Originally Posted by
737Jock
Would be interesting to see how many FBW related incidents are recorded for airbus vs 777 (the first Boeing FBW with protections).
Difficult to do quantatively as there are fewer T7s in service than there are A330s and A340s combined, let alone the narrowbodies of the A320 series. The truth is that in terms of hull losses in normal operations the numbers are too small to make a statistically valid comparison, which - lets face it - is a good thing for all types.
There are no accidents or incidents for any of the above types that can be attributed to the FBW systems, at least in isolation. Automation is a different matter, but automation and FBW are two very distinct aspects of airliner operation. For example, there are plenty of automation-related hull losses for the B757 and B767, neither of which are FBW. The Turkish 737 that pancaked short of Schiphol can also be considered an automation-related accident but - as you know - the 738 is certainly not an FBW design. In that case, moving thrust levers signalled a reduction in thrust way beyond what the crew were expecting, but they never picked up on it. The same goes for the Birgenair B757 crash where despite having the yoke in front of him, the F/O neither stopped the Captain from pulling into a stall nor corrected him after he had done so.
The truth is that while it may be comforting to believe that a more traditional setup will make fault diagnosis easier for pilots, the evidence does not support that supposition. The PF of AF447 may have pulled into a stall, but so did the Captain of Birgenair 301 and ColganAir - neither of which had spent any time on a FBW Airbus.
Similarly while I do not doubt the existence of design problems in the Airbus systems, I am equally convinced that some remain in the B737s that you fly among others.
Originally Posted by
Gretchenfrage
...and by this implying that their opinion is worth less than the majority’s?
No-one's implying that - you added that assertion yourself.
Maybe, but ….. is only criticism of the Airbus system due for a re-appraisal? You do imply by this that the system would be immune to a re-appraisal itself, don’t you?
Not at all - the system as a whole will be re-evaluated on the basis of the data acquired since the original statement was released.
The smoke is admittedly not in form of objective data, but that is the very nature of “smoke” used as a metaphor in this case by the way. It is the many threads on forums, in the press and the many publications about the matter that form the smoke. There is not a tiny fraction of the same for the competing system, which tells a story!
If the threads on forums are shown to be based on inaccurate information and argued by the same posters over and over again (as many are in this case), then it's only natural that the veracity of the information be questioned. Likewise, given that the press are routinely mocked when reporting incidents on this forum, why should it be any different when they try and stir up scandals where none exist?
Additionally there are the beloved statistics (hull losses and fatalities) that point clearly to one side. You can always debate about the higher number of airframes of one, but you cannot dismiss that one system has had NO fatalities so far and the other one has. That in itself should raise big flags if your concern is safety at all!
As I said on the AF447 thread, if we were to apply that same analysis technique in 1980 to the three US-built widebody types introduced in the '70s then we would be forced to conclude that the 747 was the most dangerous design of the three and should be withdrawn forthwith. With benefit of hindsight we know that's rubbish, not just because of the 747's exemplary record since then but because, as with the T7-A33/40 comparison, the numbers are too small to be statistically significant.
I stand by my argument, even if I am a despised minority
You're not despised, you're simply being asked to show the work from which your conclusions are drawn.