Airbus 380 is unsafe

[x9200]

Here's some more scientific data on aircraft safety by model:

http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm

It's worth close to nothing. I.e. Concorde has the highest score of all and what happened had hardly anything to do with the machine or even its maintenance.

To make any sense out of this some more data would be needed, at least the cause of the accidents: wrong maintenance / human independent intrinsic design flow / human dependent design flow.

[Mi Amigo]

Valid points. The 'rate' is per million flights. Concorde only had around 90,000 flights and one accident, hence the rate is very high. But up until the Air France crash, most people considered it to be a safe aircraft, certainly when you took its performance into account. The TU-144 was different kettle of fish though.

BTW, clicking on any of the aircraft in the table brings up a list of the fatal events for that model, with more of the details you mentioned. That certainly helps put the numbers in context.

[x9200]

Oops, missed this one but it further proves my objections if the fatal events like this:

27 June 1976; Air France A300; Entebbe, Uganda: Aircraft was hijacked and all aboard taken hostage. Some passengers were released shortly after the hijacking and the remainder were taken to Entebbe, Uganda. The remaining hostages were eventually rescued in a commando raid. About seven of the 258 passengers were killed.

are counted in to be used to estimate the aircraft's safety record.

[Mi Amigo]

Yeah, that's why they are careful to use the phrase 'fatal events', but it can certainly skew the data.

Here's a bizarre (and sad) one:

4 January 1998; Olympic Airways 747; over Atlantic Ocean:
Prior to the flight from Athens to New York, a passenger who had asthma and a history of sensitivity to secondhand smoke requested seating in the non-smoking area of the aircraft. Once onboard, the passenger's family discovered that their assigned seats were three rows ahead of the economy class smoking section. This smoking section was not partitioned off from the non-smoking section. Prior to takeoff and during the flight, one of the passenger's family members made three requests of the cabin crew to switch seats, but the cabin crew did not arrange for a switch into one of the 11 available unoccupied seats on the aircraft. Several hours into the flight, the passenger suffered a reaction to the ambient smoke and died.

A U.S. District Court determined that exposure to ambient second-hand smoke was the primary cause of the passenger's death. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a decision made on 24 February 2004 (case 02-1348), held that this event constituted an accident under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention, an international treaty that among other things defines an accident as something that is an unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger.”

[nutnut]

My flying phobia seems to have started more since I travel more, I tend to be ok during flight, just a bit edgy during take off and landing....

Anyway, trying to be rational about these things are sometimes difficult, I understand what you say though! I don't worry about flying until the plane starts to lift from the ground and then again when they start descent!

IOP. If a taxi driver (which basically is a commercial car pilot) told you they thought the new Nissan March (for instance) hadn't been tested enough and it wasn't as safe, would this change your opinion of the March? Would you insist on being driven in a Sonata or Crown only?

just interested.

[Strong Eagle]

My flying phobia seems to have started more since I travel more, I tend to be ok during flight, just a bit edgy during take off and landing....

Anyway, trying to be rational about these things are sometimes difficult, I understand what you say though! I don't worry about flying until the plane starts to lift from the ground and then again when they start descent!

IOP. If a taxi driver (which basically is a commercial car pilot) told you they thought the new Nissan March (for instance) hadn't been tested enough and it wasn't as safe, would this change your opinion of the March? Would you insist on being driven in a Sonata or Crown only?

just interested.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... sastercom/

[nutnut]

Cheers SE, by the looks of the URL I was unsure of how helpful it would be, but looks like it could be good

[Mi Amigo]

That looks like a good book. I think most of us experience at least a tiny amount of anxiety from time to time during take-off and landing; it's only human nature. But I usually think about how much more 'interesting' it must have been during WW2 when the air force crews were being shot at. Which reminds me of one of my favourite air traffic control stories - you may well have already heard it, and I still don't know whether it really happened, but I like it anyway...

Allegedly the German air controllers at Frankfurt Airport are renowned as a short-tempered lot. They, it is alleged, not only expect one to know one's gate parking location, but how to get there without any assistance from them. So it was with some amusement that we (a Pan Am 747) listened to the following exchange between Frankfurt ground control and a British Airways 747, call sign Speedbird 206. Speedbird 206: "Frankfurt, Speedbird 206 clear of active runway." Ground: "Speedbird 206. Taxi to gate Alpha One-Seven." The BA 747 pulled onto the main taxiway and slowed to a stop. Ground: "Speedbird, do you not know where you are going?" Speedbird 206: "Stand by, Ground, I'm looking up our gate location now." Ground (with quite arrogant impatience): "Speedbird 206, have you not been to Frankfurt before?" Speedbird 206 (coolly): "Yes, twice in 1944, but it was dark,...... and I didn't land."

Taken from Air Traffic Controller Talk

[x9200]

IOP. If a taxi driver (which basically is a commercial car pilot) told you they thought the new Nissan March (for instance) hadn't been tested enough and it wasn't as safe, would this change your opinion of the March? Would you insist on being driven in a Sonata or Crown only?

just interested.

Good analogy and we should not stop here with this one. As the land transportation has much worse safety record comparing to the air travel I am also wondering if IOP also asks on different forums about the safety of different cab and buse companies and the car manufacturers.

[Mi Amigo]

Interesting graphic: The Odds of Dying from...

Watch out for those hornets, wasps, and bees. And dogs.

[nutnut]

Interesting graphic: The Odds of Dying from...

Watch out for those hornets, wasps, and bees. And dogs.

To me that means you have to be in 7,178 air or space transport incidents before you are guaranteed to be dead? :S

[Strong Eagle]

Interesting graphic: The Odds of Dying from...

Watch out for those hornets, wasps, and bees. And dogs.

To me that means you have to be in 7,178 air or space transport incidents before you are guaranteed to be dead? :S

On average, that would be correct. It's like flipping a coin. On average, you'll get a head 50 percent of the time but that does not mean you will not get 10 heads in a row. In reality, you could fly 30,000 times, or the flight you take tomorrow morning will be "the one"

I have a sister in law who also has a fear of flying. She thinks the wings could come off. This is nearly impossible. If you want to relax yourself... somewhat, anyway... do read some of the air disasters at the air disaster website. You'll learn that problems are far and few between, and that circumstances have to be very unusual for all the safety factors to fail.

I've been in an airplane that landed so hard all the oxygen masks deployed when we hit the ground. I've been in turbulence so heavy that drinks raised three feet off the tray table and people were screaming and crying... truly amazing. And yet, all was good... and safe.

The best attitude is a fatalist attitude. If today is your day to go, then so be it... and it doesn't matter if it's an airplane or a rabid dog that rips your heart out.

I love airplanes. I'd like to bring the Wright brothers forward in time to see what their first flights have brought... unbelievably sophisticated machines.

[sundaymorningstaple]

I love airplanes. I'd like to bring the Wright brothers forward in time to see what their first flights have brought... unbelievably sophisticated machines.

That's because SE was there with the Wright Brothers on that maiden flight at Kitty Hawk.

[x9200]

If you want to relax yourself... somewhat, anyway... do read some of the air disasters at the air disaster website. You'll learn that problems are far and few between, and that circumstances have to be very unusual for all the safety factors to fail.

Or in other words this is NEVER a single factor event. It always take a few, 3-5 mistakes to be made one by one or simultaneously to lead to a serious accident. What makes people afraid of flying despite of all the safety data is inevitability of death if anything more serious happens. This triggers imagination but thean again, riding motorbike is not here that different

[the lynx]

The probability of that happening is way lower than having substandard breast implant exploding during take off (due to change in atmospheric pressure), considering that there are more women looking for cheap boob jobs compared to airlines flouting safety aircraft regulations.

http://www.fruzeo.com/video/207875/breast-expansion

This is from "1001 Ways To Die" series.

Warning: Will make you throw up.