3 ms·

Citation? We know of 3 fire mishaps on the 787, across 66 planes over 1.5 years of service. That's 1 mishap per 33 service years, which doesn't sound 'magnitude

by tlb 13y ago

Citation? We know of 3 fire mishaps on the 787, across 66 planes over 1.5 years of service. That's 1 mishap per 33 service years, which doesn't sound 'magnitudes' better than a typical road vehicle. Perhaps you have better statistics?

DuskStar 13y ago
Doesn't a car typically break down at least once every 33 service years or so, too? For that matter, I wouldn't be too surprised if 1/33 cars crashed each year (or significantly higher than that), so I think that the 787 is still looking pretty reliable in comparison. (maybe not in comparison to a 747, but that's a different argument)
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  For a car to be "magnitudes" worse (which is the claim being made) the mishap rate would have to be at least every 0.33 service years.
  - jychang 13y ago
    I'd like to nitpick that "magnitudes" depends on your base. Base 10 is commonly used, though base e is probably more accurate. So if 33/e^2 == 4.46 incidents happen, I'd probably call it "magnitudes". 4 years per accident sounds reasonable.
    - lostlogin 13y ago
      Wow, I'd say that was terrible. 16 years and one crash for me I don't consider myself better than average at all.
neurotech1 13y ago
Mishap rate might have been the a little imprecise. For the number of passengers in airliners, vs cars, the statistics are clear. http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewstibbe/2013/07/08/dont-let-the-san-francisco-crash-put-you-off-flying-just-dont-drive-to-the-airport/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewstibbe/2013/07/08/dont-le... 120,000+ people killed in 4 years on the roads, and how many seriously injured? The Asiana crash was the first major accident in the US in 4 years. The 787 incidents have been non-fatal, and nobody seriously hurt. I'm not sure the exact statistics, but how often does somebody crash their car on the way to the airport, including fender-bender accidents? A lot more than airliners sustain substantial damage. Even though fire in an aircraft is a critical emergency, these 787 mishaps were only "incidents" and didn't cause substantial damage to the aircraft involved.
tlb 13y ago
Fire departments responded to 194k vehicle fires per year in the US, across 254M vehicles. That's one serious fire every 1310 car-years. Thus, 787s catch fire 40 times more often than cars. [refs] http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/v13i11.pdf http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/v13i11.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States#Total_number_of_vehicles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_Unit...
- lostlogin 13y ago
  Just to add to this - I have been involved in 2x car fires. 1 had the fire brigade involved (car completely burnt out), the other 1 we dealt with and all was well (welding some rust at a friends and the boot/trunk caught fire). I image there aren't many plane fires where authorities aren't notified, but this is a guess. Does anyone have any knowledge of aircraft incident reporting rates?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

by tlb 13y ago

DuskStar 13y ago

Doesn't a car typically break down at least once every 33 service years or so, too? For that matter, I wouldn't be too surprised if 1/33 cars crashed each year (or significantly higher than that), so I think that the 787 is still looking pretty reliable in comparison. (maybe not in comparison to a 747, but that's a different argument)

sliverstorm 13y ago
For a car to be "magnitudes" worse (which is the claim being made) the mishap rate would have to be at least every 0.33 service years.
- jychang 13y ago
  I'd like to nitpick that "magnitudes" depends on your base. Base 10 is commonly used, though base e is probably more accurate. So if 33/e^2 == 4.46 incidents happen, I'd probably call it "magnitudes". 4 years per accident sounds reasonable.
  - lostlogin 13y ago
    Wow, I'd say that was terrible. 16 years and one crash for me I don't consider myself better than average at all.

neurotech1 13y ago

Mishap rate might have been the a little imprecise. For the number of passengers in airliners, vs cars, the statistics are clear. http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewstibbe/2013/07/08/dont-let-the-san-francisco-crash-put-you-off-flying-just-dont-drive-to-the-airport/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewstibbe/2013/07/08/dont-le... 120,000+ people killed in 4 years on the roads, and how many seriously injured? The Asiana crash was the first major accident in the US in 4 years. The 787 incidents have been non-fatal, and nobody seriously hurt. I'm not sure the exact statistics, but how often does somebody crash their car on the way to the airport, including fender-bender accidents? A lot more than airliners sustain substantial damage. Even though fire in an aircraft is a critical emergency, these 787 mishaps were only "incidents" and didn't cause substantial damage to the aircraft involved.

tlb 13y ago

Fire departments responded to 194k vehicle fires per year in the US, across 254M vehicles. That's one serious fire every 1310 car-years. Thus, 787s catch fire 40 times more often than cars. [refs] http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/v13i11.pdf http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/v13i11.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States#Total_number_of_vehicles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_Unit...

lostlogin 13y ago
Just to add to this - I have been involved in 2x car fires. 1 had the fire brigade involved (car completely burnt out), the other 1 we dealt with and all was well (welding some rust at a friends and the boot/trunk caught fire). I image there aren't many plane fires where authorities aren't notified, but this is a guess. Does anyone have any knowledge of aircraft incident reporting rates?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]