~6600 737s "As of May 2010, a total of 303 incidents involving 737s had occurred, including 148 hull-loss accidents resulting in a total of 4,097 fatalities."~6900 A320s "For the entire A320 family there have been 17 hull-loss accidents with a total of 795 fatalities as of July 2010."Quotes from wikipedia. Yeah, you go and fly on those safe Boeings lol

Well, sure, but of course the first flight of the Airbus A320 was in 1988, whilst the 737's been in the air since 1967 :( When you consider the advancements that have been made in everything from things like weather alerting, radar, and TCAS, to aircraft manufacturing and even seat design, flying in the 1960s and 70s is a world of difference from flying in the 1990s and later in terms of safety :(

Another thing to look at is how often do 737's fly compared to A320's? If 737's are in the air more, I would imagine that would skew the results. And a good thing to look up is when did all those 737 accidents happen? Early in its service or later? To be honest, personally I prefer the MD-11 and MD-95 (or Boeing 717 as it's actually called).

But - wanna know what plane i'm sorta impressed with now?The CRJ-700 :( Hit by an A380, spun violently 90 degrees, yet stayed in one piece without any serious injuries!

I agree very much! If someone had asked me what would happen if an A380's wing clipped the tail of a CRJ, I'd say either the tail would snap off or part of the wing tip or both. I would never have imagined a CRJ getting tossed like a toy. They really know how to build tail sections at Bombardier don't they!

And a good thing to look up is when did all those 737 accidents happen?

Ryan,Yes, simple quotes from Wikipedia don't help if there is no perspective ...or can even be plain wrong. For example I believe some of the "production" figures quoted above (for the A330) are in fact orders...

They really know how to build tail sections at Bombardier don't they!

Of course it all depends on where the contact was made. A few inches can make a lot of difference. But yes they do build strong tails. Although, as you know, any aircraft with a T tail must have an even stronger tail attachment than others due to the very position of the horizontal tail (while of course ANY aircraft's tail needs to be strong anyway). In any case, it must have been quite a jolt for people on board ! It's amazing that nobody got hurt.Having said that, and in reference to some of the other comments above, beeing French won't prevent me from saying that - on the video at least - the 380 looked awfully fast (and as Tom said above, it is the taxiing pilot's responsability to make sure he/she is clear of obstacles). For the rest, we'll have to wait for the conclusions of the accident board.Bruno

Is it my eyes, or was that CRJ positioned with its tail sticking out a lot? Could it be that the CRJ had turned towards Terminal 2 for parking, got delayed, and was left with its empennage sticking out further than would normally be the case?The Taxiways A and B and the ramps are very close to each other at JFK if I remember correctly. Of course, even if that were the case that the empennage was obstructing Taxiway A's wing overlap space, the A380 should have stopped until the CRJ had cleared the taxiway completely.Again, only speculation... the ASDE-X data with all other information will clear it up no doubt...Andrew

Is it my eyes, or was that CRJ positioned with its tail sticking out a lot?

I had heard that there was a truck blocking the taxiway and the CRJ had to stop for a moment till it passed. But also keep in mind the Taxiway the A380 was on is 75ft wide. It's wingspan is over 250ft. Either or both circumstances could've contributed to this.

In any case, it must have been quite a jolt for people on board ! It's amazing that nobody got hurt.

No doubt that the passengers had their seat belts on at the time. All the more reason to listen to the flight attendants when they warn passengers to not remove their seat belts until the captain gives the all clear at the gate. I was on a flight last year where you can hear a few passengers unbuckle the belts the minute the aircraft exits the runway for the active taxiway, which results in a terse warning from the FA's, scolding them like the children that they are behaving like.

I find it hard to believe that the 380 was taxiing any slower than 20 kts. That thing was moving! Have you ever seen a 747 taxi? Because of it's sheer size it LOOKS like it's taxiing at 1 knot! But in fact it probably is taxiing at 10 - 15 kts. So if that airbus LOOKED like it was taxiing at 15 knots, it probably was way faster. As for blame? I gpcan almost guarantee Air France will put the blame on someone else. They always do. They never take fault. Look at the A340 overrun in CYYZ. They tried to blame the Toronto Airport Authority for a poorly designed layout. And I am the last fan of the Toronto Airport Authority but I can even say they aren't to blame on that one. Touching a 340 half way down the runway in pouring rain is never a good idea. It was 100% pilot error on that one but once again AF tried to pawn the blame on someone else.JackColwill

So if that airbus LOOKED like it was taxiing at 15 knots, it probably was way faster.

When you take distance from the nose to the tip of the wing, the time it travelled on the video, and the fact that the same video was accelerated "look at the car and the ground crew" the speed was more like 12-14 Kts.But since, it's just speculation, we all have to wait for the official reportBen

When you take distance from the nose to the tip of the wing, the time it travelled on the video, and the fact that the same video was accelerated "look at the car and the ground crew" the speed was more like 12-14 Kts.But since, it's just speculation, we all have to wait for the official reportBen

Precisely Ben. But in nobody's calculation did they take a depth factor into account.. The nose and tip of the wing are separated by quite a bit depth wise. But just from experience that does not lookat all like 12 kts.JackColwill

But in nobody's calculation did they take a depth factor into account.. The nose and tip of the wing are separated by quite a bit depth wise.

Here it's what I took "in red" to calculate the speed :Body -------------------------**************\***************\Wing**********\********* *******\*********** ******\And I was even thinking about the perspective, and at 300 meters my 14-24 at 14 couldn't change anything.BenPS : Sorry for the star, I cannot use useless spaces here.

Speaking of A320 and B737 - 1988 vs. 1968...And in case you've forgotten here is the first air show of A320:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EM0hDchVlYSpeaking of Air France - hm... yet again.. Seriously considering not to fly this airline ever.....

Speaking of A320 and B737 - 1988 vs. 1968...And in case you've forgotten here is the first air show of A320:Speaking of Air France - hm... yet again.. Seriously considering not to fly this airline ever.....

Making a youtube video of a crash that cost life with party music is just pathetic. and posting it, even more. :Hmmmph:Ben

haha I wish that that was FSX... But unfortunately if it was it would probably look something more like this:

this made me laugh. :-)

this made me laugh. :-)

- What's funny about a CRJ crash that could kill people ?- What's funny about a full tank of fuel spreading 200 metres away ?- What about, the Airbus crash on the the atlantic, funny for you ?- Did the multiples 737 rudder crashes made me laugh, no Ben

- What's funny about a CRJ crash that could kill people ?- What's funny about a full tank of fuel spreading 200 metres away ?- What about, the Airbus crash on the the atlantic, funny for you ?- Did the multiples 737 rudder crashes made me laugh, no Ben

He was laughing at the FSX referenced joke, not the accident itself.

- What's funny about a CRJ crash that could kill people ?- What's funny about a full tank of fuel spreading 200 metres away ?- What about, the Airbus crash on the the atlantic, funny for you ?- Did the multiples 737 rudder crashes made me laugh, no Ben

Yeh, I don't quiet think you got the message there...