UA #497 Diverts and Returns to KMSY

the news reported the aircraft as an A319... On the flight plan here it is filed as an A320... [http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL497]

anyways, here's the real deal...
[http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kmsy/KMSY-Apr-04-2011-1200Z.mp3]
(you can pick up the flight at about 8min)

I can't believe so many airlines are flying Airbus Airplanes. In the past two to three years there has been a lot of accidents or problems, such as the miracle on the Hudson US Airways Flight 1549 comes to mind.

The lack of communication is staggering. No one lit a fire under the workers ass on 10 to get them off? Not once did I hear them tell them it's an EMERGENCY. Then tower talking to emergency and say they still don't have fuel/SOB. That was one of the first things they gave approach. What's the point if they don't tell the freaking rescue workers???

Yeah, Brian, surely the Hudson accident would never have happend if the plane was built by a different manufacture..... good grief!

Whats does flight 1549 have to do with manufactures? The plane was brought down from an outside source. Plus, if anything that compliments airbus!

Yeah Brian--your comment is senseless. As already stated, the US1594 had absolutely nothing to do with the manufacturer of the plane. Both Boeing and Airbus have essentially identical safety records when it comes to their newer aircraft, including the A320 and the 737

go to bed all of you.

These guys declared an emergency and said they needed the longest runway. They should've shoved the equipment physically off if they had to! The guys running this airport were way too slow responding to an aircraft in distress. People could have died due to their lackadaisical response! A complete CF.

Im pretty sure that the hudson us airways accident was caused by birds? am I wrong?

BTW, they DID declare an emergency and say SOB. Here's the audio: http://media.brisbanetimes.com.au/flight-497---cockpit-audio-2288055.html

yes it was brought down by birds, my point was that airbus planes have had more problems lately than most of boeing or McDonnell Douglass planes.

As much as I enjoy flying on the Airbus 320 Series because of comfort (usually), I will always feel more comfortable on a Boeing just because I have an innate fear of the fly-by-wire system and the problems it can lead to. On the other hand, the same goes for the 777, but thus far it has an excellent safety record.

Brian, can you quote a source for your claim of airbus aircraft 'having more problems' ? Bear in mind too, that a bird strike is a problem for any aircraft. I would say that the fatigue issue on the 737s is firmly in the spotlight right now...

I have wondered how long it was going to take airbus to have this kind of problem. Could see it coming and have been talking about it for a while now. It is totally fly by wire, and my question, what happens when you loose electrical power. Problem is here he lost his insturments. His insturments went out and to me that tells me that his RAT (Ram Air Turbine) was not online, or other major electrial component had failed. I am glad this story ended well, and no one was injured or died.

Sparkie - you should familiarise yourself with DO-178 and DO-167.
It seems they lost their avionics, but still maintained control, and because their engines were still operating they likely still had operating generators and didn't need the RAT.
Personally - based on what seems to be happening to 737s right now with high-cycle airframes becoming fatigued beyond safe limits, I'd feel much more comfortable flying aboard a more modern A320 than a 737.

Honestly, I would feel safe flying on any certified airliner. We all know it is still the safest mode of transport and the Media is having a field day right now with any aircraft-related stories. On a side note, I fly Southwest quite a bit, and I'm wondering what the problem is with the relatively low number of cycles vs. airframe fatigue. Just a personal observation, they often seem to have the need for harder landings at "short" fields (MDW for example during crosswinds) -- perhaps they need more frequent inspections based on situation. Back on topic, Airbus' fly-by-wire system seems to be inherently less safe (statistically) than its cable-driven counterparts and seem to have more built-in reliance on the aircraft's multiple ECUs than the judgment of a capable flight crew. Either way, I still love to fly Delta's DC-9s with airframe build dates in the late 60's (old Northwest/Republic/North Central aircraft).

Wings, you are correct. Overlooked the engines. As for the 737's, I think it is SWA's maintenance and not the type a/c. SWA has a bad history of this and cutting corners.

Brian you have no idea what the devil you are talking aobut, you seem to be one of those gringos who think that only aircraft made in the U.S. are good, and the rest not. Obviously you have not been reading all the reports about the Boeing aircraft problems starting with the Aloah 737-200 "convertible", the American 757 that blew a hole in the fuselage and the two Southwest 737-300s blowing large holes in the fuselage too, and the recently posted -and terribly frightening- honest report by a former Boeing engineer stating the the thicknesses of the Boeing fuselages are too thin and thence structurally unsafe; you are best advised to keep your mouth shut more so when you try to smear Airbus over the Hudson Miracle (caused by mother nature's birds flowing into the engines) which if anything showed that Airbus makes very strong airplanes that can float for an hour or more after landing on water.