RE: Cold comfort (By JorenCarlson, July 10, 07:13)

>I've never had to circle an airport for over an hour while the pilots radio Toulouse to find out how to get the airplane to stop circling the airport - in anything other than an Airbus.

Supposing that such a thing even happened, it would most certainly have nothing to do with the difference between a computer augmented flight regime (Airbus style) versus Non-Airbus style, because that computer regime has nothing to do with navigation, it purely controls the immediate flight.

Oh it happened alright. What, you think I made it up? My point remains. I've never had an airplane "lock-out" inputs or controls from the pilot in anything but an Airbus. Yes, yes, it was only once, but once was enough.

Patrick: Great article. I have to take issue with one conclusion of yours. You write that "...it's possible this construction renders certain Airbus models more likely to suffer structural failure in very extreme conditions. But...even if true it does not make the aircraft unsafe in any practical sense..." Actually, yes it does make the aircraft unsafe, and in every practical sense. We have to assume that every time a plane goes into the air it may encounter "extreme conditions". If the plane can't be counted on to perform under these conditions, it shouldn't be in the air. And we as passengers deserve to be informed of this possibility so we can choose to use an airline that uses some other type of aircraft.

"If you regard the 737 Jurassic, 737 Classic and 737 NG as different aircraft (Boeing regularly does, for example when it comes to accident statistics) the A320-Series is actually the best selling commercial aircraft in history, with over 6300 sold as of today."

"Airbus: 65 out of 5771 built -> 1% of all Airbus aircraft built have crashed"

I don't get it: how many did Airbus build? 5771 or 6300? Can someone explain?

Also, regarding fly-by-wire, I think the real problem is the computers controlling the aircraft. Supposedly, Boeing allows pilots to override the computers, while Airbus does not. Fly-by-wire is just the method of transferring the pilots' inputs to the control surfaces. Hence it is the computers that are supposedly causing the problems here, not the fly-by-wire system.

Hi Patrick!

No doubt you're reading this at thirty thousand feet silently smirking at all us commenters down here on earth.

Just wanted to let you know I used to read your column but this will be my last visit to your site.

You see, you have spent a lot of time dispelling myths of the media. Yet here you are with a headline of your own that is one of those annoying teasers more akin to a supermarket tabloid. Patrick, do you really think the Airbus is a lemon? Why are you posing the question? Did your Salon editor tell you you needed more clicks? Because your column is all about asking YOU the questions. So stop wasting my time you fucking sell out.

I think Patrick has been very responsive to his readers and respectful too. He's the last writer at Salon I can imagine "smirking" at his readers. Your comment was unfair in the extreme.

Hi!

Bye!

Oh it happened alright. What, you think I made it up? My point remains. I've never had an airplane "lock-out" inputs or controls from the pilot in anything but an Airbus. Yes, yes, it was only once, but once was enough.

While reading your story again, I realized that there is more than one way to understand what you have written. One way to take it, is to assume that by "circling" you meant the aircraft was (automatically) flying some holding pattern at the destination. This was the meaning I had in mind, perhaps erroneously. Now I see that you could could have also meant that the aircraft simply was stuck at a bank angle and therefore continually turning. Now that could indeed have been a problem with the computerized flight regime of the Airbus. The actual consequences would still not be exclusive to Airbus aircraft.

Joren, consider this: An aircraft can not be steered by using the control surfaces for one axis alone. When flying a turn, you have to coordinate all three axis. Furthermore, you have to continually correct steering because of changing wind, gusts, thermals and the like, as long as "the" autopilot is not engaged. In the newer Airbus aircraft, during "cruise" flight, the computer will relieve you of having to do that coordination manually. Instead the computer does it, even if the autopilot is switched off.

Now lets assume that you (the pilot) loose steering authority (i.e. pilot inputs are ignored for some reason). On Airbus aircraft, this simply means the current flightpath will be maintained, or the current rate of turning will be maintained. If you were in level flight at that time, you will stay level. This is important, you will not lose height, and consequently not crash into ground. On Non-Airbus aircraft, it is likely that wind will change the attitude of the aircraft sooner or later. Possibly the bank angle will change. This means pitch and bank angle are no longer coordinated. The aircraft will change height! Suppose that means losing height...

Now the situation I sketched above is speculative, but it represents a distinct possibility.

Anecdotal evidence just is not sufficient to say one aircraft is safer than the other. Else, one could extrapolate from the fuel feed problems of the B777, which caused the London crash, and say this type of aircraft is categorically unsafe.

It is also the Colgan Air crash in Buffalo, the emergency landing in the Hudson, and myriad but highly publized small plane crashes over the past two years that are making people more flight weary than normal.

Coupled with the recession, it just makes one feel that airlines can't afford to ensure passenger safety the way they once did. They can't afford the most competent pilots and they can't afford to keep their plans well maintained.

I haven't done market research but that seems to be the growing perception of most people I know regarding air travel these days.