4 ms·

Airbus is no better. Investigation report about an incident in 2018 was just released: https://avherald.com/h?article=4b57c3dd/0000&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h

by mopsi 7y ago

Airbus is no better. Investigation report about an incident in 2018 was just released: https://avherald.com/h?article=4b57c3dd/0000&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=4b57c3dd/0000&opt=0 What happened there: wrong kind of oil was used in elevator and it went unnoticed because maintenance guides did not require any inspections of affected parts. Wrong oil caused delays in sensor triggering, which led to primary computers shutting down, believing that there was a problem with elevator. Backup computers didn't detect gear compression correctly when the aicraft bounced on the runway (one computer believed it was on the ground, the other that it was airborne) and also shut down and locked the elevator in neutral (zero) position as a safety measure. This happened during a touch-and-go landing on a training flight. The A320 touched down, bounced, elevator got locked, the aircraft climbed a bit, then fell down on the runway scraping and damaging engines (due to loss of control), then took off again (not enough runway left for stopping) and was now flying with no elevator and with engines about to shut down. It's a miracle that pilots managed to turn around and land safely. In 1993, Lufthansa A320 crashed under similar conditions: landed in poor conditions, computers didn't think it was on the ground and didn't allow braking until it was too late https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufthansa_Flight_2904 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufthansa_Flight_2904

the_mitsuhiko 7y ago
> Airbus is no better. Maybe, but the report you linked does not show that. The issue with Boeing is not that a plane crashed but that planes crashed despite earlier reports that people considered these planes unsafe. No such reports came out of Airbus about the A320 as far as I'm aware. Also the regulators did not delegate certification to Airbus.
- mopsi 7y ago
  Airbus has similar long-standing issues. On ground / airborne detection logic was broken in 1993 and is still broken in 2019, to a point that it can cause loss of flight controls. Boeing, in contrast, uses simple radar altimeter. Whenever altitude reads 10 feet or less, the aircraft is considered to be "on ground" and things like thrust reversers become available. I personally avoid praising or preferring Airbus when bashing Boeing. Who knows what else is under that rock too.
  - CaptainZapp 7y ago
    Airbus has similar long-standing issues. On ground / airborne detection logic was broken in 1993 and is still broken in 2019, to a point that it can cause loss of flight controls. So you're claiming that Airbus knowingly leaves a critical defect in their planes, which may cause the loss of flight controls and which they refreain from fixing for almost 30 years? Either come up with a reliable source for this statement (which is extremely hard to believe) or allow me to call bullshit!
    - TremendousJudge 7y ago
      >which may cause the loss of flight controls and which they refreain from fixing for almost 30 years? And, that as far as we know, hasn't caused
    - lightedman 7y ago
      NTSB already notes long-standing issues with all aircraft, all you need to do is read. Airbus for example has a flaw in the A300-600 line where the tailfin can get ripped off due to bad rudder manufacture, that's been around and still exists since the turn of the millennia. My pal consistently bitches about having to do constant preventative work on that section of that line of planes (he's an Airbus engineer.)
    - mopsi 7y ago
      > So you're claiming that Airbus knowingly leaves a critical defect in their planes, which may cause the loss of flight controls and which they refreain from fixing for almost 30 years? A320's computers monitor gear for uncompression of 1 second or longer. Computers are not in sync. If landing gear decompresses due to bouncing for long enough to be seen for 1 second by one computer, but short enough to get missed by the other, computers will produce different outputs and the system will shut down, freezing important flight control at a dangerous phase of flight and leaving pilots in a situation they have not been trained for. Given the very obviously flawed and incredibly poor design that's easy to understand even for laymen, I would have very hard time believing that no-one at Airbus ever noticed, no-one ever spoke up. I think this would reflect even more poorly on Airbus. Especially so considering that there have been multiple hull-loss accidents with fatalities (LH2904, TAM3054), where air/ground detection has been a contributing factor. Throughout the years, the aircraft has been unable to tell whether it's on the ground or in the air.
Voloskaya 7y ago
Shit is always going to happen, there is no magic trick. However what these companies can do, is being extremely diligent about implementing fixes as soon as an issue is reported and not cutting corners on the certification processes and safety features. What has surfaced in the last few months, is that Boeing is willing to cut corners, and is not being diligent. It's completly possible that the same thing is happening at Airbus, but I have not personnally seen or heard evidences of that. At the very least, Airbus is not certifying it's own planes. For example, for the crash you mentionned, was Airbus aware of that potential issue sooner but didn't update the maintenance guide for some ulterior motives?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by mopsi 7y ago

the_mitsuhiko 7y ago

> Airbus is no better. Maybe, but the report you linked does not show that. The issue with Boeing is not that a plane crashed but that planes crashed despite earlier reports that people considered these planes unsafe. No such reports came out of Airbus about the A320 as far as I'm aware. Also the regulators did not delegate certification to Airbus.

mopsi 7y ago
Airbus has similar long-standing issues. On ground / airborne detection logic was broken in 1993 and is still broken in 2019, to a point that it can cause loss of flight controls. Boeing, in contrast, uses simple radar altimeter. Whenever altitude reads 10 feet or less, the aircraft is considered to be "on ground" and things like thrust reversers become available. I personally avoid praising or preferring Airbus when bashing Boeing. Who knows what else is under that rock too.
- CaptainZapp 7y ago
  Airbus has similar long-standing issues. On ground / airborne detection logic was broken in 1993 and is still broken in 2019, to a point that it can cause loss of flight controls. So you're claiming that Airbus knowingly leaves a critical defect in their planes, which may cause the loss of flight controls and which they refreain from fixing for almost 30 years? Either come up with a reliable source for this statement (which is extremely hard to believe) or allow me to call bullshit!
  - TremendousJudge 7y ago
    >which may cause the loss of flight controls and which they refreain from fixing for almost 30 years? And, that as far as we know, hasn't caused
  - lightedman 7y ago
    NTSB already notes long-standing issues with all aircraft, all you need to do is read. Airbus for example has a flaw in the A300-600 line where the tailfin can get ripped off due to bad rudder manufacture, that's been around and still exists since the turn of the millennia. My pal consistently bitches about having to do constant preventative work on that section of that line of planes (he's an Airbus engineer.)
  - mopsi 7y ago
    > So you're claiming that Airbus knowingly leaves a critical defect in their planes, which may cause the loss of flight controls and which they refreain from fixing for almost 30 years? A320's computers monitor gear for uncompression of 1 second or longer. Computers are not in sync. If landing gear decompresses due to bouncing for long enough to be seen for 1 second by one computer, but short enough to get missed by the other, computers will produce different outputs and the system will shut down, freezing important flight control at a dangerous phase of flight and leaving pilots in a situation they have not been trained for. Given the very obviously flawed and incredibly poor design that's easy to understand even for laymen, I would have very hard time believing that no-one at Airbus ever noticed, no-one ever spoke up. I think this would reflect even more poorly on Airbus. Especially so considering that there have been multiple hull-loss accidents with fatalities (LH2904, TAM3054), where air/ground detection has been a contributing factor. Throughout the years, the aircraft has been unable to tell whether it's on the ground or in the air.

Voloskaya 7y ago

Shit is always going to happen, there is no magic trick. However what these companies can do, is being extremely diligent about implementing fixes as soon as an issue is reported and not cutting corners on the certification processes and safety features. What has surfaced in the last few months, is that Boeing is willing to cut corners, and is not being diligent. It's completly possible that the same thing is happening at Airbus, but I have not personnally seen or heard evidences of that. At the very least, Airbus is not certifying it's own planes. For example, for the crash you mentionned, was Airbus aware of that potential issue sooner but didn't update the maintenance guide for some ulterior motives?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]