3 ms·

Airbus: A year with no fatal accidents

17 points by popcalc 3y ago

sylware 3y ago
Airbus should not brag about that, as this is the basic expectation. That said, there is something cleary fishy happening in Boeing, something with accute dangerous follow-ups. I guess the US administration is investigating, because the warnings have been loud enough (and a lot of luck for the moment) and better "fix" that before something really nasty happens.
- SiempreViernes 3y ago
  At no point is the text bragging, it is stating fact.
- exegete 3y ago
  It’s about all of commercial aviation not just flights involving Airbus planes.
  - soco 3y ago
    If I'm not mistaken the latest failures involving Boeing were all related to improper maintenance, so similar things could happen to Airbus just as well. is there already a pattern identified, like pointing to United Airlines or such?
    - Arnt 3y ago
      A pattern has been identified: A company that has sound procedures and doesn't follow them. Read https://leehamnews.com/2024/01/15/unplanned-removal-installation-inspection-procedure-at-boeing/#comment-509962 https://leehamnews.com/2024/01/15/unplanned-removal-installa... and search for CMES and SAT.
  - Arnt 3y ago
    I beg to differ. It's about Airbus. The blurb reads like a compromise between one faction screaming "safety is a never-ending effort and preventing accidents is a constant quest for all those involved" and another screaming "well, some people let the effort end in their work and we should make clear that we're not like those fools." I find it difficult to disapprove of people who do good and talk about it.
jjgreen 3y ago
Reminded me of the fabulous sketch of the Pool Supervisor, In 1975 No One Died, by Alan Partridge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUoT5AxFpRs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUoT5AxFpRs
- gostsamo 3y ago
  This is not bragging at all. It talks about all commercial flights and mentions the Tokio incident from this year as a reminder.
exegete 3y ago
“…in commercial aviation.” Not just for Airbus
- dade_ 3y ago
  ...in spite of Boeing's efforts.
- mjs 3y ago
  At least one hull loss will be in the 2024 report (but amazing it didn't lead to (commercial) fatalities): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Haneda_Airport_runway_collision#/media/File:Japan_Airlines_516_JA13XJ_wreckage.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Haneda_Airport_runway_col...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
londons_explore 3y ago
Looking at safety without also considering utility is a bad move. If I want to be really safe, I should stay in bed all day. Merely going down my stairs is a remarkably dangerous activity, yet I consider the utility to be worth it. Therefore the real metric to minimize is deaths per passenger mile. Or, even better, take into account the lifetime 'used' to get that utility. So maximize miles travelled / total time spent travelling and waiting at departure gates, where a death counts as 100 years.

17 points by popcalc 3y ago

Airbus should not brag about that, as this is the basic expectation. That said, there is something cleary fishy happening in Boeing, something with accute dangerous follow-ups. I guess the US administration is investigating, because the warnings have been loud enough (and a lot of luck for the moment) and better "fix" that before something really nasty happens.

SiempreViernes 3y ago
At no point is the text bragging, it is stating fact.
exegete 3y ago
It’s about all of commercial aviation not just flights involving Airbus planes.
- soco 3y ago
  If I'm not mistaken the latest failures involving Boeing were all related to improper maintenance, so similar things could happen to Airbus just as well. is there already a pattern identified, like pointing to United Airlines or such?
  - Arnt 3y ago
    A pattern has been identified: A company that has sound procedures and doesn't follow them. Read https://leehamnews.com/2024/01/15/unplanned-removal-installation-inspection-procedure-at-boeing/#comment-509962 https://leehamnews.com/2024/01/15/unplanned-removal-installa... and search for CMES and SAT.
- Arnt 3y ago
  I beg to differ. It's about Airbus. The blurb reads like a compromise between one faction screaming "safety is a never-ending effort and preventing accidents is a constant quest for all those involved" and another screaming "well, some people let the effort end in their work and we should make clear that we're not like those fools." I find it difficult to disapprove of people who do good and talk about it.

jjgreen 3y ago

Reminded me of the fabulous sketch of the Pool Supervisor, In 1975 No One Died, by Alan Partridge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUoT5AxFpRs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUoT5AxFpRs

gostsamo 3y ago
This is not bragging at all. It talks about all commercial flights and mentions the Tokio incident from this year as a reminder.

exegete 3y ago

“…in commercial aviation.” Not just for Airbus

dade_ 3y ago
...in spite of Boeing's efforts.
mjs 3y ago
At least one hull loss will be in the 2024 report (but amazing it didn't lead to (commercial) fatalities): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Haneda_Airport_runway_collision#/media/File:Japan_Airlines_516_JA13XJ_wreckage.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Haneda_Airport_runway_col...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

londons_explore 3y ago

Looking at safety without also considering utility is a bad move. If I want to be really safe, I should stay in bed all day. Merely going down my stairs is a remarkably dangerous activity, yet I consider the utility to be worth it. Therefore the real metric to minimize is deaths per passenger mile. Or, even better, take into account the lifetime 'used' to get that utility. So maximize miles travelled / total time spent travelling and waiting at departure gates, where a death counts as 100 years.