Datsun240Z Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Previous Airbus disasters* August 2000: Gulf Air A320 crashed in Gulf off Bahrain. Undetermined, indications are that incorrect flap settings and confusion of the pilots after an aborted landing led to a stall. (Gulf Air) * January 2000: 169 killed when A310 crashed off Ivory Coast. Captain ignored stall warning indicator due to earlier false alarm. (Kenya Airways) * February 1998: 197 killed when A300 crashed in Taiwan. Pilot pulled up too fast while executing a missed approach and stalled the aircraft. (China Airlines) * September 1997: 234 killed when A300 crashed in Indonesia. Air traffic control error during low visibility approach. (Garuda Indonesia) * July 1994: Seven killed when A330 crashed in Toulouse, France, when crew were testing simulated engine failure. Accidents happen during testing extremes. It's taking risks like this that makes airliners as safe as they are. (Airbus test aircraft) * April 1994: 259 killed when A300 crashed in Japan. Pilot error, pulled aircraft into a nose high attitude and stalled it. (China Airlines) * March 1994: 75 killed when A310 crashed in Siberia. Captain allowed his children to operate flight controls, ended badly. (Aeroflot) * September 1992: 167 killed when A300 crashed in Kathmandu, Nepal. Pilot descended prematurely in mountainous terrain. (Pakistan International) * July 1992: 113 killed when A310 crashed in Kathmandu. Pilot ignored the alarm shouting "terrain! terrain!" while flying through fog in Nepal, thinking it was a false alarm. It wasn't (Thai Airways) * January 1992: 87 killed when A320 crashed in Strasbourg. Training/crew error. Pilot set wrong descent rate on autopilot. (Air Inter) * February 1990: 90 killed when A320 crashed in Bangalore. Pilot error, left glidepath and approached too steeply at low power. (Indian Airlines) * June 1988: Eight killed when A320 crashed in Habersheim. Pilot error, flew approach much too low. (Air France) Only is the January 2000 incident is there any hint that a fault in the aircraft contributed to the crash. Even then, had the pilot followed the correct procedure, the crash would have been averted. In addition, the two earlier A320 crashes, and the recent river landing in New York are good examples of an aircraft taking tremendous impacts and not breaking up. It's hard to say how many lives that saves. Sorry for injecting balance and facts into your post Jack. Seems to me that the issue is not the aircraft but crappy third world pilots. Something to think about next time you book a cheap flight. B.S Jacky boy, Maintenance is the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdnvic Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Previous Airbus disasters* August 2000: Gulf Air A320 crashed in Gulf off Bahrain. Undetermined, indications are that incorrect flap settings and confusion of the pilots after an aborted landing led to a stall. (Gulf Air) * January 2000: 169 killed when A310 crashed off Ivory Coast. Captain ignored stall warning indicator due to earlier false alarm. (Kenya Airways) * February 1998: 197 killed when A300 crashed in Taiwan. Pilot pulled up too fast while executing a missed approach and stalled the aircraft. (China Airlines) * September 1997: 234 killed when A300 crashed in Indonesia. Air traffic control error during low visibility approach. (Garuda Indonesia) * July 1994: Seven killed when A330 crashed in Toulouse, France, when crew were testing simulated engine failure. Accidents happen during testing extremes. It's taking risks like this that makes airliners as safe as they are. (Airbus test aircraft) * April 1994: 259 killed when A300 crashed in Japan. Pilot error, pulled aircraft into a nose high attitude and stalled it. (China Airlines) * March 1994: 75 killed when A310 crashed in Siberia. Captain allowed his children to operate flight controls, ended badly. (Aeroflot) * September 1992: 167 killed when A300 crashed in Kathmandu, Nepal. Pilot descended prematurely in mountainous terrain. (Pakistan International) * July 1992: 113 killed when A310 crashed in Kathmandu. Pilot ignored the alarm shouting "terrain! terrain!" while flying through fog in Nepal, thinking it was a false alarm. It wasn't (Thai Airways) * January 1992: 87 killed when A320 crashed in Strasbourg. Training/crew error. Pilot set wrong descent rate on autopilot. (Air Inter) * February 1990: 90 killed when A320 crashed in Bangalore. Pilot error, left glidepath and approached too steeply at low power. (Indian Airlines) * June 1988: Eight killed when A320 crashed in Habersheim. Pilot error, flew approach much too low. (Air France) Only is the January 2000 incident is there any hint that a fault in the aircraft contributed to the crash. Even then, had the pilot followed the correct procedure, the crash would have been averted. In addition, the two earlier A320 crashes, and the recent river landing in New York are good examples of an aircraft taking tremendous impacts and not breaking up. It's hard to say how many lives that saves. Sorry for injecting balance and facts into your post Jack. Seems to me that the issue is not the aircraft but crappy third world pilots. Something to think about next time you book a cheap flight. B.S Jacky boy, Maintenance is the problem. There's no one single problem. Maintenance is actually a factor in a small percentage of accidents. In the majority of crashes it's pilot error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carib Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 An accident survey of 1,843 aircraft accidents from 1950 through 2006 determined the causes to be as follows: 53%: Pilot error 21%: Mechanical failure 11%: Weather 8%: Other human error (air traffic controller error, improper loading of aircraft, improper maintenance, fuel contamination, language miscommunication etc.) 6%: Sabotage (bombs, hijackings, shoot-downs) 1%: Other cause A study by Boeing worldwide commercial jet fleet, from 1996 through 2005: 55%: Flight crew error 17%: Airplane 13%: Weather 7%: Misc./Other 5%: Air traffic control 3%: Maintenance Previous Boeing studies showed higher rates for Flight Crew Error: 70%: 1988 - 1997 67%: 1990 - 1999 66%: 1992 - 2001 62%: 1994 - 2003 56%: 1995 - 2004 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgjtt Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 An accident survey of 1,843 aircraft accidents from 1950 through 2006 determined the causes to be as follows:53%: Pilot error 21%: Mechanical failure 11%: Weather 8%: Other human error (air traffic controller error, improper loading of aircraft, improper maintenance, fuel contamination, language miscommunication etc.) 6%: Sabotage (bombs, hijackings, shoot-downs) 1%: Other cause A study by Boeing worldwide commercial jet fleet, from 1996 through 2005: 55%: Flight crew error 17%: Airplane 13%: Weather 7%: Misc./Other 5%: Air traffic control 3%: Maintenance Previous Boeing studies showed higher rates for Flight Crew Error: 70%: 1988 - 1997 67%: 1990 - 1999 66%: 1992 - 2001 62%: 1994 - 2003 56%: 1995 - 2004 Too many numbers, Jack's easier to comprehend, Boeing goooooood , Airbus baaaaad ! I guess NorthWest airlines really screwed up when the bought all those A330, they should have asked our whiskey drinking friend before they spent the big bucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datsun240Z Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Boeing is a much older company than Airbus. Boeing also builds a wider range also for AeroSpace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackdanielsesq Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Did ya mean Aeroflot?! BR>Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdnvic Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Boeing is a much older company than Airbus. Boeing also builds a wider range also for AeroSpace. Older, yes, wider range? Not really. Airbus is just a division of EADS, who are quite diverse. http://eads.com/1024/en/Homepage1024.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datsun240Z Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Boeing is a much older company than Airbus. Boeing also builds a wider range also for AeroSpace. Older, yes, wider range? Not really. Airbus is just a division of EADS, who are quite diverse. http://eads.com/1024/en/Homepage1024.html It's same idea, but Boeing has a hel_l lot more stuff builded here... http://www.boeing.com/product_list.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdnvic Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Boeing is a much older company than Airbus. Boeing also builds a wider range also for AeroSpace. Older, yes, wider range? Not really. Airbus is just a division of EADS, who are quite diverse. http://eads.com/1024/en/Homepage1024.html It's same idea, but Boeing has a hel_l lot more stuff builded here... http://www.boeing.com/product_list.html Ok, so what difference does it make in the context of this discussion? Hyundai makes a lot more cars than BMW but does that speak to quality at all? IMO, Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier, and Embraer, the top four manufacturers, all make great aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now