NKP S2 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1714 posts, RR: 6 Reply 2, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
...Aint no such animal. It's not just about the airframe/engine- Far FAR too many variables that can effect figures and statistics. Given that, one could take small comfort in flying in the "safest" airplane that "never had a crash...": How does one know he won't be the first to prove the statistics wrong...owing to a freak externally caused event?
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6019 posts, RR: 55 Reply 5, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
The safest airliner is always the one which is operated by the best trained crew, who knows what they are doing, maintained by the very best maintenance people and facilities, and operated only from airports with safe and well trained controllers who never make mistakes.
Almost fifty years ago two DH Comets crashed due to an unknow design flaw - cabin failure. The DC-10 initiated its life with a few details which at least made it harder to operate safely, and it had its price. Apart from that, does anybody remember one accident which wasn't caused purely by operational or maintenance fault(s)?
Airdisaster.com is nothing but a joke. For example it blames on the Boeing 747 that one of them was run into buldozers on the runway because neither the flight crew nor the airport controllers had any idea where the plane was - took off from a closed runway.
Statistically the Concorde probably has the very worst safety record. Because one example didn't stand up to taking off from a runway with scrap fallen off a poorly maintained DC-10.
Now the Concorde has been modified so it is presumed to be "DC-10 scrap tolerant". Does that mean that it could be the world's safest airliner? Nobody knows. Nobody will ever know. The remaining examples will never live long enough to produce any valuable statistical data. Even if they keep on going for a hundred years more (which they of course won't).
Regards, Preben Norholm
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
ERJPLT From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 22 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (11 years 6 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Every aircraft is subject to errors and accidents. It is not the particular aircraft to which a safety record should be labled. Rather it is the crew and the people behind the aircraft that make it safe. The pilots, mechanics, and flight attendents all aid in making the aircraft a safe vessel.
I think this is proven by United 232, demonstrating what a well trained crew and cabin can do when problems arise.
Also it is not fair to label a type safer than another, there are 100x's more 737's flying than Dash 8's. Statistics will prove you are more likely to encounter something in a 737, well, of course, you are more likely to be riding on a 73.
Simply look at the percentage of accidents and their attributes, pilot error vs. mechanical. Your answer lies in the numbers.
FrequentFlyKid From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1201 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (11 years 6 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
It's all in how you look at it. Statistically the Concorde, for example, is a very safe aircraft. However, try telling that to the families of the victims. On the same level tell the business man, who for that last 25 years has flown DC-9's almost weekly that they aren't safe. Like I said, it's all in your life experience and how you look at. in any event, travel safe.
Now, some notes about these numbers. They are all up to date, including the most recent accidents. Keep in mind that some of these fatal accidents can't be attributed at all to the aircraft (terrorist activity etc) and for example this makes the 767's record worse than it should be.
I have not inluded the 777/A330/340 because they have been in service for less than ten years.
But these numbers don't tell the whole story, as others have mentioned, maintenance and crew training are also big factors. However, with the absence of the Concorde, all of these aircraft are employed by a diverse variety of operators, and it is my thinking that eventually maintenance and crew even out over all of the operators...so there is some relevance to the safety record of the aircraft model.
Now, some common misconceptions can be dispelled with these statistics. While the B747-400 is a very safe aircraft, the previous models didn't fare as well. And for the DC-10, most of the accidents are with the initial -10 model, leaving the -30 with an excellent safety record, despite being labelled a deathtrap by the "experts".
And of course, the Concorde number is so high because of the extremely low number of flights that that aircraft has flown.
Jsuen From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 211 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (11 years 6 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Prebennorholm brings up a point-- what accidents do we count? As he stated, accidents aren't purely human or equipment. If I built a plane that was powered by hampsters, and somebody forgot to feed them, and the plane crashed, would it purely be a maintainence problem? There could well be aircraft factors in the Singapore 747 accident-- maybe poorly designed windshield wipers or external aircraft lights. (I haven't read the report)
One way we can look at accidents is treating them as black boxes for purposes of statistics. If I die, it doesn't matter whether it was the pilots fault or the plane's fault-- i'm dead. And that's what airdisaster.com and others treat numbers. Those numbers are valid if I stepped into any 747 in the world today. For purposes such as comparing the safety of air travel versus automobile travel, cargo vs passenger operations, and insurance.
For other purposes, we can break down accidents by their cause. For example, if we note a large number of accidents were caused by flap handles in MD-11s, we call the MD-11 flap handle design unsafe.
Both types of analyses have their use. None is "correct". Where statistics lie is when you try to pass the wrong numbers, or use numbers without fully considering their context.
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6019 posts, RR: 55 Reply 16, posted (11 years 6 months 22 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
MD-80 at 0.22 the safest - it probably was until airdisaster.com gets updated with the recent SK587 disaster. SK587 made a perfect take off. Until a Cessna Citation decided to turn onto the runway in front of it and killed well over a hundred. How can it be blamed on the MD-80?
It will be added to AK261 on which a tailplane jack screw failed. Bad airplane? Or maintenance fault? Well, at least the MD-80 had no backup for that jack screw.
Ten years back an MD-80 took off in Stockholm. Ice on the wings gets ingested in both engines, which quit. The MD-80 crashes, but all people survive. Because:
1. it was daylight (Christmas and 6 hours daylight, 18 hours black night.
2. plane took of over land, not freezing sea where people in lifebelts would survive for three minutes.
3. it could touch down in a forest where the trees could brake the fuselage "slowly" while tearing off the wings.
4. there was snow on the ground which prevented sparks from igniting a fuel fire.
Had just one of the four conditions above been missing, then most likely 120 people had died.
Had ice departed a 737 or 320 wing the same way, then nobody would have known. After landing the flight crew would have been presented to a dent on the tailplane leading edge and they would say "we hit a bird".
Just adding SK587 and AK261 together, and EXCLUDING the Stockholm incident on airdisaster.com, that is pure crap.
Safe flying, that is flying on on any good plane with people who just know what they are doing. And that certainly includes proper deicing before take off in a Scandinavian winter.
Regards, Preben Norholm
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
Positive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (11 years 6 months 11 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Yes but simply saying that one particular a/c is the safest in the world is useless since the majority of airline accidents occur due to human error(75%)anyways. There have been countless instances where fully serviceable modern jetliners have been flown into the sides of mountains. It's more of a CRM problem than anything else.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29352 posts, RR: 62 Reply 18, posted (11 years 6 months 9 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Didn't Mark Twain or Tom Green write something that said, "There are Liars, Damm Liars and Statisticans?"
Seriously though, there are way to many varibles to write up an aircraft as safe or unsafe. In fact because of operating conditions an aircraft may be better suited to one operating condition then it's competitor but in a different condition the opposite may be true.
Besides I belive that the Dassault Mercure has the safety record for the narrow body aircraft.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 20, posted (11 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
There has never been a single accident involving a Fokker 70 either.
You simply can't tell. If there were no external factors, statistics would give a good indication.
The poor numbers for the Fokker F28 are caused in large part by the fact that many are/were operated by airlines in 3rd world countries where maintenance is poor(er) and there are no sofisticated things like landing aids (and often not even radar at the smaller airports).
Concorde's numbers are also distorted heavily, this time by the fact that there are only a very small number in operation and those fly little (relatively) so any fatality has a huge effect on the numbers. Until the crash in Paris, it was the very safest aircraft with 0 fatalities per passenger/mile.
Numbers don't lie, statistics do. Statistics is the analysis and presentation of numbers to show a point, and the person making the analysis will let his bias show (usually), either deliberate or unconsciously.
AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5344 posts, RR: 11 Reply 22, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
I believe in the abilities of personell in the maintenance dept too, but tell that to the people of the AirTransat A330 that nearly went for a permanent swim because the maint. supervisor released the plane even though he KNEW the mech. said it wasn't finished.
Corruption happens. People get their priorities mixed up.
The captain of the MD-80 that crashed in Little Rock (American Airlines) made a seriously bad decision. He decided he was tired of flying and- thankfully- he paid for it with his life. NOT that he was a terrible bad person and should die while I should not, that's not what I am saying; I am saying that a person who makes that judgement error shouldn't be flying an aeroplano, right?
I am so going to get flamed for that. Oh well, that's what I think. But, if he was going to die anyhow, he should have just... made a bad decision behind the wheel of a car and killed fewer people.