Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Latest Crash Trends, Stats And Reasons?  
User currently offlineMirrodie From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 7444 posts, RR: 62
Posted (8 years 3 months 6 hours ago) and read 2699 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Over the past year or two, I've finally been able to fly on the 777 and A340, as well as 743. All flights were in First.


First thing noticed: All of these aircraft are quite large compared to the Md80 and 737s that I usuallly fly on. Spacious cabins with tall ceilings. I like it.

More importantly and the reason I am posting. As far as I can recall the 777 has not had any crashes. Has the A 340? Or A 330?

ANd I know that since 2001, the statistics have shown that there are less crashes than ever and flying us much more safe.

Subsequent to this question is this: What are the reasons that flying is much safer? Is it because the newer aircraft are being made better? Better CRM? Better piloting all around? (I don't think this is all of the answer only because todays skies are still full of older aircraft, which throws out the beter technology answer). Or are pilots getting better? Better systems?

I am just trying to understand why are skies are much safer now. I mean, its awesome to think that the 777, A340 and A 330 have all never had an accident. What other aircraft have not had a single crash?


Forum moderator 2001-2010; He's a pedantic, pontificating, pretentious bastard, a belligerent old fart, a worthless st
26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline777WT From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 877 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 5 hours ago) and read 2695 times:

I'm sure the A330 and A340 did have an crash before.

User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2577 posts, RR: 25
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 5 hours ago) and read 2692 times:

Air France lost an A340 at Toronto last year in a landing overrun. The aircraft was burnt out, but the passengers and crew were mercifully unharmed.

An A330 crashed during certification flight testing at Toulouse in 1994 (not a passenger flight and the event would never have occurred in revenue service).

Air Transat had a close call with an A330 running out of fuel near the Azores in 2001. The aircraft survived the emergency landing with minor damage.

As you say, no 777 accidents to date.

Basically an excellent safety record for all three aircraft types.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31712 posts, RR: 56
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 5 hours ago) and read 2692 times:

Quoting Mirrodie (Thread starter):
What are the reasons that flying is much safer? Is it because the newer aircraft are being made better

Maintenance & Flt operational Friendly Aircraft,Better Reliability.

Quoting Mirrodie (Thread starter):
I mean, its awesome to think that the 777, A340 and A 330 have all never had an accident. What other aircraft have not had a single crash

If not mistaken the A330 & A340 have had 4 crashes Each.The B777 has a clean Slate till date.

regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2577 posts, RR: 25
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 5 hours ago) and read 2688 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 3):
If not mistaken the A330 & A340 have had 4 crashes Each

Four crashes each? That makes eight. I only know of three (see reply 2), one of which was not a crash.

There was an A340 lost in a ground fire after maintenance, which hardly counts as an air accident. The aircraft was being towed from the hangar!



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31712 posts, RR: 56
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 5 hours ago) and read 2683 times:

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 4):
Four crashes each? That makes eight. I only know of three (see reply 2), one of which was not a crash.

True.I stand corrected only One A340 crash.The other Two were Mx related [Air France] & terrorist Strike [Srilankan].
The A330s too had one crash the other Three of which two were terror strikes [Srilankan] & last was a Ground fire.
So A330 & A340 One each & B777 None till date.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineFuturecaptain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 3 hours ago) and read 2661 times:

Quoting Mirrodie (Thread starter):
What are the reasons that flying is much safer?

More reliable technology / engines
Widespread use of GPS
use of traffic alert sysyems and terrain collision systems
heads up displays
glass cockpits....more info readily available for the pilot
better weather reporting stations


User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17174 posts, RR: 66
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 3 hours ago) and read 2661 times:

The aircraft are of course safer by design, but one should not discount the importance of other things which have improved dramatically in the last few decades. To mention a few:
- Training
- CRM
- Weather warning systems
- Radar systems
- Tracking software and procedures.
- Navigation systems
- Maintenance proceudures

The combination of all these factors makes for safety. Another important thing frequently mentioned in this forum is the importance of operator over aircraft. In other words, a 30 year old 737-200 operated by, say, Lufthansa will be safer than a 1 year old 777-200ER operated by the People's Front for the Liberation of Banana Republic Airways. No amont of safety features in the aircraft will save you from bad training and bad maintenance.


340 and 330 losses have been as follows:

A340. 3 hull losses, no fatalities.
- 20-JAN-1994 Airbus A.340 F-GNIA Air France CDG
Ground fire
- 24-JUL-2001 Airbus A.340 4R-ADD SriLankan Airlines Colombo
Guerilla/terrorist action
- 02-AUG-2005 Airbus A.340 F-GLZQ Air France Toronto
Runway overrun and fire


A330. 4 hull losses, 7 fatalities, none of which service:
- 30-JUN-1994 Airbus A.330 F-WWKH Airbus Industrie Toulouse
Certification accident due to lack of planning, bad CRM, pilot error.
- 15-MAR-2000 Airbus A.330 9M-MKB Malaysia Airlines Kuala Lumpur
Ground fire
- 24-JUL-2001 Airbus A.330 4R-ALE SriLankan Airlines Colombo
Guerilla/terrorist action
- 24-JUL-2001 Airbus A.330 4R-ALF SriLankan Airlines Colombo
Guerilla/terrorist action

[Edited 2006-09-23 18:27:52]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3152 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 3 hours ago) and read 2649 times:

Something else to consider is the fact that the narrowbody aircraft will fly more segments per day. More segments means more takeoffs, and landings. As a result, they have a larger (although still small) probability of a crash than the widebodies.

I'd also submit that the ETOPS aircraft have more stringent mx in order to keep the certification as well as a much more intensive preflight.



DMI
User currently offlineWing From Turkey, joined Oct 2000, 1575 posts, RR: 24
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2574 times:

Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 8):
Something else to consider is the fact that the narrowbody aircraft will fly more segments per day. More segments means more takeoffs, and landings. As a result, they have a larger (although still small) probability of a crash than the widebodies.

That I agree. Considering the fact that vast majority of the aviation accidents happen during the TO/climb and descent/landing phases of the flight.A widebody flying a 12 hour transcontinental route will be only once in those environments while a 737/320 in a domestic service will be experiencing nearly 10 TO's landings during the same time interval.

A good reputation fo safety is a very good thing but does not guarantee that you will be among the first and only crash of the airplane type/or airline.Take the concorde for example,there are many examples like that in history.So I guess best is to relax and enjoy the flight until you see the Gremlins  devil  unscrewing the wing from the body  Smile



Widen your world
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9229 posts, RR: 76
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2554 times:

Quoting Mirrodie (Thread starter):
Better piloting all around? (I don't think this is all of the answer only because todays skies are still full of older aircraft, which throws out the beter technology answer). Or are pilots getting better?

I think we have a better understanding of why accidents occur, and share information relating to accidents and incidents so others can learn from it.

If you look in http://www.boeing.com/news/techissues/ and get the "Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents" you will see that it concludes that the primary cause in 62% of all accidents are flight crew.

Aircraft design has automated flying more making the pilot more managers rather than stick and rudder people. Automated checklists, monitoring systems etc has enhanced safety.

It has also drawn a new set of problems, automation issues.

Airports have improved, navigational accuracy (GPS), and landing aids have improved allowing more flying to be automated.

As it has been identified that pilots are the primary cause in 62% of all accidents, it is of no surprise that the time where the automation is turned off (final approach and landing) and pilots flying is where 51% of accidents occur.

Many airlines now have a big brother watching the pilots (called Flight Operations Monitoring system), requiring pilots to remain within defined parameters, go outside those parameters the aircraft can automatically, or maintenance people can retrieve the flight report for post flight analysis.

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 2):
As you say, no 777 accidents to date.

I think technically there has been more than one, however all on the ground. If I recall correctly a refueller died when the connected broke off when refuelling, a number of people killed during ramp operations, and two ground collisions I can remember in the past year, SQ 777 and TG 330 at BKK, and a China Southern 777 hit a China Eastern Airlines A320 at Beijing.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 7):
A330. 4 hull losses, 7 fatalities, none of which service

If I recall correctly the MAS one was a fairly new aircraft and a liquid dangerous good in cargo leaked out over the wing box. I think another incident in PR had someone jump from the aircraft in flight, and I think the same aircraft took out a tree going into Subic Bay on another flight, and of course the 330/777 running into each other at BKK.

Rumours were about a while back of a GF 343 taking out a tree at BKK and flying to the middle east on three engines, and the you also have the EK 340 with a bad tail strike at JNB, and the recent VS with one at HKG.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineJamesJimlb From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1023 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2532 times:

didn't an Aircanda A340 skid off the runway last year? as for the A330 i don't know.


The sky is no longer the limit, but the mere minimum
User currently offlineBuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2915 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2524 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 10):
I think another incident in PR had someone jump from the aircraft in flight, and I think the same aircraft took out a tree going into Subic Bay on another flight

Yes, and that was one of the most amazing stories in recent years. One pax got up, robbed the other pax of their valuables, ordered the captain to descend to a low altitude, switch off cabin pressure and open the door and then he jumped.

One flaw in this plan: his self-made parachute didn't work properly. Bummer.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/764625.stm

Philippine police say they have found the body of a man who hijacked an airliner, robbed 300 passengers on board and then left the plane in mid-air wearing a home-made parachute. But there is debate over whether the hijacker, Augusto Lakandula, was pushed out against his will or jumped voluntarily after a flight attendant admitted helping him out of the door.

"He was still holding a grenade and one steward was afraid it would fall accidentally and go off inside the cabin," said airline spokesman Rolando Estabillo. Police said no charges would be brought against the crew member involved.

General Jose Lachica said soldiers had recovered what was believed to be the remains of Mr Lakandula in a heavily forested area in the town of Real, about 70km (40 miles) east of the capital, Manila. His body was found with the improvised parachute - but not with the bag of money that he had taken from other people on board the Philippine Airlines jet, General Lachica said. Lakandula was identified by his seat number on the plane.

A police officer told the DZMM radio station that the man had landed so hard that his body was buried in mud, with only his knees and hands protruding. Local residents reported seeing a plane circling, and saw something fall from the plane. Finally, they saw a man floating for about five minutes, but he separated from the parachute and fell into the forested mountains.

Flight PR812 was nearly an hour into its 90-minute journey from Davao City in the southern Philippines to Manila, when an armed and "deranged" Lakandula - wearing a ski mask with swimming goggles on top - ordered the pilot to return to Davao. At one point, he fired a shot inside the cockpit, said pilot Emmanuel Generoso.

[...]

The pilot depressurised the cabin to allow a door to be opened, after descending to a lower altitude of 1,800 metres (6,000 feet) at the hijacker's request. As the door was opened a huge gust of wind swept into the aircraft, a passenger said. A member of the crew admitted pushing the hijacker out of the Airbus A330, saying he had to because the man wanted to jump.

[...]



I scratch my head, therefore I am.
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9545 posts, RR: 42
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2521 times:

Um...

Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Reply 12):
But there is debate over whether the hijacker, Augusto Lakandula, was pushed out against his will or jumped voluntarily after a flight attendant admitted helping him out of the door.



Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Reply 12):
A member of the crew admitted pushing the hijacker out of the Airbus A330, saying he had to because the man wanted to jump.

Is it OK to laugh?


User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2504 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 13):
Is it OK to laugh?

Perfectly good manners.  Smile

Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 8):
I'd also submit that the ETOPS aircraft have more stringent mx in order to keep the certification as well as a much more intensive preflight.

I would agree except that maintenance issues and mechanical reliability have all but disappeared as cause factors. At least this is true among the airlines of the major nations.

Sadly, what I still see is a pilot's ego, stubbornness or lack of judgement pushing the plane into a bad situation as in the Air France crash at Toronto.

Hint: Thunderstorm in progress ON your runway - don't land.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9545 posts, RR: 42
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2472 times:

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 14):
Perfectly good manners.

Phew. Just as well.  biggrin 

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 14):
Sadly, what I still see is a pilot's ego, stubbornness or lack of judgement pushing the plane into a bad situation as in the Air France crash at Toronto.

Hint: Thunderstorm in progress ON your runway - don't land.

While I don't have a problem with that consensus (as if it would matter), couldn't the same be said of those pilots who landed immediately before and those who were queuing up to land immediately afterwards? Didn't they only escape criticism because they "got away with it"?

Of course, I realise that the execution of the landing may be open to different criticisms.


User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8956 posts, RR: 60
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2467 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR



Quoting David L (Reply 15):
couldn't the same be said of those pilots who landed immediately before and those who were queuing up to land immediately afterwards?

Good point. It's not always possible to define the exact boundary of a thunderstorm, so in certain cases, it comes down to judgement. When judgement comes into play, "safe" and "unsafe" become open for interpretation, based on the particular set of conditions at a given time.

For example, it seems that the pilot who successfully lands on the ragged edge of a thunderstorm is often considered a "hero" for reading the weather, making a sound judgement, and getting in. On the other hand, the pilot who attempts a landing moments later, using the same judgement under the same (detectable) conditions....but encounters a freak gust during the flare and bends metal....would be considered an idiot for attempting the landing in the first place.




2H4




[Edited 2006-09-24 22:13:34]


Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9545 posts, RR: 42
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2455 times:

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 16):
On the other hand, the pilot who attempts a landing moments later, using the same judgement under the same (detectable) conditions....but encounters a freak gust during the flare and bends metal....

Or the aircraft immediately behind had the AF crew decided to divert before starting their approach. They could've been where the AF flight was at about the same time.

If there had been no aircraft landing successfully ahead of them, would the AF crew have been more cautious?


User currently offlineDomokun From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 202 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2444 times:

IIRC if you look at a graph of accidents per flight hour over time, there are various spikes or peaks where new technology was adopted - one excellent case being where many pilots transitioned from props to jets.

There was another phase; my overall point is one additional factor is that planes have not gone through a massive transition (such as prop --> jet) in awhile.

I would bet another reason would be a higher reliability of sub-components due to evolutions in machining and manufacturing.


User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17174 posts, RR: 66
Reply 19, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2414 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 13):
Is it OK to laugh?

That one is a definite Darwin Award contender. Still chuckling...

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 14):
Sadly, what I still see is a pilot's ego, stubbornness or lack of judgement pushing the plane into a bad situation as in the Air France crash at Toronto.

This raises a point about training and personalities. I get the impression that 50 years ago, egos were on average allowed to run rampant, with Captains running roughshod over F/Os and the "Top Gun ideal" being the norm. "I am Pilot. Hear me roar." Today, a pilot seems a much more benign creature. More police dog than pitbull. More cunning that daring. More likely to listen to criticism and act on it.

Or am I seeing things?



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31712 posts, RR: 56
Reply 20, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2321 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 19):
I get the impression that 50 years ago, egos were on average allowed to run rampant, with Captains running roughshod over F/Os and the "Top Gun ideal" being the norm. "I am Pilot. Hear me roar." Today, a pilot seems a much more benign creature. More police dog than pitbull. More cunning that daring. More likely to listen to criticism and act on it.

I guess its the same with Mx too.The Newer Generation is more Welcoming to Discuss.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineLemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2260 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 10):
I think technically there has been more than one, however all on the ground. If I recall correctly a refueller died when the connected broke off when refuelling, a number of people killed during ramp operations, and two ground collisions I can remember in the past year, SQ 777 and TG 330 at BKK, and a China Southern 777 hit a China Eastern Airlines A320 at Beijing.

Also, CO had a fairly serious tailstrike last summer that took out one of their 772ER's for awhile while Boeing flew in a new tail section and made repairs (this was at EWR)



There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31712 posts, RR: 56
Reply 22, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2222 times:

Quoting Lemurs (Reply 21):
CO had a fairly serious tailstrike last summer that took out one of their 772ER's for awhile while Boeing flew in a new tail section and made repairs (this was at EWR

How long was the AOG like.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineLemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2195 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 22):
How long was the AOG like.

Going from the archives, the tailstrike happened on CO99 EWR-HKG on March 2nd, 2005, ship 008. It re-entered revenue service on April 17th. Pretty impressive, since it included repairs to damage on the rear bulkhead. It's unclear if they simply did a repair, or replaced the entire rear bulkhead. I get the impression it was the latter, given Boeing's past history with bulkhead repairs gone wrong...6 weeks is really fairly amazing in that light.



There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31712 posts, RR: 56
Reply 24, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2164 times:

Quoting Lemurs (Reply 23):
given Boeing's past history with bulkhead repairs gone wrong...6 weeks is really fairly amazing in that light.

If it was an Entire Bulkhead job.Then its quite fast.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
25 Post contains links Lemurs : Aha! I found the discussion...was checking CivAv since that's where it was reported initially, but the repair discussion took place here in TechOps.
26 Mandala499 : 772 haven't had any writeoffs... but I can recall the MH 772 tailscrape, an MH772 being struck by de-icing rigs, SQ 772 Engine blowout in CPH, and rec
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Latest Crash Trends, Stats And Reasons?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Lightning And Air Crash posted Sat Jun 26 2004 17:05:26 by AirAmericaC46
MD-80 And AS 261 posted Thu Nov 23 2006 03:13:59 by MissedApproach
Mach 1, Temperature, And Pressure posted Mon Nov 13 2006 08:54:05 by Speedracer1407
Buddy Holly Plane Crash posted Tue Nov 7 2006 08:24:07 by Jcavinato
Winglets And Ground Effect posted Mon Nov 6 2006 16:23:55 by BAe146QT
Routes And A/c Fully Loaded With Fuel. posted Mon Nov 6 2006 06:17:47 by Mirrodie
250 Knot Regulations And Particulars posted Fri Nov 3 2006 23:53:26 by Blackbird
High Density And/or Valuble Cargo posted Fri Nov 3 2006 01:13:43 by 3DPlanes
Aircraft Vs Race Cars: Temps, Wear And Tear, Etc posted Thu Nov 2 2006 07:34:20 by TimePilot
Temperature And Reliability Of Equipment posted Mon Oct 30 2006 06:09:19 by Concentriq

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format