5 ms·

I’ve flown three times since the 800 has been green lighted. I have very intentionally picked Airbus flights. I’ll never get on one of those Boeing jets.

rootusrootus 5y ago
The 800? I've no problem getting in a Boeing airplane. The 737NG, in particular, has one of the best (if not THE best) safety records in history.
- DocTomoe 4y ago
  Airplane safety is a function of fatalities over capacity, flight hours and model service life. As such, planes that have been in production longer usually tend to become "more safe" (which is a self-fulfilling thing - notoriously unsafe planes eventually won't be sold anymore). See [1] for a short overview. As such, the 737NG - which had fatalities - is unlikely to be a contender, considering the much older A340 has had none. [1] https://turbli.com/blog/the-safest-planes-to-fly-in-by-accident-statistics/ https://turbli.com/blog/the-safest-planes-to-fly-in-by-accid...
assttoasstmgr 5y ago
Good thinking. Airbus planes are impervious to software glitches[1] and sensor failures[2] that result in catastrophic loss of control of the aircraft. Better bring a gas mask[3] though. And bring one for the flight crew too in case they become incapacitated. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447 [3] https://viewfromthewing.com/is-airbus-doing-enough-to-stop-the-fumes-that-are-making-people-sick/ https://viewfromthewing.com/is-airbus-doing-enough-to-stop-t...
- inferiorhuman 4y ago
  AF 447 was first and foremost a problem between the controls and the seat. The sensor problem you're referring to did not render the plane incapable of flying, but it did remove one level of idiot proofing. As a result one of the pilots pulled the stick back and didn't relent even as the plane stalled. If you did that in a Boeing plane (or any plane) with functioning sensors you'd have the same end result.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    Neither did the MAX debacle render the plane incapable of flight. Both flights gave flight crews unexpected tests on unexpected situations-- something that seemed like runaway trim for the MAX, and simultaneous overspeed (better nose up) and stall (better nose down) indications for AF447.
    - rocqua 4y ago
      Test were done with MCAS regarding how soon you have to react before it becomes unrecoverable. This was 10 seconds and it was hard for boeing-trained pilots instructed in MCAS to recover from this in tests where they knew it would happen. The problem was that at some point the trim is so much that it becomes nigh impossible to hand crank the trim down, the trim flap applies so much pressure it cannot be overcome by hand. You had to disable mechanized trim because otherwise MCAS would kick in. So you would need to recognize the problem soon enough to prevent MCAS from moving the trim so far that it became unrecoverable. (Source: Netflix documentary)
      - mlyle 4y ago
        > This was 10 seconds 10 seconds is a long time of the trim wheel being cranked nose up. The same situation would apply to a stuck trim switch on the yoke. (Indeed, a stuck trim switch is worse in this respect because it cranks constantly and doesn't "yield" to the pilot pushing the switch the other way... of course, the checklist didn't presume a pilot should be diagnosing stuck AOA vs. stuck trim switch and thus recommended immediate use of the trim cutout switches instead of trying to electrically trim the other way). There's a reason that trim runaway is a "recall" procedure in the QRH that pilots are expected to know-- it gets scary. http://www.b737.org.uk/images/runawaystab2020.jpg http://www.b737.org.uk/images/runawaystab2020.jpg But it was the assumption before the MCAS disaster that pilots could deal with trim runaway, given that there was a history of flight crews dealing with trim runaway incidents in flight successfully. But MCAS was worse because: A) It did it more often, so flight crews were exposed to this dangerous situation more than ever before B) It did it in a sneakier, strange way (no constant movement of the trim wheel). Still, some real-world flight crews did overcome MCAS doing the wrong thing without crashing, even if others failed the test.
muppetman 4y ago
You are gonna FLIP out when you hear about cars.
hef19898 4y ago
How did you do that? By picking an airline with a pure Airbus fleet?
- DocTomoe 4y ago
  Most flight booking portals I know do tell you which equipment a flight is using. And yes, I strongly prefer airlines that do not use "modern" Boeing planes at all (which arguably might be a lot easier here in Europe). If it's Boeing, I'm not going.

rootusrootus 5y ago

The 800? I've no problem getting in a Boeing airplane. The 737NG, in particular, has one of the best (if not THE best) safety records in history.

DocTomoe 4y ago
Airplane safety is a function of fatalities over capacity, flight hours and model service life. As such, planes that have been in production longer usually tend to become "more safe" (which is a self-fulfilling thing - notoriously unsafe planes eventually won't be sold anymore). See [1] for a short overview. As such, the 737NG - which had fatalities - is unlikely to be a contender, considering the much older A340 has had none. [1] https://turbli.com/blog/the-safest-planes-to-fly-in-by-accident-statistics/ https://turbli.com/blog/the-safest-planes-to-fly-in-by-accid...

assttoasstmgr 5y ago

Good thinking. Airbus planes are impervious to software glitches[1] and sensor failures[2] that result in catastrophic loss of control of the aircraft. Better bring a gas mask[3] though. And bring one for the flight crew too in case they become incapacitated. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447 [3] https://viewfromthewing.com/is-airbus-doing-enough-to-stop-the-fumes-that-are-making-people-sick/ https://viewfromthewing.com/is-airbus-doing-enough-to-stop-t...

inferiorhuman 4y ago
AF 447 was first and foremost a problem between the controls and the seat. The sensor problem you're referring to did not render the plane incapable of flying, but it did remove one level of idiot proofing. As a result one of the pilots pulled the stick back and didn't relent even as the plane stalled. If you did that in a Boeing plane (or any plane) with functioning sensors you'd have the same end result.
- mlyle 4y ago
  Neither did the MAX debacle render the plane incapable of flight. Both flights gave flight crews unexpected tests on unexpected situations-- something that seemed like runaway trim for the MAX, and simultaneous overspeed (better nose up) and stall (better nose down) indications for AF447.
  - rocqua 4y ago
    Test were done with MCAS regarding how soon you have to react before it becomes unrecoverable. This was 10 seconds and it was hard for boeing-trained pilots instructed in MCAS to recover from this in tests where they knew it would happen. The problem was that at some point the trim is so much that it becomes nigh impossible to hand crank the trim down, the trim flap applies so much pressure it cannot be overcome by hand. You had to disable mechanized trim because otherwise MCAS would kick in. So you would need to recognize the problem soon enough to prevent MCAS from moving the trim so far that it became unrecoverable. (Source: Netflix documentary)
    - mlyle 4y ago
      > This was 10 seconds 10 seconds is a long time of the trim wheel being cranked nose up. The same situation would apply to a stuck trim switch on the yoke. (Indeed, a stuck trim switch is worse in this respect because it cranks constantly and doesn't "yield" to the pilot pushing the switch the other way... of course, the checklist didn't presume a pilot should be diagnosing stuck AOA vs. stuck trim switch and thus recommended immediate use of the trim cutout switches instead of trying to electrically trim the other way). There's a reason that trim runaway is a "recall" procedure in the QRH that pilots are expected to know-- it gets scary. http://www.b737.org.uk/images/runawaystab2020.jpg http://www.b737.org.uk/images/runawaystab2020.jpg But it was the assumption before the MCAS disaster that pilots could deal with trim runaway, given that there was a history of flight crews dealing with trim runaway incidents in flight successfully. But MCAS was worse because: A) It did it more often, so flight crews were exposed to this dangerous situation more than ever before B) It did it in a sneakier, strange way (no constant movement of the trim wheel). Still, some real-world flight crews did overcome MCAS doing the wrong thing without crashing, even if others failed the test.

muppetman 4y ago

You are gonna FLIP out when you hear about cars.

hef19898 4y ago

How did you do that? By picking an airline with a pure Airbus fleet?

DocTomoe 4y ago
Most flight booking portals I know do tell you which equipment a flight is using. And yes, I strongly prefer airlines that do not use "modern" Boeing planes at all (which arguably might be a lot easier here in Europe). If it's Boeing, I'm not going.