A330 Safety

[EconomyClass]

Is it possible that the relative safety of different plane models depends in part on how they are distributed among airlines? Maybe the A330 has simply had the luck of being used by airlines or on routes that are inherently safer. As the company digs down further for additional sales, maybe it is going to knock that safety record down a notch.

[Cairns65]

I don`t think so. I guess that the last crash in Tripoli was just bad luck. Very bad luck to be honest. It seemed like the pilot looked right into the sun before touchdown.

U cannot compere this accident with the one over Brazil last year.For the reputation for AIRBUS this is another shot.It could happen to any kind of aircraft but it must have been an A 330-200.

[Alessandro]

Of course the airline plays a large role in keeping the aircraft flying.
What has that to do with A330?

[ZK-OKH]

I think that A330 is a very reliable and safe plane. All kind of plane has had some accidents, starting from DC10, B747; B767 and so on. This doesnt' mean that they are dangerous plane. I guess the fact that two accidents occurred to the same model in so little time is just a coincidence. I can't see any similarity between the two accidents so I don't understand what can link the tragedies. If we have the same car and I crash with it while you remain without gas this doesn't mean the car is not safe.

[Geebee]

If we have the same car and I crash with it while you remain without gas this doesn't mean the car is not safe.

Unless it's a Toyota?

[WILCO737]

Crahes happened and will happen in the future, and with increasing number of airplanes in the air, there will be more crashes... The safety of aviation is really good these days, but mistakes happen and everybody in the industry knows that. All parts involved in a flight should do whatever they can to make a safe flight possible.
I consider the 330 as a safe plane. I would board one without any hesitation, same with the MD11, which has a bad reputation as well lately.
That's my 2 cents

[EconomyClass]

Yeh, one thing that rising volume does is make it look safer, even if there are more crashes. Mathematical necessity. But with all the consolidation and the worldwide effort to improve rail service (substitute for those short flights that seem incapable of financing safety), maybe the volume won't increase. Still, the quality of the pilots might still decline. If airlines outside the industrial world grow while the big companies cut back, you might see more and more of what has happened recently.

[Alessandro]

Yeh, one thing that rising volume does is make it look safer, even if there are more crashes. Mathematical necessity. But with all the consolidation and the worldwide effort to improve rail service (substitute for those short flights that seem incapable of financing safety), maybe the volume won't increase. Still, the quality of the pilots might still decline. If airlines outside the industrial world grow while the big companies cut back, you might see more and more of what has happened recently.

Contrary, more airplanes means higher risk for crashes. Look upon the Teneriffe crash, this was the lead pilot in KLM whom was an instructor, still he caused the worst airplane crash

[PMN]

this was the lead pilot in KLM whom was an instructor, still he caused the worst airplane crash

Complete and utter bollocks. There were many, many contributing factors to that accident and had any one of them not been present then the chances are the accident would never have happened. Had Los Rodeos had ground radar the controllers would have clearly seen what was happening, the controllers weren't used to handling the levels of traffic they were dealing with, there were language/communication problems, Van Zant decided to take on 40 tons of fuel at Los Rodeos and had he not decided to do that they might have cleared the Pan Am in time, etc, etc.

To say it was caused exclusively by him simply doesn't make sense. Sure, he was impatient and his actions in opening those four throttles sealed the fate of over 500 people, but a number of different things lead up to that being the case.

[Jingogunner]

A330 Might Not Be So Safe

Hello Mr ZK-OKH,

I'm new here and know very little about planes, but am fascinated by them.

You say I think that A330 is a very reliable and safe plane. However, I just saw this in the Guardian, UK website. Its frightening, especially the bit about Airbus lobbying described as 'inappropriate' by NTSB spokeswoman about the 587 Queens rudder failure. I don't know if A330 has composite tail, but if it does and there is a risk factor emerging, then the A330 is not, perhaps, so safe after all.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2005/mar/13/theairlineindustry.internationalnews

[Alessandro]

Hello Mr ZK-OKH,

I'm new here and know very little about planes, but am fascinated by them.

You say I think that A330 is a very reliable and safe plane. However, I just saw this in the Guardian, UK website. Its frightening, especially the bit about Airbus lobbying described as 'inappropriate' by NTSB spokeswoman about the 587 Queens rudder failure. I don't know if A330 has composite tail, but if it does and there is a risk factor emerging, then the A330 is not, perhaps, so safe after all.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2005/mar/13/theairlineindustry.internationalnews

So how many crashes has been the result of carbon fiber rudder failure?
The A300 failure was in 2001, donīt you think any lessons has been learnt about from this crash?
I canīt find any in this list where carbonfiber has caused any fatalities, http://aviation-safety.net/database/...php?Event=ACFR

[SYDCBRWOD]

So how many crashes has been the result of carbon fiber rudder failure?
The A300 failure was in 2001, donīt you think any lessons has been learnt about from this crash?

And a case could be made that as it was the pilots actions (tramping the rudder pedals) it wouldn't have mattered if the tail was made of titanium, carbon fibre, butter or plywood. It was built to resist a certain level of force, once that level was exceeded it failed.

[Peter Kesternich]

Hmmmmm - first of all, I am not sure whether the tail and rudder design in the A330 is the same as in the A300-600 or A310...

But looking back at American flight 587, I think it should also be noted that this accident happened almost 10 years ago, and there has been no other accident, where an A300-600 or A310 lost the entire fin. To me, this suggests an overload - just like the NTSB report on the accident stated. If there had been a problem with the material used to manufacture the vertical tailplane, I think that the numbers of incidents and accidents caused by that should be on the rise, given the growing age of the A300-600 fleet.

[Peter Kesternich]

By the way...

The rudder was all the more important on a plane such as an A310, because its wing design meant that it was 'aerodynamically unstable' and needed the rudder for stability.

...taken from the article in the Guardian which is cited further up...

Yet another example of how little mainline journalists know about aviation. As far as I know, commercial airliners mustn't be 'aerodynamically unstable'. If they turn out to be during flight testing they don't get a certificatino.

[ZK-OKH]

Hello Mr ZK-OKH,

I'm new here and know very little about planes, but am fascinated by them.

You say I think that A330 is a very reliable and safe plane. However, I just saw this in the Guardian, UK website. Its frightening, especially the bit about Airbus lobbying described as 'inappropriate' by NTSB spokeswoman about the 587 Queens rudder failure. I don't know if A330 has composite tail, but if it does and there is a risk factor emerging, then the A330 is not, perhaps, so safe after all.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2005/mar/13/theairlineindustry.internationalnews

Hi Jingogunner, if I think to all the A300 and A330 that have flown all over the world throughout these 10 years and looking at the statistics about the accidents that have seen involved an Airbus happened due to a structural failure I can say that these are two very reliable and safe planes and that probably that was not the cause of the problem. Probably an overload was the cause of it.