Air Asia

[Lydiot]

Hah!

[HJ1an]

My brain tells me it's safe to fly, relatively speaking. I think that's absolutely true. It's just something that clicks intuitively with people when we're tens of thousands of feet in the air in thin metal shell traveling at hundreds of miles per hour.... it's just emotional. The odds of me getting hit by a car are far higher than dying in a plane crash. Still though.... 747-400's an awesome plane...

Irrational fear is exactly that - I know the statistics, and I know the odds very well. Statistics and odds that are worldwide but from a safety, training, properly equipped standpoint, are based entirely on western or developed countries, and different regions have very different safety attitudes as far as i can tell. I can pinpoint the fear to a specific part - that part about being in a metal tube hurtling towards the ground or sea with a bunch of people I don't know and the fact that I won't have any control over it. It is totally out of control and you're just riding it out all the way.

Oh yeah, what didn't help was the last flight I was on an AirAsia A320 was bobbing left and right every second or so for whatever reason. Now does that point to maintenance problems, or some other issue (ie retrofitted winglets - or sharklets if you wanna be specific - causing the plane to bob maybe?)

Getting hit by a car on the other hand, I also have that fear, but only if I have to cross insane traffic or fast moving roadways. They have bridges for a reason, I use them.. and if a car does swerve into me while I'm walking - provided I'm aware of it - I can jump out of the way.. because I'm in control of my own feet. If I'm driving and a car swerves into my lane, I can swerve away too, whether it makes any difference, that is to be decided by fate. If I'm riding in a bus, or a car, then I have little control, but I can at least do the 'backseat driver' thing or sit up with the driver chat with him a little and be a second set of eyes for the road to spot anything that might go wrong. In any of those vehicles, if it breaks down, we'll just sit on the roadside and wait for another vehicle to come along to continue the journey.

Control completely diminishes in a plane.. In the case of Airasia, I can't even stand up to let a passenger got out to the toilet without the flight attendants running up to me and sternly warning me to sit down. With such situation, everyone shuts up and just wait. Safety and reliability is entirely in the hands someone else, who may think of safety in terms of just a number on a computer screen. It is not a comfortable environment to be in.

[jwocky]

You guys never studied the laws of Murphy and Peter, (not a relative of mine), did you?

If something has a probability of 1:1000 you are safe
If something has a probability of 1:1000000 you are relatively safe
If something has a probability of !:1000000000000000000000 that is what is gonna be to happen, you can bet on it!

[KL-666]

The report p95 on the company manual (SW=Stall Warning):

Knowing what the SW is, there is no reason to overreact to its triggering. It is absolutely essential for the pilots to know that the onset of the aural Stall Warning does not mean that the aircraft is stalling, that there is no reason to be scared, and that just a gentle and smooth reaction is needed.

What is this? The company expects their pilots to be scared of anything in their job? Scared of a stall? That is a bloody part of the job. Train it! I am certainly not flying this scared untrained bunch.

Kind regards, Vincent

[KL-666]

And here is the cause why Airbus pilots tend to get trained less:

Airbus likes to suggest that minimal training is sufficient.

The effectiveness of fly-by-wire architecture, and the existence of control laws, eliminates the need for upset recovery maneuvers to be trained on protected Airbus

But their lawyers are smart and had them put in the word "protected", so the sentence becomes ambiguous. Airbus can always claim that they did not say any other law (where upset recovery is necessary) should not be trained.

Yet airlines that want to save a buck, will interpret it as no training outside normal law is necessary. As AirAsia did (report p112)

The Upset Recovery training was included in the aircraft operators training manual. The aircraft operator advised the KNKT that the flight crew had not been trained for the upset recovery training on Airbus A320, and this referred to FCTM Operational Philosophy: “The effectiveness of fly-by-wire architecture, and the existence of control laws, eliminates the need for upset recovery maneuvers to be trained on protected Airbus”. There was no evidence of DGCA findings for this incompliance of training.

I can really advice to pay a bit more for your ticket at an airline that trains their pilots for all laws and upsets. Despite what Airbus likes to suggest.

Kind regards, Vincent

[IAHM-COL]

The effectiveness of fly-by-wire architecture, and the existence of control laws, eliminates the need for upset recovery maneuvers to be trained on protected Airbus

Just Golden. Ain't the world just right?
I've seen cessnitas Private pilots practice stall recoveries for hours on end... and the expected souls on board --if something were to happen-- is certainly much reduced than on the venerable A342, per example.

[KL-666]

See, that is what you get with all those different forums. Posted something here, which should be on the other forum. For anyone interested it is now here.

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=28532&p=273270#p273270

Kind regards, Vincent

[jwocky]

That's the same argument as we had before, that, due to the stupid recommendations, Airbus made, training for crisis situations is reduced for Airbus pilots. And it still holds a lot of water.