“Far better than finding the problem after producing scores of flawed aircraft and having them fall out of the sky due to structural failure.”
More BS!
There has only been one Airbus that crashed due to a “structural” failure and the part failed FAR IN EXCESS of design and certification specs.
But there have been far more Boeings that have had structural failures to include one of the deadliest crashes in history involving a JAL 747 where the rear pressure bulkhead ruptured and the resulting explosive decompression ripped off most of the tail killing 520 of the 524 on board.
Oh and then there was United flight 811.
El Al Cargo flight 1862
Aloha Airlines flight 243
Lauda Air flight 004
BOAC flight 911
BOAC 911 is interesting because it broke up in light “clear air” turbulance
That’s just a small example since I could add dozens more when including avionics failures, as well as uncommanded rudder deflections.
More BS!
There has only been one Airbus that crashed due to a “structural” failure and the part failed FAR IN EXCESS of design and certification specs.
But there have been far more Boeing's that have had structural failures to include one of the deadliest crashes in history involving a JAL 747 where the rear pressure bulkhead ruptured and the resulting explosive decompression ripped off most of the tail killing 520 of the 524 on board.
Oh and then there was United flight 811.
El Al Cargo flight 1862
Aloha Airlines flight 243
Lauda Air flight 004
BOAC flight 911
BOAC 911 is interesting because it broke up in light “clear air” turbulance
That’s just a small example since I could add dozens more when including avionics failures, as well as uncommanded rudder deflections.
Ok but Boeing has had a lot of planes up for many years so the law of probability says there would be a hell of a lot more mishaps with Boeing than the handfull Airbus has flying around.