agill
Posts: 1051
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 4:49 am

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:55 pm

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 101):

I find it more funny when people who act like they know what they are talking about gets owned by the professionals.
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9149
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:01 pm

The way Airbus treats airshows, both on the grounds and in the skys, is nothing but an extension of their corporate policy. They still treat the world with the same outlook as they did when the A300 flew in '72. They were the new, unknown kid on the block, and they had to fight for what they could.

Now there are just 2 large builders left, but Airbus still has that same chip on their shoulder. One would hope they would mature and move away from the trash talking (read: stupid comments about your competitors products), silly slogans, Airshow stunts, and half truths.

But, for whatever reason, they haven't. And I don't think anyone really expects them to.

While an airshow is a great way to get your airplane on YouTube or maybe the evening news, it has nothing to do with anything other than a "Little Napoleon" type outlook. Not one airline is going to buy an A380 because it can wow a crowd at an airshow.
 
CHRISBA777ER
Posts: 3715
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 12:12 pm

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:08 pm

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 101):
I find these threads amusing...
Not the A v B part!
Not the US v EU part!

The part where the FBW spruikers quote all their buzz words about how the plane will protect itself from the ham fisted clots entrusted with driving it etc.. Alpha Floor etc.. you know the ones.

Yet when one of their favourite aircraft come to grief... it is always pilot error not the computers... never quite figured that out.

Thats because it IS pilot error.

(A320)

26-JUN-1988 Airbus A.320 Air France - PILOT ERROR - the computer behaved as it was supposed to (auto-thrust TOGA)

14-FEB-1990 Airbus A.320 Indian Airlines - PILOT ERROR (Unstable approach)

20-JAN-1992 Airbus A.320 Air Inter - PILOT ERROR

14-SEP-1993 Airbus A.320 Lufthansa - WX/WINDSHEAR, PILOT ERROR

10-MAR-1997 Airbus A.320 Gulf Air - Overrun after high speed abort of t/o run.

22-MAR-1998 Airbus A.320 - Philippine Air Lines - RUNWAY OVERRUN

11-APR-2000 Airbus A.320 Mexicana - GROUND FIRE

23-AUG-2000 Airbus A.320 Gulf Air - PILOT ERROR (S/O)

07-FEB-2001 Airbus A.320 Iberia - HARD LANDING IN POOR WEATHER

24-JUL-2001 Airbus A.320 SriLankan Airlines - TERRORIST ATTACK

28-AUG-2002 Airbus A.320 America West - PILOT/MX ERROR

03-MAY-2006 Airbus A.320 Armavia - PILOT ERROR (S/O in poor weather)

05-MAY-2006 Airbus A.320 Armavia - GROUND FIRE

05-MAY-2006 Airbus A.320 Armenian International Airways - GROUND FIRE

05-MAY-2006 Airbus A.320 HellasJet - GROUND FIRE

[Edited 2007-06-28 16:11:11]
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
 
CHRISBA777ER
Posts: 3715
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 12:12 pm

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:21 pm

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 103):
One would hope they would mature and move away from the trash talking (read: stupid comments about your competitors products), silly slogans, Airshow stunts, and half truths.

You mean like Carson's comments re the safety of large commercial jets at airshows?

(See below)

Quoting WingedMigrator (Thread starter):
Quote:

"There's no particular value to doing that," said Scott Carson, who leads Boeing's commercial division.

And if it looks scary, he suggested, that's because it's dangerous.

"One of the reasons we don't fly commercial product at air shows is that people crash airplanes at air shows," Carson said Wednesday.

"Flying a big heavy airplane at low altitude in an air-show environment, with all the testosterone that goes along with being a hotshot, you put unnecessary risk into your business, into your program, into the crowd surrounding the show."
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13697
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:28 pm

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 103):
One would hope they would mature and move away from the trash talking (read: stupid comments about your competitors products

I'm confused are you talking about the topic of this thread; Carson and the A380 demo?

I think our american brothers just hate showing off, projecting power & making ochestrated shows at football games, militairy events, Le Bourget (F18) ect. it's just not their style..

  

Just Jooking. Le Bourget was a great event with hundreds of thousands avaition enthousiasts having a good time.

A single locked-up CEO in a chalet didn't change that.



[Edited 2007-06-28 16:30:24]
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
airfrnt
Posts: 2173
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 2:05 am

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:29 pm

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 57):
While you're at it, why don't you mention the 747 that crashed in Japan killing over 500 people because of a bad repair job Boeing did to its rear pressure bulkhead?

That has absolutely nothing to do with deliberately showboating a large commercial plane and the various crashes that occurred from that. Why are you bringing this up?

Or are you trying to draw moral equivalence's here? just because Airbus crashes plane so does Boeing? The difference here is that Airbus is deliberately cutting their margins as closely as can so they can fly their planes like F-16s or F/A-18s. It shouldn't surprise anyone then that like F-16's and F/A-18's at air shows, they crash sometimes.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 88):

The eternal uneducated B/S is still alive !

I would ask for a retraction sir.

From: http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml

Quote:

The Black Boxes from which the official report has been made show a series of anomalies, which has led a lot of critical people since 1988 to call in question their authenticity:

* The black boxes have been physically opened, the magnetic tape has been cut. Normally you put the black boxes into a reading machine without opening them - the same way you read a cassette in a video recorder.
* 8 seconds are missing in the recording, 4 seconds are missing just before the impact. That means that the DFDR would have stopped accidentally just before the impact.
* The DFDR and the CVR are 4 seconds out of synchronization during the last part of the recording.
* There is no indication of longitudinal deceleration at the impact. This might be expected in a collision with a mountain, but in Habsheim the recorders should have been able to operate until the aircraft disintegrated. Any crash which could be survived by all but 3 passengers should not have caused an abrupt stop in the DFDR recording.

Due to these anomalies, and the fact that the Black Boxes were in the hands of the DGAC, it has always been supposed, and is finally proven since May 1998, that the Flight Data Recorder confiscated on July 5 from the DGAC is NOT the one which was taken from the aircraft after the crash.

There is nothing new here. Remember that Airbus also crashed a A330 during testing. From Wikipedia

Quote:

There were many reasons for the crash. One such reason is pilot error: specifically, the Captain having too many things to do in such a short space of time and the pilots setting the altitude too low for such a potentially dangerous test. In addition the autopilot may not have been working correctly, potentially because the crew were not fully aware of how to use it. It is also claimed that the autopilot was using experimental software which was being tested for Category III approaches. The autopilot was also in control of speed and angle of attack and it is believed that this vital part was malfunctioning.

Airbus seems to think they do no wrong with software and are betting people's lives on it. Given Airbus's track record early in the debug cycle, it's not a wager I would take. I will happily fly on a A380 on the extraordinary chance that one is ever available for me to fly on (given that I do the bulk of my travel out of DEN, it's not likely) but I think I will leave the stunt flying to others.
 
DIA
Posts: 3053
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 2:24 pm

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:43 pm

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 8):
It is nothing but a "Hey, look at me!"

"Hey, look at me!" makes the news. On that note, Clickhappy is correct...it a "look at me" event...if they want to take advantage of it in this manner. Boeing doesn't see the benefit here...Airbus does...two differing marketing teams at work. I just looking forward to the ultra-huge 787 event on 7.8.7. Now that's Boeing marketing technique...make their own show.
Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
 
User avatar
sebolino
Posts: 3559
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 11:26 pm

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:44 pm

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 107):
Airbus seems to think they do no wrong with software and are betting people's lives on it.

Probably the most stupid comment of this thread.
They are not betting any life on the software, or while you're at it, Boeing is betting people's lives on the safety of the fuel tanks of their 747 and the rudders of their 737.

[Edited 2007-06-28 16:45:01]
 
coa747
Posts: 380
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 3:11 pm

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:49 pm

Yeah just like those Northwest Airlink pilots who took their CRJ up to 41,000 feet. That might be the service ceiling but it doesn't mean you can fly at that altitude even with no pax on board. There are too many unknowns that enter the equation when you approach the edge of the performance envelope. Being from a safety background I see it all the time. Accidents happen most often when people chose through bad judgement or lack of discipline to operate their aircraft on the edge or outside of that specified by the carriers SOP's. Taking an aircraft to the edge of a stall, trusting that the computer will save you introduces a sense of invunerability to the pilot which often leads him to do very stupid things like stall out an RJ at 41,000 feet flame out both engines and fall from the sky.
 
airfrnt
Posts: 2173
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 2:05 am

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:51 pm

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 109):

Probably the most stupid comment of this thread.



Quoting WingedMigrator (Thread starter):
And if it looks scary, he suggested, that's because it's dangerous.

"One of the reasons we don't fly commercial product at air shows is that people crash airplanes at air shows," Carson said Wednesday.

"Flying a big heavy airplane at low altitude in an air-show environment, with all the testosterone that goes along with being a hotshot, you put unnecessary risk into your business, into your program, into the crowd surrounding the show."

Now let's do the math. We have a crash in the 330/340 family possibly because of software issues in extreme circumstances. We have a crash in a A320 because of software issues in extreme circumstances. Now you think it's not a bet to fly the A380 in extreme circumstances in the exact same situation that the A320 failed in?

That my friend is a bet. Name calling doesn't make it any different.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14779
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:52 pm

Quoting Azhobo (Reply 59):
A flight test maneuver testing stalls, I would venture to guess, would NOT be tested at takeoff but would be performed at high altitudes allowing opportunity to recover.

Normally more like 10-20,000ft, not at high altitude, prefer to do it lower as the air is denser. But at every takeoff and landing, aircraft are flown just above the stall.

Quoting Qantas787 (Reply 60):
Software didn't land an A340 real well in a thunderstorm in Toronto. The way some FBW afficianados on here talk, it is if they are completely fool proof. I love to fly on Airbus aircraft but I get the impression there are too many professional pilots on here talking as if they are invulnerable.

The autothrust and autopilot was turned off for that approach, at no time was the aircraft in a dangerous state, it ran off the end of the runway because it was landed long, at high speed, in rain on a short wet runway with late application of reverse thrust...you have seen about 4 737s having similar reasons for running off the end of runways in the past year.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 64):
Are you hoping that we forget airspeed is a relative creature?

Which is why I mentioned a tail wind gust.

You may be flying above stall speed in terms of ground speed, but once the wind gets to you from behind your airspeed isn't above stall speed.

I did say ground speed mini, the airbus FBW monitors ground speed and automatically adjusts the target airspeed, its part of the windshear protection system

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 64):

Did you just claim that an A-380 flying at max alpha on only two engines could pull out of an induced stall?

At the weights they did the show at of course it could fly at alpha max, the have done test flights with one engine out with a 600t TOW, Pihero has given us the actual TOW which was 290t. Alpha max on 2 engines is not the same as 4, as I said before the speed tape is dynamic, it takes into account the aircraft configuration and energy state.

BTW terminology is important, at no time did the 380 fly at max aplha, it was alpha max. I described the difference above.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 64):
The evidence would also show that crashing an F-18 is also a much small impact that an A380.

What evidence ?

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 66):

K, smart guy, the point is that FBW isn't infallible and if they keep treating a VLA like an F-16 something bad is going to happen, "Airbus FBW" or no. Keep in mind, DFBW is really just human control by proxy.

The FBW would not have allowed the B52 to go past 67 deg AoB which was the cause for that B52 accident.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 88):

The exact figure for the takeoff weight was 290 T., compared to its possible 560 T MTOW. That takes that particular config in the vicinity of a "hotrod" 757 at MTOW, no ?

Thanks for that, so it was 270t below MTOW, so the T/W ratio has gone from 0.226 to 0.438. The 757 is between 0.31 and 0.34 at MTOW.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
killjoy
Posts: 601
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 1999 6:00 am

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:55 pm

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 107):
Airbus seems to think they do no wrong with software and are betting people's lives on it.

You're seriously comparing a crash involving difficult tests using experimental software to flying a finished product around at an air show? This is getting more and more stupid.

In addition, comments like these are exactly why someone brought up the 747. It would be no more dumb to say that Boeing shouldn't show up at all because any time spent in the air could result in another rupture.

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 101):
I find these threads amusing...
Not the A v B part!
Not the US v EU part!

The part where the FBW spruikers quote all their buzz words about how the plane will protect itself from the ham fisted clots entrusted with driving it etc.. Alpha Floor etc.. you know the ones.

Yet when one of their favourite aircraft come to grief... it is always pilot error not the computers... never quite figured that out.

Software protection isn't some kind of omniscient presence that catches all errors. That's not going to happen until pilots become obsolete.

Using that same software to keep the plane above stalling speed at an air show is a slightly different situation.
 
jonathan-l
Posts: 394
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 4:20 am

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:59 pm

Noise is a measurable input that can be gathered from these types of business events. Many airline executives are impressed by the little amount of noise that the aircraft makes. Something that a powerpoint slide can show figures, but cannot convey the real-life impression.

There is an air show just outside Toulouse (www.airexpo.org) on a small airfield (Muret). It is organized by the local schools, it's free access and generally draws 20 to 30 thousand people.

Since 2001, Airbus has always accepted, free of charge, to send over an aircraft for a flight demonstration. In 2001, it started off with the Beluga, and since then we have had the A340-600 and the A380. Interestingly enough, Air Expo was the first air show to have the A380 (May 2005, even before Le Bourget).

It's the same demo as at Le Bourget; but no airline executives there, not much gain for Airbus, only money to be spent (they send the aircraft free of charge).
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13697
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:04 am

Quoting DIA (Reply 108):
doesn't see the benefit here...Airbus does...two differing marketing teams at work.

Yes, you have to work with what you have.. or don't have..

The marketing & sales devil himself (notice how he pied the press  Smile )


Quoting DIA (Reply 108):
Now that's Boeing marketing technique...make their own show.



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 25):
Carson is only pointing out that they don't think the reward is worth the risk, no matter how remote. He says it's a matter of judgment, a management issue. Not the high road, not the low road, just a middle ground of "we wouldn't do it."

Leahy, in response, decides to take pot shots at products (which are false in relation to the 777). He takes the lowest road, once again. "Your product sucks and is inferior." Of course, he's not really on point, but he does keep to his 10 year old public persona. So he's consistent.

Boeing made commercial.


Quit the Boeing high road story line. Google a "boeing + scandals", it's a PR lie.

[Edited 2007-06-28 17:18:32]
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
sebolino
Posts: 3559
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 11:26 pm

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:07 am

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 111):
We have a crash in the 330/340 family possibly because of software issues in extreme circumstances. We have a crash in a A320 because of software issues in extreme circumstances. Now you think it's not a bet to fly the A380 in extreme circumstances in the exact same situation that the A320 failed in?

Sorry, but as you refuse to read the posts explaining to you that your assumptions are wrong, and that you think that if a crash occured once, we shouldn't ever allow a plane to fly, i'm forced to give up and I admit that you won. Nothing can make you change your mind, except if Boeing states that it would be cool to fly planes at Air shows, so let's wait.
I even don't understand why I continue from time to time, to react to the usual Boeing hard core fans BS, it's so useless ...
 
CHRISBA777ER
Posts: 3715
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 12:12 pm

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:20 am

Jeez what is wrong with you people?

Sad thing is we'd all be in agreement that FBW/Alpha Floor is completely safe if Boeings had the same, but as they arent its just more boring Anti-European dross from the usual suspects. And you wonder why most of the world thinks Americans are arrogant and self-important...
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
 
sprout5199
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:26 am

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:28 am

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 117):
And you wonder why most of the world thinks Americans are arrogant and self-important...

Because we are  Smile And damn proud of it.

Dan in Jupiter
 
CHRISBA777ER
Posts: 3715
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 12:12 pm

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:31 am

Quoting Sprout5199 (Reply 118):
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 117):
And you wonder why most of the world thinks Americans are arrogant and self-important...

Because we are And damn proud of it

LOL quality response! Big grin Love it!

*passes a beer over*  Smile
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
 
Woosie
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 3:47 pm

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:33 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 51):
Thats nice dear, but what do you know about the Airbus FBW ?

I don't profess to know about Airbus FBW; I'll also grant you that you know more. But I also expect you not to know it thoroughly, unless you're an Airbus Flight Controls Engineer - pilots just don't know them as well. However, what you do know as a pilot is very applicable to the issue stated by Mr. Leahy and Mr. Carson in this thread.

Lastly, cut out the "nice dear" crap - you don't know me and I don't know you - it's very condenscending and unprofessional.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 86):
Who does Zeke think he is, a lousy Cathay A346 fo, what does he know..


Keesje - you're missing the boat here. While Zeke may understand a goodly deal of the functions behind the cockpit interface, it's just too much for him (or any other person) to have full knowledge of all functional details behind each of these cockpit interfaces. That's why it takes a collective group of people to develop and certify cockpit interfaces. Posting a neat picture of an A340 cockpit doesn't mean he understands the details; it means he understands how to manage that cockpit, which is admittedly an admirable talent.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 88):
The exact figure for the takeoff weight was 290 T., compared to its possible 560 T MTOW. That takes that particular config in the vicinity of a "hotrod" 757 at MTOW, no ?

Yes, and in the video, the A380 doesn't seem to be laboring much. Impressive take-off and turn...nothing more.
 
airfrnt
Posts: 2173
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 2:05 am

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:37 am

Quoting Killjoy (Reply 113):

You're seriously comparing a crash involving difficult tests using experimental software to flying a finished product around at an air show? This is getting more and more stupid.

Nope. Actually I am not. The A320 was in the exact same circumstances that the A380 is in.

Quoting Killjoy (Reply 113):

In addition, comments like these are exactly why someone brought up the 747. It would be no more dumb to say that Boeing shouldn't show up at all because any time spent in the air could result in another rupture.

Planes crash often enough. Deliberately showboating increases the likelihood of a crash.

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 116):
Sorry, but as you refuse to read the posts explaining to you that your assumptions are wrong, and that you think that if a crash occured once, we shouldn't ever allow a plane to fly, i'm forced to give up and I admit that you won. Nothing can make you change your mind, except if Boeing states that it would be cool to fly planes at Air shows, so let's wait.
I even don't understand why I continue from time to time, to react to the usual Boeing hard core fans BS, it's so useless ...

And what you fail to understand over and over is that this is not about flying it's about showboating. It's about flying as close to the margin as possible, and then using computer software for "envelope protection." It's about the fact that apparently both of the other major Airbus families had crashes with fatalities because of this exact set of circumstances.

Airbus has learned at least once with the A320. The fact that planes crash for other reasons doesn't change the fact that it's stupid to do this on a plane that hasn't had a long service life. In fact, in general it's stupid with old or new planes.

In part that is the appeal of airshows, but it's another whole class when it's a large frame plane like a B-52 or 320 or 380. The capacity for loss of life is significant.
 
sprout5199
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:26 am

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:43 am

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 119):
*passes a beer over*

Takes said beer and has a swig, then gets into a real important discussion: why the hell is said beer warm? is it the CBW(chill by wire) not letting the beer get cold---dumb Americian beer drinkers don't know that beer is better warm  vomit 


This is all about risk--Boeing doesnt want to do it, Airbus does. neither is right or wrong.

Dan in Jupiter
 
killjoy
Posts: 601
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 1999 6:00 am

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:00 am

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 121):
Nope. Actually I am not. The A320 was in the exact same circumstances that the A380 is in.

Too bad you also felt the need to include the A330. And don't you think they've learned something about computer interaction since their first try, even if we decide to not argue about the circumstances of the crash?

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 121):
Planes crash often enough. Deliberately showboating increases the likelihood of a crash.

So does deliberately flying them! Moving planes to the location of an air show doesn't exactly earn revenue.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14779
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:06 am

Quoting Woosie (Reply 120):
While Zeke may understand a goodly deal of the functions behind the cockpit interface, it's just too much for him (or any other person) to have full knowledge of all functional details behind each of these cockpit interfaces. That's why it takes a collective group of people to develop and certify cockpit interfaces.

I have seen, and can understand the various control system block diagram that airbus uses, it is not as difficult as you try and portray, it is just a feedback control system. Just about anyone that has studied control system design could put those block diagrams into something like the Matlab control toolbox and cone out with a decent flight control system.

You made the mistake of thinking people like Pihero and myself are "just pilots".
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:07 am

Quoting Woosie (Reply 120):
Yes, and in the video, the A380 doesn't seem to be laboring much. Impressive take-off and turn...nothing more.

So, to clarify what you are saying in two sentences is that there was nothing to that demo but it was reckless showboating, right ?

Quoting Woosie (Reply 120):
Posting a neat picture of an A340 cockpit doesn't mean he understands the details; it means he understands how to manage that cockpit, which is admittedly an admirable talent.

Just sit at an FAA check and you'll know better than you suspect about our proficiency and familiarity to the systems. Or have a look at the Airbus driver's site to see what's demanded by the authorities.

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 121):
The A320 was in the exact same circumstances that the A380 is in.

Please explain.
Contrail designer
 
MD-90
Posts: 7836
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:12 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 56):
The logical conclusion to this argument is that there are NO flying displays of any sort, by any aircraft.
NONE OF THEM ARE NECESSARY

That's a bit of hyperbole. While the military fighters sometimes crash due to pilot error, they have far larger performance reserves than transports do.

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 74):
Basically - Boeing dont want to put their 777 and 737NG up against the alpha-floor protected Airbus types as for them to start throwing a 777-300ER around like that *IS* unsafe, whereas with the Airbuses it is far safer. They do it because they can, and Boeing dont because it isnt worth it.

Bingo.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 90):
Probably not. I just have a bachelor degree in engineering, graduated from an air academy and flown 20,000 hrs on airliners, from the DC-3 to the modern Airbus and done aerobatics and gliding. You certainly know more than I do.

Pihero, clearly his comment was not directed towards you.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 112):

What evidence ?

Compare the impact field of, say, the Tu-144 that crashed and the smaller MiG-29 that did the same thing.
 
B52overSMF
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 10:37 am

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:20 am

I can understand the benefits of a military aircraft performing dangerous maneuvers at an airshow, they're specifically designed to do those maneuvers on a daily basis... But not large commercial airliners (Although I 100% admit I enjoy watching it.). I say different strokes for different folks for whatever the reason. In MY OPINION though, a crash of a new aircraft during a performance demonstration flight at an airshow is not worth the risk. Sure, fly it by a few times and let everyone see it and do some turns and such but there's no need to pull maneuvers that even remotely take you close to an envelope. Take the Russian SST (TU-144) for example. The crash doomed the project that day. What do you think would happen if one of the A380 crashed? An already hurt program would be dealt an even bigger blow.

That Boeing commercial was kind of funny. I think it was sort of childish, but funny.

I've got an odd curiosity after hearing Mr. Leahy in that video, does anyone know his nationality? I only ask because of his fluency in speaking English and he seems to be speaking with an "American" accent.
Conquerer of air molecules.
 
Woosie
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 3:47 pm

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:29 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 124):
I have seen, and can understand the various control system block diagram that airbus uses, it is not as difficult as you try and portray, it is just a feedback control system. Just about anyone that has studied control system design could put those block diagrams into something like the Matlab control toolbox and cone out with a decent flight control system.

You made the mistake of thinking people like Pihero and myself are "just pilots".

Actually, no I haven't made the mistake of thiking you and Pihero are "just pilots". You and Pihero continue to make the mistake of believing you know it all; I too know control system design. Pilots give the best information as to how the airplane should fly, but they don't design them, not the details anyway. And the details is where mistakes are made (both in hardware, software and firmware); when these failures manifest themselves, pilots tend to do a terrific job of minimizing their impact.

All I'm really trying to point out in my responses is that no system function is 100% reliable, which you were inferring in your responses. This not an issue of your knowledge versus mine; I suspect we'd get along technically pretty well.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 125):
Just sit at an FAA check and you'll know better than you suspect about our proficiency and familiarity to the systems. Or have a look at the Airbus driver's site to see what's demanded by the authorities.

I'm very familiar with Line Pilot familiarity training programs, and they're quite thorough, in terms of the system basics. Naturally, flight controls, autoflight, autothrottle, fuel systems and FMS functions are covered in more detail than other system functions, due to a greater need for pilot awareness and interaction.

You're right, I do not have any knowledge of what an Airbus pilot goes through with check rides!
 
CHRISBA777ER
Posts: 3715
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 12:12 pm

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:34 am

Quoting Woosie (Reply 128):
All I'm really trying to point out in my responses is that no system function is 100% reliable, which you were inferring in your responses.

Of course not, but then what is? Nothing - but the Airbus FBW system is as close to infallible as is humanly possible, and CONSIDERABLY more reliable than the human on the sidestick.
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14779
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:47 am

Quoting Woosie (Reply 128):
You and Pihero continue to make the mistake of believing you know it all

Don't think either of us are silly enough to make any such claim, been humbled on more than one occasion by difficult check questions, but both of us understand the Airbus FBW system. To your credit you are one of the first people on this thread to declare that you dont, and given your background you would find it very easy to understand after a couple of hours study, it is not as complicated as many people try and make it out.

Given the background you claim to have, I am somewhat perplexed by some of your comments, you would be in a good position to know that these systems are not a binary state, various levels of redundancy exist, and the most basic form of redundancy is the flight control laws drop out and and the pilots just use conventional control techniques.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
airfrnt
Posts: 2173
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 2:05 am

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:51 am

Quoting Killjoy (Reply 123):
So does deliberately flying them! Moving planes to the location of an air show doesn't exactly earn revenue.

That's like saying because cars crash all the time, there is no problem driving them 120mph on a dirt rail with no rail guard.


Anyways, that's enough. I am sick of getting attacked for simpling making the point that flying aggressively might be stupid with a large airplane.Pinnacle Airlines CRJ-200 anyone?
 
Woosie
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 3:47 pm

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:54 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 130):
Given the background you claim to have, I am somewhat perplexed by some of your comments, you would be in a good position to know that these systems are not a binary state, various levels of redundancy exist, and the most basic form of redundancy is the flight control laws drop out and and the pilots just use conventional control techniques

SInce I don't know Airbus control systems, I can only relate given my background, which is primarily in heritage-Douglas airplanes. The MD-80 autopilot, for instance, is a fail-passive airplane function, while the MD-11 is fail-operational. In both systems are redundant; this redundancy is what makes the likeliness of a potential calamity remote enough. This likeliness is not, however, zero.

I'd assume that Airbus control systems (A320 and on) are fail-operational, with additional flight envelope protection - this is typical. Like you said, when all else fails, conventional control techniques are implemented.
 
airfrnt
Posts: 2173
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 2:05 am

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:55 am

Quoting Killjoy (Reply 123):

Too bad you also felt the need to include the A330. And don't you think they've learned something about computer interaction since their first try, even if we decide to not argue about the circumstances of the crash?

Why unfortunate? It's another exact example of what I am citing.

Sure, but I also manage multi-million dollar software system creation and implementation. I know exactly how hard it is to make software that works perfectly even without the human element involved.

Software breaks on boundary conditions. Flight envelope protection by it's nature is a boundary condition.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:57 am

Quoting Chiad (Reply 67):
It's impossible to discover new continents without loosing sight of familiar shores!
Hey all air enthusiasts ...... are we afraid of risks?
Maybe those who are should find another hobby because aircrafts are defying gravity.

Let me remind you that Boeing bet the company building the B747.
(note ... they didn't have to)
Now Boeing is betting the company building the B787 with all its new tech.
(note ... they don't have to)

Betting the company on a design isn't the same as potentially risking the lives of 100's of people on the ground.

What so many are missing here is that to take ANY piece of equipment to it's limit for some completely unnecessary reason is a bad idea. It's not about what will happen 99.99% of the time, it's about whether or not what can happen that other .01% of the time is worth the risk.

What would have happen had there been an ingestion issue or bird strik during that demonstration? I'll tell you what.. SPLAT. To sit here and argue that it is 'perfectly safe because we have a computer' is just silly and displays a lack of judgement I find frightening.

Airbus risked a lot of potential damage for a cheap stunt. *IF* there had been an accident it might have killed the 380 program (regardless of the cause). So to all the Airbus fans out there cheering 'yay', ask yourself; Would you still be cheering had there been an indicent and the 380 program was put on hold for another 1-2 years while it was investigated?
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
Woosie
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 3:47 pm

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:04 am

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 134):
It's not about what will happen 99.99% of the time, it's about whether or not what can happen that other .01% of the time is worth the risk

For the types of protective means we're talking about here, add a few more zeroes to the ).01% chance - usually, its more like one in a billion chance. I know you're tyring to make a point - it's well taken. However, understanding how infrequent potentially catastrophic failure conditions are is also important.
 
WingedMigrator
Topic Author
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:08 am

Quoting Woosie (Reply 128):
All I'm really trying to point out in my responses is that no system function is 100% reliable

Since an airplane is rather useless without pilots, one can argue that pilots are an important system function. Indeed, no system function is 100% reliable. It all comes down to designing a system such that the fallibility of its individual functions compromises the safety of the passengers in the least possible way.
 
MD-90
Posts: 7836
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:20 am

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 131):
Pinnacle Airlines CRJ-200 anyone?

That is not comparable to airshow piloting.

The pilots of that CRJ on a lark decided to fly to the CRJ's maximum ceiling of FL410. Unfortunately the -200 doesn't like to be up that high and they managed to stall the airplane and couldn't recover (something, btw, that Airbus control logic wouldn't allow to happen).

All airshow pilots and factory demonstrations pilots very carefully plan their routines for impressive performance and yet to have the highest possible safety margins. They do NOT fly on a wing and a prayer like the crew of that CRJ did.
 
airfrnt
Posts: 2173
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 2:05 am

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:25 am

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 137):
The pilots of that CRJ on a lark decided to fly to the CRJ's maximum ceiling of FL410. Unfortunately the -200 doesn't like to be up that high and they managed to stall the airplane and couldn't recover (something, btw, that Airbus control logic wouldn't allow to happen).

I'm willing to bet that Airbus was doing a lot of things that the A380 might not "like" to use your phrase. Their actions are just at the bottom of the flight level instead of the top.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 137):

All airshow pilots and factory demonstrations pilots very carefully plan their routines for impressive performance and yet to have the highest possible safety margins. They do NOT fly on a wing and a prayer like the crew of that CRJ did.

Tell that to the B-52 crowd a few years ago.
 
aerobalance
Posts: 4312
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:35 am

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:41 am

Having watched the A380 demo at Paris 2005 and Farnborough 2006 I can say that it is akin to watching a donkey participating at the Kentucky Derby. I want to see aerobatic planes do aerobatic maneuvers, not a commercial aircraft do those things. If they want to impress me they would put 400 people on the plane, do a normal takeoff, fly around for 30 minutes, serve some champagne to the passengers, then do a normal landing, offload and do it again. I believe that would leave a better imprint on the public, it would for me.
"Sing a song, play guitar, make it snappy..."
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:45 am

Quoting Pihero (Reply 88):
By your reasoning, when an airplane enters a tailwind jetstream, it would fall off the sky,

If that tailwind jet stream lowers it's airspeed below stall speed, yes it would fall out of the sky.

However, most of the time you are in a tailwind jet stream an aircraft is in cruise. Even a 100mph tailwind jet stream would only lower the airspeed to 400mph. That is of course assuming that it's only a gust like I said and not a constant tailwind that the aircraft has establish relative velocity too.

I don't know of an aircraft that stall at 400mph.

However, just for jollies. If you are cruising along at 500mph and run into a 450mph tailwind, yes you aren't going to be flying anymore with only 50mph of airspeed over the wings. The fun part wold be if you could keep the aircraft aloft long enough for the wind to accelerate you to it's relative speed. A 450mph tailwind would give you one hell of a groundspeed  Wink

Quoting Zeke (Reply 112):
What evidence ?

What evidence proves that an F-18 is much smaller than an A380?

You'll just have to forgive me if I don't bother to answer that.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 112):
The FBW would not have allowed the B52 to go past 67 deg AoB which was the cause for that B52 accident.

By the time the B52 got to 67 deg AoB the aircraft was already doomed so that particular protection wouldn't have made any difference.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14779
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:57 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 140):
If that tailwind jet stream lowers it's airspeed below stall speed, yes it would fall out of the sky.

However, most of the time you are in a tailwind jet stream an aircraft is in cruise. Even a 100mph tailwind jet stream would only lower the airspeed to 400mph. That is of course assuming that it's only a gust like I said and not a constant tailwind that the aircraft has establish relative velocity too.

I don't know of an aircraft that stall at 400mph.

However, just for jollies. If you are cruising along at 500mph and run into a 450mph tailwind, yes you aren't going to be flying anymore with only 50mph of airspeed over the wings. The fun part wold be if you could keep the aircraft aloft long enough for the wind to accelerate you to it's relative speed. A 450mph tailwind would give you one hell of a groundspeed

You never see 400 kt speeds in commercial jets, they indicate more like 250-300 kt in cruise, at altitude the stall speed would be more like 200 kt-250kt, a sudden 100 kt change in wind speed would result in a jet upset.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 140):
By the time the B52 got to 67 deg AoB the aircraft was already doomed so that particular protection wouldn't have made any difference.

It went well past 67 deg, closer to 90 deg when it made ground impact....can you enlighten us all on your flying background ? Your comments sound like someone who has 5-10 hrs in a C152......and never flown an airliner in your life.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Fri Jun 29, 2007 3:12 am

What happens if one of the engines fails, or a bird strike occurs, or fuel contamination..I oculd go on...an aircraft operating normally could recover from bird strike or engine failure...but at an airshow operating at stall speed +2 isn't as safe as not doing it at all. Carson is right.

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 2):
I think you conveniently left out the part where Leahy mentions flight envelope protection and how the airplane will NOT allow the pilot to enter into a hairy situation.

No he didn't. It's in there

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
Additionally, if you are depending on computer softwear to save your ass, you don't need to be flying stupid manuvers.

Depending on computers is fine....why put it to the edge if you don

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 5):
By why is it dangerous to fly within the aircraft limits.

right at the edge of the design limits in front of a hundred thousand people who are in the path of destruction if it falls from the sky.

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 5):
Both crashes were because of pilot error

I really thought software had something to do with the A320 crash.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 23):
...Unfortunately, very few people noticed that the most stunning presentation was the C-27

it's an AWESOME demo! I remember when the Italian test pilot slammed it so hard on the runway at Fairford that he broke the undercarriage......they had to bring another one from Italy for the Farnborough demo the next week. Me and Aerobalance watched from our hotel in awe as it did near loops over our heads.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 25):
I think the shows are cool, and the A380 maneuvers are as well.

Me too, and I hope they keep doing them, even though they are dangerous. I'm taking my chances at the airshow and won't sue the makers unless they do something really stupid.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
azhobo
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:52 pm

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Fri Jun 29, 2007 3:28 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 142):
I really thought software had something to do with the A320 crash.

"In the first crash of a new 'Fly-By-Wire' aircraft, the Airbus A320-100 impacted trees while performing a fly-by at an airshow and burst into flames. The crew, and Air France maintenance officials, have all been sentenced to probation for manslaughter; the Captain has been imprisoned. Evidence, including photographs, has now been exposed that an Airbus official at the scene switched the Digital Flight Data Recorder before the court hearing.

Since May 1998, it is proven that the Flight Data Recorder was switched after the accident. The Lausanne Institute of Police Forensic Evidence and Criminology (IPSC) comes to the conclusion that the recorder presented to the Court is NOT the one taken from the aircraft after the accident. "

http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml
 
User avatar
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1889
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Fri Jun 29, 2007 3:57 am

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 107):
Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 57):
While you're at it, why don't you mention the 747 that crashed in Japan killing over 500 people because of a bad repair job Boeing did to its rear pressure bulkhead?

That has absolutely nothing to do with deliberately showboating a large commercial plane and the various crashes that occurred from that. Why are you bringing this up?

Or are you trying to draw moral equivalence's here?

That's exactly what I'm trying to do. Both crashes happened roughly around the same time, and while the 747 defect has been proven as Boeing's fault, nobody has ever discovered any proof of tampering with black boxes of A320. Airbus people present on site after the crash? Then how do you explain Boeing people being sent to the sites of any major crash of Boeing plane? Surely, they must tamper with black boxes, too! Jeez...
Bottom line is: the guy programmed the flight management computer to fly at 100 feet AGL, he dropped below 45 feet AGL instead, applied TO/GA power too late and hit the trees. The investigators concluded that had high-alpha protection not worked, A320 would have stalled, wing would drop, the plane would crash in the middle of the field and instead of three dead passengers, everyone on board would most likely die.

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 107):
The difference here is that Airbus is deliberately cutting their margins as closely as can so they can fly their planes like F-16s or F/A-18s.

Sorry, but that's plain BS. The difference is F-16 and F/A-18 are aerodynamically unstable by design and without the FBW they fly like bricks with wings, while A380 is aerodynamically stable and its safety margin of high-alpha manoeuvers is way larger than the one of fighters you mentioned and will fly safely with its FBW systems turned off.

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 107):
I would ask for a retraction sir.

From: http://www.airdisaster.com/investiga...shtml

Ahh, the famour airdisaster.com site that has been proven worthless by many, many respectful aviation proffesionals (including air disaster investigators) before.
Try aviation-safety.net instead.

Quote:

PROBABLE CAUSES: "The Commission believes that the accident resulted from the combination of the following conditions: 1) very low flyover height, lower than surrounding obstacles; 2) speed very slow and reducing to reach maximum possible angle of attack; 3) engine speed at flight idle; 4) late application of go-around power. This combination led to impact of the aircraft with the trees. The Commission believes that if the descent below 100 feet was not deliberate, it may have resulted from failure to take proper account of the visual and aural information intended to give the height of the aircraft."

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19880626-0
The queen of the skies is dead.
 
Maersk737
Posts: 660
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 3:37 am

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Fri Jun 29, 2007 4:10 am

I love you americans    You just know better   

Cheers

Peter

[Edited 2007-06-28 21:12:31]
I'm not proud to be a Viking, just thankfull
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Fri Jun 29, 2007 4:13 am

Muchado about nothing IMO. I'm surprised Carson stooped low enough to even respond to such a stupid subject.
One Nation Under God
 
Maersk737
Posts: 660
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 3:37 am

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Fri Jun 29, 2007 4:17 am

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 146):
Muchado about nothing IMO. I'm surprised Carson stooped low enough to even respond to such a stupid subject.

Stooped? He started the very stupid subject
 Big grin

Cheers

Peter
I'm not proud to be a Viking, just thankfull
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Fri Jun 29, 2007 4:21 am

Quoting Woosie (Reply 135):
For the types of protective means we're talking about here, add a few more zeroes to the ).01% chance - usually, its more like one in a billion chance.

Agreed.. too lazy to pound the 9 key that many times  Smile

Quoting Woosie (Reply 135):
I know you're tyring to make a point - it's well taken.

Thank you for not getting mired in the details and looking for the point of the post  Smile

Quoting Woosie (Reply 135):
However, understanding how infrequent potentially catastrophic failure conditions are is also important.

Also relevant. That's part of the risk analysis process. The big problem I have with this procedure is that all the variables are NOT under the control of the systems with 1 in a billion chances. Wind gusts, debris ingestion, bird strike (and I'm sure I could list more) are all things that can occur at any point in time.. that's why standard operating procedure has a safety margin built in. These demo flights seem to operate outside what would be considered 'standard' operating procedure IMHO.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
azhobo
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:52 pm

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Fri Jun 29, 2007 4:24 am

Quoting Killjoy (Reply 123):
Too bad you also felt the need to include the A330. And don't you think they've learned something about computer interaction since their first try, even if we decide to not argue about the circumstances of the crash?

You dont know what you dont know. Had something gone wrong at this airshow, it would have been another opportunity to learn even more. The difference between B and A on this issue is strictly about risk taking. Boeing is just looking out for their stockholders by not taking the risk.

As far as past airshow crashes, those that dont learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them ( or something like that). B has no risk in an commercial airshow disaster, A does.

HOBO
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9149
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Fri Jun 29, 2007 4:28 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 115):
Boeing made commercial.

Keesje - That "commercial" wasn't a commercial at all. While it might have been produced as an internal video shown at an internal event, we had lots of these when I worked at Microsoft, the most famous being the video making fun of Sun Microsystems using a parody of a popular at the time Volkswagen commercial, it most certainly was not a commercial.

Calling it a commercial is grossly inaccurate. I respect your right to make a point, but when you twist the truth to make said point you loose credibility. And yes, such things do matter to some people. You just don't find many of them responding to these threads.

Here is the MSFT video I refer to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrwnJDQy0ic
 
agill
Posts: 1051
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 4:49 am

RE: Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts

Fri Jun 29, 2007 4:28 am

I have a feeling this thread will be one that will be dug up in many future threads as soon as someone does anything else than just fly straight at an airshow.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos