4 ms·

To each their own, but the 737 NG (aka the models before the Max), the 747-400 / 747-8, and the 787 all have a lower number of fatal crashes per million flights

To each their own, but the 737 NG (aka the models before the Max), the 747-400 / 747-8, and the 787 all have a lower number of fatal crashes per million flights than the Airbus A320 family and the A330.

Spartan-S63 6y ago
These are all true statistics. I’d be curious to see an academic analysis on QC, flight hours, maintenance routines/quality of maintenance, and other factors that might play into why those aircraft have better safety ratings than competitors. It might be interesting to see if Boeing QC issues off the assembly line lead to better maintenance routines, which in turn results in safer overall operation. A result like that doesn’t imply that the manufacturer, Boeing, is the most influential component to safety.
- coredog64 6y ago
  That’s not correct. For a long time, Boeing and Airbus had wildly different philosophies about how aircraft should be flown. I’m not going to pick a side as there are trade offs to both approaches, but there were a LOT of teething problems with the Airbus approach. I think we’ve settled down now and have a better handle on how to train for either approach. Of course, Boeing has also picked up (or been forced to adopt) pieces of the strategy used by Airbus.
  - ponker 6y ago
    Could you explain these differences to someone with no experience in flying?
    - 666lumberjack 6y ago
      Airbus approach: the flight computer should place limits on the control authority of the pilots to prevent them from making unsafe inputs Boeing: The pilots should be the final authority in the cockpit; automation will warn against unsafe control inputs but not prevent them
aaronbrethorst 6y ago
https://www.aerotime.aero/rytis.beresnevicius/23039-if-it-aint-boeing-i-aint-going-boeing-707-story https://www.aerotime.aero/rytis.beresnevicius/23039-if-it-ai...
- jsjohnst 6y ago
  Yep, I’m aware of the old saying that GP modified to fit their POV.
foldr 6y ago
That's certainly true, but the overall stats are all over the shop (http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm). And many of the more modern models have never had fatal crashes, making this kind of comparison impossible.
- jsjohnst 6y ago
  > And many of the more modern models have never had fatal crashes, making this kind of comparison impossible. They haven’t had any fatal crashes, but also haven’t flown tens of millions or more of flights either, so I agree, kinda apples and oranges for the Airbus neo models (their “equivalent”, using that term very loosely, to the 737 Max). The A380 is the best example though of a zero fatal crash, but hardly any flights by modern standards (I think it’s flown under a million commercial passenger flights total in history, but can’t find a conclusive source). It also had two “uncontained engine failures” causing emergency landings, but thankfully no deaths in either case. I’d argue personally that the 777 is a very very safe plane too, despite the numbers not fully supporting it. Of the fatality incidents involving the plane, one was shot down by a missile, one mysteriously disappeared from the earth with no plausible technical failure, and the final one was a clearly incompetent flight crew missing the runway at SFO.
  - foldr 6y ago
    The A340 has had no fatal accidents and has flown plenty of hours.
    - jsjohnst 6y ago
      Sure, it’s had no fatal accidents (but six hull losses), but few were built (377 total) and only a third are still in service. Even assuming all of those were in service the entire 27 years since launch (they weren’t, as most weren’t built till part way into the production lifetime) and assuming they were flying 24x7 over that duration (which they weren’t), it would still be less than 10% of the flight hours of the 737NG alone. Even by wide body, four engine standards, it just wasn’t a highly flown bird.

Spartan-S63 6y ago

These are all true statistics. I’d be curious to see an academic analysis on QC, flight hours, maintenance routines/quality of maintenance, and other factors that might play into why those aircraft have better safety ratings than competitors. It might be interesting to see if Boeing QC issues off the assembly line lead to better maintenance routines, which in turn results in safer overall operation. A result like that doesn’t imply that the manufacturer, Boeing, is the most influential component to safety.

coredog64 6y ago
That’s not correct. For a long time, Boeing and Airbus had wildly different philosophies about how aircraft should be flown. I’m not going to pick a side as there are trade offs to both approaches, but there were a LOT of teething problems with the Airbus approach. I think we’ve settled down now and have a better handle on how to train for either approach. Of course, Boeing has also picked up (or been forced to adopt) pieces of the strategy used by Airbus.
- ponker 6y ago
  Could you explain these differences to someone with no experience in flying?
  - 666lumberjack 6y ago
    Airbus approach: the flight computer should place limits on the control authority of the pilots to prevent them from making unsafe inputs Boeing: The pilots should be the final authority in the cockpit; automation will warn against unsafe control inputs but not prevent them

aaronbrethorst 6y ago

https://www.aerotime.aero/rytis.beresnevicius/23039-if-it-aint-boeing-i-aint-going-boeing-707-story https://www.aerotime.aero/rytis.beresnevicius/23039-if-it-ai...

jsjohnst 6y ago
Yep, I’m aware of the old saying that GP modified to fit their POV.

foldr 6y ago

That's certainly true, but the overall stats are all over the shop (http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm). And many of the more modern models have never had fatal crashes, making this kind of comparison impossible.

jsjohnst 6y ago
> And many of the more modern models have never had fatal crashes, making this kind of comparison impossible. They haven’t had any fatal crashes, but also haven’t flown tens of millions or more of flights either, so I agree, kinda apples and oranges for the Airbus neo models (their “equivalent”, using that term very loosely, to the 737 Max). The A380 is the best example though of a zero fatal crash, but hardly any flights by modern standards (I think it’s flown under a million commercial passenger flights total in history, but can’t find a conclusive source). It also had two “uncontained engine failures” causing emergency landings, but thankfully no deaths in either case. I’d argue personally that the 777 is a very very safe plane too, despite the numbers not fully supporting it. Of the fatality incidents involving the plane, one was shot down by a missile, one mysteriously disappeared from the earth with no plausible technical failure, and the final one was a clearly incompetent flight crew missing the runway at SFO.
- foldr 6y ago
  The A340 has had no fatal accidents and has flown plenty of hours.
  - jsjohnst 6y ago
    Sure, it’s had no fatal accidents (but six hull losses), but few were built (377 total) and only a third are still in service. Even assuming all of those were in service the entire 27 years since launch (they weren’t, as most weren’t built till part way into the production lifetime) and assuming they were flying 24x7 over that duration (which they weren’t), it would still be less than 10% of the flight hours of the 737NG alone. Even by wide body, four engine standards, it just wasn’t a highly flown bird.