From: Jean-Francois Mezei <MEZEI_JF@Eisner.DECUS.Org> Organization: Digital Equipment Computer Users Society Date: 15 Jun 95 14:25:26 References: 1 2 3 4 Followups: 1
View raw article or MIME structure
>>the 757, with no fatal crashes; the 767 with one; the A310-300, with >>three (Karl?) >Yes, three for the A310 (all -300, no -200 crashes): > 920729 HS-TID Thai 438 A310-304 TG311 113c Kathmandu > 940323 F-OGQS Aeroflot 596 A310-308 SU593 75c Novokusnetzk > 950331 YR-LCC TAROM 450 A310-324(ET) RO371 60c Bucarest > >However, in Airbus' defense, I think this is a good reminder of how >one must look at the underlying data -- at Kathmandu (both this one >avoid the later Airbus products.) Looking at the underlying data, the 310 is not a fly by wire aircraft and does not have the "infamous" joysticks that the 320 has. Therefore the 310 should not be used in comparing Airbus FLY BY WIRE safety. (this topic) And since Airbus is the only manufacturer of a FBW aircraft of the 320s' size, you can't really compare the safety record of the 320 against that of the 777 (once it gets a safety record). Comparing the 340 against the 777 will be fair, AS LONG AS YOU COMPARE SIMILAR TIME PERIODS. eg: comparing the number of crashes for an aircraft that has been around for years against one that has just been released is not fair. As well, comparing an aircraft's record against another is only fair if both aircraft fly the same "routes". Eg: not fair to compare an airbus crash in Kathmandu (mountainous and poor region) against the 777 which flies the luxurious and safe LHR-Washington route.