I’d be interested in comments about this article on Dash 8 safety if anyone reads it:
I’d like to know what a “breading ground” is (page 3).
That’s where they make bread. duh. 
A good article, addressing all the salient points and essentially exonerating the Q400 (and the previous models as an aside).
A welcome change from the usual half-*ssed, hysterical media ‘in-depth’ 
articles.
I’ve probably flown in the back of DHC-8s more than any other type, must be close to a hundred times. Never a glitch, not one, although some are beginning to show their age. Unfortunately the only replacement for a DHC-8-100/300 on many routes is a DHC-8-100/300 and there aren’t any new ones.
I agree with the conclusion of the article that the Dash 8’s have an enviable safety record when compared to other aircraft.
For example:
**737 Classic **
of the 1998 produced 15 have been involved in fatal accidents
this corresponds to a rate of **1 out of every 133 aircraft **involved in fatal accidents
Dash 8 all series
of the **1018 **produced 4 have been involved in fatal accidents
this corresponds to a rate of **1 out of every 254 aircraft **involved in fatal accidents
Based on this data you could argue that the Dash 8’s are much safer than a 737 Classic despite the fact that it typically makes more take-offs and landings, is flown by less experienced crews (usually) and is flown with less automation and navigation aids.
(all above data from wikipedia)
Your data is flawed- you need to take in to account departures, showing fatal accidents per manufactured AC doesn’t a safe aircraft make…
Additionally, passenger fatalities measured in terms of per million passenger miles (kilometers) so you would need to determine how many passenger miles were flown by each aircraft first.
The data may not be perfect but it is not flawed.
Given the short haul nature of the Dash 8 my guess is the typical Dash 8 makes *more *departures in a given day than does the typical 737 Classic.
More departures but what about number of passenger miles flown?
Yes, this site seems to be a good “breading ground” for ideas! (thanks for the correction) Looks like some research into departures and passenger miles is in order. Unless I’m mistaken, isn’t the departure, and hopefully a corresponding arrival, the riskier part of a flight? So, 10 (safe) short hops, adding up to x miles would be a much greater accomplishment than 1 flight of the same length?
The 737 has been the safest aircraft ever built.
[quote=“damiross”]
Number of fatalities per passenger miles flown is another way to measure safety. It is not necessarily a more accurate way since it skews the data in favor of long haul aircraft that fly great distances but make relatively fewer take-off and landings. As we know most accidents occur on take-off or landing.
As with any set of statistics there are various ways to analyze them.
Typically airline safety is measured in accidents per passenger mile/kilometer/cubit, depending on where you live.
Aircraft type records are generally compared using accidents per hours flown.
Either one can be measured in other ways but those are the ones you see quoted most often.
The 737 has been the safest aircraft ever built.
I dont think so!
Airsafe maintains a list of Fatal Event Rates for Selected Airliner Models. According to their statistics the 5 safest types of airplanes are: Airbus A330, Airbus A340, Boeing 777, Boeing 717, and Boeing 737 (600-900 series). No turboprops are included in the list.
The Aviation Safety Network has one of the most comprehensive databases of aircraft safety statistics available on the web. In terms of turboprops, and according to their statistics (I’m using aircraft that first came into service after 1980), the safest turboprop aircraft, with the lowest number of fatalities are: Antonov 38 (first flight 1994 - O fatalities), SAAB 2000 (first flight 1992 - O fatalities), Sukhoi Su-80 (first flight 2001 - O fatalities), Let 610 (first flight 1988 - O fatalities). This list does not take into consideration the numbers of miles flown, simply fatalities.
737 (600-900) 5th place.
It sounds like the SAAB 2000 is not bad…
Other than emotion and perhaps some chauvinism, on what do you base that assertion ?
Not that I necessarily disagree. Yet.
I would think so. Seems like landings break airplanes more often then any other phase of flight.
That info was several years ago I don’t have a source to quote but it was based off the amount of departures the 737 has per day and seat miles flown.
When Airbus has an AC that hasn’t randomly kill several hundred people do to an engineering flaw, that gets corrected AFTER the fact then, and only then you can include them in this conversation
Good grief, calm down lad 
Unless you have some inside information the rest of the world doesn’t know about, the Air France A330 accident is still unsolved.
As for the A340, according to ASN (and they should know):
Airbus A340 Statistics
Hull-loss Accidents: 2 with a total of 0 fatalities
Other occurrences (hull-loss): 2 with a total of 0 fatalities
Unfiled occurrences (hull-loss): 0 with a total of 0 fatalities
Criminal occurences (hull-loss, excl. hijackings): 1 with a total of 0 fatalities
Hijackings: 1 with a total of 0 fatalities
See all those zeroes ?
And surely a Boeing Booster should know that the 777 is also fatality-free so far. If you can’t discuss something reasonably, why bother ?
One can find various sites giving safety tables, but they don’t all use the same method of calculation. I don’t think anyone has yet determined what the optimum method should be, which is why there are varying opinions usually based on “I remember reading…”; and “years ago” obviously isn’t good enough .
FWIW here’s just one example of such a table:
airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm
Good grief, calm down lad Mad
It goes farther then Air France my friend… But we’ll leave it at that