Date: 08 Dec 96 04:12:29 From: Jean-Francois Mezei <email@example.com> Organization: Vaxination Informatique References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Followups: 1
View raw article or MIME structure
> >There may be more A320's built than Comets, but the A320 may still have > >a worse accident record, which at one time was the worst since the > >beginning of the jet age. Hey, you could say that the 757 has had an extremely bad record too. If you count 1996, the 757 would look very bad compared to the 320 or most other planes. And if you took the 320 in 1996, it would have an excellent record compared to the 737, 747 or 757. Not a fair comparision ? Neither is looking at just the first few years of an airliner's record. If you compare a young plane at the start of its "carreer" with an old plane with already a long record, the comparison is not fair. Many planes have/had a bad start but later became extremely reliable and ended up having a pretty good safety record later on. Is it fair to continue to shoot down the DC10 because of the Sioux City incident when the design problems which allowed the situation to degenerate into Sioux City were supposedly fixed ? I think that "safety comments" should be made about the actual aircraft TODAY, not in the past. I would expect this group to have enough technical knowledge to be able to judge the safety of an airplane not only on its recent safety record but also on the modifications/repairs made that will prevent problems from occuring/reoccuring. If problems which caused a rash of crashes in the past have been fixed and these problems have not resurfaced for a reasonable amount of time, I do not consider the aircraft to still have that problem. (If you want to bash the DC10, talk about the recent incidents such as CP at Vancouver and Garuda in Japan, not about historical problems of the aircraft) Lastly, is it fair to pass judgement on a virtual A3XX plane before it is in service, based on the bad start experienced by the 320 ? Why not use the startup statistics for the 340 instead ?