Airbus whistleblower faces prison. (A380)

Telegraph Online ^ | 15 October 2005 | Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

[Moonman62]

The day they retired the last Superconnie was the death knell of elegant publicly available transportation.

You know the FR rules. If you mention the Superconnie, you must post a picture. We'll let it slide this time.

[Yossarian]

actually, that is easy to believe imo, as americans are way to baby like generally.

Yeah, that explains our winning in Afganistan, Iraq, Panama, Kuwait, our dominance of many industies, (real) football, etc.

Screw you.

[HolgerDansk]

Like to see an Airbus(t) do this...

[rlmorel]

LOL!!!!!

[rlmorel]

Interesting that you would say that...now that I look at the configuration of the windscreens, I think I know what you mean!

[freedumb2003]

WOW!!!!

That is one heck of a pic!

I seem to recall seeing a pic of an F-15 (or was it F-14) with a wing almost completely missing landing on a carrer.

[Red6]

Actually a Airbus just lost it's tail "AGAIN" in Cuba and managed to land. Unlike the BUFF it was plain material fatigue in the Airbus case. Fortunately this one was able to land, unlike the one that crashed from a similar structural failure shortly after 9-11.

http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/c-gpat/photo.shtml

The Airbus crash statistics let a lot to be desired, and those airframes tend to have a lower mean age, are used less in third world countries (first hand customers), and fly out of nice paved, long, ILS etc supported airports.

Red6

[WildTurkey]

The way I read it, other planes have three systems, this one has four! But the guy is claiming that all four could fail simultaneously via some unknown software 'glitch'. We discuss this all the time in the nuclear industry. Our safety systems are typically four independent systems, of which 2 signals are required to shutdown the reactor. This leaves the ability to take 1 of 4 out for maintenance and 1 to 'fail' at the time of the event but still have 2 that would trip the plant. The concern is that they are all designed using the same components so we have to be concerned about common mode failures. Software is particularly sticky issue in this regard.

[sam_paine]

From 'JetBlue Flight Lands Safely After Reporting Flap Problems':
"... I had insiders in the NTSB investigation of the B737 hard over on the rudder. They knew within a month that the rudder actuator had issues. Boeing argued for 5 years before fixing it. My experience with Airbus is precisely the OPPOSITE. They in fact DO respond before the Government forces them. There is a different relationship in Government in Airbus - plus they do not appear to take things as personal as Boeing has over design issues. I am not sure why. I could point to numerous examples in the A320 where Airbus initiated significant design changes following accidents - whereas any aviation insider will tell you that Boeing will always wait until the NTSB findings to avoid (in their minds) the admission of fault.
Them's the facts."
107 posted on 09/23/2005 10:13:05 AM CDT by safisoft (Give me Torah!)

Hi, safi!!! Thought you'd love this thread...I'm off to the lake.....enjoy! =)

[Dead Dog]

TTTech falsely classified its micro-chip as a simple "off-the-shelf" product already used in car valves in order to except it from elaborate testing rules, he claimed.


I'm guessing RTCO DO-160D....

Joseph sounds as though he may be a DER, especially in regards to legal concerns. Anyone know where the FAA keeps it's DER database?