Tweet
Did some math and came up with there being a major incident approximately once every 30 days at the beginning of the last decade to once every 236 days today. Huge improvement!
-
moving quickly in air -
Don't tell the retired pilots. Thems were the good old days, you have to understand. -
So was riding my bicycle.Originally posted by Evan View PostLes règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.Comment
-
Shortest gap was 7 days between MH17 and AH5017, longest was 633 between MS804 and 6W703.moving quickly in airComment
-
-
47 years, 27000 hours accident and incident free. And yes, those were the good old days!Originally posted by Evan View PostComment
-
Mostly, if not entirely, these statistics are merely incidental. When you look into the things that cause most plane crashes, they could have happened yesterday or forty years ago. Pilot error. Lack of discipline. Flawed situational awareness. Does EICAS/ECAM make a plane safer than having a flight engineer? What good is CRM when the crew ignores it? Pilot quality? We also saw pilots ignoring instruments and flying into terrain in the 70’s. A lot of risk has been removed by technology and improved procedure but still most crashes occur for reasons where the technology has not changed so much: failures between the ears.Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
You had many hours and solid pilot discipline I assume. A KLM pilot with similar esteem decided to take a gamble and caused the worst aviation disaster in history. In the good old days. But he could have done the same thing this morning. He might have gotten away with it and retired with a stellar record.
I don’t place much meaning in these statistics.Comment
-
He decided to take a gamble?Originally posted by Evan View Post
And Van Zanten is similar to Boeing Bobby?
Ok, he decided to go to get out of bed that day and go to work.
Just like you decided not to ride a bicycle.
Indeed, there are usually safer choices that can be made.
Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.Comment
-
Not BoeingBobby but not a rookie either.Originally posted by 3WE View Post
Van Zanten:
PPL: 1947
CPL: 1950
ATPL: 1956
8 type ratings
11700 hours on March 27, 1977
(1545 on the 747)
Chief instructor pilot
Studious and introverted
Not a cowboy
Had a bad day. Go-minded. Made a fatal error of judgment. Human after all.
That seems to be how it happens. There but for the grace of god go so many others.
Comment
-
Particularly in the USA and Europe (and some other places too) scheduled pax jet airline flight safety is stupidly good.
Last fatal write off of such a flight in the USA was Comair Flight / Delta Connection 5191 taking off by mistake from a wrong and too short runway on August 27, 2006
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---Comment
-
Fixed.Originally posted by Evan View Post
But thanks for rephrasing it away from it being a bold, aggressive, thought-out DECISION.
It was also before we addressed the amazing subtleties of CRM interactions and psychology…
…and a creepy double radio transmission Swiss cheese layer.
Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.Comment
-
Okay. When was the last POTENTIALLY fatal 'write off' of such a flight that was saved by stupidly good luck? I can think of a few recent ones.Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
These stats involve a random element of good or bad fortune, therefore, they don't mean that much.
Comment
-
Today, a minute ago. Any airplane could have been hit by a micrometeorite and it was sheer luck that it wasn't.Originally posted by Evan View Post
So you think we had a streak of random good luck in the last 17 years and Billions of flights in a row? Maybe.These stats involve a random element of good or bad fortune, therefore, they don't mean that much.
I thought that airline safety was actually improving and getting ridiculously good in this part of the world. But hey, that's just me.
In the meantime, please enjoy this pertinent reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers.
And when you have time, please tell me how many such a flight was saved by stupidly good luck in the 17 years previous to 2006.
And I am not even mentioning that the number of flights almost quadrupled in the last 17 years compared with the previous 17 years.
I know that this is very depressing news for you, but aviation safety here is massively better than ever and has been becoming better and better continuously over the decades and will continue to do so.
In other words, "they don't mean that much" my arse.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---Comment
-
-
I’m not denying that it has gotten safer. No argument there. I’m just pointing out that many fatal accidents were caused by things that have not been removed by technology and procedure. Tenerife occurred because of poor visibility. Remove that factor and it would not have occurred. We have certainly seen our share of runway incursions, wrong runway and even taxiway approaches, all thwarted by last minute recognition in good visibility or simply stupid luck. Pilots are still making potentially fatal errors, disregarding procedures and taking gambles. Not nearly as many, I assume, but all it takes is one or two to throw off those stats. All it takes is one to crash your next flight. Therefore, I don’t see a significant value in these statistical findings. I place my faith in the Swiss cheese layer of good fortune and the rarity of all the holes lining up.
Comment
Comment