Re: Airbus Safety

Date:         07 Oct 98 02:49:22 
From:         "John Vincent Lombardi" <uniphone@home.com>
References:   1 2
Followups:    1 2 3
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

>Having thus checked the statistics, your assertion that the A320 family
>has a higher hull loss rate than the 737 does not appear to be factual.
>If you have more accurate statistics which demonstrate otherwise, I'm
>sure the group would love to see them.

Karl,

Although I can't argue with the numbers, you are incorrectly mixing
aircraft of different generations together to support your claims. Using
your figures, the A320 does have a significantly higher hull loss rate
than its contemporary, the 737-300/400/500.

The figures you used are skewed by the inclusion of first generation
transports such as the 737-100/200 series. Some would even argue that
the A320 is a generation ahead of the 300/400/500 and therefore should
be safer still. Instead the numbers show a significant increase in hull
losses per departure.

The fact that the A320 has done slightly worse than the 737-100/200 is
cause for concern. With all the "advancements" incorporated in the A320
to make it safer, it is no better than a transport some 30 years old,
operated in a more hostile ATC environment, with dated systems and
archaic avionics. Early 737's had no GPWS, no EGPWS, no windshear
alerting or prediction, no moving map, no EFIS, no flight path
protections, no autoland, no CAT II, no flight management system, no
autothrottle, no ACARS, no color weather radar.

Some have argued that the A320 suffers from a generational "learning
curve" just as the first jets did. The fact is, the A320 should be
measurably safer than its contemporaries and it is not.

John Lombardi