Re: Airbus Safety

Date:         07 Oct 98 02:49:26 
From:         kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California
References:   1 2
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

>>Looking at http://aviation-safety.net/database/103.htm, I find listed a
>>total of 85 hull losses for the 737, a rate of 1.20 per million flights
>>or about 4% higher than the A320 family rate.

>Some of those hull losses were landing accidents (runway overshoots, veering
>off the runway, etc), and not actual "crashes".

Nobody claimed the accidents were anything other than hull losses -- you
introduced the "crashes" term.  In any event, the A320 stats also include
several overruns, so unless you want to claim that one aircraft is more
likely to overrun than the other, it shouldn't make a lot of difference.

Beyond that, your implication that overruns should not be counted in an
analysis because they're "not actual 'crashes'" leads to some bizarre
conclusions.  Does LH 2904 (Warsaw) not count as an A320 crash because
it was a landing overrun, even though two people died, the aircraft was
destroyed, and significant issues with the A320 were brought to light?
That sure sounds like a crash to me, by any reasonable definition of the
term, and it's most certainly a hull loss.

--
Karl Swartz	|Home	kls@chicago.com		http://www.chicago.com/~kls/
		|Work	kls@netapp.com		http://www.netapp.com/
"The average dog is a nicer person than the average person."
  - Andrew A. Rooney