Qantas: our Airbuses are safe

[Slats7]

http://www.news.com.au/travel/story/0,28318,25602984-5014090,00.html

QANTAS isn't planning to replace airspeed sensors on its 22 A330s despite fears faulty speed readings may have contributed to last week's Airbus crash off Brazil, which killed 228 people.

 

[mannej]

Why does the media have to relate everything to Qantas? Are we back in the days of get your pitchforks we are going on a witch hunt?

The pitot tubes on the Qantas fleet are different to Air France and I dont think are affected, apart from wasps at BNE. The second thing is this directive came out before Qantas received any A330's so you would imagine the problem to be rectified before receiving them.

The worst thing is reading the comments of the public. Some of them would jump if the media told them to.

 

[Chicken or Beef]

There have been too many incidents and accidents prior to this catastrophic disaster. To lose an entire plane like that in 2009 is just unheard of.

There have been quite a few incidents in a relatively short period of time with similar Airbus aircraft. First the Air Show (crew dies), then the QF72 off WA coast, then the Air New Zealand plane (crew/engineers died) and now this.

Unfortunately, I think that commercial interests come before any serious attempts at grounding aircraft and having them completely overhauled.

I don't believe everything I read in the media because I know a lot that doesn't ever get out!

Whether they are safe or not - you can come to your own conclusions!

 

[Mal]

Whether they are safe or not - you can come to your own conclusions!

There are 345 Airbus A330-200's and 269 Airbus A330-300's in current use (not sure if these figures include the AF plane or not).

The number of 'incidents' for this family of plane to me isn't of a significant nature based on the number of planes out there.

 

[pauly7]

There have been too many incidents and accidents prior to this catastrophic disaster. To lose an entire plane like that in 2009 is just unheard of.

There have been quite a few incidents in a relatively short period of time with similar Airbus aircraft. First the Air Show (crew dies), then the QF72 off WA coast, then the Air New Zealand plane (crew/engineers died) and now this.

LOL! Great investigate skills and by your inferred deductions, half the worlds fleet is potentially unsafe! Quick call NoNews!

Why does the media have to relate everything to Qantas? Are we back in the days of get your pitchforks we are going on a witch hunt?

The pitot tubes on the Qantas fleet are different to Air France and I dont think are affected, apart from wasps at BNE. The second thing is this directive came out before Qantas received any A330's so you would imagine the problem to be rectified before receiving them.

The worst thing is reading the comments of the public. Some of them would jump if the media told them to.

Like the comment above...?

Here is my hint - avoid NoNews completely, all it does is raise your blood pressure with its consistant sludge of sensationalised tabloid style inaccurate reporting (on all things btw!) and its equally gullible readers.

 

[Slats7]

Why does the media have to relate everything to Qantas? Are we back in the days of get your pitchforks we are going on a witch hunt?

The pitot tubes on the Qantas fleet are different to Air France and I dont think are affected, apart from wasps at BNE. The second thing is this directive came out before Qantas received any A330's so you would imagine the problem to be rectified before receiving them.

The worst thing is reading the comments of the public. Some of them would jump if the media told them to.

The media love using fear tactics. I think it all comes down to the unions being angry at Qantas and going to the media about safety issues.

 

[NM]

There have been quite a few incidents in a relatively short period of time with similar Airbus aircraft. First the Air Show (crew dies), then the QF72 off WA coast, then the Air New Zealand plane (crew/engineers died) and now this.

That seems like a really strange group of incidents to collect together in a single reference??

I cannot recall any airshow accidents involving any A330 aircraft. The only one I recall involved an A320 and the flight control software was altered as a result so that it should not happen again and I see no similarity suggested between the Air France loss and the A320 accident at the airshow.

I have not seen any linkage between the QF72 incident and the Air France loss except those implied by the Australian news media based on the fact that the two aircraft involved are from the same family (an A330-300 and an A330-200).

How does the Air New Zealand A320 loss bear any similarity to the Air France loss? Not only is it a completely different aircraft type, but the circumstances were completely different (low level flight testing using suspect procedures).

The only real link is that they were all manufactured by Airbus. Does that make all Airbus aircraft inherently unsafe? I think not.

 

[Nigelinoz]

With the utmost respect to your opinion, Slats7,I can't see that there is any "fear tactics" here.
The way I see it is (An assumption,admittedly,) that the newspaper probably asked Qantas about the safety of it's Airbus fleet and Qantas has said that they have no concerns because their aircraft use pitot tubes from a different manufacturer.
Whether it is relevant for the newspaper to ask that question in the first place is a different issue IMHO.

 

[Alanslegal]

Again the media circus goes on and sensationalises scary flying to Qantas - FWIW Jetstar flies those A330-200 on their international routes, and don't see a mention about them (not that its related to the AF incidents in any respect).

 

[stryker]

I really don't think the news media is going after anyone.

The Airbus products are inherently more unreliable because of their total reliance on abstract computer control. Anyone who has Microsoft Vista on their computer could relate to that.

I would tend to steer clear of flying on airbus aircraft and focus on Boeings, such as the 777. Solid engineering, without a fetish on computer control.

But, YMMV.

 

[Slats7]

I really don't think the news media is going after anyone.

The Airbus products are inherently more unreliable because of their total reliance on abstract computer control. Anyone who has Microsoft Vista on their computer could relate to that.

I would tend to steer clear of flying on airbus aircraft and focus on Boeings, such as the 777. Solid engineering, without a fetish on computer control.

But, YMMV.

Are you serious?

 

[nlagalle]

I would tend to steer clear of flying on airbus aircraft and focus on Boeings, such as the 777. Solid engineering, without a fetish on computer control.

But, YMMV.

The 777 is very similar to the airbuses. It's fly by wire as well. So it does have a "fetish" on computer control. Dreamliner is the same too

 

[harvyk]

I really don't think the news media is going after anyone.

The Airbus products are inherently more unreliable because of their total reliance on abstract computer control. Anyone who has Microsoft Vista on their computer could relate to that.

I would tend to steer clear of flying on airbus aircraft and focus on Boeings, such as the 777. Solid engineering, without a fetish on computer control.

But, YMMV.

I hate to point this out, but just about any modern plane has the ability to "fly itself". Yes, it's true, boeing and airbus take a slightly different approach to the other as to the amount the pilot can override, but in each case the pilot is there more to press the go button to get the plane into the air, and to take over if the proverbial hits the fan. (PS, yes I do realise there is more for the pilot to do than hit the "go button", but it illustrates my point)

As for the article on nonews, there are two ways to approach this story, the first was to keep faith in our flag carrier, because yes they do fly the A330's, but based on the headline they chose to use one could almost assume they would have rather wrote "Getting on a qantas plane, does your life mean so little to you?"

That said, I now only read nonews for it's comic value (and to laugh at bogan's who comment)

 

[mannej]

Am I not the only one who finds the motto "if it ain't Boeing, I'm not going" a tad misguided? Having flown on both A330/40 B777 etc, all that I am worried about is getting from A to B on time, and not what type of aircraft it is(well unless I am doing a TR!)

I don't think there is any need to avoid NoNews, as the comic relief may help lowering my blood pressure! The implied relationships between the AF accident and Qantas are a bit OTT, but I guess NoNews will do anything to sell papers, even if that means Qantas bashing.

 

[Nigelinoz]

From:
Merger off agenda for Qantas and BA | The Australian

Commenting on recent safety concerns about Airbus A330 aircraft after last week's Air France crash off Brazil, Mr Joyce said discussions with Airbus had made it clear there was no link between the tragedy and two Qantas incidents last year involving "air data inertial reference units" on aircraft from the same family. ADIRUs collect raw data on functions such as air speed, altitude and angle of attack, and process the information before sending it to flight computers. A malfunctioning unit sent a Qantas A330 on wild ride over Western Australia last year.
But Qantas uses ADIRUs made by a different manufacturer from those employed by Air France.
Mr Joyce said that since the A330 incidents last year, Qantas had put into place new protections and changed procedures to ensure that false data from an ADIRU did not result in another incident. "We have utmost confidence in the A330," he said.
Mr Joyce said another issue raised by the Air France crash -- the replacement of pitot tubes involved in measuring airspeed -- also did not apply to Qantas. He said the pitot tubes used by Qantas were made by a different manufacturer from those used by Air France