C5LOAD From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 917 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 13817 times:
If this is double posted i'm sure I will be removed promptly, but I was wondering now with AF 447, is there an aircraft (civilian) that doesn't have a crash record at all?
"But this airplane has 4 engines, it's an entirely different kind of flying! Altogether"
United1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5379 posts, RR: 8 Reply 1, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 13810 times:
Quoting C5LOAD (Thread starter): is there an aircraft (civilian) that doesn't have a crash record at all?
I'm almost positive that the A318/A321 have never had a crash and pretty sure that the A319 has never crashed either. I suppose it also depends on how you define crash, if you define it as no fatalities caused by impact you can count the 777 if not I suppose the BA incident at LHR rules the triple out.
Tharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1792 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 13705 times:
It takes some time to interpret. What is a "crash"? You can have fatalities without a crash (from turbulence, it can happen); you can have a hull loss without a crash (something happening on the ground). And of course, you can have a hull loss without fatalities (the A340 has no fatalities, but the AF incident at YYZ was certainly a crash, I'd say)
Looks like the RJs have some nice stats.
For zero hull loss, I see Fairchild Dornier Do 328 and Tu-204, though relatively few were built.
C5LOAD From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 917 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 13670 times:
Quoting United1 (Reply 1): I'm almost positive that the A318/A321 have never had a crash and pretty sure that the A319 has never crashed either
Are you including the whole A320 family? Didn't a 320 from TAM crash a few yrs back?
"But this airplane has 4 engines, it's an entirely different kind of flying! Altogether"
It takes some time to interpret. What is a "crash"? You can have fatalities without a crash (from turbulence, it can happen); you can have a hull loss without a crash (something happening on the ground).
Wow! On this basis, averge fatalities per aircraft built, (after the Concorde with its single crash) the 747 is close to the world's most deadly aircraft.
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
Columba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 6835 posts, RR: 5 Reply 6, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 13638 times:
Dassault Mercure never had a crash in its entire career.
The 777 has a very good record with 1 incident, I don´t recall any incident with the 717/MD 90 as well.
The A318, A319, A321 never had a crash as well same goes for the A330-300 still their "siblings" A320, A330-200, A340 have had some incidents.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9705 posts, RR: 10 Reply 8, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 13600 times:
My definition of a crash: Aircraft destroyed in a accident while in active service, and on "the move" (in flight, during takeoff or landing).
No Boeing 747SP ever crashed. One was written off due to age after an engine on the ground. All other SP are either dismantled, stored, or are active.
Also no B744F and no A340-200 ever crashed.
Others, but with a lot less than 10 years service imho too young to really count: A318, B773W, A380.
Tharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1792 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 13576 times:
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 5): Wow! On this basis, averge fatalities per aircraft built, (after the Concorde with its single crash) the 747 is close to the world's most deadly aircraft.
Only because it carries so many people. It's not a great way to normalise the data.
Quoting C5LOAD (Reply 4): Are you including the whole A320 family? Didn't a 320 from TAM crash a few yrs back?
several incidents on A320.
The site I link claims 1 hull loss for the Embraer E-jets (0 fatalities), but I can't think of when it was. Anybody know? Maybe it was a war-zone loss, like those in Sri Lanka?
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21679 posts, RR: 23 Reply 10, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 13553 times:
Quoting Columba (Reply 6): The A318, A319, A321 never had a crash
For the A321 that depends how you categorize the following accident. Many would call it a "crash". It landed on top of a vehicle in Taiwan in 2003 and was heavily damaged and written off, although there were no fatalities. http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20030321-0
EMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9292 posts, RR: 12 Reply 11, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 13537 times:
C5LOAD From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 917 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 13487 times:
I see that the MD-90 has had two losses according to the link, but what were they because it shows no fatalities?
"But this airplane has 4 engines, it's an entirely different kind of flying! Altogether"
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21679 posts, RR: 23 Reply 15, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 13467 times:
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21679 posts, RR: 23 Reply 17, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 13407 times:
Serious accidents can occur without fatalities. I believe it is more logical to look at types without any hull losses, although you can also have such an accident that involve fatalities, such as the Southwest 737-700 that overran at MDW a few years ago and killed a passenger in a car. That counts as a 737-700 fatal accident but since the aircraft was repaired it still has no hull losses.
EMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9292 posts, RR: 12 Reply 18, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 13377 times:
Austrian Airlines OE-LFO has photos in the data base of it being cut up.... plus the most recent pictures are of it sitting in the field. Nothing after that
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
IAD51FL From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 343 posts, RR: 3 Reply 19, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 13375 times:
Quoting EMBQA (Reply 11): Continental Express destroyed a new E145 on a crew training flight.
And now is a cabin trainer at the training center.... so part of it is still around
United1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5379 posts, RR: 8 Reply 20, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 13377 times:
Quoting C5LOAD (Reply 4): re you including the whole A320 family? Didn't a 320 from TAM crash a few yrs back?
Nope just the 18/19/21....There have been several A320 crashes.
EMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9292 posts, RR: 12 Reply 21, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 13337 times:
Quoting IAD51FL (Reply 20): And now is a cabin trainer at the training center
I was amazed when I heard the did that with it. I saw what was left in Hondo, TX back in 1998 or so and it was pretty much cut up. When the wing broke off it also put a big hole in the aft fuselage.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
Austrian Airlines OE-LFO has photos in the data base of it being cut up.... plus the most recent pictures are of it sitting in the field. Nothing after that
Brilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3271 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 13034 times:
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 5): Wow! On this basis, averge fatalities per aircraft built, (after the Concorde with its single crash) the 747 is close to the world's most deadly aircraft.
That is a bit misleadomg when you consider the number of passengers that the aircraft has carried. The 747 stats included the Teneriffe disaster in 1977 which was the worst air disaster in aviation history, yet had nothing to do with the plane.
[Edited 2009-07-07 14:59:41]
Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
25 AirframeAS: I believe that there were a couple 737-700 losses either this year or last year.....IIRC.....
26 Nomadd22: Was 1549 a crash or just a really wet runway?
27 Viscount724: If you're referring to the Kenya Airways crash after takeoff from Douala, Cameroon a couple of years ago, or the Turkisn Airlines crash approaching A
28 NA: A crash is a crash, no matter if there were human victims or not. Your list includes some mistakes. You forgot the 744F which record is without any s
29 EcuadorianMD11: You must have read my mind............ Can I put this (highly interesting) discussion into a slightly different light please: How many crashes turned
30 CodyKDiamond: Thank you for your corrections sir, however, I must correct you. The DC-10-40 is a separate airplane that had to obtain separate certifications. Yes,
31 AirframeAS: But it has not seen revenue service nor has it flown yet. So that should be omitted from the list nontheless. The A380 is also a joke as well.....it
32 CodyKDiamond: AirframeAS, I agree the 787 has not flown and maybe should not be truely considered at this point, however, since it is an airplane I included it. How
33 Tharanga: That's pretty rare, but we could make a list (I bet there's an old thread about this topic, though). 737: the rudder issues: US, Pittsburgh; UA, Colo
34 Jbernie: Once the first revenue flight occurs, and revenue flights continue to occur, it counts. The probability of it getting on the list of aircraft type th
35 AirframeAS: The fact remains....it may be an airplane now but it has not flown nor has it seen revenue service. It still needs to be omitted regardless. I'll buy
36 Tharanga: A few more crashes where you could blame the aircraft design itself: Lockheed electra: BN 542, NW 710
37 MEA-707: " target=_blank>http://www.jacdec.de/statistics/type...s.htm Interesting list, but I think it doesn't show a good way to see how likely an aircraft i
38 Viscount724: I see no reason not to include the A380. It will soon (in 3 months) have been in service for 2 years. Many other aircraft types in the past have had
39 EDICHC: No airframe crash....just it's sales! Seems to be some ambiguity here regarding the definition of 'crash' here. Some are quoting fatal accidents some
40 Tharanga: Absolutely, the way they normalised it is silly. Penalises a 747 for being large. Agreed. This gets tricky. For comparing aircraft against other airc
41 Ikramerica: Well, actually, 747 pilots are among the world's most deadly since many accidents were due to pilot error, and the 747 has been the target of many te
42 Prebennorholm: http://www.jacdec.de/statistics/types/Types.htm tells about six 737NG hull losses to date, so there must have been some "hangar fires" or something si
43 Tharanga: Even in cases of human error, you can learn about aircraft safety. Everybody survived AF358 in YYZ. You can't really blame the crash on the aircraft i
44 Racko: Now that you mention it: Any aircraft that has been more often hit by missiles than the A300? The one that the US Navy mistook for a F-14 and the DHL
45 Alphaomega: The 747 was also a rather large target for terrorists because of its size and passenger load, so just because it was blown up quite a few times, does
46 Tharanga: As statistically idiotic as it is, I have actually wondered on some routes if one airline might be more of a terrorism target than another. I've not
47 PIA777: WHat about the SWA 737-700 that went off the runway and killed a kid in a car? PIA777
48 Jbernie: That might depend on the route, almost all flights between SYD/MEL/BNE - LAX/SFO/HNL would have been some 747 variant for a while there, it has chang
49 NASBWI: Three accidents, actually. As of right now, the recent crash of KQ's 738 is still unsolved. It crashed soon after takeoff in bad weather.
50 NASBWI: The A380 has been in revenue service longer than the ill-fated GOL 737-800 at the time of its demise (I believe it had only been flying for 2 months
51 Odafz: We can include the following airplanes that did not witness a crash : TUPOLEV TU334 VFW 614 ( 1 loss during test, nut none during regular services) If
52 CPHGuard: It may be penalised for being large, but on the other hand it makes far less take-off's and landings which is the most dangerous part of any flight,
53 Burkhard: How to count the A340-600 that was destroyed in Toulouse when testing the engines? What is its faith by the way?
54 NA: I have added/rectified your list of active 747 accidents, excluding terrorism and war:
55 Eisenbach: Based on http://www.jacdec.de/statistics/types/Types.htm I compared the number of built airliners with the number of hull losses. I dont't know how ac
56 Emaman: Interesting statistics, you can see a definate trend of improvement towards more modern models. The 747 has faired very well really - when you conside
57 NA: QFs VH-OJK (the one with the oxygen bottle explosion) is in service again. 744s written off (none is attributable to the aircraft type): China Airlin
58 Aero145: Surprised that no one has mentioned the An-225. IMO belongs on the list when the 787 (which hasn’t ever flown, hello?!) is! The An-225 has also flow
59 Tharanga: That's a helpful way to do it. It shows how all aspects of aviation have become more safe over the years. Because of the original question of the thr
60 DIJKKIJK: How about the 747-300s ? did any of them crash?
62 KC135TopBoom: Only about 20 airplanes in service. There have been several A-320 accidents, with fatalities, unfortunately. Let me see? Almost 40 years of service,
63 Falstaff: But wait until those planes get older. One of these days the A320 and 737 families will have very high numbers of hull losses because there are so ma
64 Tharanga: I would bet that the A320 family and the B737 NGs have already logged far more hours, miles or segments than the vintage aircraft with high rates of
65 Atomsareenough: Yeah, but that's an incredibly poor metric, because it penalizes large aircraft with a long service history. If you did average fatalities per passen
66 Tharanga: These numbers are a bit old and maybe unreliable, but here is "fatal event" per flight segment for different types. http://www.airsafe.com/events/mod
68 EcuadorianMD11: Yep, Iberia...........in Quito. Hull loss as in "not economical to patch up anymore". It just overran the runway.........sure, most inconvenient, but
69 Falstaff: yes there is. Just like today's cars, airplanes are safer today than they were years ago. I still say the numbers of crashes will increase as those p
71 Tharanga: There is no perfect metric. If crashes only happen at take-off and landing, then you should do it by flight segment. If crashes only happen in cruise
72 IgneousRocks: Not doubting the second part of your comment. However, the 772 did 'crash'. It's not really even debatable.
73 Guitarist: I could be wrong on this so excuse me if I am, but I think the VC10 has a pretty impressive record, the only one I can think of being lost was the BOA
74 YULYMX: A333 and A345 pretty sure no fatalities
75 UltimateDelta: Didn't an East African one crash on takeoff at Addis Ababa? I think there may have been a couple of others, but I'm not sure.
77 Tharanga: Looks like a couple fatal incidents in Africa, in addition to those blown up after hijacking, or the Israelis doing a raid on Beirut http://aviation-
78 Spacecadet: I still think it's pretty crazy that any airliner would have a 20% hull loss rate, over any length of time. Think about that. That means any particula
79 Teva: The stats you are refering to, talk about aircraft loss, not necessarily crash. And for an aircraft such as Caravelle, I do not say it is up to today
80 PPVRA: Rio Sul snapped a -145 tail section on a rough landing. No fatalities afaik. The hull must have been a write-off.[Edited 2009-07-08 13:11:49]
81 Viscount724: No, there were two fatal VC-10 accidents. A Nigeria Airways VC-10 crashed several miles short of the runway at LOS in 1969 killing all 87 aboard. And
82 Max550: Here are the hull-losses for the 707. Many of the losses have been fairly recent, not surprising with such an old model. http://aviation-safety.net/da
83 Viscount724: Two other 743s were written off in non-fatal accidents on the ground. A UTA 743 caught fire during maintenance at CDG in 1985. And a Saudi Arabian 74
84 Tharanga: I'll accept that. Fewer of the type will be in operation, but a higher proportion of those remaining will be in odd places. Except the NW DC9s. http:
85 Ikramerica: To be technical, the metal punctured a tire, and the tire ruptured the fuel tank, and to me, it is NOT okay that a blown tire ruptures a fuel tank an
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 917 posts, 
From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8306 posts, 
From France, joined Nov 2004, 2614 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 6835 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21679 posts, 
From Canada, joined Nov 2006, 537 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 777 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Jan 2008, 196 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
