Re: Airbus Safety

Date:         07 Oct 98 02:49:28 
From:         kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California
References:   1 2 3
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

>> 22-Mar-1998  PR 137   RP-3222  A320-214    3   Bacolod, PH

>I didn't hear about this last one. Can you give me some information
>about it?

Compiled from various sources:

   The No. 1 engine's thrust reversers apparently failed to deploy on
   landing.  The asymmetric thrust caused the aircraft to depart the
   runway, but after returning the No. 2 engine to forward thrust the
   aircraft was steered back onto the runway.  The ground spoilers also
   did not deploy because the No. 1 engine was not reduced to idle
   thrust.  The aircraft overran the runway and hit a row of houses
   before coming to rest near a highway 650 feet beyond the end of the

>It isn't, but as you know, comparing hull-loss statistics between
>the A320 and all models of the 737 are misleading. First of all,
>the A320 is a much newer airplane than the 731/2. This in and
>of itself makes a big difference ...

True, but as noted in another message, I didn't pick the comparison,
I just checked the record against what was claimed to be fact.

>What would be relevant is to break down the numbers by airline. Then we
>could see where the biases are.

That would be interesting, too, though I don't have the data in a form
which is amenable to that sort of analysis, just as I don't have the
breakdown of 1st generation vs 2nd generation 737 hull losses.

One anecdotal observation that has been made on numerous occasions is
that three of the first four A320 hull losses involved experienced crews
from well-respected carriers, not the sort of poorly-trained crews from
third-world airlines, often flying ancient aircraft, which unfortunately
bring about the end of far too many 737s, DC-9s, etc.

Karl Swartz	|Home
"The average dog is a nicer person than the average person."
  - Andrew A. Rooney