Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)  
User currently offlineDogfighter2111 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1968 posts, RR: 1
Posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3886 times:

Hey,

I got this from ASN:

Bellview Airlines B737-200, 5N-BFN. Crashed 22 OCT 2005.

1. 99th loss of a Boeing 737-200
2. 7th worst accident involving a Boeing 737-200 (at the time)
3. 7th worst accident involving a Boeing 737-200 (currently)
4. 5th worst accident in Nigeria (at the time)
5. 5th worst accident in Nigeria (currently)

I just had a few questions:-

1. How long has the B737-200 been flying? I think it is at least 20 years and 99 incidents are not bad considering how many were/are in service.

2. It says, the 7th worst B732 accident. Anyone know what the worst one is? Is it the Kam Air B732?

3. What is the worst accident in Nigeria?

Thanks
Mike

39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMbg From Turkey, joined Nov 2005, 38 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3839 times:

Wow! 99 aircraft lost???

Without any further data, it sounds pretty bad to me.

Cheers,

mbg


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20640 posts, RR: 62
Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3824 times:

Quoting Dogfighter2111 (Thread starter):
How long has the B737-200 been flying?

Since Dec 1967, so 38 years now. Just flew on one last week with Delta, magnificent flight.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3801 times:

Quoting Dogfighter2111 (Thread starter):
1. How long has the B737-200 been flying? I think it is at least 20 years and 99 incidents are not bad considering how many were/are in service.

If you don't mind me lumping the 737-100 and -200 together:

1,125 aircraft have been flying since 1968 (38 years ago)

Quoting Mbg (Reply 1):
Wow! 99 aircraft lost???

Given the aircraft of its era and the duration it has been flying, it isn't bad.


User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3801 times:

Although there have been two 737-300 accidents with more fatalities (Egypt 149, China 141), the worst 737-200 accident is this one in the Phillipines that killed 131:

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20000419-0


User currently offlineIsitsafenow From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 23
Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3773 times:

5N-BFN was built in November 1981 as OY-MBW for Maersk Airlines. It also flew with Midway Airlines in 1985 and, as N271FL, with Frontier Airlines in 1996. This is only part of the planes history.
safe



If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3763 times:

As at the date of this table (2002 I think) 737s had made 76 million flights with only 46 accidents involving one or more deaths.

That apparently makes it, statistically, the fifth safest aeroplane ever. Apart from aircraft like the 777 and A340 which have had no fatal incidents at all yet.

http://www.airdisaster.com/statistics/



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5696 posts, RR: 44
Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3753 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Mbg (Reply 1):
Without any further data, it sounds pretty bad to me.

1125 Airframes, entry to service 1967
99 Hull write offs, of those only 53 involved fatalities (12 of those less than 10)
Of the fatal write offs there were several Hijack/sabotage incidents, a number of CFIT incidents and some plain dumb flying. Not really so bad
Write off rate per million departures lower than most jet trans. of that era approx 1/4 the rate of F28 and even 1/3 the rate of MD-11

Considering where they are operated and by whom, pretty decent really!!



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineMbg From Turkey, joined Nov 2005, 38 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3732 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 2):



Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 3):



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 6):



Quoting StealthZ (Reply 7):

You guys have a point, I take it back. Thanks for the stats by the way.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3684 times:

Considering the Number of B737s flying.
The ASN site has the breakup too.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineDogfighter2111 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1968 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3650 times:

Thanks for all of the replies, now to start quoting  Smile

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 2):
Since Dec 1967, so 38 years now. Just flew on one last week with Delta, magnificent flight.

WOW, that long! I take it that the 1st B731/732 has been scrapped?

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 3):
If you don't mind me lumping the 737-100 and -200 together:

1,125 aircraft have been flying since 1968 (38 years ago)

Of that number, ONLY 99 compared to the amount produced then 99 isn't bad!

Quoting Isitsafenow (Reply 5):
5N-BFN was built in November 1981 as OY-MBW for Maersk Airlines. It also flew with Midway Airlines in 1985 and, as N271FL, with Frontier Airlines in 1996. This is only part of the planes history.
safe

Atleast she has a good long life. Hopefully B744's wont start dropping out of the sky within the next few years!!!

Thanks
Mike


User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3590 posts, RR: 29
Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3640 times:

The 737-200 had a bad year. Has the airplane anything to do with that? Not really. The rule is simple: 737-200 = old, old means "sold to regions with dubious flight safety standards", this means more accidents.

However, I think we can say that the A320 and 737NG are safer than older 737s, because cockpit ergonomics certainly are better today. Are older 737s unsafe because of this? Certainly not. Would I fly on one? If it is a US carrier or Ryanair, probably. If it is a carrier I don't know, certainly not.

Michael


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3560 times:

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 11):
The rule is simple: 737-200 = old, old means "sold to regions with dubious flight safety standards", this means more accidents

You are correct.Mx plays an Important role here.Unfortunately some countries don't have a strong regulatory or Mx setup.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineDogfighter2111 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1968 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3537 times:

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 11):
The 737-200 had a bad year. Has the airplane anything to do with that? Not really. The rule is simple: 737-200 = old, old means "sold to regions with dubious flight safety standards", this means more accidents.

That is so true. Most accidents i have noticed in "regions with dubious flight safety standards" is that tehy are pilot error or maintenace related. If anything happens within the US or EU then it is a true accident because maintenace work is so thorough.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 11):
However, I think we can say that the A320 and 737NG are safer than older 737s, because cockpit ergonomics certainly are better today. Are older 737s unsafe because of this? Certainly not. Would I fly on one? If it is a US carrier or Ryanair, probably. If it is a carrier I don't know, certainly not.

What i find though, is Airbus aircraft are much more safe than Boeing aircraft. (Not trying to start A vs. B) But there have been more B747-400 crashes than A320, A330 and A340.

Thanks
Mike


User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3590 posts, RR: 29
Reply 14, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3496 times:

Quoting Dogfighter2111 (Reply 13):
What i find though, is Airbus aircraft are much more safe than Boeing aircraft. (Not trying to start A vs. B) But there have been more B747-400 crashes than A320, A330 and A340.

Not really, the 747-400 only had very few accidents so far, one at Kai Tak and the one at Taiwan (Singapore Airlines). The 747-400 has a much better safety record than the 747classics.

There is no real difference in safety between A and B, more in terms of years. New A models are safer than old A300s and A310s (only according to the statistics!), the same applies to the 737NG which is better than the 737 classics.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20640 posts, RR: 62
Reply 15, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3467 times:

Quoting Dogfighter2111 (Reply 10):
WOW, that long! I take it that the 1st B731/732 has been scrapped?

I know there's a thread around here somewhere about the first 737, but I can't find it. In this thread:

Ozjet 737-200 (by AussieA346 Nov 15 2005 in Civil Aviation)

there are photos of line #'s 2, 4 & 5 that have been scrapped.

It was kind of nice to have flown one again last week in such nice condition--the first one I flew on was 33 years ago! :: gasp ::



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinePhollingsworth From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 825 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3467 times:

Quoting Dogfighter2111 (Reply 13):
What i find though, is Airbus aircraft are much more safe than Boeing aircraft. (Not trying to start A vs. B) But there have been more B747-400 crashes than A320, A330 and A340.

Please quantify what you mean by "much more safe", which grammatically doesn't mean anything. As for your second statement, that the B744 has had more accidents than the A320, that is patently incorrect. The B744, according to airdistaster.com, has been involved in 5 accidents, at least one of which could be termed an incident (Asiana in Anchorage) as the biggest problem was damage to GSE and a fuel spill. Of these only one has been fatal (Singapore in Taipei), resulting in a loss of 83 lives. The A320 on the other hand has been involved in 7 accidents, 5 of which involved fatalities, and 3 of which involved more fatalities than the Singapore Airlines accident. Even the A330 has had as many fatal accidents as the B744.

When you compare accidents you need to compare aircraft from the same era. As an example take the B767 and A310, both of which were designed in the late 1970s and 1980s. The B767 has been involved in 6 fatal accidents, three of which were directly the result of terrorist actions (Ethiopia, and two in NY, NY USA), the total fatalities comes to 840 lives. The A310 has been involved in 5 fatal accidents, total fatalities of 518 lives. If you include the A300-600, as an attempt to bring the total number of aircraft from the same era, to approximately equal levels, you need to add three more fatal accidents, for another 720 lives. What does this tell you about the safety of the aircraft, nothing really, it just illustrates that the above blanket statements are poorly quantified or qualified, often illogical, and rarely true.


User currently offlineDogfighter2111 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1968 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3459 times:

Sorry, i am used to typing B747-400. I meant B747 in General. Sorry for not making that clear.

Phollingsworth, when i say "much more safe" i mean in terms of computer designed, computer controlled etc. Everything on the A320, A330 and A340 is nearly all electrical/digital.

There are figures and staments on a website with exact details about the pro's and con's about each manufacturer and Airbuse come out better. Although Boeing have something like a 70% better controller. (Yoke) It was said to be easier to handle, and that i agree with.

Thanks
Mike


User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3590 posts, RR: 29
Reply 18, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3403 times:

Quoting Dogfighter2111 (Reply 17):

Well, I agree, however the introduction of FBW itself lead to some accidents, the first years the A320 concept wasn't completely proven yet and lead to controversial discussions, especially after the Habsheim accident. The 737NG on the other hand proves that an airplane without FBW can have an excellent safety record, as well.

But in general I would agree with you that FBW is a step towards more safety, if people are trained properly. There are reasons why the 777 and the new airbus planes are as safe as they prove to be... Hopefully we will see this trend continuing with the A380 and 787...

Michael


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3523 posts, RR: 66
Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3386 times:

Quoting Dogfighter2111 (Reply 17):
There are figures and staments on a website with exact details about the pro's and con's about each manufacturer and Airbuse come out better. Although Boeing have something like a 70% better controller. (Yoke) It was said to be easier to handle, and that i agree with.



Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 18):
But in general I would agree with you that FBW is a step towards more safety, if people are trained properly. There are reasons why the 777 and the new airbus planes are as safe as they prove to be... Hopefully we will see this trend continuing with the A380 and 787...

I'd like to see any data that proves FBW produces a safer airplane. If you compare the hull loss rates of the 737-300/400/500/600/700/800 and the A318/19/20/21, you'll find they are statistically identical. Since these are contemporary airplanes, if there was a FBW difference you'd hope it would show up.

Dogfighter, can you provide a link to the web site you're quoting?



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlinePhollingsworth From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 825 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3367 times:

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 18):
I'd like to see any data that proves FBW produces a safer airplane. If you compare the hull loss rates of the 737-300/400/500/600/700/800 and the A318/19/20/21, you'll find they are statistically identical. Since these are contemporary airplanes, if there was a FBW difference you'd hope it would show up.


A causal link will be very hard to show here. There doesn't seem to be much/any correlation between the presence of fly-by-wire and accident rate. Furthermore, any correlation that occurs is probably the result of improper controlling for the effects on not-included variables. Of course one of the beauties of statistics is that while correlation does not imply causality, causality requires correlation.


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3523 posts, RR: 66
Reply 21, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3346 times:

Quoting Phollingsworth (Reply 20):
Of course one of the beauties of statistics is that while correlation does not imply causality, causality requires correlation.



Yup



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineDogfighter2111 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1968 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3338 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 19):
Dogfighter, can you provide a link to the web site you're quoting?

Hey, i hope to soon. It was a couple of months ago i found it and can't find it ATM. Hopefully tonight.

Quoting Phollingsworth (Reply 20):
There doesn't seem to be much/any correlation between the presence of fly-by-wire and accident rate.

Well, there was a program on TV that showed you the construction and test of an A320. It showed you that if there were a failure of the Rudder, or ailerons etc. (The Control Surfaces). If any of them were to fail the fly-by-wire would take over and be able to Control the aircraft much easier than a Boeing aircraft.

Thanks
Mike


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3523 posts, RR: 66
Reply 23, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3327 times:

Quoting Dogfighter2111 (Reply 22):
If any of them were to fail the fly-by-wire would take over and be able to Control the aircraft much easier than a Boeing aircraft.

Doesn't make the A320 safer.

Also, the A320 rudder is not fly by wire, so there would not be any help there.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineDogfighter2111 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1968 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3320 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 23):
Doesn't make the A320 safer.

Well, it does. If a human can't do it manually yet a computer can then i think that makes it safer!?!?!

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 23):
Also, the A320 rudder is not fly by wire, so there would not be any help there.

Didn't know that, but i was talking about the control surfaces controlled by fly-by-wire.

Thanks
Mike


25 OldAeroGuy : First, who says a human can't do it manually? Provide an example. Second, why do you think having a computer in the loop makes it safer? There are ma
26 Dogfighter2111 : Well, a human brain cannot function as fast and as well as a computer under such a situation. A computer has the data to process and be able to comma
27 Zeke : The term accident in aviation does not only mean hull loss. Examples would be the Air Transat A330 glide approach into Azores, Qantas 747-400 long la
28 OldAeroGuy : Sorry, this is your opinion. Provide a case in point that involves flying a transport airplane.
29 Dogfighter2111 : I don't think there are any cases like this. And i do know that Computers process info much faster than humans, and knowing this i don't need to be a
30 F27XXX : No, no, no .. The 737-200 hasn't had a bad year. The sloppy crap Third World country airlines that have poorly trained pilots and crap for maintenance
31 Bushpilot : I think you are overlooking one huge important fact when it comes to fly by wire and computers or anything electrical for that matter is that they ca
32 Dogfighter2111 : That is very true, but we are not talkng in the instence of an electrical fault. We are talking in general of whether a human is more capable than a
33 Bushpilot : You make the argument one is safer than another due to it being controlled digitally, I think most would agree that the failure of a system has a lar
34 TheSonntag : Well 5 airplanes crashing in one year IS a bad year. As I said, the airplane is not to blame. But I wouldn't call it a great year for the 737-200 nev
35 HAWK21M : What regulatory system supervises the Airlines from Africa & South America. regds MEL
36 OldAeroGuy : While I think that FBW has not been a significant factor in airplane safety, I agree that better cokpit ergonomics and modern flight decks have been
37 F27XXX : Thank you for acknowledging that the plane is not to blame. But these crashes had nothing to do with the fact that the common thread was a 737-200. N
38 MEA-707 : I don't blame Boeing for the last few crashes but I think this statement is extremely arrogant and xenofobic. I wish you would ever travel around the
39 F27XXX : We agree. You just said the same thing I did.
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...
LAN Argentina B737-200 Incident posted Wed May 17 2006 22:46:54 by MD11junkie
Mandala Loses One B737-200 posted Wed Oct 4 2006 13:08:10 by Flying-Tiger
A B737-200 Sank Into Deep Water Today! posted Sun Jan 15 2006 09:09:38 by ETStar
Past Incident/crash Due To Engineering Decision posted Thu Nov 10 2005 07:34:05 by Dimsum
737-600 As Noisey As B737-200! posted Tue Oct 18 2005 00:22:34 by Dogfighter2111
B737-200 (732) posted Sun Sep 4 2005 12:31:59 by Neilking
Halloween Crash Stats posted Sat Jun 25 2005 18:25:21 by United787
26JUN B737-200 In BRU Flying For Bmi posted Mon Jun 20 2005 18:32:05 by LO231
Westjet B737-200 Retirements? posted Tue Apr 26 2005 23:47:16 by Biggles
ExSouthwest B737-200 "N87SW" posted Thu Mar 3 2005 18:58:05 by Scxmechanic