I agree completely, just haven't seen any evidence that Airbus aircraft are less reliable than any other brand so far.
And it sounds like you have more experience on the matter than me when it comes to Airbus. However the issues I've heard of with Airbus aircraft (specifically with regards to structural integrity) are really what bother me. I'm less concerned with frequency of failures than overall severity. If my GPS goes out 10 times, that's significantly more tolerable than my tail falling off once.
See if the lawyers don't name Piper in the suit even if the IO-540 causes a crash.
I'm sure they will, but ultimately in that case, the engine manufacturer is going to receive the brunt of the lawsuit.
You are correct. Part 25 for transport category aircraft and Part 33 (I think) for engines. They are still part of the type certificate for the AC.
That is true, but Part 33 (and these days DO-160/178 for anything with a computer) prescribes a battery of tests that are the real certification of the engine. The certification of the airframe (with the engine as a component) really puts very little on the engine itself.
OK. Valid concerns worth discussing. The Airbus won't let the pilot exceed 67 degrees bank, get too fast, get too slow or exceed too many Gs. All things to avoid in large aircraft. Other than that, it flies pretty much like any other airplne. With multiple failures of redundant systems, it reverts to a normal dumb airplane and you start loosing those protections, but it still flys just fine. Even with complete electrical failure, you still have control of the thrust, and enough flight controls to fly and land the aircraft.
Not letting the pilot do all those things sounds like a good idea, until those systems break and think they're preventing the pilot from doing something when in reality they aren't. There are situations (albeit exceedingly rare) when the options are to do something you shouldn't do, or end up a smoking hole in the ground. I'd rather maintain that option.
I think it's a typical American vs. European design philosophy difference. I want to have control of what's going on, and I don't want something else taking it away from me. European thought processes in general don't mind relinquishing control like American.
Composites are a large part of any modern aircraft. Much is made of the vertical stab on the AA 300 in New York which separated after pilot inputs exceeded design parameters. Hard to prevent that but you can't design for or anticipate every stupid pilot trick. Not sure if even an all metal aircraft would have held together.
That is a question that we don't know the answer to (and one that I haven't done the calculations on). However, the general properties of composites vs. metal tend to indicate that composites either hold together, or they don't. Metal can bend and be forgiving in ways that composites typically can't. You generally have composites that are very brittle, but metals are usually not.
As such, I've typically seen metals offer more forgiving responses to overstressing than composites. Again, there is certainly variation here - there are plenty of metals that can have fatigue fractures develop in such a manner as to make it impossible for the user to detect until a failure occurs which is very unforgiving.
Keep in mind that I don't like Cirrus aircraft, either. The Lancair is about the only composite aircraft I like, and that's primarily because of its performance and economy. However the planes I fly are still all-metal, and if I bought a Lancair, it would be for significantly different flying than what I do now.
Not missing the point at all. I don't know and don't care what you fly. But when a Ford guy starts bad mouthing Chevys, you gotta expect a Chevy guy to call him on it.
Actually, I'd expect the Chevy guy to badmouth the Fords in retaliation. But maybe the Chevy/Ford guys where you grew up were different than the ones where I grew up.
