Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Air Canada flight 8481

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    This is the same incident as the Air Canada 8481 thread so I'm merging it.
    If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Peter Kesternich View Post
      Not all of these incidents/accidents relate to the Dash 8 Q400, but involve the whole Dash 8 family. With over 1100 units in operation, I wouldn't exactly call that "few".
      Actually- it's kind of scary to look at how may planes are built and how many have crashed...

      Being an airplane leaves you with a pretty significant risk of crashing...

      1,500 747's and how many crashes can you list just off the top of your head.

      Pan Am Lockerbie, TWA 800 Tenerife (2), JAL....

      Wikipedia says there have been 124 "incidents" 49 hull loses and 2852 fatalities...also 31 Hijackings with those resulting in 25 fatalities.

      So, if you are a 747, there's a 8% chance you'll be in an incident a 3% you will crash, a 2% chance you will be hijacked. Easily a 1 in 10 chance of something bad happening!

      On average a 747 will kill almost 2 people in it's lifetime.

      As a passenger- a lot of your personal safety is because the plane will haul an incredible crap-load of people in it's lifetime...the airplane itself has a low-but-kind-of-significant chance of crashing.
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
        This qualifies as a good but not perfect landing:

        Good landing: everybody walks away.
        Perfect landing: Good landing + the airplane can be re-used without maintenance intervention.
        When I was working at Swissport I noticed that every single Air Transat flight had Maintenance vehicles and personnel surrounding it.

        I am not sure if that fits into your grouping or not lol
        I'm the guy... Porter Guy

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
          Actually- it's kind of scary to look at how may planes are built and how many have crashed...(...)
          Which is true of most aircraft types. Just looking up the Wikipedia article on any given aircraft type and checking the "Accidents and Incidents" section will show you that. And still, flying is a safe means of transportation.
          I would also advocate to not just list accidents. Splitting accident statistics into several groups like "pilot error", "maintenance problem", "weather-related", and "design flaw" will give a more accurate picture of what constitutes a dangerous airplane (or a dangerous airline, for that matter). Only the last of the categories really makes an airplane dangerous. All the others could happen to any aircraft.

          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
          Being an airplane leaves you with a pretty significant risk of crashing... (...)
          ... which, of course, is clearly Sir Isaac Newton's fault

          Comment


          • #20
            I have never understood why people continue to single out specific aircraft types : the "I will not set foot on such and such type" response. Is there a single passenger airliner type in service anywhere in the world today that in itself is so dangerous as to merit this response ? The overwhelming majority of accidents result from the type of airline or operator, the quality of its management, oversight, maintenance, training, the type of operation undertaken, the quality and independence of the regulatory agencies involved and the overall cultural/ethical/geographical context.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by HalcyonDays View Post
              1) I have never understood why people continue to single out specific aircraft types : the "I will not set foot on such and such type" response.

              2) Is there a single passenger airliner type in service anywhere in the world today that in itself is so dangerous as to merit this response ?
              1) Yes...there are differences.

              2) "so dangerous as to merit this response"...Indeed, the "most dangerous" is generally pretty darn safe.

              Conversely- let's pick on the DC-10 for a moment...someone figured out that if you loose a cargo door you jam the controls...Sorry, I don't like that design...because....wait for it...baggage doors seem to fall off from time to time from most planes and maybe it would be better if the controls didn't jam when the door does fall off...(I think this happened twice?)

              Then we put an engine right next to some reasonably important control surfaces...and guess what...don't engines occasionally blow up and spew parts?...but hey, no problem, there's redundant hydraulic lines and the turbine usually doesn't bust out of it's container...again, the Swiss cheese only aligned once...but does that invalidate the question if it was a bad design?

              ...and let's switch to the favorite computer-controlled airbus that doesn't give the pilot classical tactile feedback...and the fear that everyone has because their personal computer crashes from time to time...

              ...and guess what happened when the computer control system (emphasis on system- the computer itself worked) got messed up for Air-France??? Isn't there something to be said for a wheel that does exactly what you tell it to and gives you information as opposed to a totally vanilla thing that talks to a computer and the computer decides what the controls should do....

              Everything's a trade off and indeed the "dangerous planes" are safe...but there are real things out there that are valid to ponder and just the thought of dying because something is designed one way where another design likely would have kept folks alive???...tough questions!
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #22
                yeah it's weird. The plane blew a tire then it's gear collapsed because it couldn't hold the weight of the aircraft on one wheel. But it is the planes fault... Guess bombardier will start installing a center wheel :/
                I'm the guy... Porter Guy

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by 3WE
                  ...and guess what happened when the computer control system (emphasis on system- the computer itself worked) got messed up for Air-France???
                  I give up. When did this ever happen?

                  Isn't there something to be said for a wheel that does exactly what you tell it to and gives you information as opposed to a totally vanilla thing that talks to a computer and the computer decides what the controls should do....
                  Yes, given that the computer(s) can think much faster and with far greater accuracy and move the control surfaces to achieve EXACTLY and ONLY what you command them to achieve (as long as this does not endanger the aircraft) vs the old system of letting the pilot makes errors at will directly to the control surfaces and all too often to use the plane to clear forests and make craters, I think it says something all right.

                  Besides, the only time you get into problems with a sidestick FBW aircraft is when you are violation the 3WE 'broad, overlying, fundamental rules to maintain healthy airspeeds and attitudes'. As long as you are flying the plane, does it matter what lies between you and the control surfaces? So, if you say the problem is not in the aircraft design but in the pilot culture, I think we can finally agree on something.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    3WE, I said passenger airliners in service today.

                    The Dash 8-400 hasn't killed a soul apart from the Colgan at Buffalo, which was crew error compounded by questionable management oversight. On the other hand, there were three fatal 777 events in just a 12-month period July 2013/July 2014. Should I be worried about "stepping on" that 777 I stepped on a couple of weeks ago ?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by HalcyonDays View Post
                      (...) On the other hand, there were three fatal 777 events in just a 12-month period July 2013/July 2014. Should I be worried about "stepping on" that 777 I stepped on a couple of weeks ago ?
                      Well - as far as we know, two of these three were definitely not the fault of the airliner, and for the third one (MH370) chances are that the plane isn't to blame either...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        AirDisaster.com Forum Member 2004-2008

                        Originally posted by orangehuggy
                        the most dangerous part of a flight is not the take off or landing anymore, its when a flight crew member goes to the toilet

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by HalcyonDays View Post
                          3WE, I said passenger airliners in service today.

                          The Dash 8-400 hasn't killed a soul apart from the Colgan at Buffalo, which was crew error compounded by questionable management oversight. On the other hand, there were three fatal 777 events in just a 12-month period July 2013/July 2014. Should I be worried about "stepping on" that 777 I stepped on a couple of weeks ago ?
                          ...and I said Airbus fly by wire...I can name two instances- where if control systems gave traditional, tactile feedback information on the aircraft's flying state (instead of being computer vanilla-ized) the crashes may not have occurred...

                          ...and heck, let's throw in rudder-reversing Boeings and slightly confusing autopilot/authothrottle modes...

                          It doesn't make you a nut-job if you don't like it that the design of a plane could lead to a crash.
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X