Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
convair880mfan wrote:have changes mandated by the FAA
convair880mfan wrote:safe
fr8mech wrote:convair880mfan wrote:safe
safer
convair880mfan wrote:My father was friends with a CEO of a major airline. They were visiting each other once and I heard the CEO say: "Safety is about how many fatalities we can suffer in a year and still convince the traveling public that we are "safe." I was surprised by his comment which seemed to me to be pretty mercenary. I agree with the previous post in the sense that safety is not a two value situation but constitutes a range of values. On the other hand, aviation authorities have to have some kind of criteria in the end before they certify an airliner. Safety may constitute a range but a plane is either certified to fly or not. Sometimes aviation authorities of one country will certify an aircraft while the aviation authorities of another country will demand changes before they will certify the same aircraft. I think there have been some differences, for example, in how the FAA and JAA have certified certain types.
dennypayne wrote:fr8mech wrote:convair880mfan wrote:safe
safer
I have to say this is one of my biggest pet peeves with discussions about safety. I feel like there are way too many questions of the form “Is XYZ safe” - as if there is a “Safe-o-meter” that can give any sort of sensible answer to that question.
Safety is a culture that needs to permeate design and operation of any complex equipment. It’s not a binary state of being. To me, any question or statement that attempts to designate it as such is not well thought out.
The MD-11 has safely operated many thousands of flights over decades of service. Additional knowledge/refinement of training has added to the ability to continue operating it safely.
Also - NTSB recommendations are not in any way the same as FAA mandates.
Zeke2517 wrote:dennypayne wrote:fr8mech wrote:
safer
I have to say this is one of my biggest pet peeves with discussions about safety. I feel like there are way too many questions of the form “Is XYZ safe” - as if there is a “Safe-o-meter” that can give any sort of sensible answer to that question.
Safety is a culture that needs to permeate design and operation of any complex equipment. It’s not a binary state of being. To me, any question or statement that attempts to designate it as such is not well thought out.
The MD-11 has safely operated many thousands of flights over decades of service. Additional knowledge/refinement of training has added to the ability to continue operating it safely.
Also - NTSB recommendations are not in any way the same as FAA mandates.
To be fair, I think there is a safe-o-meter, they just call it something much more official sounding. It’s how airlines deemed the MD-11 to be unsafe (or less safe, for you fans of semantics, but the effect is the same) in the first place all those years ago.
Statistical analysis. That’s the one.
Aaron747 wrote:Zeke2517 wrote:dennypayne wrote:
I have to say this is one of my biggest pet peeves with discussions about safety. I feel like there are way too many questions of the form “Is XYZ safe” - as if there is a “Safe-o-meter” that can give any sort of sensible answer to that question.
Safety is a culture that needs to permeate design and operation of any complex equipment. It’s not a binary state of being. To me, any question or statement that attempts to designate it as such is not well thought out.
The MD-11 has safely operated many thousands of flights over decades of service. Additional knowledge/refinement of training has added to the ability to continue operating it safely.
Also - NTSB recommendations are not in any way the same as FAA mandates.
To be fair, I think there is a safe-o-meter, they just call it something much more official sounding. It’s how airlines deemed the MD-11 to be unsafe (or less safe, for you fans of semantics, but the effect is the same) in the first place all those years ago.
Statistical analysis. That’s the one.
Pretty sure the B777 and A340's superior performance on similar missions had more of an impact.
Zeke2517 wrote:It’s how airlines deemed the MD-11 to be unsafe (or less safe, for you fans of semantics, but the effect is the same) in the first place all those years ago.
N1120A wrote:Aaron747 wrote:Zeke2517 wrote:
To be fair, I think there is a safe-o-meter, they just call it something much more official sounding. It’s how airlines deemed the MD-11 to be unsafe (or less safe, for you fans of semantics, but the effect is the same) in the first place all those years ago.
Statistical analysis. That’s the one.
Pretty sure the B777 and A340's superior performance on similar missions had more of an impact.
Superior performance and actually meeting, or exceeding, what was promised. The MD-11 required several modifications to ultimately meet its targets and become quite a good airplane for what it was. There is a reason the MD-11 initially outsold both the 777 and A340 - because it had incredible projected numbers that it failed to meet until like 5 years in service. There was literally no concern that MD-11s were going to kill a bunch of passengers, and there still aren't.
N1120A wrote:Superior performance and actually meeting, or exceeding, what was promised. The MD-11 required several modifications to ultimately meet its targets and become quite a good airplane for what it was. There is a reason the MD-11 initially outsold both the 777 and A340 - because it had incredible projected numbers that it failed to meet until like 5 years in service. There was literally no concern that MD-11s were going to kill a bunch of passengers, and there still aren't.
Max Q wrote:N1120A wrote:Aaron747 wrote:
Pretty sure the B777 and A340's superior performance on similar missions had more of an impact.
Superior performance and actually meeting, or exceeding, what was promised. The MD-11 required several modifications to ultimately meet its targets and become quite a good airplane for what it was. There is a reason the MD-11 initially outsold both the 777 and A340 - because it had incredible projected numbers that it failed to meet until like 5 years in service. There was literally no concern that MD-11s were going to kill a bunch of passengers, and there still aren't.
Yes, there’s no concern by passenger airlines now as none operate MD11’s anymore !
N1120A wrote:
Cargo airlines are no less concerned about safety than passenger.
N1120A wrote:The MD-11 is a perfectly safe airplane when flown properly and when it has an IFE system not prone to catching fire.
convair880mfan wrote:Since time has passed since some high-profile FedEx MD-11 crashes, have changes mandated by the FAA to the Boeing Commercial Aircraft Company now made the aircraft safe during takeoffs and landings? I realize this aircraft is no longer used for passenger transportation.
FlapOperator wrote:N1120A wrote:The MD-11 is a perfectly safe airplane when flown properly and when it has an IFE system not prone to catching fire.
Just mentioning the IFE and glossing over the other shortcomings of the MD-11 is lazy analysis.
The MD-11's landing attributes are FUNDAMENTALLY different than any other widely currently operated jet transport aircraft. If you don't believe it, ask Fedex or the MD--11 operators conferences that happen all the time. I think the MD-11 training program is like 4 months long with 3 or 4 checkride style events at Fedex.
The why has been hashed out many times...but ultimately the MD-11 was certified towards the edges of the Part 25 certification envelope, in a way that likely wouldn't be accepted today by aviation authorities.
Can the MD-11 be flown safely? Absolutely.
Does it have been flown with a level of diligence that likely exceeds other transport category aircraft? Absolutely.
Does this diligence likely arise from specific techniques and procedures, and improvements in technology? Absolutely.
FlapOperator wrote:N1120A wrote:
Cargo airlines are no less concerned about safety than passenger.
Yes and no.
It would be hard to argue the outcome of the Atlas 3591 accident wouldn't have been far different had the death count been 220+ vs. 3.
N1120A wrote:
Wait - flying an aircraft by the numbers is somehow a new and special concept?
That mentality is what caused Colgan 3407, the MCAS debacle and various other totally preventable disasters.
Aaron747 wrote:FlapOperator wrote:N1120A wrote:
Cargo airlines are no less concerned about safety than passenger.
Yes and no.
It would be hard to argue the outcome of the Atlas 3591 accident wouldn't have been far different had the death count been 220+ vs. 3.
Are you suggesting the probable cause or recommended mitigation would have differed? Very confusing sentence.
FlapOperator wrote:Aaron747 wrote:FlapOperator wrote:
Yes and no.
It would be hard to argue the outcome of the Atlas 3591 accident wouldn't have been far different had the death count been 220+ vs. 3.
Are you suggesting the probable cause or recommended mitigation would have differed? Very confusing sentence.
Do you believe that if Conrad Aska had killed 220 GIs returning home on Christmas leave, the public attention wouldn't have been different?
dennypayne wrote:
Certainly, but public attention doesn't drive the way NTSB investigates an accident, determines probable cause, or issues recommended mitigations.
I agree with Aaron that using "outcome" regarding an accident is a little confusing, at least among this audience, since "public attention" is not usually focused on anything but sensationalism - it's not really relevant in the accident investigation.
FlapOperator wrote:dennypayne wrote:
Certainly, but public attention doesn't drive the way NTSB investigates an accident, determines probable cause, or issues recommended mitigations.
I agree with Aaron that using "outcome" regarding an accident is a little confusing, at least among this audience, since "public attention" is not usually focused on anything but sensationalism - it's not really relevant in the accident investigation.
We can agree to disagree on the apolitical nature of the NTSB.
Aaron747 wrote:
Whether or not an organization has political pressures does not obviously impact recommendations or probable cause findings based in scientific and technical inquiry. If you have specific evidence otherwise, let’s have it.
FlapOperator wrote:Aaron747 wrote:
Whether or not an organization has political pressures does not obviously impact recommendations or probable cause findings based in scientific and technical inquiry. If you have specific evidence otherwise, let’s have it.
So you think the 737 Rudder Hardover inquires were just a pure scientific and technical inquiry?
Like I said, I don't know your experience in the field, but let's agree to disagree.
Even to this day the NTSB won't swallow their pride about the C Springs 737 crash, and went as far as a whispering campaign against the crew at the time.
Wacker1000 wrote:Considering they're mostly parked - very safe.
Aaron747 wrote:
I thought we were talking about Atlas 3591....now we're suddenly time traveling to 1991?