A350 Entry into Service Pushed Back 6-Months

[BoeingBoy]

The terrorists could not have hit the WTC and Pentagon with the impact energy they were able to muster with the Boeings. Had they tried, they would have flown OVER the WTC and Pentagon.

Impact energy is determined by weight (mass really) and speed - are you saying that there aren't airbuses capable of the speed or that don't weigh as much as the boeings that hit the WTC or pentagon? None of the impacts involved speeds outside the envelope of the airbus flight control computers - as I recall the speeds were in the 300-350 kt range. Admittedly, there aren't many airbuses flying transcon that are the mass of the 757 or 767, which is why the terrorists were on Boeings. Neither of us know why they picked the flights they did other than the obvious - a lot of fuel - since none of them survived. But I'd guess they picked transcon flights because of the fuel load and since most of those are on boeings they ended up on boeings.

Jim

 

[nycbusdriver]

Impact energy is determined by weight (mass really) and speed - are you saying that there aren't airbuses capable of the speed or that don't weigh as much as the boeings that hit the WTC or pentagon? None of the impacts involved speeds outside the envelope of the airbus flight control computers - as I recall the speeds were in the 300-350 kt range. Admittedly, there aren't many airbuses flying transcon that are the mass of the 757 or 767, which is why the terrorists were on Boeings. Neither of us know why they picked the flights they did other than the obvious - a lot of fuel - since none of them survived. But I'd guess they picked transcon flights because of the fuel load and since most of those are on boeings they ended up on boeings.

Jim

Airbus lesson: At/near red line airspeed, the Airbus will introduce a pitch up elevator input that (under Normal Law) is not overridable by the pilot.

 

[crazystnic]

Jim always has to be right... can't even have a discussion on the Airbus and it's great qualities...
i fly with guys in the 737 all the time that have there heads buried in the sand as well..

I loved flying the AB... Great airplane , very comfortable, and capable...

much better for the passengers, and yes I've been on the SW new 737's...

overall the AB makes a 4 day trip very easy and is a pleasure to fly...

I just bid the 737 to have the company train me when BOS closed... will be going back to the BUS soon.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Airbus lesson: At/near red line airspeed, the Airbus will introduce a pitch up elevator input that (under Normal Law) is not overridable by the pilot.

As I said, my recollection is that the speeds weren't at/near red line - unless "near" is 10's of knots.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

Jim always has to be right...

So are you also claiming that the computers don't fly the airbus based on whether or not the pilot's inputs meet the requirements programmed into those computers? You're saying that that isn't the case???

Jim

 

[700UW]

The Airbus is engineered to assist pilots from getting into those situations. The Boeing will allow you to do whatever you want (that's why the terrorists had to choose Boeing to destroy the WTC and Pentagon.) In that sense, the Boeing is less safe, since it allows human beings (you, of course as KOAT, are the exception) to screw more things up, even if unintentionaly.

The reason the terrorist chose 757 and 767 to crash is because there are no Airbus planes equivalent flying transcon at the time.

Transcon have more fuel so more explosive and fire power than an A320.

That is common sense.

 

[700UW]

How about this for a plane!

707 Barrel Roll

 

[700UW]

What about the Air France A330 that took a nose dive into the Ocean after leaving South America!

The plane was upside down and the pilots didnt even know, so much for those computers keeping a Scarebus safe.

 

[Pi brat]

What about the Air France A330 that took a nose dive into the Ocean after leaving South America!

The plane was upside down and the pilots didnt even know, so much for those computers keeping a Scarebus safe.

I don't believe the final report is in on that one but it is believed that they pitot tubes froze and the computers and pilots got bad airspeed information, they reacted improperly for a stall. The computers have to have good information. Since then I believe all 330 pitot tubes have been replaced.

There have been several accidents caused by inaccurate airspeed info. NW had a 727 and I think two 757s.

 

[BoeingBoy]

There have been several accidents caused by inaccurate airspeed info. NW had a 727 and I think two 757s.

IIRC, the pilots were cited for not recognizing the airspeed problem - the attitude indicators and VSI's were telling a different story. Will the computers be cited if the same happens on an Airbus?

While nothing was funny about the AF 330, what was ironic was that the computers basically said "I give up - fend for yourself". Some protection they provided...

Jim

 

[Pi brat]

IIRC, the pilots were cited for not recognizing the airspeed problem - the attitude indicators and VSI's were telling a different story. Will the computers be cited if the same happens on an Airbus?

While nothing was funny about the AF 330, what was ironic was that the computers basically said "I give up - fend for yourself". Some protection they provided...

Jim

It's an airplane Jimbo, so whether you forget the pitot heat, someone tapes them up or they fail, you have to FLY THE AIRPLANE. Pitch and power, remarkably it works in an Airbus! That's why we are still up front. They haven't programed everything into a computer.

Did the Qantas A380 that chucked an engine fly itself around and land?

 

[crazystnic]

So are you also claiming that the computers don't fly the airbus based on whether or not the pilot's inputs meet the requirements programmed into those computers? You're saying that that isn't the case???

Jim

'
You are such a knucklhead it's unbelievable.... I never said that, what I said is you come on here and talk like an expert on EVERY subject...and even about an airplane you have never flown.

 

[nycbusdriver]

It's and airplane Jimbo, so whether you forget the pitot heat, someone tapes them up or they fail, you have to FLY THE AIRPLANE. Pitch and power, remarkably it works in an Airbus! That's why we are still up front. They haven't programed everything into a computer.

Did the Qantas A380 that chucked an engine fly itself around and land?

He probably thinks Sully let the Airbus autoland in the Hudson, too. After all, Sully wasn't really flying that airplane....some computer was. And, if it had been a Boeing, it probably would have landed safely in CLT.....Canadian geese be damned!

 

[etops1]

My thoughts exactly. My background is AWA, and so far LCC is no different. A crisis every couple years. A brief window of tranquility followed by all hell breaking loose.

Your background is AWA?? Hmm ,Always thought you were someone I know from the east .

 

[Pi brat]

He probably thinks Sully let the Airbus autoland in the Hudson, too. After all, Sully wasn't really flying that airplane....some computer was. And, if it had been a Boeing, it probably would have landed safely in CLT.....Canadian geese be damned!

You know I don't think old Jimbo actually believes half the crap he spews. I think he just throws it out hoping to stir the pot and get us going.