Fear and facts on Airbus disasters

Another Airbus has fallen out of the sky and once again everyone is haring off into scare territory. Since the investigators are issuing their first findings on Air France 447, the June 1 crash in the Atlantic, here's a quick reality check.

[ Friday Update: First crash investigatin of A447 shows the airliner belly-flopped onto water in one piece.]

I've been talking to an Air France A330 pilot who confirms the sequence of events that brought down the Air France A330 off Brazil and which we have discussed here. More on that below, but first the latest accident.

The Yemenia Airbus that came down yesterday off the Comoros islands, killing 152 aboard, had nothing to do with the problems that ended Flight 447. The plane was a relatively old (19 years) A310 that was in poor condition and which had been banned from French air space in 2007.

That point is being hammered by the French media today. But it seems likely that the state of the plane had little to do with the crash, from which a 14-year-old girl has survived. From the accounts so far it looks like a classic approach-to-landing mishap of the oldest kind. Witnesses said the plane appeared to have been upset by a gust of wind or a down-draft as it was approaching the notoriously tricky runway at Moroni airport. The pilots were going around for another try and hit the water in the low turn in stormy conditions. That's a demanding manoeuvre at an underequipped airport in the dark. Most airline accidents take place in the landing or take-off phases and sloppy piloting is usually responsible. The investigators may find that higher crew standards are needed at Yemenia as much as better aircraft maintenance.

The Yemeni plane was a first-generation Airbus, a relatively simple aircraft. These do not have the computerised, fly-by-wire system that Airbus has used since the 1980s and which is under suspicion in Air France flight 447

It now looks as if AF447 was a disaster waiting to happen. Thanks to leaks from pilots and engineers, we now know that Air France and other airlines had experienced a string of failures in the speed sensors and air data system of the long-range Airbus family, the A330 and A340.

Crews had always managed to recover the aircraft by hand after their electronics disconnected. Unnoticed by most media, the United States authorities (National Transportation Safety Board) has just jumped in with its own investigation of the latest two. They involved Airbus incidents on flights originating in the United States on May 21 and only last week.

In the case of AF447, it seems that the crew faced conditions that were beyond them. They were flying at night at high altitude in a storm that appears to have played an important role in the chain.  After the speed sensors and computers played up, they had no airspeed indication. Saving the plane would have been a very tough job. It is assumed that the two junior pilots were at the controls. Captain Marc Dubois, 58, would have been resting.

That is the scenario described to me yesterday by Cédric Maniez, a colleague of the late captain who  flies  A330s for Air France. The blocked speed sensors -- the pitot tubes -- were the originating cause of the accident, he said. This led to the cascade of electronic breakdown. Air France has now intensified training for such a situation, he said. He had tried last week to fly an A330 simulator that recreated the conditions on AF447 and he had found it "very very delicate".

Maniez, who is also a spokesman for the SNPL pilots' union, said he was now satisfied that the airline had solved the problem because it had replaced all the unreliable pitot tubes. "I have more confidence than ever now that the problem has been elucidated and corrected," he said.

That will not get Airbus, the airlines and the regulatory agencies off the hook. Questions are bound to be asked about why nothing was done to mandate replacement of the unreliable pitot tubes and to explain the erratic electronics -- which had been known since 1994. Some pilots are worried that the French accident bureau, the BEA, will play down the technical failures and play up the storm and shift blame to the crew. Why they flew through the storm rather than avoiding it, we don't know. Without the black box cockpit voice recorders, it's unlikely that we ever will.

The lawyers are ready to pounce. The British firm representing AF447 victims passengers thinks the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) will have to think about grounding the A330/340 fleet.  

All that said, everyone should calm down. Two disasters in a month sound frightening. But remember that AF447 was the first fatal crash involving a plane of which over 900 are in the air around the world every day. Here's a comparison on air safety. Eight thousand pedestrians are killed in Europe annually. In the whole world, only 550 people die in airline accidents every year. Or another figure: flying is 32 times safer than taking the car, in terms of deaths per 100 million passenger miles, according to the French civil aviation authority. 

Comments

[Ian]

Rational and level-headed reporting, Charles. You may wish to redact (my new word!) "with and invetigation of the latest two."
[Done. CB]

[tf]

Deaths per passenger mile, as generally used, is a fairly meaningless basis for comparison. I wonder why people continue to cite this statistic.

To take an example, the Space Shuttle could easily have a lower rate of deaths per passenger mile than commercial aircraft. But that would just be an artifact of the fact that the typical shuttle flight is orders of magnitude longer than the typical aircraft flight.

(Taken to the extreme, think of a rocket that travels millions of miles only to end in a fatal crash every time: would you feel safe riding it?)

Similarly, the typical automobile trip is a few miles, a few tens of miles, occasionally a few hundred miles or more. Only in these exceptional cases is the automobile a possible substitute for the airplane. Deaths per passenger mile only make sense when comparing trips of similar distances.

My guess would be that automobile death rates per mile are generally much lower for longer journeys. Limited access highways have many fewer random factors at play than do city streets and country roads.

The death rate per passenger mile for similar-length journeys is probably still higher for automobile travel than for airplane travel. But not 32 times higher.

In the interests of "reality checks" and "everyone calming down", a calm and measured use of automobile death rates is surely in order.

[tf]

A piloting question: why should it be so difficult to keep a modern airliner in the air, even if one has no reliable speed information?

Surely, the pilots know approximately how much thrust to provide to an aircraft in level flight at a given altitude in order to remain above stall speed and below break-up speed?

So the speed measurements fail, the alarms go haywire... why not put the plane into level flight at a reasonable rate of thrust until you can figure out what's going wrong?

I know I'm missing something here. But it hasn't been spelled out in the reporting I've read. There's just this flat-out statement that "Saving the plane would have been a very tough job."

[Here's why: in normal times, with all systems working, pilots do not hand-fly airliners at cruising altitude. Control inputs have to be delicate because in the very thin air planes can be stalled or put into over-speed which can lead to a major upset. The crew of AF447 were operating at night in severe turbulence and apparently without any airspeed info. They also had erratic computers sending alerts and warnings in all directions. You are right that pilots are trained to fly by attitude and power in an emergency like this. AF447 would still have had a standby attitude indicator. All that's not too hard at lower altitudes and in reasonable weather. In the conditions experienced by AF447 it would have been 'a very tough job'. I'm only a small plane pilot but airline friends have explained the sequence. CB]

[DW]

TF - I was going to make a comment along the same lines as yourself however I read yours and it says everything I wanted to say and more, so I wont bother. Very well said indeed!

The only thing I might add is the issue of control. I consider myself a creful driver therefore I would argue that I am even less at risk of a car crash than 'the average'.

When on a plane, I have no control whatsoever over how it is flown.

[Tony K]

What hasn't been explained is what is the design problem with the pitot tubes? Are they being replaced with a different model? Who makes these sensors? Does Boeing use some other device to measure air speed on its aircraft, and is their model free from icing?

[The problem probes are made by Thales, the French aerospace and electronics company. Boeing uses another make which have not apparently experienced the same problems. Pitot tubes are heated to keep out ice. Even my own tiny plane has a pitot heater which you switch on in potentially icing conditions. All planes use pitot tubes to measure their speed -- with the exception of one or two military jets. And once again, it is apparently not just a question of the pitots, it's also their interface with the electronics on the Airbus. CB]

[azloon]

[Eight thousand pedestrians are killed in Europe annually. In the whole world, only 550 people die in airline accidents every year] CB

Charles, there's something about this oft-repeated 'fact' that doesn't particularly reassure me.

Commercial aircraft are piloted by the most intensively trained personnel in the transportation universe. These are not london city bus drivers we're talking about here.

And they certainly are not your typical automobile drivers -- often intoxicated, enraged, text messaging, day dreaming, fatigued, whatever. So statistical comparisons are specious at best, a matter of comparing apples and oranges.

Virtually all car crashes are caused by human error, and many air crashes as well. Not surprising. This factor will never will be totally eliminated, people being what they are.

But when a well-tested, sophisticated aircraft malfunctions resulting in severe loss of life, it's hardly the time to trot out statistics about how relatively safe we all are in the skies.

Fix the goddam problem, then reassure the traveling public that it's been fixed, and that there aren't other design flaws lurking in the wings (freudian slip).

Then, and only then, are we likely to be even the slightest bit enticed by the cold comfort of statistics.

[Jonathan Wilton]

Clear and sensible article. But I think I am not alone in having some concerns over the strength of Airbus tailplane assemblies- the American Airlines A300 crash in 2001 was caused by tail failure in not particularly rough turbulence- might the tail have broken on AF 447? I fly on 330s and 340s most weeks so I am keen to be convinced they are safe.

[Sven]

So, AF447 had all to do with an assumed failure of its speed sensors and/or/maybe computersystems based on even less reliable data which is still unconfirmed.

The fact that the accident happened in a 300 on 1500 kilometer thunderstorm which any responsible pilot under no circumstances would cross has nothing to do with it, eh?

That is not exactly what most people would define as "quality-journalism" but thren again, its British media, isnt it?

[Not sure what your point is, Sven. Perhaps you'd like to explain. I mentioned the storm in the article a couple of times. CB]

[MF]

"My guess would be that automobile death rates per mile are generally much lower for longer journeys. Limited access highways have many fewer random factors at play than do city streets and country roads."
I disagree. How many fatal crashes can you remember that have happened in the very centre of one of the major cities, even though people make huge amount of journeys there every day.

If you're driving 20 mph in a crowded city street, it doesn't matter what you hit, you are not gonna die of it, but if you're doing 70 mph on highway, hitting something has a fair chance of ending your life.

I'm sure accidents are more common on shorter journeys, but not necessarily fatal accidents.

[Guy Thornton]

"Eight thousand pedestrians are killed in Europe annually. In the whole world, only 550 people die in airline accidents every year".

The average person, "in the whole world" probably only spends a fraction of one second a year in a plane, because >99.9999% of humanity never see the inside of a plane. The same average person probably walks a few hundred hours a year. So even if several hundred thousand pedestrians are killed annually, walking is still infinitely safer than flying. Which doesn't seem to be the point the writer wants to make.

[eshaem]

Or another figure: flying is 32 times safer than taking the car, in terms of deaths per 100 million passenger miles, according to the French civil aviation authority.

and what about time spent in aircrafts vs. cars? the miles comparison sounds nice but since cars are much slower it is also highly misleading
I sincerely believe that air travel is comparatively safe, I just do not like misleading statistics
I like the pedestrian-comparison though

[Steve the Neighbour]

You will ultimately find that, engineering considerations aside, France in general and Air France in particular are going to go out of their way to avoid answering the question about why 2 fully-qualified pilots deliberately flew a laden passenger plane into the cente of a powerful local weather system, against SOP's and all common sense. THAT, will never come out. THERE, lies the key.

[Perhaps, but, cynically speaking, Airbus and possibly the French government would surely prefer that the pilots were blamed, even if Air France wouldn't. CB]

[Geof Walker]

The two issues that haven't been satisfactorily answered are: (a)why the pilots chose to fly through this particularly large storm, (b) whether computerization hasn't made a younger generation of pilots over-reliant on flying by instruments.

[Mike Smith]

I realise that speculative journalism will always occur in situations like this, but until the report by the Accident investigation team (the BEA) is completed with a 'probable' cause then we won't know. The BEA are a highly experience professional agency who I'm sure would take exception to the remark that would "play down" anything.

In all accidents reviews carried out often identify areas for improvement, hence the revised AF pilot training. Think about the major train crashes the UK has seen in recent memory, immediately checks have been carried out on all other possible areas where a gap in procedure has been found.

Finally, it is impossible to make anything safe as is often discussed in tabloid articles whenever the annual report on deaths comes out which said several people had died due to trouser accidents!

Flying is safe.The Accident investigation teams are independent of airlines and regulatory bodies, they would not aircraft fly if they were unsafe. Pilots have families and wouldn't fly if they weren't. The Aerospace industry in the UK employs (directly) over 100k people, they would not fly if they weren't safe.

Wait for the report from the BEA. And trust in the system, it's one of the few I know works.

[Speculation is done by pilots just as much as journalists, though journalists usually get it wrong of course. As for the neutrality of the BEA, they have been accused of coming under the influence of powerful interests in the past. CB]

[Stephane]

Steve and CB (Why they flew through the storm rather than avoiding it, we don't know)

Well, pilots decide before each flight how much fuel they're going to take with them. It should include safety margins but it's expensive both to purchase and to fly (extra weight = extra fuel consumption).

Making a detour and steer clear of the storm may have required more extra fuel than they had available, so they went in...

In the late '90s a Qantas flight crashed just short of the runway in Bangkok. The pilot had taken the bare minimum of fuel... and it was just not enough. Sorry I don't have more details on hand, just mentioning that fuel rationing as company policy is not a theory.

On the other hand, maybe the two younger pilots just thought they could make it, but I'd say it was a catastrophe waiting to happen.

[Matt]

Realistically, what are the chances of Airbuses being pulled out of service tomorrow? And would this decision only affect Air France?

I expect I already know the answers. It's a shame economics will take precedence over safety.

[liam]

everytime you fly/drive or get a bus, you are relying on mechanical structural integrity and the probability of failure due to human error, 3rd party or the vehicle itself. you will find most mechanical failures happen at the start of its lifetime AND its obvious end. (think "teething problems").

as for the statistical debate, the only variable you haven't looked at is time. i spend a lot more time in my car than a plane, this is why i am more likely to die in it

[Tom Dunlop]

TF

In the absence of indicated speed information, you are correct in assuming there is another way. In this situation pilots are trained to establish a specific engine thrust and pitch attitude, for a given weight and altitude. This will work nicely in relatively smooth air, but becomes more and more difficult as turbulence increases in intensity. I can tell you that turbulence has caused my aircraft to experience "stick shaker" (the pre stall warning system) and "clacker" (the overspeed warning system) in the course of a few seconds. This, accompanied by wild altitude diversions made control of our aircraft quite challenging, and all of our systems were working properly.

Hope that helps. TD

[martin]

Following up on other comments made, data that is used to support the conclusion that flying is safer than driving is put together for the most part by biased parties. Actually flying is not safer than walking, bus or car when compared per journey - see one of many articles eg: www.thelastinspector.com/27801.html

Another survey (see http://john-adams.co.uk) by Leonard Evans of General Motors Reseach Labs says "in the USA a 40-year-old, belted,alcohol-free driver in a large car is slightly less likely to be killed in 600 miles of
Interstate driving - the upper limit of the range over which driving is likely to be considered a realistic alternative to flying - than in a trip of the same distance on a scheduled airline. For a trip of 300 miles the air travel fatality risk is about double the risk of driving'.

He could have added that with four people in the car their combined risk would make flying 8 times more dangerous!

Can we stop repeating this out of date airline industry propoganda?

[Bev Adams]

The reason those pilots flew into the storm must have been psychological pressure - either a) commercial (cost to turn around/distance to circumvent/delay to schedule, too great) or b) personal (need to get home) or c)(relative) lack of experience/some kind of bravado. What other reason could thee have been? Perhaps resting snr pilot didn't know what they were flying into/would have turned back. Juniors decided to go on. Problems so sudden/violent/combined with techical failure that none of them could rectify. Sadly any repercussions on AF bottom line (deserved) are likely to increase such pressures. Could there not be a correlation between an airline's ability to rectify safety/technical issues in timely fashion/its safety record and the number of routes it's allowed to fly/slots it's allocated?

[Dominique II]

Any activity carries risks (and so does inactivity according to cardiologists). Demanding zero risk is silly. I have no problem boarding a plane or a coach. But when the risks stem from human decisions, whether from incompetence or greed, decision makers have to be firmly taught that in addition to the bottom line, they have to respond to superior authorities.

What we need to know is by whom, why and how certain decisions were taken or not taken. The technical issues should be only a way of reaching that truth.

[Arthur R. Anderson]

I have a lot of flying experience in bad weather and therefore point out the following: When the aircraft had instrument problems the pilots should not have attempted the landing that killed them and their passengers. Should have tried diverting to another airport with better visibility and an easier approach, especially at night. Approaching in a low turn at night in stormy weather on instrument conditions with bad data in a clunker A310 means bad piloting resulting in wasted lives. Ridiculous and preventable all around.
Seasoned pilots know this. Besides this fix the problems with airbus systems and ground these crews! Hire some skilled pilots and maintenance people. There are thousands of them around with good military or private training and save some lives.

[Tim Melland]

Saying the AF flight is the first is ridiculous. There is little difference between any Airbus aircraft. Especially the tail and electronics. Airbus has used the same design/parts/configurations from one plane to the next if one type is flawed they probably all are! Look at the cycle hours versus incidents on the 330/340 against that of the 777; it will scare you!
We know there is a fatal flaw in that tail; the NTSB said so(AA crash), but because it would be too expensive to fix the mandate hasn't happened. How many more scarebusses falling from the sky do we need before people realize Europeans should stick to cars and let the US build planes? Just wait til that sacare80 drops out of the sky; 500+ dead from one flight will not be tolerated and it will go from a current novelty aircraft to a musuem piece and collegiate learning lesson of how not to design a product and sell it. The 380 will go down in history as the worst investment in a product in history; the A400M will be the second worst. We will probably never see the 350 due to the fact again it is just a 330 with a bunch of carbon parts flying under another name.
If it ain't a Boeing; I ain't going!

[Richard]

The question to me is not whether flying is safer than cars or horses or bathtubs but rather how does Airbus compare with Boeing, Embrair etc. Does seem like Airbus has more than its share of fatal accidents.

[Daniel Strohl]

"It is assumed that the two junior pilots were at the controls. Captain Marc Dubois, 58, would have been resting" (CHARLES).

Charles, is there any objective information available to back up this assumption? For me, it seems strange that the captain of the plane, knowing that the "pot au noir" (doldrums?) would have to be crossed, with it's possibly violent and potentially dangerous thunderstorms (lightning strokes able to damage at least partially board electronics), would have chosen this period of time to rest.

In the merchant navy, 50 years ago, I remember that ship captains were on the bridge as soon as and as long as there was a known danger (fog, congested sea ways like the British Channel...).

As an example: in case of fog, in addition to the captain and the deck officer on duty making optical and radar watch, there was a helmsman instead of the auto-pilot (gyro-compass) on the bridge, and a sailor on each aisle to make visual watch too. I have difficulties to imagine a captain sleeping in his cabin while his ship and the crew members and passengers could be in danger...

[Yes, Daniel perhaps I shouldn't make such assumptions. But the AF pilot I spoke to said that he supposed the captain would have been resting at that stage of the flight. The fact that his body was found has slightly strengthened the idea that he was back in the cabin and not strapped in tight like the pilots. CB]

[steve]

@Tim Melland
Perhaps you'd like to explain all the Boeing crashes over the years....including the two fatal crashes (one of which was a Boeing 757) caused by faulty pitot tubes. You've conveniently forgotten to mention the still unresolved 737 crashes in the USA in which the tailplane was implicated and of course there's the icing in the 777 fuel pumps which caused the recent crash at Heathrow.

[cheyenne]

The problem of comparing accidents per mile driven for "motor vehicles", is that the term: "motor vehicles" includes motorcycles - and motorcycles are essentially suicide machines, or organ donor machines.
Up to 25% of all "motor vehicle" deaths, are from motorcycles, which is way out of proportion to cars on the road.

Including motorcycle deaths is akin to including WW2 bomber combat missions into the flying safety numbers.

A non-alcoholic driver in a large car on the expressway and who is paying attention to his driving, is many times more safer than a plane passenger.

[dot king]

CHARLES how "junior" is junior? Surely all flight personnel are highly trained, skilled and with a lot of flying hours behind them?
Using the word "junior" makes it sound as if the commandant went off for a snooze leaving a couple of boy scouts to fly the plane.
Which I'm sure isn't the case - also many posters are amalgamating these two air disasters into one despite your third paragraph's stating quite clearly:

"The Yemenia Airbus that came down yesterday off the Comoros islands, killing 152 aboard, had nothing to do with the problems that ended Flight 447. The plane was a relatively old (19 years) A310 that was in poor condition and which had been banned from French air space in 2007."

Since 2007 that plane has carried on flying between the Yemen and the Comores - that much we know - and whichever other "local" routes, but has never re-entered French air space, so a follow-up control hasn't been possible.
Yemenia is one of those small airlines that you take your chances on when you want to go to a poor country with no funding for proper airports, controls, equipment, trained personnel - you know, the sort of place that looks adventurous and romantic, an eco-tourism kind of destination - until you have to get there by one of these small underfunded, seat-of-pants type airlines.
Unfortunately, for the Franco-comorean passengers, it's their only way of getting home - or was.

[Yes of course the first and second officers are completely qualified and experienced airline pilots, just not as experienced as the captain. That's what I meant by junior. The two copilots were both in their 30s with a total of 9,000 flying hours between them. The captain was 58 with 11,000 hours. CB]

[Daniel Strohl]

"Europeans should stick to cars and let the US build planes?" (TIM MELLAND)

Tim, if I extrapolate your delicately balanced reasoning, Europeans should stick to cars - and take over the finances as well, if one judges from the somewhat
poor :) American finance management and design the entire world was submitted to not so long ago - and which still lasts even if a few (rather conspicuous) "bugs" have already been duly corrected :).

More seriously: you should have a look at the following article (unfortunately in French), titled
"The most deadly aerial catastrophes since 2003".

You may find there that Boeing is not at all under-represented in this list ("Le Point" is a serious weekly, not a propaganda outlet of Airbus or any other plane manufacturer).

http://www.lepoint.fr/actualites-societe/2009-06-30/chronologie-les-catastrophes-aeriennes-les-plus-meurtrieres-depuis-2003/920/0/357024

[Daniel Strohl]

CB,

Thanks for the info. Seems to be a good precaution for the acting pilots to be strapped in tight.

[geoff_s]

This old plane has been banned from all French airspace since 2007. Yet a Yemeni spokesman on yesterday's tv seemed to say that the plane was OK as it had recently flown 4 times into Heathrow. It's frightening to think of the extra deaths if it this plane crashed into central London several miles off Heathrow's main runway and not into empty Ocean. Is French airspace better protected than UK's?

[It's right that the Yemeni plane did continue to fly to Heathrow and was there quite recently. France may have somewhat stricter standards than the UK and spring more ramp inspections -- unscheduled checks -- on visiting aircraft. CB]

[Joe Noory]

What's 2009 minus 19?
[If you're alluding to the fly-by-wire second generation Airbuses of the 80s... the A310 has mechanically linked controls. It continued to be built at the same time as the new generation which began with the 320 and its all-electronic system. They are fundamentally different aircraft. It's a bit like the way you could still buy cassette tape albums in the 80s at the same time as CDs. CB]

[Grouchy]

@Tim Melland: Excuse-me, but you are talking nonsense.

"There is little difference between any Airbus aircraft. Especially the tail and electronics."

I don't know about the tail, but here's about the electronics:
* The A330 is a fly-by-wire aircraft and the A310 is not.
* The computer designs of the A330 and A340 are very similar, but are different from the A310, A320 and A380.

All this is available from public sources (e.g. Spitzer's _Handbook of avionics_).

[Ian Munro]

Statistics...how true.until you or a family member become a human reflection of a low rated % ...I've been there ...in the less-than-10% of chances wilt happen to you.. stats are tough

[Kenneth B. Smith, P.E.]

Editor. Flying in wartime, we were abe to take more dangerous chances, without outside evaluation of the risks. Dangerous weather was considered as a secondary consideration to the task required.
So I must conclude that flying is hugely a more dangerous means of transportation than the other means available, ie. walking, sailing, or ground transport by auto, train,
subway or other means. There is no way to eliminate the obvious fact that staying home is the safest conduct, followed by driving autos, taking trains or busses, or flying, or taking the risks of vegetating under option one. Fly,when necessary, but accept the risks and say your prayers.

[JAMES]

Re:AF Saying the pilot tubes and related gear are the issue is a red herring. Look to the composite tail, hinges and rudder. It came off. Period. More will happen in the future. More will die.
By the way, I am a career airline Captain and would not bid to fly an airbus if that was the last thing on the line. I would go into retirement.

[Ace]

The problem for the pitot tubes, that have been replaced(or in the process of) in recent years on all airbus aircraft had a water drainage problem during the TAKE-OFF/LANDING phase of flight NOT cruise, as AF447 was in. One of the incidents that the NTSB is reviewing is TAM airlines. They already CHANGED their pitot tubes prior to this incident being looked at. They are just a cheap and easy scapegoat to the real problem.

[kezzer]

Isnt there a world standard set for aircraft/pilots/training/maintenance...etc...? I cant believe this is happening in these modern times.Some rules need to be put in place and inspectors employed to check on standards.Millions have been found for terrorist protection...what good is that if countries are flying outdated wrecks...?

[Mike]

If you look at the boeing crashes they are often due to pilot error. And when a Boeing does go down due to a flaw in the plane, like the BA 777, or the 737 at AMS last year, Boeing will quickly respond to the issue and corrects the problem in very short order, and they mandate that the problem is fixed, they just don't reccomend it.

I cannot speak to every thing, but Airbus has a very real history of the entire fleet having problems. It has to do with the design premise, Airbus planes have the weight of the aircraft centered further back towards the aft. Couple that with the way the planes are flown, with an emphasis on using the tail, and the tails break off under stress. Look at the AF tail, it looks like it sheared right off the plane. I'm really surprised there has not been more of an uproar. Call your airline, if they use a mixed fleet, and ask them to not fly on Airbuses, they won't be surprised because so many people have already made the request due to safty concerns.

[Malski in Jakarta]

Stephane, Qantas Bangkok, aircraft went off the end of the runway after p*poor landing. but your right about the analogy to fuel, but not amount on board, rather the cost of aborting the landing and going around. so the co-pilot landing was messed up and captain took over and tried to land without enough runway. btw Qantas repaired the aircraft at higher cost than buying new to maintain their record of never losing an aircraft. there were no fatalities in Bkk crash.

[Jan]

@ Tim, the Boeing PR. You'd be more convincing if we heard you every time a Boeing 737 crashes...

Here's the list of crash cited by Daniel from Le Point

2009 June 30: Airbus A310, 152 dead
2009 June 1: Airbus A330, 228 dead
2008 August 24: Boeing 737, 68 dead
2008 August 20: MD 82, 154 dead
2007 May 5: Boeing 737, 114 dead
2006 September 29: Boeing 737, 155 dead
2006 August 22: Tupolev 154, 170 dead
2006 July 9: Airbus A310, 124 dead
2006 May 3: Airbus A320, 113 dead
2005 December 10: DC9, 107 dead
2005 December 6: Hercules C130, 108 dead
2005 October 22: Boeing 737, 117 dead
2005 September 5: Boeing 737, 150 dead
2005 August 16: MD-80, 160 dead
2005 August 14: Boeing 737, 121 dead
2005 February 3: Boeing 737, 104 dead
2004 January 3: Boeing 737, 148 dead
2003 December 25: Boeing 727, 139 dead
2003 July 8: Boeing 737, 115 dead
2003 May 8: Illyushin 76, 200 dead
2003 March 6: Boeing 737, 102 dead
2003 February 19: Illyushin76, 302 dead

The deadliest single plane crash ever: Japan Airlines Boeing 747 on August 12 1985, 520 dead.

[Jack]

I don't think Airbus builds a structurally sound aircraft. Earlier posts have referenced the AA A300 crash in 2001 (New York). Tail snaps off due to excessive pilot rudder input? The A300 should have been grounded immedietely. The composite materials, while lightweight, are not holding up longterm. BTW, since when is a 19 year old jet deemed too old to fly? The AF jet came apart in the air--horrible way to die. All the fancy "fly by wire" doesn't make a bit of difference if the airframe won't hold up.

[James Read]

For Tim Melland who wrote:

"We know there is a fatal flaw in that tail; the NTSB said so(AA crash), but because it would be too expensive to fix the mandate hasn't happened."

The following extract is taken from the final NTSB report Findings paragraph 6:

"Flight 587’s vertical stabilizer performed in a manner that was consistent with its
design and certification. The vertical stabilizer fractured from the fuselage in
overstress, starting with the right rear lug while the vertical stabilizer was exposed to
aerodynamic loads that were about twice the certified limit load design envelope and
were more than the certified ultimate load design envelope."

I'm appalled that ignorant, scare-mongering comments like this are allowed to be posted unchecked. Kindly remove his previous post. Opinions like that are better suited to the Sunday Sport.

Source:
http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/AAR0404.pdf

[James Read]

Just for the record:

Boeing
Total number of accidents 811
Total of number fatalities 19'025

Airbus
Total number of accidents 52
Total number of fatalities 3'146

Tim Melland wrote.....

"Europeans should stick to cars and let the US build planes...."

Hmmm.

Time also wrote.....

"Look at the cycle hours versus incidents on the 330/340 against that of the 777; it will scare you!"

"Airbus A340
Total number of accidents 3
Total number of fatalities 0

Airbus A330
Total number of accidents 2
Total number of fatalities 235
Worst accident 01JUN2009 with 228 fatalities (Air France)

Boeing 777
Total of accidents 1 (British Airways)
Total of fatalities 0 (Extremely lucky thank God)

Before June 1st, I don't see any scary figures here.

(Source: Aircraft Crahes Record Office - Geneva)
http://www.baaa-acro.com/Statistics.html

In conclusion. Airbus and Boeing both build incredibly safe, modern airliners. In fact, one could argue that Airbus, in terms of handling which is what most of this thread is about, is actually designed with better safety features with it's advanced flight control laws that simply won't allow our Human pilots to put the aircraft in danger using the flight control stick....unlike the Boeing.

[Lex Stevens]

Fly,when necessary, but accept the risks and say your prayers." -- KBS

When Kalpana Chawla died in the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, her brother said: "When one undertakes such endeavors, these things happen. This time it happens to us."

I've always admired the humility and acceptance in that statement.

I would like to hear more about the weather and its involvement in AF447. Early in the first post about this crash, someone had commented that tropical storms can grow and climb very quickly. Is it possible that the pilots didn't know that they were flying into a storm? Could it have literally come up under them suddenly?

Also, what is this talk about alarms and warning systems? Does this mean that when the pilots are trying to save the aircraft, various sirens are sounding and lights are flashing, as well as sticks shaking and whatnot? Sounds like trying to drive a car full of unruly children. Wouldn't that be a little distracting? If the senior pilot is asleep, do the alarms sound in his quarters as well?

"with a total of 9,000 flying hours between them"

Does that mean two 4500s, or a 2500 and a 6500? Do two 4500s equal one 9000? Would it be better to have a 4500 and a 7500, as well as a 10,000 on such a big plane flying through an area with long known weather issues?

So many questions....

[tim]

I've always avoided Airbus planes.
Kind of a "me too" industry. Not indigenous or home-grown like the American industry. I won't fly on an Airbus, that started in the eighties.

[Dave]

Interesting comments re the "planes 32 times safer than cars per passenger mile" - hmmm seen as planes on the average go 20 times faster than cars and carry maybe 75 times the passengers, I'd say that per passenger hour planes are much more dangerous than cars - possibly explains why we feel more at risk per hour in a plane -'cause we are!

[Janos BARTOK]

Sir,

We have learned a few more things thanks to your article but new questions arise.

If I am right the accident occurred rather at the first leg of the flight when bad meteo reports should have been available. Why was the capitaine "resting" and the two "juniors" struggling with the plane?

Airbus had at least another "freak" accident long years' before at a sort of demonstration flight in France when the plane smashed into a wooded area. It became a court case that lasted more than ten years and I seem to remember that the state owned Airbus company desperately tried to shift the blame on the pilot even if it seemes the plane was at fault.

Were the problems experienced (however denied) at that occasion taken properly into account?

A subjective argument about casualty statistics : they are totally meaningless to the victims and kins.

And a frivolous remark : it is "it's unlikely that we ever will" and not "it's unlikely that we will ever will".

[Thank you Janos. We'll know more today about the crash when the investigators report. It's only an assumption that the captain was not on deck. Apparently they were not expecting exceptionally bad weather. And yes, the Airbus problem may go all the way back to the A320 French air show crash in the 1980s. CB]

Best regards.

[Rob]

I posted on another article that my Airbus flight from New Orleans was canceled because ALL of the electronics went (announced over the lout speaker by the U.S. airline) out and the techs couldn't figure out why after over 1/2 hour. The post is now pretty much gone. ???. The plane was dead on the runway at N.O. International. Had to book with another airline to get my destination.

[dot king]

Concerning Yemenia - on the Press Review on Inter this morning, an article from Ouest France was quoted in which an air hostess who resigned from Yemenia airlines earlier this year said that all air staff were scared stiff when they flew in that plane, that they complained generally and specifically about problems before and after each flight, but nothing other than a superficial inspection ever happened and the plane carried on flying.
She is also quoted as saying that Yemenia does have well-maintained and clean aircraft in its fleet, but they fly exclusively to rich countries.
Yemenia serves Saudi Arabia amongst others, as well as the Comores.
Many Franco-comoreans have been interviewed whose only connection to the Comores was that route via Yemenia - as passengers they were aware of flying in "avions poubelle".

I will try and find the article in question, but might have difficulties as I'm not an "abonnée" - failing that I could link the France Inter press review 8.30am.

This isn't an "Airbus v Boeing" issue.

[Scotian]

I'm getting confused on the Boeing vs Airbus issue... I clearly remember reading in the US press after the Hudson "miracle" that, were the plane an equivalent Boeing instead of an Airbus, it would have been more likely to break when hitting the water, or to sink. But still, it's said here in the comments that its design was flawed...

[rocket]

"That point is being hammered by the French media today. But it seems likely that the state of the plane had little to do with the crash,..."

Yes. it's quite interesting to see how l'esprit du corps' kicked in among the French government and the press only hours after the crash. I often wonder if the French media doesn't receive it's marching orders from the government through, in this case, possibly an SMS stating " please put the blame on _______."

We saw it in action after AF447 and we see it again in this case as in many others. "Avion poubelle" came out hard and heavy in the mass media with a plethora of emotional tear jerking "gueularde temoignages à l'appui" Totally predictable. Why not wait until there are more elements available for inspection before making "les grandes déclarations" Or is this just another example of since it has to do with France, it can't be our (their) fault.

Only France 24 in english did a short interview with a person who stated that the company Yemania was IATA certified and it was much to early to come to any conclusions. Besides that aircraft was allowed landing rights in London and not in Paris.

Well I can buy melatonin in London and not in France. So because one country is "exceptionally" suspicious doesn't make it the ultimate holder of the truth.

[hackett]

traditional french bashing ! coming out from UK , a country with no industry
left except the financial crooks from the city
ridiculous and shameful !
THE FRECH FROG , paris

[Err... I think you might be on the wrong string. Airbus is not a French company. It's European. The Airbus wings and other parts are made in England -- which is a fairly industrial activity. CB]

[Bob]

What keeps getting missed here by most is the fact that Airbus pilots have no, repeat NO, direct control over the aircraft.

There are no cable, hydraulics, nothing that the pilots actually move themselves. It's all done fly by wire or computer.

Give any computer savvy person an hour and they can fly one as a computer controls everything.
A "world of warcraft" veteran is closer to being a pilot for an Airbus than someone who's been flying a 747 for 20 years.

I've avoided any flight that uses an Airbus for years now and will continue while others wait to be a victim.

Bob

[Andy P]

I hate that oft trotted out measure of safety comparing air travel to other forms of transport. It's ridiculous to compare on the basis of passenger miles. when compared against the far more reliable no. of journeys taken it is 2nd only to travelling by motorbike in terms of danger. air travel is not a safe form of transport and i fear it is only going to get worse as airlines are now losing money and lower budgets mean cutting costs.

[Andy P]

When the airline industry gives figures about its safety record, it quotes statistics showing that there are about 0.03 fatalities per 100 million kilometres flown, compared with 0.10 fatalities per 100 million kilometres for rail travel and 0.175 per million kilometres for cars. In other words, they are saying that air travel is about 3 times safer than rail travel and 5 times safer than car travel per 100 million kilometres of distance travelled.

But these statistics are highly skewed. Typically, planes travel huge distances but 70% of aircraft accidents take place on take-off and landing, manoeuvres which represent only 4% of journey time and are therefore relatively much more dangerous.

A much more realistic figure is the rate of fatalities per number of journeys made. By this measure, air travel takes on a very different complexion. Fatalities per 100 million passenger journeys are (on average) 4.5 for cars, 2.7 for trains, and 55.0 for planes! This means you are 12 times more likely to die on a commercial jet compared to a car, and 20 times more likely to die on a commercial jet compared to a train.

[John beshoff]

The answer to the AF447 riddle is to be found to the tail/rudder.remember this particular aircraft had a rudder defect some days prior.

[John O'D]

I read yesterday that Comoreans going home from France for summer holidays pay €1500 return on Yemenia or €2500 on Air France. For years now they have known that the lower fare involves a much greater risk.

[Frans Jansen]

On June 4th, I was on a scheduled flight from Amsterdam to Verona. The ticket was booked with Transavia, but the flight was carried out by KLM. A day later, I was scheduled to fly back with Transavia. The plane had 7.5 hours delay. During the flight I asked one of the crew members for the reason of the delay. I was told that the Dutch authorities had decided to carry out an inspection on all planes that had been at Schiphol Airport one particular night during the last week of May when the airport was hit by a severe thunderstorm with sizeable hail stones. Apparently, 50% of Transavia's planes had to undergo such an inspection, hence the reason for my delay. However, I was also told that the Air France plane that crashed over the Atlantic a few days later, had also been stationed at Schiphol Airport during that particular night. Makes you wonder... And what about inspecting all the other non Dutch aircraft that were parked at Schiphol that night...

[eve]

French electronics? That sounds like an oxymoron.

No more Airbus for me.

[Daniel Strohl]

JAN,

Thanks for having completed "Le Point"s list. At the first glance, it should ruin a few somewhat :) oriented arguments.

TIM,

"I won't fly on an Airbus, that started in the eighties"

I sport a similar reasoning. I won't eat in a Mac Do, not because of some stupid anti-Americanism (which I don't profess), but because their meals are fatter than a sandwich I usually eat when in a hurry. My overweight of 6 to 8 kilos would probably be between 15 to 20 kgs if I were a Mac Do regular :). This could be dangerous for health!

PS:

1 oz = 0.02835 kg
10 kg = 352.72 oz (if my electronic converter works well - one never knows with electronics :).

[Joe W]

When my auto mechanic advises that I repair something even when it's 1/millionth as dangerous as those awful simpleminded Pitot tubes, I will come up with the money to get it fixed.
Why airlines are able to postpone obviously needed changes for decades is felonious criminality – in my opinion.

[James Read]

"I've always avoided Airbus planes.
Kind of a "me too" industry. Not indigenous or home-grown like the American industry. I won't fly on an Airbus, that started in the eighties"

Tim. You're either an American or a Boeing pilot. Am I wrong? What do you have against International Consortiums? It's completely illogical to bias your travelling preferences in Boeing's favour when Airbus - since the 80's (as you put it)- has clearly proven it's worth as a manufacturer of ultra-safe aircraft. Airbus now outsells Boeing aircraft. Give me one Airbus accident in the last 20 years whereby the sole causal factor was down to the aircraft design. You can't honestly tell the forum that every time you step onto a Boeing 777 you don't think about the possibility of it (Dual engine failure) happening again. What measures have been taken by British Airways to ensure it doesnt happen again? Increasing thrust before descending...flying lower? Stabs in the dark wouldn't you say? And how many lives were endangered whilst authorities allowed 737's to fly whilst the NTSB was fruitlessly grappling with the rudder hard-over accidents. Exactly what do you base your anti-Airbus attitude on?

[Anne]

Condoleances to all the families & friends of these people. It's both tragic accidents which are luckily rare.

But I somewhat question the percentage you are giving, because unlike a plane, you'd have to take into account that more people walk & drive than they are likely to fly (on their own or not). The day everyone is the owner of a flying object as a mode of transportation on the scale of car ownership today, there's going to be many more accidents.

I agree that compared to the number of planes in the air, there are very few accidents. That's something we should be happy about.

There's always a risk when you travel anyway. Not just by airplane. I find it silly all these people saying how they'd never fly again and all that...because it's only a question of destiny in the end. Everyone dies one way or another.

I hope that they do find the cause of these accidents, because it will help making aviation safer.

Fly safe Charles :)

[Tom Dunlop]

Lex..

In answer to your question about storms, and whether they have the ability to "come up under them suddenly", the short answer is yes, but there is more. Thunderstorms can grow quite rapidly; several thousand feet per minute is not uncommon and 5-6000 fpm is not unheard of. When an aircraft is flying in an area of convective activity the flight crew would be utilizing their weather RADAR to, not only determine the best route around the strongest storms (cells), but at what height the cells currently are. One can commit to a route after dutifully examining the best options, only to find themselves in a pickle when they arrive, because the cell has grown more rapidly than first determined. It takes a fair amount of practice to get it right. With that said, normally one would not choose to fly over a cell, unless they were sure to clear the top by several thousand feet, or all other options were exhausted.

The stick shaker and the overspeed clacker mentioned in my earlier post, although noisy, are very much a welcome friend to the pilot. It's very helpful to to have audible and tactile references to the various flight envelopes, to more rapidly determine a corrective action.

Regards,

TD

.

[Dave]

Both airbuses and boeings have long, distinguished flying records. It always has been - and always will be - more about the quality of maintenance by the airline than the build of the aircraft with these two manufacturers.

PS. The BA 777 did not go down because of any flaw in Boeing's design. It was actually a flawed Rolls Royce engine - non RR engined planes are not subject to this failure. So, take it up with your local RR agent...

[Francois D]

Landing at Moroni

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCG3tjxPRTQ

[Dominique II]

Funny how some posters (like EVE but she's not alone by far) are pontificating that France (and/or Europe) is a newcomer to electronics, airplane building et cetera.

The good ole US of A is more and more like the USSR of yore, where everything had been invented by Academician Popov.

Brainwashing will do that to people, of course.

[richard jones]

TO M. le Baron de Marais et Hackett,

I know Airbus is European, UK makes the wings, a distant Cypriot relative of mine makes the seats in Germany, but on the other hand, to be fair, other European countries have backed out of the venture largely because of the dirigiste management (ex-politicos) put in place by the major shareholder - France etc., etc.. But, on this basis, France more and more portrays Airbus as being of France alone, thus M. Hackett should not be blamed for his subscriptive view.

[dot king]

I haven't noticed it mentioned anywhere, that the inspectors who inspect the planes on the ground are neither Airbus, nor even the airline company in question (whichever accident we are discussing, including all, past and present) but these are carried out by private specialist companies who have usually only the time to inspect the plane during the precise time of its stopover. These companies claim they never have the time to do a thorough check.

Time is money, ladies and gentlemen, time is money.

Concerning the comparison between air and road safety, it's true that you are more likely to survive even a bad car smash than any kind of plane crash, but survival often means a considerable change in life quality - unless you come out with minor or lesser injuries, you are quite likely to have to deal with severe physical disability and whatever psychological sequences you're left with.

[JOHN CHAMBERS]

I fly weekly and I am frightened of the all 300 series. I believe the pilots cannot handle them when things go wrong and also that overstressing the tail, whatever the reason it can snap off.
Now that is what I believe, being told I am talking rubbish does not make me stop believing it.
I will not fly on an Airbus unless no other choice.