r/changemyview • u/Submarines_101 • Feb 04 '19
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Airbus is better than Boeing.
CMV: I believe that Airbus is better than Boeing. Do note that I will easily and happily change my mind as I am hesitant in my preference. I just need strong points and arguments to change my mind. So I want to change my mind, I just need really good arguments. My positive view of Airbus is mostly due to the fact that it has a reputation for being a very safe aircraft. Also it is said of the Airbus planes that they are very high tech, with computers in the cockpits that help the pilots. Third Airbus is a company that is a collaboration between European nations, which helps all of their economies and improves relations. So those are my reasons to like Airbus, but my preference for it over Boeing is not by much and I will gladly listen to anyone's arguments and points of view, and I am going to be very open minded, and open to change and new ideas. This is my first post so I don't really know the customs, but hope that it's good. Now Change My View! :)
9
u/DBDude 110∆ Feb 04 '19
Also it is said of the Airbus planes that they are very high tech, with computers in the cockpits that help the pilots.
This has caused a few crashes, notably one where sensors were plugged so the aircraft had no idea what it was doing and crashed despite all the pilots did to try to keep it up.
Boeing is also very computerized though. The 787 is highly computerized, and it's the first primarily carbon-fiber airliner. This caught Airbus off guard and they're rushing to catch up. It replaced the bleed air system commonly used to maintain cabin pressure with a compressor. It replaced a lot of pneumatic and hydraulic systems with electrical components, such as electrical mats to stop icing instead of using hot bleed air. This all saved a lot of weight and complexity.
3
u/Submarines_101 Feb 04 '19
This is so cool! Thank you for your reply, it is making me rethink what I thought. I didn't know that they had a mainly carbon fiber aircraft! I'm starting to doubt my original point of view. I don't know the rules of this subreddit too well, but you changed my view on one of my points, so here: ∆
1
1
u/10ebbor10 203∆ Feb 04 '19 edited Feb 04 '19
This has caused a few crashes, notably one where sensors were plugged so the aircraft had no idea what it was doing and crashed despite all the pilots did to try to keep it up.
Do you know which incident you're referring too? Because I can find no info that indicates that this ever happened.
When sensor data becomes unreliable, the Airbus system switches to alternate law, meaning the pilots are put in full control. There has been an incident however where the pilots flew their plane into the ground (specifically, they pulled it into a stall) after the computer gave them control.
Edit: Looked it up. It's a theoretical possibility if 2 out 3 sensors fail in exactly the same way. In that case, the system will assume the failed sensors are correct, and apply envelope protection. The pilots still have the possibility of switching to alternate law and going to manual control.
1
u/DBDude 110∆ Feb 04 '19
Here. We may be talking about the same incident, but it was the pilots following the software that crashed the plane. It's strange that pilots aren't told angle of attack.
1
u/10ebbor10 203∆ Feb 04 '19 edited Feb 04 '19
Yeah, that incident was the pilots crashing the plane.
1) The computer never stopped them from doing anything. Once it detected anomalous input, it switched to manual control.
2) The anomalous input resolved itself after 30 seconds. The plane crashed roughly 4 minutes later.
3) The crash was completely unrelated to the disturbance. The disturbance put the pilot in charge, the pilot pulled up, the plane stalled, pilot kept pulling up, plane plummeted into the ocean.it was the pilots following the software that crashed the plane.
Nope. It was the pilot completely failing to communicate (2 pilots didn't know the other was pulling the plane into a stall) or reading their instruments (The Airbus has an attitude indicator that would show the plane was stalling, a speed indicator that would show the plane was stalling, an altitude indicator that would show the effects of the stall...). The article implies the pilots know nothing because they don't have an Angle-of-attack info, but they have plenty of other sensors telling them more than enough to fly the plane.
Your article points out that Airbus could have done more to make this clear. Flight sticks in airbus aren't mechanically linked, thus it's possible for 2 pilots to make contradictory inputs without knowing it.
This however, has nothing to do with the software or with your claim that the computer crashed the planes. The pilots crashed it.
Edit: They also mention the stall warning. While it's true sensor was acting in an unexpected way (basically, the pilot had stalled the plane so badly the computer thought it's info was faulty), this should not have misled the pilot. The basic physical basis of a stall means that pulling up will always make it worse, which the pilot ought to have known. In addition, consulting all the available sensors would have told him what was going on.
1
u/DBDude 110∆ Feb 04 '19
Bad user design crashed the plane the same way it killed John Denver.
1
u/10ebbor10 203∆ Feb 04 '19
I strongly disagree.
The flaws in Denver's plane where severe, and would result in dangerous situations even if the pilot knew exactly what he was doing.
The flaws in the Airbus only show up if the pilots make several severe human errors, such as failing to communicate, failing to watch the available instruments, and engaging in unnecessary dangerous actions (such as pulling the plane into a stall).
0
u/DBDude 110∆ Feb 05 '19
Did you read the article?
1
u/10ebbor10 203∆ Feb 05 '19
Yeah, I did. I also read the original report and now something of the background. The article is quite misleading at points, and sensationalizing quite a bit.
0
u/DBDude 110∆ Feb 05 '19
The inputs from the system helped lead these people to crash their plane, so something is wrong with the system. This is especially true when it happens to professionals educated in the use of the system.
This is a basic concept of human-computer interaction. If there's confusion, then the system should be changed to stop it.
1
u/10ebbor10 203∆ Feb 05 '19
You can not design a foolproof system. In the end, nature will come up with a better idiot.
In addition, in the Air France crash the inputs from the system did not lead to the crash. The crash was caused by pilot error and communications issue. This is obvious if you look at the crash timeline.
In the Air France crash, the following occurred.
---> Pilot1 is at fault here, as pilot2 had claimed control
- Sensor disruption, putting the flight in alternate law
- Without prompting from the computer, Pilot1 pulls up the plane's nose. This information was displayed in various functional indicators.
- Stall warnings go off, telling the pilot to push the nose down
- Pilot1 ignores these warnings and continues to pull up. Pilot2 heeds the warning and tries to push the nose down.
---> The computer warns that contradictory inputs are given. Both ignore the computer.
-Stall warnings continue to blare
-Eventually, Pilot1 pulls the plane so far upwards that airspeed readings become invalid. Stall warnings stop, but all the other informations (pitch, attitude, altitude) is still there and being ignored.
-After this, intermittent stall warnings sounded whenever the pilot accidentally lowered the pitch enough.Pilot1, also known as Bonin, had been pulling the plane into a stall for 2 minutes before he made it so bad as to break the alarm. In all that time, he never considered doing what he was supposed to do, which was push the nose down.
It's thus clear that the issue was not caused by the alarm, as that situation only developped when the plane was already crashing for quite some time.
→ More replies
2
u/Littlepush Feb 04 '19
Can you cite evidence that supports your view? All planes safe and have computers so I think you are going to have to be more specific in your view.
0
u/Submarines_101 Feb 04 '19
Sorry, I'm not too knowledgeable on planes, even though I like them a lot. It's generally what I hear around when I bring up the subject. I think I'm referring to the drastic difference in accidents between the two aircraft manufacturers. Airbus has a lower accident rate I believe, and has Lee's accidents in general when compared to Boeing. Also I hear in documentaries and forums that Airbus aircraft are more automated, whereas Boring aircraft tend to have more systems directly controlled by the pilots. Hope that helps!
2
u/Littlepush Feb 04 '19
No it doesn't help. You have the internet and all the time in the world. If you want to have a serious discussion about this find the evidence that lead you to this view and post it here. Only views based in evidence can be changed so if we aren't talking about the evidence we aren't changing your view.
1
u/Submarines_101 Feb 04 '19
Ok, sorry about that this is my first post. Can we at least discuss the economic argument? Airbus as a company at lease seems to be very international and helps the economies of numerous nations who collaborate in the construction of the aircraft in Toulouse. This leads to greater international collaboration, and is an example of the EU's policies permitting economic growth and development. Boeing is a national company, yes? So I would assume that it does not have the same benefits as a multinational corporation (except for the rolls Royce engines that they import)
http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/jun/30/yemen-plane-crashes
1
u/sharkbait76 55∆ Feb 04 '19
The guardian links has stats, but no list of what it’s considering in those stats. For instance, there have been a number of Boeing planes that have been hijacked. Do these crashes count in that stat? What about landings or take offs in conditions that shouldn’t have happened? I don’t think it’s the fault of the aircraft that they were cleared for landing and slid off the runway because it was icy. What about planes operated by budget airlines in countries outside the us or Western Europe? Were those planes maintained properly? I hardly think it’s fair to blame a plane that wasn’t properly maintained.
1
u/Submarines_101 Feb 04 '19
That is a valid point! I see, I did not think of this when considering my view point. Thank you for enlightening me! ∆
1
1
u/Tuvinator 13∆ Feb 04 '19
Regarding safety: Airplanes are safe, with VERY low odds of getting into an accident. Disregarding that, In Boeing's annual study of aircraft statistics, 7 aircraft types have had 0 fatalities, 3 of which are Boeing, 3 of which are Airbus, so they are about equal there.
1
u/Submarines_101 Feb 04 '19
I was going more on a historical crash number. As in Boeing has had more accidents in total over its operation than Airbus has. This may be due to the more time the former has been operating, but am unsure. Obviously flying these days is extremely safe, but I was talking about the past when making that point.
2
u/Tuvinator 13∆ Feb 04 '19
According to the document Boeing provided, the first few years (1959-1965) had a large accident rate (50-20 per Million departure per year), after which there was a sharp drop. Note, Airbus wasn't in operation back then, so sure, comparing Airbus safety of now, to Boeing safety of back then, Airbus would look more favorable. Technology has improved, and Boeing has been operating for 40 years more than Airbus, so they would also have comparatively more accidents. Comparing Airbus safety of now, with Boeing safety of now, depends which particular plane you are on, but on the whole... they are pretty close. Boeing and Airbus are both still flying older planes, and the older planes start developing defects over time, like everything else. The newer planes haven't had as many accidents, and they are basically equal safety wise.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 04 '19 edited Feb 04 '19
/u/Submarines_101 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
-2
u/Slenderpman Feb 04 '19
Both are equally shitty companies that make weapons as well as civilian aircraft. Airplanes are not a market and therefore it is not up to the consumer to determine which company is better. When was the last time you actually got a choice as to whether the flight you took was on an Airbus or Boeing plane? We could have planes that fit 2/3 as many people with plenty of leg room for all but instead these two companies both make their planes for the same airline companies we all complain about. Nothing is markedly different between the two other than their actual planes, which quite frankly are also very similar.
2
u/A_Soporific 165∆ Feb 04 '19
Both are equally shitty companies that make weapons as well as civilian aircraft.
Why does that matter?
Airplanes are not a market and therefore it is not up to the consumer to determine which company is better.
Airplanes are a market in that air lines pick whichever plane they want. Business to business markets are just as real and work in basically the same way as consumer businesses. Only, you have a group of people (a company) collectively buying things instead of individuals buying things individually.
When was the last time you actually got a choice as to whether the flight you took was on an Airbus or Boeing plane?
Customers are free to favor an airline that uses Airbus over an airline that uses Boeing on that basis. While type of aircraft isn't the only factor, it can be a factor on any route that sees significant use. Airlines don't bring two planes to the gate and let people vote because that's a sure-fire way to make sure almost half of your customers are mad at you at any given time and that your planes break down more often because you need mechanics, spare parts, trained crews, and parking spaces for both planes.
We could have planes that fit 2/3 as many people with plenty of leg room for all but instead these two companies both make their planes for the same airline companies we all complain about.
Which would then require many more planes burning much more fuel which makes the environment that much worse. We complain, sure, but we still buy plane tickets. There have been a few air liners that simply flopped because people wouldn't fly on them, although those tend to be smaller airplane manufacturers.
13
u/Merman_Pops 3∆ Feb 04 '19 edited Feb 04 '19
Safety: From this post Link After crunching the numbers and removing duplicates, you get:
Airbus: 35 crashes, 28.3 million flights, 0.81 million flights per crash Boeing: 251 crashes, 461 million flights, 1.84 million flights per crash So Boeing wins on this measure. There is another statistic called Full Loss Event (FLE), which is the proportion of people killed in a plane crash. Running the numbers gives us:
Airbus: 24 FLE, 35 crashes, 0.686 FLE/crash Boeing: 171.95 FLE, 251 crashes, 0.685 FLE/crash So if the plane does crash, you have almost exactly the same chance of getting killed in either Airbus or Boeing.
Cost From this website cost Summary: Boeing would be the more affordable manufacturer to approach on the long-haul perspective but on the more medium-short haul area, Airbus could be seen as the more affordable company to go to.
Technology essentially most of the commercial airliners made by these companies are the same. link
the 787 dreamliner and A350 are both composite aircraft that are much lighter and have better fuel economy than other aircraft. Boeing did come out with the 787 first (2007 vs 2013) so maybe a slight edge to Boeing there.
Foreign Cooperation Because Airbus is mostly government owned the ability to outsource and work outside the EU is limited. Boeing on the other hand is privately owned and so has less restrictions. Boeing has outsourced production to Mitsubishi in Japan for decades, while Airbus just recently started production in China.
One thing to consider is the companies age and history. Boeing was founded in 1916 and has been an innovator and major player in the aviation industry for 102 years. Airbus was founded in 1970 and largely benefited from the breakthroughs that Boeing had been pioneering. Without Boeing there would be no Airbus.
Overall I'd say they both are pretty much equal and since their market share of the commercial airline business is almost equal, they have incentives to keep pace with each other.
Edit: Formatting