Maybe you should rethink that. I found this on page 30 of the crash thread.
You are comparing a modern model EIS in 2018 with models 55 years ago?
Many thing/ risk which was considered acceptable even 10~20 years ago no longer be the true in 2019.
If you had taken the time to read my post, you would have seen that I said:It is easy to forget just how far we have come in a relatively short period of time. When you look at the first and second generation jet transport aircraft, their safety records were downright abysmal
My point was that 50 years ago, the 727 had 3 hull losses inside of 90 days and the fleet was never grounded - it was considered an acceptable loss. That type of thinking doesn’t hold water in 2019.
We are looking at the possible reasons for the crash, not only how many days in between.
Basically all 3 727 crash you mentioned were due to pilot error.
In addition, the UA227 one is short of runway during landing. UA389 and AA383 were happening during bad weather and lack of visibility and flow into terrain.
What about the crash of 737MAX?
Bad weather is not a contributing factors for both crash, and both crashed shortly after takeoff and most importantly,
both have similar flight pattern prior to the crash. Both crash are too similar to warrant a grounding for the safety of the public
before Boeing can prove at lease ET one is not related to the same and known problem of the Lion air's crash.
I am sure even 3 or more 737MAX crash in a row within a very short period with very different background of the accidents,
the regulators would not demand a grounding of the model.
Last edited by hongkongflyer
on Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:43 am, edited 1 time in total.