Whilst the debate about A320 safety has now disappeared again due to new evidence, I'd still thought I'd throw my hat into the ring.
Which is safer? Yes the A320 (like virtually all modern Airbus planes) is perhaps a little too dumbed down and designed so a unskilled person could fly it, and there are arguments that the computer has too much control and the pilot not enough, the fact remains that we're still talking about something where the odds of being involved in an incident are sitting around the same level of odds as getting a life changing lottery win. So unless 0.00001% chances are something that scare you then chances are no matter which manufacturer you chose to fly, you will be fine.
Whilst there are certainly first year students now flying for airlines which perhaps don't have the same safety culture as some other airlines, there is a reason why we typically hear about every major airliner crash involving loss of life. It's because it is such a rare event, and the odds of a plane having the same number of landings as takeoffs are so high that we hear of every event, especially if Australians are involved.
[rant]
Perhaps a better question should be directed towards the media when an event like this happens. Did the media report the event appropriately and without bias / sensationalism, and furthermore was the experts they spoke to actual experts or just those looking for their 15 minutes of fame?
I think the thing that annoys me the most about reporting of air incidents is the fact that they feel a single incident can be front page news for the next week, and they do it by rolling out unqualified person after unqualified person to give their opinion. I've lost count of the number of inaccuracies which are typically sprouted by such people, from battery life lengths on black boxes to basic details about how a plane flies being wrong (and countered by the 10 other experts interviewed in the next days edition whom state the previous article was full of ____).
What I would love is some guidelines given to the media on how to responsibly cover air accidents. Some basic training given so that when you have an expert telling you how a black box works you know that the battery life is required to be at least 1 month for certification purposes (and not 7 days as one MH370 article attempted to state). I'd love it if media companies where given lists of actual professionals in the fields, actual people with qualifications whom can either reassure the flying public that it's actually a really rare event (like hack did last week when they got an actual pilot on to speak with them) / qualified engineers whom can actually tell you about the various parts / actual air accident investigators whom actually have experience investigating incidents.
Of course all the time that they have wanna be's throwing themselves at the media, and all the time that they are not sued for sprouting misinformation (or the amount they are sued remains less than the advertising revenue brought in), and all the time they have people whom really don't care about accuracy, provided there is a decently sized death toll, they will continue turning out trash.
[/rant]
Sample AFF with no advertisements? More..
