Esse site utiliza cookies. Ao usá-lo e continuar a navegar, você concorda com isso.
Ignorar
Você sabia que o rastreamento de voos da FlightAware é patrocinado por anúncios?
Você pode nos ajudar a manter o FlightAware gratuito, permitindo anúncios de FlightAware.com. Trabalhamos muito para manter nossa publicidade relevante e discreta para criar uma ótima experiência. É rápido e fácil permitir anúncios no FlightAware ou, caso prefira, considere nossas contas premium.
Ignorar
Back to Squawk list

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


R123154
RICK HUGHES 5
I don't think I would feel very safe on a 380.After being in Aviation for 20 years and seeing the inspections carried out on all aircraft I know that I do trust their inspection procedures but when I hear of wing cracks in a relatively new aircraft or delamination it don't really matter who makes the plane to me.My concern is that if this is showing up after all the testing they went through how fast could it get to the Failure part.I don't know but bring back the old 727. Just a thought with a little humor.
signmanbob
Robert Yunque 1
I agree. Cracks on a brand new aircraft with just a few hours is creepy. If a new A380 with over 500 passengers crashes because of cracks in the wing roots, the public outcry and publicity would probably ground the A380 for good.
Boeing has had some structual failure on older aircraft, but has never had this problem on brand new aircraft with low hours.
alistairm
alistairm 1
Cracks in the wing roots?? Are you new? It was cracks in the rib feet, "l" shaped brackets that hold the skin of the wing to the wing ribs. Get your facts straight. 787 delamination would qualify as a problem with a Boeing aircraft with low hours. Again, get your facts straight before you spout off.
signmanbob
Robert Yunque 0
I apologize Alistair. But, speaking as a layman, hearing mention of "cracks" and "wing" in the same sentence surely doesn't motivate me to climb into that aircraft.
It should be made more clear to the general public when these failures are as insignificant as you say.
alistairm
alistairm 1
I don't think that the media has helped much in this case. Though, it just irks me when people say the words, "cracks in wings". This is not the case. It also bothers me when people speculate that wings may fall off. No wings will fall off and all the proper inspections and repairs are taking place. I have just posted a link that explains the difference between the Type 1 and the Type 2 cracks. Yes, i agree that when you hear the words "cracks" and "wing" in the same breath, it is a bit unnerving.
siriusloon
siriusloon 3
From all the comments here, you'd think no Boeing had ever cracked anywhere. I hope you people looking at Boeings through your rose-coloured glasses and seeing perfection aren't inspectors because you're missing the fact that all aircraft have cracks, and mising the fact that if this was an airworthiness issue, the FAA would have grounded them -- or are you going to claim the FAA is just an Airbus lackey?

If you prefer Boeing to Airbus, fine, but some of you people sound utterly ridiculous. And for the record, I prefer Boeing, too, but let's get real, their aircraft have problems, too. The 787 wasn't late because someone couldn't make up their mind what colour to paint it. Ever hear of Section 41? The roof peeled off a 737, not an A320. What about the 747 cargo door latches that had a designed-in fault from the beginning? That killed people, the A380 cracks haven't.

If you won't go somewhere because you can't get there on a Boeing, then don't go. I'm sure the airlines and related businesses will sob uncontrollably as a result of you staying home.

And if you know more about safety than the FAA's airworthiness certification people, then why are you sitting on your butt reading this? Go get a job there, they obviously need your expertise. Maybe they'll let you bring your armchair, too.
alistairm
alistairm 3
"If you won't go somewhere because you can't get there on a Boeing, then don't go. I'm sure the airlines and related businesses will sob uncontrollably as a result of you staying home."

I like this bit mate. One member on here once said that he would never go anywhere that Air France flew - it was based on an article about Airbus/Air France. Therefore, i listed all the places that Air France flies to for him - which is pretty much anywhere in the world. I never got a response back.
toolguy105
toolguy105 2
Airbus is a relatively new company not much more than 30 years old I believe. In that time they have had more problems than all of Boeing since the advent of the 707 in the mid 1950's in comparison to production units. I'm not saying planes are bad planes. The A320 or 319 series competes very well with the 737. I would like it better if it was not a fly by wire system.

Airbus saw a need and pushed to fill it. That was to provide a plane for emerging third world countries with pilots who did not have much experience. The fly by wire system was to make up for lack of experience. That system grew into a cockpit management system for more sophisticated airlines with longer routes and better pilots and that's when things went south for Airbus.

AF Flt 447 lost in the Atlantic may be the result of Airbus growing to fast; we will never know for sure.. Certainly Air France has a long history of safety in the air and their pilots are some of the best trained in the Industry.

All airplanes develop cracks it is part of the pressurization cycles they go through, even Airbus. Fact is the Southwest jet is not the first Boeing to pop its skin in flight. But in each and every case, which have been three, the planes have landed safely. Thanks in part to the skill of the pilots, stick and rudder control and how tough Boeing builds its planes.

It was a the DC10 that had cargo door problems with the latches causing on fatal crash and one explosive decompression and harrowing landing by a very skilled pilot.. What you are referring too is one incident over the pacific where it was later found that the baggage handler did not properly close the cargo door. While unfortunately several people lost their lives and their was a major skin delamination. The pilots were able to keep the plane in the air, for over 2 hours and land safely back at HNL. Stick and rudder control by the pilot not a computer program is what saves a plane in an emergency.

While the 777 is built by Boeing it is a fly by wire system. Given my choice of aircraft I will choose the 767, 747 & now the 787 ahead of the 777. I want the pilot in control in an emergency not the computer.

Yes the auto-pilot is a computer and 95% of the flying done today is by the auto-pilot. Still when things go haywire and Murry is busy pushing his laws about. You can disconnect the auto-pilot and hand fly a plane that has stick and rudder control from cockpit input. That's the safety I look for when I fly.
bonami
Tony Martin 2
Tool guy, the cargo door problems with the DC10 were not an isolated incident. March 1974, Turkish Airlines flight 981 crashed in the ermonville forest outside Paris killing 381 people, another in late March outside Boston .......
I reference : The rise and fall of the DC10 by John Godson . There are referenced dozens of cargo door incidents over a year period. ADs were issued by the FAA by were stalled by politics , putting passengers and crew in great danger.
A grim incident in aviation history.
alistairm
alistairm 1
http://www.boeing.com/newairplane/787/design_highlights/#/VisionaryDesign/Aerodynamics/AdvancedFlyByWire

You may want to exclude the 787 Toolguy
preacher1
preacher1 1
Unless I'm mistaken, ain't the 787 fly by wire, even though they kept the yoke, and the 767 is pretty much headed that way. The others are just refinements
toolguy105
toolguy105 1
I don't know. I'll have to look that up. I thought the 777 was Boeing's only venture in fly by wire as most pilots that prefer the Boeing plane prefer stick and rudder control not fly by wire systems.

Like any mechanic will tell you the more feel you have for what you are doing the better you know what is happening. You loose that feel in fly by wire systems and the pilots have no sensation of what the controls are doing.
alistairm
alistairm 1
Toolguy: please stop posting BS. So far, what you have posted is mostly speculation. We like hard facts that you can back up.
alistairm
alistairm 1
Boeing also has confirmed adding fly-by-wire to the 737 MAX
preacher1
preacher1 1
Little different system. Not quite the same but the feel is still there which is why Boeing stayed with the yoke rather tha go with a joystick, although I have had some AB qualified friends who have told me that once you get used to that joystick, anything else is just in the way. Personal preference.
alistairm
alistairm 1
747-8 is also using fly-by-wire.
StymieHo
Chris Donawho 1
Well said Siriusloon.
bonami
Tony Martin 1
That's affirmative Leslie Masters,good memory.
bonami
Tony Martin 1
I was a 747 engineer at the onset of the aircraft, one of the incredibles and I,ll tell you that the faulty cargo door latches that we're responsible for many accidents, we're on McDonnell Douglas DC 10 airplanes.
alistairm
alistairm 1
Also on the 747 Tony:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_811
That has to do with the cargo door latches. There were many more incidents involving another door on the 747: http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl/1985_30459/38-faulty-door-charges-registered-against-747s.html.
bonami
Tony Martin 1
I stand corrected Alistair, my memory fails me. I was the main door test / development engineer on the 747 along with emergency escape systems , with a subsequent familiarity of those systems.
I do not recall the incident with the failure of no 5 door on the airplane described. As was stated , the main door design on the Boeing airplanes of that era was a plug configuration, once closed and locked could not open when airplane was pressurized which makes the incident most puzzling.
alistairm
alistairm 1
No worries Tony. As we go back and forth here, i only hope that nothing more serious occurs with the A380. My favourite aircraft is the 777 by the way. So no, i am not anti-Boeing. However, both Boeing and Airbus need to be kept honest at all times.
Lesliemasters
Leslie Masters 1
Yes. I had many BA colleagues on that flight. They where on Standby. If I remember correctly it was a Turkish Airlines flight to Paris.
Moviela
Ric Wernicke 2
I fly quite often, and the only planes that have ever left me on the ground overnight were made in France. I have had a few Boeing flights where "a light in the cockpit" forced a return to the gate, but nothing where the passengers had to wait while spares were flown in. The first time I flew an Airbus back in the 70's I thought this plane looks nice but it had an overall feel of those products in the 99 Cent store that have similar graphics as the "real" product, but never perform as well.

I notice small things like cabin panels that don't fit, a wad of duct tape on the flight deck door stop because the door would pass over it as delivered. Switches on the passenger entertainment system that are balky, do not illuminate as required, and the legends are worn so that you cannot read them. I have been on flights were wall trim panels at the floor had fallen loose and the wiring harness in the wall look like they were made in "Francois garage." Yes they worked, but no one would call them "ship shape."
gelrod2354
Mike Elrod 1
Hear-hear!! Always feel the A320 is a flimsy version of 737.
alistairm
alistairm 1
Which aircraft had the rudder issue? 737
Which aircraft had it's skin coming apart at the seams? 737
Which aircraft broke into 3 pieces on more then one occasion? 737
Which aircraft has defective chords and bear straps (relates to above)? 737

By no means is the 737 any better than the 320 and the 320 is far from being flimsy << Hudson river incident??? Stayed in one piece!
Moviela
Ric Wernicke 1
The Hudson River incident (it was really an all engines out crash) ended with all souls safe because of superlative airmanship skills. It was in all the papers.
alistairm
alistairm 1
All the superlative airmanship would not have been worth a damn if the aircraft broke into two! I am sure that quite a few people would have drowned. Not sure why you are stating that it was, "...really an all engines out crash...". I think we all know that.
LenSmetona
Len Smetona 1
How about that? An all engine out FBW Airbus succesfully ditches in the Hudson with no one lost. I think that counts for something. i'm not an Airbus afficiando but the aircraft did admirably. Of course the crew did too. (I'm a Falcon 7X pilot)
captoats
captoats 1
As a 320 captain, I can tell you those "scary" fly by wire controls on the 320 river rat performed perfectly for Sully & company. Read the NTSB report. As for the yoke on the FBW Boeing's, how could they admit Airbus had a better idea! If its not connected to anyting but electrons, Why have a 80# hunk of metal when you could have a very useful table? Only downside, the table will not support a flight attendent! LOL!!
preacher1
preacher1 1
Yeah it was all in the papers and Sully is still touted to this day but if you'll look at the pictures you'll see that the plane was intact as well and that also contributed mightily to those survivors. Had it broken up as is pretty much the norm for a water landing or at least cracked open somewhere, you wouldn't have had 100% survival, let alone them all getting out and standing on the wing, nor would it have been good enought to recover and move down to the NC Air Museum at Charlotte.
alistairm
alistairm 1
Which airline did you fly onboard an Airbus with back in the '70s?
Moviela
Ric Wernicke 1
Air France London to Paris, summer of 74.
preacher1
preacher1 1
I won't argue whether it was an Airbus or not that far back. I'll leave that for Alistair, but all I will say is that when Japanese cars first started hitting this country back around that time, they were junk, called outright crap, and laughed at. Now they have literally kicked the tails of the big 3 here as far as quality goes, besides gaining enough market share to open plants here.
alistairm
alistairm 1
Oh, i was not trying to catch him out. I was just curious, that is all. Air France did start service in May of 1974 with the 300.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
Moreover Wayne...we can get parts upto 50 kgs within 72 hours from Japan just on a normal deliver schedule.
StymieHo
Chris Donawho 3
Oh my, perfect start to a Monday for the Boeing homers.
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
Not sure this is really news, but more of an DOH, that is rather obvious... I still like Boeing, and have real reservations in concerns to the safety of the Airbus's.
Hess1
John Hester 1
Sorry James,
only one " T " in Scots
Hess1
John Hester 1
Not the First
bonami
Tony Martin 1
I was an aerospace engineer for 20 years, Boeing, Lockheed, British aircraft corp, and in all of those years I never saw the problems with NEW airplanes that occur these days. My opinion is that computers are relied on far too much for design decisions that engineers used to make. The Boeing 787 is another example. Just an old schools observation.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
You know what Tony...for all the training and quals an engineer under 40 years old he has not got anything that can match the guys who make 'em and fix 'em.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Just the difference in work ethic between generations may have something to do with it as well.
toolguy105
toolguy105 1
Unfortunately you ae right. Kids today are not taught as we were. Theft are taught to use computer programs. What will they do if the power fail?
preacher1
preacher1 1
Sad part is, we are the ones that taught them, or their Mom's and Dad's
alistairm
alistairm 1
Computers or no computers, Engineers will make mistakes. And hen the power fails, i am sure that there is at least a UPS, if not a diesel power generator that will kick in.
tucsonguy
Ralph Addison 1
In the meantime, I hope there are no accidents.
shenghaohan
Shenghao Han 1
Thank god 787 already solved their wing crack problem and etc. when the first plane still in the factory which make it delayed 2 years.

Some commites. Boing link up two control system so even it is fly by wire, two pilots can feel what each other is doing. Airbus's side yoke system don't, which on AirFrance 447 the action of two pilots' cancelled out each other. And when you engage auto throttle on Airbus the lever don't move at all, on Air France 447 pilots thought their plane is in flying full throttle but it is not, the auto throttle disengaged itself due incorrect air speed input.

Boing's fly by wire is put the control toward pilots, Airbus's is put the control toward computer.
Although nowadays the computers are more relaible but Win7 still crashes.

And A320 is much more younger than 737-100,200,300,400,500,600 you should compare it to 737NG-700,800 and 900 also please dispite false maintance.

An airplane won't be safe unless Airplane manufactor, Engine manufactor, Pilot trainning and Maintaince comes together. Oh plus a safer would without people want to turn commercial airliner into terrior weapon. Personally I'd like to fly in a 777-200ER or 300.
gelrod2354
Mike Elrod 1
hear, hear!
jimtx
james nyerges 1
Wingscrubber!! The Scotts Have an Old Saying "To Many Cooks Spoil The Broth"
Rioko
Rosco Belle 1
I remembered that the 747 and the 767 had cracks in the wings when they first came out in service. Most new planes will have problems and the manufacture will correct them as the problems arise. The 748 is modified so it's not much to do since they have felt with those problems already with that model. The A380 will eventually evolve into a much better aircraft.
bonami
Tony Martin 1
Give me a drafting board and a good design engineer with real time experience any day.
Wingscrubber
Wingscrubber 1
"This problem will keep us busy for years," weekly Der Spiegel quoted Tom Williams as saying in an article published on Sunday.

I bet the shareholders love comments like that. What the general public, and perhaps even Mr. Williams himself, doesn't understand is that sustaining engineering is an ongoing process for ALL legacy aircraft until they're parked in the boneyard or museum, and dealing with infant mortality design issues such as this is all part of the job!
Lesliemasters
Leslie Masters 1
Don't I just? I do remember fondly the faithful vc10. I used to fly it when I was BA crew. A superbly engineered machine I can say.
bonami
Tony Martin 2
Nice to hear that.
Moviela
Ric Wernicke 1
So it was "slips" that made critical wing brackets crack?

Another reason to get Boeing before you get going.
JetMech24
JetMech24 3
Kinda like miss-shimming a fuselage skin, like...uhm...Boeing 787's. Fuselage skin cracking and blowing out in half the time it "should", like...uhm...Boeing 737's... the list goes on. Neither is any better than the other.
cdt431990
Chase Tompkins -4
JetMech... Are you comparing critical wing brackets to fuselage cracks? If I was at FL340 I would much rather encounter a rapid depressurization than a possible detachment of the wing skin (which I hope will never happen).

Wings produce lift...Right?
JetMech24
JetMech24 7
You must have forgot about Aloha then, huh? You like rapid decompression with instant exit better? If you want to talk about wings, how about wing skin cracking at engine pylon attach points that is known to happen on a certain other BOEING airplane. I CAN go on...
StymieHo
Chris Donawho 3
LOL on the instant exit..... If only they had that option at the gate!
StymieHo
Chris Donawho 2
Agree with JetMech, both companies have serious issues, especially with this new "race to put incomplete product to market" business model theyve collectively designed. Hell, with such strikingly similar deficiencies, they should merge and form one global monopoly on crap. We'll call it BoeBus. Maybe MD and Lockheed should get back into this before the Chinese start kicking all of our asses.
preacher1
preacher1 2
They both do have their problems. Boeing probably has fewer since they have so many years of experience to fall back on. On the other side, Airbus's problems may not be all that big a deal in some cases, BUT, they are getting look at a lot harder since the are basically the new kid on the block. 40 years ago the 747 had it's share of teething problems as well but most of that has been long forgotten.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Funny, I just finished a 2 day PAX trip, KFSM-KMEM-KCLT and back. Into and out of KCLT. Right in the heart of Airbus territory. Had some time yesterday afternoon for plane watching yesterday afternoon. You know what? I didn't see one Aibus crash or puek at the gate. From a distance, it was hard to tell them from the Boeing products that some of the other carriers were bringing in/out.Simply amazing for such an inferior and trashy built product. Pinnacle's CRJ-200's performed flawlessly too.
I am as Pro Boeing as anybody, but we need to accept the fact that there are some new kids on the block and they are turning out a decent product.
StymieHo
Chris Donawho 1
What.... No wingless A380 to write home about???
preacher1
preacher1 1
preacher1
preacher1 1
They ain't made their way to Charlotte yet, at least in a permanent way.lol
R123154
RICK HUGHES 1
Airplanes are what they are.Complex and at times problematic. They operate in the worst of enviroments that one can imagine.Engineering in itself is monumental no matter the name of the company or what country builds them.
mikezc128
Michael Misorski 1
Its too big of a plane to be built with someone that doesnt have as much experience as Boeing would. This thing should have never gotten off the ground with Airbus and looks like thats the way some of these birds will spend their life.
alistairm
alistairm -2
Yes, Boeing has decades more experience than Airbus does. Makes you wonder why they still build faulty aircraft themselves! 787, 747-8, 737(NG)... Boeing had their chance. All they could come up with was an extended version of the 747. Maybe the Russians should build all the big aircraft!? They do have the worlds biggest!
Wingscrubber
Wingscrubber 3
Airbus is a consortium originally formed from Aerospatiale, British Aerospace, Fokker & CASA, so their 'experience' stretches back to Caravelles and Comets. It's not like it was a brand new company which sprang out of nowhere, it was a massive euro-merger of all the biggest players in civil European aircraft manufacturing at the time. (1970)
alistairm
alistairm 1
You are correct in looking at it that way. Though, i think Michael was only going as far back as the A300 back in 1972, the first product of Airbus as it is known today.
preacher1
preacher1 2
Alistar / Wingscrubber: I got's a question and actually just need my memory refreshed. I agree on the consortium part and kinda remember all that, but now you are talking the early 70's, but wasn't Fokker, at least, still operating as an independent company? It was mid 80's, early 90's when the F-100 stormed the market, wasn't it?
Wingscrubber
Wingscrubber 1
Fokker took a 7% share http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus
alistairm
alistairm 1
Fokker went bankrupt in 1996. Stork Aerospace took over the maintenance and parts manufacturing of the bankrupt company. Stork now refurbishs and resells F50s and F100s.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Tks. I was just curious. I can remember a PAX trip to upstate NY out of LIT in the early 90's. Flew on AA best I recollect, and had the 100's on all legs of the trip.Nice Aircraft.
R123154
RICK HUGHES 1
U.S.Air also flew F-100s from CLT. to LIT.Excellent aircraft.At one point we had 3 a day out of KROA.Never had 1 mechanical except on that stupid fuel system they had.Just like the F-28 except digital which never worked.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Were they flying those themselves? Mesa has ran that for years under their flag
R123154
RICK HUGHES 1
Yes they were under U.S.AIR. and were eventually replaced by DC-9s as they were here inKROA.Don'tkknow if it was leasing issues or what.I know they were much better with fuel efficiency.
R123154
RICK HUGHES 1
Also min. fuels were 10000# for the F-100 while DC-9s were right around 13800# for the DC-9 and of course that included the reserves.So there was a difference in burns per hour for sure.
alistairm
alistairm 1
I think this post has officialy been hijacked! lol:)
R123154
RICK HUGHES 1
Yea.Ill shutup for you are correct.
alistairm
alistairm 1
Oh no, please go on. Talk mnore abour Fokker. Hearing about Airbus/Boeing each and every day gets a bit dry.
StymieHo
Chris Donawho 2
No kidding...
Moviela
Ric Wernicke 1
A WWII Dutch Ace was being interviewed about his greatest battle. He said a Fokker attacked him at 3 o'clock, and he shot him down. He then said "Another Fokker was at 11 o'clock but I was able to shoot him out of the air too. The reporter interrupted to tell listeners that Fokker is a manufacturer of airplanes. The Dutchman said "Ja, but these Fokkers were flying Messerschmitts!"
preacher1
preacher1 1
Got a question; when I was at KCLT this past week, I just saw the back end from inside the terminal, there was either a 767 or 777(looked like anyway)still in Piedmont colors. It did have US Airways down the topbut had not been repainted. Are there still many of those around?
Derg
Roland Dent 1
India, Alistair, India and China...those are the competitors of the future.
thunderland2
al fredericks 1
BRING BACK THE "OLDE" B-727. YES, YES YES. lets take a collection to update it. safer flying ahead.
johndanzy
John Danzy 0
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/03/19/is-boeing-s-737-an-airplane-prone-to-problems.html
chalet
chalet 3
You don´t need to tell us that you work for Airbus. This is the most stupid blog comment that I have read in the past 5 years or so. The 737 is one hell of an airplane, safe and sturdy, just like the Airbus 320 family. Now what else do you want to discuss: perhaps the cracks in brand new 380s?, this IS one hell of a problem, now you go to their factory in Toulousse and fix that, make sure to bring some duct tape, Wal-Mart has good prices today.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
The 737 is and was one hell of an airplane. An unknown number of 737NGs have a faulty monoQ build due to subcontractor shoddy work and shoddy quality control when it arrived at the Boeing assembly plant.

Chalet you should lay some facts on the table or specific examples. We all want to know.

The 707 was a hell of an irplane...the A340 is a hell of an airplane...the C152 was and is a hell of an airplane. There are a bunch of Russian made airplanes that can match anything the USA has in the military world.

The idea in these forums is to exchange info for the benefit of all. If we all had "perfect information" we would have less mishaps.
johndanzy
John Danzy 1
I don't work for Airbus. I can't go to the Airbus factory in Toulouse because I am American and don't live in France. You, however, probably work for Boeing. Actually, you probably worked for Boeing. Wouldn't be surprised if you were laid off because Boeing decided to close your plant due to the fact that so much of our "American made" Boeing are now made in other countries. Hell, wouldn't surprised if an Airbus were to have more American parts and manufacturing than a Boeing. Keep up the "buy American" or "If its not Boeing, I aint going" up guys. Guess nowadays you won't be going to many places.

Anyway, back to the discussion. First, let's not forget that the cracks are in the brackets. This does not make it okay and I'm not saying it is. It needs to be fixed and it will be. Boeing groupies make it seem like the wings are going to fall off tomorrow. It is a new aircraft and it has it's share of early issues just like the 737 had it's rudder problems, the 747's exploding fuel tank, and the other previous issues Boeing aircraft had.

And Chalet, sales speak for themselves. Airlines wouldn't buy Airbus if they were garbage. AA, Amercian freakin' Airlines, just bout a butt load of Airbus. It really is tiring to see foolish comments about anything Airbus. No one likes to mention that the 787 has been delayed so long that airlines are being compensated or the delamination issue has helped this delay. My point is is that if the A380 had a delamination issue it would be armageddon.
alistairm
alistairm 3
Welcome to FA John - i saw that you have only been a member for 15 days. You are going to soon realise very fast that this site is extremely pro-Boeing. When QF32 had it's engine blowout, many a member came out crtizizing Airbus, when it was clear that it was an RR issue. When the wing-rib feet cracks came up (notice i did not say cracks in the wing), Many a member came out and more or less stated that wings were going to fall off! If you were trying to find an aviation website where you can have intelligent coversations with other aviation enthusiats, keep looking.
johndanzy
John Danzy 2
Thanks, Alistair. I've been using flightaware's flight tracking for a while now and recently registered to participate in the forums. It's ridiculous how people will bash Airbus at any opportunity they get here. I honestly would not mind any criticism of Airbus (or Boeing) if it were warranted and backed with some facts. In fact, I along many others, would appreciate it as it's part of what makes an aviation site great.

Instead of actual conversations we see countless posts which seem to attack Airbus because Airbus simply is European. The thought of a European manufacture building a comparable or sometimes better aircraft forces many to make childish comments. We need to embrace the competition Boeing and Airbus have as it will continue the development of great aircraft. Hell, what's more American than good ol' capitalistic competition?
alistairm
alistairm 1
Amen to that!
Derg
Roland Dent 1
You guys are from the USA and you are CLUELESS to the culture of European companies.
alistairm
alistairm 1
Oh Roland, you have dug yourself a bit of a hole here mate. To be blunt, i am in no way fu*king clueless about European culture. I hold dual citizenship, Canadian and British. Furthermore, i was born in the netherlands; therefore, i have first hand knowledge of European culture seeing as i am European!! Now go and take your foot out of your mouth.
bonami
Tony Martin 1
I am also of dual lineage, British and American and have worked extensively in both arenas. From a pure craftsmanship standpoint, one cannot compare with the British aircraft industry when it existed, they were just not in a mass production mode,WW2being the exception here. Do any of you airplane guys remember a beautiful aircraft made by Vickers Armstrong called theVC10?
A magnificent rear engine airliner, 4 in the rear, fowler flaps and a killer cliimbout performance. Went into service in 1964 . My apologies but I thought a change in subject might be amusing.
alistairm
alistairm 1
I think so Tony, for we have been beating a dead horse for a while now. My Grandfather - who has long since passed away - was an engineer, as well as a carpenter. He worked for Cunard, RR and Hawker Siddley. Yes, the VC10 was an elegant aircraft.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
Still in service with the RAF.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
Dearest Alistair I can easily match your cosmopolitan pedigree and as far as NL goes, well..what can I say. I am just not sure what happened to Benelux after and during WW2. You may well be aware of the miracle it took to get the EADS idea into practice. OK I will take you out of the big bunch od USAers and the Canucks are different to mainstream USA. Indeed following your logic I should be a bigoted Neanderthal a bit like Oetzi the ICE MAN who now rests in a museum Bolzano IT. Well now after WW1.( a lot still speak German..ahem) Now he would understand the issue I make very clearly indeed and I am surprised that you will not admit it.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
For the benefit of readers OETZI was a 43 year old farmer and warrior who lived about 5,300 years ago. He was found during a warm summer in the alps on the border of Austria and Italy high above the Po Valley.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
Well Alistair I quote from the press...."Airbus, the plane maker owned by EADS , has said a combination of design and manufacturing slips put too much stress on a handful of the 2,000 brackets that fix the exterior of each wing to the ribcage beneath." We..us..professional engineers.. don't have "design slips" in 2012. What we do have is an aircraft that is often landing at around 1.2 plus G's far too ofen and on runways which are less than smooth. Basically as the thing bounces on the slab at around 400 tonnes it sets up stress oscilltions which were unforseen. Now these days glue is used extensively and it would be interesting to know just how the tabs were fixed. One thing was clear after the Changi accident..the wing spars and main frame outriggers are HUGE...so structural integrity is NOT an issue. The issue is operator errors...they land the damned things too hard.
alistairm
alistairm 1
Thanks Roland. Though, i thought it had already been stated that one of the three reasons that the cracks formed, was because of using the wrong kind/type of fastner.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
You miss the point Alistair...the reasons, in my view, do not reside in the very shallow plate of everyday mechanical fasteners and alu plating. No, what we are grappling with here is a 400 tonne mass of airplane which has pushed the limits of what airbus knew. I will bet you any amount you like there were some very concerned engineers in both Toulouse and at the UK based wing manufacturing plant. The politicains and the lay managers pushed this project on way to fast. The horrible evidence of this was the T972 failure at Changi.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
Anyway I asked around a little (I am now retired and not in the loop) and there is a very simple solution to this issue. We guess it would cost ar ound 30K USD per wing. It would have cost half that if it was done on the production line. Well Alistair what we have here is bunch of nugget bean counters, ex journalists and half baked university academics who between them pushed the engineers to compress the job on both time and money....and gave them a budget that was less than was satisfactory. Those who doubt this research a little because we already had one event that very nearly endangered 468 lives on a very nice day in Changi on one of the longest runways made for civil aircraft. Of course the wunnerful thing is Alsitair these folks can no longer hide. If the shareholders knew the risks these people take the company would collapse. They exist on the skill and decency of the guys on the line to help them out...I'm glad I am well out of it.
preacher1
preacher1 1
I think I may have said this in here somewhere, BUT, if it were not for the cracks being found as they were, while repairing the Quantas bird that blew the RR engine, we would not know anything about them until these birds started being taken down for regular inspection, which would tend to indicate that what AirBus has been saying all along is correct, about it not being an emergency thing, but now it has been made public and everyone has really jumped on the bandwagon now and all of a sudden, we are going to see them start falling from the sky if they are not fixed PDQ.
StymieHo
Chris Donawho 2
It should also be noted that any airline that wants to do business on a global scale, say for instance adding more EU routes, it would best serve them to buy a few Airbus aircraft. Still in this day and age, a company can earn brownie points for purchasing aircraft that they could have easily bought from their primary venodor. In this case, AAL could have spent that money on more 738's. They didnt catch Airbus during a Blue Light Special sales event. It just made sense for AAL to make an Airbus order to solidify their presence in the EU. That's one of the primary reasons UPS made an Airbus order. Otherwise, they could not have even put a dent into DHL's market share in the EU. The same could easily be said for American Airlines as well.

Southwest has no inclination in the future to cross the pond and therefore will stick to their current business model of an all 737 fleet. It has served them well thus far and I see no reason why it wouldnt well into the future.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
Chris many of the 737NGs, ain't gonna pass an 8 year C check.
JetMech24
JetMech24 1
Along with the subject of wings, one of the many delays for the 787 was that they had to go back and re-engineer and modify the wings due to failing the wing stress test first time through.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
Thats because the composites are brittle...the wing snapped clean off at about 1.3G I bet. Must have made a hell of a bang when it went.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
The reason why they buy Airbus is beacuse they cannot loose. The discounts are huge and gaurantees are so comprehensive that if a machine hit a bird every month it would cost the operator nothing. I mean ZERO.
toolguy105
toolguy105 0
The engineering on the A380 has been flawed from the beginning. Yes Airbus is not a totally new company. Building a monster plane is a new concept for them. Other than the fact that Boeing did not see a market for a 500 seat airplane there are reasons Boeing did not try to match Airbus and went instead with stretching the 747 and designing the B 787.

I believe one reason Boeing did not follow Airbus in matching the A380 is their computers told them or foresaw these flaws. Boeing could not engineer them out so they allowed Airbus to deal with them and the cost while rushing to catch up with Boeing in matching a plane to the 787.

It is my belief that unlike Boeing and the successful 747; the A380 will be Airbus's Achilles heal for sometime to come and may even cause future delays in the launch of the A350. Combined this could doom Airbus. Given the state of the European economy at this time the government's backing Airbus cannot afford to bail them out.
preacher1
preacher1 3
You got anything to back up that 2nd paragraph, toolguy? As I said somewhere earlier, the 747 had it's teething problems too, and lest we forget, everybody wondered then why we needed something that big. Problem is, all that was over 40 years ago and there are a lot of folks on here that haven't even reached 40 themselves yet, let alone remember any problems the plane might have had. Heck, that was basically 20+ years before the Internet. Like most folks, those here on FA are probably pro Boeing but there is a thing called fairness in which the playing field must be leveled.There are a bunch of retired pilots on here, that Boeing/MD/Lockheed was all we ever knew, and being retired and not being typed in any of the AB's, it is a whole 'nuther animal.We have an advantage in having generally reliable sources to keep up with them, BUT, the fact remains that they are out there, becoming an integral part of most fleets and barring any major happening, will remain.
toolguy105
toolguy105 0
I'm 65 years old. I'm Air Force trained in Aircraft repair and reclamation. Fortunately never had to use the reclamation portion of my training.

Yes the 747 had teething problems primarily with the engines not lasting more than a few hundred hours. In the Air Force I worked on the, KC135, B52, C130, C133, C141 & T38 but mostly Heavy Jets of that time and covers all of the manufactures of the time. Yes, I'm pro Boeing as they made a good plane that pilots love to fly and as a mechanic they were easy to maintain.

Anything built new has teething problems, just look at the auto industry. Airbus has had a few planes fall out of the sky because of poor choices. Most recently Air France Flt over the Atlantic. Some of their consolidated partners have had planes fall from the skies do to design flaws. The British Comet being one of them. Yes, Lockheed had the Electra loose its wings in flight from excessive vibrations. I can't recall any Douglas or Boeing Aircraft accidents being traced to a design flaw although it has yet to be proven that the 737 original rudder design caused several crashes. The rudder is suspect and Boeing redesigned the rudder system.

Boeing took a big chance on the 747 and won. They bet the future of the company on that plane. My belief is had they felt their was a market for the plane they would have come up with or tried to design a plane to compete with the A380 as a replacement for the 747. Something in the initial design stages turned them off. I think they saw flaws that at this time we or they do not have the expertise to over come. As I said I still believe the A380 will eventually doom Airbus. Hopefully it will not take a catastrophic accident.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Sad part is regarding the accident, it will probably happen somewhere. It may be design flaw, or it could be something else, such as Tenarife`, with absolutely no bearing on the plane. It was a stroke of luck that there were 5 senior captains on the Qantas that had the engine blowup, in order to handle system alarms that went crazy as a result of the engine blowup, BUT, it is a testament to Airbus or anybody else that would have happened to, that they got the thing back on the ground. As a matter of fact, best I remember, it was on the repair of that particular aircraft that they first noticed these cracks anyway.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
Wayne: the only reason they got that 388 back on the ground at Changi was the fact they had 6 people on the flight deck, a very nice day, a very long runway and God's wish. The whole incident was horrifying.

Then when they finally got is stopped 100m short of the slab end the No.1 engine would not shut down. So all 463 paasengers exited on the s/board side. Cool as cucumber they got all those people off with kerosine leaks and a running engine.

That was divine good fortune. Now having an FMS spewing out every fault possible and NOT being able to shut down an engine tells you a lot about the management of Airbus. The folks who sit around the board table have zero education in anything beyond a GED in airey fairy subjects. And I mean NADA.

The three guys who were on the board at Rolls Royce who were qualified engineers must have contemplated suicide at the time. This crew were mainly bean counters, journalists and wanna be business moguls.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, I think the "God's wish" probably played the biggest part in it. There were 5 senior captain's on the flight deck by "God's Wish", having the skill to handle the FMS going beserk(in their own words, it's in one of the many reports)and having all the other to be able to get it down. As I said, it is still a testament to the integrity of the Aircraft that they got it down as it is pure speculation as to what would have happened to it or any other Aircraft that suffered such a catatrophic failure. You cannot possibly anticipate everything. Sioux City was a good example of that. There was a later report on that one that 4 different crews had tried that in the SIM and all crashed horribly, and that was no design flaw, just an uncontrolled, unanticipated engine failure.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
Well said tool guy...you are one of the very few in here that have the pedigree to make a rational comment.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Wasn't that DC-10 that crashed at O'Hare a few years back a design flaw out there on the engine or was that a maintenance thing that got covered up; honestly can't remember other than everybody is dead.
bonami
Tony Martin 1
Boeing never followed Airbus building large airplanes, they built the biggest airliner in the world 43years ago in 2 years and 8 months . The Japan airlines 747 SR was certified to carry 467 passengers in 1971 by the FAA and did so on a regular basis flying bus stop runs from Tokyo to Osaka.
All the hype about the 380 airbus is overrated and the airplane will never compare with the 747 in any of it's many variants. If one compares dimensions, the 380 is not that much larger than the 747 anyhow.
Do not ever short change Boeing on this iconic aircraft.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
Yes Tony...those are my thoughts exactly. Well said Sir!
bonami
Tony Martin 1
You and I would get along very well Roland.
alistairm
alistairm 0
It was certified in 1973. First flight was only in August of '73 - just 10 months prior to Airbus getting it's first product into service with Air France. Therefore, it has only been about 38 years. Yes, 467 Japanese passengers... smaller people then us westerners. I have flown JAL and the seat pitch is horrible for a person over 6 feet tall. They were not manufacturing a brand new aircraft from the ground up. All they did was modify the current 747 to meet the requirments of the Japanese market. Research VLCT and you will see that Boeing did venture into the realm of Very Large aircraft.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Alistair: you talking about the 747 per se or this paticular version?
alistairm
alistairm 1
i am talking about the SR
preacher1
preacher1 1
bonami
Tony Martin 1
I know, I was there.
alistairm
alistairm 1
I am not sure that what you have stated here holds a lot of water, especially your second paragraph.
toolguy105
toolguy105 1
Wing design is a major factor in building a new plane. There had to be other reasons Boeing chose to stretch the 747 rather than what they saw as market share. Remember Lockheed and McDonald chose to go with the smaller L1011 and DC10 rather than match Boeing in a wide body. The DC10 had a flawed design that Douglas was aware of but ignored in a rush to get to market.

I believe Boeing with its experience in big planes saw the design flaws and decided to stick with what it knew it could produce. Yes, they had production delays, most of which were with suppliers not design flaws.
alistairm
alistairm 1
A reading suggestion to you:

http://www.amazon.ca/Airbus-A380-Superjumbo-21st-Century/dp/0760338388/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1332510584&sr=8-1

I have nearly finished reading this book myself. I suggest you get it for yourself. You will find that what you stated in your first post, is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy off.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
Oh please Alistair don't tell me you BELIEVE everything you read. I had you marked down as much brighter than that.
alistairm
alistairm 0
First off, i have nothing to prove to you; therefore, i don,t give a rats ass if you have formed any sort of opinion on my intelligence. In regards to reading, i suppose for some folks who only take the time to read the sports section, ignorance is bliss. Lastly, bugger off!

Entrar

Não tem uma conta? Registre-se agora (gratuito) para funcionalidades personalizáveis, alertas de vôo e mais!