Posted on 05/03/2024 10:23:14 AM PDT by Mr.Unique
Between the two 737 MAX crashes and a recent door plug that became — less-than-plugged — questions have risen regarding the safety of Boeing aircraft.
A widely circulated chart by the popular data visualization team Visual Capitalist shows clear data that Boeing aircraft are not as safe as Airbus.
Or did it? (Spoiler alert: It didn’t)
Many of you may have seen the chart and thought, “Wait a minute. That doesn’t look right.” Just as many probably saw my near-obsession with setting the record straight whenever I saw the misleading chart shared online.
So what exactly happened?
The analyst who created the misleading chart used the NTSB incident report database to compare the number of incidents by the aircraft manufacturer. They sorted by any aircraft with “Boeing” listed as the manufacturer, compared those that said “Airbus” and fired off a chart.
The data was sourced, and indeed, we could duplicate the results. That’s good.
But this is where raw data gives way to context. Every incident involving a Boeing aircraft was compared with every incident involving an Airbus aircraft. Sounds straightforward, especially if you’re not in aviation. What could go wrong?
What went wrong:
(Excerpt) Read more at weekly.visualapproach.io ...
2. Boeing aircraft built before Airbus existed are included
3. The NTSB data does not include all Airbus data
4. Cargo and charter aircraft flying are included
Another flaw is that there are more Airbus aircraft operating in Europe than the United States, but there is no single source of incident data for Europe like we have with the NTSB in the United States.
If you are a Boeing Whistleblower, it may be unsafe....
</sarcasm>
“Does data show Boeing is unsafe?”
If you’re on the ground, you’re likely safe, if you’re in the air...(you decide).
Spreading fear is the core of our society these days. The government can easily rule over frightened people.
fwiw since the door incident-last that I looked at it-
Boeing stock down 25%
Airbus up 25%
an enormous shift in cap value that inhibits and/or promotes growth and/or decay and is not close to the underlying worth of the door incident.
I put the wrong source. It's not Aviation Week. It is Aviation's Week in Charts, Visual Approach; a mesh of aviation and data science.
I found it on this X Thread with some interesting discussion. If this is interesting to you, you might give a follow to KC-10 Driver.
That said, I have to wonder, while there are manufacture defects, how many
of the recent events concerning boeing planes are related to "diversified"
hiring of airplane maintenance workers.
Thanks for the fix.
Last plug...The Author on X: Courtney Miller
Whole thing is beyond stupid:
1. the two max crashes - Boeing or pilot training/error? Both contributed.
2. 9/11? Hardley Boeings fault
3. American A300 out of JFK? Pilot error/training? Probably.
4. Lost Malaysian 777?
5. 777 shot down by the Russians?
6. Sully on the Hudson? Airbus did not manufacture the engines.
7. TWA 747? maybe Boeing. This was probably their biggest failure, although I know a lot of you nuts think it was a missile.
All good points...
If not, why are they killing off their whistle blowers?
How many Boeing incidents are bad design/build and how many are bad airline maintenace/pilot error?
It seems to me Boeing gets painted with the airline’s brush (not that they don’t have problems of their own)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.