Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
“For some reason the A350 decided that our 11,000-foot runway was too short to support the takeoff, and the plane applied the brakes at full force — all on its own,” writes Honig.
Giving the plane that much autonomy is scary...What if it decided to stop the engines? Open the doors? Now wait, that "Might" be interesting!
He gave the stats in terms of "crashes per million flights" which is a ratio not an absolute number, so how many more years and flights the 737 has is irrelevant to the overall crash rate. Overall, 737 has a crash rate 2.8x higher. Now if you want to say the 737 overall crash rate is unfairly skewed because crash rates for all planes were higher 20-30 years ago and want to compare crash rates for a more recent time period then provide the crash rate stats for that time period.
The only way you can say it is not relevant is if the crash rate isn't constant. The rate of crashes is much lower than it used to be. Also, the 737-200 does not have the same rate as a 737-900 (or whichever newer generation one you want to choose.). The A320 is much newer than older generations were. I don't have the data available, but it's quite obvious that things are better than they used to be.
“For some reason the A350 decided that our 11,000-foot runway was too short to support the takeoff, and the plane applied the brakes at full force — all on its own,” writes Honig.
Giving the plane that much autonomy is scary...What if it decided to stop the engines? Open the doors? Now wait, that "Might" be interesting!
No offense to Honig, but his angle on aviation appears to be a blog about maximizing credit card points, and he's passing on a dumbed-down version of the Qatar Airways' spokesperson's PR efforts.
ATC communication has the flight crew saying they aborted the takeoff due to a warning - which is rather different.
The only way you can say it is not relevant is if the crash rate isn't constant. The rate of crashes is much lower than it used to be. Also, the 737-200 does not have the same rate as a 737-900 (or whichever newer generation one you want to choose.). The A320 is much newer than older generations were. I don't have the data available, but it's quite obvious that things are better than they used to be.
Obvious as it may seem to you, if you are going to compare crash rates based on some arbitrary recent time period the burden is on you to provide data for that time period.
Obvious as it may seem to you, if you are going to compare crash rates based on some arbitrary recent time period the burden is on you to provide data for that time period.
Arbitrary? Just compare from when the A320 came out to now. Forget what happened before that. If you want to look it up, go ahead. Finding exact data will not change my point though. The data only shows past history, not future crashes.
Arbitrary? Just compare from when the A320 came out to now. Forget what happened before that. If you want to look it up, go ahead. Finding exact data will not change my point though. The data only shows past history, not future crashes.
Nice. Don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion.
The only way you can say it is not relevant is if the crash rate isn't constant. The rate of crashes is much lower than it used to be. Also, the 737-200 does not have the same rate as a 737-900 (or whichever newer generation one you want to choose.). The A320 is much newer than older generations were. I don't have the data available, but it's quite obvious that things are better than they used to be.
And that's precisely it.
For example, the fatal crash rate of the 737 is 0.28/milion. That's dragged way up by the -100s and -200s, which combined have a fatal crash rate of 0.61/million. But no -100s remain in commercial service anywhere, while only 99 -200s (out of over 8800 737s ever built) remain flying, none of them with regular North American carriers (a few are used by charter airlines, though). Most of them are in service overseas.
So, yeah - judging the performance of a 737 Next Generation one might fly on by the service of a -100 or -200 that one won't be flying on is, frankly, absurd.
Next up are the 737 Classics. Their fatal crash rate was 0.15/million. Much better than the first wave 737s. But even they're mostly gone. There's a few flying in Canada, and Alaska flies 30 of them. But American, Delta and United? They've phased every last one of them out. There's not many of them flying in Europe (more in the east than west) - mostly, they're flown by Chinese airlines and airlines in emerging markets.
Which brings us to the Next Generation, with its fatal crash rate of 0.08. If one is flying a 737 operated by a major airline in a first world country, it's very likely a Next Generation. American, Delta, United? They fly over 600 737s, and every last one of them is a Next Generation.
Using data from -100s and -200s to assess the safety of a Next Gen is as inane as judging the safety of your 2010 Honda Accord by performance data from every Accord built since the first one rolled off the assembly line in 1976. It makes zero sense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
