Politics and Ignorance with Air France 447??
06-18-2009, 05:14 PM
#1
New Hire
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 1
Politics and Ignorance with Air France 447??
Why do we keep hearing that the problem with the 447 most likely will never be found, when it is becoming obvious what the cause is (cough cough ... Known faulty design of the A330's ADIRU)?? Also, why does the media seem completely ignore to even a reference to the Quantas Flight(s) of 72 (or 71 for that matter), which would seem extremely relevant to the 447 investigation??
I guess my question is this.... Does economics matter more than our butts in the seats of these complex (and sometimes glitch prone) contraptions, or would a temporary grounding just be too economically painful for Airbus to bear?? I understand that they work perfectly 99.8% of the time and most will never report an issue with them, but is it acceptable to have to grit your teeth every time one of these planes go into a little turbulence wondering if the inertial unit will decide to go into "aerobatics" mode??
All of this talk about caring the safety is almost nauseating... If they truly cared about the safety, then why don't they talk to Northrop about truly fixing what they clearly have known for some time is a major issue... Or is the newest strategy to keep letting the body count rise while fighting the issue with a series of ineffective AD's???
I guess my question is this.... Does economics matter more than our butts in the seats of these complex (and sometimes glitch prone) contraptions, or would a temporary grounding just be too economically painful for Airbus to bear?? I understand that they work perfectly 99.8% of the time and most will never report an issue with them, but is it acceptable to have to grit your teeth every time one of these planes go into a little turbulence wondering if the inertial unit will decide to go into "aerobatics" mode??
All of this talk about caring the safety is almost nauseating... If they truly cared about the safety, then why don't they talk to Northrop about truly fixing what they clearly have known for some time is a major issue... Or is the newest strategy to keep letting the body count rise while fighting the issue with a series of ineffective AD's???
06-18-2009, 05:25 PM
#2
First Rule of Fight Club
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: My seat smells like cat pee
Posts: 1,536
Originally Posted by timjones
Why do we keep hearing that the problem with the 447 most likely will never be found, when it is becoming obvious what the cause is (cough cough ... Known faulty design of the A330's ADIRU)??
06-18-2009, 05:42 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: L Side
Posts: 409
Here's a link to the Qantas incident.
Incorrect flight data led Qantas A330 to descend sharply: ATSB
Incorrect flight data led Qantas A330 to descend sharply: ATSB
06-18-2009, 06:54 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,716
Originally Posted by timjones
Why do we keep hearing that the problem with the 447 most likely will never be found, when it is becoming obvious what the cause is (cough cough ... Known faulty design of the A330's ADIRU)?? Also, why does the media seem completely ignore to even a reference to the Quantas Flight(s) of 72 (or 71 for that matter), which would seem extremely relevant to the 447 investigation??
I guess my question is this.... Does economics matter more than our butts in the seats of these complex (and sometimes glitch prone) contraptions, or would a temporary grounding just be too economically painful for Airbus to bear?? I understand that they work perfectly 99.8% of the time and most will never report an issue with them, but is it acceptable to have to grit your teeth every time one of these planes go into a little turbulence wondering if the inertial unit will decide to go into "aerobatics" mode??
All of this talk about caring the safety is almost nauseating... If they truly cared about the safety, then why don't they talk to Northrop about truly fixing what they clearly have known for some time is a major issue... Or is the newest strategy to keep letting the body count rise while fighting the issue with a series of ineffective AD's???
I guess my question is this.... Does economics matter more than our butts in the seats of these complex (and sometimes glitch prone) contraptions, or would a temporary grounding just be too economically painful for Airbus to bear?? I understand that they work perfectly 99.8% of the time and most will never report an issue with them, but is it acceptable to have to grit your teeth every time one of these planes go into a little turbulence wondering if the inertial unit will decide to go into "aerobatics" mode??
All of this talk about caring the safety is almost nauseating... If they truly cared about the safety, then why don't they talk to Northrop about truly fixing what they clearly have known for some time is a major issue... Or is the newest strategy to keep letting the body count rise while fighting the issue with a series of ineffective AD's???
06-18-2009, 08:35 PM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: B-7ER JFK
Posts: 931
Originally Posted by timjones
Why do we keep hearing that the problem with the 447 most likely will never be found, when it is becoming obvious what the cause is (cough cough ... Known faulty design of the A330's ADIRU)?? Also, why does the media seem completely ignore to even a reference to the Quantas Flight(s) of 72 (or 71 for that matter), which would seem extremely relevant to the 447 investigation??
I guess my question is this.... Does economics matter more than our butts in the seats of these complex (and sometimes glitch prone) contraptions, or would a temporary grounding just be too economically painful for Airbus to bear?? I understand that they work perfectly 99.8% of the time and most will never report an issue with them, but is it acceptable to have to grit your teeth every time one of these planes go into a little turbulence wondering if the inertial unit will decide to go into "aerobatics" mode??
All of this talk about caring the safety is almost nauseating... If they truly cared about the safety, then why don't they talk to Northrop about truly fixing what they clearly have known for some time is a major issue... Or is the newest strategy to keep letting the body count rise while fighting the issue with a series of ineffective AD's???
I guess my question is this.... Does economics matter more than our butts in the seats of these complex (and sometimes glitch prone) contraptions, or would a temporary grounding just be too economically painful for Airbus to bear?? I understand that they work perfectly 99.8% of the time and most will never report an issue with them, but is it acceptable to have to grit your teeth every time one of these planes go into a little turbulence wondering if the inertial unit will decide to go into "aerobatics" mode??
All of this talk about caring the safety is almost nauseating... If they truly cared about the safety, then why don't they talk to Northrop about truly fixing what they clearly have known for some time is a major issue... Or is the newest strategy to keep letting the body count rise while fighting the issue with a series of ineffective AD's???
06-18-2009, 08:59 PM
#7
First Rule of Fight Club
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: My seat smells like cat pee
Posts: 1,536
Originally Posted by FlyingViking
Nice intro as a first post, are you a pilot or a journalist?
I thought the same thing for a minute, but then I remembered there isn't a journalist or reporter with an IQ over 68 left in the world so there is no chance that one of them came up with this.
06-18-2009, 11:13 PM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Urban chicken rancher.
Posts: 6,070
Originally Posted by BoredwLife
I thought the same thing for a minute, but then I remembered there isn't a journalist or reporter with an IQ over 68 left in the world so there is no chance that one of them came up with this.
06-19-2009, 05:08 AM
#9
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 55
Originally Posted by buzzpat
Neither pilot or journalist...my guess is he/she works for MSNBC or CNN. Just a guess.
06-19-2009, 05:08 AM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,619
Originally Posted by timjones
Why do we keep hearing that the problem with the 447 most likely will never be found, when it is becoming obvious what the cause is (cough cough ... Known faulty design of the A330's ADIRU)?? Also, why does the media seem completely ignore to even a reference to the Quantas Flight(s) of 72 (or 71 for that matter), which would seem extremely relevant to the 447 investigation??
I guess my question is this.... Does economics matter more than our butts in the seats of these complex (and sometimes glitch prone) contraptions, or would a temporary grounding just be too economically painful for Airbus to bear?? I understand that they work perfectly 99.8% of the time and most will never report an issue with them, but is it acceptable to have to grit your teeth every time one of these planes go into a little turbulence wondering if the inertial unit will decide to go into "aerobatics" mode??
All of this talk about caring the safety is almost nauseating... If they truly cared about the safety, then why don't they talk to Northrop about truly fixing what they clearly have known for some time is a major issue... Or is the newest strategy to keep letting the body count rise while fighting the issue with a series of ineffective AD's???
I guess my question is this.... Does economics matter more than our butts in the seats of these complex (and sometimes glitch prone) contraptions, or would a temporary grounding just be too economically painful for Airbus to bear?? I understand that they work perfectly 99.8% of the time and most will never report an issue with them, but is it acceptable to have to grit your teeth every time one of these planes go into a little turbulence wondering if the inertial unit will decide to go into "aerobatics" mode??
All of this talk about caring the safety is almost nauseating... If they truly cared about the safety, then why don't they talk to Northrop about truly fixing what they clearly have known for some time is a major issue... Or is the newest strategy to keep letting the body count rise while fighting the issue with a series of ineffective AD's???
Uhh, it's because anyone that has been around aviation for more than two years knows that aircraft accidents are never what they seem to be. The causes are many and if there are easy solutions they would have been done a long time ago. Let the accident board do its work.
The approach you are suggesting is akin to a doctor diagnosing your illness by amputating body parts until the pain goes away.
