Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
777 - Perfect Safety Record.  
User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 12138 times:

Apart from a couple of bird strikes, and bird ingestions (EK 773, MH 772, probably others) a tailstrike (Saudi 772), cockpit fires (UA 772), cracked windscreens (AF, UA 772), and some damage from contact with other objects on the ground (KE 772, UA 772) - i am amazed how the 777 has such an awesome safety record, and how it has not suffered a major accident.

Of all the new FBW, or near FBW "Third Gen" types (747-400, 767-400, 777-200, 777-300, A330, A340, A32X, MD11, 737NG) how few accidents there have been.

By my reckoning the total hull-losses are as follows:

MD11: Mandarin Airlines, Korean, Fed-Ex (2), Swissair.
777: None
747-400: China Airlines, Singapore Airlines
767-400: None
737NG: None
A330: Airbus
A340: Air France
A32X: Air France, Lufthansa, Phillipines

Of the Airbus losses, i think we can discount the Sri Lankan and Malaysian losses as circumstantial.

Point is: of the above - how many can you say were down to the aircraft themselves, and not pilot error etc?

I'd say, having had a look on air safety network, and i'd say that the MD11, and the very early AF A320 were the only ones that you could honestly say were the fault of a design fault with the aircraft - all the others were not to do with the aircraft, but the crew instead.

Considering the time these aircraft have been in service 1985 (A320) 1989 (744), 1992 (MD11), 1994 (a340), 1995 (777) - that represents a hell of a safety record.

The previous generation of aircraft (737 Classic, 757, 767 classic, 747 classic, dc10, BaC1-11, Tristar, 727-200 etc) had nothing like as good a reocrd - good certainly, but not as good as the current generation.

Any thoughts?

Rgds,

CM


What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
45 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCLEspotter From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 43 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 12066 times:

Well its still a young plane.........good question though! Im interested in what other people say.

User currently offline9V-SVE From Singapore, joined Nov 2001, 2066 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 12041 times:

The Air France A340 hull loss was actually a ground fire - nothing to do with the aircraft design.

The 777 and A340 may have accidents in the future - they are relatively young planes.

Both 744 crashes mentioned were mainly caused by human error. The CI crash was caused by bad weather conditions and pilot error. The SQ crash was caused by a combination of pilot/ATC error.

All A32X crashes were caused by the computer overriding the pilot.

However, most of the MD11 crashes have some sort of design cause in them.


User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 3, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 11981 times:

Does anyone know about the two Fed-Ex MD11's? I know one was in the Philippines / Subic Bay and one was at EWR, but i dont know about the exact causes. I know the Swissair MD11 was an electrical fire, possibly as a result of the PTV's. The Mandarin one was windshear, and dont know about the Korean one. Were there any other MD11 accidents? I remember something about Eva Air on about writing off an MD11 for ages before they decided to repair it again - what happened there - hard landing was it? Cant remember.

The A320's were all computer problems. Of course the AF A340 was just a fire that got out of control.

I know the SQ and CI 744 accidents were human error - and i recall BA very nearly wrote a 744 off in a heavy landing a few years back - the aircraft was being repaired for ages after - major structural damage. QF were lucky there was a golf course at the end of the BKK runway, and there have been several other problems. I vaguely recall a SQ744 having a tailstrike in Australia a little while ago, and i am pretty sure the same happened to a UA 744 too. Wasnt the BA plane that lost all four engines flying through a ash cloud after a volcano in the far east a 744? Lucky they got them re-lit!

Rgds,

CM



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8051 posts, RR: 54
Reply 4, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 11970 times:

None of the A320 crashes were caused by "the computer" "overriding" the pilot. Are you thinking of HAL?

The Air France A320 was flown at a height of 15 feet towards trees that were 50 ft high, only a couple of knots above stall speed. By the time the pilot realised his predicament, he would have needed a rocket to get out of there.

The Strasbourg crash (Air Inter) was because the pilot selected a rate of descent of 3,300 fpm instead of a flightpath of 3.3 degrees - and Air Inter were the only A320 customer not to have TCAS fitted.

The Bangalore crash (Indian Airlines) was because the pilot descended with full flaps and gear and flight idle power. God knows what their rate of descent was, but even a FBW aircraft will crash if you set up a high rate of descent and then sit on your hands.

The Bahrein crash (Gulf Air) - the pilot became disorientated and flew the plane into the sea.

I agree, the safety record of the modern generation of aircraft (A320, A330, A340; 737NG, 777). Sadly this does not extend to the Scud, also known as the MD11.



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineArsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 20
Reply 5, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 11957 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 777 has been in revenue service for 8 years, which is quite long considering it only takes a few seconds for something to go wrong. This is a plane designed with unprecedented amounts of back-up safety systems and procedures unheard of in previous jet designs. It's a plane as safe as any other, BUT, the nature of the business means it doesn't take long for an accident to take place. All it needs is a cock-up by a engineer, terrorist bomb or a hidden design flaw for there to be a serious accident.



In Arsene we trust!!
User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 6, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 11905 times:

I find the idea of a 777 crash inconcievable - you know sometimes you can envision something in your mind - just cant see it in my mind - how likely is it that the 777 will go through it's whole revenue life from N772UA to the last one to fly making it's final flight - without a single loss?

That would be amazing, but i cant see anyone losing a 777 - just dont see it happening. Most of the airlines that have them have excellent safety records (BA, CX, ANA, UA, CO, EK etc) and even the ones with questionable or even slightly dubious records (TG, AF, SQ, SU, KE etc) have operated them with flawless safety records.

Really impressive.




What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineHoons90 From Malaysia, joined Aug 2001, 2999 posts, RR: 53
Reply 7, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 11901 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Wasnt the BA plane that lost all four engines flying through a ash cloud after a volcano in the far east a 744? Lucky they got them re-lit!

That was a BA 747-100/200 flying from KUL to PER in 1982... it happened over Java Island in Indonesia, and made an emergency landing at Jakarta.



The biggest mistake made by most human beings: Listening to only half, understanding just a quarter and telling double.
User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2688 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 11808 times:

Unless I have a misunderstanding--the only reason the 767 does not have a perfect safety record is because of 9/11. This refers to all models of the 767. However, I could be wrong. Have there been any 767 hull losses aside from 9/11? If not, I would say that you could still say the 767 has a perfect safety record, because the two hull losses on 9/11 were due to kamekaze-like territorists who obviously crashed the airplanes on purpose. Yes, there have been two 767 hull losses, again, if 9/11 were the only ones, but you can still call the 767 models safe because those accidents had nothing to do with aircraft safety.


Fly one thing; Fly it well
User currently offlineUTA_flyinghigh From Tunisia, joined Oct 2001, 6495 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 11801 times:

Wasn't the Lauda Air loss (open reverser in flight) a 767-300 ?
Will



Fly to live, live to fly - Air France/KLM Flying Blue Platinum, BMI Diamond Club Gold, Emirates Skywards
User currently offlineFDH From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 102 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 11707 times:

Just to complete the initial list above, the 777 (AF) had at least one "emergency" event due to uncommanded engine shutdown. I don't want to imply that the 777 is not safe because of that, just wanted to make the list more complete.

On the 767 side, an Air China 767-200 also crashed in South Korea on April 15, 2002.


User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 11, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 11652 times:

767
Egyptair lost one into the Atlantic - suicidal captain
Ethiopian - hijackers
Lauda - thrust reversers opened in flight
Air China - 200 series lost in bad weather
AA - 9/11 First WTC Tower
UA - 9/11 Second WTC tower


Cant think of any more off hand. There probably are, though. Still - all due to crew error.

That cant be bad surely - i mean, the plane is 1982 vintage. Impressive.



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineGerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 31
Reply 12, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 11593 times:

Just one detail about the A32s acccidents: All accidents were with an A320. No A321 or A319 has ever suffered an accident.

Another thing: wasn't there an accident of an Iberia A320 at Bilbao, where th relatively young aircraft had to be written off?

Gerardo



dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
User currently offlineNa From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10645 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 11578 times:

It´s indeed amazing to see the impressive safety record of the modern day airliners in comparison to the ones just one generation older that all had accidents in young age. Remember all the serious accidents involving 747-100s/200s, L-1011s, A300s and DC-10s in the 70s and 80s.
Especially DC-10s were lost in quite high numbers when still new (2 x ONA, 1 x Continental, 1 x Western, 1 x Turkish, 1 x Air NZ, 1 x World Airways, all these unlucky 7 aircraft crashed younger than 5 years old before 1981 - when less of them were flying than 777s/a340s are around now!)

The 777´s record is particularly "clean", although its the newest type of all. And lucklily it hasn´t been hit by pure "bad luck" circumstances so far like a few A340s and 744s.
One must take into account that all A340s and 744s written off (2 resp. 3) were lost in circumstances that have nothing to do with the particular type. It were events that could have hit 777s as well, catastrophic weather (KE744 and CI744), pilot error (SIA744), ground fire (AF A340), terrorist attack (SriLankan A340). The 777 has just been more lucky than its opponents so far.


User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 850 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 11527 times:

AF 777 eme.landing in Canada due to enginefault?
SAS 73NG´s rudderproblem several times.......
No casulties, thank Thor!

Michael/SE




Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 15, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 11470 times:

A friend of mine who works as a F/O for BA says that the 777 is an absolute dream to fly, and that he was really impressed with the handling of the plane when he first did a few stints as PF. They are really heavy on windshear eventualities at BA apparently - its a major concern for them, particularly with regard to the triple seven. Are they very vulnerable i wonder?

I asked him about whether he was concerned that a multiple bird strike on initial climb phase with those big ultra high bypass fans could stall and crash the aircraft, and he said it was a concern but that you would be very unlucky for both fans to suffer uncontained failures - he then drew my attention to the fact that it takes either a lot of, or one mother of a bird to stop a GE90 - apparently they are built to withstand a certain level of bird ingestion. He spculated that an entire flock of, say, canada geese would create some "potentially non-career enhancing" issues... lol

I imagine that having both engines knocked out by a bird sucked into the fan disc in both engines is more likely on a triple seven due to the wide fan discs, and the fact that they suck more than any other engine (lol...sorry). And theres only two of them.

Thats something that i feel makes the triple seven vulnerable, but theres nothing to choose between the modern aircraft really to be fair. And i always feel fine on a triple seven. Ive been on a Tu154 and was less than fine the whole flight, but a triple seven doesnt worry me in the least.



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineB-HOP From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2000, 623 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 11287 times:

That BA747 is G-BNLF, the incident happened in 1997 in Lilongwe


Live life to max!!!
User currently offlineGte439u From Canada, joined Nov 2003, 361 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 11226 times:

On the 17th of last month (March), a United Airlines' B777 carrying 255 passengers flew over the mid-Pacific Ocean against strong headwinds for 192 minutes under one engine power to land without incident at Hawaii. Boeing confirmed that it was the longest one engine diversion during ETOPS segment since the advent of transoceanic twin-engine flights 20 years ago by a TWA B767-200. The B777 departed Auckland bound for Los Angeles. The planned 180 minutes from the ETOPS alternates was exceeded as they encountered stronger headwinds during the diversion.

Source


User currently onlineMEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4304 posts, RR: 36
Reply 18, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 11162 times:

Indeed these planes have great safety-records, and 2003 is a very safe year, check http://aviation-safety.net, they have lists of write offs per aircraft type as well which answer many of above questions. Let's hope the industry continues with years as safe as 2003.
On the other hand, don't forget Airbuses flew from 1972 till 1988 with millions of cycles until the first passengers were killed in an Airbus (Iran Air shot down and Air France Strassbourg pleasureflight), and since then the Airbus 300/310 safety record plummeted into a fair one at the most. Same story about good ole Concorde due to one hull loss.
Statistically seen it's almost impossible the 700-1000+ Boeing 777s which probably will be built all end their lives in museums or the scrapheap. Of course I wish but in 20 years the older 777s will fly for Nigerian and former soviet republics start ups, it's unfortunately unlikely nothing will ever happen to the airplane, although we can hope and try. Although on the other hand, in the last ten years, there been no fatal widebody crashes by the group of supplemental new airlines like Kabo Air, Aerocontinente, Santa Barbara Airlines, Orient Thai, Tower Air, Air Alfa and comparible airlines and the 777 might be even more forgiving.



nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
User currently offlineCO2BGR From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 558 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 11141 times:

A US B767 was W/O due to an uncontained engine failure durring a test run-up.

A UA B777 made an emergency landing in Bangor due to a faulty engine fire indicator with one engine. They had fun getting that restarted as it took UA and boeing engineers three days.



There are too many self indulgent weiners in this town with too much bloody money" Randal Raines- Gone in 60 Seconds
User currently offlineHoons90 From Malaysia, joined Aug 2001, 2999 posts, RR: 53
Reply 20, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 11044 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

I also think that the Dassault Mercure had a perfect safety record, although only 10 were built.


The biggest mistake made by most human beings: Listening to only half, understanding just a quarter and telling double.
User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 21, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 11019 times:

Of all the 777 operators (all types, past and present):

United
Continental
American
Delta
Varig
Air France
British Airways
Alitalia
KLM
Lauda
Aeroflot
Air Austral
El-Al
Kenyan (soon)
Egyptair
Saudi
Emirates
Kuwait
Air Europe
Khalifa
ANA
JAL
Malaysian
Vietnam
Thai
Air China
China Southern
Singapore
Cathay Pacific
PIA (soon)
Asiana
Eva Air (soon)
Korean


Of them, there are a few "slightly dodgy" safety records amongst them. I wonder how many will eventually be delivered? There will surely be other airlines to order new triple seven soon that dont already have them.

Thats an interesting question. What if an airline with a publicaly very very bad safety record wanted to buy some new triple sevens? Would Boeing insist that there is no "Boeing 777" painted on the side, or refuse to sell them their premium product in case they crash it - with the state the media is in, there would be instant, hysterical calls from so-called media "experts" (once saw a plane - never been on one, but know what one looks like...just) callign for the banning of the planes, grounding etc. just like after the AA A300 accident in Queens. Having an airline fly your premium product into a mountain, killing lots of women and children, and it not being very obvious that it was pilot error (it is obvious, but these things take time to investigate etc) - and seeing a smashed and rent piece of fuselage in flames with "Boeing 777" written on it - potentially very damaging to Boeing, in terms of public appeal.

I suppose airlines would know better and the sales would not be affected, but still - you know people STILL are not keen on flying the DC10 even if they know nothing about planes - some people just dont like em (i love them BTW).




What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineF9Widebody From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1604 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 10841 times:

America West also lost an A320. It appears the cause was also crew error:

http://aviation-safety.net/database/2002/020828-1.htm


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © James Richard Covington, Jr
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jeremy Irish



Cheers,
F9W



YES URLS in signature!!!
User currently offlineRichierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4242 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 10631 times:

Just because the 777 currently has a perfect safety record doesn't mean it will stay that way, especially as they age and there are more of them plying the skies.

With that said, I do believe that the fleet of airliners currently flown by airlines in major western countries is safer than it has ever been before. For every safety advancement made to a new airliner or engine design, there have been equally huge advancements made in navigation, communication and weather prediction, all helping avoid accidents in the first place. Perhaps the single biggest reason for the higher safety is the increase in use of computers. Like it or not, the more aspects of flight that computers control, the less likely chance for human error, which we all know is the cause of a lot of crashes. Accidents can, and unfortunately will, still happen, but they are thankfully much less frequent than they used to be.

As it turns out, the single biggest threat against safe air travel is still human input, but this time of the evil variety. Bombs, surface to air missiles, hijacking/crashing aircraft and dumb people with incendiary devices their on shoes are the enemies now. Clearly a lot of focus is going to be spent to combat the jerks that try to kill air passengers. I just hope that airlines (and the governments checking them) still make maintenance a top priority as well.

I believe it is unrealistic to think that the Boeing 777 will go its entire useful career without a major accident, considering that span will likely be 40 or 50 years from first day of service to last. I hope I am proved wrong on this!! But the aircraft has not even been out 10 years yet. How many 757 and 767 accidents were there in their first 10 years of service? Not many. Still, I think the 777 has a very impressive safety record that is testament to Boeing's design and to the airlines that fly them. All current aircraft from Boeing and Airbus have excellent safety records!

One last thing... I think it deserves mention that one of the classic airliners also has a great safety record: the L-1011. Yes, the Eastern crash in 1972 was a bad start, but that was largely pilot error (unless you count a blown bulb being Lockheed's fault). The Saudi crash in Riyadh was awful, killing everyone on board, but that aircraft was not evacuated when it should have been. Who knows how many could have been saved if proceedures were properly followed. The Delta crash in DFW in 1985 or so was wind shear. All in all, the L-1011 was a very safe aircraft even when compared to today's stars!



None shall pass!!!!
User currently offlineMlsrar From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1417 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 10584 times:

The Strasbourg crash (Air Inter) was because the pilot selected a rate of descent of 3,300 fpm instead of a flightpath of 3.3 degrees - and Air Inter were the only A320 customer not to have TCAS fitted.

I believe you mean GPWS. I also have no clue whether or not the GPWS aural alerts also have an impact on the software suite...anyone have any insight?

I don't know that anyone mentioned the (apparently unsolved) GulfAir A320 that hit the water a few miles short of the runway?



I mean, for the right price I’ll fight a lion. - Mike Tyson
25 ConcordeBoy : Egyptair lost one into the Atlantic - suicidal captain Slight correction: as to SU-GAP's fate; both the Captain and F.O. [illegally] left the cockpit,
26 Airbus Lover : Just FYI MH B777s had a few engine surges, and from my head I could think of 2, one at PER the other at BKI. There was also a high speed RTO at FRA ea
27 Zak : "Lauda - thrust reversers opened in flight Cant think of any more off hand. There probably are, though. Still - all due to crew error." that is factua
28 AA54Heavy : If I remember correctly, one of the other EgyptAir 763s (the didn't have too many) was lost at ADD (???) on landing when the crew lost control of the
29 Post contains images Solnabo : When we talking about 777: Is there any US carrier that fly 773? Dont think I´ve seen any A.net photo, or am I wrong? Only Asian carriers? Hejdå Mic
30 AA54Heavy : Nope, no US 773 operators...only the Asian carriers in addition to Emirates (which I guess is Asian too....)
31 Cedarjet : Sorry, I did indeed mean GPWS in the context of the Air Inter A320. The Gulf Air A320 crash was solved pretty fast, the approach was very poorly manag
32 ConcordeBoy : When we talking about 777: Is there any US carrier that fly 773? Dont think I´ve seen any A.net photo, or am I wrong? Only Asian carriers? Air France
33 Post contains links Airsicknessbag : Losses, as per http://aviation-safety.net/database/type/index.html of the aircraft types mentioned in this thread include: MD11: FX, SR, KE, CI, FX 77
34 Arsenal@LHR : Someone mentioned SAS 737's, are the newer NG's still having rudder problems?
35 Richard28 : Going off topic a little, but has the 737 rudder problem, and fuel tank ignition problem been sorted now? IIRC easyJet spotted the ignition problem wi
36 Solnabo : Arsenal@LHR: Yepp, thats right, 736/7/8.
37 EA CO AS : Not to detract from the 777, but the fact that the 737NG family hasn't had a hull loss is far more impressive, considering: - there are FAR more 737NG
38 Godbless : Someone mentioned SAS 737's, are the newer NG's still having rudder problems? I talked to a SK 737 pilot back in July when I flew on the jumpseat from
39 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : I´m talking about the OLD 773, not the new 773ER!!!! Even a a-hole like you know what I mean, or maybe my english is unreadeble ...or, maybe you're t
40 Luisca : EA CO AS wrote "Not to detract from the 777, but the fact that the 737NG family hasn't had a hull loss is far more impressive, considering: - there ar
41 MEA-707 : But the fact the 737NG makes an estimated 3.000.000 flights in 2003 compared to 300.000 cycles for the 777 makes the 737ng the more likely to be in a
42 EA CO AS : Exactly. The odds of a 737NG being involved in an incident are far greater than those of the 777 simply because there are that many more flights for o
43 CHRISBA777ER : Thanks for the info guys. Rgds, CM
44 EdT : I'm a little suprised that HP "lost" their A320 on the landing gear collapse...
45 Post contains images Jayspilot : Northwest also lost a A-319 this past Jan. It bumped a 757 and was disassembled and sold for scrap. The 757 was ferried out and is still in service.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Concorde's Bad Safety Record posted Wed Nov 1 2006 21:16:24 by B741
Corendon Safety Record posted Mon Sep 18 2006 17:38:04 by Rolfen
Technology And The Safety Record posted Tue Aug 29 2006 13:41:49 by Aerogeek
Worst Safety Record posted Mon Sep 26 2005 17:12:39 by Jush
The Airbus A340 Has An Excellent Safety Record... posted Wed Aug 3 2005 10:27:50 by CV990
Great Safety Record posted Tue Mar 8 2005 09:56:24 by FJWH
American Airlines 707 Safety Record posted Tue Dec 21 2004 05:00:40 by B741
B707 Safety Record - Another Time, Another Place posted Sun Aug 8 2004 12:57:04 by Justloveplanes
KLM's Safety Record posted Tue Feb 24 2004 12:08:11 by Tokolosh
Safety Record Of Cessna 210.... posted Sun Mar 30 2003 00:29:43 by Boeing nut