It wasn’t long ago that the Boeing 777 was regarded as one of the safest airplanes in the world. And it arguably still is one of the safest.
But then the EgyptAir Boeing 777 cockpit fire, British Airways Boeing 777 engine mishap in 2008, Asiana crash at San Francisco, MH370 disappearance, MH17 shootdown has affected that reputation. And now a British Airways Boeing 777 just caught fire at Las Vegas…
To be fair, the Asiana crash was pilot error and the MH17 shootdown was human-caused. And MH370 may be human-caused too.
But that pristine Boeing 777 safety reputation has just taken a big hit (IMHO, unfairly so) these past few years.
A quick skim over the stats and history suggest it is very much a safe aircraft. I believe I’m booked onto one for a transatlantic trip with my family soon and it doesn’t give me a moment’s cause for concern.
They’re also adorable aircraft, with their wide bodies and big engines. They look like something designed by Fisher-Price.
Another vote pro-777; of all the wide-bodied aircraft I’ve flown in (and I’ve been in all the Airbus and Boeing products, including the A380), it is the smoothest and most comfortable plane of the bunch.
Most of the incidents appear to not involve faults within the plane itself; albeit that fire in Vegas does merit investigation.
Note: Haven’t flown in the new 787 yet, but it is just entering service; I’ll get around to it.
Joining the crowd: 20 years in commercial service and that’s the tally? That’s a splendid record. I’m actually pleasantly surprised those monster engines have not had more major issues, but of course you can’t grow complacent.
Only the Egyptian government believes that, and then only officially. And it was a 767.
Why would it?
The more there are in service, the more frequent the unconnected, random incidents will be.
And for a comparison, look at how many 707s crashed.
What the hell was Boeing to do to avoid the shootdown, add jamming pods?
The 777X takes the cake
That’s the second British Airways 777 hull loss (I’m guessing this latest one will be anyway) - both times with no fatalities, which I find remarkable.
Despite the idiocy of the passengers taking their freaking luggage off the plane while other passengers were still inside. I would love to see them charged with something like - endangering the lives of others. Stupid gits! (Hey it was a British Airways flight)
Y’know I can understand a purse or handbag, but grabbing a whole rollaboard? While fleeing a fire? :smack:
You may be thinking of a different incident, OP mus thave meant this:
I’m not referring to the crash in the 1990s.
Gotcha.
Now what two, if any, items on your incident list have related causes? And how many are faults of the aircraft?
That was Airbus, not Boeing.
Asiana crash at San Francisco … pilots flying airplanes into the ground is really not the fault of the airplane.
Um, my turn - MH370 was a 777.
The BA crash at Heathrow was a fuel system icing problem, specific to the Rolls Royce installation, now fixed. The BA fire yesterday at Las Vegas, with a GE engine AFAIK, counts as a mechanical issue as well (design, quality, maintenance, don’t know yet). The Egyptair cockpit fire is an airframe issue.
All the rest are human-caused, and Ukraine and MH370 intentionally so.
In its 20-year history, the Boeing 777 has been involved in a total of 14 incidents, ranging from tailstrikes and attempted hijackings to the infamous MA370/MH17. Only four incidents involved fatalities, none of which were caused by mechanical fault of the airplane itself.
I’d call that a freakin’ spectacular safety record.
Think about the poorBoeing 747.
And the 737is worse!
I would fly in any of them without a second thought.
How did British Airways end up with 777s with two different engine manufacturers? I would think their maintenance folks would want as much commonality as possible. Two engine suppliers means keeping more spare parts on hand and training mechanics in procedures for two engine types.
An engine fault doesn’t ground your entire fleet?
Also, sometimes a specific model of the airplane is used for a specific configuration in service. You may have the stretch or extended-range version use a different engine type from another. Also in a model that has been in service 20 years you may have aircraft ordered in 1995 to one spec and aircraft ordered in 2010 to a different spec in the same fleet. Plus, quite importantly, airlines and manufacturers often want to avoid the possibility of a hang-up at the engine maker holding back the airplane deliveries.