paullevi,

For the purposes of this discussion ("Should I fly an A300 since I'm worried it may not be safe"), my definition of "Hull Loss" is lifted directly from the Boeing paper: Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents Worldwide Operations 1959 – 2000

Here's what they say:

Hull loss: Airplane damage that is substantial and is beyond economic repair. Hull loss also includes events in which:

• Airplane is missing.
• Search for the wreckage has been terminated without it being located.
• Airplane is substantially damaged and inaccessible.

Boeing says: "These definitions are consistent with those of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)."

I think you are confusing "Hull Loss" with "Substantial Damage" which Boeing describes as: "Damage or structural failure that adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the airplane and would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component. Substantial damage is not considered to be:

• Engine failure or damage limited to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged.
• Bent aerodynamic fairings.
• Dents in the skin.
• Damage to landing gear.
• Damage to wheels.
• Damage to tires.
• Damage to flaps."

So the TransAT flight is considered by Boeing to be "not relevent/not reportable" for their statistics (or this discussion), since the damage did not "adversely affect the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the airplane."

I'm sure the TransAT Pax and Crew thought it was a bigger deal than Boeing does.


[This message has been edited by skofarrell (edited 11-16-2001).]