Boeing vs Airbus vs McD accident statistics

[GogglesPisano]

The AF thread led me to a little research. It appears Boeings come out slightly ahead overall. A330/340data is missing.

Safety ranking:

1) Saab340
2) MD80
3) 767
4) 757
5) 737
6) 727
7) A320 series
8) F100
9) Brasilia
10) DC9
11) BAe 146
12) L1011
13) A300
14) A310
15) B747
16) DC10
17) F28
18) Brandeirante
19) MD11 (I can vouch for that POS)
20) Concorde

Airlines are also ranked.

http://www.airdisaster.com/statistics/

Of course, statistics can be misleading. Highly-trained First World pilots vs politically-connected Third World pilots; Flying in Africa vs the US or Europe, all factors.

 

[MD11Drvr]

Dang! No love the MD-11 Goggles, Good machine in the right hands. But I ahve to agree not exactly user friendly.....

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

What about that POS the CRJ?

How are those numbers derived?

 

[~~~^~~~]

One flaw in his chart is that he does not treat the DC9 as a type, but splits it with its derivative MD80.

The DC9 is no where near as "safe" as a 757 or 767, but you'd never know that from his chart.

Dare I say it, after the DC8, Douglas built jets in Long Beach and did their engineering was done via service difficulty reports and crash investigations. I'm not sure why repeated failures of the ground lift dumper actuation system, hydraulics, and marginal control in some parts of its flight envelope are tolerated. I now mistrust any airplane where the green band for take off pitch trim limitations is set via a slide rule.

Type IV was a big deal on many airplanes, yet the only airplane that I've seen a real effect on when that goo gums up the elevator servo tabs is the MD80, where the book never even mentions it.... and why did a jet with a hugely revised engine not get EEC's?

~ Douglas rant almost over ~

As far as the DC9 goes, many of those losses were due to not having EGPWS, the 767 fleet stats reflect terrorist acts, and sampling error for the smaller carriers ... interesting statistics, but maybe not as informative as someone might think on first blush.

 

[GogglesPisano]

Dang! No love the MD-11 Goggles, Good machine in the right hands. But I ahve to agree not exactly user friendly.....

I admit I was a little harsh. The flight deck is dark, drab and dreary. The FMS is slow. It handles like a garbage truck half full of water. Only 200 copies were made and every cockpit is different.

On the other hand, it is powerful and you can always get down if you're high. And it's built like a tank.

 

[Andy Neill]

I found it amusing in light of the "4-engine Boing or I ain't going" remark made on another AF thread. Here it shows the 747 as being the worst of the original Boeing products and even worse than the Airbi.

 

[Redmeat]

I found it amusing in light of the "4-engine Boing or I ain't going" remark made on another AF thread. Here it shows the 747 as being the worst of the original Boeing products and even worse than the Airbi.

This and the AF accident reminds me of the NW 747 that had the lower rudder do a hardover in cruise and stayed there. The crew had to use asymmetrical thrust to stay lined up on approach.

The investigation found that the loads of the hardover had twisted the entire vertical stabilizer.

That's what I like about aluminum...it bends...ALOT...before it breaks.

I'm not a mechanical engineer, nor am I a chemist...but I'm pretty sure the carbon fiber composite tail on an Airbus wouldn't 'twist' given the same scenario. The AA A300 in 2001 comes to mind...

 

[machaf]

Scarebus baby

 

[pdub20s]

I found it amusing in light of the "4-engine Boing or I ain't going" remark made on another AF thread. Here it shows the 747 as being the worst of the original Boeing products and even worse than the Airbi.

Thats because Kalitta keeps crashing them....

 

[MD11Drvr]

I admit I was a little harsh. The flight deck is dark, drab and dreary. The FMS is slow. It handles like a garbage truck half full of water. Only 200 copies were made and every cockpit is different.

On the other hand, it is powerful and you can always get down if you're high. And it's built like a tank.

Hey Goggles I think its fair to say though everything else you fly after the MD-11 will be easy.

 

[GogglesPisano]

Hey Goggles I think its fair to say though everything else you fly after the MD-11 will be easy.

Absolutely.

 

[Wojo]

I admit I was a little harsh. The flight deck is dark, drab and dreary. The FMS is slow. It handles like a garbage truck half full of water. Only 200 copies were made and every cockpit is different.

On the other hand, it is powerful and you can always get down if you're high. And it's built like a tank.

Huh? I've got equal hours in the 737-700 and the MD-11. The MD-11's cockpit is MUCH, MUCH better than the 737s or the 757s for that matter - a lot more room and a LOT quieter. The FMS in the MD-11 is just about the exact same speed as the 737 and a lot more user friendly.

Accident rates? Yeah, the 737 is cake to fly - only a complete dufus could have problems even in 30 kt crosswinds, the MD-11's quite a bit tougher.

 

[flyn96]

Have to throw a GO SAAB in there! Simple (aside from the CT7 & Prop), tough, gets ir done!

 

[LearLove]

what a crock of sh!t list. another example of numbers or stats that mean nothing. an aircraft is only as "safe" as its crew and the type of operations it is used for.

this same kind of stuff happens in the bicycle industry. big companies like specialized and trek make marketing charts like stiffness to weight ratio charts for frame materials (ti, steel, al, carbon) and state how their material/flavor of the year is best according to this and that number. the funny thing is if your using this criteria (stiffness to weight) to build your frame then balsa wood would be your best material. I've been riding/racing/wrenching on and selling bikes since i was 12 and have yet to see one built from balsa wood.

 

[yournextFO]

What is this based on? Flight hours? Number of flights? Hull losses? Number of fatalities? What about pilot error vs design/mechanical flaw? Certainly, the kind and area of operation would also have an effect. Not to mention that serious accidents are rare enough (fortunately!) that it only takes one or two to hugely influence the data.

Gotta love statistics.

 

[flyn96]

Click on the link a read.

What is this based on? Flight hours? Number of flights? Hull losses? Number of fatalities? What about pilot error vs design/mechanical flaw? Certainly, the kind and area of operation would also have an effect. Not to mention that serious accidents are rare enough (fortunately!) that it only takes one or two to hugely influence the data.

Gotta love statistics.

 

[flyn96]

what a crock of sh!t list. another example of numbers or stats that mean nothing. an aircraft is only as "safe" as its crew and the type of operations it is used for.

this same kind of stuff happens in the bicycle industry. big companies like specialized and trek make marketing charts like stiffness to weight ratio charts for frame materials (ti, steel, al, carbon) and state how their material/flavor of the year is best according to this and that number. the funny thing is if your using this criteria (stiffness to weight) to build your frame then balsa wood would be your best material. I've been riding/racing/wrenching on and selling bikes since i was 12 and have yet to see one built from balsa wood.

Actually there are several types that have been plagues by issues regardless of who's flying them, so yes some aircraft are safer than others. EMB-110 and the F-28 stand out, also the DC-10 was not blessed in its early years, ie AA ORD engine falling accident and United 232

 

[jws717]

WOW! I always felt like i was gonna die jumpseating on the Saab.
I guess i was wrong.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

All that vibration and such disguises very well how safe it is.

 

[aussieflyboy]

where's the 777 in that list?