Replies

Note also that the much maligned (though in reality a fine aircraft) DC-10 has a record no worse than the Airbus A300/310, planes that U.S. media never bother to malign.

There isn't a thing on that chart that surprises me, except maybe the fact I expected ATR's to do worse. The relative rankings on that chart could likely be put together by any frequent flyer who has been a passenger on enough of those birds.

Example: The Saab 340 is a beautiful plane. I used to actually enjoy connecting in Detroit to fly a Mesaba 340B to regional airports. Contrast that to the two flights I've ever had on an Embraer (to and from Decatur, GA from and to Hartsfeld) where I could not wait for the flight to end. Quality is noticable if you fly enough.

Lots of folks on other threads are arguing that the A300 CAN'T dump fuel....if I understand this right, here is a service bulletin regarding doing just that:

http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/aircraft/ad/OVER/AB3/AB3-056.htm

Applicability: All A300 models B4-2C, B4-103, B4-120, B4-203, B4-220, C4-203 and F4-203 aircraft, with production modification number 0013 embodied before delivery. Requirement: Modify the fuel tank jettison system in accordance with Airbus Industrie Alert Service Bulletin A300-28A065 dated 21 April 1993. Note: DGAC AD 93-074-144(B) dated 12 May 1993 refers. Compliance: Prior to 31 December 1994. Background: Compliance with this Directive decreases the likelihood of arcing between the fuel jettision pipe and the fuel tank following a lightning strike on the pipe. The DGAC compliance time is extended by two months.

My frat brother works as a mechanic for United at SFO and also some airport in Hayward....I'll ask him.