Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What The Secret To The Boeing 777 Safety Record?   
User currently online747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3581 posts, RR: 2
Posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 16932 times:

The Boeing 777, is the safest airliner ever built! You may ask, what is my proof to back this statement up, and would tell you, look at the a/c track record. There has never been a death on board a T-7, and I believe there's only been two hull loses ( BA and I read an Egypt Air). Take in mind, that the 777 is almost 20 years old, and have this track record, and no airliner flying today, can say that. Yes, there has never been a death on an A340, but A340s has a good amount of hull loses. So, what do you think is Boeing secret to building this ultra safe plane?


PS: I am still a 747 man, but you have to give credit where credit is due.

53 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineXXXX10 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 777 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 16931 times:

There is no secret, modern aircraft are very reliable and statiscally long haul aircraft are always safer.
Another factor is that the 777 has been operated by main-line carriers.

The 747-400 has only had two hull losses AFAIK one in HGK when one failed to stop and went off of the end of the runway (no fatalities) and one that crahed after a fire in the cargo hold.

There is nothing that makes the 777 any safer than other aircraft- accidents are rarely related to aircraft type.


User currently offlinemy235 From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 92 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 16919 times:

A very interesting question. I would guess it has something to do with Boeing having a lot of previous models to fall back on. Of course it's a completely different bird. But they've had all those other models as test dummies.

User currently offlineBraniff747SP From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 2972 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 16906 times:

Quoting XXXX10 (Reply 1):

There is no secret, modern aircraft are very reliable and statiscally long haul aircraft are always safer.
Another factor is that the 777 has been operated by main-line carriers.

The 747-400 has only had two hull losses AFAIK one in HGK when one failed to stop and went off of the end of the runway (no fatalities) and one that crahed after a fire in the cargo hold.

Was the recent OZ Cargo not a 744? I know 5X in DXB was...



The 747 will always be the TRUE queen of the skies!
User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3516 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 16906 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting XXXX10 (Reply 1):
The 747-400 has only had two hull losses AFAIK one in HGK when one failed to stop and went off of the end of the runway (no fatalities) and one that crahed after a fire in the cargo hold.

There's at least one more... perhaps more...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © S Chuang



and the Asiana accident this last summer...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Carlotti




Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4436 posts, RR: 19
Reply 5, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 16878 times:

Quoting XXXX10 (Reply 1):

There is nothing that makes the 777 any safer than other aircraft- accidents are rarely related to aircraft type.

Disagree, as an example look at the MD11.



The 777 safety record comes down simply to a good solid Boeing design.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17015 posts, RR: 67
Reply 6, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 16859 times:

If you remove all accidents not related to the aircraft (pilot error, WX, terrorism, hijacking and so forth) you'll find that almost major airliner from the last 40 years is extremely safe.

Take the 330/340. Two fatal accidents (one during testing), both attributable to pilot error with one partly attributable to a problem with the aircraft. So 777 has 0 and and 330/340 has ½ fatal accidents attributable to the aircraft. Does this make the 330/340 much less safe than the 777? Not really.

As Max Q says, the 777 is a solid design from a manufacturer that has been in the business for a long time.

Quoting XXXX10 (Reply 1):
The 747-400 has only had two hull losses AFAIK one in HGK when one failed to stop and went off of the end of the runway (no fatalities) and one that crahed after a fire in the cargo hold.

There have been 5 hull losses on the 747-400. http://aviation-safety.net/database/...104%&cat=%1&sorteer=datekey&page=1

Quoting Max Q (Reply 5):
Quoting XXXX10 (Reply 1):

There is nothing that makes the 777 any safer than other aircraft- accidents are rarely related to aircraft type.

Disagree, as an example look at the MD11.

A rare example of a modern airliner with flying characteristics that are, if not dangerous, at least less benign than most.

[Edited 2011-11-28 17:13:41]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineBuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2889 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 16836 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 5):
The 777 safety record comes down simply to a good solid Boeing design.

And some luck - if the LHR BA aircraft's engines had flamed out just a minute earlier the outcome would have been different. And that accident was due to design (and insufficient certification standards).



I scratch my head, therefore I am.
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9585 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 16711 times:

It's the design and the latest standards enforced by the FAA. The FAA keeps increasing the number of requirements and redundancy keeps getting better and better. For example, a 737NG would be basically impossible to certify from scratch with today's requirements. The FAA allows grandfathering of designs that have shown adequate reliability.

Another factor with the 777 is their high price and relatively limited used market. The 777 has not made its way to many second tier carriers. Maintenance is vital to preventing accidents and in parts of the world with less oversight, maintenance deferrals can add up and redundancy can be lost which leads to accidents.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21554 posts, RR: 55
Reply 9, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 16694 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
What The Secret To The Boeing 777 Safty Record?

Luck.

Had the BA038 incident happened a bit earlier, we'd probably be talking about deaths. And then the 340 would be the safest airliner out there.

I'm certainly not trying to denigrate the 777, because it's clearly a very well-designed airplane, but pretty much any modern commercial airliner is going to be so well-designed (and the environment in which they operate is also going to be so well-designed) that it's difficult to accurately compare any of them.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4436 posts, RR: 19
Reply 10, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 16604 times:

You might make the point that the BA accident was the fault of RR, however, as pointed out the engines were installed on the Aircraft that was certified with the joint effort of Boeing and the FAA.


So Boeing is not blameless.



Still, another superb Aircraft from Boeing.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17015 posts, RR: 67
Reply 11, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 16533 times:

The 777 is certainly a superb aircraft, as market dominance and customer satisfaction clearly show.

Beyond that, however, when you're talking a couple of accidents caused by aircraft issues at most for a type over years of operation, all these types are "safe". Comparing an aircraft with 0 hull losses to one with 2 or 4 does not really give you a comparative basis when it comes to relative safety.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2338 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 16526 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Mir (Reply 9):
Had the BA038 incident happened a bit earlier, we'd probably be talking about deaths. And then the 340 would be the safest airliner out there.

Alternatively It's possible that a few more seconds of pumping might have cleared the blockage, and avoided the crash completely.


User currently offlinetsugambler From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 16322 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
What The Secret To The Boeing 777 Safty Record?

Not crashing.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9585 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 16291 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 11):

Beyond that, however, when you're talking a couple of accidents caused by aircraft issues at most for a type over years of operation, all these types are "safe". Comparing an aircraft with 0 hull losses to one with 2 or 4 does not really give you a comparative basis when it comes to relative safety.

Comparing hull losses as a measure of safety is not very easy and leads to statistical insignificance.

What the FAA does, is has the airlines report in flight shut downs, diversions, air turn backs, and rejected takeoffs. These feed up into a database that is reliable and points to airlines and specific types of airplanes where there are problems happening. The FAA forces airlines to report and can impose penalties for unreliable performance. That's a more clear indicator of which airplanes and airlines are safer. A full hull loss is usually characterized by a series of events, and can't be tracked easily.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently onlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3047 posts, RR: 7
Reply 15, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 16252 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 9):
Had the BA038 incident happened a bit earlier, we'd probably be talking about deaths. And then the 340 would be the safest airliner out there.

And had AF 358 just gone slightly different and the flight attendants not have been so skilled, the A340 would have had 250+ deaths. Then the 777 would be hands-down "safer" by statistics.

%$#@ happens. Thankfully each accident turned out the way it did and those 500 people are still walking around today.


User currently offlineXXXX10 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 777 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 16152 times:

Looks like I missed a couple of 744 incidents, my point is that it is still a safe design, accidents from on-board fires can happen in any type.

I am sure that all modern types are just as safe as far as design and construction are concerned.


User currently offlineNorthwest727 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 491 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 16120 times:

Surprised nobody has mentioned it, but at the time of the 777's design, it was supposedly the most widely tested commercial airliner in history, surpassing the 747. I think the A380 may have since taken its place, but Boeing spent a lot of money and time into developing the 777, and it paid off...the 777 was made right the first time. Not exactly the case with the 787, but I guess that's what happens when you let the marketing team develop the product, not the actual aerospace engineers.

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25117 posts, RR: 22
Reply 18, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 16112 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
The Boeing 777, is the safest airliner ever built

That's not correct. The A319 is also fatality free after 16 years and far more (over 1300) have been delivered than 777s and they fly far more sectors every day. The only A319 hull loss after 16 years of service is a NW aircraft that was taxied into the terminal building/jetway at LGA by maintenance staff while being positioned to the gate in 2003.

As someone else said, today's aircraft are so safe the differences in accident records from type to type are largely a matter of luck.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17015 posts, RR: 67
Reply 19, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 16036 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 18):
Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
The Boeing 777, is the safest airliner ever built

That's not correct. The A319 is also fatality free after 16 years and far more (over 1300) have been delivered than 777s and they fly far more sectors every day. The only A319 hull loss after 16 years of service is a NW aircraft that was taxied into the terminal building/jetway at LGA by maintenance staff while being positioned to the gate in 2003.

You can't count the 319 by itself. It's part of the 318-321 family which for most intents and purposes is the same aircraft in different lengths. Just like the 737-600/700/800/900 (or the 330/340).



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineAutothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1595 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 15975 times:

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 15):
And had AF 358 just gone slightly different and the flight attendants not have been so skilled, the A340 would have had 250+ deaths. Then the 777 would be hands-down "safer" by statistics.

Utter nonsense, apples with oranges comparison. AF358 was caused by pilot errors and bad weather in a chain of events.

On the other hand the BA 777 accident, was a technical caused problem within the RR-Engine.
 



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineWard86IND From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 15972 times:

How about the ERJ-145 family? Never a fatality, over 1000 built. I think it takes the cake, being that it is largely operated by less-experienced regional crews and many more cycles a day relative to larger mainline aircraft.

And although it is a fact that the vast majority of accidents are directly caused by pilot error, aircraft are also designed to allow pilots to get out of the bad situations they put themselves in, some more than others.

As far as the B73X and A32X argument, I don't think you can consider them one and the same. I think it is interesting the relatively fewer accidents you see on the 73G and A319 compared to the 738 and A320. For example you will see that higher approach speeds lead to more overruns. Again, pilot error in this example, but I would rather touch down halfway down the runway in pouring rain doing 120 knots in an A319 than 140 in a 738.



Live your dream.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17015 posts, RR: 67
Reply 22, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 15946 times:

Quoting Ward86IND (Reply 21):
As far as the B73X and A32X argument, I don't think you can consider them one and the same. I think it is interesting the relatively fewer accidents you see on the 73G and A319 compared to the 738 and A320. For example you will see that higher approach speeds lead to more overruns. Again, pilot error in this example, but I would rather touch down halfway down the runway in pouring rain doing 120 knots in an A319 than 140 in a 738.

Fair enough on the overruns. However the 320 came into service years before the 319 and so got all the "teething" problems. If the 319 had gone into service first it would likely have had those accidents instead.


If we have to separate marks we also need to separate the 777 and 330/340 variants.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5688 posts, RR: 44
Reply 23, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 15850 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The basic problem with this question is that modern airliners are so safe that there is no valid statistical comparison.

The data sample is far to small to make any valid assumptions from.. the next pilot error or incorecctly tightened fastener has the potential to skew the stats so as to make all previous comparisons meaningless!



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 642 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 15828 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 6):
Take the 330/340. Two fatal accidents (one during testing),

Three fatal accidents; the flight test accident you stated, AF 447, and the Afriqiyah A330 crash at Tripolli last year that killed 104 people.



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
25 Starlionblue : That, as we say in Swedish, is the core of the poodle. Basic statistics will tell you that unless you have way more incidents, and indeed way more in
26 nomadd22 : Has anyone with experience ever speculated on the possible outcome if AF 447 had been a 777?
27 cmf : They can. But it is much more than that. Newer models are less likely to have fires. (Freight isn't the only source.) And they are likely to handle f
28 bueb0g : Yes, but I think it's mainly fruitless speculation; sure, it's possible that the use of the stick shaker, along with different stall warning logic co
29 prebennorholm : Sure right. But an AD following the BA38 investigation mandated exactly the same modification on the Trent 500 and 700 fuel-oil heat exchanger, which
30 David L : In the BA38 incident, I would suggest that, along with the good luck already mentioned, there was also a certain amount of "bad luck" in that the prec
31 MEA-707 : Also, and I may open a can of worms here, it's because of the airlines who operate 777s are among the safer airlines themselves. Many older airplanes
32 Starlionblue : I promise not to hate you. You are completely correct. I often say that a determined pilot can crash even the safest aircraft. That determined pilot
33 787atPAE : Wouldn't the MSG-3 process be given some credit for the safety rate of the 777? I guess ARP4754, DO-178/254 (and on and on) come into play as well...
34 tdscanuck : Not really...the 737NG is also an MSG-3 airplane and, though plenty safe, isn't quite on par with the 777. Tom.
35 SSTeve : 77W and 77L are doing pretty good, eh?!
36 Post contains links AirlineCritic : Today's commercial aviation is so safe that luck (good or bad) plays a role in skewing the statistics. To take an extreme example, Concorde went from
37 Starlionblue : I see what you mean but it is a fallacy to say that Concorde suddenly went from being extremely safe to unsafe as the result of one accident. In fact
38 Post contains images pelican : But at least one worked for AF So I wouldn't be too sure about this assumption. pelican
39 Post contains images seabosdca : Crashes on modern types are near-random events of astonishingly low probability. Beyond the occasional design lemon (MD-11), I think all modern types
40 AirlineCritic : Of course. The same vulnerabilities were latent in the design, we just learned of them through the accident. Which was my point. Because accidents ar
41 Chamonix : We forgot the Dassault Mercure! Not a single scratch!
42 Post contains links Chamonix : This the esoteric answer: http://ezinearticles.com/?777;-Why-is-Number-Seven-Lucky?&id=255080
43 Post contains images Starlionblue : Fair enough. But even so I'd rather fly AF than Central African Revolutionary Airways.
44 brons2 : Has anyone ever considered ranking airliner safety by number of ADs issued by the applicable regulatory bodies (FAA/EASA/JAA/etc)?
45 RoseFlyer : That's also a challenge. Bigger fleet sizes are going to get more AD's as there are more events happening and more findings to recommend fixes. Howeve
46 BoeingGuy : Yeah, all ten of them. The 777 has, what, over 960 in service? And only one "scratch" in which most people walked away without a scratch.
47 Post contains images stealthz : That never sold on to 2nd/3rd tier airlines... Perhaps because they lacked the range to leave France
48 Chamonix : Is it because the 777's ADIRU has 6 accelerometers with superior skewed axis combinations and redundancy management?
49 Zkpilot : Air France over the Atlantic anyone? Wx cannot really be taken out of the picture except in a few circumstances (ie pilot error in not activating ant
50 Starlionblue : That's fair. However if there is bad weather the pilots should also know when to leave it alone and divert. Way to dig into the details... But yes, s
51 rwessel : If you mean AF447, that was an A330.
52 Post contains links Chamonix : http://af447.typepad.com/af447/2011/...why-boeings-777-adiru-is-best.html The B777's ADIRU has 6 accelerometers with superior skewed axis combinations
53 Starlionblue : Nitpicking here but you could argue that 330 and 340 are the same aircraft. They certainly are more similar than all the 737 or 747 marks...
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic What The Secret To The Boeing 777 Safety Record?
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...
What Are The Approach Speeds For 737, 777 & 747? posted Tue Feb 21 2006 03:32:59 by AMSMAN
What's This On The 777 Landing Gear? posted Fri May 6 2005 10:45:13 by Caboclo
What Type Is The 777-200LR? posted Sun Jun 3 2001 03:12:15 by Bio15
What's Wrong With The New DL Paint? posted Tue Sep 7 2010 20:41:57 by hnl-jack
What Is The Formula To Determine Block Time? posted Thu Aug 19 2010 09:50:12 by flaps30
What Is The Inside The Bump On The FX MD-11 Nose? posted Sat Jun 12 2010 12:49:42 by rktsci
Boeing 777 Autopilot And LNAV/VNAV On To posted Thu Jan 14 2010 08:31:48 by Krisyyz
What Exactly Was The Problem With Early JT9D-3's? posted Tue Jan 5 2010 01:16:59 by Faro
So What Exactly Are The IFRs? posted Wed Dec 30 2009 00:26:56 by Glom
Is The RAT Deployed On This 777? posted Tue Dec 1 2009 16:48:36 by DreamsUnited

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format