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
Next article
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,

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.