Page 1 of 2

PostPosted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:19 pm
by BigBird
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/artic...jectid=10581646

What are they going to do? Surely all Airbuses need to be grounded until the issues are sorted out!

PostPosted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:57 pm
by Daniel
Lets hope there are survivors out there. The A310 is a good aircraft but is resonably old now.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:17 pm
by Peppermint
QUOTE
Surely all Airbuses need to be grounded until the issues are sorted out![/quote]

rolleyes.gif

PostPosted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:34 pm
by victor_alpha_charlie
BigBird wrote:
QUOTE (BigBird @ Jun 30 2009, 03:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/artic...jectid=10581646

What are they going to do? Surely all Airbuses need to be grounded until the issues are sorted out!


Are you serious? I saw a Toyota crashed today. They should be taken off the road until there is a 100% chance that another one won't crash! rolleyes.gif dry.gif
Some people just amaze me...

PostPosted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:35 pm
by d3fai13r
BigBird wrote:
QUOTE (BigBird @ Jun 30 2009, 03:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Surely all Airbuses need to be grounded until the issues are sorted out!

First of all A310 is old AC and now that's not many of them left in Europe. And it is not fbw designed aircraft. Ok, why B haven't grounded all its ac, when 1.5 years ago they have had serious engines problems on 777? Please don't be like journalist, count the number of pax carried on type, than count number of fatalities and then make your "genious conclusions" about grounding the whole family of aircrafts(thats something like only few thousands of aircrafts, thats absolutely nothing).
Or maybe im wrong and you have PhD in aircraft industry?
First of all, now in this recession, aircraft accidents will happen more often because maintenance costs are reduced, and its sadly. Second, here is enough A and B in the air to crash(i mean statistically, if something can brake, it will break, and if you have more aircrafts, the chance of crash increasing), so its more likely that 320 will crash more often than fe Tu-204, because there are thousands of A320 in the air, compare to few dozens of Tu-204.
Sadly news, hope there are survivers.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:47 pm
by Anthony
Yeah it's a sad accident, but I think grounding all Airbuses might be a bit rash. After all the A310 is pre-FBW era which makes it a completely different beast to the A320 and A330. It's also an aging type, introduced in 1982/1983.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:07 pm
by Alex
Whoa, take it easy guys. I know it can be a hot topic, but try and keep a calm head... wink.gif

Debate the issue, not the person.

Alex

PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:33 am
by LMerraine
Now to start the A v B debate.

Ground all the A's that way the B's will get the sales smile.gif

(This is from an avid B fan, that finds a number of the A's growing on him - esp the 340's)

PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:38 am
by steelsporran
BigBird wrote:
QUOTE (BigBird @ Jun 30 2009, 03:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/artic...jectid=10581646

What are they going to do? Surely all Airbuses need to be grounded until the issues are sorted out!


You have fallen into the same trap as the media, unfortunately the title "Airbus" lends itself to being one acft rather than a series.

PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:20 pm
by BigBird
laugh.gif Seem to have got quite a reaction... Okay, okay! In hindsight, yes, my comment re grounding all Airbuses was a bit rash.

What's going to happen if another one comes down in the near future? (Let's hope it doesn't happen! But with the current trend...)

PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 2:14 pm
by FlyingKiwi
From what I've heard, the airport in question at which the aircraft was landing is an especially difficult approach at night, with very few visual cues and high terrain in the immediate vicinity. Throwing bad weather into the mix doesn't help things. For all we know it could have been pure pilot error - it's a bit early to speculate on whether there was actually anything wrong with the aircraft, and if so whether it was any fault of Airbus' or a case of dodgy airline maintenance.

Also, apparently there is 1 survivor, most recently reported as a 14 year old girl.

PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:12 pm
by bennz
Why my comment to bigbird was removerd? dots.gif pirate.gif

PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:37 pm
by AlisterC
This might interest some of you. I know it's not particularly up to date (perhaps you can find a newer version?)
But in Dec 2007, these results show you are more likely to experience a fatal event in a Boeing than in an Airbus.
http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm

(Don't shoot me! I love Boeing, but I also love Airbus!) tongue.gif

PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:21 pm
by Naki
Albatross wrote:
QUOTE (Albatross @ Jul 1 2009, 03:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
This might interest some of you. I know it's not particularly up to date (perhaps you can find a newer version?)
But in Dec 2007, these results show you are more likely to experience a fatal event in a Boeing than in an Airbus.
http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm

(Don't shoot me! I love Boeing, but I also love Airbus!) tongue.gif




laugh.gif

PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:47 pm
by victor_alpha_charlie
BigBird wrote:
QUOTE (BigBird @ Jul 1 2009, 12:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
What's going to happen if another one comes down in the near future? (Let's hope it doesn't happen! But with the current trend...)


Another Airbus WILL crash, that is 100% certain.

What will happen? Probably the usual- injuries, news reports and an investigation.

PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 8:54 pm
by Alex
bennz wrote:
QUOTE (bennz @ Jul 1 2009, 03:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Why my comment to bigbird was removerd? dots.gif pirate.gif

Because it was exactly the opposite of what had been asked. Name-calling and unkind implications aren't tolerated. Just a heads up. wink.gif

Alex

PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:30 am
by bennz
Alex wrote:
QUOTE (Alex @ Jul 1 2009, 08:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Because it was exactly the opposite of what had been asked. Name-calling and unkind implications aren't tolerated. Just a heads up. wink.gif

Alex



It wasn't a name calling . I was stating the facts, People should think before they make any statement.
harhar.gif

PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:55 am
by Alex
bennz wrote:
QUOTE (bennz @ Jul 2 2009, 09:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It wasn't a name calling . I was stating the facts, People should think before they make any statement.
harhar.gif

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

You can continue to support your post, I'm going to continue to support the Moderator's decision to remove it.

I would prefer to continue any discussion regarding it via PM or email, for the sake of keeping the thread on-topic... winkyy.gif

Alex

PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 11:04 am
by benwynn
It depends what era the A310 was from, the late A310's did have FBW I think..?

Aeroplanes crash, you take that risk every time you get on one, let alone getting in your car to drive to the airport, were the chance of you being killed is many times more.

Airbus is just having a bad run, Boeing has had the same, and will again in the future. It is unfortunate, but such is life.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 1:45 pm
by bennz
Alex wrote:
QUOTE (Alex @ Jul 2 2009, 10:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

You can continue to support your post, I'm going to continue to support the Moderator's decision to remove it.

I would prefer to continue any discussion regarding it via PM or email, for the sake of keeping the thread on-topic... winkyy.gif

Alex



Alex I come with peace surrender.gif