| Long discussion on the plane's problems. If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going. |
| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Science & Technology | |
| The Airbus 330 -- an accident waiting to happen | |
| 2009-07-20 | |
| |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #9 Is Kapton "greener" wiring? |
| Posted by: Lagom 2009-07-20 16:58 |
| #8 Next chapter: Why the vertical stabilizer was found 30 miles away from the wreckage field |
| Posted by: tzsenator 2009-07-20 16:31 |
| #7 In the words of a programmer friend of mine: "There is never time to do it right, but always time to do it over." |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2009-07-20 11:18 |
| #6 "Actually, the worrying part is that software usually sucks because there are no standards to follow. We're still in the era in which anyone can build software - at one time, anyone could build a bridge or a railroad, too." The software dilemma is that you only get paid while you work. Good code ---> Unemploymen, bug fixes -------> fat paycheck. Experience rewards marginal programmers. So thats what you get. |
| Posted by: flash91 2009-07-20 11:03 |
| #5 I came to the conculsion a while ago I wouldn't fly airbus. This just reinforces that decision. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2009-07-20 10:00 |
| #4 Airbus uses a different type of wiring, but one that Block considers equally dangerous. On every model built until at least 2006 – Airbus won’t say if new aircraft are fitted with it now – it employed ‘aromatic polyimide’, better known by its trade name, Kapton. Kapton has banned by the US military. So I guess Airbus did spill the beans to the US Air Force for the A-330 to make it to the tanker competition. Electrical shorts and fuel vapors do mix, but only once. |
| Posted by: ed 2009-07-20 09:44 |
| #3 ...The 500 lb gorilla in the room is that Airbus is a quasi-governmental entity where EVERY aspect of the aircraft's design and its safety take a back seat to bureaucratic standards and most importantly, cost. The reason Airbus designed that HAL-like computer system in the first place was because it resulted in an airplane that was cheaper and lighter than the Boeings with their multiple-redundant systems. Cheaper means you can sell more, lighter means you can haul more passengers. You want to see what happens when governments get involved in technical matters? Look at Airbus. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2009-07-20 06:18 |
| #2 Kapton again? In the mid to late 80's, Kapton was found to be unsuitable for use in missile and aircraft circuitry due to its hydrophilic properties and the near certainty of forming carbon fiber filaments (between runs with even low potentials across them) in the Kapton itself, which could (and did) act as 'weather-variant' resistors in pcb's that used the material. This is an old problem, with a known solution: don't use Kapton. Amazing that this is still cropping up. |
| Posted by: Whiskey Mike 2009-07-20 03:08 |
| #1 Just breaking in the new technology. Same thing happened when they switched to jet engines. It'll cost a couple of thousand lives for them to get it right. Actually, the worrying part is that software usually sucks because there are no standards to follow. We're still in the era in which anyone can build software - at one time, anyone could build a bridge or a railroad, too. |
| Posted by: gromky 2009-07-20 02:16 |