Scarebus horror story!!!

[N524DA]

Type: Airbus A300-600R
Airline: American Airlines
Date: May 17, 2002
Location: New York (JFK Intl.), New York
Registration: N80057


Because of the fact that the only direct flight between JFK and MCO had left early in the afternoon, I needed to catch a connecting flight at Miami International (MIA). As it turned out, the plane that I was taking from JFK to MIA was an Airbus A300-600...the same plane that had crashed on Long Island the previous November because the tail came off. Before I continue, I need to note that I despise Airbuses. While most of them (except the A321 and A330) are pretty to look at, I feel that they are nothing more than cheap (by cheap I do not mean inexpensive) imitations of Boeing. Needless to say that I wasn't too thrilled when I bought my tickets in April that I was gonna fly on an Airbus.

Being that this was my first twin-aisle airplane since the DC-10 that I flew on to LAX ten years prior, I decided to take a picture of the interior of the aircraft (like I said earlier, I am an aviation nut). I wasn't seated more than 10 minutes before an AA employee came up to me. "Excuse me, but are you Mr. Fiore?" "Yes ma'am." "Can you come with me for a minute, I need to talk to you." We both exited the plane. "Were you the one who took a picture of the interior of the plane?" "Yes ma'am I was. Aviation and airlines are a hobby of mine." "May I ask you why you did it?" "Because this is my first Airbus and my first twin-aisle aircraft in almost a decade." I couldn't believe what I was about to hear. "Well, you have worried the captain because he thinks that you have acted suspiciously, and he insists that you refrain from taking any more pictures on board the aircraft." Here I was, a 19-year old college student, being compared to a terrorist;I was angry and insulted. "Pass my apologies along to the captain and first officer"…I wanted to add, "and if you can give me the captain's home address, I will send him some medication to help cure his paranoia." "I will…you can go ahead and re-board the aircraft." I knew that my face was red as I was walking back to my seat…but I wasn't red from embarrassment, I was red from anger.

I ignored the lady's request to not take anymore pictures. In fact, I took 12 of them before we even took off! Never before in my life had I seen so many different international airlines as I did at JFK. Being that it took forever for us to get off the runway (the two General Electric CF6's on that plane weren't a good choice for engines), I just stared out the window and snapped to my heart's content. As we climbed off the runway and turned south to parallel the coastline, I managed to accidentally discover a new feature of my camera…it could switch from regular shots to panoramic shots…and I made the mistake of taking a panoramic shot of the entire Manhattan skyline…that ranks as one of the best mistakes I've ever made because the picture is phenomenal.

For three hours and forty-seven minutes (my longest domestic flight to that point in time) as we shot down the Atlantic coast, I anxiously awaited my arrival at MIA…I wanted to get off that plane and here's why: shortly after our takeoff from JFK, we hit some minor turbulence. Most planes' wings are meant to slightly bend and vibrate in instances like that. The Airbus, however, began flapping like a bird! Until that moment, I had never been scared on an airplane before. The wings were flapping so hard that I thought that they were going to rip off the fuselage. Needless to say that that experience did not help my opinion of the Airbus consortium…in fact, I hate them more now than before I flew on them. The sole saving graces of that flight were the facts that I had a great deal of leg room, and, as we neared Myrtle Beach, I watched in awe as I could see a cell firing up near Orlando…I was at 35,000 feet, so I could see that far. For the next 90 minutes, I sat transfixed as the lightning shot out of the top of the anvil into the stratosphere...it was the most magnificent aerial lightning display I have ever seen.

On our final approach to Miami, we flew right over downtown (the Orange Bowl stuck out like a sore thumb) and shot out over the eastern edge of the Everglades (it had a greenish glow to it…probably from the methane) before making a 180° turn and landing at MIA. As I exited the plane, I noticed the captain closely watching me. I gave him a solid glare, said nothing, and exited the aircraft.

[Greg]

That captain needs to chill out, a camera is different from a knife. All the same I'm still glad my camera is a mere 8 ounces and can easily slip into my pocket. "Me taking pictures?...No" :lol: Nice report I love watching T-storms from planes.

[screaming_emu]

Would you like to share why you so adimately despise airbus? I could see being a bit disturbed flying another AA A300 after what happened with the tail breaking off in flight, but all of airbus? Come on, they make safe aircraft just like everyone else does. I personally like boeing better, but that doesn't mean Airbus sucks. You evidently have never flown on a 777 before, if a bit of wing flex scares you than I would reccomend not flying on one. On noting what was a good choice for engines or not, I'm sure the engineers who designed the aircraft have a much better idea of what is going on than a 19 year old college student. No offense of course. About the captain, that is pretty sad that he or she would say that and it does suck, but they are in charge of their aircraft, and you must follow the rules no matter what.

[Freightdogg]

Just to put my two cents in here. If you want to take photos of an aircraft interior it's usually best to wait until after the flight and then check with one of the crew. By waiting until the flight has been successfully completed you pretty much cancel out any chance that you might be a threat to the aircraft. Asking first will also ensure the crew that you are harmless. In a lot of years of flying I have never known a crew to refuse such a post-flight request unless they are pressed by a quick turnaround time. Most will be happy to let you shoot away then and many will even let you shoot in the flight deck once the flight is completed.

There is also a certain amount of old flying superstition involved with taking pre-flight photos. During World War I many pilots came to believe that if their photo was taken before a mission that they would not return from it. It became good luck to take a photo after a completed mission, but bad luck to take one before. This same superstition carried on through World War II and though all the pilots who flew in that war have now passed airline retirement age there are still many current line pilots who learned from the WWII generation. In some cases that superstition was passed on and I have met many pilots who are uncomfortable with the idea of pre-flight photos, either of them or of the aircraft.

While you may not believe in such superstition you may well have a pilot that does. Most won't openly admit that belief, but you will encounter many pilots who get a bit squeamish about cameras before a flight. The events of 9-11 didn't do anything to dispel that. I have heard scuttlebutt to the effect that all four aircraft involved that day were photographed prior to departure. I wouldn't know any way to verify that, but the rumor is out there anyway.

It won't hurt anything to wait until after the flight is over and in almost any situation your request will be better received if you do.

[Greg]

But what about photographers taking pictures of planes during push back?

[photoid=77179]

I've taken plenty of pictures of plnes departing and none have fallen out of the sky.

[FMS]

I feel that they are nothing more than cheap (by cheap I do not mean inexpensive) imitations of Boeing

...another statement that reassures my opinion that a lot of aviation "enthusiasts" do not have a clue what is involved in developing a civil airliner.
Instead of just appreciating the marvel of flight and the incredible effort engineers have put in, they bash one manufacturer or another. Nothing personal, I just have to vent about the recent tidal wave of lame posts about Airbus/Boeing that has lowered the quality of these forums

grtz

[ptbodale]

I think your unfortunate run-in with the staff tainted your description of the flight even more than your original dislike of the aircraft manufacturer. At AC we have lots of Boeings, plenty of Airbus products, Dehavilland's everywhere and we at one time had Douglas coming out our ying yangs. I don't understand how you can dislike an entire companies product especially when there are so many of them flying. I did find the rest of your report interesting though. See you got through your flight on an Airbus. It was pretty good, wasn't it?

[Foxtrop]

I have flown DL's 777 (read my flt report) and actually, it's one of the most stable aircraft I've ever flown. Just after takeoff from CVG on our way to CDG, we entered a thick nimbostratus deck. I've had experience flying through those clouds before, and let me tell you, they don't exactly provide for a smooth ride.

But, astonishingly, the 777 didn't even flinch! Just plowed through the clouds, even through the thickest parts of the deck. The wing even dissapeared several times, but still, the plane just kept going on w/o even the slightest fluctuations in pitch/yaw. Even when we were on short final for ATL in August '02 (again , read my report) there were plenty of heat thermals going on, as the ground temp was around 92 degrees w/ little wind. The 777 didn't bounce around, just had minor pitch fluctuations. Amazing. Then again, it also depends on how much wind there is and how hot a day is and also on the size and weight of an aircraft.

I like Airbuses though, they're good aircraft. Great legroom (I must admit, in that category, the 340 beats the crap outta the 777, hands down!) I also was impressed with the silent drop-down trailing edge flaps when I first flew the 343 (DFW-FRA). That was pretty neat. I assume all Airbuses have that feature?? Nice report btw.

Happy Flying.

[screaming_emu]

I have flown DL's 777 (read my flt report) and actually, it's one of the most stable aircraft I've ever flown. Just after takeoff from CVG on our way to CDG, we entered a thick nimbostratus deck. I've had experience flying through those clouds before, and let me tell you, they don't exactly provide for a smooth ride.

But, astonishingly, the 777 didn't even flinch! Just plowed through the clouds, even through the thickest parts of the deck. The wing even dissapeared several times, but still, the plane just kept going on w/o even the slightest fluctuations in pitch/yaw. Even when we were on short final for ATL in August '02 (again , read my report) there were plenty of heat thermals going on, as the ground temp was around 92 degrees w/ little wind. The 777 didn't bounce around, just had minor pitch fluctuations. Amazing. Then again, it also depends on how much wind there is and how hot a day is and also on the size and weight of an aircraft.

I like Airbuses though, they're good aircraft. Great legroom (I must admit, in that category, the 340 beats the crap outta the 777, hands down!) I also was impressed with the silent drop-down trailing edge flaps when I first flew the 343 (DFW-FRA). That was pretty neat. I assume all Airbuses have that feature?? Nice report btw.

Happy Flying.

Yeah, but one of the reasons its so smooth is the wingflex (which many airlines nowadays have due to their composite structure). The author of this thread stated he didn't like the wing flex on the A300, so I'm pointing out that if that scares the crap out of him, he shoudlent fly a 777. The wingflex is supposed to be there, it helps with the smoothride.

[paulc]

My worst flight for turbulence was on a 737 - this does not mean I hate all boeings. Your post is typical of how A vs B flamebaits start - if you did not want to go on an Airbus then go with another airline.

As for wing flex - they are designed to flex - it is not a feature of Airbus.

If they did not flex then a t-storm would probably do serious structural damage with possibly fatal results.

[a78jumper]

I .

I like Airbuses though, they're good aircraft. Great legroom (I must admit, in that category, the 340 beats the crap outta the 777, hands down!)
Happy Flying.

The legroom has nothing to do with the type of aircraft you are on. It is solely dependant upon how the airline choose to outfit the plane on delivery in terms of seat quality, manufacturer, ammenities and the all important pitch, unlike 40 years ago when you got the seat that came with the plane, period.

[ME707]

:nonono:
Hey what's wrong with Airbus?? No need to feel scared on one.
I like Boeing and Airbus the same. They both make really good planes...
As for the wings bending.. they are designed to bend.. i think you went over the top about them "flapping" :shakehea: Anyway.. I thought Airbus had a better safety rate than Boeing?
If the wings didn't bend, they'd fall off right?? :roll: Oh, and by the way, I think that goes for all aircraft, not just Airbus :D
Chill :nod:

[Santijet]

Anyway.. I thought Airbus had a better safety rate than Boeing?


They are... :nod:

I'm sorry if this offends u but I think you overreacted a lil bit :roll:

[fristclass]

that was lame of the fa to do.

[AEagle40]

I dont care for Airbus either. The only reason I dont care for them is their background. I only dislike the company, but not the planes. I like the A320(The only airbus I have flown on via Jetblue) and I consider the A340 to be one of the most beautiful aircraft around and want to fly in one sometime. The only Airbus plane I believe is ugly is the new A380. I will never simply hate all the aircraft of any manufacturer because they are under one name. I prefer Boeing, but I dont mind Airbuses. As for AAs A300s, it has already been talked about why they are the odd ones in an otherwise all Boeing fleet. AA aquired them, and they have places where they are used better than any other aircraft right now. Just my take on it...

[ptbodale]

I don't understand how their past is a problem. They are an amalgamation of several companies. Isn't that what the U.S. companies are as well? As long as it is a safe product who cares.

[reverse_thrust]

Hmmm.....well I like to fly....a lot!
but I really don`t care if it is a Boeing or a Airbus plane....flew on almost all types of Airbus, and I liked them a lot!
And I had almost every single Boeing aircraft (except 727 and 707) and I enjoyed them a lot too.
I am not too bothered about safety records of AIRCRAFT....it depends on the AIRLINE in my opinion.

Keep on flying guys....what ever type of aircraft your`e on......just look at the airline!

[LRJet Guy]

An A300 is a runway hog huh? Almost all flight take off at a reduced thrust setting. This save fuel, wear and tear on the engines, and reduces the aircraft's noise footprint as well. From a pax standpoint, it is very hard to tell what kind of performance an aircraft has. It will vary greatly depending on things like gross weight, temperature, field elevation, density altitude, etc...

I can tell you one of the things in our preflight is calculating required thrust for take off, including single engine EPR in the event we lose one. If we were to stand them up to max power of 101.5%, we'd use very little runway, and climb like something was chasing us. In reality, we rarely use anything higher than 99%. If you go around pulling max power out of your engines for every takeoff, pretty soon they will be temping out at a lower EPR, or N1 depending on the engine, and will need changing sooner than if you follow the book.

If your wings didn't flex, they would break off the damn airplane. This is how an aircraft dissipates the energy from turbulence. In my aircraft, we have almost 1300 pounds of fuel in the tips. The aircraft has 8 individual wing spars, and still flexes like hell when you hit a bump. BTW, the way an aircraft handles turbulence is related to the wing loading. On the Lear, we have a pretty high wing loading, so we don't feel much at all. This is on a 15,000 lb aircraft. Same goes for the MU2, which weighs in at 12, 400. The tail is also subject to flex. Watch the horizontal stab on a 172 when the pilot does his runup.

[reverse_thrust]

ah great LG jet guy.....you fly lear?
post us a pic of your jet ;-)
do you ever fly into Amsterdam?

[LRJet Guy]

Yes, I fly 24s, 25s, and a Sabreliner.

Don't get over to Europe at all, but I do have a VERY Dutch last name.

I have some pics of the 24 scanned, and a roll I shot on the 25. No pics of the Sabre yet, but I'll try to get some. I also don't have the slightest clue how to post pics on here, but I'd be happy to share if someone can point me in the right direction.

You might try going to the forums on www.flyafa.com I guy posted a link to the pics of the 24 over there, and also a screenshot of us flying it on a trip (FlightExplorer).

[reverse_thrust]

well..eeehm if you check the box where you write your reply, you see a set of smileys, under the set of smileys...there is a lina saying something with upload images.....click that, and follow the instructions, just browse through your computer,and finf the pics...and upload them.....it is pretty easy to do!
i`ll check your link from the last post now....and i will see if you work it out ;-)
good luck!

<IMG SRC=http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/432440A.jpg>

[LRJet Guy]

<IMG SRC=http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/lhside.jpg>

Here's a side view.


<IMG SRC=http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/LR24 ckpt.jpg>

Here's a cockpit view.

I have some others, but not really worth posting. I'll also get some of the 25 pics scanned.

[NWAirlinkCRJ@ERI]

LRJet Guy,

What airport is that in the background?? Looks nice with all the jetway!!

Is that Huntsville??? Just a guess.

-Pete

[reverse_thrust]

Glad to see you got the pictures online ;-)
very nice jet you fly around!

[LRJet Guy]

Yep, that's Huntsville.

Thanks Reverse. Honestly, I'm not a big fan of that airplane. The old 24's aren't all that nice to fly, but it did get me into flying jets. The 24 lacks a lot of things that I like about the 25. A gated flap selector, and deice on the tail would be nice. Cabin heat is also a joke on that airplane. They tell you in training that if you don't start heating up the cabin before it gets really cold, then you will be an icicle by the time you land. The 25 has a better system. The old 24s that were converted from 23s are not known icing airplanes, therefore you are really limited to what you can do with them. That one also has the original high ref wing, so you come in like a bat out of hell. Vref speeds of 120-130 are the norm.

Don't get me wrong... I don't have much total time, so I'm very thankful to get to fly these airplanes. Also very fortunate to have flown with Captains who let me fly the airplane. A lot of people in my shoes have to just sit there and hang on. These guys have forced me to learn the systems, and how to fly it, as well as the little tricks to flying them. They also give me plenty of room to develop my own techniques to flying their airplanes.

The Sabreliner is much nicer than even the 25. It has all the bells and whistles including TCAS, GPWS, and a great autopilot. Just got the books on it today, so I have a lot to study. :)

[G-TDTW]

All aircraft wings flex, on the 747 that i flew on in August the wings bent soo much i couldn't see them (I had an aisle seat :x ) If they didn't, you wouldn't have any!

[Katamarino]

I have flown many many times on both Boeing and Airbus. The only truely scary experience I have had was on a Boeing 757 where the autopilot cut IN on takeoff and tried to fly the plane back into the ground. We had to abort the takeoff and nearly left the runway as the captain tried to battle the autopilot.

I am not enough of an idiot for this to suddenly make me hate all Boeing though :roll:

[Katamarino]

Further, what kind of engineering student are you if you didn't realise that the wingflex was normal.. :skeptic: Sounds dodgy to me!

[JeffinDEN]

Having worked on autopilot systems for many years, I can tell you they don't "cut in" as you say. They can cut "off" at times, and may not want to engage, but I have never seen one turn it self on. Besides, they only do what they are told... :wink:

[LRJet Guy]

Yeah, sounds to me more like a mis-trim, or possibly a runaway trim. Either way not fun.

[Bruce]

I did the "right thing" and waited till after the flight and asked the Capt for permission and he told me "NO" and that all picture taking inside planes is illegal and he wrote me up on his flight discrep list or whatever they call it.

That was Northwest Airlink - Pinnacle.

But when I flew with Delta they were more than nice! I guess, being the highest paid pilots in the industry, those DL guys like to show off their "office" LOL

Oh, and about the wing flex... relax. it is normal. There has never been an incident of a wing falling off a plane because it flexed too much. The Airbus that crashed in NY, well basically the tail fell off but there were pre-existing cracks/damage to it.

bruce

[LRJet Guy]

Hi neighbor....

Sounds like that capt was a prick. I had a group meeting a patient we took to Wyoming that was about 50 people strong, all family members.

They took pictures of everything that had to do with the flight, including most of the kids sitting in the cockpit.. They even took pictures of the immediate family with us. I was very proud to be a part of it, and anyone that bitches about people taking pics while on their airplane needs a reality check. I'd say write the airline and complain, but it probably wouldn't do any good. You and I both know there is no law against taking pics on an airplane, and if you were on my bird, I'd let you take any pics you wanted. Then again I'm still new enough to flying jets that IT still hasn't worn off...... :)

[Katamarino]

Having worked on autopilot systems for many years, I can tell you they don't "cut in" as you say. They can cut "off" at times, and may not want to engage, but I have never seen one turn it self on. Besides, they only do what they are told... :wink:

Fair enough Jeff, but i am merely repeating what I personally asked the captain! He said there was a module upon which the electronics had malfunctioned, and was operating the autopilot functions. (I guess it doesn't mean it turned the autopilot on, but perhaps triggered the actual control surface motors, or however it is done). For all I know he could have cocked up and was blaming it on the autopilot, but thats what the Captain himself told me!

[LRJet Guy]

He probably goofed... "Must have been a gust" :roll:

[Katamarino]

He probably goofed... "Must have been a gust" :roll:

If he goofed i doubt we'd have had to wait 24 hours for the plane to be fixed :lol: They wouldn't try THAT hard to fake a fault!

[LRJet Guy]

Maybe the crew wanted a beer? :wink:

[Katamarino]

:lol: :lol: Wouldn't surprise me!

[FlyingPhotog]

I've always wondered if digital cameras were included on the list of devices that must me turned off for takeoff and landing...

But I do know that in the Southwest Spirit inflight magazine, cameras are not on the list so I will shoot until I'm verbally told not to. I caught a great sunrise taking off from TPA last month.

[Bruce]

nope, I have used the digital camera on many flights now and never a problem. I even pull out the big-ass lens and never had a problem.


bruce