Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Boeing vs Airbus vs McD accident statistics

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
WOW! I always felt like i was gonna die jumpseating on the Saab.
I guess i was wrong.
 
All that vibration and such disguises very well how safe it is. :)
 

Latest resources

Back
Top