Why Does The Airbus A380 Have Such A Good Safety Record?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 авг 2022
- In terms of sales, the Airbus A380 has not proven to be as successful as the European manufacturer would have hoped. The airline industry is increasingly moving away from the high-capacity, hub-to-hub model that the 'superjumbo' demands. However, one area in which the A380 has excelled is in its safety record. Let’s look at why this is the case in today’s video.
Article: simpleflying.com/a380-safety-...
Our Social Media:
/ simpleflyin. .
/ simple_flying
/ simpleflying. .
Our Website
simpleflying.com/
For copyright matters please contact us at: legal@valnetinc.com 
Развлечения
It was a very packed flight-deck during that Qantas incident. The captain did a fantastic job.
Yeah, an examiner to review the captain and a senior examiner to review the examiner I think. Then you have the captain and first officer and there was a captain on leave present.
5 pilots. 3 regular and 2 examiners. Also, the accident happened not long after departure (at 6000 feet if I remember), so all 5 were in the cockpit.
And considering there's precedent for packed cockpits and unfortunate accidents. I think the chief pilot wasn't flying but was in the cockpit of the Tu-154 TCAS crash.
I know. Despite the 2 uncontained engine failure incident, the A380 is still one of the safest airliner in the sky.
Perfect then we are on the same page.
Aircraft*
Guessing before I watch:
1. The A380 is used on long haul flights, so fewer takeoffs and landings, when most incidents occur.
2. A380s are owned by top-tier airlines, so maintenance will probably be better than a lot other aircraft.
3. A380s are typically the crown jewels of their fleets, further improving their maintenance records.
4. As the crown jewels of their fleets, A380s are only flown by the most experienced pilots.
Now, let’s watch and see how I did.
Kind of nailed it. Simple Flying only covered the long-haul routes, but I still think its “crown jewel” status with top-tier airlines helps to play a role in its safety record.
The small number of aircraft built does mean there are fewer opportunities for incidents, but one serious accident would have marred that record. The 747 has several serious fatal accidents in its past, but it’s also been a workhorse for half a century, so it’s still considered a very safe aircraft.
Yeah absolutely. CrashAir24 and other sketchy low-cost domestic operators around the world don't have this plane. Of course, if it had the same isues as the 737max or DC10, even the best crews would probably fail, but on the other hand, I wouldn't say the A320 is less safe. It's just used in less safe opeerations (lacking pilot training, maintainance issues etc) that make it appear so.
Good points, maybe more important than 4. is the fact that it has the highest capacity and an airline is not gonna give an inexperienced pilot the responsibility of that many human lifes
and to top it out it was flew right after 9/11 attacks so there is hardly any hijackings cases on Airbus planes I knew so far
the redundancy in the systems of the A380 is so good. its failure when it comes to revenue but still a technological marvel in the aviation industry. i believe the tech in A350s are shared here but only fewer.
It also has to do with airbus not trying to hide flaws from the authorities, Like the cracked wing-spar issue.
*cough* *cough* Boeing
Methinks it's because the EASA isn't for sale, unlike the FAA.
It was a brand new design, designed to the latest requirements and therefore grandfather rights could not be applied :
- Fuel systems designed from lessons learnt from the unfortunate TWA 800.
- Fuels Tanks were also positioned for minimal affect in case of UERF.
Airbus,'s design philosophy has always been to learnt from and improve on previous designs. Beautiful Aircraft to fly on.
Another factor contributing to the A380 safety record results from its primary use for hub routes. In addition to a very limited number of daily cycles, the 380's landings all occur at major airports with big runways, tightly controlled approaches/departures and the best landing aids. There is much less chance of pilot error impact with big runways and higher precision/reliability landing aids.
Agree with everything you said bar the CAT3 element, which isn’t actually used unless it’s required. CAT3 is only more accurate with ground protections in place which also isn’t case most of the time. Since 99% of landings are manually flown the autopilot is out way before even a Cat1 DA.
@@adriancash7063 point taken, I revised my comment
What has pilot error got to do with aircraft safety record?
@@jungbolosse3034 You do know that pilot error is a significant cause of accidents, don't you?
@@jennyjohn704 Yes a pilot can take down a perfectly safe aircraft, is that your point?
As I understand it, the closest any A380 came to a total loss was QFA32 (VH-OQA) when the inner port engine exploded. It was only the combined experience and airmanship of the 5 pilots on board that did prevent the total loss.
It would rather be interesting to know the ratio of accident per flight, rather than the absolute values, since this plane does a lot less flights than others.
2 incidents that im aware of that had to do with the aircraft. Which is pretty good even with lesser flights
This plane can stay a long time in the air before landing, it's very good for companies, less expensive to manage by many aspects.
Even with that ratio the A380 is still a guardian angel .compared to the flying coffin 737 max
@@arielleblond6201 It is quite well known that most accidents happen on landing/takeoff. Longhaul aircraft like the a380 should therefore have less accidents. Regardless, I really didnt think about it until this video
I couldn't ever remember hearing of a fatality on an A380. Now I know why.
This is very interesting. The Boeing 787 has been under much scrutiny, and rightly so. However, the exact same thing could be reported about it as well. There are close to 900 of them in service and they too have had no fatalities and no hull losses. In addition, the same could be said for the A350. I guess my point is, modern planes, even workhorses like the A320 and 737, are incredibly safe. According to an NTSB study, the odds of dying in a plane crash are 1 in 29.4 million.
Well, the brand new 737MAX had two fatal crashes in a period of 6 months due to a technical issue, even if it is one of the newest revision of aircraft.
@@todortodorov940 my math might be off but let's just say they never bothered fixing the MCAS disaster, the 737MAX would probably still be safer than driving a car
@@andreaskole958 True. And driving a car is safer than driving a motorcycle. And sleeping in bed is safer than flying the 737MAX. Both mine and your statements are true, but also completely irrelevant when it comes to the safety of aircraft.
All the modern planes are incredibly safe. Including the 787, A350
Also a340
@@JAYfromTHEworld almost, on a emirates flight
Also a330neo and a320neo families
And the A220
The safety of modern airlines is built upon the knowledge gained from all previous airplane crashes and incidents. Failure to repair hulls properly, poor maintenance, crew resource management, proper communication with ATC, fuel contamination, and a myriad of other things along the way have been designed and baked into the system. It doesn't detract from the A380 (or 787 or A350) but rather goes to show that this industry does for the most part learn from its mistakes.
Well documented....
Does the physical size matters too? In terms of dimensions both take off and landing is made smoother and slower and steadier and that makes the mamoth fly with hardly any issues? Pls share thoughts!
I thought this too, it’s like a flying building that’s sideways. It’s definitely able to handle turbulence a lot better
But the forces on wing, landing gear etc are massive compared to other planes, so that might offset that benefit.
@@LuLeBe Good point, but two extra engines placed further down the wing increases stability, and that beefy landing gear has more wheels than a racetrack!
@@deus_ex_machina_ yeah I'm just saying it's probably 3x stronger but also 3x heavier than other planes. Plus takeoff and landing speeds are faster for heavy planes as well compared to the a320 or so. And I can't remember any accident caused by lack of strength in the airframe since the Comet 70 years ago. Well maybe the 737 that lost it's roof but that was a maintainable issue.
You are forgetting that the aircraft is basically designed with the knowledge of practically all aircraft crashes in mind. You wouldn’t expect the a380 to suffer the same hull loss of the JAL 747 rear bulkhead explosion because engineers learnt how to repair rear bulkheads after that crash. I am sure if a380 has a crash and new techniques and lessons learnt will be incorporated into the safety of next type of aircraft
Exactly right! and the 747 has flown countless more times than the 380! I’d trust the good old 74 above almost anything!
Airbus makes excellent products. Always have. They know what they are doing. Very very nice. Please keep coming out with more vlogs!!
I would expect that only the most experience aircrew are assigned to A380 flights. This surely contributes to outstanding safety record as well.
If you want to speak about safety, compare it to something similar - both in numbers and purpose - not to the B737, or a Cessna 172. Compare it for example to the DC-10. Both similar in purpose, wide-body, long-range aircraft. Both build in similar numbers, one 386 the other 254 (about 35% less aircraft built). One had several fatal crashes within few years after introduction, the other had two uncontained engine failures in 15 years.
And if somebody is unsure why - the answer is simple; Airbus build the A380 bases on many many years of accumulated experience and did decent engineering and of course, testing before the thing flew. Basically, there is regulatory requirement today to test your aircraft much more thorough - and if you do not skip corners, the aircraft will be safe.
That explains why there are no issues like the DC10 cargo doors. But a ton of crashes come from other issues: Lack of pilot training, ATC, maintainance etc. And since the airlines that operate the A380 are largely considered extremely safe (Qantas, Lufthanasa, Singapore, Emirates etc) and don't cheat regarding training or maintenance and only fly to huge airports with lots of systems to help pilots and ATC, it's less likely to result in a crash. The typical sketchy low-cost domestic flight operated by CrashAir24 won't be on this aircraft :D
@@LuLeBe My point is still valid. Simple Flying should not compare the A380 to B737, but rather to something like the DC-10. Half of their arguments would be irrelevant if they did not compare to incomparable aircraft. The rest, the ones that you mentioned, could have been the ones they concentrate on and may be looked little deeper into each of them. But that will require some journalistic skills - something that Simple Flying may have, but is hiding very well from us.
Just to note, the same thing was said about the Concorde, so sooner or later there's gonna be a fatal accident, whenever if it's the plane, atc, pilot, or unrelated to the plane, it's bound to happen
You should make this kind of videos for more planes (1 per plane family)
The funniest thing is engine failures are recorded as airframe incidents when in reality they are manufactured completely separate
Pilots' experience is one factor not included in this video. Most A-380 pilots have many years of experience on other single aisle planes or even planes like Airbus 330,340 etc.
I love flying with this plane .. it has less noise and sleep very easily
Guessing:
Less flights
Shorter service history
Low quantities produced
Only at airlines who can afford the upkeep to keep it in good condition
i feel comfortable with 4 engines rather than 2 if one goes wrong..
Yea, it’s a shame they’re going away, but they all can maintain flight with only one engine now.
not really related but the emirates air to air shots in the background are so beautiful
I expect the low number of airframes beeing accounted for in the safety stats, but I think the main reason is airlines don't send A380 in marginal operations (third class airports/runways) etc. too easily compared with other types.
It’s generally only operated by top tier carriers in small numbers. Moreover it’s a brand new plane relatively speaking. Commercial aviation is absurdly safe now, you can’t compare to planes built 50 years ago. The US hasn’t had a legit disaster crash since Colgan in 2009…that’s THIRTEEN years in a country with 25,000ish flights per day. So essentially everything has a great record over the last decade in the US.
I believe the 787s flawless record is even more impressive
Agreed. The 787 is much more popular and flies a lot more than the A380.
just wait until the assembly flaws take their toll
With the delivery break they had, it is easy to have a good safety.
A350 is coming
There’ll come a time when airlines are gonna go begging for super jumbos since the demand for air travel is increasing tremendously. I’m sure they would prefer sending 1 A380 to a location rather than sending 2 777s or A350s in a day. Emirates have already realised this. It’s very sad that A380 has been stopped
Airlines already have realised their mistake with retiring high capacity jets. I've noticed an uptick in the a380s coming and going at my home airport. I bet a number of airlines are wishing they still had 747s or a380s that had been scrapped.
Depends on the airline, having a mix of high-capacity jumbos and medium-capacity widebodies is ideal. A re-engined A380 should be introduced.
It's so comfy..
As of 2020 (13yrs in service) the a380 has 0 hull losses
As of 1983 (13yrs of service) the 747 had 12 hull losses
Because it's great.
A major factor is the type is not sold to or operated by sub-standard airlines or lease-fleets.
A380 is the only airline I will fly with and that is Emirates. .I feel safe then on my flights.
Probably the only airline that will be flying them in the not too distant future.!!!!
It must be nice living in and wanting to fly only to places which is served by emirates a380.
Still engine failure is the engine manufacturer’s and maintainence crew’s issue
In the past on Virgin Atlantic the would say on there sides Four engines are better than two for long haul as a safety advertisement and I think that’s true
Because the sample size is still so small!
The beautiful plane in the world!!!
By far margin....
Engine failure is not the result of bad aircraft design or bad airmanship.
It is either a fault with the manufacturer or servicing.
Never put the blame on the aircraft type for engine failure.
I do not agree 100%. The aircraft is one unit - fuselage, engines, you name it. If the aircraft manufacturer pushed the engine manufacturer too much to produce bigger engines for their aircraft - and those turn to be unreliable, they are all at fault. If the operators service the aircraft by the book, but it turns out that the service specifications are unsatisfactory, the aircraft manufacturer is at fault. Only of the operators skip corners will I see this differently.
Maintenance plays a very big factor
It's hardly used or not many ordered. It's the pilot in the box
So few examples made in the era of safest jets = few accidents. The Desault Mecure was the safest jet of all time with zero incidents if we throw out planes made and accrued flight hours
Becoz Airbus manufacturer cares. They literally took any or mirco complaints seriously. Moreover, their engineers and designers does not designed a flaw plane. They do not employed fast food workers to work in their production line. So, what happened when the plane was being output to airlines operator? They found short steps and ladders at the horizontal stabliser's compartment. Buy one plane and a few steps were given free. Never know that was part of the deal. Of course, I'm not referring to ABUS company. You knew better who you are. Keep up your good work AIRBUS. Safety comes before profit. Gd day!
Quadjets FTW
Has this been in the industry long engouh to understand the safety issues? Just wondering.
The A380 has been in service sine 2007; that's 15 years. It took mere months for safety issues to be identified on other types, such as the 787 and 737 MAX.
Because there were only a few that were operating. It's obvious.
In 4 minutes he says it's essentially a its about mathematical probability.
Because it's well built
Having 4 engines must be an important factor.
Nah. That makes it twice as likely to have an uncontained engine failure.
A video that could have been 5sec long and a basic understanding of maths
Don’t forget about it’s very sophisticated systems. Just like all modern Airbus aircraft, the A380 has pitch, bank, overspeed and stall protection and the ECAM that shows flight information and alerts the pilots when things go wrong. These are factors that make all Airbus planes the most safest in the skies.
Propaganda statement.
A better comparison would have been with 747s
Really....gee ..when they deliver almost 1600 a380's ....then we'll talk..!!!
@@yeah...whateverq4935 Since 1969.
@@yeah...whateverq4935 the comparison is between the old and the new, there are thousands of 737, similarly there are many 747s and 747s are mostly used in similar routes that a380s serve.
Isn’t safety measured in events per passenger kilometre, per no. of hours flown, per flight cycle or some such so as the number of a/c flying don’t matter???
Safety? The industry’s greatest priority? Ahem! 737 MAX!
The problem is that events are discrete, they either happen or they don't.
The event we care about is a fatal crash, and fortunately fatal crashes of modern airliners are very rare. As far as I can tell, the 787, A380, A340 and A350 have never had one. Older models of the A320, A330 and 747 have had fatal crashes but the A320neo, A330neo and 747-8 have not.
Compounding the issue is that not all fatal crashes are the fault of the aircraft. Look at the 777 for instance, three fatal crashes, one of them was pilot error, one of them is a mystery, one of them was the result of being hit by a missile
@@petermichaelgreen I guess that’s the point: events either happen or they don’t. Events not happening can be a measure of safety…
Also ‘events’ shouldn’t be conflated with crashes or fatalities. Events are incidents as well as accidents.
Incidents, even minor ones, can tell us a lot about what is to come.
Concorde had dozens of burst tyre incidents before a burst tyre killed scores of people.
Yet nobody reacted. New stronger tyres were only fitted after the loss of an aircraft and 113 lives. Again I’m not sure that that demonstrates that safety is the industry’s greatest priority.
Profit is always an industry's greatest priority. It's up to the regulators to prioritize safety.
It's just a matter of time, especially as they age.
Airbus is pretty good in general
This video’s title in other words “Why the a380 is way better than the 747”
I would fly Airbus aircraft any day. Boeing would probably have more lawyers than engineers on their staff. IMHO. 😄
Praying this video wasn't a jinx.
Simple answer: BECAUSE IT WASN‘t BUILT BY BOEING!
Comparing the safety record of the A380 to the 737 series is disingenuous...Boeing built over 11,000 737s since 1966 and Airbus built 254 A380s since 2003.
You didn’t watch the video, am I correct?
Compare it to the DC-10. Statistically much similar.
What about the 777s safety record?
I was thinking of this also. Three freak fatal accidents out of 1690 production models. The two Malaysian Air accidents had nothing to do with the type of plane and the Asiana crash at SFO was mostly attributed to pilot error. Pretty proud safety record for a plane that’s been around 30+ years in several variants. Even the Asiana crash is a testimony to the sturdy nature of the aircraft.
@@dwightbailey7043 20+ years 2024 will be 30 years
@@danielmeador1991 got me there! Actually it started commercially in 1995, so only 27 years.
@@dwightbailey7043 yea but first flew in 1994 but it still had certifications to get approval
@@danielmeador1991 true that
Could it be that most all A380 fly 4 times a week?
No, they fly a lot more.
Big baby has 4 engines, it's still the best in this particular industry.
Start flying the a380 to Lukla and we'll talk..
Pilot base is probably more skilled and has higher flight hours compared to a 737/320 pilot pool
Just two biggies the QF32 and AF66 flights
Airbus the BEST.
Lettuce Snow in the comments
I think the airlines that operate A380 are also famously safer
Not being made by Boeing certainly helps
15 years off service is nothing in the airline industry. Most airframes are 25+ years on.
What about the Boeing 747?
same story with A340..
There are lots of accidents on the a380 most of them were people pooping there pants
Not many out there helps
I think the A340 also only hasa few accident am I right?
The Qantas A 380 accident was a very near disaster given the high level of damage to the aircraft. If it had not been for the high quality and good training of the captain and aircrew, and the lucky coincidence of extra highly skilled crew on the flight deck that flight could easily have become a disaster. So while technically you can say no lives or aircraft have been lost I don’t think you can say that this is a highly safe aircraft. All it will take is another uncontained engine failure like the Qantas accident with a slightly less competent crew and an aircraft and passengers will be lost destroying the aircraft safety record. This effectively acknowledges your point regarding the frequency of A380 flights and the relatively small number flying. The failure of the engine containment system is a weakness in the aircraft.
Listen well and stop your whataboutism. NO LIVES HAVE BEEN LOST ON THAT AIRCRAFT. Period. So you technically can shove your claptrap up where the sun doesn't shine sweetheart.
The failure of the engine containment system is not a weakness of the aircraft, it is a weakness of the engine. Engines are developed, tested and manufactured by a separate manufacturer, in this case it was Rolls Royce, and so it is not the aircraft manufacturer's fault if one of their aircraft types experiences engine problems
It was a single engine failure on an aircraft with four engines. . . Give me a break.
Well let’s see airbus didn’t produce many a380s some have been retired so yea that is mostly why failure rate is pretty low
It’s not going to matter. These things are going to rot in the desert.
Four engine almost safe than 2 engine
2 engine fail, still fly
3 engine fail, still fly with one engine
How its 2x safe than twinjet
Granted the 747 is always my favorite, but the 380 is an amazing plane!
Oh.. By the way. Evengelica Christians of Airbus company, pls adopt a habit to pray for everyone's safety and cohesiveness. Gd day!
Why? Because the autopilot is very good
3:31 Nah it's not for all
Korean air and emirates is the safe A380-800
Don’t jinx it!!!
First, arrived when it said no views
Edit: now it has 2 views
I'm not updating this
Not many built, most not flying much.
Pre-pandemic, I think Emirates would beg to differ
@@soeren72 still based on short flying life.
A total of 254 built and all flying an average of about 8-10 years. That's sufficient to calculate a meaningful statistic.
@@barrylenihan8032 can you provide a link please for your statistics? (Apart from the built one)
@@backdoorbursta2866 I said 'an average of about 8-10 years' based on the number of aircraft delivered in each year since 2008. Check it out for yourself and do the calculation. Maybe you can come up with a better assessment.
Just don't jinx it...
Airbus duhh
too bad.
aviation industry prefers air disasters over good safety record.
Just give it time. Eventually the A380 will become the largest single aircraft accident.
QF pilots.
The A-380 hasn’t really been flying that long to be honest. I mean relative to something of a five decades long service record of the 747. But if it continues to fly for a while I’m quite sure the first major crash accident of a A-380 is bound to happen.
I Hope u are Right since most airlines rejected that plane 😊
the A380 is certainly a safe plane, compared to say the 737 MAX, two uncontained engine failures are nothing compared to two fatal crashes
Wow and they are even the worst crashes either
Because it's not a Boeing 🙃
That has nothing to do with it airbus has had there fair share of fatal crashes too
Airbus > Boeing
For me it’s airbus=Boeing why I like both