747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3784 posts, RR: 2 Posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 6372 times:
When I think about the Boeing 777, I notice it been in airliner service for 12 years now and never had a crash. It has rarely had a emergency landing. That is a long time for a jet to not have a major problem, this why I think the 777 is the safest airliner ever built. Do you agree, if not why?
TSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 3070 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 6365 times:
Perhaps so in several parameters, but consider this: The 777 is designed and for the most part used as a long-haul airliner, which means that the average 777 would have relatively few takeoffs/landings and pressurization cycles per miles flown when compared to typically high-cycle aircraft such as MD-80s (and related variants), 737s, and various RJs. As takeoffs and landings are when most accidents occur, I suggest the 777 simply may not have been subjected to the same number of cycles as shorter-haul aircraft models and therefore may have the appearance of a superior safety record.
I wonder if anyone has ever compiled a list of the average number of accidents per pressurization cycle on individual aircraft models?
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11781 posts, RR: 60
Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 6338 times:
As I've said before, there are other airliners which have a similar and unblemished safety record to the 777, notably the Russian Il-96 which is of a similar size. So yes, it is currently one of the worlds safest airlines, but it does not hold the title on its own.
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
Legoguy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 3316 posts, RR: 39
Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 6316 times:
There are quite a few aircraft around without any hull losses, but the 777 is the aircraft with most airframes built. It certainly does look like the 777 is near the top of the safest commercial widebody table, if not already at the top! But perhaps it is hard to be certain until the 777 is close to the end of it's life which will not be for a good while yet thankfully.
The A330 has only had one fatal event that I know of and that was of a test aircraft, thus leaving no fatal events in commercial use. Also the Boeing 717 does not have any hull losses however it is virtually a DC-9 / MD 80 which has had quite a few fatal events. I do not believe the MD90 has any fatal events.
Other aircraft without fatal events that are worth a mention are the A318, A319, A321, 737-600, 737-700 and the 737-900
Can you say 'Beer Can' without sounding like a Jamaican saying 'Bacon'?
N231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 6307 times:
Yes and no.
The 777 was at the time of its debut, the world's most tested airliner. I believe only the A380 has surpassed it. However, nearly 12 years later, the 777 is lucky enough that it hasn't suffered an incident...and as mentioned above, there are other things to consider when factoring the title as the world's most safest airliner.
Trent1000 From Japan, joined Jan 2007, 573 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6284 times:
It also depends on what engine type you put on an airframe. You could build the safest fuselage, but engine trouble for any reason can lead to disaster - and neither Boeing nor Airbus make the engines commonly used on 777s or their other aircraft.
TrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2409 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6282 times:
A dozen years of service, several hundred off the production line, not one fatal accident. I'd consider it the safest airliner as well. Have other aircraft such as the 717, MD90, A319, and A340 have similar flawless safety records? Yes, but they haven't been in service as long and/or have far less airframes built.
Quoting TSS (Reply 2): As takeoffs and landings are when most accidents occur, I suggest the 777 simply may not have been subjected to the same number of cycles as shorter-haul aircraft models and therefore may have the appearance of a superior safety record.
Think of all the accidents that plagued the DC-10 and classic 747's in their first dozen years of service. While true to an extent, I'd take that theory with a grain of salt.
Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 3): As I've said before, there are other airliners which have a similar and unblemished safety record to the 777, notably the Russian Il-96 which is of a similar size
Yes, but how many more 777's are flying verses Il-96's? It's not even close, therefore the 777 gets the nod.
Well, let's see. The -700 is in fact clean with the exception of WN sliding off the runway and running over a child at MDW, but I suppose that doesn't really count. The -600 and -900 have only 66 and 52 models in service respectively, so it would certainly be a bad omen for those programs if there had been an accident.
If a man hasn't discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Braybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5870 posts, RR: 31
Reply 17, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6179 times:
What has to be taken into account when claiming an aircraft is safe or unsafe is whether an accident is the fault of the aircraft. For example, Aircraft A may have a completely clean record, whereas Aircraft B may have had several "accidents" through no fault of its own, ie: a terrorist attack, windshear or pilot error. Aircraft B may have had been involved in the deaths of several hundred people, but it is as equally safe as Aircraft A.
TrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2409 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 6171 times:
Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 15): Not exactly, if you're comparing the safety of two aircraft designs then they are perfectly equal, both having zero crashes to their name. Long may this continue as well for both aircraft!
I disagree, the number of aircraft in service is completely relevant when comparing flawless safety records of different designs.
Quoting LAXspotter (Reply 10): One of them is, how many aircraft have been built. I dont know how much the T7 production numbers are, but that is one decisive factor to look at.
Quoting Acey (Reply 11): I believe about 660 have been built.
Arsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 19
Reply 19, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 6163 times:
The fact that the 777 has not had a hull loss or a passenger killed in commercial use is a testament to how great this airliner is. This plane has redundancy and back-up safety systems that aircraft from previous generations could only dream of. Credit must go to Boeing, the development, research and certification testing for the T7 was the most intense in the history of aviation, Boeing certainly did their homework well. Considering the fact that the 777 is flown by airlines from every corner of the globe in nearly every weather condition, it reminds you how durable and reliable this plane is. Touch wood this impeccable record is kept, but it takes one pilot error, one screw-up by a mechanic, or a fanatical terrorist to shatter this record.
ScrubbsYWG From Canada, joined Mar 2007, 1495 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6140 times:
isn't difficult to call a certain model the 'safest'? Is it not true that many aircraft accidents and incidents are related to the pilot's decision? I believe a pilot can make a mistake on ANY plane, no matter the three digits thats on the side, and maybe that is a testament to training companies have undertaken, or maybe because of the system's of the 777, or maybe its time just hasn't come up. Most other major airplane models have been around somewhat longer than the 777.
ZBBYLW From Canada, joined Nov 2006, 1995 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 6067 times:
No some would argue the A340 is safer then the 777. Having had Major Accidents and yet everyone was able to get out of the aircraft safely (thinking AF in YYZ specifically) should mean alot to. Its like saying a Specific car is not as safe as another because of # of accidents, rather then how many people that second car has saved due to safety features that if where installed in car A could have saved lives, its all relative.