Af 447

[+ Lucky]

Why are you sure? Many people, especially young ones, handle tragic events by suppressing any memory of them. This kid may have lost his entire family, and is likely highly traumatized.

[+ glutes]

The Airbus...

 

Not such a good record as of late, and the article fails to mention the crash off of Yemen about two weeks ago:

 

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — San Francisco International Airport officials say a Northwest Airlines jet carrying 194 passengers suffered an engine problem after takeoff, forcing it to return to the airport.

 

SFO spokesman Mike McCarron says an engine compressor on the Airbus A330 failed, disrupting air flow to the engine after its 1:35 p.m. takeoff Thursday.

 

McCarron says all passengers aboard Northwest Flight 27 are safe and that the airport is seeing no delays because of the incident.

 

An Air France Airbus A330 crashed in the Atlantic Ocean on June 1 during a flight from Rio de Janeiro to Paris after hitting a thunderstorm.

[KMEM]

I am sure that you can easily imagine several reasons why incidents in aviation make the news. A fairly large number of people in one vehicle. Flying isn't "natural" (driving at 75 MPH is?). The high visibility of large aircraft. The fact that 2 Airbuses had accidents recently. In fact, the SFO incident should be more like "good news", you know, the kind that never gets reported, like no one was robbed in down town Manhattan today or the airliner had a simple engine problem and returned with no damage to the aircraft and no one injured.

 

I am no defender of the Airbus. In fact, the whole way foreign manufacturers and airlines are subsidized vs. the US is another story. However, the Yemen crash could have been any brand of airliner, it just so happened to be an Airbus. Ditto NW27.

 

How many folks were killed on the US highways yesterday? 100? Whether that number were actually killed or not, that is approximately the number killed every day, 365 days a year. Where are the headlines? 100 killed on the highways today! If we had an airliner crash every day it would cease to be "big" news, although I personally would be very unhappy about that and so would the FAA and NTSB to name just a couple.

 

I am sure you see the point. It is only news because it is unusual.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[+ glutes]

 

How many folks were killed on the US highways yesterday?

 

Best regards,

KMEM

 

How many people were killed in Boeing airplanes in the last month?

[KMEM]

I am not sure what your question has to do with any thing but perhaps you will elaborate. I am dealing with sensationalism, not necessarily statistics. But, to answer your question, apparently none.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[N.N.]

How many people were killed in Boeing airplanes in the last month?

 

Do you think one month's worth of data outweighs all the rest?

 

 

From Boeing:

There are slight differences in the accident rate from model to model, but none that would support the conclusion that some airplane models are safer than others -- especially since accident investigators have found the airplane itself the primary cause of only 13 percent of the serious accidents. (About two-thirds of the accidents are due to errors by the flight crew.)

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/safety/faq.html

[KMEM]

NN- Apparently you are just as confused as I am about the relevence of a month's worth of data. We can only await clarification from glutes.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[+ glutes]

How many were killed in Boeing planes last month?

None.

[KMEM]

How many were killed in Boeing planes last month?

None.

 

I thought that was my answer to this question in a previous post. I am still quite unsure what your point is. Care to elaborate?

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[+ glutes]

My point is that I am a bit skeptical of the Airbus 330, we should pay attention to the investigations.

I would fly a Boeing product any day without hesitation.

[KMEM]

Unfortunately, I think the media is paying just a little too much attention to the investigations. What we should be doing is being patient and waiting for the considered results of the investigations. There is entirely too much CYA going on right now to make any reasonable determinations. Basically one could choose to not fly 330's or Airbuses in general but there is no preponderance of evidence to support that idea right now.

 

Old saying: If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[AdamSmith]

Not such a good record as of late, and the article fails to mention the crash off of Yemen about two weeks ago:

 

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — San Francisco International Airport officials say a Northwest Airlines jet carrying 194 passengers suffered an engine problem after takeoff, forcing it to return to the airport.

 

SFO spokesman Mike McCarron says an engine compressor on the Airbus A330 failed, disrupting air flow to the engine after its 1:35 p.m. takeoff Thursday.

 

Airbus-bashing is good clean fun. But in fairness, this engine problem would be the fault of GE, Pratt & Whitney or Rolls-Royce, whichever one made this particular engine. Or possibly the fault of the airline's maintenance people.

[Luv2play]

How many people were killed in Boeing airplanes in the last month?

 

Well, yesterday a few hundred narrowly escaped death when a hole the size of a footballl appeared in the fuselage of a Boeing 737-300 at 35,000 feet. I don't think one should hold up any plane or manufacturer as being superior to another if both are air-certified. There may be features we prefer in one over the other but that is not saying we prefer one because the other is likely to kill you. ANY plane might kill you, no matter how SUPERIOR it supposedly is.

[+ ArVaGuy]

Well, yesterday a few hundred narrowly escaped death when a hole the size of a footballl appeared in the fuselage of a Boeing 737-300 at 35,000 feet. I don't think one should hold up any plane or manufacturer as being superior to another if both are air-certified. There may be features we prefer in one over the other but that is not saying we prefer one because the other is likely to kill you. ANY plane might kill you, no matter how SUPERIOR it supposedly is.

 

 

Let's also add the British Airways Boeing 747 that had to be evacuated prior to take off in Phoenix this past weekend for smoke in the cabin. No injury but the plane was taxiing to the take off cue. If that happened in-flight the situation could have been a major disaster.

 

As Luv2play points out ANY plane regardless of manufacturer, or airline for that matter, may malfunction and result in injury or death. I'll reiterate a previous statement: we are all nothing more than test subjects when we board a modern jet these days. We put a lot of faith in our technologies but in the end its shear luck that has more to do with it than anything else.

 

The law of averages plays a major role - there will be x number of airline incidents per x million take offs and landings. Just hope you are not traveling on the x plane the day the number pops up. :o

[KMEM]

Living in the modern world is risky. Airline travel is safer than most any other form of mass transport. I think it mainly a matter of attitude and, as you say, if your number comes up. But, your number could come up in bed or on the streets or anywhere. Some say, of course, but I don't want to be in the back when the pilot's number comes up because then I will just be along for the ride. Well, that happens and is why the airlines have at least 2 pilots.

 

Right this very minute there are 4596 flights on flight plans in the air over the US of which 3287 are airliners and, with say 100 passengers average per plane. Why not say there are 328, 700 people who narrowly or otherwise escaped death today?

 

The answer is it isn't news or sensational enough. Fear of flying is not a good phobia to have if one likes to travel in today's world. A healthy respect for any mode of transport as well as various other aspects of modern life could be a very good attitude. I fear that many worry too much about one and not enough about the others.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[AdamSmith]

Living in the modern world is risky. Airline travel is safer than most any other form of mass transport.

 

There it is. The numbers make it plain that you take a lot more risk driving across town, or even jaywalking to Starbucks, than getting on a plane.

 

And yesterday I saw a couple of studies that suggest the carcinogenic properties of household cleaning products put you at greater risk than going up in the air.

[KMEM]

I always think it is risky to go to Starbucks for any number of reasons.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[AdamSmith]

I always think it is risky to go to Starbucks for any number of reasons.

 

Too true. Just back from one now, I started to calculate whether, in the past year, I spent more on Starbucks or on escorts. But seeing the zeros on both numbers frightened me off from finishing the exercise.

[+ honcho]

Just noticed this on yahoo news re: A330's and the AF crash

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090807/ap_on_go_ot/us_planes_speed_malfunction

[KMEM]

Apparently there was a bad batch of vendor items from a German company while no one has had problems with aircraft equipped with US items. While good for the reputation of the US company, not good for the airline or, of course, the passengers on AF 447.

 

It is still too early to come to any conclusions about 447 but having incorrect air data information would not be helpful. Likely it will turn out to be a combination of things to include it being night, being in bad weather and having a critical instrument give erroneous readings. Any one or maybe even any two of those things would not necessarily be fatal. All three doesn't look so good.

 

To clear up a misconception listed on another thread, I am a big supporter of US products. I have always liked Boeing and McDonald-Douglas when they were around. Lockheed and Fairchild and others have also had their good economic days as well as making superior aircraft. I am not a big fan of foreign aircraft and that includes Airbus, but fair is fair and whatever happened, good or bad will be reported and, likely, accepted by me. I still would ride on a US airline today on an Airbus. Should I ask if their pitot tubes have been changed? No, but I would do my usual due diligence and look at the weather, etc.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[+ glutes]

Good God KMEM, when do you have time to fly?

[KMEM]

Typical corporate trip (as compared or contrasted with the airlines who try to arrange the various crew member's hours working to the max allowed by law or contract):

 

Arise at 0530, get ready, drive 25 minutes to airport to arrive about an hour before scheduled departure time. Pre-flight aircraft to make sure everything that should be attached, still is; fuel requested is indeed on board and any passenger requests have been filled (newspapers, drinks, coffee, ice, etc.). Go back into lounge, greet passengers as they arrive, chit chat until all are assembled. We wait for any stragglers, the scheduled departure time is at their discretion and we never leave any one behind. Depart reasonably on time at 0730. Deal with all the details of actually flying the trip. The airport is busy at this time of day with a NW hub exchange going on + FEDEX starting their "mail" runs + all the other corporate aircraft starting their day. If things go bad because either the weather is uncooperative or one runway (out of 4) is closed for some reason, I could end up #30 for take-off. Still we normally get in the air within 18-20 minutes of taxiing out. Once in the air I get to enjoy the thrill of flight + keep my skills honed by actually making a trip. One hour later, we make either a visual or instrument approach to our destination. We always go instrument flight rules just like the airlines. After landing and taxiiing in, we shut down, get everyone safely into the terminal, make sure their rental cars are there or they meet their business appointments and get on their way. Now all I have to do is file a flight plan for the next leg today which will be just going home around 4 PM. I also buy "courtesy" fuel for the use of the aircraft parking facilities and my use of the terminal during the day. That often includes a crew car for any errands or meals I might need during my stay. After I check in with the office and consider any other necessary things I have planned for the day I now have time to go onto the internet and make posts like this one.

 

My passengers usually run on time and are very good about calling me if they are running either early or late. I need to deal with which ever with a new flight plan, etc. Cell phones are wonderful, aren't they? At 4 PM we load everyone up and they can relax on the way home, sometimes with a beer, but often just making notes, etc. on their lap tops. I, on the other hand, must deal with storms that like to brew up in the afternoons in this part of the world. Fortunately, I have a version of the Weather Channel + on board weather radar available to me. Back in the day, we just looked out the window and guessed but now we have a lot of technological help. However, lines of thunderstorms, whether you can see them electronically, have advance notice of them or not, are still a thrill to avoid and deal with. Today, there are just a few bumps caused by cumulus clouds that have aspirations of becoming showers but just can't make it at this time. We arrive at home base, make the approach and land, get all the passengers off and start home around 530 PM.

 

Tomorrow we do it again but to a different place and maybe with a couple more legs thrown in. Pilots really would prefer to just fly but that doesn't pay the bills.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[+ Charlie]

Thanks for an unusual insight into a job about which I knew little. It sounds more interesting than sitting in front of a computer for eight hours, which is what I do when I work.

[KMEM]

Be glad to take you for a ride if we can get together some time.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[+ glutes]

Heavens, I imagined Captain KMEM & First Officer BN tooling around in a Piper Cub.

Thank goodess you weren't over the Hudson River today, that could have been you two in a mid-air with a helicopter being piloted by none other than Bruno Graucho!

Watch out for cumulonimbus & yellow hair...

http://www.google.com/images?q=tbn:5o6mayFbEiZymM::science.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGS/Shared/StaticFiles/Science/Images/Content/cumulonimbus-cloud-akbhhf-sw.jpg

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_D8_UIH0E5rU/RVzEEGuyABI/AAAAAAAAAEo/CSAtFqy7zzA/s128/MeBen1.jpg