A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why Haven't Airbus A-320s Been Grounded?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old October 7th 05, 03:40 PM
Mark T. Dame
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

sfb wrote:

If it was your mother-in-law's plane, no big deal at all.

"Mark T. Dame" wrote in message
...

I think that 1 would be an alarming rate if I happened to be flying it
at the time.


My mother-in-law is afraid of flying, so I don't have to worry about her
wings falling off. Now if we were talking about misplacing marbles...


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"The software isn't finished until the last user is dead."
-- Unknown
  #22  
Old October 7th 05, 05:12 PM
kgruber
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

n


  #23  
Old October 7th 05, 05:22 PM
kgruber
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

KingAir wings falling off - at an "alarming rate"? Because you don't
have any King Air experience???



Could it be because a database search of the NTSB from 1962 to present,
using several different keyword combinations produced 0 records of such
incidents? Ever hear of the "world?"



Or the Google search, showing C-130's wings falling off, but not
KingAirs? You should learn how to "Google!" This is the company
that solved the problem after at least 5 King Airs had their wings fall
off:


http://www.nationalflight.com/aviadesigns.htm


Can you point us to evidence sufficient to warrant the insinuation
Do your own homework!



Karl
ATP----BE-300, CE-500, Lear Jet, DA-50




  #24  
Old October 7th 05, 06:16 PM
Greg Farris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
says...


KingAir wings falling off - at an "alarming rate"? Because you don't
have any King Air experience???



Not that type anyway!!




Could it be because a database search of the NTSB from 1962 to present,
using several different keyword combinations produced 0 records of such
incidents? Ever hear of the "world?"


Full-time resident!
That's the place where the NTSB conducts accident reports for
all US-maunfactured aircraft, isn't it?




Or the Google search, showing C-130's wings falling off, but not
KingAirs? You should learn how to "Google!" This is the company
that solved the problem after at least 5 King Airs had their wings fall
off:


http://www.nationalflight.com/aviadesigns.htm

Homework done. Commercial product found for sale.
The redundant load path may have as much to do with transport regulations as
actual accidents. More database searches - still 0.

If you know of five such accidents, perhaps you could show us one or two.
Then we could all learn something from this.If none of these were in the US,
why would you expect the FAA to act on it?


G Faris


  #25  
Old October 7th 05, 06:42 PM
W P Dixon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

My Mother in Law flies a broom so she doesn't have to worry about wings
falling off!

Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech

"Mark T. Dame" wrote in message
...
sfb wrote:

If it was your mother-in-law's plane, no big deal at all.

"Mark T. Dame" wrote in message
...

I think that 1 would be an alarming rate if I happened to be flying it at
the time.


My mother-in-law is afraid of flying, so I don't have to worry about her
wings falling off. Now if we were talking about misplacing marbles...


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"The software isn't finished until the last user is dead."
-- Unknown


  #26  
Old October 8th 05, 01:19 AM
George Patterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jay Honeck wrote:

Is there some over-riding political reason the FAA doesn't want to offend
the Europeans right now?


I doubt it. As you said, once they were able to duplicate the rudder problem
with the 737, "the fix was pretty urgent."

The FAA doesn't issue an AD unless someone has proposed a fix. Apparently nobody
has come up with a fix for the Airbus problem, so there's no AD yet. I expect
that the FAA feels that there is insufficient cause to ground the entire Airbus
fleet over this. Michelle is probably correct that they will not take that step
unless somebody is killed in one of these incidents.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.
  #27  
Old October 8th 05, 01:20 AM
George Patterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

sfb wrote:

If it was your mother-in-law's plane, no big deal at all.


Actually, I like my mother-in-law. Now, my *wife's* mother-in-law we could do
without.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.
  #28  
Old October 8th 05, 01:33 AM
Jay Honeck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The FAA doesn't issue an AD unless someone has proposed a fix. Apparently
nobody has come up with a fix for the Airbus problem, so there's no AD
yet. I expect that the FAA feels that there is insufficient cause to
ground the entire Airbus fleet over this. Michelle is probably correct
that they will not take that step unless somebody is killed in one of
these incidents.


That's dumb.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


  #30  
Old October 8th 05, 02:01 AM
George Patterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jay Honeck wrote:
The FAA doesn't issue an AD unless someone has proposed a fix. Apparently
nobody has come up with a fix for the Airbus problem, so there's no AD
yet. I expect that the FAA feels that there is insufficient cause to
ground the entire Airbus fleet over this. Michelle is probably correct
that they will not take that step unless somebody is killed in one of
these incidents.


That's dumb.


They call it an "airworthiness directive" for a reason. If they have no fix,
they can't "direct" you to do anything to fix the problem. So far the agencies
around the world such as the FAA seems to feel that this problem is unlikely to
cause anything more than some press excitement and purchase of replacement parts
and provide a little exercise for the emergency people.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Airbus A380 water purification john smith Piloting 1 July 7th 05 02:50 AM
Australia chooses Airbus tankers John Cook Military Aviation 0 April 16th 04 10:25 AM
Airbus 15 minutes of fame over? Buzzer Military Aviation 5 January 20th 04 04:42 AM
Airbus Charts Course for Military Contracts Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 November 24th 03 11:04 PM
Airbus Aiming at U.S. Military Market Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 September 21st 03 08:55 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.