Is It Safe To Fly On Airbus Anymore? Options

[bluebird121]

This is the link;
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.p...-airbus-anymore

A Yemenia airlines Airbus 310-300 taxis on the tarmac of Charles De Gaulle International Airport in Paris. — Reuters file pic
LONDON, July 1 — Why are we asking this now?

A little over a month after an Airbus 447 crashed into the sea off the coast of Brazil, killing all 228 people on board, another of the manufacturer’s aircraft has been involved in a disaster.

This time, there were 153 people on the A310 in question, a Yemenia Air flight which dove into the sea as it tried to land on the Comoros islands, an archipelago of volcanic islands off the south-east coast of Africa in the Indian Ocean.

The plane was heading from Yemen to the Comoros, but many on board had begun their journey in France.


So what exactly happened?

So far, we don’t know much. While at least three bodies have been recovered and a 14-year-old girl, Bahia Bariki, has survived, the rest of the passengers are unaccounted for.

The circumstances of the crash will become clearer once investigators find the plane’s black box, but initially they have pointed to atrocious weather and the late-night landing time as possible contributing factors.

More worryingly, the condition of the aircraft itself has been called into question. The families of many of those on the flight, who were Comorans returning to the French overseas territory from holiday from France, have bitterly blamed the state of the Yemenia Air fleet.

“They put us aboard wrecks, they put us aboard coffins, that’s where they put us,” one relative told French television.

“It’s slaughter. It’s slaughter.”

The Comoros’ honorary consul in Marseille, Stephane Salord, called the Yemenia aircraft “flying cattle trucks”.

“This A310 is a plane that has posed problems for a long time,” he said. “It is absolutely inadmissible that this airline, Yemenia, played with the lives of its passengers this way.”

The French Transport minister, Dominique Bussereau, told parliament yesterday that the Yemenia Airbus 310 which crashed was not permitted to fly into France, and raised concerns about the transfer of passengers from a plane classed as safe to one that crashed into the sea.

Most had flown on a different Yemenia aircraft from Paris or Marseille before boarding flight IY626 in Sanaa, the capital of Yemen.


An Airbus A340-300 takes part in a flying display during the 48th Paris Air Show at the Le Bourget airport near Paris June 17, 2009. — Reuters pic
So is it likely that the plane itself is to blame?

Yemenia’s fleet has certainly come in for considerable criticism in the past. Most damningly, French inspectors who looked at the plane at Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris in 2007 noticed a number of faults.

The aircraft was banned from flying in French airspace and, under the EC’s safety directives, they instructed Yemenia to carry out stricter checks on the place in future.

But Yemen’s Transport minister, Khaled Ibrahim al-Wazeer, insisted it had since been rigorously checked under the supervision of Airbus experts.


Why was the plane still allowed to fly if French officials had flagged it up?

For one thing, even though the EU was due to investigate Yemenia’s safety record following the 2007 inspection, the airline was not added to the “blacklist” of airlines banned within the EU.

Even if it had been, there would have been nothing to prevent the flight from Yemen to the Comoros; that would be the responsibility of the Yemeni and Comoran governments.


Is there another viable explanation besides a technical failure?

David Learmount, safety editor at Flight International magazine, thinks human error is most likely the cause of the crash, pointing out that a tired pilot would have been coming in at 1.30am into a strong wind.

The pilot would have had to make a “non- precision” approach without radar, using his eyes rather than instruments – a method which is three to five times more likely to result in an accident. If it was indeed such an incident, Learmount says it is hard to avoid, adding: “Accidents like this happen. They always have.”


Is this crash anything to do with the recent Air France disaster?

It seems not. That aircraft, an A330, was a different model entirely.

Whereas yesterday’s crash happened on the final descent to the airport, Flight AF447 went down in ordinary flight, making it more likely to have been a technical failure than a human error. But two crashes so close together are a public relations disaster for Airbus. The share price of its parent company, EADS, fell by 3.6 per cent yesterday.


What does Airbus do after selling an aeroplane to ensure its safety?

Once an aircraft is sold, a manufacturer is no longer responsible for its safety. They do sometimes work for airlines in a safety advisory role, but they do not offer maintenance services. Legally, the responsibility lies with the operator.


So should I worry about flying by A310 in future?

You should certainly think carefully about travelling with Yemenia. The EU transport commissioner Antonio Tajani has announced a new investigation into the airline’s practices, and that may well result in the company being added to the next airline blacklist, which is published in two weeks.

Other airlines flying the same model are as trustworthy as ever. Nevertheless, those of a nervous disposition may think twice on any carrier.

The A310 is an older model designed in 1986 – the one that crashed yesterday was built in 1990 – and older aircraft are statistically more likely to crash than newer ones. The A310 has also been in more accidents than its main competitor, the Boeing 767.


Debris from the missing Air France flight 447 is seen at the Air Force base in Recife June 12, 2009. — Reuters pic
And what about flying on an Airbus in general?

Airlines would not buy Airbus jets if they had serious doubts about their safety record, which is respectable and comparable to its rival, Boeing.

Some pilots have expressed reservations about the Airbus “Fly-By-Wire” approach, which automates more processes than Boeing’s system does – but Airbus firmly believes its method is safer and eliminates opportunities for pilot error.

There may have been a string of recent Airbus accidents – last year, the Fly-By-Wire system led to a Qantas A330 plunging 650ft in seconds – but it is probably only a matter of bad luck.

“That’s the throw of the dice,” says Learmount. “There are only two major aircraft manufacturers in the world. Any crash is bound to be one or the other.”


What can be done to improve air safety?

One practical step already proposed by Tajani is to extend the EU blacklist system to a global version. That would not have stopped this crash but it might give travellers peace of mind to know that dozens of airlines banned in Europe will not be operating elsewhere either. It would also ensure that, if Yemenia was added to that group, it could not continue to operate regardless.


Should I continue to fly in the meantime?

Flying disasters are often horrifying, and the concentration of deaths in a single incident can make air travel seem uniquely risky. In fact, while it is never risk-free, it is certainly not the most dangerous way to travel.

In the US in 2006, for instance, there 42,642 deaths were caused by car accidents and only 1,500 involved aircraft. While there are 117 fatalities per billion air journeys, there are 170 deaths per billion bicycle journeys. So, unless you are also planning to travel on only foot in future, your routine should probably not change.
Find vehicles, parts & accessories at low prices on Alibaba.com!



Are there good reasons for concern about travelling on an Airbus?

Yes...

* Airbus aircraft have been involved in a string of accidents, and no firm explanation has yet been found for the crash of Air France AF447

* Some pilots worry about relying on the company’s automated “Fly-By-Wire” navigation system

* No manufacturer or airline can entirely legislate for human error


No...

* There is no reason to think the two recent disasters are linked; they involved different models of Airbus in different circumstances

* With only two plane-makers, accidents are bound to be with one or the other

* The risks of flying are no worse than those of many other activities — The Independent

I would love to hear any feedback about this?
I watched a documentary on channel 7 last night and was not reassured by the fact that computers on the Airbus are so highly sophisticated that they can fly the plane practically on their own and the problem with that is if anything goes drastically wrong with the programme, the pilots cannot rectify this.
We are totally reliant on the computer software being infallible and we all know they are not at all. I guess as I fly over to the UK once a year I am hoping for someone to say this is all just rubbish and they are safer to fly on than they have ever been.
Over to you folks.

[karlhurst_380]

Thousands of people die in car accidents around the world every week, maybe every day. When aircraft crash, its a big thing because they are very isolated. A310... A330, two different generation aircraft using completely different technology.

You can tell by the tone of the article, its media trying to stir up.

If I was involved in a plane crash and survived, I'd have no qualms about stepping onto another aircraft.

[Kilrah]

Did they also write a similar article about the series of 737s that has crashed last year (quite a few more than these 2 they mention here by the way)?

Actually the article isn't too bad. If you put the "sensational" sentences apart, the related facts clearly show there's nothing to worry about.

[Fast Jet]

This is the link;
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.p...-airbus-anymore


I would love to hear any feedback about this?
I watched a documentary on channel 7 last night and was not reassured by the fact that computers on the Airbus are so highly sophisticated that they can fly the plane practically on their own and the problem with that is if anything goes drastically wrong with the programme, the pilots cannot rectify this.
We are totally reliant on the computer software being infallible and we all know they are not at all. I guess as I fly over to the UK once a year I am hoping for someone to say this is all just rubbish and they are safer to fly on than they have ever been.
Over to you folks.

Its all rubbish and they are safer to fly than they have been.

Firstly, for an Airbus to get into a condition where it is not flyable is not going to happen. There are the pilots, who have over-riding brilliance - I do not want to die either.

Secondly, there have been improvements in the systemas over the years. Also, if B.A. and USair and North West airlines fly `em then I assure you there aint anything wrong with them.

They do not fly by themselves, all the computors do is do what we programme into them, and we just automate stuff so that we don`t have to hold its hand all the way through the flight. but we are monitoring the whole thing, all the time, even when eating noodle soup wearing a clean white shirt - its fine.
Anyway, it is refreshing to read all these concerns, because then I know, if mine crashes then it wasn`t my fault! I think that was very funny. But check this out - your airlines like B.A. and NorthWest and the other big babies but especially B.A. analise the entire wiring system and discover all sorts of ways to rectify a myriad of potential faults. To such an extent that there are faults which are indeed recoverable in the Airbus that even Airbus don`t know about. They are not on ECAM or in the QRH, but B.A. have got them. So if you wanna fly super safe - then fly B.A. It truly is as simple as that. I may swear at the CAA because they are undiluted sewage but B.A. are genuinely the pinnacle of aviation and la creme de la creme. I have read their notes and studied their stuff and they are red hot - I swear to God.
Had THEY have BUILT the A320 - you wouldn`t have had such reports as you now get. (They also do excellent food and wine and have great taste, which is probably why the Queen uses them all the time)

[galaxy]

..... and we just automate stuff so that we don`t have to hold its hand all the way through the flight. but we are monitoring the whole thing......

During a late evening flight on the flight simulator, I have had turned on the auto pilot and was monitoring the whole thing until I suddenly heard my wife, somewhere in space, asking me what I was doing on the PC with my eyes closed. It's a auto pilot flight, I replied, half awake.
I see, and then fall asleep she said , shaking her head, not understanding.

It's probably what happened in real life with flight NWA188 on a A320 a few days ago:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/...-150-miles.html

[Fast Jet]

During a late evening flight on the flight simulator, I have had turned on the auto pilot and was monitoring the whole thing until I suddenly heard my wife, somewhere in space, asking me what I was doing on the PC with my eyes closed. It's a auto pilot flight, I replied, half awake.
I see, and then fall asleep she said , shaking her head, not understanding.

It's probably what happened in real life with flight NWA188 on a A320 a few days ago:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/...-150-miles.html

To be honest, if they fell asleep then the aircraft would have flown a circle around the last waypoint - i.e., the airport - try it on flitesim. If they missed it accidently, then they must have been in Heading Mode. If they were in Heading Mode I doubt very much they would have been asleep. More like, chatting with ATC who were arranging for their approach and some wally with a radio got it all wrong and phoned the local newspaper and some reporter there who was looking for ways to pay his mortgage - went bleeting to the Radio and the TV - the radio and the TV would have dragged out all their clips of planes on runways and the like and put together a video that the layman would think is the actual jet thereby giving the story cred. by the time the innocent pilots got down from 35,000ft thinking it had been a normal day and it had, they would have been bombarded by the media and wondered what the hell was going on, also the company, would have believed the media hype because they are not pilots and pulled them in for questioning, the company don`t believe pilots (either) - meanwhile, back at camp, (pun intended) the CAA or whoever, would be on their bicycles with their bells ringing wanting to know what the hell was happening - which would leave the pilots wondering whether it was Shrove Tuesday or Sheffield Wednesday.

You see even in your report? One bit says 150nm and the other bit says 600nm, it is total c--p and not quite right and not quite fair. Also, also 150 miles seems a lot it is considerably less at 35,000 in terms of scale that is. In effect, you can decide on a profile and it would take you 150 track miles before you started you FAF segment so this is not the same as going 150 miles ou5t of your way or even being lost. the fact they probably had a radio failure combined into the situation would mean that their descent procedures would have had to have been delayed while they sorted themselves out for a descent non-radio, if they were early at destination then they would not have come straight into the approach profile before their inbound ETA which is the norm if you are arriving "silent" It was a lot less of a situation than everyone is trying to make out. However, enlightenment is the zenith of the universe, and I am sure Bernoulli concurs the the "CANTEEN" or Lunch Room is probably the most important place in the field of aviation - I don`t know if any off you have a had a similair experience, yet, I just had to share that with you.

[UALdave]

I would also ad that I have read reports from people who flew on Yemenia who said that the flights were like cattle cars, with people standing up the whole flight!! I'm surprised the airline is even allowed to fly into Europe; shouldn't they be banned from doing so until they get their act together??

I have heard, from an E170 pilot, that, and I don't know if this is true, Boeing aircraft are more pilot-friendly because, even on the newest 737's, you can shut down all the automation and fly it like a much older plane. This person said that you can't do that on an Airbus, implying that they are over-automated. Again, I don't know if that's true.

[Fast Jet]

I would also ad that I have read reports from people who flew on Yemenia who said that the flights were like cattle cars, with people standing up the whole flight!! I'm surprised the airline is even allowed to fly into Europe; shouldn't they be banned from doing so until they get their act together??

I have heard, from an E170 pilot, that, and I don't know if this is true, Boeing aircraft are more pilot-friendly because, even on the newest 737's, you can shut down all the automation and fly it like a much older plane. This person said that you can't do that on an Airbus, implying that they are over-automated. Again, I don't know if that's true.

Well, you can actually - you can downgrade the automation a level by removing the Flight Directors, (and disconnecting the Autopilot). Provided you know what you want to do with the aircraft next you can also knock off the Auto-Thrust (making sure your LEVER position TLA is the same as the thrust position). You can switch off the Nav equipment and fly by normal VORs and stand-by Artificial Horizon and voila you have an aeroplane being flown by the pilot. Yo0u can also and easily switch off or diregard any of the VORs NDBs etc and just fly Visual VFR and use Ded-Reckoning to Nav - you can turn it into a C150 and just fly it like that - with no kit, providing you keep a gppd look out and know where you are all the time, which we all do right? We need this natural condition too - during Base Training where we fly the Airbus around the circuit manually - doing Touch and Go`s. - you can even limit the flight protections of the aircraft and get it into Direct Law to fly it like a conventional aircraft but this is not Automation as you said - this is just flight protections.

So, yes, you really can fly the airbus with all of the automation out and it is done a lot in the sim for training purposes and also in real time flying when we roll for take-off nothing is automated until we switch on the automatics. Sounds like a new rock band "The switched on Automatics" So, gradually as we climb away from the runway and increase our altitude we switch on the Auto Pilot and let the Auto-throttle engage - if we want it to. Some companies require that the pilot will fly the aircraft up to cruise level some companies or Captains prefer to select Autopilot after a few hundred feet off the ground - it depends on the requirement of the flight - but yes, you can go manual anytime you want - you can enter a hold where ever you want, immediately, you can amend or alter the navigation flight plan, you can change the speeds - the alt, its your aircraft. the automatics are for the lazy and simply provide a hands-free control of the aircraft which will fly according to what the pilot has told it to fly.

The fantastic thing about the Airbus (A320 famuily) is that when you manually selct an attitude, like a climbing turn to the left, say, then the aircraft will maintain that attitude until it is changed by the pilots (automatic or organic) and the real difference in flying the A320 family is getting used to the fact it does this.

[UALdave]

Well, you can actually - you can downgrade the automation a level by removing the Flight Directors, (and disconnecting the Autopilot). Provided you know what you want to do with the aircraft next you can also knock off the Auto-Thrust (making sure your LEVER position TLA is the same as the thrust position). You can swirch off the Nav equipment and fly by normal VORs and stand-by Artificial Horizon and voila you have an aeroplane being flown by the pilot. We need this condition too - during Base Training where we fly the Airbus around the circuit manually - doing Touch and Go`s. - you can even limit the flight protections of the aircraft and get it into Direct Law to fly it like a conventional aircraft but this is not Automation as you said - this is just flight protections.

So, yes, you really can fly the airbus with all of the automation out and it is done a lot in the sim for training purposes and also in real time flying when we roll for take-off nothing is automated until we switch on the automatics. Sounds like a new rock band "The switched on Automatics" So, gradually as we climb away from the runway and increase our altitude we switch on the Auto Pilot and let the Auto-throttle engage - if we want it to. Some companies require that the pilot will fly the aircraft up to cruise level some companies or Captains prefer to select Autopilot after a few hundred feet off the ground - it depends on the requirement of the flight - but yes, you can go manual anytime you want - you can enter a hold where ever you want, immediately, you can amend or alter the navigation flight plan, you can change the speeds - the alt, its your aircraft. the automatics are for the lazy and simply provide a hands-free control of the aircraft which will fly according to what the pilot has told it to fly.

The fantastic thing about the Airbus (A320 famuily) is that when you manually selct an attitude, like a climbing turn to the left, say, then the aircraft will maintain that attitude until it is changed by the pilots (automatic or organic) and the real difference in flying the A320 family is getting used to the fact it does this.

Ok, thanks for that information. Sounds like a fun airplane to fly! You should check out "Flying Heavy Metal" with Bruce Dickenson on Youtube, (it never came out here in the U.S.) where he fly's an A320. He didn't have any problems adapting to the side stick (he normally flies 757s).

[nianmuzik]

About a month ago I came across 30 minutes of continuous moderate/occasional severe turbulence followed by 20 minutes of continuous severe while approaching EZE (Buenos Aires - Argentina). The TAF (Weather Forecast). We didn't even get a chance to turn back because the storm was at its roughest at that time. The airport reported 5km of visibility at some point and within 5 minutes the airport was closed (0 visibility reported by the tower) due to the intense rain that was pouring down. We had to deviate to our alternate airport in Montevideo at that time. The autopilot never disengaged except this one time when the captain accidentally moved the sidestick away from its original and locked position while holding on to it during the severe turbulence but it was immediately reconnected. The Autothrust did an amazing job as well, we didn't even had the need to disconnect it either.

After arriving at MVD, do you know what happened to our A320? Absolutely nothing (the systems succesfully passed all the tests that are required by the manufacturer after an aircraft comes across severe turbulence) The only visible damage was paint that was stripped off by the golf-ball-size hail that we came across for a few minutes...

So yeah... Airbus makes absolutely amazing aircraft that can handle very dangerous and critical situations and handle like a charm. Can't say about Boeing because I've never had the chance to fly one.

[bernoulli]

About a month ago I came across 30 minutes of continuous moderate/occasional severe turbulence followed by 20 minutes of continuous severe while approaching EZE (Buenos Aires - Argentina). The TAF (Weather Forecast). We didn't even get a chance to turn back because the storm was at its roughest at that time. The airport reported 5km of visibility at some point and within 5 minutes the airport was closed (0 visibility reported by the tower) due to the intense rain that was pouring down. We had to deviate to our alternate airport in Montevideo at that time. The autopilot never disengaged except this one time when the captain accidentally moved the sidestick away from its original and locked position while holding on to it during the severe turbulence but it was immediately reconnected. The Autothrust did an amazing job as well, we didn't even had the need to disconnect it either.

After arriving at MVD, do you know what happened to our A320? Absolutely nothing (the systems succesfully passed all the tests that are required by the manufacturer after an aircraft comes across severe turbulence) The only visible damage was paint that was stripped off by the golf-ball-size hail that we came across for a few minutes...

So yeah... Airbus makes absolutely amazing aircraft that can handle very dangerous and critical situations and handle like a charm. Can't say about Boeing because I've never had the chance to fly one.

Great to get a first hand account! BTW, good to hear from you!

[Fast Jet]

Ok, thanks for that information. Sounds like a fun airplane to fly! You should check out "Flying Heavy Metal" with Bruce Dickenson on Youtube, (it never came out here in the U.S.) where he fly's an A320. He didn't have any problems adapting to the side stick (he normally flies 757s).

That is true. For all my envious gripes about him being a well paid rock star and therefore able to afford all the type ratings - he is obviously a very good and punchy pilot with that certain `je ne sais what` [ I can`t spell qua] (Lucky bloke!)

[LearCapt]

There are people who claim the newer Airbii are "over-automated", Boeings are "under-automated", Airbii are hard to fly, Airbii are easy to fly, Boeings are hard to fly, Boeings are easy to fly, blah blah blah. It's that way with everything from the smallest private planes to the largest airliners. Everyone's got an opinion, and few have evidence to back it up.

All transport category aircraft are certified to the same standards by the world's best experts on aircraft certification....there should be no qualms about getting on a properly maintained airplane of any manufacturer.

[rerere]

Yes, I agree that this airline's fleet is crap, but it isn't Airbus's falt. They could've had Boeing planes the same age, and they still would've had problems.

[Fast Jet]

About a month ago I came across 30 minutes of continuous moderate/occasional severe turbulence followed by 20 minutes of continuous severe while approaching EZE (Buenos Aires - Argentina). The TAF (Weather Forecast). We didn't even get a chance to turn back because the storm was at its roughest at that time. The airport reported 5km of visibility at some point and within 5 minutes the airport was closed (0 visibility reported by the tower) due to the intense rain that was pouring down. We had to deviate to our alternate airport in Montevideo at that time. The autopilot never disengaged except this one time when the captain accidentally moved the sidestick away from its original and locked position while holding on to it during the severe turbulence but it was immediately reconnected. The Autothrust did an amazing job as well, we didn't even had the need to disconnect it either.

After arriving at MVD, do you know what happened to our A320? Absolutely nothing (the systems succesfully passed all the tests that are required by the manufacturer after an aircraft comes across severe turbulence) The only visible damage was paint that was stripped off by the golf-ball-size hail that we came across for a few minutes...

So yeah... Airbus makes absolutely amazing aircraft that can handle very dangerous and critical situations and handle like a charm. Can't say about Boeing because I've never had the chance to fly one.

Wow. sounds like you had a fun time!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXJCHUmuUyw...1&index=101

Here`s one with fun minimums. sorry the link is all ------ up.

[GolfrGuy7]

I sense another Airbus vs. Boeing thread coming..

"A little over a month after an Airbus 447 crashed into the sea off the coast of Brazil, killing all 228 people on board, another of the manufacturer’s aircraft has been involved in a disaster."

That right there shows the credibility of this article.