London – Two Airbus crashes last month — killing 380 people — have raised new questions about how the Euro-built jets are built, maintained and flown.
Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
A London law firm representing passengers in the June 1 Air France Flight 447 disaster over the South Atlantic has suggested that long-range Airbuses be grounded until the crashes are fully probed — but no such action has been taken.
Airbus’ older models have much higher crash rates than its newer, more computerized jets, according to data from Airbus’ main competitor, Boeing.
Model A310s, such as the one flown as Yemenia Flight 626 when it crashed June 30 off the Comoros Islands, had a crash rate of 1.89 per million commercial flights from their introduction in 1983 through December 2007, Boeing statistics show.
Boeing’s 737/300, 400 and 500 models, introduced around the same time, had a crash rate of 0.5 per million flights.
The highly computerized Airbus A330 has a far better record. From its introduction in 1994 until the Flight 447 catastrophe, its commercial crash rate was zero. The only previous fatal A330 crash was a 1994 test flight that isn’t counted in Boeing’s data.
Airbus’ double disaster last month is likely just bad luck, say experts.
“The only thing they have in common is that they are both Airbus products, and they both went into water,” said Bill Waldock, a professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University’s campus in Arizona.
Maintenance, dubious airline policies and bad weather seem to be the main issues in the crash of Yemenia’s 19-year-old A310 as it was about to land in the Comoros in stormy nighttime conditions.
French authorities considered the crashed plane so unsafe, it was banned from landing in their country in 2007.
Experts worry Airbus’ modern cockpit automation systems can lull pilots into a sense of complacency.
“Airplanes with these computers are flying without people. Their pilots are just system monitors,” said Justin Green, a pilot and lawyer with the Manhattan firm Kreindler & Kreindler.
Those airbuses should have been grounded immediately !!
Airbus was created with only evil intentions and through evil methods. The “company” was created by a consortium of European nations for the sole purpose of competing with Boeing in a effort to reduce American dominance in that field. The “company” is run by European governments, not by free market industry. It was funded by further taxing te already overtaxed EU citizens. Just as the evil Brithish lost their de Havelland brand after a series of deadly aircrashes, so too may the evil EU lose their Airbus brand; with no further loss of life.
Pilots always prefer Boeing, the saying is something like “boeing is going”.
It seems the Airbus engineers worked on minimizing weight and cost and did not allow for abnormal loads that should not happen. It was a Boeing 727 that once went supersonic in a storm. It landed safely and had no damage. I will bet that quality would have saved the lives of the Air France victims.
PS: I choose my flights based on planned equipment.
I don’t know the intentions but competition is part of the free market and that which buried GM. I do know that the airbus is the most computerized airplane on the market. Those who work with computers know that software has glitches and for this reason the pilot relies on a machine which is less in his control
Does anyone know what those lines are high high up in the sky following some planes?
Why is it only on some planes?
There is a defenite pattern with all the incidents of the Airbuses.
The tail is plastic and will fail in severe weather.
They all should be grounded, the tail parts inspected with ultrasonoic equibment, and replaced if potentially defective.