Simon Calder: Airbus stands by its 'fly-by-wire'. But how safe is it?
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The language of the crash report is terse. The Boeing 777 "bounced, before commencing a ground slide". It was "damaged beyond economic repair", yet the injuries to its passengers amounted only to "one (serious)" and "eight (minor)"; four crew were also slightly hurt.
This Air Accident Investigation Branch interim report describes the remarkable story of a British Airways jet at the end of a 5,000-mile flight from Beijing to Heathrow in January last year. Two miles from the start of runway 27L, and at a height of 600 feet, the fuel supply to both engines dried up. "I could hear the undercarriage come out, and the next moment the plane just dropped," said one passenger on BA38. Captain Peter Burkill paid tribute to his co-pilot, Senior First Officer John Coward, who "did the most remarkable job" in landing the crippled aircraft.
The loss of Air France Flight 447 over the Atlantic involved the closest Airbus equivalent to the Boeing 777: the Airbus A330. As fragments of information about the possible fate of that jet have come to light, aviation insiders have been increasingly focused on the contrasting design philosophies at Airbus and Boeing.
Airbus has long been wedded to "fly-by-wire" technology. The manufacturer encapsulates the concept as one "in which the deflections of the flying control surfaces on the wing and tail are no longer driven directly by the pilots' controls, but by a computer which calculates exactly which control surface deflections are needed to make the aircraft respond as the pilot wishes".
"Plenty of pilots feel that Airbus's 'fly-by-wire' systems are overly sophisticated," said a senior former executive for a leading UK airline. "They can put the pilot in conflict with the aircraft systems. Boeings might be more rudimentary, but they are robust."
There has also been concern about an incident last October, in which a Qantas A330 rapidly descended for no apparent reason. "They have a mind of their own," said a pilot familiar with the aircraft. "Who is in charge – the pilot or the software?"
Airbus maintains its fly-by-wire technology has led to "improved flight safety, reduced pilot workload and the reduction of mechanical parts".
Indeed, an A330 was the aircraft involved in one of aviation's most remarkable survival stories, when an Air Transat jet glided in to the Azores after a fuel leak that shut down both engines in mid-Atlantic.
Which system is safer: Airbus's reliance on world-leading technology, or Boeing's philosophy of allowing a greater degree of human intervention? Statistically, it is impossible to say. Personally, I trust in the immense intellectual and financial investment that both giant aircraft makers have made in that most precious of commodities: the preservation of human life.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments