Compared to other aircraft, how does it stack up?
Extremely badly. Other aircraft, even ones with faults that were endemic, still had dramatically better statistics.
- The 737 had that pesky rudder hard over issue (mid life-cycle)
Design flaw. But, even though there were vast numbers of 737s, it was still an extremely rare event. And, as the last aircraft showed, it could be recovered...once you knew what you were dealing with.
- The Dreamliner caught alight a few times with battery issues (and was grounded early in life-cycle)
The lithium battery problem still isn't solved, they've (literally) contained it. Airbus decided with the A350 to keep away from such batteries, and continues to use a RAT for emergency power.
- The A380 that blew chunks on QF32 and if it was helped or hindered by composite materials (fairly early in life-cycle but several years in)
Manufacturing fault. The aircraft itself handled the engine deconstruction quite well. Construction materials had nothing to do with it.
This hits home too - I am totally trusting in that I know aircraft are safe from a ignorance point of view. I am happy just knowing they don't regularly fall out of the sky. I am sure you are equally as trusting (with better knowledge) otherwise you would have looked for another line of work long before now.
I expect them not to deliver me a problem that I can't resolve. I don't expect them to be problem free. Of course, you need to help yourself there. Sensible application (and acceptance) of MELs is part of that i.e. keep the odds stacked as much in your favour as you can. It's one reason why I often have issues with threads that rattle on about departure delays due aircraft issues (or why airline X never seems to have problems, compared to airline Y). I've sometimes been astounded by the reaction of some passengers if I have a technical delay...and can only wonder what their cars are like.
I have a few RAAF black-hand friends who work on various aircraft from the P-3 to the Super hornet, KC-30 & C-17 and they all share to various degrees a knowledge-induced fear of flying (the last time I dragged one guy on a plane it involved medication) and they all share fairly strong scepticism on the composite materials subject (metal fatigues, then stops working vs composite materials work until the moment they don't)
Composites have already been around for many decades. And aircraft like the C17, F18, etc, haven't had overwhelming issues. Anyway, there's much more to be afraid of in flying than fear of new materials. Old things, like weather, represent a much more real and pervasive threat.
I really hope your answer is no, but do you expect that each aircraft type will have major life threatening incidents in their life-cycle? You just hope you're not the bloke that drew a short straw when a composite section goes bust or a battery goes critical trans-pac, even if flights like QF32 and UA811 could have been worse.
My answer certainly won't be no. The act of pushing a large lump of metal, or composite, through the air at around 1,000 feet per second will alway have days when it all goes awry. The odds of that happening should continue to improve, but I very much doubt that the sort of improvement that has been seen over the past 20 years will continue.
UA 811 was a pretty classic example of, not only poor design, but also of pretty poor management. As an aside, I've just discovered that one of my neighbours was on that flight...interesting tale.
QF32 was a single engine failure on a four engined aircraft. Whilst there's a bit of an industry around it now, and it was certainly a complex systems event, the reality is much more mundane than the myth.
Sample AFF with no advertisements? More..
