Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Quoting flyenthu (Thread starter): |
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. |
Quoting olympic472 (Reply 10): Another one: British Airways at LHR. |
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 |
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 11): Hull loss but Zero fatalities |
Quoting flyenthu (Thread starter): an impeccable safety record and no casualties until March 2014 |
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........ |
Quoting trex8 (Reply 6): If MH had been flying an Airbus for those flights none of these incidents would have happened |
Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 3): That being said, the OS crash and MH370 are incidents caused by the pilots, |
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. |
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? |
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 |
Quoting MaxiAir (Reply 18): Well, what about the A340? It still has no fatalities! |
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 |
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! |
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. |
Quoting singel09 (Reply 25): Does this A340 incident not count? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_358 |
Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 3): Actually it changed in 2013 with the OS SFO crash. Sorry to be "that guy", but I couldn't resist. |
Quoting singel09 (Reply 25): Does this A340 incident not count? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_358 |
Quoting gasman (Reply 33): Firstly, there is no evidence that either of the two MH hull losses were in any way related to aircraft |
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 |
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. |
Quoting chuchoteur (Reply 36): We don't know what caused MH370 to disappear/crash. blaming the pilots is a bit enthusiastic. |
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. |
Quoting as739x (Reply 18): This is just provoking a A vs B exchange. |
Quoting as739x (Reply 18): OZ was flat out pilot error. |
Quoting as739x (Reply 18): The 777's make hundreds of landing per day with no errors. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 45): It is incredible how much flight safety has improved during the last 3 decades. |