Jump to content

Talk:Airbus A300/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

A300 safety

I've noticed two or three instances where some contributor has inserted comments about the safety of certain types of aircraft. Some of these are certainly justified. For example, the DC-10 had a major problem with the cargo door seal and some hundreds of people were killed. This is relevant, factual information and should be included in the Wikipedia entry on the type. However, the great majority of passenger aircraft types are widely known to have a good record.

Someone with a particular weirdo POV inserted comments in some of the Airbus entries, suggesting that they were unsafe (an assertion that is clearly without evidence or merit). That's fine: I removed the POV comments some time ago and there is no controversy about that.

But now I get to the curly one. Look at the links from Airbus A300. The last two links contrive to suggest that it is an unsafe aircraft (which it is not) without the contributor actually having to say anything. Now the first link (to a CNN page) is easy: it's an ill-informed tabloid article and the link should be deleted. (I'll leave it for a day or two longer so interested people can have a look first. If you don't understand why it's BS, sing out and I'll provide appropriate details.) But the second link is (a) perfectly valid information from a respectable source, and (b) highly misleading, insofar as the link is made from Airbus A300, but similar links are not made from (for example) Boeing 747, or Lockheed L-1011 (two other aircraft types which also have perfectly respectable safety records). I don't like to delete good information, but the placing of this particular link in this particular context without similar links in all the other entries is highly POV and possibly slanderous.

Thoughts? Tannin 15:03 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)

Tannin, I do not see why the first link should be deleted. Any airplane article should have links to relevant press coverage of past accidents. As for the second link, the answer is simple: Add similar links to other airplane articles. --Eloquence 15:07 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)
That's what I'm afraid someone would say! Three reasons: (a) lots of work to do that, (b) we end up with a whole stack of redundant links to different pages of the same site, (c) we make the aircraft pages look like a roadmap to a graveyard (when in fact the modern passenger aircraft is one of the safest transport technologies ever invented). The first link though is - forgive my technical term here - crap. It's disinformation, not "relevant press coverage". Tannin
Sure, it's not the best solution, that would be to have a detailed article about aircraft safety, with a discussion of different types of aircraft and their safety record, and so on, linked from every aircraft page. But as a temporary solution, it's completely acceptable. Regarding the CNN link, if it's crap, point to a publication that shows why, or explain that in the article. Just removing the link without explanation is not OK. In generally, make statements (and links are a form of statement) NPOV by providing balancing statements, not by removing them. --Eloquence 15:32 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)

Moving these into here for now:

as they are grossly misleading. The first link is to an ill-informed tabloid-style CNN story that fails to grasp the key facts. The second one is in itself perfectly reasonable. As I wrote some time ago in the Talk:Airbus page, where someone (presumably the same person) had made an ill-informed and silly POV comment: "The information is valid ... but the positioning of it, sans context, at the very end of the article makes it stand out like the dog's proverbials, and turns a simple statement of fact into a highly POV accusation. The clear implication is that Airbus aircraft are unsafe and kill people - which is entirely unjustified by the facts." Indeed, the A300 has as good a safety record as most airliners and better than quite a few - the Boeing 747, for example, has roughly double the number of passengers killed per passenger mile flown - and no-one with any knowledge of the aircraft industry says that 747s are an unsafe type. (Or A300s, I hasten to add.)

In any case, gross pax killed per kilometre can be a grossly misleading figure. For example, the events of September 11th 2001 - which had nothing whatever to do with the aircraft type - seriously worsened the 767's figures. Roughly 80% of airline accidents have nothing to do with the aircraft itself, but are the result of human error. (The quick and more-or-less accurate summary of airline safety is "choose your airline crew and ATC people, don't worry about the aircraft".) I'll try to find the time to do an entry on air safety sometime soon, and there discuss the matter (air safety in general, I mean, not any particular aircraft type) in appropriate detail. Tannin 13:56 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

I am concerned with the reports of uncommanded inputs in the Fedex flight in 1997. If this article is correct and the flight computer will create a feedback situation like this, then the previously denied links could have justification. [1]

I'd take this section more seriously if the main article had the same level of detail on A300 crashes, hull losses, etc. as Wiki articles on American airliners have. For example, where is the declaration of total A300 hull losses (apparently 25 according to http://aviation-safety.net/database/type/type.php?type=020)? How about the separate article, ala the B747, detailing all of these losses? How about a paragraph on the controversy still surrounding the loss of AA 587 - hamfisted piloting or rudder/controls design failure? I'd like to see a followup to the Guardian article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/13/airbuscrash.usa) describing four A300 approach crashes that appear to be linked to the autopilot - the Guardian must be another tabloid like CNN! I also like the slam above on the DC-10 not being a safe airliner, "However, the great majority of passenger aircraft types are widely known to have a good record." by comparison. With only one fatal accident due to the cargo door problem (which was resolved shortly thereafter), I'd say its just as safe as the A300 with its rudder falling off accident. Finally, at least someone has pointed out the bs surrounding the let's compare fatalities per passenger mile arguement - h***, the worst 747 accident was due to some KLM pilot disregarding tower instructions and trying to takeoff on a runway that wasn't clear of ground traffic, obviously that was a design defect of the two 747s involved! BTW, looking at hull losses, roughly 4% of A300s are no longer with us while only 3% of 747s have been lost - someone could argue that therefore A300s are less safe than 747s, but that would be just as ludicrous since you have to look at the causes of those losses. You can do that with the 747 Wiki article and its hull loss sub-article, but you can't do that with this one on the A300. Indeed, this article is quite misleading as it only lists 10 "incidents" (some not even leading to lose of the aircraft) so a naive reader would believe that far fewer A300s have been lost, for whatever reason, than actually have.Jmdeur (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a work in progess and is never finished so not all articles are at the same level of content. Also remember that not all hull loss accidents are notable enough for the main article, which is why the 747 has a separate article. AA587 has its own article and only a summary should be here. You are welcome to help and add any reliably referenced information that adds to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Wiki may be a work in progress, but it is interesting that ALL Boeing jetliner (707 through 777 - that's eight total) Wiki articles note how many hull losses have been experienced by each type (guess Wiki is further along in terms of works in progress on this side of the Atlantic - eightfold!), while this article does not provide remotely comparable A300 information (indeed one could argue the info that is provided is misleading as previously discussed and discussed again below), so I stand by my inference that something isn't quite right that goes beyond just incompleteness. Further, the previous writer points to AA587 having a separate article so only a brief summary is needed in the main article here - a summary which doesn't point out the significance of the disputed cause of the accident in question. As the DC-10 gets slammed above for its safety record, let's look at the Wiki DC-10 article: even though there are separate articles on both cargo door accidents, the main Wiki article still includes a two paragraph discussion in its own section of this early problem. So, it would appear that having a separate article does not mean that further discussion of an aircraft's accident history, at least if it is an American airliner, should not be brought up in the main article. Moving on, the point with respect to the 747 Wiki coverage is not that there's a separate article concerning 747 hull losses, but that there is no similar discussion of hull losses for A300s anywhere on Wiki, and more importantly, as the number of incidents in the A300 article only mentions a tiny fraction of the A300s actually lost since the type entered service, the possibility exists that a reader who only reads this article might come to an erroneous conclusion wrt to the proportion of A300s lost over the years relative to, say, any of its American counterparts. BTW, I've added a reference above for the A300 hull loss number - it's the same reference quoted in the 747 Wiki article wrt to its hull losses so presumably it passes muster as "reliably referenced information" by the above writer's definition. My whole point is that this article, in combination with the above discussion before I stepped in, would seem to indicate a bias towards showing the A300 in a more favorable light than it deserves relative to its American competition - negative safety information gets dismissed and apparently deleted as coming from "tabloid" sources (CNN is not generally considered as such and presumably the source, the Guardian, of info that I pointed to wrt to four other mystery A300 crashes isn't either). Sadly, this is not an unusual find wrt Wiki in general. Jmdeur (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Work in progress is just that no bias it is just more authors have contributed to the Boeing articles you have to assume good faith we cant dictate which articles get improved faster than the others. As far as I can see most of the notable accidents amongst the 25 hull losses are listed. Not every hull loss is notable in the main aircraft article. As I suggested you are welcome to add reliably sourced and relevant information to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

production

Im sorry, but i delete than information about that the production will cease in 2007. That is a strange web page, andand i did not find another page with that info. --ROBERTO DAN 07:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Roberto, have a look at this: "A300/A310 Final Assembly to be completed by July 2007", dated 7 March 2006. As of 13-FEB-2007, there are 5 A310 deliveries pending for Iraqi Airways, and 6 A300-600F freighters for Federal Express. -- C. Deelmann 09:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No of Crew

I thought the B4 had 3 or something crew?

Or was it the A300's before the B4?

I know the 600 is 2 Reedy Boy 21:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The B4 initially came with a "Crew of 3"-cockpit. However, Garuda ordered 11 B4 with the "glass cockpit" (crew of two) of the -600 version. -- C. Deelmann 09:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC).

Airbus cross section picture

I've added a picture of the Airbus fuselage cross-section (at right), but I cannot quite remember which model it is. I think it's an A300, but can anyone confirm this? The picture is from the Deutsches Museum in Munich, Germany, if that helps. Thanks. Asiir 14:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I now believe this is an A300. Asiir 12:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: While editors are encouraged to assume good faith, please note than when a user, especiallly an unregistered one, makes the same edits without anyexplanation, even after an explained revert, it may be treated as vandalism, since we have know way of knowing why it was done. Please condider using the edit summary feature for future edits, especially in cases of content disputes.

The Airbus A300-600 rudder problems link has been removed 3 times (only the last with a vague explanation). Please explain why this is considered inappropriate. We may agree with your reasoning, but without an adequate explanation, how do we know? - BillCJ 17:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It’s not vandalism; I don’t feel that it is appropriate for this article.
I feel that particular article speaks only to the assumption of “pilot error” for the crash of Flight 587, not to rudder problems on the A300-600. If you want to discuss rudder problems for that aircraft (and I believe that would be appropriate) then you need to point to more than just Flight 587. To not do so is misleading and irresponsible. - 69.64.214.50 (moved here from my talk page - BillCJ)

Reasonable, and I somewhat agree. We'll see if there's any other support for leaving it in. - BillCJ 17:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one that's been reverting it, and after reading the article further, I feel that it addresses, at least in part, the issue earlier in the article for which there was a {{fact}} tag, so I've reformatted the link and put it in as a ref there, instead of an EL. The last section of the BBC article, in particular, addresses the combination of pilot action with possible rudder design issues, and since it's a well recognized source, I do not think it is misleading nor irresponsible. And, I agree fully with Bill's comments about good/bad faith. When someone chooses to hide behind an IP address and removes a valid news story that discusses accident blame, and doesn't provide really compelling justification for the removal, it's awfully hard to assume good faith. Frankly, I could care less if an IP editor "doesn't believe" that a story from a major news source is not appropriate. It meets Wikipedia's verifiability standards, directly discusses the issue and is not an editorial, and so therefore is entirely appropriate Akradecki 19:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Good solution moving it to the text. It's entirely appropriate there, esp as it needed a source anyway. I hope this solve's the user's objections. - BillCJ 19:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to discuss possible problems with the rudder control system on this series of aircraft (and I think it is something that should be examined) you should cite more than one incident or reference (it is misleading, biased and irresponsible) – that is my primary objection with the previous link. The BBC as well as Wikipedia have been cited repeatedly and recently for their inaccuracies as well as other “major news sources”, the responsible thing to do is present multiple reliable, relevant sources of information. I am not hiding behind an IP address – I am using a public computer and my choice to be an unregistered contributor is my choice and I need not explain my reasons, and will do no further. Additionally, I will not engage in Akradecki’s attack on my integrity that is his problem not mine, my intentions are in good faith, period. Bill I appreciate your forum discussion and am satisfied with the reclassification of the information. 69.64.214.50

Sorry if you think I'm attacking your integrity...you need to be aware that we are swamped with vandalism that originates from IP address and is not accompanied by edit summaries nor by any talk page justifications. You are entitled to your option to remain anon, but be cognizant of how it makes you appear. It's not "my problem", it's a very real problem for those of us who do vandal patrol. If you think the article needs more sources, then add them. This whole project is a result of everyone chipping in to do their part and make the improvement where they see the need. Don't expect others to do your work for you, and don't remove existing refs just to make a point that more are needed. Akradecki 20:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability of incidents just added?

I'm questioning the notability of the incidents just added by an IP editor. One of them, occurring on an A310, really doesn't belong in this article, and the others, unless there's a compelling reason to include them, are really minor incidents, and wouldn't merit inclusion in other WP:AIR lists either. If we include every minor, non-fatal incident, the list would overwhelm the article. If the incident is really that noteworthy, I suggest the adding editor be asked to create a wikiarticle about it, and then just summarize here. Comments? Akradecki 20:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I added 3 incidents to this page for the following reasons:

12 May 1997: this incident was cited in the investigation by the pilots association for Flight 587 in contrast to the NTSB’s claim of the excessive use of the rudder – during this incident the rudder inputs were significantly larger and there was no separation of the tail.

27 November 1998: this incident is significant because it was an alternate theory for the crash of Flight 587 that was dismissed by the NTSB and the FAA – both have stated that this phenomenon cannot occur in-flight.

6 March 2005: this incident is very significant because it points to the structural failure of the rudder without adverse pilot inputs.

My desire is to comprehensively discuss the rudder problems of the Airbus 300 series of aircraft, and this is just the beginning. I believe they are all relevant to the Flight 587 incident and thereby equally relevant to the Airbus 300 aircraft. 69.64.214.50

If that's you're desire, then I would suggest a new article on the subject. It looks like there's ample material and sources. A detailed discussion of the problem really isn't appropriate in an article that's supposed to be an overview of the aircraft type, but I think you'd find broad support in the Aircraft Project for an article of this nature (especially since there was talk at one point about a Task Force to address aviation accidents and safety issues). If you need sandbox space to work in, let me know and I'll make some available to you. Akradecki 22:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Also, the 1997 incidnet is FAR too long, esp for something that landed without further incident. It needs to be cut back drastically, but the info could go in the suggested article. The IP editor seems to be trying to prove a POINT about the 2001 incident by adding these non-notable incidents, but this is not the way to do it. Please read WP:POINT carefully.
In addition, none of those incidents are sourced. In truth, there are only 4 incidences listed that have Wiki articles, and while all have at least one source, only one has significant sources. None of the other incidents have any sources at all. I will be adding fact tags to those that seem notable (hard to tell without sources), and removing the rest. - BillCJ 22:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I have just added the NTSB identification numbers as sources for each incident (I do not know how to provide links to the NTSB reports directly or I would). I strongly feel that if the BBC article is a notable addition to this article than the mention of each of these incidents are as well. They all have an impact on the investigation in to Flight 587. I will continue to collect information to further validate this point for you. 69.64.214.50
If you feel the 1997 incident is too long then please parse it, but to omit it I think would be remiss. As far as trying to make a point – I am trying to provide information on the other side of the argument regarding that particular incident. I feel the BBC link is biased. There is a great deal of controversy building regarding the NTSB’s decision on Flight 587 and I merely want to provide balanced information. 69.64.214.50 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.118.193.124 (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
I've made some space at this sandbox for Bill's prunings and for M. IP to work, should he decide to build an article. By the above comment, sounds like POV is becoming an issue here. Wikipedia is not a place to debate issues. However, a factual overview of what others have written on the subject is certainly appropriate. Our use of the BBC article is not an endorsement, but rather a citation of it as a source of information only. Please read WP:FN and WP:CITET for information on how you need to cite your sources, like the NTSB reports. Akradecki 23:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

DC-10 similarity and American Airlines

Why did American Airlines operate both the DC-10 and A300? They are extremely similar. Oddly enough they got rid of the DC-10 in the mid 1990s but are continuing to operate the A300. It seems parts and commonality issues would be a big problem for American compared to the DC-10. -Rolypolyman 18:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Depends, which versions you compare! The A300 has only two engines, lower operating costs, and depending on the version, a significant lower MTOW and range. Considering the routes for which the A300 is used, it is much more the right plane than the DC-10. -- C. Deelmann 09:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Future use of A300/310 FAL

Does anybody know what is produced at the final assembly line after the end of these types? A330/340s or another A320 family FAL? 84.173.198.202 17:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

A300 Cabin Layouts

Does anyone know what proportion of A300s have been constucted with a 3+3+3 (i.e. 9 wide) cabin layout as opposed to the standard 2+4+2 (i.e. 8 wide). I flew on a Monarch A300 and was very surprised to see the 9 abreast layout. No other A300 I`ve been on has this layout. --JustinSmith (talk) 10:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The world's first 2-crew widebody airliner

The article states:

"A300B4-200FF: An A300 with a "forward-facing" crew compartment. The world's first 2-crew widebody airliner. Includes some of the A310's and A300-600's digital avionics. First saw service with Garuda Indonesia in 1982, further customers were VASP, Tunisair, Kar-Air/Finnair and MNG Airlines."

How can the A300B4-200FF be the "world's first 2-crew widebody airliner" if the A-310 which is 2 crew and which is also a widebody airliner, flew before it ? The same sentence even admits that the A300B4-200FF had the 310's digital avionics...Hudicourt (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Production Number

The infobox says that 561 A300s were built. Under the Operation History section, the article states that 878 were delivered ("From then on, the A300 family sold well, eventually reaching a total of 878 [1] delivered aircraft"). I think both of these numbers may be wrong. The 561 number can be found on Airbus' website at A300-600, but this seems to be for the A300-600 only and not including the A300 freighter versions. Airbus mention 816 deliveries for the A300/A310 family on that same page.

The second number of 878 appears to mistakenly take the Construction Number from Planespotters.net A300 Production List and treat it as if they were all sequential, when in fact they are not. The Planespotters website actually lists 604 aircraft on those pages, and this includes the freighter variants but not the A310.

I'm in favour of using an updated figure for the A300, but making it clear that this doesn't include the A310 production number. However, there is no citation of numbers for the A310 at the moment either, other than the subtraction of Airbus' figure of 816 deliveries for the A300/A310 family minus the 561 A300 deliveries that they list. I think that this may be ignoring freighter figures (i.e. A310 numbers should be less than 255 and A300 more than 561).

Using Planespotters and Airbus figures, with a bit of inference, we would end up with:

  • A300/A310 family = 816
  • A300 = 604
  • A310 = 212

The A310 article would need updating too. But I don't want to change the articles without further verification. Whatsoverthere (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Another amateur website (http://rzjets.net/aircraft/?typeid=3) gives 566 A300s and 256 A310s which is a total of 822 MilborneOne (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Also note that although the combined msns go from 001 to 878 not all of them were built. MilborneOne (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

As.....

Airbus starts with jet airliners? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.210.98.214 (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry your question doesnt make sense, is it something in the article you think is wrong? MilborneOne (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Airbus_A300/Archive_1&oldid=977050237"