Yeah Dan, maybe he's right!
My admittedly crabby post this morning was just in reaction to these manufacturers who proudly proclaim to us how "safe" their new designs are, blah blah blah. But they're not, really. Because they are just machines, designed by men. And they sometimes fail.
Remember when *someone* (I won't mention his name) was bragging about how much "safer" the S-92 was than the AW/US-101 because the Sikorsky benefitted from the latest crashworthiness technology blah blah blah...
Then an S-92 goes and crashes and kills everyone onboard but one.
So sure, the S-92 is somewhat "safer" than the US-101 *if* you crash it in just this particular way, where the new fuselage design and stroking seats can help lessen the impact. But if you happen to crash it in any *other* way, well, you're on your own.
Our new Airbus design is really, really safe! Much safer than those old Boeings and whatnot. Whaddya kidding me? Holy cow, our planes are EONS safer! They're made from COMPOSITES, baybee! Not that old-fashioned metal crap that corrodes and cracks and stuff. But...umm...yeah...if you happen to press on the rudder pedal a bit too hard you can...umm...you know...snap the vertical fin clean off, true. And that appears to have happened, ahhh, twice. But they're safer!
New technology is great. But there is no guarantee that it'll be any "better" than the old technology in every respect. I mean, who are we trying to kid? The whole idea of "safety" in a crash is ludicrous. At least, in any crash from an altitude higher than 10 feet or so.