StainesFS;
Re, "...
if we are to have this debate, the views entailed need to be supported by facts."
Not to beat a really dead horse, but yes, that was the point I was also trying to make, thanks.
I know these accidents; none of these accidents occurred in the way "Bill" described, so it is just more of the same boring A vs. B propaganda. I'm surprised that the Habsheim accident wasn't trotted out again.
Apropos your comments regarding statistics you will appreciate the meaning behind the following, from Boeing. Compare equivalent A vs. B types in the numbers:
Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents, Worldwide, 1959 - 2010.
What such populist myths such as those posted above perpetuate and even legitimize is an institutionalized lack of understanding of what really happened in these accidents. That is not how flight safety and investigative work is done nor is it how training and learning from others in this business is done. "Bill", who remains unidentified and mysterious, should come to PPrUne and join this thread to defend his views and perhaps learn a bit himself. There are some here who critique the airplane thoroughly but they know it and fly it.
Vive le débat!
Perhaps also of some interest may be Psychologist Daniel Kahneman's book,
Thinking, Fast and Slow which in part discusses how we make up our beliefs, assess/decide upon risk using intuitive and/or rational thought. Last November Vanity Fair ran an article which may be of indirect interest to some:
The Quiz Daniel Kahneman Wants You to Fail
PJ2