3 ms·
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 th
by 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 agoThat’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 agoCould you explain these differences to someone with no experience in flying?
- 666lumberjack 6y agoAirbus 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