Airbus 380's have cracks in the wings. Dont worry about it though.

[NikolaeVarius]

It was at least partly an aircraft design issue. The lack of tactile crossfeed between the sticks prevented the first officer from realizing that the second officer was holding pitch up until it was too late for the aircraft to recover from the stall.

No. That was a design decision they made that preserved the side stick configuration but maximized the independent control that each pilot could have and be easily usable in a crisis situations.

It was 100% pilot error that ignored the warnings that both sticks were being used and holing back on the stick even though you know that the other pilot is attempting to maneuver

 

[CallMeJoe]

No. That was a design decision they made that preserved the side stick configuration but maximized the independent control that each pilot could have and be easily usable in a crisis situations.
It was 100% pilot error that ignored the warnings that both sticks were being used and holing back on the stick even though you know that the other pilot is attempting to maneuver

I agree completely that the second officer screwed the pooch, but Airbus' design decision to force the first officer to take his eyes off the instruments in a crisis to have any idea what the second officer was doing with his stick is at least a questionable call.
As much as an Airbus costs, they couldn't add a simple servo system to let each flight officer feel what the other was doing with the controls?

 

[Number1]

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Major cracks are a grounding issue, and an aircraft that develops any significant cracks on its first flight is destined for a very early retirement.

You call a 1 cm crack a significant issue!!! And where did you get the idea this happen on the first flight?

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Air France flight 447 was not aircraft, but pilots fault:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tec...really-happened-aboard-air-france-447-6611877

that site you linked linked to the site I posted and got the quote from lol
Instruments that froze over and the captain took a nap

 

[ThatsABigOne]

Airbus? More like LOLBus. I would never fly on one of those pieces of shit.

You are like the prophet. :$

 

[CallMeJoe]

You call a 1 cm crack a significant issue!!! And where did you get the idea this happen on the first flight?

Since we've lost nested quotes you have to make at least a minimal effort to follow a series of replies:

Isn't it common knowledge that all airplanes develop major cracks? Even after the first flight, it's pretty standard.

They never develop major cracks period. That would certainly never happen after the first flight.
Some smaller cracks are allowed based on their severity and where they are, but never a major crack and on top of that never after the first flight.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Major cracks are a grounding issue, and an aircraft that develops any significant cracks on its first flight is destined for a very early retirement.

 

[EagleKeeper]

i am really surprised that DIA does not have the A380 coming in. I see Lufthansa and British Airways fly in with their 747's. I live about 20 miles straight north of DIA and get to see all the planes come in on their final approach. Both airlines offer non stop flights to London and Frankfurt from Denver. also Icelandic air now offers non stop flights from Denver to Iceland but they dont fly jumbo jets.

It is not the ability of the runways to handle the monster, but the facilities.

A380 requires twice the terminal tarmac and boarding facilities.
Also the trailing turbulence (estimate as 1.5x a 747) along with the wing span (potentially closing a taxiway on each side when landing or on taxi) are issues.

When the A380 was being discussed, Las Vegas figured that each arrival would affect/delay 2 departures and an additional arrival (trailer) as well as require 2-3 gates. A departure could affect 3 other departures.

I expect that similar studies have been done for other airports. Some had the facilities such that it would not be a problem; others felt that the benefit of an A380 would not offset the additional costs required.

 

[ichy]

MD-11 Bad safety record? Operated by Zamundia Airlines, perhaps....

Three crashed MD-11s have been operated by FedEx, one by Lufthansa Cargo and another by Korean Airlines.

I wouldn't call the MD-11 "unsafe," but it does have a less impressive record than other modern airliners. 200 MD-11s were delivered and 8 of them have been lost. In contrast there are nearly 1,000 777s in service and only two of those have been in hull-loss accidents.

Apparently it was somewhat challenging to land due to the location of its center of gravity which led to several incidents. On a fly-by wire plane that wouldn't be an issue, but the MD-11 was just a warmed over DC-10 and didn't get FBW controls.

Admittedly there was also some bad luck in its safety record. SR 111 was the worst MD-11 crash ever and that had nothing to do with the plane's design.

 

[darkewaffle]

Something tells me this is kind of like calling skyscrapers unsafe because they 'wobble', it'll sound much worse than it is.

 

[alent1234]

i am really surprised that DIA does not have the A380 coming in. I see Lufthansa and British Airways fly in with their 747's. I live about 20 miles straight north of DIA and get to see all the planes come in on their final approach. Both airlines offer non stop flights to London and Frankfurt from Denver. also Icelandic air now offers non stop flights from Denver to Iceland but they dont fly jumbo jets.

how many daily flights with the 747's? if they don't think they can get double the demand
then there is no point in buying the aircraft for that flight

 

[StrangerGuy]

The rarer the risks, the more dangerous it sounds to the irrational public.

If you are afraid of this killing you, then statistically speaking things like crossing roads and using stairs is going to be magnitudes more lethal in comparison.

 

[onlyCOpunk]

Saw this article the other day in the paper.

Qantas gets a lot of bad rap, lots of drama surrounding the company plus they've already had two incidents with A380's engines blowing up so they are under great scrutiny. The news here does an article everytime someone at qantas blows their nose and turns it into a negative thing.

Me personally I'll fly on the cheaper flight whichever the aircraft is, just wont fly qantas period.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Saw this article the other day in the paper.

Qantas gets a lot of bad rap, lots of drama surrounding the company plus they've already had two incidents with A380's engines blowing up so they are under great scrutiny. The news here does an article everytime someone at qantas blows their nose and turns it into a negative thing.

Me personally I'll fly on the cheaper flight whichever the aircraft is, just wont fly qantas period.

That bad rep thing is BS. Im not australian. But thats BS. Qantas is the only airliner in the world who never had a plane disaster. Disaster I mean plane go down people died. One of those incident inside the engine gave problems like I posted earlier. Not their fault. The engine blew but still landed safe. As long as there is another engine. But how manu planes go down due to engine failure? Not many. Instruments and communication? Alot.

Go back in the post I posted the article and the link to what happend. Maybe Qantas is under scrutiny for setting such high standards

 

[GoSharks]

Qantas is the only airliner in the world who never had a plane disaster. Disaster I mean plane go down people died.

That is false. I know that at least Southwest also has that kind of safety record.

 

[ichy]

Qantas is the only airliner in the world who never had a plane disaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas#Aircraft_incidents_and_accidents

It is often claimed, most notably in the 1988 movie Rain Man, that Qantas has never had an aircraft crash.[81] While it is true that the company has neither lost a jet airliner nor had any jet fatalities, it had eight fatal accidents and an aircraft shot down between 1927 and 1945, with the loss of 63 people.