264 replies to this topic

[Buziel-411_RED]

Independence76, on Jan 2 2009, 07:37 PM, said:

NWilkinson, on Jan 2 2009, 06:09 PM, said:

What floor?  Put it on the forums, because we don't see what's on your floor.  You've yet to prove anything.

Floor=everything learned in life. I would put it on the forums, but I don't want to waste my time on "impressing" the forum. I've been flamed enough to not even are about it.

Quote

AF296 primary cause is yet to be known.  Other factors is pilot error, computers restricting pilots control inputs, and an out of date operations handbook issued by Air France.

The plane was stock, brand new, and they didn't find the problem? That makes me question their organization of thei aircraft's systems. And if the plane was brand new, how could the handbook be out of date?

Quote

LH2904 primary cause was incorrect decision (pilot error) based on incorrect information about local weather.  Computer controlled auto-brakes were also part of the crash, but could have been prevented had the pilot chosen to go around after landing long on the runway.
http://aviation-safe...p?id=19930914-2

The computer controlled autobrakes should have been applied, but due to the systems, they didn't.

Quote

United 731?  A flight flown by Airbus 319, no accidents/incidents.  Buziel even did more than I did, UAL has yet to have an Airbus crash.

I was using it as an example of the Airbus systems.

Quote

Computer failures can happen; Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, Canadair, Diamond, Garmin, Avidyne...  this is why there are backups.  Flight crews are trained to fly with failed equipment, including a total computer/electrical failure.  The monitors failed, but the computers did not.  If the computers failed, the aircraft would not have been able to be controlled.

Airbuses only have a select few. The ram-air turbine seems to be the best backup in case of en electrical failure. And the monitors display the computers. And also, why did the transponders go off? They would still hear things if there wasn't a computer failure. And since flight controls can indeed be turned off (according to FSP), can't they fly with side sticks direct to hydralics?

Quote

AF358 Crashed due to pilot error.  

The A340 fire at Paris hasn't been concluded if it was a design flaw or maintenance error, since there has not been any recurrences from them or any other operator. (Flight Global)

So, I've said it I think 5 or 6 times; you're just pulling stuff out of your head in an attempt to make Boeing the best; but it won't work, because Boeing isn't the best.  Neither is Airbus.  I've said it, and many other people here have said it.  I've heard of selective listening, but you got a serious problem of selective reading.  I'm the only one who has called you names, like 'stupid debater' yet you blamed someone else for calling you that.  Not only that, but I've already asked you dozens of times to provide proof, but all you say is "it's on the floor."  

Step up, show your proof, or GTFO.

AF358 may have been pilot error, but 2 doors didn't open, some slides didn't deploy, so people had to jump. It showed that the A340 had a system that indeed could get everyone out alive, but was not working to standards Airbus promises.

And there is always a dominant maker, and some of it depends on perception. Some of it is hard evidence. In the end, one has to be better than the other. Is Posky not better than Abacus? No, because Posky planes look like the real thing, while Abacus planes do not.

And you are also not the mod here. Brad and Jon have the power to do that, not you.

EDIT: Buizel misspelled my name and is trying to make me look stupid. He obviously doesn't know what an intelligent debate is.

Actually, I'm right here, with my normal name.

You still have yet to reply to my previous post in this thread.

[Flightsimulatorpilot]

Independence76, on Jan 2 2009, 08:37 PM, said:

Quote

Computer failures can happen; Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, Canadair, Diamond, Garmin, Avidyne...  this is why there are backups.  Flight crews are trained to fly with failed equipment, including a total computer/electrical failure.  The monitors failed, but the computers did not.  If the computers failed, the aircraft would not have been able to be controlled.

Airbuses only have a select few. The ram-air turbine seems to be the best backup in case of en electrical failure. And the monitors display the computers. And also, why did the transponders go off? They would still hear things if there wasn't a computer failure. And since flight controls can indeed be turned off (according to FSP), can't they fly with side sticks direct to hydralics?

First bold part: Complete and utter nonsense.

Second bold part: No, because that's what FBW means.

FBW computers have nothing to do with transponders.

[-Toshiba-]

Conclusion: Airbus is safer Especially the A330/A340.

[Flightsimulatorpilot]

lockdog, on Jan 2 2009, 08:50 PM, said:

Conclusion: Airbus is safer Especially the A330/A340.

No it's not.

Fail.

[Buziel-411_RED]

lockdog, on Jan 2 2009, 07:50 PM, said:

Conclusion: Airbus is safer Especially the A330/A340.

Maybe that's the tradeoff between Airbus and Boeing.

Airbus = Safer

Boeing = Better Performance

Now let's all make up.

[-Toshiba-]

Okay, both traits cancel out = Great Aircrafts, deal?

[David_Lee_Roth]

lockdog, on Jan 2 2009, 10:05 PM, said:

Okay, both traits cancel out = Great Aircrafts, deal?

They both suck in both ways compared to the Wright Brothers's plane  

[_NW_]

Independence76 said:

No, the plane was holding for takeoff. They were ready to go when the pilot announced they needed to go back to the gate because of a computer problem.

Could have been an FMS problem; either way, the point was, unless you're in the cockpit, you can't isolate 100% the problem; plus, most pilots for airlines aren't mechanics, so what they think might be a computer problem could be a computer-related problem caused by bad input, or a bad updated software.  You don't know exactly what the problem is and the pilots don't know what caused the problem.

Independence76 said:

I bet it's that Fly-By-Wire system

I bet you don't know what the heck it was.

Here's the funny part..  now I'm proving to you that not only do you not have an understanding of what you're talking about, now you can't even remember what you yourself said.

Independence76 said:

I would know, because the Delta pilot I know flies the 772 a lot and never uses it.

(http://www.flightsim...dpost&p=2001895)

Independence76 said:

And you did not read my other posts. I said that the pilot I know who flies 772s normally does not like FBW.

Yes, I did read your other threads.  That's why I quoted you then.  That's why I quoted you now.  You can't even remember what you say.  Oh and BTW, because you CAN'T turn FBW off, you're so-called "pilot you know" is SOL, since he flys a FBW aircraft.  

Independence76 said:

Boeing uses simple systems that allow the pilots to do the work. Airbuses take a lot of the workload off of the pilots, then relying on computer systems most of the time. And of course, Boeing uses computers for the autopilot, fuel calculations, and radio transponders. Airbuses use computers for the same reasons, but has more features that a human could do with no problem.

Actually the computers and their systems are far from simple.  And that's for both Boeing, and Airbus.  If it was simple, a baby could do it.  It's not simple, that's why it's selected for commercial aircraft, and why flight crew have to be certified to fly that aircraft type.  If it was simple, then I could probably just jump right in and ctrl-e the engines.  It's also very interesting how you think it's simple if you're not a pilot, nor have ever piloted an airliner.  The more you practice it (through training) the more familiar it becomes (just like every other computer system), but the design of the system is far from simple.  And both Boeing computers and Airbus computers do the same thing, they all take the workload off the pilots by controlling the aircraft and it's systems throughout all stages of flights.

Independence76 said:

A320 that had its wing hit the runway(showing how difficult it is to land one in a thunderstorm with crosswinds).

Neither design flaw or pilot error.  You wouldn't know that though, since you've never pilot an aircraft.  If you think that that statement is accurate, then I refer you to all the 747 wingtip strikes at Kai Tak.  You try landing in a crosswind, I bet you wouldn't even make the runway.  Landing in a storm, especially a windy one, is down the pilots ability.  And unless you're a pilot and you have several years of practice and training for any given aircraft, you will experience some difficulty landing in less than favorable conditions.

Independence76 said:

they got the news video of JetBlue 292 (in which I saw on live TV

Now that's a legitimate one, and it's been a repeat occurrence as well, but the structure held and the aircraft did not catch on fire, showing how well built the aircraft is.  And Boeing has had it's share of gear up landings and nose gear collapses.

Referring to the 777 FBW again:

Independence76 said:

I said Boeing pilots never use it.

Actually that's not what you said, I've already quoted what you said above.  And Boeing pilots DO use it in the aircraft equipped with FBW because you can't turn it off.  Again, there are ZERO MECHANICAL LINKAGES BETWEEN THE FLIGHT CONTROLS AND THE CONTROL SURFACES.  Having a FBW fail means you have ZERO CONTROL OVER THE AIRPLANE.  Having the FBW disabled (if it was ever possible) means you have ZERO CONTROL OVER THE AIRPLANE.  What part of that don't you get?

Independence76 said:

1. Well FSP said it can be completely turned off.

What the heck is FSP? Flight Sim Painter?

Independence76 said:

2. Override means taking control of a system. If you take control of it, it is not operational.

No, it doesn't.

http://dictionary.re...browse/override

Override means "to modify or suspend the ordinary functioning of; alter the normal operation of," meaning, you altered the normal operation by going beyond the limitations of the normal operation parameters.  Taking control does not render a system inoperative, it means that you have the final authority to the system; that does not disable it.

..to be continued..

[_NW_]

..continued..

Independence76 said:

It's wrong by your standards, not mine. And if you're so curious, why don't you find them yourself?

Because you're the one trying to prove us wrong; we know you're wrong on your facts, but you insist your right.  Your statement rests my case, as you have still yet to provide anything other than "the evidence is on the floor."

About the DY 737NG fire, I'm not sure what you're getting at in your original post because you jump all over the place when you're making replies, so if you weren't hinting at the notion that the DY 737 fire was caused by an electrical wire then I'm sorry for misunderstanding you, but you need to stop jumping all over the place in a single paragraph.  This is what you said:

Quote

Also, DY has had a bad history of maintaining Boeings. They have lower standards than most airlines, and it shows. Both planes were built around the same time. The plane was old, and the electrical wires had a malfunction that was similar to DC's problems.

In the same paragraph, you went from talking about the DY 737 NG fire, to DY having bad maintenance practices, to "something" being an old plane (which the DY 737NG isn't) and then you mention electrical wires malfunctioned..  like I said, you're not being very clear.

Independence76 said:

Also, you seem to judge anyone who has an opinion of something and hasn't done the real thing.

Think to yourself about what you just said..  we went from your claimed facts to now your opinions.  And yes, if you offer your opinions on something that you haven't done, then I will judge you.  That's like saying, I don't like the way the Bugatti drives, when I've never driven one, let alone actually be in one or seen one other than the ones on Top Gear.  How you draw an opinion based on zero experience is beyond me.

Independence76 said:

And I'm trying to defend my opinion

Earlier you said it was defending facts; now it's your opinions?  So you've finally realized that what you've been saying all this time isn't factual, it's actually just your opinion?  You know, you could have saved 11 pages of posts on this thread just by saying that in the beginning instead of continuing on what you're saying is factual (which you just now said it is just your opinion.)

Independence76 said:

And I wanted to ask you, if you had the choice of a yoke or side stick, what would you choose to land a plane in a severe thunderstorm?

It doesn't matter, I've flown with both, sticks and yokes, however I won't fly in a severe thunderstorm; that's just plain stupid and it's a foolish decision.  In the thunderstorms I've flown in, I've flown with sticks on the sides (Cirrus SR20), sticks in the middle (Diamond DA40 - was actually a leading edge sand storm with 30 knot gusts), the only stick I haven't flown is one in the middle of the aircraft like the Velocity XL.  The difference is, I've never flown FBW, I have zero flight time on FBW, all of the aircraft I have piloted have direct control inputs via a cable or push-rod system with no computer assistance.

Independence76 said:

but if that computer suffers some kind of error, it won't do everything the pilot wants it to do.

That's why there are backups, and no governing aviation agency will certify an aircraft to fly without backups (as far as FBW is concerned.)  It takes an act of God to disable all the computers and all the backups.

Independence76 said:

The ram-air turbine seems to be the best backup in case of en electrical failure. And the monitors display the computers.

Having a computer failure that shuts off all the monitors and most of the radios doesn't constitute as a full electrical failure or a full computer failure.  Again, the A320 is FBW as you already know.  Having a complete, 100% computer failure, will render an aircraft uncontrollable, as a computer is needed to send information from the control column to the respective control surfaces.

Independence76 said:

It's not common for younger people to fly heavies.

Define young.  I know a lot of people in their late '20's and '30s flying 330's, 747's, 777's..   If those guys are still employed by their airlines, I can even tell you what airline they fly for.

Independence76 said:

And there is always a dominant maker, and some of it depends on perception. Some of it is hard evidence. In the end, one has to be better than the other. Is Posky not better than Abacus? No, because Posky planes look like the real thing, while Abacus planes do not.

No, there doesn't.  We'll make it simple.  AMD, Intel.  Neither are better, because some chips work better in setups that the other doesn't do to well in.  It comes down to business in the transaction and marketing.  An Airbus ACJ doesn't do as good as a BBJ because ACJ's require more ground equipment than the BBJ (BBJ has cargo bins accessable by ground level with no equipment, ACJ requires a loader or a tall set of stairs.  BBJ comes with internal L1 boarding stairs where the ACJ does not.)   The ACJ is can be purchased for cheaper than the BBJ.  In this case, in my opinion, the BBJ is better, but that doesn't make Boeing better.  In the terms of an average passenger, the A330 is more comfortable to travel in as it has wider isles, more shoulder room on the window seats, and has a quieter cabin than the 767.  The A330 can also be purchased brand new (where the 767 line is about to end)  Airbus wins.  The A321 matches the Boeing 757, and can still be purchased brand new.  757 line has been shut down for years.  Airbus wins.

Like I said, there is no superior aircraft manufacturing company; both have their pro's, and both have their con's.  Some companies are able to get certain aircraft to work in certain markets, while others can not.  This is a result of the market, not the equipment.

Independence76 said:

Is Posky not better than Abacus?

In terms of models, yes.  Systems, no.  Panels, no.  Gauges, no.  We don't make systems, we don't make panels, we don't make gauges.  Some people like the simplicity of POSKY's 767, some like the complexity of the Level-D 767.  It's personal preference.

[Flightsimulatorpilot]

NWilkinson, on Jan 2 2009, 10:00 PM, said:

Independence76 said:

1. Well FSP said it can be completely turned off.

What the heck is FSP? Flight Sim Painter?

Me. He didn't read my post entirely, and then made up the "fact" that the 772 pilot he knows doesn't like FBW and flies without it based on my comment.

NWilkinson, on Jan 2 2009, 10:00 PM, said:

Neither design flaw or pilot error.  You wouldn't know that though, since you've never pilot an aircraft.  If you think that that statement is accurate, then I refer you to all the 747 wingtip strikes at Kai Tak.  You try landing in a crosswind, I bet you wouldn't even make the runway.  Landing in a storm, especially a windy one, is down the pilots ability.  And unless you're a pilot and you have several years of practice and training for any given aircraft, you will experience some difficulty landing in less than favorable conditions.

Actually, the wing didn't hit the ground, IIRC. And it had nothing to do with the sidestick design as you said, he's just desperate now.

[_NW_]

Flightsimulatorpilot, on Jan 2 2009, 09:08 PM, said:

Actually, the wing didn't hit the ground, IIRC. And it had nothing to do with the sidestick design as you said, he's just desperate now.

Oh..  you = FSP   I wouldn't have guessed that  

And if I'm thinking of the same one you are (there's a video of it I think?) then I think it did hit the winglet bottom..  not 100% sure if it did or didn't..  but either way, your right, wouldn't have mattered if it was stick or yoke.

[Flightsimulatorpilot]

NWilkinson, on Jan 2 2009, 10:12 PM, said:

Flightsimulatorpilot, on Jan 2 2009, 09:08 PM, said:

Actually, the wing didn't hit the ground, IIRC. And it had nothing to do with the sidestick design as you said, he's just desperate now.

Oh..  you = FSP   I wouldn't have guessed that  

And if I'm thinking of the same one you are (there's a video of it I think?) then I think it did hit the winglet bottom..  not 100% sure if it did or didn't..  but either way, your right, wouldn't have mattered if it was stick or yoke.

Yeah, FSP is becoming common nowadays.

I think we're talking about the same incident, the one with the video (http://airlineworld....rong-crosswind/). I think you're right, it apparently did hit the runway. I thought I read somewhere that it was close, but no contact was made.

[Alaska_MD-83]

Listen to the real pilot guys, your mindless bickering is getting old.

[Buziel-411_RED]

Nevermind, I misread Alaska's post.

Edited by Buziel-411 (RED), 02 January 2009 - 10:44 PM.

[THBatMan8]

NWilkinson, on Jan 2 2009, 10:12 PM, said:

Flightsimulatorpilot, on Jan 2 2009, 09:08 PM, said:

Actually, the wing didn't hit the ground, IIRC. And it had nothing to do with the sidestick design as you said, he's just desperate now.

Oh..  you = FSP   I wouldn't have guessed that  

And if I'm thinking of the same one you are (there's a video of it I think?) then I think it did hit the winglet bottom..  not 100% sure if it did or didn't..  but either way, your right, wouldn't have mattered if it was stick or yoke.

No that pilot did the best he/she could. To me it looks like a strong gust hit the plane as the PIC straightened out for touchdown. You can't avoid something like that and blaming it on a stick instead of a yoke is nonsense. That incident was WX related and in my opinion that plane should have not even tried to land at that runway with those crosswinds (or not even leave the departure gate with reported weather that bad).

And last time I checked there was no way to turn off FBW on a Boeing or an Airbus or any other manufacturer (unless you turn off the hydraulic pumps). Normal operations would leave it on and your 777 pilot is probably breaking company SOP's and jeopardizing the safety of the aircraft (in other words, get your facts straight).

[Buziel-411_RED]

In a short PM to me, Indy said...

Quote

No, I'm just annoyed. The A vs. B topic is getting on my nerves. I keep trying to explain to them what I've learned and they want full proof.

He is saying all of these "facts" he pulls out of the air are assumptions/speculations made from knowledge he has gathered.

[THBatMan8]

Buziel-411 (RED), on Jan 2 2009, 10:59 PM, said:

In a short PM to me, Indy said...

Quote

No, I'm just annoyed. The A vs. B topic is getting on my nerves. I keep trying to explain to them what I've learned and they want full proof.

He is saying all of these "facts" he pulls out of the air are assumptions/speculations made from knowledge he has gathered.

Indy,

That is not my (and I assume everyone elses) issue. You simply cannot say A is better than B without providing "FACTS". It is nothing more than a opinion which I have no problem with. A simple I prefer A over B or B over A would not induce a 13pg debate. However you still can't really prefer any of the aircraft and that is simply because you NEVER flew one. Sure you may have ridden in one and you can say something like "as a passenger I like the airbuses more than boeings because they are quieter and provide more room". That is perfectly fine. But you cannot give an opinion from an operators or owners standpoint if you haven't been in their shoes, and even then it will still only be an opinion. Opinions are not facts and you cannot take something as a fact learned from one or two sources on the internet.

[Flying_Pie]

as far as airbus vs boeing topics go, this is epic...

[David_Lee_Roth]

Facts?

[tropicalfish]

Epic brain confusion.

Stop trying to imitate others with avatars, signatures, or names. It looks childish and annoying.