Flt 587-Airbus vs American Airlines

"Robey Price" wrote in message
...
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following:

The only think I ever heard was that hose early A-320s were noisey and
that
is true.

In a different vein...I've heard of the "airbus whine," which was used

A DC-9 like audable bandwidth starvation was what I was refering to.
(tailcone) The whine is just normal machine noise caused by the way AI
implements airplane systems.

by a Denver Center controller last month. In a strictly anecdotal
observation, A320/319 crews were complaining about the quality of
their "ride" more often than 737/757 folks, and airbus guys were
requesting frequent altitude changes.

The A-320 is a better ride to begin with, so the bumps are noticed. It is
my opinion that the last narrow body Boeing built for that Cadillac ride was
the 727. I like the idea that the 7E7 is being designed with the cabin in
mind.

Not to mention the airbus insults you upon touchdown, "Retard...
retard...retard..."

Not to mention how the French "demand" instead of request.

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following:

A DC-9 like audable bandwidth starvation was what I was refering to.
(tailcone) The whine is just normal machine noise caused by the way AI
implements airplane systems.

JT you got me there, I have no idea what audible bandwith starvation
is. I've been back in the tail cone of a DC-9/MD-80 with the APU
running...

The A-320 is a better ride to begin with, so the bumps are noticed.

Speaking as a 757 pilot, I can see no basis for your conclusion that
the ride is better on the A-320. With a shorter fuselage there is a
smaller distance from the CG to the nose or tail, so there's less
movement about the CG (thinking teeter-totter) when disturbed. In that
regard the ass end of a 757-300 is pretty darn uncomfortable in lumpy
air while up in the cockpit we think it's not so bad.

But like the DC-9/MD-80, the A319/320 has a lower service ceiling than
the 757, so both often do more deviating for TRWs.

The A319/320 has a wider aisle which Pax and FAs like, but it has
Drift Down issues that 757-200s don't have even with the less powerful
P&W motors vice the Rolls Royce option.

Go-arounds (rejected landings) are much more sporting in the A319/320
in terms of switchology vice the 757. The PNF (pilot not flying) is
just like a one-legged man in an asskicking contest. But as in all
things, pilots can screw the pooch regardless of airplane.

Juvat

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:51:28 GMT, Ron Parsons wrote:

The only reason that AAL has Airbus aircraft in the fleet is that it was
a requirment in order to gain landing rights in Europe.

Got a cite for this? Considering I can think of at least one airline
that is entirely European (RyanAir only flies 737s IIRC) that doesn't
fly *any* AI aircraft, this sounds like ******** .

Even the National carriers of France and the UK (especially France),
the primary forces behind AI, have dozens of Boeings - why would they
bother if there was some deep conspiracy?

FAA understands clearly that if they ground any of the busses, that the
EU states involved with Airbus will ground Boeings.

Don't talk rubbish. What would be the grounds?
---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

"Robey Price" wrote in message
...
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following:

A DC-9 like audable bandwidth starvation was what I was refering to.
(tailcone) The whine is just normal machine noise caused by the way AI
implements airplane systems.

JT you got me there, I have no idea what audible bandwith starvation
is. I've been back in the tail cone of a DC-9/MD-80 with the APU
running...

One of the main deficiencies of the corrected in the DC-9 in the -80 amended
type certificate was to fix the tail cone. AI had an undersampling problem
in the feedback control system of the A-320, but it was corrected some time
ago.

The A-320 is a better ride to begin with, so the bumps are noticed.
Speaking as a 757 pilot, I can see no basis for your conclusion that
the ride is better on the A-320. With a shorter fuselage there is a
smaller distance from the CG to the nose or tail, so there's less
movement about the CG (thinking teeter-totter) when disturbed. In that
regard the ass end of a 757-300 is pretty darn uncomfortable in lumpy
air while up in the cockpit we think it's not so bad.

There are pitch stability issues related to cabin comfort with either type,
but I find the A-320's wet tail to be the more pleasant solution. The 757
uses feedback compensation to get similar fuel savings, except the
newer -320 design is quiter and more comfortable, IMO.

But like the DC-9/MD-80, the A319/320 has a lower service ceiling than
the 757, so both often do more deviating for TRWs.

From a machine standpoint the 757 is probably the superior bird.

The A319/320 has a wider aisle which Pax and FAs like, but it has
Drift Down issues that 757-200s don't have even with the less powerful
P&W motors vice the Rolls Royce option.

The pitch stability issues related to the 757 make my joints hurt.

Go-arounds (rejected landings) are much more sporting in the A319/320
in terms of switchology vice the 757. The PNF (pilot not flying) is
just like a one-legged man in an asskicking contest. But as in all
things, pilots can screw the pooch regardless of airplane.

As has been demonstrated in both types.

"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:51:28 GMT, Ron Parsons wrote:

The only reason that AAL has Airbus aircraft in the fleet is that it was
a requirment in order to gain landing rights in Europe.

Got a cite for this? Considering I can think of at least one airline
that is entirely European (RyanAir only flies 737s IIRC) that doesn't
fly *any* AI aircraft, this sounds like ******** .

Even the National carriers of France and the UK (especially France),
the primary forces behind AI, have dozens of Boeings - why would they
bother if there was some deep conspiracy?

FAA understands clearly that if they ground any of the busses, that the
EU states involved with Airbus will ground Boeings.

Don't talk rubbish. What would be the grounds?

It sounds like restraint of trade to me, which is an automatic loser for
regulatory agencies.

In article ,
Peter Kemp wrote:

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:51:28 GMT, Ron Parsons wrote:

The only reason that AAL has Airbus aircraft in the fleet is that it was
a requirment in order to gain landing rights in Europe.

Got a cite for this? Considering I can think of at least one airline
that is entirely European (RyanAir only flies 737s IIRC) that doesn't
fly *any* AI aircraft, this sounds like ******** .

Being there doesn't come with cites. Sorry.


Even the National carriers of France and the UK (especially France),
the primary forces behind AI, have dozens of Boeings - why would they
bother if there was some deep conspiracy?

FAA understands clearly that if they ground any of the busses, that the
EU states involved with Airbus will ground Boeings.

Don't talk rubbish. What would be the grounds?

Revenge.

--
Ron

In article ,
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

"Ron Parsons" wrote in message
...
In article ,

Not exactly. Boeing has had hardover problems in the past, AA21 into
Jamaca Bay back in the late '50s for example and the various 737
incidents.

The Airbus has a totally different problem which only the pilots are
willing to speak about. The fleet, including the AA587 aircraft has a
history of uncommanded rudder fluctuations where the rudder slams back
and forth between the stops so rapidly that the DFR can't record it.


This sounds extremely dubious, the DFR can record events that take less
than a millisecond, the rudder is much to massive to move in that time.

Perhaps then my friends who fly them know less than you.



Airbus won't admit it might be a design flaw, AAL won't consider it
might be improper maintainance.

The NWA pilots were screaming their heads off about the wierd stuff that
the FBW baby busses were doing, but the FAA turned a deaf ear.


The A-300 isnt a FBW aircraft it uses conventional control systems.

I was writing of two separate matters where the common thread was the
attitude of AI.

Sorry to have confused you.

--
Ron

In article ,
"tw" wrote:

"Ron Parsons" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"tw" wrote:

"Ron Parsons" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Paul F Austin" wrote:

"Robey Price" wrote
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Paul F
Austin" confessed the following:

My impression from reading the AvWeek reports is that this problem
isn't
unique to A300s nor to Airbus products. The fin can be overloaded
in
most
transports if opposite rudder is commanded while a significant yaw
has
occurred. I'm not a pilot but AvWeek claimed that standard recovery
training
for transport pilots could lead to this condition.

You are correct, I fly the 757 and we've recently had some expanded
warning verbiage added to our flight manual about excessive rudder
inputs during an engine failure. Pretty soon after that AA crash we
were cautioned about excessive rudder inputs.

snip

Thanks for the information. I am somewhat amazed that the FAA doesn't
require load analysis of the fin under yaw/extreme opposite rudder but
(again according to AvWeek), it does not.



Political and un-Diplomatic pressure from the foreign states heavily
invested in the sucess of Airbus.

..and Boeing as well presumably, seeing as they potentially have the same
problem. DUH! As I believe the youngsters say.

Not exactly. Boeing has had hardover problems in the past, AA21 into
Jamaca Bay back in the late '50s for example and the various 737
incidents.

Look up the post to where the 757 pilot says
"You are correct, I fly the 757 and we've recently had some expanded
warning verbiage added to our flight manual about excessive rudder
inputs during an engine failure. Pretty soon after that AA crash we
were cautioned about excessive rudder inputs."

It is a conern for Boeing as well as Airbus - this has nothing to do with
the dodgy hydraulic actuators that have been blamed for the hardover
problem.

The Airbus has a totally different problem which only the pilots are
willing to speak about. The fleet, including the AA587 aircraft has a
history of uncommanded rudder fluctuations where the rudder slams back
and forth between the stops so rapidly that the DFR can't record it.

Cite? How come this problem isn't showing up with all Airbus users?

Airbus won't admit it might be a design flaw, AAL won't consider it
might be improper maintainance.

The NWA pilots were screaming their heads off about the wierd stuff that
the FBW baby busses were doing, but the FAA turned a deaf ear.

How come no other Airbus users are complaining?

Airbus has been consistant in finding Pilot Error, in one case in Asia
releasing their findings before the Accdent Investigation Team had even
arrived at the site.

Which one was that?


The only reason that AAL has Airbus aircraft in the fleet is that it was
a requirment in order to gain landing rights in Europe.

I find that extremely hard to believe, do you have a source?

FAA understands clearly that if they ground any of the busses, that the
EU states involved with Airbus will ground Boeings.

Again, cite?


Now don't you feel safer?

I certainly don't feel any less safe



Sorry, the real world doesn't come with cites.

--
Ron

"Ron Parsons" wrote in message
...


This sounds extremely dubious, the DFR can record events that take less
than a millisecond, the rudder is much to massive to move in that time.

Perhaps then my friends who fly them know less than you.


Ah friends who cant manage to post for themselves and who
of course cant be named.

Yeah Right

Keith

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"John Bailey" wrote in message
...
SNIP:
One problem, he found, was that on the A-300, the amount
of force needed to start moving the rudder was relatively high, and
the total range of motion allowed at that speed was only a little over
an inch, making it very difficult to apply any amount of rudder less
than its full extension.
SNIP:
Is he trying to say that operational reasons limit rudder motion to a
little over an inch, or what? Doesn't sound like enough to handle one
engine out with the other one firewalled to, say, climb out of San
Juan, Costa Rico.
Walt BJ