Unlucky 777-Who Would Have Imagined?

flyenthu · Mon Jul 21, 2014 3:57 am

A.netters:

I was just reflecting on how the course of history of the Boeing 777 changed in 2014. Who would have ever imagined that such an incredibly reliable equipment with an impeccable safety record and no casualties until March 2014 experience two back to back events that are so mysterious and haunting leaving so many dead; and that too by the "same airliner?" If you step back and think about it, it is just so bizarre- the whole thing; how both of these incidents happened to the 777........

jetblue1965 · Mon Jul 21, 2014 4:04 am

it's just very unlucky for Boeing - neither incident was related to the plane

the first one (my personal guess) is a rogue pilot, the second one is incorrectly entering a war zone

Boeing (or RR) is likely to bear very little of the brunt, but MH is the scapegoat here, even if unfairly so

777Jet · Mon Jul 21, 2014 4:06 am

540 x 777 fatalities.

1 - during a refueling fire in DEN.
3 - related to the Asiana SFO incident (1 apparently during the crash. 1 got run over by a fire truck after the fire fighting foam covered them. 1 later on in the hospital).
238 - from MH370.
298 - from MH17.

So, 536 out of the 540 incidents that have linked fatalities to the 777 are from MH incidents

Can't say the 777 has been at fault in any of the above as we don't know what happened to MH370 yet...

[Edited 2014-07-20 21:08:18]

TWA772LR · Mon Jul 21, 2014 4:08 am

Quoting flyenthu (Thread starter):

Actually it changed in 2013 with the OS SFO crash.

Sorry to be "that guy", but I couldn't resist.

That being said, the OS crash and MH370 are incidents caused by the pilots, and MH17 is a deliberate shoot down. None of which are attributed to the aircraft itself. These same accidents could have happened to a 737, MD-11, A330, etc... (And let's hope it doesn't happen *knocks on wood*).

The 777 is a great aircraft and is incredibly safe. I would fly on it at any time.

flyenthu · Mon Jul 21, 2014 4:09 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 2):
Asiana SFO incident

Sorry, I missed that.

flyenthu · Mon Jul 21, 2014 4:14 am

But think about the MH flights- both of them for a second. One is still missing at sea, and the other brought down and resting in an area where masked men with guns are in control.

ek241yyz · Mon Jul 21, 2014 4:20 am

I personally don't think the 777 is unlucky, or its recorded tainted. No incident with loss of life has happened due to the aircraft's fault (at least, nothing proven so far in that ascept.

777Jet · Mon Jul 21, 2014 4:21 am

Quoting flyenthu (Reply 5):
But think about the MH flights- both of them for a second. One is still missing at sea, and the other brought down and resting in an area where masked men with guns are in control.

Yes, so think how unlucky or jinxed the MH777s are. Okay, so MH370 went / is missing. Wiki says 1,212 777s have been produced up to June 2014. Let's say 1,200 are still in service - I have no idea. So, MH lose a 777 and then a plane gets shot down over the Ukraine. Out of all of the different airlines, all of the different aircraft types, and all of the different airline / type combos - it is again a MH777 in the news. Out of 1,200 777s the airline with about 14 or so left loses another one. Is MH just unlucky? Are the MH 777s jinxed? Is MH370 somehow connected to MH17? Who knows. But, so far, neither MH or the 777 can be blames for either incident. We don't know what the deal with Mh370 is and MH17 got shot down out of airspace that was deemed safe. So, the topic is correct - the 777 is getting unlucky, and the MH 777s seem to have been involved in a lot of that bad luck

[Edited 2014-07-20 21:25:59]

olympic472 · Mon Jul 21, 2014 4:25 am

Another one: British Airways at LHR.

777Jet · Mon Jul 21, 2014 4:27 am

Quoting olympic472 (Reply 10):
Another one: British Airways at LHR.

Hull loss but Zero fatalities

jetblue1965 · Mon Jul 21, 2014 4:27 am

Quoting olympic472 (Reply 10):
Another one: British Airways at LHR.

i think that's just a hull loss but not a casualty ?

trex8 · Mon Jul 21, 2014 4:33 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 9):
Yes, so think how unlucky or jinxed the MH777s are. Okay, so MH370 went / is missing. Wiki says 1,212 777s have been produced up to June 2014. Let's say 1,200 are still in service - I have no idea. So, MH lose a 777 and then a plane gets shot down over the Ukraine. Out of all of the different airlines, all of the different aircraft types, and all of the different airline / type combos - it is again a MH777 in the news. Out of 1,200 777s the airline with about 14 or so left loses another one. Is MH just unlucky? Are the MH 777s jinxed? Is MH370 somehow connected to MH17? Who knows. But, so far, neither MH or the 777 can be blames for either incident. We don't know what the deal with Mh370 is and MH17 got shot down out of airspace that was deemed safe. So, the topic is correct - the 777 is getting unlucky, and the MH 777s seem to have been involved in a lot of that bad luck

Well we don't have the details on MH17 yet. Was it squawking an appropriate civilian code? Maybe something happened to its transponders to make the morons on the ground who launched the missile think it was a military plane. Maybe the transponder problem was a 777 design/manufacturing issue. Not saying thats probably what happened but I don't think we can at this point in time in the crash investigation say the 777 was totally fault free.

olympic472 · Mon Jul 21, 2014 4:36 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 11):
Hull loss but Zero fatalities

Yes, no fatalities.
I was responding to the thread starter statement on safety record:

Quoting flyenthu (Thread starter):
an impeccable safety record and no casualties until March 2014

aerorobnz · Mon Jul 21, 2014 4:36 am

The record is still better than any widebody before it. As the 777 gets older statistically more likely due more and more flights.

rotating14 · Mon Jul 21, 2014 4:46 am

Quoting flyenthu (Thread starter):

A.netters:

I was just reflecting on how the course of history of the Boeing 777 changed in 2014. Who would have ever imagined that such an incredibly reliable equipment with an impeccable safety record and no casualties until March 2014 experience two back to back events that are so mysterious and haunting leaving so many dead; and that too by the "same airliner?" If you step back and think about it, it is just so bizarre- the whole thing; how both of these incidents happened to the 777........

What would be the difference if it was a MRJ, Cessna or a A318? The 777 is a very reliable aircraft and none of the deaths are related to equipment failure.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 6):

If MH had been flying an Airbus for those flights none of these incidents would have happened

Right. The on board computers would just override the data input from the pilots and divert the aircraft to perform a soft belly landing on Lake Erie.

DocLightning · Mon Jul 21, 2014 4:51 am

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 3):
That being said, the OS crash and MH370 are incidents caused by the pilots,

You don't know that about MH370 and nor does anyone else.

Now, having said that, you can hardly fault an airliner for getting shot down or flown into the ground.

MaxiAir · Mon Jul 21, 2014 4:54 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 15):
The record is still better than any widebody before it. As the 777 gets older statistically more likely due more and more flights.

Well, what about the A340? It still has no fatalities! But I do agree its still a very safe plane, but with the OZ crash in SFO I really wonder if it would had happened on an Airbus as well? Is Airbus philosophy going so far in computer control? Would any AutoThrottle from an Airbus had prevented the speed loss?

And concerning MH370, many here take the theory blaming the pilots for granted, but nothing is proven yet and I hope it wasn't there fault! But if there's more behind this crash, we'll probably never know

flyenthu · Mon Jul 21, 2014 5:11 am

Sorry, my bad about Asiana and BA; the scale, in terms of casualties, and mystery surrounding the MH events had overwhelmed my mind when I stared the thread.

as739x · Mon Jul 21, 2014 5:20 am

Quoting MaxiAir (Reply 18):
Well, what about the A340? It still has no fatalities! But I do agree its still a very safe plane, but with the OZ crash in SFO I really wonder if it would had happened on an Airbus as well? Is Airbus philosophy going so far in computer control? Would any AutoThrottle from an Airbus had prevented the speed loss?

This is just provoking a A vs B exchange. OZ was flat out pilot error. Whether the system is more complex and/or not idiot proof is beyond the argument. The 777's make hundreds of landing per day with no errors. Those (Asiana) pilots poorly performed in a airplane they were said to be trained for. They should have known that auto-throttle system inside and out as any pilot should know their plane.

KPDX · Mon Jul 21, 2014 5:23 am

Quoting MaxiAir (Reply 18):
Well, what about the A340? It still has no fatalities!

A340s produced: 377
777s produced: 1,212

MaxiAir · Mon Jul 21, 2014 6:07 am

Yes, you're right, there is barely one A340 per three 777 out there, but I just wanted to mention this!

And concerning the OZ crash, I was just thinking about the general cockpit culture... thats where the problem is located I think! Its about how they work together and if we had even more automatization would these accidents not happen again? Are there differences between the different cultures, as eg in Europe the opinions of FO and Cpt. are equal, what seems to be not the case with eg Asiana or only that specific crew?

777Jet · Mon Jul 21, 2014 6:20 am

Quoting olympic472 (Reply 14):
Yes, no fatalities.
I was responding to the thread starter statement on safety record:

Quoting flyenthu (Thread starter):
an impeccable safety record and no casualties until March 2014

I was not suggesting otherwise. Nonetheless, the 777 wasn't at fault there - the RR engines were

Just for the record

Quoting MaxiAir (Reply 18):
Well, what about the A340? It still has no fatalities!

As there is only 1 A340 per 3 777s and the A340s are being gotten rid of as if there is no tomorrow (well, almost that fast) then the A340 most likely will never have a fatality - AF was very lucky the one that overran the runway in Canada and burst into flames did not have a fatality - very lucky - nonetheless the A340 has had a hull loss (one as well in a terror attack which shouldn't count just like how a shot down plane shouldn't taint the reputation of that plane).

Quoting KPDX (Reply 21):
Quoting MaxiAir (Reply 18):
Well, what about the A340? It still has no fatalities!

A340s produced: 377
777s produced: 1,212

The stats speak for themselves!

Quoting MaxiAir (Reply 22):
Yes, you're right, there is barely one A340 per three 777 out there, but I just wanted to mention this!

I probably feel safer in an A340-500 than any other plane. 4 massive engines and huge range on a plane not really that large in size is as good as it gets...

135mech · Mon Jul 21, 2014 6:31 am

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 16):
Quoting trex8 (Reply 6):

If MH had been flying an Airbus for those flights none of these incidents would have happened

Right. The on board computers would just override the data input from the pilots and divert the aircraft to perform a soft belly landing on Lake Erie.

BUAHAHAHA!!! Well said Rotating14!!!

135Mech

singel09 · Mon Jul 21, 2014 6:42 am

Does this A340 incident not count?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_358

ek241yyz · Mon Jul 21, 2014 6:53 am

Quoting singel09 (Reply 25):

No one died though. But It did have 5 hull losses since introduction.

777Jet · Mon Jul 21, 2014 6:53 am

Quoting singel09 (Reply 25):
Does this A340 incident not count?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_358

I mentioned it above. Hull loss with no fatalities - very, very lucky...

Given that the 777s outnumber the A340s roughly 3 to 1 -

5 hull loses for the A340

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A340

5 hull loses for the 777

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777

Reasons aside as a 777 got shot down, one is missing, etc, etc and one A340-600 was testing when the brakes failed, one was in a terrorist attack, etc, etc, there are still 5 hull loses for each yet 3 times the number of 777s. The 777 is looking better in light of that

Thanks to whoever brought the A340 into this conversation

[Edited 2014-07-20 23:55:12]

BAeRJ100 · Mon Jul 21, 2014 7:00 am

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 3):
Actually it changed in 2013 with the OS SFO crash.

Sorry to be "that guy", but I couldn't resist.

Sorry to be "that guy"

, Asiana is OZ, not OS.

lilxlakerbo1 · Mon Jul 21, 2014 7:01 am

Quoting singel09 (Reply 25):
Does this A340 incident not count?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_358

It was also a no-fatality accident. 297 pax, 12 crew, 43 injuries, 0 deaths.

Someone83 · Mon Jul 21, 2014 7:53 am

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 3):
Actually it changed in 2013 with the OS SFO crash.

OZ.....OS (Austrian Airlines) have yet to crash any 777

[Edited 2014-07-21 00:54:03]

crimsonchin · Mon Jul 21, 2014 8:18 am

Do people just want to be outraged for no reason because their fave plane is in question? Even without the emote, it was obvious that Trex8's post was a joke poking fun at the A v B philosophy that comes up here quite a bit. Sheesh, calm down.

joeytaffy93 · Mon Jul 21, 2014 8:20 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 27):
Thanks to whoever brought the A340 into this conversation

Burned? Aha.

Gasman · Mon Jul 21, 2014 8:21 am

This entire thread is nonsensical.

Firstly, there is no evidence that either of the two MH hull losses were in any way related to aircraft; and secondly - the fact that they were both 777s merely relates to to the sheer volume of 777s flying the world's major routes, and as such is an indirect endorsement of the aircraft itself.

KFLLCFII · Mon Jul 21, 2014 8:30 am

So who's going to be "that guy" who says we're supposed to combine the A330 tally with the A340s because they roll off the same production line?

777Jet · Mon Jul 21, 2014 8:34 am

This entire thread is great! It has encouraged me to do some research and I have learned more stats about two of my top three favorite aircraft of all time!

Quoting gasman (Reply 33):
Firstly, there is no evidence that either of the two MH hull losses were in any way related to aircraft

This it totally correct. However, until March this year, the 777 only had 4 fatalities next to its name - none of which were at fault of the 777 IMO. In the space of 4 months that number rose from 4 to 540 with 536 of them relating to flights from the same airline - so now the 777 has 540 fatalities next to its name of which it might very well not have been at fault for any so it is kind of unlucky. So, I can see the OP's reason for bringing up this discussion - whether or not 'unlucky' is the right term to link to the 777 is certainly debatable. Nonetheless, 2 events over the past 4 months have dramatically changed several stats relating to the 777 - that is for sure...

[Edited 2014-07-21 01:36:12]

chuchoteur · Mon Jul 21, 2014 8:43 am

Quoting Jetblue1965 (Reply 1):
the first one (my personal guess) is a rogue pilot

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 3):
That being said, the OS crash and MH370 are incidents caused by the pilots

We don't know what caused MH370 to disappear/crash. blaming the pilots is a bit enthusiastic.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 17):
Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 3):
That being said, the OS crash and MH370 are incidents caused by the pilots,

You don't know that about MH370 and nor does anyone else.

SKAirbus · Mon Jul 21, 2014 8:55 am

Quoting chuchoteur (Reply 36):
We don't know what caused MH370 to disappear/crash. blaming the pilots is a bit enthusiastic.

Completely agree. Anything could have happened up there... from sabotage by the pilots to a catastrophic depressurisation (Helios style). We may never know what happened...

shufflemoomin · Mon Jul 21, 2014 9:09 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 11):
Hull loss but Zero fatalities

It was nothing but luck that led to zero fatalities. If those engine issues had happened 10 minutes earlier, we would very likely be writing about fatalities.

777Jet · Mon Jul 21, 2014 9:41 am

Quoting shufflemoomin (Reply 36):
It was nothing but luck that led to zero fatalities. If those engine issues had happened 10 minutes earlier, we would very likely be writing about fatalities.

10 mins earlier it would have probably been high enough to glide safely to another field within range. IIRC the Captain's decision to retract the flaps one notch allowed it to glide farther - so I will give him credit for making a good decision. So there was a bit more that just luck involved.

UALWN · Mon Jul 21, 2014 9:46 am

Quoting as739x (Reply 18):
This is just provoking a A vs B exchange.

Which you immediately started.

Quoting as739x (Reply 18):
OZ was flat out pilot error.

That's not what the US NTSB thinks.

Quoting as739x (Reply 18):
The 777's make hundreds of landing per day with no errors.

So do the OZ pilots.

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 14):
Right. The on board computers would just override the data input from the pilots and divert the aircraft to perform a soft belly landing on Lake Erie.

Very funny. But actually, some of the protections built into the Airbus FMS might have changed the outcome of OZ 214.

jumpjets · Mon Jul 21, 2014 10:03 am

I have travelled on a few MH flights between KL and Oz on their 777s not to mention 744s/380s between LHR and KL.

I would have no hesitation in flying them again tomorrow as almost certainly the Kiev incident is absolutely nothing to do wuth the reliability of the 777 or the airline - and even if the MH370 incident does prove to be in some way attributable to the aircraft or the airline their reliability/safety record still remains extremely high.

Aeri28 · Mon Jul 21, 2014 10:11 am

I haven't heard one person in any casual conversation in day to day chats or online mention the 777, but I have heard mention of Malaysia Air... I would have no issues flying a 777, but I would think for a nano second about flying MH. I'm on the fence about this.. Now talking about who is the unlucky one....

Just my opinion.

na · Mon Jul 21, 2014 10:22 am

Until last year the 777 just had a unusually long string of luck. No 777 fell victim to bad weather, no 777 burned due to error in maintenance, no 777 was destroyed by terrorists, and no 777 was lost due to pilot error - all things that happened to every other type. Now the statistic has been set straight so to say by a string of ususual bad luck. If I´m not mistaken, the two 777 crashes this year were the worst in decades, the tragedy of last week claimed the most victims since a Saudi 747 was rammed in mid air in 1996.

trent1000 · Mon Jul 21, 2014 10:23 am

With the extensive media coverage of MH370, it was made very clear that the 777 was a safe, reliable plane.
I actually wondered what the public's reaction would have been if an A380 had been shot down - I expect a lot of people would say they think that aircraft type is 'dangerous' because it's too big / an easier target...I think that scenario could have damaged public perception of the A380. Of course, that's all hypothetical and it's the carriers that decide aircraft orders/aircraft types, not the public.

SKAirbus · Mon Jul 21, 2014 10:26 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 37):
10 mins earlier it would have probably been high enough to glide safely to another field within range. IIRC the Captain's decision to retract the flaps one notch allowed it to glide farther - so I will give him credit for making a good decision. So there was a bit more that just luck involved.

I'm not sure... 10 minutes earlier you are still pretty low, especially in the London area. At least we did not have to contemplate that scenario here.

That said, it was definitely the decisive action of the captain that led to there not being a terrible crash. Had the plane not made it over the perimeter it could have crashed into or next to Hatton Cross Underground Station with unthinkable consequences.

It's like when religious people say "it was god's will"... As a hardened atheist I always say that actions are always followed by a consequence. In Ukraine, the Rebels fired a missile and the consequence... well we all know what happened. It was just the worst of coincidences that an MH 777 was overflying at that point. It could have been any aircraft.

turn720 · Mon Jul 21, 2014 10:27 am

Quoting UALWN (Reply 38):
Very funny. But actually, some of the protections built into the Airbus FMS might have changed the outcome of OZ 214.

Those protections did not change the the outcome of Afriqiyah 771. But let's move on and not turn this into an A vs B thread.

TheSonntag · Mon Jul 21, 2014 10:40 am

Be it the 777 or the A340 - isn't it interesting to see how much better those planes are than older ones? Also, compare the safety rate of the 747classics with the safety-rate of the 747-400.

It is incredible how much flight safety has improved during the last 3 decades.

VC10er · Mon Jul 21, 2014 10:45 am

I would walk myself and family onto a 777 (any type) tomorrow. Since the day United put the first one in service, has UA lost or injured one pax on their 777 (due to the 777) since that day? AA or DL, EK, SQ, BA, etc, etc?

I think that you can label all this as "Ironic Bad Luck" but nothing more. Not until the MH 777 is found in the Pacific.

As pilots often say upon landing "the safest part of your trip is now complete, please drive carefully"

I would also happily board all A, B and E aircraft without thought.

na · Mon Jul 21, 2014 10:50 am

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 45):

Be it the 777 or the A340 - isn't it interesting to see how much better those planes are than older ones? Also, compare the safety rate of the 747classics with the safety-rate of the 747-400.

The difference in terms of safety between the 747 Classics and the 744 is so significant that any statistic that does not separate these two generations of airplanes is very unfair.
The generations of the 737 are similar, the 733/734/735 of the 1980s were much safer than the original 732.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 45):
It is incredible how much flight safety has improved during the last 3 decades.

The developments especially in the 80s make the difference. All planes which entered the market since 1980 were significantly safer than anything constructed just 10 years earlier.

PM · Mon Jul 21, 2014 11:04 am

The bottom line is that all airlines in production today (at least in Europe and the Americas) are incredibly safe. Crashes and accidents where design, manufacture or maintenance are the sole cause are very, very rare. Almost always an accident happens because of a combination of factors - and human error is high up there.

That said, even just in statistical terms, the 777 is astonishingly safe. I'm not sure it's terribly meaningful (or helpful or even tasteful) to describe what has happened to it in March and July as ''unlucky". If anyone is unlucky here (beside, of course, the tragic victims of the two events) it is an otherwise blameless airline.

For what it's worth, my first ever 777 flight (KUL-ZRH) was on an MH plane (9M-MRC) in 1999.

EA CO AS · Mon Jul 21, 2014 11:05 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 33):
This entire thread is ~~great~~ ridiculous!

There, fixed that for you.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net