Originally Posted by
Dick Smith
It’s clear that the prime reason for the move from 4 engined to two engined is not to improve safety but to improve participation levels and airline profits- and it has clearly worked.
Thanks for all the written evidence I require to show that.
CASA is clearly not complying with “the lie” in the act!
One day the act act will be changed to reflect the truth.
And the agenda is revealed
Would you mind sharing some of the "written evidence" supporting your position that quads are more safe than twins? I haven't seen any - on this thread or anywhere else.
On the other hand, there is a whole bunch of data that says twins are safer than quads. For example (numbers as of 2016):
The most common quad in service over the last 30 years is the 747-400 - fatal hull loss rate 0.49 (the older -1/2/300 model 747s are quite a bit worse at 1.46)
By comparison, the aircraft that have largely replaced the 747 on the long over water routes are the 767, 777, and A330. Their fatal hull loss rates:
767 - 0.10
777 - 0.20
A330 - 0.21
All substantially better than 747-400. As are the hull lost rates for the 737NG, 757, and A320 series.
Granted, the A380 rate is currently zero - no fatal hull loss events -but it's a statistically small fleet, however the statistically larger 787 fleet is also at zero (as is the A350).
So I ask again, please share your data that proves twins are less safe? Or will you simply keep repeating your assertion and hope that if you repeat it enough times people will assume it's true?
Oh Squawk - you might want to know that resorting to personal insults is generally considered evidence you're loosing the debate.