
No that’s wrong. Pilots can shut off the auto pilot and take manual control. That’s what the pilots did when an A330 had a problem over Australia in October last year.
Vote:January 19th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
The Autopilot is a totally different and irrelevant issue. Whether on autopilot or not, the Airbus is still a “fly by wire” aircraft, which relies on computers to relay pilot inputs to the control surfaces. With the autopilot shut down, there is still a computer in between the pilot and the plane on all Airbus models. There is NO mechanical connection between the electronic joystick beside the pilot (see http://www.redferret.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/a380a.jpg) and the elevators, and ailerons.
Vote:January 19th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Ben you are confusing the ‘autopilot’ which all large passenger jets have ( to maintain altitude speed and heading) and the flight software which controls the airbus planes ( from a320 onwards, plus only the B 777,787) The flight software lets the pilot fly the plane as long as it within the flyable envelope for that particular speed, angle of attack and so on. There are other features such as the software will apply the correct thrust so the plane will take off in the available runway length.
Vote:January 19th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
“Poneke says avoid Airbus”
Fuck, so what parts of Airbus are made in Israel?
Vote:January 19th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Quite soon after the Erebus disaster Air NZ got rid of all its DC10′s and purchased 747 Jumbos. The association with Erebus was partly a consideration from memory. At that time, QANTAS (which then was a purely international airline) had a all 747 Jumbo fleet and flew a special version of a Jumbo into Wellington Airport.
So it may be that a heap od A320′s may hit the second hand market.
Vote:January 19th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Flying tons of metal through the air at incredible speed is dangerous? Hmm i will have to ponder this some more
Vote:January 19th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
I just cringe when people comment on aviation, there are some reasoned posts here but in general its just embarrassing. On the up side I survived my Air Asia A320 flight and waiting for the next one in a few hours.
My advice to passengers is to not worry about the aircraft type they are flying but the effort that airline puts into its maintenance and training. Having revealed I am flying on Air Asia that might make me a bit of a hypocrite but unfortunately I don’t pay for my tickets and thus don’t have a lot of say in who I get to fly with.
Vote:January 19th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
pterwn, and what was the design of the DC10 that caused it to fly into Erubus.???
The 747 was merely a larger plane that could fly further more cheaply as was the DC10 compared to the DC8. In the same way the 747s bought in 1981 are gone and replaced by newer model 747s which will be gone in a few years and replaced by 777.
Very rarely does an airline get rid of a type of plane because of safety issues
Heres ANZ historical fleet list
http://www.planespotters.net/Airline/Air-New-Zealand?show=historic#Fleet_Details
Vote:January 19th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
LeftPilot – agreed re maintenance. I’ve flown plenty of airlines over the years. Some I’ll never fly again – Garuda being one example. Aeroflot another. My general rule of thumb is this: If an airline regularly has delayed departures while other aircraft are leaving on-time then avoid. This signals (to my simple brain at least) that they have slack servicing process… and organisation slackness tends to be endemic… including the engineering functions.
Vote:January 19th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Agree with you about Garuda. I think the worst airline I have flown was Lufthansa, The best for comfort was Air Canada
Vote:January 19th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Ben, I think you’re misreading those stats. The rate column seems to be the important one, the A320 is .13, the 100/200 model 737 is. .59, the 300/400/500 is .20, and the 600/700/800 is .11. I suspect this just shows age – old planes are owned by dodgy airlines, and crash more. It doesn’t show the 737 to be unsafe.
Getstaffed: you may be drawing the wrong conclusion. Qantas are pathologically late, but have never had a fatality or hull loss. They delay a flight for the smallest reasons, but arguably that makes me safer, not less so.
There are, broadly speaking, two groups of airlines. Those that we would consider “first world” and that have something like 0.25 fatal events per million flights, and those that we might consider “third world” and have rates from 5 to 20 or more per million. Spend your time making sure you’re on a genuinely first world airline (and note that Air NZ only just scrapes in, with a rate of 0.76). Refer http://www.airsafe.com/events/regions/asia.htm and linked pages.
My rule of thumb is to worry a lot about driving too and from the airport, which is known to be incredibly dangerous. And to fly a first world airline – preferably Qantas, BA, Cathay or American Airlines. And to try to stay away from planes with propellers, as a general rule small planes crash more often than big ones.
As for staying away from Airbus – maybe, but I really don’t get the choice that much. My last flight from NZ-Aus was with Air NZ, and they had a 320. Double the price on Qantas – I’ll fly the Airbus.
Vote:January 19th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Interesting PaulL, according to the website you linked above, Air NZ is only bettered by Qantas and ANA in the region. Air NZ is even better than Cathay and Singapore Airlines, two world class airlines.
Btw, with the many recent maintenance related mishaps Qantas have had, I wouldn’t fly with them anytime soon.
Vote:January 19th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Qantas are indeed a world-class airline, but over the years they have made some worrying changes to their Engineering department in the name of efficiency and cost minimisation. The fruits of which are now coming to bear (although the Australian media has been a bit over-zealous in their reporting of it, but thats the media for you). They would have had a 747 hull loss to their name if it wasn’t for the PR decision to spend a ridiculous amount of money on the 747 that overran in Bangkok. It was on paper not worth spending the millions required to make it airworthy again but it preserved their reputation by doing it.
Flight delays while not a perfect reasoning do give some generalised insight, especially if you know why. I find it hard to understand the general public perception of propeller aircraft being ‘dangerous’. The one I fly has one the most reliable engines in the industry and comes from the same manufacturer that provides ‘jet’ engines to Boeing and Airbus. The days of piston and radial-engined aircraft regularly used in airline transportation have long since passed, before I was born even! The main mechanical difference in my aircraft to a ‘Jet’ is that it has a gearbox that reduces the rpm of the turbine down to a speed that the propeller blades can handle. Turbo-prop propeller aircraft are most economic on routes upto around 500nm (926km) leaving longer journeys to Turbo-fan (Jet) aircraft which usually makes more economic sense providing the yield and passenger numbers are there.
Vote:January 19th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
LeftPilot – agree that there is nothing inherently unsafe about a prop aircraft. I generalise on the basis of size – prop aircraft are generally smaller, meaning fewer safety features, less experienced crew, etc etc. I also personally find the noise annoying – then I fly on a Dash 8 a lot and find it uncomfortable.
Vote:January 19th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
The worst airline I have flown was Varig in Brazil. At the slightest sign of turbulence the cabin crew would run to the back of the plane. Made you a wee bit nervous as a passenger.
Foe what it’s worth I still think you are safer flying than driving on the roads out here with the weekend warriors.
Vote:January 19th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Jacob, don’t pretend to lecture. I was not comparing the 737 with the A320, but the approach taken to flight controls. Boeing generally have retained an override with their “fly-by-wire” aircraft, even the latest, Airbus haven’t. Thanks to those who have pointed out that the autopilot is a separate issue. Airbus do not allow pilots to fly independent of the computers. The crash into the Hudson is different again, there is (as far as I am aware) no suggestion that the flight controls were an issue, and both manufacturers have computerised flight controls on their latest offerings. Not sure if a 737 could have done it, they don’t glide all that well, but for all that they are fairly maneuvrable, probably would depend even more on the pilot’s skill.
One other interesting point, and again probably related to design and age, but the ANZ Airbuses are far more fragile in operation. Minor “dings” that would be inspected and then passed over on a 737 require a full service and replacement on the A320s. This is probably related to weight minimisation and savings which help make the A320 more fuel efficient. Different materials also i suspect. But the engineers servicing them find them far less tolerant, and I wonder what the longer term wear and tear is like.
If you want a bad airline, not sure if it is still flying, but Sudan Air used to run a circuit offering really cheap airfares London – Rome – Khartoum return. The London – Rome fare was the cheapest around, but it could and did often run 24 hours behind schedule ! Safety measures, well, how do you feel about having to climb around a very large earthenware urn placed in the aisle by a passenger, otherwise unsecured !
Vote:January 19th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
And three months ago I said the same thing:
http://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2008/1009.shtml
Not always right, but always first
Vote:January 19th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Anyone see Mayday on Prime last night.
A piece of duct tape is all it took to down a 757.
Vote:January 19th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
I guess it comes down to which one is better (or worse), having a rogue pilot, or a rogue flight control computer mid-flight. Take your pick
Vote:January 19th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
NoCash – I kind of want the best of both worlds. A rogue pilot should get clear signals from the computer that it doesn’t like what they’re doing. But if they choose to do it anyway, I’d rather the pilot make that decision.
Interesting reading on the topic here: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/boe202.shtml
Seems to suggest that both Boeing and Airbus run fly by wire on their newer planes, and that in both the computer is aware where the limits are. Airbus physically prevents the pilot from exceeding those limits or overriding the computer. That is putting an awful lot of faith in the computer programmers. But the Airbus system also seems to have some very good automations – interpreting what the pilot is doing and manipulating the minor controls – flaps, speed brakes etc – automatically to achieve that intention.
The Boeing signals to the pilot it doesn’t like what they’re doing, but it still lets them do it. But it doesn’t have some of those labour saving automations – so the pilot has to manipulate every control. That might be good – if I wanted the speed brakes left on, but went full power, then it could be bad if the computer takes them off. Then again, I might be in an emergency maneouvre and just not have time or enough hands to get to the extra controls.
I think a blend of the two might be nice.
Vote:January 20th, 2009 at 4:32 am
PaulL – the rate column is the one I did quote – see the stats in my first post. You may well be right about the old age/dodgy airline relationship – but A320 does well on that score: it is the highest on the list for a plane that old.
Vote:January 20th, 2009 at 7:02 am
PaulL – odd that you find the Dash 8 noisy, the newer models that Air Nelson (Air New Zealand) have come with an Active Noise Suppression system (although I have heard that it can be problematic). Mount Cook’s ATR’s have a passive system. When Bombardier introduced this NVS system they re-branded the type Q ‘Quiet’ series so Air Nelson’s Dash 8-300′s are Q300′s which Air New Zealand was keen to emphasise given the Ansett Dash 8 crash on the Tararua Ranges in 1995. One of the latent failures in that accident was the Ansett management deciding safety was everbody’s responsibility and therefore they didn’t need a safety department!
As a pilot I do enjoy having control and hand flying the aircraft without assistance, however I do find the Airbus technology intriguing and hope to one day get to sit up the pointy end of one. As a passenger I would rather fly in an A320 over a 737 any day of the week (to be fair my experience of the 737 has largely been with Garuda on non-NG models. I find the 737 a lot less comfortable with its skinnier cabin width and lower ceiling height. The Airbus ‘computers’ also make minute adjustments with the flying control surfaces to damp out turbulence and give a smoother ride (although I do enjoy turbulence – makes it easier to sleep).
noskire – that illustrates how vulnerable aircraft are, even Boeing’s. If that is the accident I think it is, the static ports for the Air Data Computer on that 757 (providing information for airspeed and altitude) were covered over with tape which was not removed by the engineers. The flight was at night with little in the way of visual reference, there were a number of contradictory warning messages coming from the computers and the instruments that rely on static port data were behaving erratically. Unfortunately that Boeing was doomed like you say all down to duct tape!
There is an unproven theory that the Ansett Dash 8′s Terrain warning system didn’t sound earlier as it should have because the radar altitude panel had been painted over (an absolute no-no).
I really have blathered but what I am getting at here is that aviation is about risk-management. Airbus aircraft because of their automation and the Airbus philosophy have a number of safety features over and above other manufacturers aircraft, there are of course disadvantages and if they are found to outweigh the numerous advantages then make no mistake changes will be made. Remember too that while it might be a “Boeing’ or ‘Airbus’ they are the sum of millions of parts some of which are manufactured by the same suppliers, circuit boards included.
Vote:January 20th, 2009 at 9:27 am
There are only seven safe airlines in the world and they are generally European. Isn’t the opinions on the Airbus crash a bit premature?
Vote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Airbus_A320_operators
January 20th, 2009 at 9:42 am
Booking with Emirates to return in February.
Their new A380 service from Dubai to Sydney is on our list of new experiences.
747 has been a good workhorse.
My discomfort isn’t about manufacturer rather the predominance of 2 engines rather than 4 or 6 on Long Haul Routes.
Vote:January 20th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Oh right, so we should now base our travel plans on hearsay published on a blog by someone with no history of knowing anything about airlines, the airline industry and the planes in question, apart from some highly premature speculation he got of the internet.
100,000′s of people fly safely on these planes everyday, you’re at more risk jumping in you car to drive to the office.
DPF, I’m surprised you even gave this space on your blog! It’s hardly very factual as the facts haven’t been released and it’s just people drawing conclusions from bits of ‘information’ selectively picked of the internet – which is hardly a entirely reliable medium for accurate research of such a complicated issues – as some of the comments show. And it doesn’t look like Poneke spent much time researching his paragraph but has made some pretty serious claims which don’t really stand up to examination!
Vote:January 20th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Hey Glut… two engines versus four…
Two engines means only half the risk of an engine failure. Simple math
Vote:January 20th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Two Labour party supporters were flying from Auckland to LA. Fifteen minutes into
the flight, the captain announced “One of the engines has failed and the
flight will be an hour longer. But don’t worry we have three engines left”.
Thirty minutes later, the captain announced “One more engine has failed and
the flight will be two hours longer. But don’t worry we have two
engines left”.
An hour later the captain announced “One more engine has failed and the
flight will be three hours longer. But don’t worry we have one engine left”.
One supporter looked at the other the other and said “If we lose
Vote:one more engine, we’ll be up here all day”
January 20th, 2009 at 10:59 am
aardvark I know you’re just taking the piss…
still…
Assuming a failure probability of 0.1 per engine, and assuming both 2 and 4 engines planes use the same model of engines.
The chance of having all engines failed on a 2 engines plane would be 0.1 x 0.1 = 0.01
The chance of having all engines failed on a 4 engines plane would be 0.0 x 0.1 x 0.1 x 0.1 = 0.0001
If you still need a minimum of 2 engines to fly the 4 engines plan, then the chance of having not enough engines to fly (i.e. losing 3 engines) would be 0.001, still lower than the 2 engines plane.
I should really be doing real work…
Vote:January 20th, 2009 at 11:02 am
NoCash – ask the birds to do the math before they choose which of the two engines to be sucked into.
Vote:January 20th, 2009 at 11:08 am
one word – nerdgasm.
Vote:January 20th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Heh. Roughest flight I ever had was on an A320 from Barcelona – damn thing vibrated the whole way. Very unsettling. Pure prejudice based on a sample of one.
But the reliance on fly-by-wire is a worry, with a quiet Sun, and lots of GCR’s capable of going through metres of shielding. One flipped bit on a critical chip, and suddenly down is up. Impossible to tell, too. Just sayin’…..
Vote:January 20th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Suddenly all the jokes I have heard about Pilots seeing the Microsoft ‘Blue Screen of Death’ or “Please wait…” have gone a bit cold…
Basic Statistics suggests that as there will have been hundreds of thousands of movements by now of Airbuses with this computer system operating, so therefore the risk to any particular flight must be proportionally small. (I saw an A320 depart Wellington safely yesterday afternooon!) Easy to say when you’re not just about to step aboard an Airbus.
Sudden full power would only tip an A320 into a climb because of the basic layout – both engines hang down below the centre of mass and well below the effective line of action of all the aerodynamic drag on the wings and fuselage. So the effect is like suddenly opening the throttle on a high-powered motorbike – i.e. a wheelstand.
If – as it appears – this fault affects all engines simultaneously, I wonder whether it would be as serious if it happened on (say) an aircraft like a DC10 where one of the engines is well above the centres of mass and aerodynamic drag, or an aircraft like a DC9 where both engines are aligned pretty much along the centre of the fuselage?
Vote:January 20th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Holy fuck!
The idiots are out in force at the moment, especially on Poneke’s blog.
As someone who does quite an amount of flying, >80 longhaul a year, this sort of tripe scaremongering is what I would expect to read in the herald….. In fact I flew on an A332 yesterday from SYD to PVG, computer behaved nicely….
At over 4000 A320 movements per day alone, there should be more incidents than these two isolated events. If Poneke were to apply the same rationale he has here, to his everyday life, he would have to stay locked in his bedroom.
And for all those saying it is because the Airbus’ are “fly-by-wire”, what about the 777′s, which are also fly-by-wire?
I suspect the AirNZ crash may well be to do with the recent painting, a piece of tape left over a pitot tube or such.
Waymad- Roughest flight I ever had was on an AirNZ 747 (pre upgrade) from LAX to AKL, a few years back, sitting next to Sarah Ulmer at the time and the whole thing vibrated and shook so much the overhead cabins wouldn’t stay shut!
Vote:January 20th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Airbus has put all its faith in fly by wire and its associated computer system with no ability for the pilot to overide, Boeing retain hydraulics of primary control surfaces and do allow pilot overide. Scenario – aircraft flying in mountainous terrain in poor visibility and uncertain of location – No 2 spots a high peak through the murk and firewalls the throttle and pushes the nose up beyond the aircrafts flight parameters. The airbus computer says you can’t do that and lowers the nose to its preset max parameter and the aircraft safely flies into the mountain! The Boeing complains but obeys – the aircraft may still unsafely fly into the mountain but may unsafely outclimb the peak and I prefer giving the pilot that opportunity. Airbus could provide a manual overide function and perhaps reassure passengers that their pilot did have ultimate control rather than a computer.
Vote:January 20th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
freethinker – although, don’t you think that “preset max parameter” might well be the point at which the aircraft would stall anyway?
I don’t believe a natural distrust of computers in general is a good enough reason to assume the Airbuses MUST be fatally flawed, because they use computers. Fly-by-wire has been in military aircraft for years.
And I very mush doubt the Airbus A320 is running Windows Vista Home Basic
Vote:January 20th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
I have only flown on an Airbus A320 once and that was last year into Newark (New Jersey on my way to NY City from Phoenix) on the same airline concerned (US Airways), the jet was a comfortable flight (though I spent a long time with my face pressed against the window wanting a view of New York but it was cloudy…) but when the Air New Zealand one crashed I was shocked and when the same airline had one of them landed in the Hudson I counted myself lucky that there weren’t any when I flew there or at JFK when I later went to Dulles (DC).
I only flew airbus cause it was the cheapest flight I could get at the time/locations (as the cheap and dependable SouthWest Airlines didn’t have a route), US Airways service was average (you had to buy your food and they kept announcing on the intercom that certain food items had just run out) and the film were shown on hard to view flip screens from the roof (like Air New Zealand 737′s have for their safety instructions before flights here) and it was showing Get Smart which sucked…
I think 2 crashes will mean the Airbus A320 will be under the spot light, but one of those crashes may be counted out due to geese (do Boeing’s engines survive birds being sucked into them?).
It has been cool reading others flight experiences…
For me the roughest flight I had was Wellington to Nelson in 97 in an Ansett Banderante (16 seater) which flew more like a hellicopter on take off (it was that windy) but it was fun…
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 7:22 am
I think this thread confirms that Poneke [and his un-airminded fellow travellers] should stick to discussing something they know well enough to express an informed opinion [viz.] Wellington trolley bus zapper cards.
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Ratty
Vote:You are probably quite right but humans have the abilitty to think laterally – computers are logical and I am not arguing for non computer aircraft but simply providing a pilot with the opprtunity to excercise knowledge/expertise/experience and military pilots have ejection seats and parahcutes whhhc are not computer controlled.My point being computers are fine and are plan A – pilots should remain as plan B when Plan A fails or cannot cope with a situation -Airbus only have a Plan A!
January 21st, 2009 at 9:42 pm
“Next Air Force One — a 747-8 or Airbus A380 ?”
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/aerospace/archives/159458.asp
Vote:June 1st, 2009 at 10:46 pm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8076848.stm
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8125664.stm
Two in one month
Vote: