what if there’s a huge sea between land? e.g. from kiwiland to the states etc.
That one looks awfully familiar Mark… 
You are an inspiration my friend… 
**AIRBUS SUCKS
BOEING RUELS!! **
It was a joke - I didn’t expect anyone to take me seriously (nothing new in that, either, on this forum!)
thx, that was what i was after… 
haha… j/k… dunno about how the new 787 gonna do to Boeing… can make or break its reputation for reliability… carbon + FBW… + MIC parts… receipt for disaster i say…
was it? 
am i suppose to laugh at it? taking people seriously is a virtue 
So is it true what they say about the Sheep in New Zealand.
What was said about the Sheep in New Zealand? 
Aww man… I see another facepalm coming.
EDIT: Fixed it for you ak0793
But I still saw the humor flyboy…
what does it look like this time? 
Fielders choice our new S. hemisphere Flight Awarian…
I was about to enter a lengthy post with technical data, shoot holes into another posters comment about 737 still having the rudder actuator problem (shhh- don’t tell; they’ve been changed), but I’ll just agree.
BOEING ROCKS
& stir the S/%t - I like FBW just not French FBW. Airbus or Dassault’s.
With you in mind… Flying is dangerous, never do it, stay on your island. Please.
thx~ i’ll try to stay here as long as i can… just thought there must be a better way…
As the ole’ saying goes… If it ain’t a Boeing, we ain’t a going.
was reading wiki… some interesting data
“For the entire A320 family there have been 20 hull-loss Accidents with a total of 631 fatalities as of 15 January 2009”
and
“As of May 2009, the 767 has been in 40 incidents, including 11 hull-loss accidents, resulting in a total of 569 fatalities.”
so…
statistically, boeing are safer compare with airbus on this one…
It. Does. Not. Matter. No aircraft is safer than another. FBW does not matter. Traditional hydraulics does not matter. If an incident happens, it happens. One manufacturer’s aircraft having less incidents than another’s by no means indicates that one is safer than the other. There haven’t been any incidents with the E-Jets series. There hasn’t been an incident with the A380. does that mean that the Embraer is safer than Airbus? No.
if i could drive my car from here to USA i would… even if it takes 3 weeks! but its not possible, so we can only fly… so what’s the most economic way and safest way to travel?.. FBW or not FBW planes?
It. Does. Not. Matter. Put it this way. in 4 years time, the only non-FBW aircraft that will still be made will be the B737. Does that mean that everything Embraer, Airbus, Bombardier, Hawker, Sulkhoi, etc. makes, and what Boeing will be making not safe or economical?
Both get you there, and it doesn’t matter how the instruments/mechanics are made, as long as the pilot understands them, knows how to use them, and it gets you there.
how often is inflight break-up compare to FBW crashes?
Let’s see. In flight break up. AAL191, AAL587, TWA800, BOAC911, CAL611, and AFR447 are the only ones I can think of (though I’m sure there are others). Respectively, these are a DC10, A306, B741, B707, B742, and A330. Out of those six, only 1 is FBW. Do the math and stats there.
Like I said, no one is better than the other, and since FBW is the way things are going, it won’t matter with Airbus or Boeing, and the FBW/non-FBW war is going to be put down (thankfully!).
BL.
I would hope you would agree that an Airbus/Bombardier/Boeing/Embraer is safer than Ilyushin/Tupolev/Yakovlev.
Some aircraft are safer than others. A plane with two wings is safer than a plane with zero wings (at least, while in the air).
Don’t get me wrong, I do agree that some aircrafts are safer than others. But my point is that you can’t base the safety off of how many incidents there have been, because if there haven’t been any for a particular aircraft, that would mean that they are both the absolute safest AND the least safe of all aircraft. Like the song said, “nothin’ from nothin’ leaves nothin’.”
BL.