dogfighter2111
Posts: 1867
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 3:02 am

B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Fri Dec 02, 2005 9:11 am

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
 
mbg
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:18 am

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Fri Dec 02, 2005 10:43 am

Wow! 99 aircraft lost???

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

Cheers,

mbg
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:07 am

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
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8572
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:27 am

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.
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:29 am

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
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
isitsafenow
Posts: 3413
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2004 9:22 am

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:53 am

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.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:03 pm

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
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5546
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:12 pm

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!
 
mbg
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:18 am

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:50 pm

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 avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:12 pm

Considering the Number of B737s flying.
The ASN site has the breakup too.
regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
dogfighter2111
Posts: 1867
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 3:02 am

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Fri Dec 02, 2005 4:45 pm

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
 
TheSonntag
Posts: 4303
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:23 pm

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Fri Dec 02, 2005 4:59 pm

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 avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:21 pm

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
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
dogfighter2111
Posts: 1867
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 3:02 am

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:57 pm

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
 
TheSonntag
Posts: 4303
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:23 pm

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Sat Dec 03, 2005 1:33 am

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.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Sat Dec 03, 2005 1:57 am

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
 
phollingsworth
Posts: 635
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:05 am

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Sat Dec 03, 2005 1:57 am

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.
 
dogfighter2111
Posts: 1867
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 3:02 am

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Sat Dec 03, 2005 2:06 am

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
 
TheSonntag
Posts: 4303
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:23 pm

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Sat Dec 03, 2005 3:41 am

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
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Sat Dec 03, 2005 3:57 am

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
 
phollingsworth
Posts: 635
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:05 am

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Sat Dec 03, 2005 4:14 am

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.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Sat Dec 03, 2005 4:35 am

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
 
dogfighter2111
Posts: 1867
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 3:02 am

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Sat Dec 03, 2005 4:41 am

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
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Sat Dec 03, 2005 4:44 am

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
 
dogfighter2111
Posts: 1867
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 3:02 am

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Sat Dec 03, 2005 4:46 am

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
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Sat Dec 03, 2005 4:54 am

Quoting Dogfighter2111 (Reply 24):
Well, it does. If a human can't do it manually yet a computer can then i think that makes it safer!?!?!

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 many reasons for going to fly-by-wire, but designing a safe airplane does not require it.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
dogfighter2111
Posts: 1867
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 3:02 am

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Sat Dec 03, 2005 5:06 am

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 25):
First, who says a human can't do it manually? Provide an example.

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 command the aircraft much better than a human.

Same above, goes to why a computer in the loop would make it safer.

Thanks
Mike
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9840
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Sat Dec 03, 2005 5:09 am

Quoting Phollingsworth (Reply 16):
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.



Quoting Phollingsworth (Reply 16):
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.

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 landing at Bangkok.

Quoting Phollingsworth (Reply 16):
Even the A330 has had as many fatal accidents as the B744.

According to a Boeing report I saw recently "Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents Worldwide Operations", the hull loss accident rate per million departures for the 747-400 is 0.83, for the A330 - 0.00.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 19):
I'd like to see any data that proves FBW produces a safer airplane.

IFALPA did some work on this, they believe this is the case in a report I saw.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 19):
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.

I dont believe this is the case, I think the 737-300-800 has a lower hull loss rate, however a higher accident rate. Accidents dont always mean a hull loss, they include events where a person dies or suffers serious injury as a result of an occurrence associated with the operation of the aircraft, the aircraft is destroyed or seriously damaged as a result of an occurrence associated with the operation of the aircraft, and any property is destroyed or seriously damaged as a result of an occurrence associated with the operation of the vehicle. Lots of non hull loss, non death accidents exist, like runway overruns.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Sat Dec 03, 2005 7:56 am

Quoting Dogfighter2111 (Reply 26):
A computer has the data to process and be able to command the aircraft much better than a human.

Sorry, this is your opinion. Provide a case in point that involves flying a transport airplane.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
dogfighter2111
Posts: 1867
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 3:02 am

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:13 am

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 28):

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 genius to figure out that a computer could fly an aircraft better.

Thanks
Mike
 
F27XXX
Posts: 617
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 6:53 pm

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:22 am

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 and that overload the planes beyond their max (just a few of their faults that I can think of)that keep plunging these aircraft back to earth are the ones having a bad year.

How can you blame the aircraft? It's very obvious that it's the faults of the governments of these countries that issue certificates to these fly by night companies and then don't keep any kind of a watchful eye over their operations. Then again, how much can be expected of a country , say, like Nigeria ... where the idiots can't even keep cows off their runways and keep their runways maintained to the point where there aren't huge craters allowed to exist for planes to crash into.

Bottom line: I dont care whether its a 737-200, 300 or even a 900 .... an old Antonov 24 or a newly delivered A330 ... anyone who flies one of these bottom of the barrel carriers is crazy.
I'M BAAAAAAAACK!
 
bushpilot
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:37 am

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:51 am

Quoting Dogfighter2111 (Reply 29):
And i do know that Computers process info much faster than humans, and knowing this i don't need to be a genius to figure out that a computer could fly an aircraft better.

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 can fail just like any other system. Plus when they do it is not something easily fixable. Id be curious to know what effect a spilled cup of coffee on the flight computer would have.

Having never flown one, it is my understanding that the aircraft is more responsive among other things. But if there is ever an electrical failure what happens?
 
dogfighter2111
Posts: 1867
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 3:02 am

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:53 am

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 31):

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 computer at controlling a comouter.

Thanks
Mike
 
bushpilot
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:37 am

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Sat Dec 03, 2005 10:12 am

Quoting Dogfighter2111 (Reply 32):

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 large determination on how safe a machine is. FBW is a good system and it makes sense. But i am a big fan of redundancy on my airplanes. My fear about FBW is that when there is some kind of major electrical failure the cockpit flight controls are useless.
 
TheSonntag
Posts: 4303
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:23 pm

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Sat Dec 03, 2005 10:36 am

Quoting F27XXX (Reply 30):

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 nevertheless.

Whether or not FBW aircraft are better than non-FBW aircraft is certainly a long discussion. At least it is fair to say that FBW did not threaten flight safety, despite the issues that arose in the beginning...

However, while I think FBW helped flight safety, I think the real safety gain came from better cockpit ergonomics and more modern technology, therefore new airliners are that good in terms of safety, no matter whether it is the 737NG, A320, 777 or A330/340...

And about statistics, these are only of limited value... Concorde was the best airliner until the year 2000, when it suddenly became the worst... The A320 had a bad start and turned into one of the safest airliners of all times.

But I think the statistics tell one thing for sure: If you take into account how many more flights are happening today than 30years ago, the accident rate (which was already pretty low in the 70s) went down, so I think it is justified to say that modern airliners are safer than older designs (if they have good maintenance and good trained aircrews).

Michael
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Sat Dec 03, 2005 12:13 pm

What regulatory system supervises the Airlines from Africa & South America.
regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Sat Dec 03, 2005 1:31 pm

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 34):
However, while I think FBW helped flight safety, I think the real safety gain came from better cockpit ergonomics and more modern technology, therefore new airliners are that good in terms of safety, no matter whether it is the 737NG, A320, 777 or A330/340...

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 very significant factors, starting with the A310, 757 and 767. This is the point where there was a significant change in large jet transport accident rates. Incidently, these are non-FBW aircraft. Their modern technology used computers for system management and lowered crew workload. Computers have improved airplane safety through airplane management rather than airplane control.

Another good example is the 737NG and the 777. Both entered airline service at about the same time. The 737NG has far more airplanes inservice and many more flight hours than the 777, so it could be expected to have more accidents. However, either has had a hull loss or fatal accident. The 777 is FBW, the 737NG has a mechanical/hydraulic flight control system with manual reversion to deal with a dual hydraulic failure, about as simple as you can get. Where they differ from earlier generations of jet transports is better flight decks and better systems management. This is the basis for their better safety record.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
F27XXX
Posts: 617
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 6:53 pm

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Sat Dec 03, 2005 2:41 pm

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 34):
Quoting F27XXX (Reply 30):


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 nevertheless.

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. Now, if those planes had crashed while in the service of, say, UA, or WN, or LH or BA (yes, i know they no longer fly them) ... then I might say .."HMMMMM" . These are respected carriers froom respectable countries.

BUT !!!!!!

When you start talking about Nigerian or Ghanaian or Burkina Farcian or Ugandan or Zimbabwean (just for example) carriers named Air Botumbwawepeepee or Titicaca Air who bought well used 732s from other carriers in the third world like, oh, say, Air ClapClapPooPoo from Indonesia where the planes were probably neglected and abused there too - -, and then flown by guys who weeks prior were probably taxi or rickshaw drivers ..... well, that spells disaster. The only thing that could probably have killed more people would be if they bought some old Russian madeTu-134s or Il-118s from, say, Cuba or Angola or Kyrgzyzyskzyczrwyzkrstan.

Bottom line: Anyone who blames Boeing or the 737-200 for these horrific crashes at the hands of idiotic airlines from idiotic countries is a fool. And yes, I do realize "how that makes me sound" by saying this. Too few people are afraid to. Thats why so many people died in these crashes.

Start throwing your stones now.
I'M BAAAAAAAACK!
 
MEA-707
Posts: 3666
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 1999 4:51 am

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Sun Dec 04, 2005 5:34 pm

Quoting F27XXX (Reply 37):
Anyone who blames Boeing or the 737-200 for these horrific crashes at the hands of idiotic airlines from idiotic countries is a fool.

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 world and look further then your nose, one day you might understand and accept that countries (where 737s unfortunately ARE more likely to crash) like the Philippines, Peru, Indonesia and Nigeria and their airlines have their disadvantages but still often try the best they can with their limited means. I have been in the abovementioned countries (except Peru, yet), admired the culture and helpful population and flew on their 'idiotic airlines' like Chanchangi, IRS, Merpati, Bouraq and Asian Spirit. While I was aware chances to crash on them are quite somewhat higher, I appreciated their efforts.
Of course local and international authority should always be scrutinizing airlines and ground unsafe airliners and airlines.
nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
 
F27XXX
Posts: 617
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 6:53 pm

RE: B737-200 Incident/Crash Stats... (Nothing Bad)

Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:30 pm

Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 38):
I flew on their 'idiotic airlines' like Chanchangi, IRS, Merpati, Bouraq and Asian Spirit. While I was aware chances to crash on them are quite somewhat higher, I appreciated their efforts.
Of course local and international authority should always be scrutinizing airlines and ground unsafe airliners and airlines.

We agree. You just said the same thing I did.
I'M BAAAAAAAACK!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AirIndia, AirportRival, babastud, Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], boscmh, ChristopherS, DeltaRules, DeSpringbokke, elron, flydia, flyDTW1992, ftornik, ikolkyo, jpetekyxmd80, Mcgarvey216, Mexicana757, MrBuzzcut, tinpusher007, toteskotes, Yahoo [Bot] and 240 guests