My phobia is about to be tested.... eeeeeeeek!

[mannej]

Pretty hard to overlook AF accidents✈

It really is an interesting topic though!

 

[TonyHancock]

Pretty hard to overlook AF accidents

AF manage to overlook them relatively easily.......sorry I mean sweep them under the carpet relatively easily!! :shock:

 

[NM]

No point looking at hull numbers versus loss without factoring active usage:

If we look at fatality rates per million miles flown:

Fatal Plane Crash Rate for Selected Airliner Models

The top 5 airplanes currently in production and flown in more than 10 million flights per year rank as follows:

1. Airbus A320 0.13
2. ATR 42/72 0.33
3. Boeing 737 0.36
4. Boeing 767 0.40
5. Boeing 747 0.76

But does that also include early models that are no regularly operated on RPT services such as classic 747s?

1. Airbus 340
The A340 has approximately the same number of flying hours as the 777 and remains accident-free, making it number one is safety.
Number in service: 355



2. Boeing 777
At one accident per eighteen-million hours of flying, the Triple-Seven is number two in safety. And, in that one accident, everyone survived.
Number in service: 792

But one could argue that the one 777 accident (BA38 at LHR) and the brand new Etihad A340-600 accident at Toulouse have similar statistical characteristics - both occurred on the ground at an airport with no fatalities. However, IIRC some of the injuries in the A340 accident were quite series. Both resulted in a hull loss. Of course one was operated by a crew of qualified pilots who have been praised for saving many lives through their actions, and they other was operated by a crew of test engineers who lacked understanding of some of the critical safety features of the aircraft design

I am sure all this discussion about accidents, accident rates etc is helping the OP with his concerns sorry

 

[simongr]

I was being a bit tongue in cheek re the stats - the glaring point for me for MunitalP is that there hasnt been a hull loss on an A380 and it survived a pretty dramatic incident too!

 

[markis10]

But one could argue that the one 777 accident (BA38 at LHR) and the brand new Etihad A340-600 accident at Toulouse have similar statistical characteristics - both occurred on the ground at an airport with no fatalities. However, IIRC some of the injuries in the A340 accident were quite series. Both resulted in a hull loss. Of course one was operated by a crew of qualified pilots who have been praised for saving many lives through their actions, and they other was operated by a crew of test engineers who lacked understanding of some of the critical safety features of the aircraft design

I am sure all this discussion about accidents, accident rates etc is helping the OP with his concerns sorry

Given the lower hours flown by the A340 compared to the 777, and the fact the A340 has three significant hull losses, I would be hesitant to put them on equal pegging:

• 2 August 2005 – Air France Flight 358, all 297 passengers and 12 crew survived a crash and fire after their A340-300 F-GLZQ overran runway 24L at Toronto Pearson International Airport while landing in a thunderstorm. The aircraft slid into Etobicoke Creek and caught fire. Forty-three were injured, twelve seriously (2 crew, 10 passengers); some passengers jumped nearly 20 ft (6 m) to the ground.
• 9 November 2007 – An Iberia Airlines A340-600 EC-JOH was badly damaged after sliding off the runway at Ecuador’s Mariscal Sucre International Airport. The landing gear collapsed and two engines broke off. All 333 passengers and crew were evacuated via inflatable slides, and there were no serious injuries. The aircraft was scrapped.

 

[NM]

Given the lower hours flown by the A340 compared to the 777, and the fact the A340 has three significant hull losses, I would be hesitant to put them on equal pegging:

I note that all A340 hull losses as well as two significant close calls (runway overruns/tail strikes on takeoff) have all occurred at airports - 2 x AF losses due to fire (at CDG and YYZ), IB overrun, 2 x EK take-off miscalculations (JNB and MEL) and Sri Lankan loss at CMB due to terrorist bombing. So logically we can conclude that the A340 is very safe in flight - just avoid being in one at an airport and you should be ok.

Or should we be looking at the operators with the most number of accidents/incidents for these types?

 

[markis10]

Personally I would be more worried about the plethora of 20+ year old aircraft that seem to be more of a part of the local aviation scene these days!