Plane crash rates by model

http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm

by hosteur • 3 years ago

116 146 3 years ago

makestuff• 3 years ago

Would it be incorrect to interpret this data that Airbus planes have a safer track record? Obviously the 737 has almost twice as many flights, but the crash rate is more than double.

kube-system6• 3 years ago

The 737 NG has a lower crash rate than any Airbus on the list at 0.07. Hop on a 737 in the US and this is probably what you'll be on.

nawgz5• 3 years ago

Are you trolling? Using 737 NG would be like using Airbus NEO variants, which ALL were excluded from the list in the single aisle category for having a 0.00 crash rate…

xiphias2• 3 years ago

What matters is Boeing MAX vs everything else. It needs a few years more of testing at least until we can trust that it's safe.

kube-system6• 3 years ago

Who is we? Basically every aviation safety regulator has tested and verified that the MAX fixes are sufficient and have returned them to service. Even China.

twbarr3• 3 years ago

The 737 has also been around a lot longer. The 737NG has a rate of 0.07 compared to the A32x's 0.09. The A330 is 0.19 while the 777 is 0.18. But even this is kind of misleading. All but three of the fatalities (total fatalities, not accidents) due to the 777 come down to intentional acts that would have destroyed any aircraft.

sacnoradhq6• 3 years ago

It depends which you are comparing. Rates are usually expressed in average per 100k hours of block time (slightly rosier than wheels up time). Classic 737's serviced and flown by major American carriers and 739's on small foreign carriers today are entirely different beasts.

rootusrootus3• 3 years ago

The 737 spans almost 60 years. The earlier planes had a much higher rate of accidents, which skews the overall numbers given that today you'd have a hard time finding one of those in the sky, especially on a passenger route. The 737NG has one of the best safety records of any class of plane flying today. Aside from a 737 MAX, right now if you find yourself on a 737 it's nearly guaranteed to be an NG, which is just about the safest airplane currently in use.

everybodyknows• 3 years ago

Early 737s had a rare, transient rudder hard-over failure mode that defied analysis for a long time. When it triggered on final result was a quick spiral-dive into the ground.

TillE• 3 years ago

I think there needs to be a more selective filter if this data is supposed to mean anything. The evaluated incidents include terrorist bombings, the deliberate Germanwings crash, etc.

voisin• 3 years ago

Would those incidents be frequent enough to make anything but a de minimus impact?

waiwai933• 3 years ago

Probably, given how rare any fatality in commercial aviation is.

twbarr3• 3 years ago

One of the three 777 accidents is being shot down by a Russian SAM.

Someone12342• 3 years ago

The entire dataset is microscopic. I'd say it could make a substantial impact.

rootusrootus3• 3 years ago

If I'm doing the math right, there were only 3 fatalities on a 777 if you don't count MH370 or the Ukraine/Russian shoot-down. That would change the FLE from 2.01 to 0.01.

pcurve• 3 years ago

Depending on plane, it could.

For example, 777 has had very few incidents, but its figure is impacted by MH370 and MH17.

747's number is also skewed (by about 10%) due to 3 incidents involving bombing and missile shootdown.

By and large though, most plane crashes are due to human error, mostly by pilot. Terrorism, as well as maintenance or engineering defects are pretty rare.

petesergeant• 3 years ago

You said:

The evaluated incidents include terrorist bombings

From the site:

Excluded would be events where the only fatalities were to crew members, hijackers, saboteurs

The numbers in the "Events" column are not the same numbers as are on the linked Events page, if that makes sense.

0xffff2• 3 years ago

Those statements aren't at odds are they? Terrorist events that results in death of at least one passenger are included, despite terrorist activity (presumably) having nothing to do with specific model of airplane.

notahacker3• 3 years ago

It includes fatal accidents caused by hijackers or saboteurs, provided they manage to kill passengers and not just themselves

notahacker3• 3 years ago

Think it's difficult to make much of the data even with a filter. A lot of other incidents are due mainly to pilot error, bad weather conditions or inadequate maintenance, but the aircraft don't altogether escape blame for those types of incident. Actual incidents known to be down entirely to bad aircraft design are exceptionally rare amongst late generation aircraft (but some of the more mysterious crashes might be).

The ATR figures are inflated by their flight cycles info being years out of date (and based on knowledge of what ATR supplied to commercial databases, likely incomplete), but you'd also expect them to be higher than some of the other aircraft types purely because of how they're used (flown into smaller airstrips in hilly regions). At the other end of the scale, the 747-400 performs excellently with only two passenger crashes, but it's also had four fatal freighter crashes not counted. I bet the calculated "rate" includes freighter flight cycles though

But above all, airliner fatal crashes are exceptionally rare, and some of the near misses and non-fatal incidents are more indicative of design flaws

NikkiA• 3 years ago

My first reaction on seeing the fokker stats was 'well, yeah, it's heavily used in the Alps and Himalayas, of course it's had a lot of incidents'

Ironically, the 727s numbers are probably skewed in the opposite way to the 747 - there were loads of passenger incidents with the 727, but it's been somewhat of a workhorse for freight in the developing world over the last 40 years.

whats_a_quasar• 3 years ago

Cool dataset! Though I would hesitate to draw conclusions from it as a passenger, since the # of events is so low. Someone would need to do the statistics to see if the B737 and A320 series have enough flights to be significant.

stevehawk• 3 years ago

? B737 has been flying for nearly sixty years at this point.

doctor_eval• 3 years ago

“In 2013, the global 737 fleet had completed more than 184 million flights over 264 million block hours since its entry into service.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737

“The global A320 fleet had completed more than 164 million flights over 303 million block hours since its entry into service.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A320_family

jeron• 3 years ago

sometimes ignorance is bliss - I'd prefer not to know the crashes by model and fly without thinking about the statistics

turnsout3• 3 years ago

They’re all dramatically safer than driving to the grocery store, fwiw

janalsncm3• 3 years ago

Are they? Just at a glance, there is about 1.35 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Assuming I live a mile away from the grocery store, I will need to drive 2 miles round trip. That means I can be expected to be in a fatal accident after around 37 million round trips.

The safest plane on the list is the list is the Embraer E170. It has 0.03 deaths per million flights or one death every 33 million flights. So it’s actually more dangerous. And most people will be flying on Boeing 737s or Airbus A320s which are about 3-20x more dangerous per flight.

In any case, my takeaway is that people drive a lot so the denominator is pretty big. And if we remove driving drunk to the grocery store/driving there on NYE then driving is even safer.

mechhacker3• 3 years ago

When I found out about MAX and what happened with the design, after leaving that industry, I was amazed it had gotten approved.

That number there indicates that.

TheBigSalad2• 3 years ago

Wasn't the cause a software bug that was fixed and not a design issue?

rawgabbit• 3 years ago

It's not a bug. Boeing deliberately chose to mislead the airlines and pilots on what they were doing and used software to hide the fact. On top of that there was no redundancy for the single indicator which triggers the nose down/pitch down. The software issues is downstream of the managerial malfeasance.

JumpCrisscross2• 3 years ago

It was a regulatory bottleneck prompting an inefficient design that required a software fix to fly, which relied mortally on the inputs from a sensor that was optionally non-redundant outside the United States.

jacobn• 3 years ago

My understanding was that there was a design issue that was supposed to be fixed by software, and that software in turn had a bug.

axus• 3 years ago

The design was not "backwards-compatible" with existing pilot training, but the plan was to use software as a cheap fix. They said pilots would not need new training, and were betting lives on the reliability of software and humans.

quickthrower23• 3 years ago

This is interesting info, especially with the MAX outlier. But not enough to go on if you want to do "rainman" calculations. You would need to know the operator, their country, their airline safety culture etc.

If you can classify each crash into a % score "due to pilot training issues", "due to design flaw", "due to maintenance skimping". Also need to take into account time. I think if a plane crashed today because of wind changing direction rapidly due to a microburst under a thunderstorm, it is more likely to be called a pilot training issue, but go back far enough and it is a weather issue instead.

Just based on stuff I read. I am not a pilot or expert.

Edit: more clear what wind changing direction is. Not just a gentle breeze from the South moving East!

TechBro86152• 3 years ago

The MAX is the one plane I will absolutely not fly on. It's nice to see the numbers, but as you say, fairly unsurprising. It's also nice to see that the 787 and A380 have never crashed, since those are my favorite planes.

wkat42425• 3 years ago

It's not a bad plane. Every pilot now knows its flaws. Don't forget one flip of a switch would have saved all those lives. The problem was the pilots never knew that switch was even there.

I'd fly on it just fine, I wouldn't feel unsafe. Though I'd regret providing profits for the company that deliberately let those people die.

JimtheCoder2• 3 years ago

"I think if a plane crashed today because of wind changing direction under a thunderstorm, it is more likely to be called a pilot training issue, but go back far enough and it is a weather issue instead."

I certainly hope that a plane would not crash due to wind changing direction...

devilbunny• 3 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air_Lines_Flight_191

dghlsakjg• 3 years ago

"Low Level Wind Shear" is the technical name.

It is the ninth leading cause of landing and takeoff fatalities.

It makes sense when you realize that airplanes can only fly when the apparent wind (their speed through the air) is high enough, and landing and takeoff is when you are crossing that transition zone between high enough to fly, and not flying. If you go from a 10 kt. headwind to 10 kt. tailwind fast enough, it is exactly like losing 20 kts. of speed. Especially on small prop planes, that is more than enough speed difference to go from comfortable approach speed to dangerously close to stall speed.

avereveard• 3 years ago

I wonder how would it change by excluding chartered flights and crashes

yread• 3 years ago

Those are rookie numbers compared to stuff like MA60. First flight in 2000, 110 built, 67 still active, 57 exported, 26 in storage due to maintenance problems, 14 incidents (luckily only 1 fatal)

turnsout3• 3 years ago

Wikipedia:

  Of the 57 MA60s exported by January 2016, at least 26 were in storage after safety concerns, maintenance problems or performance issues; six others were damaged beyond repair.

Not quite a glowing track record…

reso• 3 years ago

That second 737MAX crash was full criminal negligence on the part of Boeing. The first crash was caused by bad design, the second crash was caused by Boeing’s choice to do a big PR push to prevent regulatory action and keep the planes in the air. The families should own that company by now.

redox99• 3 years ago

The first crash was caused by bad design

That's underplaying it. The design was negligent, and the whole "secret" MCAS is insane.

jgerrish• 3 years ago

I wouldn't want to own a company that did that. Or be forced into a relationship or moved out.

I'm not saying Boeing is a bad company. Lots of workers have put their lives into that company and believe in what they build.

I'm just saying putting ownership into the hands of possible victims seems to put more work and responsibility into their laps, not less.

I've been in abusive situations, and hearing philosophies like that worries me.

I understand it's one small part of what you said and the rest of your comment was helpful.

duncan-donuts• 3 years ago

I think, "The families should own that company by now" is a figure of speech that means Boeing should have paid the families so much money that they no longer exist. I could be completely wrong but that's how I interpreted it.

addisonl• 3 years ago

It’s a figure of speech.

cpgxiii• 3 years ago

the second crash was caused by Boeing’s choice to do a big PR push to prevent regulatory action and keep the planes in the air

You mean the intervening time in which every single operator of the 737MAX was told to review emergency procedures? In which every platform for aviation news was focused on the behavior of MCAS and how to disable it? And in that time Ethiopian Airlines grossly failed in its duty to train its crews on MCAS specifically and upset/emergency recovery more generally, as evidenced by the accident flight. Read the NTSB and BEA add-ons to the report; I think it's clear that the crew would have been hard-pressed to recover safely from an serious event.

I really don't want to defend Boeing here, the design of MCAS was obviously grossly flawed, made significantly worse because other Boeing airframes with a similar system used multiple AoA sensors. But given that the effects of MCAS misactivation are similar to a trim runaway, which is supposed to be a memory item for 737 pilots, the inescapable takeaway is that a lot of pilots simply weren't/aren't prepared to handle rare but critical in-flight emergencies that builders and certification authorities take for granted.

coredog642• 3 years ago

I’m happy to see that someone else is aware of the 737’s runaway trim condition. I knew several 737 pilots who used to joke about the “wagon wheels” and considered their noisy operation an unofficial concession to monitoring.

tzs• 3 years ago

But given that the effects of MCAS misactivation are similar to a trim runaway, which is supposed to be a memory item for 737 pilots, the inescapable takeaway is that a lot of pilots simply weren't/aren't prepared to handle rare but critical in-flight emergencies that builders and certification authorities take for granted

Similar to runaway trim that pilots were familiar with, but from what I recall from one of the videos where a 737 pilot showed in a simulator what handling it was like and other discussion there was one crucial difference. (I may be misremembering all this though).

After the pilots handle runaway trim and have the automatic trim disabled and have manually gotten it back to what it should be, most would try re-enabling it. Most of the time when they would get runaway trim turning the system off and on would fix it.

And if that didn't fix it and you got another runaway trim, it was no worse than the previous one. You'd fix it. And if you wanted you could try turning it on again.

(From what I've seen on documentaries on other crashes, there are actually a surprising amount of aircraft systems where "reboot it and see if that works" is standard practice for in flight failures).

With a malfunctioning MCAS though there was in effect a ratchet. The down trim added by MCAS did not go away when you stopped it and manually restored normal trim. Each time you decided to try it again to see if the prior reboot had fixed it and it hadn't you got a little more down trim bias. Do that a few times and you end up with so much MCAS down trim bias that the maximum up trim you could do was not enough and you are then screwed.

The MAX needed a bold addition to the runaway trim emergency procedure along the lines of "After recovering from runaway trim, you MUST leave this system OFF".

toast0• 3 years ago

You mean the intervening time in which every single operator of the 737MAX was told to review emergency procedures? In which every platform for aviation news was focused on the behavior of MCAS and how to disable it?

Unfortunately the information wasn't enough. IIRC, Boeing didn't provide instruction for what to do if the trim wheels aren't able to be moved manually, because the aerodynamic forces are too high, and the pilots ended up turning electric trim back on, adjusted the trim, and then MCAS triggered again. Yes, there were likely steps they could have taken, such as turn electric trim back off, once the trim was adjusted, and use the trim wheels after that, maybe, but it would have been better if there was a way to disable MCAS and keep electric trim, or if MCAS had been designed and implemented with contemplation of failure in mind.

sacnoradhq6• 3 years ago

The 737 MAX MCAS debacle is overhyped compared to the critical structural parts for the 737 NG (-600+) Ducommun fabricated by bashing and hammering fragile aircraft alloys that should've been CNC'ed. These parts contributed to numerous fuselage separations on hard landings and runway overruns, whereas in the past, aircraft bodies survived largely intact and complete. There was an long-form expose on Al Jazeera that almost no one paid any attention to. The 737 NG is a fragile POS more likely to kill you than an Airbus 32x.

kube-system6• 3 years ago

The 737 NG is a fragile POS more likely to kill you than an Airbus 32x.

TFA indicates the exact opposite.

dangerboysteve• 3 years ago

The list is completely pointless. It assumes the issue is the equipment. Maybe list the operator, country, and cause of incident.

jmpman• 3 years ago

The Embraer 190 shows 1 incident, but when you click to read the details, there were two fatal accidents. Why the discrepancy?

napsterbr• 3 years ago

From the details page:

This is not a numbered fatal event because the Legacy aircraft, although based on the design of the ERJ135 regional airliner, was not airline passenger flight.

This particular crash is widely known here in Brazil. The two pilots from the small aircraft had turned off the plane transponder. They had a mid-air collision with a 737. Everyone at the 737 died.

The two pilots of the Embraer 190 are Americans. They were sentenced to jail in Brazilian court but were never arrested to this day (not sure why).

lmm• 3 years ago

The two pilots from the small aircraft had turned off the plane transponder. They had a mid-air collision with a 737. Everyone at the 737 died.
The two pilots of the Embraer 190 are Americans. They were sentenced to jail in Brazilian court but were never arrested to this day (not sure why).

America believes that the collision was caused by a mistake by Brazilian ATC (instructing them to fly at the wrong altitude), not the pilots turning off the transponder, and that it was an accident not a crime.

cameldrv• 3 years ago

The 737MAX definitely has a bad record, but this data is somewhat out of date. Very roughly speaking, The MAX has been back in service for 1.5-2.5 years depending on jurisdiction. Boeing has produced 1196 of them. A typical narrowbody flies about 4.5 or so times per day. If you figure two years of service, that gives about 2 million flights a year or about 4 million flights since the ungrounding. Add that to the 0.65 million on the linked page and you get 4.65 million flights.

That gives a fatal rate of 0.43/million flights which is pretty bad, the same as the somewhat notorious ATR42/72, but nothing like the number on the page.

wkat42425• 3 years ago

And the ATRs tend to operate from small airports with short runways and low ILS categories (if at all!) I guess that's a bit more dangerous.

I flew at an airport myself where ATRs operated as well, nothing bigger. ILS was only a low category and only available in one direction. It seems a lot tougher than landing a 737 at a high-facility big airport with runways that can accommodate even widebodies.

twelvechairs• 3 years ago

The simple point for most people is that new design planes tend to have higher numbers and older design planes (where all the issues and quirks have been seen) tend to be very safe.

water92• 3 years ago

The Boeing 777 should be the safest as none of the accidents were the fault of the aircraft itself

Zak• 3 years ago

What I'm seeing here at a glance is that newer aircraft other than the 737 MAX are significantly safer than older aircraft.

someweirdperson2• 3 years ago

Or easier to fly / pilots better trained / airports and atc having improved.

cperciva4• 3 years ago

Removing the "no longer in production" planes and sorting by fatal crash rate per million flights:

  Embraer E170/E190             0.03
  Boeing 737-600/700/800/900    0.07
  Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321    0.09
  Boeing 777                    0.18
  Airbus A330                   0.19
  Boeing 767                    0.28
  ATR 42 and ATR 72             0.44
  Boeing 737 MAX 7/8/9/10       3.08
  Bombardier Dash 8             UNK
  Canadair CRJ series           UNK

cperciva4• 3 years ago

Looking at this list I'm struck by the separation between narrowbody jets which generally make shorter flights (Embraer, 737, A318-A321) and widebody jets which generally make longer flights (A330, 767, 777).

The exceptions of course are 737 MAX (we all know why) and ATRs (which I'm not familiar with -- anyone know why they have a high fatal crash rate?)

pengaru• 3 years ago

ATRs (which I'm not familiar with -- anyone know why they have a high fatal crash rate?)

French-Italian collaboration, what could possibly go wrong?

notahacker3• 3 years ago

There's a case for adding some weighting by flight hours/km as the widebody flights are on average longer, but it's less clear what that should be, especially with most of the accident risk being takeoff or landing. On the other hand, the displayed safety record of the 747-400 is exceptionally good. Much of the widebody/narrowbody distinction is just statistical noise (as others have pointed out, a third of the 777 accidents are a single flight being hit by a missile, and another third a suspected suicide) and widebodies are less common aircraft so the accident rates are noisier.

ATRs are turboprops that fly a lot into relatively difficult-to-land small airports. Also, the accident rate under-counts the amount of flights they've actually made by more than some of the other aircraft.

inejge• 3 years ago

ATRs had some design problems with ice accumulation[1] and are in certain ways quite unforgiving, but I suspect that the "problem" is their popularity with all kinds of smallish outfits whose training and maintenance are sometimes lacking. Case in point, this year's Nepalese crash[2], where the airline is prohibited from operating in the EU, and the preliminary report indicates that the plane crashed because one of the pilots effectively deactivated the propellers instead of adjusting the flaps while descending, causing a stall.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Eagle_Flight_4184

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeti_Airlines_Flight_691

seabass-labrax2• 3 years ago

The exceptions of course are 737 MAX (we all know why) and ATRs (which I'm not familiar with -- anyone know why they have a high fatal crash rate?)

Turboprop aircraft like the ATRs are generally considered to be more dangerous than jets. I couldn't find a MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) specific to the Pratt and Whitney engines that the ATRs use, but an AOPA article from 2017 suggests that turboprops in general are over three times as dangerous as jets[1].

Here are some potential reasons that come to mind:

- Turboprop aircraft typically fly at lower altitudes than jets do, where there is more inclement weather and less time to navigate to an airport in case of an engine failure.

- Turboprops are more complex as a whole than jet engines; there is just more to go wrong (variable propellor pitch, for instance).

- Smaller airlines are the main operators of turboprop aircraft. I don't like to suggest that they are less competent on the maintenance front, and certainly don't have any evidence for this, but maybe this comes into it.

- Most fatal aviation accidents occur on landing, and since turboprop aircraft are typically used for shorter flights, they will make more landings per mile flown (nautical miles, of course, in ICAO world).

[1] https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/august/pil...

bratao• 3 years ago

As a Brazilian, I´m happy to see the Embraer as the first. I hear from pilots that Embraer planes have excellent survivability and glide times.

gffrd• 3 years ago

They're also a great ride! I've been on a few Embraers, and been super impressed with their "feel" as a passenger.

gtirloni• 3 years ago

It's impressive, indeed. But I'd curious to know how it compares to other planes of the same size.

benhurmarcel• 3 years ago

It would be worth adding the models with a rate of 0 at the top.

sacnoradhq6• 3 years ago

Phenom 300's can't fly without GPS. I'm curious what their rates are.

irrational• 3 years ago

Why make such a useful table, but don't allow sorting by the columns?

HTMl really needs a grid element that natively supports sorting and filtering.

Waterluvian• 3 years ago

If I wanted to know “what planes are safest?” But I also want to correct for a bias like “Crash Airlines fields a lot of TypeX so TypeX seems crashier than it probably is” how would I approach normalizing that data?

konschubert• 3 years ago

You could start by normalising by plane age.

bagels2• 3 years ago

Concorde made 90,000 flights?

bowmessage• 3 years ago

Why is that surprising? There were 20 built, and were flown for more than 27 years.

bagels2• 3 years ago

I didn't realize there were so many, and that they were active for so many years. Incredible.

blutack• 3 years ago

Another possible confounding factor is that these aircraft have different operational profiles. The 747 variants were likely be to employed on longer haul routes whereas a 737 will be doing multiple individual flights per day in more crowded airspace.

It would be interesting to see this normalised by landing cycles given that the takeoff & landing are perceived at least within light aviation to be highest risk portions of a flight.

JCharante• 3 years ago

But if you have a specific route in mind then it could be useful. I’m a bit sketched out when flying on a turboprop plane like an ATR 72 but feel more at ease on an A320 family plane, because they will most likely be landing at a bigger airport with better emergency facilities and to a less remote area.

cm21873• 3 years ago

So the fatality rate across the B737 family is 0.24 per million flights, the rate for the A320 family is 0.09 per million flights. That's 3 times the risk of death boarding a B737 vs boarding an A320.

If we apply the same logic than people who wanted to mandate covid vaccines for the population not at risk, reducing a minuscule risk by a factor of 3 to another minuscule risk is hugely important and therefore people shouldn't be allowed to fly on those dangerous B737!

janalsncm3• 3 years ago

If covid deaths were as rare and as non-communicable as airplane fatalities, you would have a good point.

ClumsyPilot• 3 years ago

reducing a minuscule risk

Official stats say COVID killed a million people in US alone and 6 million globally. Thats more than Ebola, more than tuberculosis.

War in Ukraine killed far less, is it miniscule?

Furthermore, we still have people getting repeat infections - and full extent of damage is unknown, but its not pretty. Its quite clear that covid is close to tuberculosis than it is to ordinary flu

cm21873• 3 years ago

Official stats say COVID killed a million people in US alone and 6 million globally

with a median age of 80. I am talking about the population not at risk (i.e. young, no serious medical condition).

kayodelycaon• 3 years ago

The 737 NEO is 0.07. Earlier 737 models predate the Airbus 320 by nearly 20 years. The equivalent Boeing planes are marginally safer in context.

The 737 MAX has a horrible ratio because it’s very new and had a very serious flaw on launch which caused multiple crashes. Whether or not it’s equivalently safe now is yet to be proven.

cm21873• 3 years ago

The point is that even the 737 max number is minuscule and not worth worrying if you are only flying a few times a year.

People are bad at understanding tiny numbers. The probability of not crashing on the Max being 999,997 out of 1,000,000 I think is a bit easier to process.

lovemenot• 3 years ago

An interesting perspective on these numbers is to consider Concorde. Though it flew several times per day on average, for a couple of decades, Concorde went from 0.0 (perfect) to 11.36 in a single event. By far the worst on the list.

I glean from this data point just how safe aircraft are in general.

stcredzero2• 3 years ago

Not many lay people are aware of the phenomenal record of the Embraer aircraft. Credit where credit is due! For a notably long time, that number would have read zero!

Havoc• 3 years ago

Surprised the 747 has such a high rate. Subjectively I’d have guessed it would be one of the best cause it’s like a workhorse

sacnoradhq6• 3 years ago

I'm curious what that the rates are for Aeroflot's Ilyushin Il-96.

Plane crash rates by model

Related Stories