Everyone knows Air Busses have problems, from the 2001 crash due to rudder failure to the 1988 takeoff crash on GooTube, so no surprise that the latest sudden 650ft descent of an aircraft was an Air Bus whose IMU malfunctioned & sent out an erratic orientation.What a thrill that our home made IMU & autopilot can be at least as reliable as the world's largest, low bidding, government subsidized passenger airline manufacturer's. Our IMU has drifted from vibration but never suddenly disconnected or generated noise in flight.http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/14/2391134.htm
nice link between Airbus (that perfect idiot cant even write it) and his piece of wood with some sparkfun gyros glued to it... thats innovation. guess you re in the same league...
whoa,
I think this was an attempt a humor, albeit in a darkish vein.
As for Airbus - I think it should be said that you can't convert an Airbus into a nine-11 type joyride vehicle (to avoid googly terms). It's no accident the 19 saudi's choose Boeing airframe for their event.
So whatever you might choose to say against Airbus, it pales to the fundamentalist weakness of a Boeing. in my opinion they should be sued for producing a product which they knew or should have known was a danger to the public health. (example airbus).
Well, this is an example of a really misguided post...
Before throwing wanna-be facts, please just check them.
First, the 1988 crash didn't occur during a takeoff, but in a close ground maneuver. And the crash reason is only human : the pilot recordings in the blackbox showed that he wanted to impress his director. Big plane, low throttle, inertia, trees, you get the idea.
Second, the 2001 rudder crash seems to be due to a human error too (http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/27/crash_ed3_.php), while I must admint that in NO circumtances, humans actions should endanger the plane (this is why commands are computer controlled).
Third, I don"t think you can compare the constraints of building a hobbyist drone and a 200 tons commercial aircraft, neither you can't compete in terms of tests completeness and hours of operation.
Fourth, Airbus is EU government funded ? Yes. But at least, some governments do their funding explicitely and don't start wars killing hundreds of civilians and american soldiers to fund their companies (Carlyle, Halliburton,etc...) undercover.
And BTW, you might want to check the end the article you link to, you'll see they also describe several problems involving Boeing.
I'm not in the Airbus vs. Boeing thingy (neither in the "US vs EU" one), but the business of building commercial planes is just too complex to be put out the way you do it. So really, "Ha ha my IMU is better than yours" isn't really the best post of the day...
Comments
What the heck are you saying?
As usual, your post is rambling and absurd.(hows that for googly terms?)
I think this was an attempt a humor, albeit in a darkish vein.
As for Airbus - I think it should be said that you can't convert an Airbus into a nine-11 type joyride vehicle (to avoid googly terms). It's no accident the 19 saudi's choose Boeing airframe for their event.
So whatever you might choose to say against Airbus, it pales to the fundamentalist weakness of a Boeing. in my opinion they should be sued for producing a product which they knew or should have known was a danger to the public health. (example airbus).
Before throwing wanna-be facts, please just check them.
First, the 1988 crash didn't occur during a takeoff, but in a close ground maneuver. And the crash reason is only human : the pilot recordings in the blackbox showed that he wanted to impress his director. Big plane, low throttle, inertia, trees, you get the idea.
Second, the 2001 rudder crash seems to be due to a human error too (http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/27/crash_ed3_.php), while I must admint that in NO circumtances, humans actions should endanger the plane (this is why commands are computer controlled).
Third, I don"t think you can compare the constraints of building a hobbyist drone and a 200 tons commercial aircraft, neither you can't compete in terms of tests completeness and hours of operation.
Fourth, Airbus is EU government funded ? Yes. But at least, some governments do their funding explicitely and don't start wars killing hundreds of civilians and american soldiers to fund their companies (Carlyle, Halliburton,etc...) undercover.
And BTW, you might want to check the end the article you link to, you'll see they also describe several problems involving Boeing.
I'm not in the Airbus vs. Boeing thingy (neither in the "US vs EU" one), but the business of building commercial planes is just too complex to be put out the way you do it. So really, "Ha ha my IMU is better than yours" isn't really the best post of the day...
By the way... go and find a better airplane... ;)