Forum Home
PC World Chat
 
Thread ID: 97916 2009-03-04 04:31:00 Qantas Airbus A380 flaws John H (8) PC World Chat
Post ID Timestamp Content User
753267 2009-03-04 04:31:00 Who was it who was saying they wouldn't fly in an Airbus?

www.stuff.co.nz

Ooopps!
John H (8)
753268 2009-03-04 04:41:00 I cant say im all to keen to jump on a plane with "teething" fuel problems hueybot3000 (3646)
753269 2009-03-04 05:10:00 "In February 2007 an electrical system that serviced a fuel pump on a Singapore Airlines flight failed, leaving 70 passengers stranded without a hotel room.

An auxiliary fuel pump on another Singapore flight failed."

Well, there you are then, that's what comes about when a notable firm like Joseph Lucas Gas Turbine Equipment and its successors eventually gets absorbed by an American tyre firm.

It would never have happened in my day............:rolleyes:

www.theengineer.co.uk
Terry Porritt (14)
753270 2009-03-04 05:37:00 If all airliners had Lucas starters, there would never be another aircraft accident. ;) R2x1 (4628)
753271 2009-03-04 05:42:00 "It didn't affect the safety of the aircraft; it just meant we were getting a false reading."


Naturally a false reading regarding fuel on an aircraft wouldn't affect safety...:ban
allblack (6574)
753272 2009-03-04 05:56:00 If all airliners had Lucas starters, there would never be another aircraft accident. ;)

Fortunately, Lucas never did make jet engine starter motors, they got Rotax to do the job for them :lol:
Terry Porritt (14)
753273 2009-03-04 06:26:00 All aircraft have teething problems all the time that you don't hear about. The A380 is just picked on because it is new. Wait until Boeings Dreamliner starts flying in a few years time. The media well have a different new aircraft to pick on then.
:)
Trev (427)
753274 2009-03-04 21:39:00 Although Lucas Aerospace was part of the Prince of Darkness empire didnt know they made faulty parts.
With regard to Airbus seems strange after almost 50 years of compacitance fuel probes and gauges they havent got it sorted.
prefect (6291)
753275 2009-03-04 21:50:00 IMO that's OK. I agree with Trev for once. :p

The issues were all resolved before leaving the ground, no one was put in danger.

As is mentioned the 747 was far worse when it was first introduced.

Very rarely will everything be perfect first time round.
wratterus (105)
753276 2009-03-04 21:52:00 "It didn't affect the safety of the aircraft; it just meant we were getting a false reading."


Naturally a false reading regarding fuel on an aircraft wouldn't affect safety...:ban

Reminds me of the Gimli Glider www.damninteresting.com
somebody (208)
1 2 3 4 5