It's been a particularly bad year for the 737, but all told this article points out how there have been a LOT of mitigating factors in many of the recent crashes (ie. mostly the oldest -200/300 series with questionable maintnance, and/or bad weather at the times of the crashes).
MDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3607 times:
They really should have done a quick breakdown of the crashes to emphasize thier point... such as.
Hit cows
Hit a mountain after rejected approach
Forgot to pressurize aircraft
Crashed in storm after rejected approach
Engine failure on takeoff - likely compressor stall
Under investigation.
That's your 2005 hull losses for you.
One under investigation, a cow, two bad approaches, pilot error, and an engine that probably needed an overhaul.
Let's go back to 2004
A severe birdstrike that crippled the nosewell
An engine fire on takeoff.
Cactus739 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2379 posts, RR: 34 Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3598 times:
MDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3599 times:
Quote: 04 Jan 2005; PK-YGF ?, 737-200C, 21822/605, Tri-MG; Banda Aceh, Indonesia:
The aircraft was making a normal landing at Banda Aceh airport when it hit cows that had strayed onto the runway. The port main gear collapsed and the port engine and landing gear were badly damaged. The Republic of Singapore Air Force was called in to use their Chinooks to "float" the aircraft off the runway using airbags.
The were no injuries and the aircraft was declared a write off and scrapped several months later.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21025 posts, RR: 60 Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3558 times:
Quoting MDorBust (Reply 4): I believe it was a tsunami relief flight.
correct. special purpose ops shouldn't even enter into the equation of pax airline safety anyway.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11705 posts, RR: 52 Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3408 times:
Considering the number of classic B-737s built, and the number of hours they have flown (compared to the number of total accidents), they do have a great safety record.
HAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31201 posts, RR: 58 Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3373 times:
I think the problem lies with Flt ops & Mx Practices followed by certain Countries.
Remember Rules if followed,the results are Always rewarding.
B737 is one of the Best Aircraft ever Built.
regds
MEL
Flyingbronco05 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3838 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3192 times:
Commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10188 posts, RR: 63 Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3171 times:
It is also important to recognize that the sheer number of Boeing 737 flights in the world -- today and throughout the history of the airplane since 1968 -- are important to put crashes in perspective.
According to this website the Boeing 737 actually has one of the best safety records of any aircraft in the air. While in absolute terms, it has had more "events" than any other aircraft type measured, it also has had more flights in the aircraft family's lifetime, 76 million, than any other aircraft type in history.
A few comparisons of the safety rate of different aircraft types:
0.67-Airbus A319/A320/A321
0.62-Boeing 737
0.45-McDonnel Douglas MD80
Glareskin From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 1284 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3158 times:
Quoting Flyingbronco05 (Reply 9): If you think the 737 is not safe, then the Concorde, A300, A310, A319/20/21, B727, B747, L1011, DC9, DC10, MD11 are actually worse than the 737.
Yes they are! But having said that: they are still very safe. The unsafest of them all, The Concorde, had 1 accident in over 30 years of service...
There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9602 posts, RR: 10 Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3080 times:
"Considering the number of classic B-737s built, and the number of hours they have flown (compared to the number of total accidents), they do have a great safety record."
If you exclude the 737-200, the 737 is a very safe aircraft indeed. Most 732s though, (which btw never had an enviable safety record even as a new aircraft in the 70s) are in the hands of third tier operators with often dubious reputation now, so that its appalling record will surely get worse proportionally. You can expect the 100th 732 loss next year without being a pessimistic unless the type is wfu in very large numbers. The 732 was good in the 70s and 80s, but isn´t any more.
"If you think the 737 is not safe, then the Concorde, A300, A310, A319/20/21, B727, B747, L1011, DC9, DC10, MD11 are actually worse than the 737."
Generally said that is rubbish. If you include all 737NGs this might be true because this includes thousands of very reliable 737NGs younger than 7 years. So I beg to differ. There are 3 generations of 737s, and these have very, very different records even if taking their age into account. From the 747 there are 2 generations, and again here the newer type -the 744- has a vastly better record than the 747 Classic (one fatal 744 accident in 16 years service out of more than 600 frames built is truly remarkable), again without ignoring their different age.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 217 posts, 
From India, joined Jan 2001, 31201 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2004, 1098 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 1284 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
