10

Is there an airplane that never crashed?

Or more specifically, without any crash history on any database. By crash, let's say any accident / incident which resulted in damage to the airplane and/or injuries to the people on board.

Not including military airplanes, only commercial or general aviation aircraft. Obviously I'm asking about a plane that had multiple flights and maybe is even still flying, not an experimental built that only flew a few times.

Peter Mortensen
  • 524
  • 3
  • 8
Jimy
  • 2,152
  • 5
  • 19
  • 32
  • 4
    There definitely are, mostly planes with a small user base and of recent introduction. I.E. think of a newly introduced high end glider (fully certified, GA) with only a few produced . It may take a while before someone has a bad landing in it but I do not think this would be a satisfactory answer. You may want to be more precise in you question, adding e.g minimum number of aircraft built, definition of crash (hull loss? fatal?), if in commercial use, years of service, etc – Caterpillaraoz Jan 18 '18 at 11:28
  • 5
    Perhaps some clarification is needed for the purpose of the topic. What would mean "crash" ? Hull loss, belly landing, plane skidding off the runway etc. ? – Pierre Chevallier Jan 18 '18 at 11:31
  • 3
    This website list 5 aircraft types that have never had a fatal accident (Aibus A340, A380, Boeing 717, 747-8, 787) http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm. – Penguin Jan 18 '18 at 11:56
  • 1
    Here's a very recent report that quotes 10 aircraft that have never had a fatal accident (in addition to the above, Bombardier C series, CRJ regional jet, Boeing 737 MAX, and Airbus A350, A320 neo): https://www.pressreader.com/australia/the-west-australian/20180104/281732679869583 You would have to take this list and find which/if any had never had any non fatal event. – Penguin Jan 18 '18 at 12:14
  • 2
    A full answer to this is going to be a very, very long list and one that is constantly changing. Airliners crash so rarely that new types often go well more than a decade with nothing that I would consider to be a 'crash.' The 777 went 13 years before its first crash and nearly 2 decades before its first fatal one, despite probably having the 2nd most number of total flight hours for a widebody behind only the 747 by that point. Additionally, the GA fleet has a lot of types that don't have a lot of frames. However, I would expect all GA types with lots of flight hours to have had crashes. – reirab Jan 18 '18 at 15:57
  • 1
    @Penguin If we're treating separate generations as their own aircraft, the 2nd gen 777 would also be on the list (-300ER and -200LR.) All 3 of the fatal accidents (and the 1 non-fatal one) have been on the 1st gen (-200ER.) And, of course, the 3rd gen 777 (777X) will soon join the list. – reirab Jan 18 '18 at 16:05
  • @reirab. I was just quoting the aircraft types listed at those websites, to save you the trouble of having to read them, but exactly the same thought crossed my mind that you state in your comment! It's perhaps not a fair / consistent classification of aircraft "type". Cheers. (PS. That list of 10 was put together by Boeing). – Penguin Jan 18 '18 at 17:13
  • "By crash, lets say any accident / incident which resulted in damage to the airplane and/or injuries to the people on board." -- that is an extremely broad definition of crash. There are plenty of incidents that cause severe damage to the aircraft but still end with a relatively normal landing and passengers able to walk away from the plane. – Peter Green Jan 18 '18 at 17:35
  • And the 777 hull losses didn't have anything to do with the airplane. It has a perfect record if you set aside things that are totally not Boeing's fault. – Harper - Reinstate Monica Jan 18 '18 at 22:42
  • What if two passengers get in a fist fight? That's definitely an incident and results in injury. Do terrorist attacks count? – Jörg W Mittag Jan 18 '18 at 23:05
  • @JörgWMittag and clear air turbulence, where the plane drops 10,000 feet and people not wearing seat belts break all sorts of bones. – RonJohn Jan 19 '18 at 06:24
  • 1
    @reirab. Why is the question too broad?? If anything, it's too narrow. The definition of "crash" is quite inclusive, and so the number of types that haven't "crashed" is actually very limited. It's certainly not a long long list that is constantly changing. It's a list of 5 aircraft, but is really 3 aircraft because 2 of them really aren't sufficiently different from other versions that have crashed. And if the question is too broad, how come it has been answered, and upvoted? Can you please unlock this question. I would like to add additional information. Regards. – Penguin Jan 19 '18 at 07:47
  • @Penguin The question asks about all commercial and general aviation aircraft, not just the airliners that have been discussed, so far. That's a lot of types. And it will be constantly changing as new types are created and existing ones have their first 'crashes.' SE questions are just not a good format to maintain such lists, which is why list questions are typically closed across the network. Also, even if this question had a static answer, it would really need to use one of the formally accepted definitions in order to get accurate data, rather than just "damaged the aircraft." – reirab Jan 19 '18 at 08:21
  • @Penguin Also, note the couple of comments above yours, which point out some of the ambiguities in the definition used here that would make it really hard to find reliable and complete data, let alone for every commercial and GA type ever made. Also, note the first couple of comments, which raise similar concerns. – reirab Jan 19 '18 at 08:23
  • @Penguin It's not that the question is necessary 'bad' or that the question or its answers are uninteresting; it's just that SE's format isn't really a good fit for this sort of question. A Wikipedia list would probably be a better fit, but a more formal definition (for which data is available) would need to be specified. – reirab Jan 19 '18 at 08:31
  • 1
    @reirab. OK, thanks for taking the time to give such a comprehensive reply. The decision does make more sense now, though the crux of the issue IMHO is the inclusion of "general aviation aircraft", as while I initially thought it was very hard to answer, for commercial airliners the Aviation Safety Network website actually has the necessary data in a pretty quick/easy to find format, and new commercial aircraft aren't introduced very often, or crash often(though incidents are more common), so that list is more static. It's just a pity, it looks a reasonably popular question. Regards – Penguin Jan 19 '18 at 11:41
  • @Penguin If the OP wants to reduce the scope to airliners and specify an incident scope that's a little more specific and easier to find comprehensive data on (say, hull losses or passenger deaths,) then perhaps this could be reopened. A mere bird strike would meet the current definition of 'causes damage,' but those happen daily. Answers would still suffer from becoming stale every now and then, but not nearly as often. Also, the existing information only seems to cover Western models and not, say, Soviet bloc or Chinese ones, though there should be information on those out there somewhere. – reirab Jan 19 '18 at 15:49

2 Answers2

21

As mentioned in this answer: there are seven commercial aircraft types with zero hull loss accidents:

  • B717
  • CRJ700, CRJ900, and CRJ1000
  • A380
  • B787
  • B747-8
  • A350
  • C-series
  • A320Neo

Only the first two types have logged more than 1 million departures. The remaining ones are relatively recent types and are still working on statistical significance; especially the long haul aircraft fleet takes a long time to accumulate 1 million departures at 1-2 flights per day per aircraft.

TomMcW
  • 28,459
  • 21
  • 106
  • 227
Koyovis
  • 61,680
  • 11
  • 169
  • 289
  • Hi @Koyovis. Just want to clarify - in the linked answer it says there are 6 types with zero accidents "working on their 1 million departure milestone". Here you state 2 have achieved that. Is there a source for actual number of departures (or best current estimate)? Also, has the A340 had a hull loss but not a fatal accident? I'm not sure I'd consider the A380 "new", some airframes are 10 years old. See http://www.airfleets.net/listing/a380-1.htm Regards. – Penguin Jan 18 '18 at 17:29
  • The A380 has been in commercial service for more than ten years -- I wouldn't call that "new". However, there aren't a huge number of them (about 220 in service, according to Wikipedia) and they fly long-haul routes so don't make many departures. – David Richerby Jan 18 '18 at 17:41
  • @Penguin Yes, the A340 has had 5 hull losses, but no fatal accidents (though one of them did result in 12 serious injuries and dozens of minor ones after a runway overrun.) 3 of the hull losses were during landings and the other 2 were on the ground (one destroyed by hostile actions, the other by failing to chock or brake the aircraft during an engine run-up test, resulting in a collision with a concrete wall.) – reirab Jan 18 '18 at 17:44
  • don't forget the 737MAX. If you count the 320NEO as a separate type, that one is as well :) – jwenting Jan 19 '18 at 06:55
  • Yes indeed, the graph predates first delivery of a MAX. – Koyovis Jan 19 '18 at 07:24
  • Hi @Penguin apologies, missed your comment. The only reference I could find is the Boeing document linked to in the other answer. Must be in the low millions I reckon, the 717 fleet is quite small. – Koyovis Jan 19 '18 at 14:31
  • Sadly, the B737 MAX had to be removed from the list due to JT610. – TomMcW Jan 04 '19 at 05:12
10

A comprehensive answer to your question would be very difficult. The Honda Jet has never crashed. The Boeing 787 has never crashed. The A380 has never crashed, but both appear in safety databases based on incidents that have occurred: engine emergencies on the A380 and electrical fires on the 787.

Mark Jones Jr.
  • 1,710
  • 1
  • 12
  • 32
  • 2
    Which is quite reassuring, since it shows that the A380 can handle engine trouble safely, and an electrical fire on a 787 isn't fatal. – DrMcCleod Jan 18 '18 at 23:28