Probe: Four Doors Failed in Toronto Crash (Airbus)

Associated Press/AP Online ^ | 8/6/2005 | Associated Press/AP Online

[dila813]

Sounds like some huge issues.

I wonder what this will do for Boeing? If anything.

[dila813]

Notice that they note the chutes were a US Manufactured product.

But don't note the manufacture of the plane is French?

Do I detect a bias?

[dila813]

[conservative cat]

No bias at all. I am sure you are mistaken. The AP would NEVER be biased against the US. /sarcasm

[kittymyrib]

Better the gully than running the plane onto the busiest highway in Canada, where there certainly would be motorist fatalities as well.

[Figment]

If it's not a Boeing, I'm not going

[Brilliant]

"Investigators trying to determine why..."

I would say it's either the fault of Airbus or Air France.

[Brilliant]

No longer black.

[battlegearboat]

A brilliant deduction:)

[usafsk]

Airbus is not a French plane, but a European plane. BAE owns 20%, EADS (merger of French Aerospatiale, German Daimler Aerospace, and Spanish CASA) owns 80%. All Airbus planes include US components, as do all Boeing planes include foreign components. The cause failure of the doors and slides is unknown, but I'd say hitting the ravine at about 100 MPH might have had an impact.

The primary complaint the US has against Airbus is the extension of government guaranteed loans to fund new aircraft designs. The planes are perfectly servicable and have a comparable objective safety record to Boeing planes.

[Doohickey]

Not that Air Frog and perhaps Airbus shouldn't be sued, but this jackass's suit should be dismissed immediately as frivolous until the initial investigation, at least, is complete.

[OldFriend]

Actually is was the pilot who failed to use good judgment and land in Montreal or go around again until the storm was gone.

[Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...]

Indeed it does appear that this crash could be a blessing in disguise - the opportunity to learn how to make aircraft safer by exposing some obvious problems and all without the loss of life. I wonder if the doors didn't open simply because the passengers sitting in those exit rows had problems figuring out how to open them. I remember a few years ago sitting in an exit row and having the flight attendant explain it and on the particular craft I was on, it didn't make sense and certainly wasn't obvious. As I recollect, it involved pulling off a panel and then pulling on a handle and doing something else at the same time - and the handle was behind a panel that couldn't be seen during the explanation. Quite confusing. Something so simple as opening a door should NOT be hard - or made to be hard, particularly when also trying to contend with the panic of escape mode. Anyway, I have since observed the design of a few other ones which are much simpler and now when I check in, I always ask to sit in an exit row. Aside from the extra space, I want someone sitting at the door that immediately knows how to operate it - and that person may as well be me.

There is likely also some credence to the theory that the plane may have become so distorted from bouncing around that the doors just wouldn't open. If that's the case, it's obvious that a new design is needed. As for filling in the gully, it's pretty obvious that this was the only thing that saved the plane from ending up somewhere south of the 401.

[Bon mots]

There have been questions about whether the 9,000-foot runway is long enough and whether it is safe to have the ravine at its end.

I guess we now know the answer to that one.

[dila813]

I think you are missing what the article is talking about.

Of course it was the pilots fault that they crashed.

But it isn't his fault the doors wouldn't open.

[dila813]

All the more reason they should have indicated the country.

It could have been built in France or Germany, yet they didn't indicate.

Bias

[Cobra64]

"...There have been questions about whether the 9,000-foot runway is long enough..."

WTF?

[USNBandit]

How can we know when the pilot only used the last 3000 feet of it?