I agree with you Patrick... but, for the time being I will prefer flying Boeings. The possibility, even remote, of computers taking over the pilot´s decisions, scares me. I am not so sure they are intelligent as we see in our home ones... Hope that Boeing doesn´t go this way too... By the way what is happening with the 787?

The Boeing 777 is fully Fly-By-Wire, controlled by computers. So will be the 787, if it ever flies. The 787 is currently being redesigned after the wings broke during a static test.

But don't let that interfere with your stay in ignoranceville.

50% of all aircraft accidents between 1950 and 2008 were caused by pilot error. Yet you let yourself fool by a pilot bashing the Airbus systems. A pilot, who, correct me if I'm wrong, has never been typerated on any Airbus aircraft.

There seems to be this steady drumbeat of "fly by wire" is bad. I think people need to think a little. One of the biggest causes of aircraft accidents before fly by wire was failure of the control linkages - to explain

In early aircraft most control linkages were wire-pulleys and rods - there was a physical link between the aircraft controls and the control surfaces, the engine throttles, etc. I read people saying this is great (some claiming to be pilots.) The problem was that these systems in fact failed a LOT, wires slipped off pulleys, rods bent and jammed, etc., and the actual routing of these linkages was a nightmare. Later larger aircraft introduced hydraulic controls -- which were similarly strange (the Spitfire had a condition called "the Spitfire wag" at takeoff induced by the pilot pumping the handle to bring up the wheels with one hand while flying the aircraft with the other hand) - but these in turn had problems, numerous valves, a need for large reservoirs of hydraulic fluid with issues of leaks, stuck valves, pump failures etc. and the need to run long lengths of pressure pipe from the controls to various flaps, surfaces and other components. In short, all these control approaches were a ***** to maintain and had big reliability issues. As aircraft became bigger all of these components required "boosting" with servo motors and pumps to augment the pilot's strength, and these could fail too. On top of all that they were just plain heavy. In addition, they did not constrain the pilots from doing stupid things in moments of inattention.

Fly-by-wire may remove the direct connection between the pilot and the control surfaces - but in increases reliability. Multiple data-buses carry signals to the components to be controlled, so there is redundancy, and the controlled components each rely on their won electric motors, pumps and actuators, so they are not all dependent on the same control run or servo. On top of that they do also preclude, for the most part, dangerous actions on the part of the crew.

Fly by wire is used pretty well for all modern airliners including Boeing. Frankly I feel a lot safer on such aircraft. Oh and by the way, they are not running any Microsoft products.

Doesn't anyone remember USAir 427 where boeing designed a valve that not only caused rudder hardovers but reversed the rudder input controls too? Oh yes, its okay if the tail fin can spontaneously go to its maximum turning limit and doom the airplane entirely, but at least it won't snap off. Whew! I feel better now...

Glad you like my country. But there are plenty of options from the U.S. to get to this place. Malaysia Airlines flies from L.A. and Newark, and generally people say it has decent service.

There was a report, after the Air France crash but before the Yemenia one, that within a 24 hour period, 3 different Airbus A330s in different parts of the world experienced serious technical problems. Whether this reportage was the result of extreme skittishness about all things Airbus lately, or if it was indeed anomalous, the point is there is now a bad kind of spotlight on the Airbus family of planes. It is only natural for people to be concerned and demand that things be seen to be done, and fast.

Personally, given that crashes are such complex matters, and given that so little data will likely be obtained from the Air France crash site, we will likely not be able to say much about the technical qualities of Airbus planes for the time being. Anyhow, I'm confident that the European engineers and their international suppliers (surely many of the components including software and perhaps engines are American) will try to think out of the box, and to the best of their ability reduce or eliminate whatever danger they might have been alerted to over the recent incidents. Plane manufacturers have every interest to build safe planes.

The possessive is Airbus's, not Airbus'. For singular nouns that end in "s", you still use an "apostrophe-s."

Airbus' implies that there is one Airbu and two Airbus.

Were I the Salon editor I wouldn't have chosen that title for the article. Far too many people just read the headline and don't bother to read the article. As a consequence plenty of people likely now have a mistaken impression of Airbus.

"and NONE of the others holds a candle to the Boeings. The quality, engineering and design are just second rate."

Brez

I'm a complete novice to all this, and was fascinated by your comment. Could you explain more, please?

Re: media reports.

I think one has to be extremely wary when using media reports as fact.

From my own personal experience as an outdoor guide (20 years), I have been involved in a small number of searches/rescues (one was my own client), and the media got it completely wrong in every single case.

My own client was interviewed by a reporter, who then interviewed police rescue...and they STILL go it wrong.

Also, the media tend to simply copy other media stories, so I'm sure any on-line news site, or another newspaper, would have repeated the mistake.

I know a small rescue is not a downed airplane, but if they can get it wrong...