It has been 20 years since the last unsurvivable accident of a US domestic passenger jet airline flight
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Critter 592
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by orangehuggy View PostIt has been 20 years since the last unsurvivable accident of a US domestic passenger jet airline flight
Remove "unsurvivable" and you have a few that were still fatal.
Broaden "accident" to include wrongdoing and you have a few.
Remove "domestic" and you have a few.
Remove "passenger" and you have a few.
Remove "jet" and you have a few.
Remove "airline" and you have a few.
There were a couple that were very close to meet the definition. The Alaska with the stabilizer issue (but it departed from Mexico, so it was not domestic) and the Comair in Lexington where all the passengers died, but the copilot survived. I would question where one survivor, that survived more due to luck than because the accident was not serious enough, and that barely survived first, spending months in hospital, and getting severe permanent injuries and disabilities, qualifies as "survivable".
Yet... that is really very impressive.
How many US domestic passenger jet airline flights there were in the same 20 years?
--- 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
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostI would question where one survivor, that survived more due to luck than because the accident was not serious enough, and that barely survived first, spending months in hospital, and getting severe permanent injuries and disabilities, qualifies as "survivable".
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostJapan Airlines Flight 123, which lost its vertical stabilizer due to flawed bulkhead repair and crashed into a mountain, was "survivable". That doesn't make me feel any safer...
--- 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
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostExactly, or Northwest DC-9-82 at Detroit (flapless take off). Although both these accidents happened more than 20 years ago.
Comment
-
something..
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostExactly, or Northwest DC-9-82 at Detroit (flapless take off). Although both these accidents happened more than 20 years ago.Imho, not many jp members are able to tell what was on the TV news more than 20 years ago.
I have another one. I was born at that time, but when it happened, as far as I remember, I was not in front of a TV...
AA 191
Survivable (in the sense of avoidable), if there was not something..
It's in the article. Or in German TV, sometimes. It is similar to what Evan said.
Where were you when that happened, Gabriel?The German long haul is alive, 65 years and still kicking.
The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
This is Lohausen International airport speaking, echo delta delta lima.
Comment
-
Originally posted by LH-B744 View PostIs this a meeting of the seniors?Imho, not many jp members are able to tell what was on the TV news more than 20 years ago.
I have another one. I was born at that time, but when it happened, as far as I remember, I was not in front of a TV...
AA 191
Survivable (in the sense of avoidable), if there was not something..
It's in the article. Or in German TV, sometimes. It is similar to what Evan said.
Where were you when that happened, Gabriel?
And what on Earth do you mean survivable?
Avoidable? Of course. By definition, an accident is avoidable. If not, it is a natural disaster.
But survivable????
--- 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
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostCelebrating the anniversary of the independence of Argentina in 3rd grade.
And what on Earth do you mean survivable?
Avoidable? Of course. By definition, an accident is avoidable. If not, it is a natural disaster.
But survivable????
4U 9525.
Now. Was it an accident? Was it survivable? Was it avoidable? Especially for this idiotic flight number I don't have a scientific approach, or something that a scientist would call a definition!!
The two of us, we have one difficulty. The aviation language No1 is only a tool, we were neither born nor raised in it.
In my eyes, accidents can be survivable (seahawk, can you help us? survivable auf deutsch meint eigentlich "nicht tödlich", ganz anders als das Verb "to survive"... ...!)
[let me take out my dictionaries: survivable not necessarily is the adjective of the verb "to survive"]
Hm. "What on Earth..." . Now, I agree with you, Gabriel. We all know, I am an oldschool guy. I read books that are written on paper.
The Cobuild English Learner's Dictionary (1994, approx 1200 pages) does NOT know the word
survivable.
So, let me explain what I understand. Evan mentioned Japan Airlines Flight 123:
509 (!) passengers + 15 crew members in a Boeing 741, and not every airline has used the 747 for what it was invented: the longhaul.
520 humans died, back then in 1985.
So let's count. It was survivable. 1 human (or more) survived. Was it that tiny detail what Evan tried to explain?
Survivable = more than zero survivors?
That's a very optimistic perspective, but, ok. If that is the translation, AA 191 and 4U 9525 do not belong here. In both cases, all passengers and all crew members died.
But AA 191 could have been avoided, in contrast to 4U 9525.
Since we again discuss Aviation Safety, after 03-24-2016, I have a horrible question in my mind. Have I ever read a sentence that was written by Lubitz here in this forum?
Was he part of the aviation network in the internet?!
If yes, were we too busy, did nobody pay attention to that - in doubt - only 1 little message?!
Back on topic. There again is that word: "un-survivable".
survivable = more than zero survivors
is the counterpart of
un-survivable = zero survivors? Let me take it like this, and I add this to the CELD 1994 (Cobuild English Learner's ..).
So, after all we also talk about aviation history. After Lubitz, unsurvivable accidents are not my favourite topic. I don't know an incident with a German airline in 2014 or before that should be called "unsurvivable". Not since I am born, or since I am an aviation enthusiast.
There is a reason why I've chosen this nickname. No incidents, as long as there are LH-B744 in the air! Thus, I totally understand the expression in the face of Mr Carsten Spohr when he was confronted with 4U 9525. Probably, I had the same expression in my face, something like "that is unreal. That does not happen with a German airline.".
2015 I sat in front of the TV. And 1979? "laying in a manger..", as it is written in a very famous book. Sometimes you survive because you are not on board an aircraft.
But I can agree with orangehuggy. Since more than 20 years, LH is safe.The German long haul is alive, 65 years and still kicking.
The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
This is Lohausen International airport speaking, echo delta delta lima.
Comment
-
The discussion is a little bit cruel, not only after, but also with 03-24-2015 in mind.
If you look at en wiki, then the category is the same, orangehuggy started with flight # 592, I added #9525.
For how less $ (or Euros) do people try to buy a safe flight? 39 US-$, one way, for two jet pilots, plus 3 flight attendants?! And who pays the fuel?
Although we'll never know what went wrong in the F/Os head, my answer is crystal-clear. Safety is not cheap, not as cheap as 39 US-cent, or dollars.
Since more than 20 years, I don't need underpaid, unsatisfied jet pilots. That's what my nickname stands for: not cheap.The German long haul is alive, 65 years and still kicking.
The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
This is Lohausen International airport speaking, echo delta delta lima.
Comment
-
Originally posted by LH-B744 View PostThe discussion is a little bit cruel, not only after, but also with 03-24-2015 in mind.
If you look at en wiki, then the category is the same, orangehuggy started with flight # 592, I added #9525.
For how less $ (or Euros) do people try to buy a safe flight? 39 US-$, one way, for two jet pilots, plus 3 flight attendants?! And who pays the fuel?
Although we'll never know what went wrong in the F/Os head, my answer is crystal-clear. Safety is not cheap, not as cheap as 39 US-cent, or dollars.
Since more than 20 years, I don't need underpaid, unsatisfied jet pilots. That's what my nickname stands for: not cheap.
What??? Are you on drugs or something?
Comment
-
Originally posted by LH-B744 View PostThe discussion is a little bit cruel, not only after, but also with 03-24-2015 in mind.
If you look at en wiki, then the category is the same, orangehuggy started with flight # 592, I added #9525.
For how less $ (or Euros) do people try to buy a safe flight? 39 US-$, one way, for two jet pilots, plus 3 flight attendants?! And who pays the fuel?
Although we'll never know what went wrong in the F/Os head, my answer is crystal-clear. Safety is not cheap, not as cheap as 39 US-cent, or dollars.
Since more than 20 years, I don't need underpaid, unsatisfied jet pilots. That's what my nickname stands for: not cheap.
I applaud your efforts to foster a healthy discussion, but most of your posts make no sense.
Comment
-
My definition of survivable (in the context of airplane accidents), that clearly doesn't match orangehuggy's:
Said of an accident where the conditions during the accident and immediately after, both inside the plane and in its immediate surroundings, are compatible with life and escape, and hence it can be reasonably expected that at least some persons may survive.
That doesn't mean that one or more persons will survive a survivable accident, or that no person can survive a non-survivable accident.
Everybody can die during a survivable accident due to failing to escape, the crew not opening the doors, etc... I remember (vaguely) a case of a plane that had a cabin fire and the plane landed with the pax banging on the cockpit door because they were burning and suffocating with the heat and smoke. After landing, instead of stopping immediately and commencing an evacuation, the pilots kept taxiing. By when they stopped many (don't remember if all) were dead. That would be an example persons that were expected to survive but died.
As a counter-example, the Northwest accident at Detroit, where a DC-9-82 took off without flaps, could barely climb, hit a light post with one of the wings, loss control, crashed, shattered in many pieces and exploded, was not survivable (not only for me: the NTSB also classified it that way), although one little girl survived just by an immense dose of good luck (and bad luck at the same time: she lost all her family). The same can be said of the JAL airline 747 that lost the tail and all hydraulic systems and crashed into a mountain. A few persons survived just by chance, I don't consider this accident survivable.
In the same way, AA 191 and 4U 9525 were not survivable, and I would still consider them not survivable if a couple of souls would have survived them by sheer luck.
Now, 4U 9525 was definitely not survivable, but it is much more complicated to me to say if it was an accident or a crime.
If the FO understood the nature and consequences of his acts, including that he was killing a lot of persons besides himself and that they very likely didn't want that, then I would't call it an accident, in the same way than 9/11 is not an accident. The act in which one achieves the intended result is not an accident.
On the other hand, if this pilot was so perturbed that he was incapable of understanding all that, or incapable of feelings, then it is an accident in the same way than a small boy setting the house in fire by doing something that would be criminal negligence minimum for an adult, but that a small boy cannot comprehend, or a mad dog killing a person.
--- 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
Comment