Jump to content

Talk:Aviation safety/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

I added VOR route navigation, to that section, and provided both internal and external links.

--EditorASC 02:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Engine Failure

I revised the part on the Gimli Glider. Much of the wording was taken word-for-word from other websites, without attribution. Also, the phrase "electro-hydraulic system" was fantasy nomenclature, to put it mildly. There is no such system on the 767, or any other airliner, that I know of.

--EditorASC 07:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Stalling

The following has been removed from the Stalling section – seems original research to me.

Stalling the engine of an aircraft (i.e. causing it to stop working), although a rare problem, is thought to have been the reason for the 1973 crash of the Tupolev Tu-144 "Konkordski".

Please substantiate if willing to re-merge. BACbKA 20:15, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Fortunately, the fatal incident rate has continued to decline steadily ever since, and since 1997, the number of fatal air accidents has been no more than 1 for every 2,000,000,000 miles flown, making it one of the safest modes of transport." Who can prove this is correct? What about the August-2005 fatal accidents?

Fire

I cleaned up some of the wording of the ValuJet DC-9 accident. Oxyen generators are installed only in seatbacks, not in the overheads. Revised confusing statements about air tight cargo compartments.

Oxygen generators in the seats? They're in the overheads. The rest looks great. Dbchip 05:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

--EditorASC 03:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

My apology; it was late at night and I was pretty fatigued. I screwed up my own wording. I meant to say that the oxygen generators are not ONLY in the overheads but also in the seatbacks. The difference is between some wide bodied and narrow bodied airliners. The "overhead" is too high above the passengers, in some of the wide bodied planes, so they install the generators in the seatbacks. DC-10s are done that way.

Since I screwed it up on my last attempt, I will leave it to you to choose the way to word it, so that it won't give the impression that the generators are found ONLY in the overheads.

EditorASC 07:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've flown as FO at MD-11s (a kind of "black tied" DC-10) for a couple of years at VASP and I've never heard about oxygen generators on airliners seats or back rests. Observe that overhead ceiling could be 20 feet high or higher - it doesn't matter: the mask will fall from the ceiling and the user don't need to raise in order to catch your mask, he needs only to pull the mask to his face and the string attached to the oxygen tube will trigger the squib in the generator. Otherwise, oxygen generators can be very hot when operating: something around 500 °F (260 °C). So, I apologize Editor ASC, but I doubt firmly about such seatbacks installation of oxy generators...RobertoRMola (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
You are correct about the MD-11, but my reference was to the DC-10. I flew them at UAL for 7 years. The passenger oxygen generators were located in the top of the seat backs, not in the overhead, like they were in MD-11s and narrow body airliners.
You will find these quotes in this Wiki article [[1]]
" In wide body airliners, such as the DC-10 and IL-96, the canisters and oxygen masks are mounted in the top portion of the seat backs, since the ceiling is too high above the passengers."
"An ATA DC-10, Flight 131, was also destroyed while parked at O'Hare Airport, on August 10, 1986. The cause was the accidental activation of an oxygen canister, contained in the back of a broken DC-10 seat, being shipped in the cargo compartment to a repair station."

EditorASC (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

What is a hull-loss accident?

I'm no expert on these things, and I'm trying to work out exactly what a "hull-loss accident" is. I presume that it means when the "aircraft" as a whole is unrecoverable but are there subtleties to this, e.g. you write off the fuselage and recover the engines? It just seems like a strange use of the word "hull" which doubtless means something. I can't find anything on Wikipedia which elaborates further. If someone could enlighten us (or suggest a source and I'll happily write an article) then that would be great. The only thing I've been able to find is on Boeing's website [2] which states that a hull-loss is when the "airplane" isn't "economically repairable". Is that all there is to it? Iancaddy 20:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

After Googling around, I get the impression that it's an insurance term. Sort of how the average person would use "the car was totaled" to mean it wasn't repairable. Or, rather, that it wouldn't be economically worth it to repair it. I think that's the case with this phrase. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 20:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Hull losses are when an aircraft is damaged to the point where it is not used again (ie scrapped) Some incidents can be classified as 'hull loss' even if the damage is reletively minor. Often if an elderly aircraft is damaged it is not worth repairing since it was due to be scrapped soon.


It simply means that the plane was not repaired and put back into service. Such decisions are almost always based strictly on economics. For example, if repairing the plane would cost more than it would to buy another used one like it, after considering what could be earned by selling the wreck for salvage, then the plane will normally be written off as a "hull-loss." Another scenario would be that it was planned to be soon retired from service anyway, and sold for whatever the secondary market might bring. In that case, all but the most minor repairs, would make it much more sensible to use the money for new aircraft purchases.

There is one exception, that I know of: The Qantas 747-400, that ran off the end of the runway at BangKok. It should have been written off as a hull-loss, especially since what was left, would have recouped a lot of that loss, if sold for salvage parts. But, Qantas made a PR decision to spend several millions more, to have the plane rebuilt and put back into service, so they could continue to tell the world that they have never had jet hull-loss.

--EditorASC 03:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Delamination

I believe the crash of A300-600, AAL587, was not a result of delamination - it was a result of the attachements failing, rather than the tailfin itself. The huge metal anchor that kept the tailfin attached to the fuselage failed because it passed the ultimate load due to "rudder reversal" not because full rudder authority being exercised.

Rudder reversal is where full rudder is applied in opposite directions in quick succsession at highspeed and most airliners are liable to suffer fatal structual failure because of this. The safety bulletin issued regarding rudder reversals was ALSO released by Boeing, not just Airbus - and stated that fatal structual failure could result on any of its aircraft because of high-speed rudder reversal. Delamination may have occured, but the accident would have happened with or without it.

"On November 12, 2001, American Airlines Flight 587 crashed shortly after takeoff, killing all 260 persons aboard and 5 more on the ground. Both the engines of the Airbus A300-600, the rudder and the tail fin separated from the plane before impact. The pilot had been trained to use full rudder deflection to recover from wake-induced turbulence, which overstressed the fin. Numerous modern aircraft developed related problems, but most were discovered before they caused a catastrophic failure."

"Full rudder deflection" - that didn't cause it alone, it was swinging full left to full right and doing the same repeatedly that caused it. See the following: http://www.wingfiles.com/files/flight/useofrudder.pdf - UK AIS http://www.wingfiles.com/files/flight/useofrudderonairbus.pdf - NSTB

This sounds like something from the anti-Airbus lobby. It never actually says delamination caused it but it implies so and I've removed the text. If I am in error feel free to add it back in. Also the engine deattachement wasn't due to the use of composites either - I think. I am pretty sure about the rudder failure tho - delamination was not the cause, and presenting as so is unfair.

I can now backup my claims at this link http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/aa587/board_mtg_anim.htm . The Video clearly shows repeated rudder reversals before failure.

NB: Notice someone has reverted it but not mentioned this here, hence I am putting it back to my edit...

The cause was the repeated full opposite rudder inputs that, due to the ever increasing swing of the nose, first one way, then the other, became cumulative, each swing being greater, and requiring more force to counteract, so imposing greater and greater loads on the fin fixing attachments until they failed. Each of the six fin attachments was designed and certificated for a load of approx 100,000 lbs, (50 tons) and during tests after the crash, test attachments finally failed under a load twice that, i.e., 200,000 lbs (100 tons), making a total load on the fin of the accident aircraft of around 600 tons - approximately the weight of a loaded Airbus 380. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.163 (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Alleged cell phone hazard

I think this statement, near the end of the human factors section, should be removed: 


        "Some plane crashes are believed to have been caused by the use of cell phones."


While such allegations have been made, they have never been backed up with hard evidence. Whenever anecdotal reports of interference with navigation systems have been made, they have never been able to reproduce it with subsequent scientific testing. So far, such allegations are nothing more than classic Post Hoc reasoning. I am not aware of any accident, where the official invesitgative report found that the use of any passenger electronic device, was the cause of the crash.


I think there should be some hard evidence to support such claims, before they are included in an article like this.

--EditorASC 10:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the allegation that cell phones have caused crashes. That simply is not true. Also cleaned up the wording on cell phone use, to reflect the fact that it has been the FCC regulations which prohibit inflight use, unless the planes are specially wired and certified (that is happening now, but very few planes meet that new tech requirement).

EditorASC 07:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why mobile phone usage is disallowed aboard non-US commercial flights. Nor does it really explain why cell phones may be used in non-commercial flight below 10,000'. Because mobile phone transmissions have not been implicated as a factor in any accident, it is hard to say how they are worth mentioning in this article. If we mention that a cell phone might cause an incorrect compass reading, then we should also mention that the auroras cause unpredictable perturbations in the earth's magnetic field and that magnetoactive plasma produces non-linear local variance. Crashes in the Bermuda Triangle were not attributed to passengers using cell phones. 75.247.135.166 (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Cell phones are banned in some areas because while a well-designed and made mobile phone will have minimal signal leakage the same can not be said for a poorly-designed and made mobile phone or a damaged/faulty one, where the possibility may exist for interference with the numerous circuits within the aircraft, especially those with first-generation glass cockpits which pre-date the widespread usage of mobile phones, and hence are not designed to be resistant to such signals.
Commercial flights, where the passenger pays for a ticket, are governed by commercial contract law (and the Warsaw Convention) and the legal requirements and obligations regarding safety are higher and much greater for a commercial operator than they are for a non-commercial operator.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.152 (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Nautical miles or statute miles?

Can somebody clarify what kind of miles is used in risk estimation figures? I'd also appreciate a translation to kilometres.

Shure can do. Normal miles were use in that article, despite the fact that nautical miles are used in aircraft. NathanJunyk (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Seating position matters

Perhaps this should be mentioned somewhere in the article? I'm not sure where to put it, though. Esn 04:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Are there any other operators who have ALL seats facing the rear of the aircraft? The RAF certainly did this in the 1970s. Mr Larrington (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

From September 16th to today, 66.108.191.45 (talk · contribs · logs) has slowly been adding a HUGE number of internal links throughout this article, which range from barely relevant (like Active noise reduction) to totally irrelevant (like Timeline of AIDS.) See this difference between revisions, most of which (but not all) was done by that user. In order to cut down on overlinking I'm going through the article and getting rid of most of the unimportant and irrelevant links cluttering it up. If anyone thinks some should be put back, feel free to restore the good ones. Also, please be alert for later edits by 66.108.191.45. Not all of their edits were bad, but the link creep has gotten excessive. Thanks. -- HiEv 20:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, should the "Accidents and incidents" and "Regulation" sections (both are collections of internal links) be incorporated into the "See also" section? Should some items be deleted from any of those sections? It looks like there should be more organization there if it's going to stay this large, perhaps grouping into categories. -- HiEv 19:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

safest form of travel

http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg16321985.200-flight-into-danger.html

Air is NOT the safest form of transportation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.164.119 (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Passenger hours versus miles

While the article mentions the oft-quoted statistics about safety based on passenger-miles traveled, has anyone ever done a comparison based on passenger-hours traveled? Seems to me that that would be a more realistic measure of travel safety. This measure would probably correlate to the lifetime odds of dying. — Loadmaster (talk) 03:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As the New Scientist web article linked to in previous post above mentions,
The most accurate method is to compare the number of deaths with the number of journeys made. So accurate, in fact, that this is the measure used by the industry and its insurers. This makes much more sense, because what matters to the individual is the journey, not how long it took or how far it went. Also, it enables comparison of different types of jet, both long haul and short haul.
By this measure, air travel takes on a rather different complexion. Deaths per 100 million passenger journeys are, on average, 55 for airliners compared with 4.5 for cars, and 2.7 for trains. Only motorbikes, at 100 deaths per 100 million passenger journeys, are more risky than aircraft on this basis.
So, no, air travel is not the safest mode of travel. — Loadmaster (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me that the above argument assumes that the choice is between flying vs choosing an alternative destination that's within driving distance. But if getting to a given destination is a requirement, so you're comparing flying vs other means of getting somewhere that's X miles away, then the mileage comparison is the correct one, and air travel is indeed safest. Joule36e5 (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
"because what matters to the individual is the journey, not how long it took or how far it went" - erm no. What matters to the individual is still being alive and in one piece at the end of the journey. There is a difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Insurers use per journey not because it is the most accurate, but because it has the best correlation to losses. Accidents occur mostly with either take-off or landing, not during the hours/kilometres in between. Short hauls have more losses per mile than long hauls. Insurers are not using per journey figures to compare losses between modes of transportation. The mode of transportation which is safest by a wide margin to cover thousands of miles is a non-stop flight on a large jetliner operated by a reputable commercial airline. No other mode of transportation even comes close to being that safe. 75.208.34.206 (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it is worth mentioning that common statement "You're more likely to die on the way to the airport than on a plane flight from there" is generally incorrect, based on a typical length of a car/bus ride to the airport vs. typical flight and considering per-passenger-trip statistics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.41.250 (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Statistics

It would be good if someone could find the actual DETR survey report on which all of these statistics are based. Until that is done, I don't consider the stats verifiable. Meneth (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The DETR survey that is cited is from 98/99 statistics, which makes it quite old. The US Dept of Transportation has a report with statistics up to 2006 http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2007/pdf/entire.pdf. Also the Aus Dept of Transportation has a report with statistics up to 2007 http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/39/Files/ATS_2008.pdf. Maybe someone is willing to compile this info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.80.198.12 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Something not adding up - According to Nat'l Transportation Board, car accidents account for 94% of transporation fatalities. Odds of dying from car 1/20,000, odds of dying from plane 1/500,000. Please see both references -> [3][4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.120.102.115 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I tried to verify one figure in the stats: aviation fatalities. According to NTSB report about accidents on regular airlines, the best (non-zero) year was 2004 with 0.006 fatalities per 100,000 flight hours. This is 60 deaths per billion hours. The stats on the wiki page says about 30.8 deaths per billion hrs, which is twice less. But I took the best year only. If we count other years too, and other flight types (non-scheduled, air-taxis, general aviaton), the number will increase to several hundreds. So I'd rather don't consider the stats as valid at all. All numbers in the table were taken from one article which doesn't have any references to official statistical data used in calculations. Bronx (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, it would be interesting to know whether the air figure there includes private planes (which are much more unsafe) or only commercial airlines. John C PI (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC).

Here is another statistical report (from EU) comparing various modes of transportation by fatality rate (per distance and time traveled). www.etsc.eu/oldsite/statoverv.pdf This is a good read, and some of the numbers appear to be quite different from those referenced in this article. Perhaps it is worth reviewing the numbers and using those from the report instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.41.250 (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

In the article it is a claim that one billion hours on foot is more dangerous that one billion hours in plane. This Statistics is absolutely faithless. 91.77.252.73 (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I find taking into account miles travelled instead of trips travelled to be an incredibly misleading yet inherent way of measuring air travel safety. To give an example of how ridiculous this is, say we developed the technology for a spaceship that was able to travel to a distant destination one light year away, however half of all flights ended up being destroyed by asteroids. Going by the statistics used for air travel, this would actually be calculated to be safer than either air or car travel, since the one light year in terms of miles would result in far less accidents (only 1 accident per light year) as opposed to the many millions/billions of accidents that would result in car travel in an equivalent distance. Now tell me, knowing that half of these spaceships were destroyed by asteroids, would you consider spaceship flying to be billions of times safer? Hardly. If we used trips travelled as a metric, this would give us a far more likelihood of our survival per trip (which would be only 50% per trip for the spaceship) ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.207.253.227 (talk) 07:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Too much detail on ValuJet

The Fire section had way to much detail on the Valujet crash. I've deleted the following:

"The investigation determined that improperly packaged chemical oxygen generators (used for the drop-down oxygen masks in the aircraft cabin) had been loaded into the cargo hold. Oxygen generators produce oxygen through a chemical reaction that also generates hundreds of degrees of heat. When installed for use in the ceiling above the passenger seats they are surrounded by heat-resistant shielding and present no fire hazard. On this flight they had been put loosely into a cardboard box for shipment from a maintenance facility.

"It is likely that one or more of the generators ignited, during or immediately after takeoff, producing an oxygen-rich environment. The cardboard box containing the generators would have quickly caught fire from the heat of the ignited generator. The fire spread to an aircraft tire that was also carried in the hold. Ordinarily the fire would have smothered itself, because of the airtight design of that cargo compartment. But the oxygen generators kept feeding oxygen to the fire, defeating the smothering design of the McDonnell Douglas DC-9 cargo hold. The fire rapidly burned through the passenger cabin floor, incapacitating all aboard with smoke and poisonous gases very quickly. The pilots, although having smoke masks and separate oxygen supplies, had no hope of maintaining control as control cables and electrical wiring burned through.

"The maintenance facility (SabreTech) was subjected to large fines and ValuJet, due to this accident and other irregularities, was grounded. The airline reemerged as a smaller airline and eventually merged with AirTran Airways, a smaller carrier. Adopting the acquired airline's name, the airline has since provided safe service. For the airline industry, rules for the shipment of oxygen generators was severely restricted and cargo holds on larger airliners were required to have "fire bottles" installed."

69.7.41.230 (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I recently cleaned out the external links section in accordance with WP:EL and there was a link I removed which appears to be a reliable source so I'm listing it here if anyone wants to use it to improve the article.

ThemFromSpace 03:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aviation_safety/Archive_1&oldid=1220042692"