From:         kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California
Date:         30 Jun 95 03:47:14 
References:   1 2 3
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

>When someone is talking about FWB and how bad Airbus is and uses all AIRBUS
>crashes compared to only a few select Boeing ones, it looks very biased and it
>gives the note the image that the poster's purpose is to blast Airbus instead
>of study it. If you are also going to include equivalent Boeing or MDC planes,
>that is fine by me.

Select Boeing crashes?  Maybe you should try learning a little bit
about what the subject.  The only 757 crash mentioned was the one
in which a 757 stopped on a taxiway was hit by a hijacked 737 was
for a very good reason -- there AREN'T any other 757 crashes to
mention.  Note that the Brittania Airways incident at Manchester
was mentioned despite the fact that it resulted in neither injury
nor damage to the aircraft.

Likewise, the Lauda Air crash in Thailand was the only 767 crash
mentioned because that's the only one there is to mention.  (One
other 767 has been lost, a TACA aircraft last year, after either
a hard landing or a rejected takeoff.  It wasn't mentioned because
I just found out about it, and in any case it doesn't appear to be
relevant to the safety of the aircraft.)

With regard to MDC crashes, if you can name an MD-11 crash (a real
one, please, not a fabrication like the alleged A320 takeoff crash)
then I'll start including it in the comparison.

That's the whole point -- amongst aircraft based on similar tech-
nologies, one should expect similar accident statistics, yet for
aircraft designed (or substantially re-designed) in the past 15
years, Airbus' record is far worse than either Boeing or MD.

Karl Swartz	|INet
1-415/854-3409	|UUCP	uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls
		|Snail	2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA
 Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to