[Closed] Plane crash in the alps

[quote=njee20 ]Here's something for you... flying is statistically just as safe as it was on Tuesday morning (well, very very minescule difference)

Statistically it's a tiny bit safer than it was.

geetee1972 - Member

Chewk I think you might have completely misunderstood me here. I was not attcking your family. I was being sensitive to something that might have happened to you that we don't know about and would explain why you were saying what you were saying (which is that the pilot is a mass murderer).

Ok.

I completely accept you might have a fear of flying. I accept that the more you fly the more likely you, statistically speaking, to be involved in an accident.

Ok.

You're just also being a little insensitive and dogmatic about this mass murderer thing.

Ok. I shall stop that. 😀

There are dozens of flights under 30mins - ANY within the Canary islands are less than 20 including takeoff/landing.
Plenty even within the UK can be that too.

Yeah the length of the trip isn't really significant, a long flight has about the same risk as a short flight. Hence the use of "per hours" doesn't paint a complete picture of the risks involved with flying.

Folks,

I shall STOP the reference to mass murderer.

🙁

edit: ... wait for the outcome of the investigation ...

Folks,

I shall STOP the reference to mass murderer.

WTF. Why post that!? You must just be trolling. Seriously, piss off. I can't believe I'm wearing out my keyboard on you.

Yeah the length of the trip isn't really significant, a long flight has about the same risk as a short flight. Hence the use of "per hours" doesn't paint a complete picture of the risks involved with flying.

Where we're ending up is that there isn't really a way to compare the two, hardly surprising given how different they are as modes of transport. However it remains that statistically speaking you are more likely to die en route to the airport, than when on the plane.

Tom,

Do me a favour, and stick to bikes or something you know about. You're really demonstrating your ignorance of aviation matters and this isn't the thread or medium to be spouting such nonsense given the horrific allegations associated with this crash.

Thank you.

You can twist the stats anyway you like, but one I read went along the lines of: if you chose to fly a scheduled flight anywhere in the world every day at random, on average it would be 280,000 years before you were involved in an incident or accident. And then the chances are you'd survive.

It may seem like air crashes are more common than the used to be, but the accident rate is falling and much smaller than it was even 5 years ago. The reason there are more accidents is due to the huge growth in passenger traffic. If you applied the same accident rates we had 10 or 15 years ago, by now there should be an air crash every week. But safety has improved at a faster rate than growth so flying is getting safer despite thousands more flights every day.

Deaths per billion journeys stat doesn't say anything about safety. That is just an indication of your risk of death should you be involved in an accident. The point about the safety of flying is that you are extremely unlikely to be involved in an accident at all.

No consolation to those involved in crashes though.

allthepies,

Yup - agreed about contacting ATC. Strange set of circumstances all round I suppose.

Slightly different aspect on the topic, but I had a long chat with an air traffic controller about black boxes, and the importance of them being able to survive ... then be found as well. (think of MH370) We came up with the notion that planes should have an ability to emergency broadcast their live data when the plane thinks its in an emergency situation ( such as collision warnings, sharp dives, engine failures etc) and that planes should be able to listen out and record any emergency broadcasts they receive whilst flying. That way, when the plane is crashing, others in the air are capturing the data in a manner that is going to all but guarantee will be available at an early stage.

njee20 - Member

Folks,
I shall STOP the reference to mass murderer.

WTF. Why post that!? You must just be trolling. Seriously, piss off. I can't believe I'm wearing out my keyboard on you.

😛 No, not trolling as my assumption was based on the announcement but I think my reference might put people off so better stop and wait for the final investigation.

Is it just me, or does anyone else think Chewkw is Fred's latest alias?

@project you can say its sad to call the co-pilot a mass murderer but it does look incredibly likely that that is exactly what he is. Stories and quotes now from fellow flight school pupils who said he had a burn out / depression and took 6 months off flight training.

@geetee, I think it is relevant he was young / inexperienced. If he was prone to depression he might have killed just himself if he'd been flying only as an amateur or on smaller commercial or cargo planes or killed himself via some other means.

It's a fact but I feel far more sorry for the 149 other people who died than I do for the co-pilot

It's a fact but I feel far more sorry for the 149 other people who died than I do for the co-pilot

It's a fact but I feel far more sorry for the 149 other people who died than I do for the co-pilot

I feel sorry for the kind of people who have nothing more going on in their lives than to speculate and make pronouncements based on the rumours surrounding this tragedy.

[quote=fisha ]We came up with the notion that planes should have an ability to emergency broadcast their live data when the plane thinks its in an emergency situation ( such as collision warnings, sharp dives, engine failures etc)

Wouldn't have helped for MH370 or this one as it wouldn't have been triggered (until way too late to be useful). Nor likely for AF447 because the data wouldn't have been received. So that immediately gets rid of all the obvious recent cases where I presume you were suggesting it would be useful.

Deaths per billion journeys stat doesn't say anything about safety. That is just an indication of your risk of death should you be involved in an accident. The point about the safety of flying is that you are extremely unlikely to be involved in an accident at all.

Major stats fail.

Where we're ending up is that there isn't really a way to compare the two, hardly surprising given how different they are as modes of transport. However it remains that statistically speaking you are more likely to die en route to the airport, than when on the plane.

Again, major stats fail. Also, the numbers I have posted point to flying being just as dangerous per hour as driving. That's without taking into account hours vs journeys and the bias inherent in using hours as a measure.

jambalaya - Member

it does look incredibly likely that that is exactly what he is.

It's incredibly likely that it was premeditated with malice aforethought and that he was in sound mind when he did it? Based on...

Although I guess that as fatal accidents are lower but when they do occur casualties are much higher, so your chance of being involved in a fatal accident whilst flying is much lower borks the results as well. So as an individual on board a flight, you have a lower chance of being involved in a fatal accident and thus being killed.

Deaths per billion journeys/hours/miles should be considered as a risk of a number of individuals dying on a journey, not your own personal risk.

Per million hours:
General Aviation:
11.2 fatal accidents and 19.7 fatalities per million hours
Driving:
.528 fatal accidents and .588 fatalities per million hours
Commercial Aviation:
.2 fatal accidents and 6.5 fatalities per million flight hours

Again though, the fact that flight times are longer skews the results a bit.

So the first poster I quoted was actually right, I misinterpreted the post.

apparently the co-pilot became "curt" when the captain was talking through the landing.

Either he was planning to never make the landing or something snapped then, maybe some anger towards the captain?

As for live data - it can't hurt. Rolls Royce get live engine data and it can help prevent failure and plan maintenance. The question is what you do with it, how you store it, retrieve it etc. If a US plane is over Asia who receives and logs the data? Do the manufacturers set it up? Governments? Airlines? I would assume you would have to use satellites?

I suppose that if the 'plane had encountered a technical problem and was gliding inexorably downwards, the pilot might at least have tried to land it somewhere flat rather than stuff it straight into a mountain at high speed.

BoardinBob - Member

Is it just me, or does anyone else think Chewkw is Fred's latest alias?

Moi as someone else vice versa? 😆

Who's Fred? 😯 I think I can vaguely recall him.
[b]
Anyway, back to the original topic please.[/b]

... less of me cos I know I am good. 😆

andyl - Member

apparently the co-pilot became "curt" when the captain was talking through the landing.

Either he was planning to never make the landing or something snapped then, maybe some anger towards the captain?

Reading other news the fingers are clearly pointing at the co-pilot so my original assumption may not be far off. 😮

Fred, occasionally, made sense

TBH its the only poster on here on who I just glide over to the next one though the bold caught my eye and it was the last post

Junkyard - lazarus

Fred, occasionally, made sense

TBH its the only poster on here on who sI just glide over to the next one

I see ... 😯

I feel sorry for the kind of people who have nothing more going on in their lives than to speculate and make pronouncements based on the rumours surrounding this tragedy.

It's incredibly likely that it was premeditated with malice aforethought and that he was in sound mind when he did it? Based on...

A racer, my point regards mh370 was more along the lines of reducing the effort needed to get black box data when it goes missing. You're absolutely right that it may not have helped in that case.

My idea was for planes to broadcast and receive data themselves without need for ground listening or satellite. For the majority of airliner flights, they are in radio sight of other plans, even when transatlantic. They broadcast noir knowing if anyone is listening . . . More of a just in case type thing. The system wouldn't need to be overly protected from crashes, since as it would be expected to be wrecked on impact as the data is stored on another plane which is likely to complete its journey.

Having a bit of think about it more, regarding whose data, it could be a standard format of what is recorded, but in an encrypted data format that only the airline has the encryption key to. Then other planes record blindly, and pass it over as it's no use to them personally .

As for live data, that won't give much before it hits, but it could easily be scaled to send live -1, -2, -3 etc minute data on set frequency steps away from the original emergency broadcast frequency.

jambalaya - Member

Based on official announcements it was deliberate and thus clearly in my view premeditated.

Then I suggest you look up what the word means.

Standby for various airlines promoting their 'enhanced' security procedures as a result of this terrible crash.

Never let genuine safety issues get in the way of a bit of opportunist PR.

And whatever you do, don't let those guys carry more than 100ml of toothpaste.

Good grief.. this thread is like being in a busy room full of people shouting at each other 🙄

Sory Tom not a stats fail. It says nothing about the number of accidents over the 1billion journeys which is what we're really interested in. It could be all those deaths are caused by 1 accident in 1 billion journeys whereas on other modes of transport many more accidents would occur. 3500 people die on british roads every year, I'm not sure if on average a quarter of those deaths occur in air accidents every year. For you as an individual all you're worried about is the risk of an accident not how many people might die if you are involved in an accident.

23.7% of stats are bullshit (and that's a fact prove me wrong!) and prove nothing unless the assumptions and other fiddle factors are stated to provide context.

Trek - Norweagan carrier has already said it will introduce the two person minimum, it is a fact that those are the rules in the US and the EU airlines don't follow the same procedures. We have to admit that the US authorities where right on this one, they forsaw this sought of issue when the re-inforced doors where introduced.

Northwind - Member

jambalaya - Member

Based on official announcements it was deliberate and thus clearly in my view premeditated.

Then I suggest you look up what the word means.

Plan, with intention, to evade being caught, intention to carry out plan, carry out plan.

Am I right in saying that all these are evident?

Intention
Plan
Action
Execute plan

😯

no_eyed_deer - Member

Good grief.. this thread is like being in a busy room full of people shouting at each other

Nahhh ... see, you are wrong there (getting very anal now 😆 )
Nobody is shouting on the forum. i.e. no one has typed with capital. 🙄
Ts! Ts! Ts! You don't even know how interweb works ... 😯

Good grief.. this thread is like being in a busy room full of people shouting at each other

[quote=jambalaya ]Trek - Norweagan carrier has already said it will introduce the two person minimum,EasyJet too I believe.

Jambalaya, we don't have to accept they were right at all.
Personally, I'm not reassured by the thought that a member of cabin crew is standing behind me.
What if they're intent on causing trouble?
These are knee jerk, PR driven reactions rather than considered, security based decisions.
Sure, you can come up with scenarios where an extra crew member in the flight deck may help, but on the balance of risk I'd suggest it's more harm than good.

However, my opinion doesn't really count. All I ask, is that decisions are made on the basis of perceived and actual risk, rather than opportunism.

Am I right in saying that all these are evident?

Intention
Plan
Action
Execute plan

Not from the press reports I have read, no.

Unless other information comes to light the only one we can be sure of is Action.

Trek, you can be assured that since this is the second accident where lack of access into the cockpit has been a factor (the first being the Helios crash) since 9/11 when armoured cockpit doors were introduced the industry will do something about this.

But for all you airline pilots on here I fear that this is all strengthening the case of pilotless aircraft, given that almost all air crashes in recent times has been a result of pilot error. No aircraft has ever crashed when flying on auto pilot or cat 3A auto land in zero visibility. It's a big leap of faith the travelling public will have to face but I'd we really want zero air crashes it's the next step.

I thought the mega airbus (a380? ) Was such that to get insurance, the pilots had to let it do the flying on its own.?

Having worked with UAVs a lot, I emphatically don't second that ^^. The Hudson ditching was an example of airmanship saving the day, would a UAV have done that?

GrahamS - Member

Am I right in saying that all these are evident?

Intention
Plan
Action
Execute plan

Not from the press reports I have read, no.

Unless other information comes to light the only one we can be sure of is Action.

Well BBC news just reported that persecutor said " ... the co-pilot crashed the plane deliberately ... ".

Let's see if we can satisfy the following conditions/definitions:

[b]1. Intend[/b] - he has no involuntary action so that leaves his deliberation action which means he was fully aware of his action. Intention. Checked!

[b]2. Plan[/b] - this is still unclear until they find more information from his house but some news have started reporting that he was "trying to commit suicide". If he has prior knowledge of his intention then he must have put a plan in at a later stage. Let's see.

[b]3. Action[/b] - that's very clear. He manipulated the control etc. Checked!

[b]4. Execute plan[/b] - if he has planned it then, he managed to execute the plan. Related to point 2. Let's see ...

😯

You're right, the majority are pilot error, but to me that calls for better pilot training (which is happening), as I don't think the technology's mature/secure/robust enough yet for unpiloted.

wobbliscot, who knows what the future holds.
Re cat 3 approaches, I can guarantee that if it hadn't been for the intervention of pilots on a Cat 3 approach, many a/c would have been lost, particularly in the early days.

The Helios incident resulted in many changes to SOPs, hopefully such an event couldn't happen again.

I'm not a Luddite, I'm more than happy for technology to take it's course if it's beneficial.
I just want it to be made on the basis of sound reasoning. Quite often we solve one issue, but open up a whole bank of new problems. Cheers, Trek.

Sadly we flew past the Alps that very morning to Alicante and at 9:25 time at 37000 feet I spoted a very strange and erratic Jet stream Most snake like with two frantic turns followed by a dark jet stream but no jet at the front. As the two further jets below us.
I was to talk to the cabin crew but we seemed to decend and come off course to see closer and to turn side on of the jet stream., But again the jet stream was at an abrupt end with no jet.

God rest there souls

Sory Tom not a stats fail. It says nothing about the number of accidents over the 1billion journeys which is what we're really interested in. It could be all those deaths are caused by 1 accident in 1 billion journeys whereas on other modes of transport many more accidents would occur. 3500 people die on british roads every year, I'm not sure if on average a quarter of those deaths occur in air accidents every year. For you as an individual all you're worried about is the risk of an accident not how many people might die if you are involved in an accident.

23.7% of stats are bullshit (and that's a fact prove me wrong!) and prove nothing unless the assumptions and other fiddle factors are stated to provide context.

I did correct myself chap.

I am very shocked by the News output.

And I feel quite sad.

😕

I have a plan for

[b]how to talk a complete load of rubbish[/b]

but still have Junky pay attention to me

Since 9/11 flight deck doors have been locked from the inside. That has contributed to the crashing of this plane, conceivably the Malaysian plane, and at least one other (Singapore? Can't remember). The question now must be - are travelers more at' risk from terrorists or pilots?