3 ms·

Airbus has their share of issues as well. You just haven't cared to read about them. In fact, several Airbus crashes have been a result of their illogical cont

by Alupis 2y ago

Airbus has their share of issues as well. You just haven't cared to read about them. In fact, several Airbus crashes have been a result of their illogical control system, with two disconnected, additive-input joysticks. I don't mean this is a disparaging way, but this perspective is naïve and ignorant.

OrigamiPastrami 2y ago
Well let's quantify it. How many crashes per miles are there for Boeing vs Airbus? And if per mile is not the correct metric, what is? I found this infographic after a quick search which implies Boeing is a lot worse than Airbus. https://i.redd.it/enzplrs6avvc1.jpeg https://i.redd.it/enzplrs6avvc1.jpeg
- Alupis 2y ago
  This graph doesn't say what you think it does. It's more naïve click-bait. An incident is anything abnormal, including low tire pressure or bird strike. The graph uses data from NTSB, a US agency - and the graph shows US data. In the US, vastly more Boeing aircraft are in the skies than Airbus. The graphics is effectively click-bait BS.
  - OrigamiPastrami 2y ago
    If you have no data to support your argument, then you have no argument. I asked you how many crashes per mile and you ignored it. I asked if you have a better metric and you ignored it. I'm open to my infographic being misleading, but so far I'm the only person that brought data to this argument.
    - Alupis 2y ago
      Last I checked, a made-up sensationalist "graphic" from reddit doesn't count as data.
      - OrigamiPastrami 2y ago
        [flagged]
        Alupis 2y ago
        I asked you for data, and you provided a ragebait graphic from reddit.
        OrigamiPastrami 2y ago
        You never asked me for data, you were just implying Boeing isn't as bad as everyone says. So I said let's quantify it. And then you started getting upset with the data presented to you. I said to provide better data if you have it, and you still have provided no data. If you have data that supports Boeing being as safe as Airbus, please share it.
        Alupis 2y ago
        So you "quantify" something by presenting made up data? I can do that too. Boeing is 94848% safer - feel better? You are the challenger. Burden of evidence is on you. With that said, clearly this is an unproductive conversation... so enjoy.
        OrigamiPastrami 2y ago
        You were the one originally implying Airbus is as dangerous as Boeing, so the burden of proof is on you. I'll take this as confirmation you have no data to support your claim. Cheers.
- vkou 2y ago
  You've posted a case study of 'How to lie with statistics'. This is a chart of incidents, but it doesn't define what an incident is (did anyone get hurt? how many people were hurt? how badly? was it a near-miss, or did the many layers of redundancy in safety handle it fine?), and it doesn't normalize it to incident/flight or incident/mile. Does Malaysia Airlines having one airplane shot down by the Russians, and another sent into the drink by a pilot-mass-murder-suicide count as an incident? Are either of them Boeing's fault? Are anti-SAM missile defenses supposed to be a standard feature on commercial airliners? The MAX crashes obviously were, and the MAX has a very bad safety record as a result. The claim (Boeing is worse than Airbus) is probably correct, but that chart is horrible evidence for it, or for how much worse one is, compared to the other. If you're going to provide evidence for this claim, you need to find something better.
  - OrigamiPastrami 2y ago
    I'm not trying to lie and I'm aware my data isn't perfect, but I'm the only one providing any data at all so far. I have repeatedly asked for better data and been denied. I can only analyze the data I have, imperfect though it may be. When someone is consistently asking for better data, criticizing that person's data is kinda dumb. > Does Malaysia Airlines having one airplane shot down by the Russians, and another sent into the drink by a pilot-mass-murder-suicide count as an incident? Are either of them Boeing's fault? Are anti-SAM missile defenses supposed to be a standard feature on commercial airliners? You're making the mistake of assuming Boeing's fault is what matters. If, for whatever reason, Boeing's planes are more likely to be shot down - regardless of whether or not they are at fault - they are still more dangerous. We are not at the why stage yet, we are at the what stage. Anyway, since then I've found better data that actually implies Boeing is safer than Airbus. > Boeing aircraft have a lower frequency of crashes per million flights compared to Airbus, with Boeing having a rate of one crash per 184 million flights and Airbus having a rate of one crash per 081 million flights. https://www.mightytravels.com/2024/04/comparing-airline-incident-rates-a-factual-analysis-of-boeing-vs-airbus-safety-records/ https://www.mightytravels.com/2024/04/comparing-airline-inci... I've also found a better breakdown comparing the events between the plane manufacturers from my initial graph. https://statwonk.com/are-boeing-planes-more-dangerous-than-airbus-planes.html https://statwonk.com/are-boeing-planes-more-dangerous-than-a...
HL33tibCe7 2y ago
> several Airbus crashes have been a result of their illogical control system, with two disconnected, additive-input joysticks. Example please? I’m fairly well read on aviation incidents and I can’t recall a case of an accident being caused by this in particular.
- Alupis 2y ago
  Air France 447[1] went down in no small part due to conflicting pilot stick inputs (with neither being aware of the other's actions). As with all aviation tragedies, there never is one single failure, but here the stick control scheme played a non-trivial part. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447
  - HL33tibCe7 2y ago
    I wouldn’t say that this incident was “the result of” the sidestick issue. The fact that the airplane was in an upset at all was the result of prior miscommunication and pilot error, and while the sidestick confusion hampered the recovery, the crew should have realised what was going on, especially considering the “dual input” warning. I do agree the Airbus sidestick setup is stupid, and certainly contributed to this incident. But it’s a different order of stupid to Boeing’s recent malfunctions. I don’t think it makes sense to equivocate here.
    - Alupis 2y ago
      I disagree only slightly. In a more traditional control arrangement, both controls are slaved together to provide immediate feedback on input. With all of the confusion going on in that cockpit at that time, audible warnings likely were not as effective as it would have been to feel the stick move in an unexpected way. But yes, aircraft crashes are rarely if ever the result of a single point of failure. It's always a cascade of failures that leads up to the crash.
    - dredmorbius 2y ago
      Multiple reports cite the controls issue as contributing to the incident, e.g.: CBS News aviation and safety expert Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger explained that he believes that the disappearance would have been less likely to have happened if the plane had been a Boeing instead of an Airbus. This is because the control wheels are larger and more obvious. <https://web.archive.org/web/20130608033135/http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-33816_162-57587193/four-years-later-lessons-from-air-france-flight-447 https://web.archive.org/web/20130608033135/http://www.cbsnew...> (More in the previously-linked Wikipedia article.)
integricho 2y ago
cough up some data or shut up
chasil 2y ago
Looking at today's AV Herald, I see a collection of A)ccidents and I)ncidents from June 27th to July 9th. If I have counted correctly, Airbus appears to be involved in a total of 11. Boeing appears to total 30. A number of these listings do not involve equipment that was provided or supported by the airframe manufacturer. https://avherald.com/ https://avherald.com/
- Alupis 2y ago
  Again, in the US there are vastly more Boeing aircraft than Airbus. Incidents and Accidents include a huge array of things, including low tire pressure, bird strikes, going off the runway, near misses etc. Many of which have absolutely nothing to do with Boeing as a manufacturer or their aircraft safety records.

by Alupis 2y ago

OrigamiPastrami 2y ago

Well let's quantify it. How many crashes per miles are there for Boeing vs Airbus? And if per mile is not the correct metric, what is? I found this infographic after a quick search which implies Boeing is a lot worse than Airbus. https://i.redd.it/enzplrs6avvc1.jpeg https://i.redd.it/enzplrs6avvc1.jpeg

Alupis 2y ago
This graph doesn't say what you think it does. It's more naïve click-bait. An incident is anything abnormal, including low tire pressure or bird strike. The graph uses data from NTSB, a US agency - and the graph shows US data. In the US, vastly more Boeing aircraft are in the skies than Airbus. The graphics is effectively click-bait BS.
- OrigamiPastrami 2y ago
  If you have no data to support your argument, then you have no argument. I asked you how many crashes per mile and you ignored it. I asked if you have a better metric and you ignored it. I'm open to my infographic being misleading, but so far I'm the only person that brought data to this argument.
  - Alupis 2y ago
    Last I checked, a made-up sensationalist "graphic" from reddit doesn't count as data.
    - OrigamiPastrami 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - Alupis 2y ago
        I asked you for data, and you provided a ragebait graphic from reddit.
        OrigamiPastrami 2y ago
        You never asked me for data, you were just implying Boeing isn't as bad as everyone says. So I said let's quantify it. And then you started getting upset with the data presented to you. I said to provide better data if you have it, and you still have provided no data. If you have data that supports Boeing being as safe as Airbus, please share it.
        Alupis 2y ago
        So you "quantify" something by presenting made up data? I can do that too. Boeing is 94848% safer - feel better? You are the challenger. Burden of evidence is on you. With that said, clearly this is an unproductive conversation... so enjoy.
        OrigamiPastrami 2y ago
        You were the one originally implying Airbus is as dangerous as Boeing, so the burden of proof is on you. I'll take this as confirmation you have no data to support your claim. Cheers.
vkou 2y ago
You've posted a case study of 'How to lie with statistics'. This is a chart of incidents, but it doesn't define what an incident is (did anyone get hurt? how many people were hurt? how badly? was it a near-miss, or did the many layers of redundancy in safety handle it fine?), and it doesn't normalize it to incident/flight or incident/mile. Does Malaysia Airlines having one airplane shot down by the Russians, and another sent into the drink by a pilot-mass-murder-suicide count as an incident? Are either of them Boeing's fault? Are anti-SAM missile defenses supposed to be a standard feature on commercial airliners? The MAX crashes obviously were, and the MAX has a very bad safety record as a result. The claim (Boeing is worse than Airbus) is probably correct, but that chart is horrible evidence for it, or for how much worse one is, compared to the other. If you're going to provide evidence for this claim, you need to find something better.
- OrigamiPastrami 2y ago
  I'm not trying to lie and I'm aware my data isn't perfect, but I'm the only one providing any data at all so far. I have repeatedly asked for better data and been denied. I can only analyze the data I have, imperfect though it may be. When someone is consistently asking for better data, criticizing that person's data is kinda dumb. > Does Malaysia Airlines having one airplane shot down by the Russians, and another sent into the drink by a pilot-mass-murder-suicide count as an incident? Are either of them Boeing's fault? Are anti-SAM missile defenses supposed to be a standard feature on commercial airliners? You're making the mistake of assuming Boeing's fault is what matters. If, for whatever reason, Boeing's planes are more likely to be shot down - regardless of whether or not they are at fault - they are still more dangerous. We are not at the why stage yet, we are at the what stage. Anyway, since then I've found better data that actually implies Boeing is safer than Airbus. > Boeing aircraft have a lower frequency of crashes per million flights compared to Airbus, with Boeing having a rate of one crash per 184 million flights and Airbus having a rate of one crash per 081 million flights. https://www.mightytravels.com/2024/04/comparing-airline-incident-rates-a-factual-analysis-of-boeing-vs-airbus-safety-records/ https://www.mightytravels.com/2024/04/comparing-airline-inci... I've also found a better breakdown comparing the events between the plane manufacturers from my initial graph. https://statwonk.com/are-boeing-planes-more-dangerous-than-airbus-planes.html https://statwonk.com/are-boeing-planes-more-dangerous-than-a...

HL33tibCe7 2y ago

> several Airbus crashes have been a result of their illogical control system, with two disconnected, additive-input joysticks. Example please? I’m fairly well read on aviation incidents and I can’t recall a case of an accident being caused by this in particular.

Alupis 2y ago
Air France 447[1] went down in no small part due to conflicting pilot stick inputs (with neither being aware of the other's actions). As with all aviation tragedies, there never is one single failure, but here the stick control scheme played a non-trivial part. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447
- HL33tibCe7 2y ago
  I wouldn’t say that this incident was “the result of” the sidestick issue. The fact that the airplane was in an upset at all was the result of prior miscommunication and pilot error, and while the sidestick confusion hampered the recovery, the crew should have realised what was going on, especially considering the “dual input” warning. I do agree the Airbus sidestick setup is stupid, and certainly contributed to this incident. But it’s a different order of stupid to Boeing’s recent malfunctions. I don’t think it makes sense to equivocate here.
  - Alupis 2y ago
    I disagree only slightly. In a more traditional control arrangement, both controls are slaved together to provide immediate feedback on input. With all of the confusion going on in that cockpit at that time, audible warnings likely were not as effective as it would have been to feel the stick move in an unexpected way. But yes, aircraft crashes are rarely if ever the result of a single point of failure. It's always a cascade of failures that leads up to the crash.
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    Multiple reports cite the controls issue as contributing to the incident, e.g.: CBS News aviation and safety expert Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger explained that he believes that the disappearance would have been less likely to have happened if the plane had been a Boeing instead of an Airbus. This is because the control wheels are larger and more obvious. <https://web.archive.org/web/20130608033135/http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-33816_162-57587193/four-years-later-lessons-from-air-france-flight-447 https://web.archive.org/web/20130608033135/http://www.cbsnew...> (More in the previously-linked Wikipedia article.)

integricho 2y ago

cough up some data or shut up

chasil 2y ago

Looking at today's AV Herald, I see a collection of A)ccidents and I)ncidents from June 27th to July 9th. If I have counted correctly, Airbus appears to be involved in a total of 11. Boeing appears to total 30. A number of these listings do not involve equipment that was provided or supported by the airframe manufacturer. https://avherald.com/ https://avherald.com/

Alupis 2y ago
Again, in the US there are vastly more Boeing aircraft than Airbus. Incidents and Accidents include a huge array of things, including low tire pressure, bird strikes, going off the runway, near misses etc. Many of which have absolutely nothing to do with Boeing as a manufacturer or their aircraft safety records.