Sponsor Message:
Travel Polls & Prefs Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Do You Think The A380 Will Have A Great Safety Rec  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3613 posts, RR: 2
Posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 7070 times:

When I look at the safety record of the A340 and 777, I wonder, do you think the A380 will have as good of a safety record as the a/c mentioned earlier? I know this may look like a dumb question, bit I would like to see peoples opinion on this topic.

42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2797 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 7070 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

I don't see why not. As technology advances I would assume that safety should only improve. Its tough to say though because it is still relatively new. Thus far though it isn't doing too bad.
Blue



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30977 posts, RR: 86
Reply 2, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 7067 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I see no reason why it would not have an excellent general safety record. It's certified to stringent modern safety standards.

User currently offlineAutothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1595 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 6953 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 1):
I don't see why not. As technology advances I would assume that safety should only improve.

And it has improved.

A380 features an amazing level of redundancy, much higher then the 777 or A340 plus new systems and technology's
like Electrical-Hydrostatic Actuators (EHAs) and Electrical Backup Hydraulic Actuators, Brake to Vacate/ (System prevents runway overrun's), etc...

QF32 probably would have had much worse outcome if the plane wouln't have been the A380.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineChamonix From France, joined Mar 2011, 348 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 6937 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Probably.
The have ironed out nearly all the rough spots after 40 years in the business though I think it would be great if Airbus incorporated the followig mods:
1) Make sidesticks synchronous w/shaker.
2) Pitch trim thumb switch/trigger on the sidesticks used in Alternate.
3) Reconfigure stall warning so that it blares to no end until stall is over.
4) AOA indicator.
5) PVI (Para-Visual Indicator).
6) Mode selector so that crew can choose which Law they want.
7) Prots:Make them overrideable i.e. a break-out mode.

[Edited 2011-11-30 00:19:38]

User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17038 posts, RR: 66
Reply 5, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 6919 times:

If the operators and regulators thought those would make things significantly safer they would implement them. The safety record speaks for itself as it is not I would say. You also fail to consider that the vast majority of accidents happen in aircraft with no mechanical faults at all.



Let me be devil's advocate here and then the experts can step in.

Quoting Chamonix (Reply 4):
1) Make sidesticks synchronous w/shaker.

Why? If the pilots can't tell a stall with current instrumentation I would be worried.

Quoting Chamonix (Reply 4):
2) Pitch trim thumb switch/trigger on the sidesticks used in Alternate.

For that one in a very many case where alternate is active I would think the pilots can handle without.

Quoting Chamonix (Reply 4):
3) Reconfigure stall warning so that it blares to no end until stall is over.

That's not distracting...

Quoting Chamonix (Reply 4):
4) AOA indicator.

There are arguments for this being standard, yes.

Quoting Chamonix (Reply 4):
6) Mode selector so that crew can choose which Law they want.

Why would that be necessary? The aircraft should always be in the "highest" possible law. Name one reason for going to a "lower" law manually.

Quoting Chamonix (Reply 4):
7) Prots:Make them overrideable i.e. a break-out mode.

Here's why not. In our example the aircraft is flying towards terrain. In normal law the pilots can pull on the stick(s) all the way back and get maximum pitch rate without stalling or damaging the aircraft. Without the protections they have to worry about both stall from exceeding AoA limits and snapping the wings off.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineredrooster3 From United States of America, joined Oct 2010, 229 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 6745 times:

She should have a great safety record, i mean, if a UU A380 goes down, (God forbid!) that would be a top story for months. Thats 840 people in one plane, my goodness.   


The only thing you should change about a woman is her last name.
User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4327 posts, RR: 28
Reply 7, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 6726 times:

She'll have a stellar safety record, if nothing else because so few will take to the skies compared to other modern large aircraft.


My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 642 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6705 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 5):
Why? If the pilots can't tell a stall with current instrumentation I would be worried.

Things can get confusing, they're not always simple, especially when you have conflicting warnings (e.g AeroPeru 603.)

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 5):
Quoting Chamonix (Reply 4):
3) Reconfigure stall warning so that it blares to no end until stall is over.

That's not distracting...

Better than having it come on and off, despite the fact you're still fully stalled, though I take the point

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 5):
Quoting Chamonix (Reply 4):
7) Prots:Make them overrideable i.e. a break-out mode.

Here's why not. In our example the aircraft is flying towards terrain. In normal law the pilots can pull on the stick(s) all the way back and get maximum pitch rate without stalling or damaging the aircraft. Without the protections they have to worry about both stall from exceeding AoA limits and snapping the wings off.

Boeing seems to manage fine. It's also the way Bombardier's doing it (Cseries); obviously, you'd need something to tell the pilots when they're exceeding the envelope (e.g more stick pressure, like on the 777/787) but there are scenarios - both ones I could come up with now, and totally unforeseeable ones - where it would be desirable to be able to break the safe flight envelope in order to save the aircraft.



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17038 posts, RR: 66
Reply 9, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6670 times:

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 8):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 5):
Quoting Chamonix (Reply 4):
7) Prots:Make them overrideable i.e. a break-out mode.

Here's why not. In our example the aircraft is flying towards terrain. In normal law the pilots can pull on the stick(s) all the way back and get maximum pitch rate without stalling or damaging the aircraft. Without the protections they have to worry about both stall from exceeding AoA limits and snapping the wings off.

Boeing seems to manage fine. It's also the way Bombardier's doing it (Cseries); obviously, you'd need something to tell the pilots when they're exceeding the envelope (e.g more stick pressure, like on the 777/787) but there are scenarios - both ones I could come up with now, and totally unforeseeable ones - where it would be desirable to be able to break the safe flight envelope in order to save the aircraft.

Fair enough, but can you think of any accident in a FBW Airbus (or Boeing for that matter) that would have been avoided if the pilots had gone outside the envelope?



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinehorstroad From Germany, joined Apr 2010, 268 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6646 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 5):
If the pilots can't tell a stall with current instrumentation I would be worried.

AF447
are you really worried?

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 5):

Quoting Chamonix (Reply 4):
6) Mode selector so that crew can choose which Law they want.

Why would that be necessary? The aircraft should always be in the "highest" possible law. Name one reason for going to a "lower" law manually.

I think this played a role on LH44 in 2008


User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 642 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6511 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 9):
Fair enough, but can you think of any accident in a FBW Airbus (or Boeing for that matter) that would have been avoided if the pilots had gone outside the envelope?

I would possibly argue the AF A320 crash, although that's tenuous. I would also argue LH 2904; the non-overidable FBW did not allow the spoilers to extend to the ground detent, even though the a/c was on the ground. But to ask me to come up with a previous accident is to miss the point; unforeseen accidents happen. Before United 232 the thought of a complete hydraulic failure was not even considered. And yet it still happened. Just because a certain scenario hasn't happened in the past doesn't mean we should assume it's impossible to occur, or that we should not plan for such an eventuality - aviation safety needs to be more proactive, and less reactive.

[Edited 2011-12-01 08:49:42]


Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3547 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6499 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

There is still the little problem the A380 has in attracting buildings, small planes and ramps to come bump and grind.. granted not a loss of life or injury situation, but......      

User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 41
Reply 13, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 6342 times:

Quoting Chamonix (Reply 4):
1) Make sidesticks synchronous w/shaker.

There is an aural "STALL... STALL..." announcement instead, which would seem to me to be fairly unambiguous.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 5):
Quoting Chamonix (Reply 4):4) AOA indicator.
There are arguments for this being standard, yes.

On all airliners in general, yes. I'm not sure why it would only apply to Airbus.

Quoting Chamonix (Reply 4):
7) Prots:Make them overrideable i.e. a break-out mode.

The whole point of the envelope protection is to make it possible to fly right at the edge of the envelope safely and consistently if required.

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 11):
I would possibly argue the AF A320 crash, although that's tenuous.

If you're referring to the Habsheim/Mulhouse accident then I don't know how stalling would have helped. The systems gave the crew all the energy that was available within the laws of physics and allowed them to descend in a controlled manner, wings level, into the trees instead of "dropping". They were too low and too slow to climb over the trees with the energy they had left themselves. When it comes to physics, there is no Alternate Law.  

In the history of commercial aviation, how often has an airliner been saved by stalling or by banking more than 67o, etc. We could keep on adding "what if..." scenarios till the cows come home and then we'd end up with an airliner that never leaves the gate. I'd need confirmation from Pihero, Zeke, PGNCS, etc, but I'm pretty sure that the FBW Airbus airliners have been demonstrated to be at least as capable as any other when it comes to safety manoeuvers, e.g. terrain avoidance, go-around. emergency climb/descent, roll rate, etc.


User currently onlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1611 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 6337 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 13):
but I'm pretty sure that the FBW Airbus airliners have been demonstrated to be at least as capable as any other when it comes to safety manoeuvers, e.g. terrain avoidance, go-around. emergency climb/descent, roll rate, etc.

I would dare to say they are more capable of safely performing extreme manoevers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfHTc69AFUo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-e6r66oS04

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE0_dLRklTA


This is all in Normal Law, they are actually using the prots to fly right on the edge. Nuff said in my opinion. I know in which brand of airplane I want to be when they have to make an avoidance maneuver, an Airbus!



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17038 posts, RR: 66
Reply 15, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 6319 times:

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 11):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 9):
Fair enough, but can you think of any accident in a FBW Airbus (or Boeing for that matter) that would have been avoided if the pilots had gone outside the envelope?

I would possibly argue the AF A320 crash, although that's tenuous

Very tenuous. Being able to go outside the envelope would have just allowed them to stall and crash with a much worse outcome.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinemy235 From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 92 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 5947 times:

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 14):
This is all in Normal Law

And the plane is completely empty...Not going to happen at MTOW.


User currently onlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1611 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5932 times:

Quoting my235 (Reply 16):
Quoting travelavnut (Reply 14):
This is all in Normal Law

And the plane is completely empty...Not going to happen at MTOW.

Which wasn't the point. The piont was that in an Airbus you can concentrate on getting out the situation and not worrying about structural or aerodynamic limits.



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlineimiakhtar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5932 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
do you think the A380 will have as good of a safety record

No. I don't think it will. It's only a matter of time before the rudder jams at full deflection, an engine detaches from the pylon or it suffers an explosive decompression due to cargo door failure. After all, only the Americans know how to build aeroplanes right?


User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2403 posts, RR: 13
Reply 19, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 5907 times:

Quoting imiakhtar (Reply 18):
No. I don't think it will. It's only a matter of time before the rudder jams at full deflection, an engine detaches from the pylon or it suffers an explosive decompression due to cargo door failure. After all, only the Americans know how to build aeroplanes right?

Boeing 737, Flight 191 with a DC-10, Flight 981 with a DC-10.   

Can it be said that there were paradigm shifts in designing airplanes? (I know that such ones happened in maintenance after the 191 crash: They stopped to use an easy way how to dismount an engine - the forklift solution - and did it by the book from then on...).

Myself don't believe such a paradigm shift was due to Airbus appearing on the market. Any argument in favor or against it?



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 41
Reply 20, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5905 times:

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 14):
I would dare to say they are more capable

I chickened out of going that far so thanks for taking the flak.  
Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 19):
Myself don't believe such a paradigm shift was due to Airbus appearing on the market.

You're probably right but the appearance of Airbus did ensure the continuing presence of at least two major competing manufacturers, which has to be a good thing in that regard.


User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2403 posts, RR: 13
Reply 21, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5880 times:

Just to pose that question: Is there a downloadable accident database? My statistics software isn't occupied right now... 
Quoting David L (Reply 20):
You're probably right but the appearance of Airbus did ensure the continuing presence of at least two major competing manufacturers, which has to be a good thing in that regard.

Yes, they drive each other to make more efficient airplanes, at least. But manufacturers (and airlines) don't compete on safety, at least not publicly - because there are way too few accidents to make that gruesome PR from.

Is there any competition on reducing pilot workload, which also results in safer aviation? Eliminating the F/E was done because of reduced labor costs, or because they did it anyway, given the better electronics?

Referring to the A380: Does the large wing, which was planned for the A389, make this airplane safer - at least during approach?

I ask that question because a lower speed makes an accident more survivable to the people inside.

Wing loadings at MLW:
A388: 463 kgs/m^2
B744F: 527 kgs/m^2
MD-11: 590 kgs/m^2

Well, there's this song...

How many holes in the wing can a A388 have... 



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 41
Reply 22, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5859 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 21):
But manufacturers (and airlines) don't compete on safety, at least not publicly - because there are way too few accidents to make that gruesome PR from.

I'm not sure I can agree with that. It's not that they actively market the safety, it's that it's very risky to ignore it. A single aircraft accident can generate a whole load of bad publicity for the airline and/or the manufacturer. If one manufacturer is perceived as being responsible for more bad publicity than another then a reputable airline is going to think twice before their next order.  


User currently onlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1611 posts, RR: 7
Reply 23, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5849 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 20):
Quoting travelavnut (Reply 14):
I would dare to say they are more capable

I chickened out of going that far so thanks for taking the flak.

Haha, much obliged   But let me add that I by no means think Boeing or other OEMs products are less safer. You just have to look at the statistics (page 22 in the link below) to see both manufacturers make extremely safe products and that their different philosophies (for example regarding flt. control) don't result in any significant difference in safety;

http://www.boeing.com/aboutus/govt_o..._accidents_statistical_summary.pdf

The Airbus way has my preference because I'm a computer and sci-fi nerd  
Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 21):
How many holes in the wing can a A388 have...

Ask the pilots of QF032   They had quite a few holes in the wing.



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 24, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5825 times:

Quoting imiakhtar (Reply 18):
No. I don't think it will. It's only a matter of time before the rudder jams at full deflection, an engine detaches from the pylon or it suffers an explosive decompression due to cargo door failure. After all, only the Americans know how to build aeroplanes right?

You're going to pull that trick and just leave Comet out of the mix?

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 21):
Is there any competition on reducing pilot workload, which also results in safer aviation?

There's some difference of philosophy...it's not exactly competition. Most OEM's are actually on the backside of this problem now, where workload is so low at many points of flight there's some legitimate risk of the pilots slacking off their monitoring functions.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 21):
Referring to the A380: Does the large wing, which was planned for the A389, make this airplane safer - at least during approach?

All other things being equal, yes. It makes for a lower energy approach.

Tom.


25 Post contains links Autothrust : And the A380 is capable to land at 130kts and takeoff with a speed of 145kt. Lower landing speed is always safer then high landing speeds. http://www
26 packsonflight : I am a bit worried about Air France since they operate the type. they where the first to crash the A320, A330 and the A340
27 Post contains images flyingturtle : The venerable Airbus company was the first to crash the Airbus 330. And concerning AF340, Air France had the first crash, followed by Etihad, where t
28 chuchoteur : ... one of those was due to "hostile action" if I remember correctly... so maybe it doesn't count lol!
29 cmf : What you gain on one side is taken away on the other. The low speed increases vortexes. Also, as higher weight versions are coming online speed will
30 DocLightning : That was an Etihad frame, but wasn't it Airbus personnel? Do I recall incorrectly?
31 Viscount724 : Believe it was a mix of Airbus and Etihad people on board. However the aircraft was still Airbus property as it hadn't yet been delivered. It appears
32 BoeEngr : I think it'll have a great safety record. Engineering practices, lessons learned and applied, regulations, redundancy, and testing all help to ensure
33 Post contains images flyingturtle : Hehe. Always check your data. Especially with accident data we should be careful which category an incident belongs to. I didn't give a good example,
34 BuyantUkhaa : The fact that it is the biggest plane may have a safety advantage in the sense that it'll be flown by the most senior (experienced) pilots of airlines
35 Starlionblue : Not necessarily true. Take an airline like CX. There are three groups of pilots. 777, 747 and 330/340. The 747 is the largest but that pilot group is
36 Post contains links and images Viscount724 : Yes, the MH A330-300 below in 2000. http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20000315-0 View Large View MediumPhoto © Andrew Hunt - AirTeam
37 Post contains images flyingturtle : Thank you!
38 Post contains images chuchoteur : I guess the tamil tigers didn't consider that hull loss an "accident"
39 acedriver : I think the A380 will have a safety history similar to that of the 747 - probably a few accidents involving technical issues at first, and after that
40 notaxonrotax : Strangely enough it´s often very senior pilots that tend to make a pig´s breakfast of the whole thing. KLM at Tenerife must be the most famous exam
41 acedriver : I believe Crossair 3597 can be put in this catagory as well
42 Thrust : Definitely yes it will have a great safety record. It seems like aircraft models whose introduction is the early 1980s or more recent have racked up e
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Do You Think The New Delta Will Look Like? posted Thu Aug 19 2004 15:28:49 by Dl757md
What Do You Think The 797 Will Be? posted Tue Feb 8 2011 04:38:42 by VC10er
What Do You Think Doug Parker Will Do Next? posted Thu Jan 25 2007 22:03:23 by EvilForce
Do You Think The 737 Is Realy A Classic Jet. posted Fri May 19 2006 19:55:12 by 747400sp
Do You Think L1011 Tristar & B757 Make Great M posted Fri Oct 31 2008 18:13:18 by 747400sp
What Do You Think About The Boeing 787? posted Tue Sep 11 2007 23:58:25 by 747400sp
What Do You Think Of The New Austrian Commercial? posted Wed Apr 18 2007 10:22:25 by Cjh2007
Do You Think That The 744 Is Now Outdated? posted Sun Dec 31 2006 21:09:35 by LY777
What Do You Think About The CJ3? posted Mon Sep 18 2006 22:58:24 by Flinhion757
What Do You Think Of The New Pink Color? posted Sat Apr 1 2006 06:32:40 by B741