Posted on 09/23/2005 1:46:47 AM PDT by konaice
7 times the nose wheels have turned. 7 times the pilots have landed the plane WITHOUT a problem. 45,999,993 times the nose wheels have performed flawlessly.
Personally, I would worry more about a drink cart hitting me (see posting above).
For an iten as critical as landing gear, that is not good enough. Really. If those 7 had all resulted in loss of life, that plane would have a terrible safety record.
Well, maybe just a small problem this time by looking at the picture.
"Incidents happen every day"
I don't think you can afford to be dismissive of this kind of problem if you are in the airplane business... Or at least if you want to remain in the airline business.
I hate it everytime I get into an Airbus. Last time the auto start on the engines did not work.
Jetblue only serves snacks in hermetically sealed bags, so your odds of food poisoning on that airline are very low.
Media making non-events into a big deal??
No, you don't say!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1489796/posts?page=21#21
Are you sure you were just making up that stuff about the drink carts?
Yet another reason to fly SW airlines!
I had to laugh when the MSNBC commentator said the safe landing demonstrates the quality of an Airbus airplane. - Forgetting the fact that poor quality caused the problem in the first place.
When shopping for aircraft, BUY AMERICAN.
F**K the euroweenies.
My buddy was a mechanic for Continental.
His motto was "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going!"
He hates Airbus.
I was watching the live video internet link to the KCBS TV in Los Angles of the plane landing at LAX , and one of the news people mentioned that, and said that the pilot was so relaxed and claim and he said and gave orders that once he lands to keep the ( @$%#$ ) media away from him ( we can only guess he cant stand the MSM ).
Many moons ago I was an aircraft mechanic and I'm astounded that the "failed position" of the nose gear is not a position that allows the plane to land. I am of course assuming that the nose gear fails so the tires are perpendicular to the runway.
"an intelligent boy, a remarkable boy!"
You're putting yourself pretty far out on a limb defending the failure of a major system as a nonissue. The limb you're standing on has several faults:
- The assumption of 47 million operating cycles is too high, ignoring population growth over time, and downtime for service.
- Also missing is the fact that this is not a static population. It is continuously changing due to operation and maintenance. Perhaps there is some commonality among the failures in terms of environmental exposure, operating procedures, service procedures, build date, etc. etc. etc.
- The ratio of incidents to cycles is only one factor in assessing risk. The others are severity of failure, and detectability off the flaw. Granted, none of the incidents has resulted in a crash, but how many would it take to put an airline or Airbus out of business? Maybe one, definitely two. The nature of the failure, and the lack of root cause identification override the incident rate. IMHO, ONE of these failures should be a big deal anyway.
Well over 99% over engineering is ho-hum calculations, reports, and filing. This is not one of those situations. This is is a life and death, multibillion dollar BIG DEAL.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.