Hacker News Reader

Comment by jMyles | Hacker News Reader

> outside of the flights on the Airbus A380

What do you mean by this part?

Guessing: he wanted to fly on the A380, because it's an awesome experience if you're above average interested in planes. Opposite sign of the attention given to the 737max, in other words.

I would imagine so as well.

I'm in the same position. Before the 737 Max fiasco, the only plane I would really look out for, and woudl change tickets for, was the A380. For long distance flights it's way more comfortable especially in economy. The seats tend to be more comfortable, and it's significantly quieter, than competing planes on long distance routes.

Ditto. That, and the A350. It doesn't look as spectacular as the A380, but it definitely is the most comfortable cattle class plane experience I've ever had (next to the A380).

When I fly I usually fly with emirates so I'm quite often on the A380, they really are wonderful planes.

Yes, exactly this. Also, I have only flown these on Emirates and they are great with a kid.

I'm guessing he means he'd prefer to fly on the A380.

He probably wanted to fly on that aircraft so he specifically looked for a flight with that plane?

The A380 has not had a single incident.

I'd say I'm in general biased in favor of Airbus, but what you say just isn't true.

Oh, it's had incidents. Just not any fatal ones.

The early Quantas Flight 32 engine failure [1] was quite severe and the plane was lucky to continue to fly, for instance.

"a turbine disc in the aircraft's number-two engine (on the port side nearest the fuselage) was found to have disintegrated, causing extensive damage to the nacelle, wing, fuel system, landing gear, flight controls, and engine controls, and a fire in a fuel tank "

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32

IIRC they were unable to shut down the outboard engine after landing, and had to get the fire department to shoot water into the engine. They did not have control over the engine the entire flight, nor did they have full control over the ailerons. Few people can really appreciate how hard it is to land an airplane with partial controls.

Yes, it could have gone bad very rapidly. It helps that they had a 35-year captain in command, and 5 pilots in the cockpit - including 2 check pilots. All accounts are that the decision making of the crew was top-notch.

And their instruments were telling them the truth.

Nobody had "omitted" documenting flight-altering automation in the training required to dodge certification requirements...

This is one of those comments that just does the perfect job of bringing the thread back into the context of the original topic.

Indeed it's astonishing to think that one of the tasks that lead to safety and victory for an aircraft which is simple (as opposed to the many which are complex) is the single point of this particular failure.

> the plane was lucky to continue to fly, for instance.

It seems that the better a plane is designed, the "luckier" it gets! Strange how that works.

I always finding myself adding in a U in Qantas, but it's an acronym: "Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services"

TIL!

Didn't know that either!

It breaks the most consistent rule in the English language, so no surprise that it trips people up.

Thanks, I didn’t even notice I had done that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com