boeing 707 from the download section crashes

[Nexus]

Nav, the Airbus A320,

[Nav]

Sorry, nexus, my memory playing tricks, I got two incidents mixed up.

[Nexus]

You can't blame the automated systems.
To disengage the Autopilot you only have to push ONE button on the side-stick or yoke, and in the airbus as I said before, you can still roll the aircraft in a 67 degree bank when the protection is activated, so how would that be different from a conventional aircraft like the DC8 for example?
One push - that's all...weither it is a 737, A320 or a King Air. The automated systems have saved far more lives than they have ended.

In the airbus A320, the control surfaces are controlled by computers, 2 ELACs (elevator and aileron computers) and 3 SECs (spoiler and elevator computer).

Now you have 5 different computers and ANYONE of them can work the entire system. Two different software languages are used in the programming and the hardware is made by two different manufactorers, so the chance of losing all 5 is virtually impossible.
The Boeing 737 for example, don't come close to that. There you only have a couple of metal wires connecting the yokes and the control surfaces, chance of them snapping is far greater.

That Airbus system is more fail-safe than any other design. So you're putting your daughter in a "higher" risk (higher is very relative here)

[Nav]

Don't follow quite a lot of that, nexus.  :)

The automated systems have saved far more lives than they have ended.

Do you have figures for that?  Statistics on non-happening accidents?  

That Airbus system is more fail-safe than any other design.

The accident statistics show that Boeings are twice as safe as Airbuses - or alternatively that Airbuses are twice as dangerous.

Two different software languages are used in the programming and the hardware is made by two different manufactorers....

This is supposed to give us all confidence?  When did you last have to de-bug/restart your own computer, or deal with software or hardware conflicts?

So you're putting your daughter in a "higher" risk...

You didn't comment on my point about airlines possibly neglecting pilot selection/training because they have faith in automation.  Did you read that tragic China Airlines transcript?  Any of us could have flown that aeroplane better than that pilot did.

[GC707]

For your information, an updated version of my 707 package is now available.  I've also added smoke on takeoff.

[Nexus]

I don't play with stats to prove my point.
Stats can be twisted and misleading. An airplane crash is often the cause of bad pilotage, weither they used the systems wrong or made bad decisions. But yeah, Airbusses falls out of the sky everyday here  ::)

But I can assure you that GPWS, TCAS and Windshear warning systems, weather radars etc have saved many lives and warned the pilots before they were in serious danger. Those systems are all automated, remember  ;)

But let's play with stats for fun:
In the year 2004 as of October, no airbus has been involved with a "crash" according to airdisaster.com
While 3 Boeings (two of them 737's and a 747) have been involved in accidents, collectively killing 155 people.

In 2003, 5 Boeings crashed (killing 369 in total), and just one Airbus, an A300 that is not a fly-by-wire anyway, with no fatalities on board.
That Airbus incident was the DHL cargo aircraft that was struck by a missile  over Iraq, hardly anything you can blame either the crew or the aircraft, if it's anything you should praise the crew and the Airbus  ;)

In 2002, eight Boeings were involved with acidents (causing the death of more than 220 poeple), the database comes up with NO Airbus incident that year.

Is that evidence enough?

Look for yourself
http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi_bin/database.cgi

[RollerBall]

[quote]For your information, an updated version of my 707 package is now available.