[Lokibob]

OH, COME ON, PLEASE!!

2,500 airbuses, times say 5 landings/takeoffs a day, times say 10 years equals roughly 46 million cycles. Now, 7 million divided by 46 million is an awfully small number.

Your chances of getting food poisoning on an airplane is far greater than being on a plane with this problem.

[Lokibob]

oops, 7 divided by 46 million, not 7 million divided by.....

[stm]

Perhaps. But what are the chances of everyone in the aircraft dying of food poisioning? If that nosemount collapses and causes structural damage that results in a catastrophic fire that burns the passengers to death?

[appeal2]

Jetblue only serves snacks in hermetically sealed bags, so your odds of food poisoning on that airline are very low.

[Hotdog]

When is the last time you got food...real food on an airplane?....your right the odds are small...they don't serve "food" any more...just dog biscuits...

[konaice]

2,500 airbuses, times say 5 landings/takeoffs a day, times say 10 years equals roughly 46 million cycles. Now, 7 million divided by 46 million is an awfully small number.

Your math is wrong, and even though you made a correction in a subsequent post its STILL wrong, because you did not read the article.

The key point is this design flaw SHOULD have been corrected long ago, and AFAIK no other manufacturer uses a "fail dangerous" design.

The point you missed in the article is:

A Canadian study issued last year documented 67 incidents of nose-landing-gear failures on Airbus 319, 320 and 321 aircraft worldwide since 1989.

[e_castillo]

How many in your sample have similar landing gear?