[QUOTE=JakeIsWin;44166226]The one solace I think is acceptable in an aircraft death, is that it's always an instant death. Sans rare incidents...[/QUOTE]
Might be completely wrong,but when you crash into the ocean you only drown,which is not instant at all. Unless the tension of the water surfaces kills you or something (already covered). And there's the small possibility of surviving the impact and then burning/suffocating to death when you crash over land,but I guess you covered that with ''rare incidents''
[QUOTE=Zotobom;44171025]Might be completely wrong,but when you crash into the ocean you only drown,which is not instant at all. Unless the tension of the water surfaces kills you or something (already covered). And there's the small possibility of surviving the impact and then burning/suffocating to death when you crash over land,but I guess you covered that with ''rare incidents''[/QUOTE]
You'd break your neck instantly
[QUOTE=Zotobom;44171025]Might be completely wrong,but when you crash into the ocean you only drown,which is not instant at all. Unless the tension of the water surfaces kills you or something (already covered). And there's the small possibility of surviving the impact and then burning/suffocating to death when you crash over land,but I guess you covered that with ''rare incidents''[/QUOTE]
Survivability during any crash landing is determined by a lot of factors. One of them is the angle you hit the water/ground at. There's a very small window of survivability that, if you hit it wrong, can either cause you to break apart on impact (Air France 447) or, if you land in that window, land completely safely, which is very rare (USAir 1549) or somewhere in between that may still be survivable (Ethiopian 961). You're more likely to be shredded on impact than to land safely.
Then who was radio?
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Meme shit" - SteveUK))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;44170486]British airlines have had close calls and minor incidents just like other reputable national airlines such as Qantas, what really matters is the frequency of plane crashes and huge fuck ups[/QUOTE]
My post wasn't trying to say make out that British airlines are safer than any other. It was meant to say that flag carriers - as a general trend - tend to have a better safety record than budget/charter airlines. BA, Lufthansa, AF are flag carriers while RyanAir and Air Europa are budget/charter airlines. At no point have I tried to say "flag carriers are completely, 100% safe" - they all have had their fuckups, you're right - but flag carriers tend to take less risks than budget airlines do. It's no secret that budget airlines take risks - although they try to make out otherwise - and those risks amount to incursions, flight safety issues and otherwise unreported events which all ultimately shouldn't happen.
[editline]8th March 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=OnDemand;44170364]Although flight counts shouldn't be indicators of the condition of the aircraft, if a tiny fracture exists in one of the older components or even the new ones then the fatigue on each flight it goes through could make the problem worse. The increased pollution could be making these problems appear faster than the maintenance cycles can catch them due to these new conditions. Maybe even fake parts reached that plane and nobody found out.
The real cause of the problem is always unexpected and sometimes it is never known.[/QUOTE]
You shouldn't have been rated dumb, because you actually make a really good point. A fracture in a component or airframe itself can grow and the fatigue suffered during flight can make those fractures get worse over periods of time.
I'm not so sure about pollution playing an affect, nor about there being fake parts used on the aircraft. 777s have their parts shipped in direct from the manufacturer so there is very little avenue for error. I'm not going to speculate on the cause of the crash because the cause could be so varied, it's impossible without more information to say.
Talking about the impostors. My pilot friends in airasia (the other malaysian airliner company) are all talking about how the plane was deliberately blown up. :tinfoil:
[QUOTE=OnDemand;44169821]The plane that crashed did 5 million flights...
[/QUOTE]
Calling bullshit.
Let's say a plane does 20 flights a day (which is a shitload) every day for 50 years.
That's 20x365x50=365,000.
365,000 is nowhere near 5 million and that's a high estimate.
[QUOTE=matt000024;44172713]Calling bullshit.
Let's say a plane does 20 flights a day (which is a shitload) every day for 50 years.
That's 20x365x50=365,000.
365,000 is nowhere near 5 million and that's a high estimate.[/QUOTE]You do realize he means miles, right?
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;44172743]You do realize he means miles, right?[/QUOTE]
No, the way he worded it made it seem otherwise.
[QUOTE=runtime;44172348]My post wasn't trying to say make out that British airlines are safer than any other. It was meant to say that flag carriers - as a general trend - tend to have a better safety record than budget/charter airlines. BA, Lufthansa, AF are flag carriers while RyanAir and Air Europa are budget/charter airlines. At no point have I tried to say "flag carriers are completely, 100% safe" - they all have had their fuckups, you're right - but flag carriers tend to take less risks than budget airlines do. It's no secret that budget airlines take risks - although they try to make out otherwise - and those risks amount to incursions, flight safety issues and otherwise unreported events which all ultimately shouldn't happen.
[editline]8th March 2014[/editline]
You shouldn't have been rated dumb, because you actually make a really good point. A fracture in a component or airframe itself can grow and the fatigue suffered during flight can make those fractures get worse over periods of time.
I'm not so sure about pollution playing an affect, nor about there being fake parts used on the aircraft. 777s have their parts shipped in direct from the manufacturer so there is very little avenue for error. I'm not going to speculate on the cause of the crash because the cause could be so varied, it's impossible without more information to say.[/QUOTE]
Boeing uses a 3PL provider that I can't name that, in my opinion, is a new breeding ground for errors. In the time I worked there, there were times that kits were shipped back because of wrong parts, including non-conforming material that was meant to be destroyed, as well as experimental parts making their way onto the assembly line and the only thing that stopped them from going into a plane was the assembler who was paying attention.
Oh jesus fucking christ, I was tempted due to this to thread to hear ATC recordings.
And the one of the 2010 Polish Air Force accident just freaked me the fuck out....hearing those screamings at the end and the rush of air plus those awful WOOOP WOOOP PULL UP WOOOP WOOOP PULL UP is just too fucking creepy.
Man, say air accidents are few compared to land/sea ones, but hell, I'm 100% sure I would rather be in one in land/sea than in air.
[QUOTE=frozensoda;44172782]Boeing uses a 3PL provider that I can't name that, in my opinion, is a new breeding ground for errors. In the time I worked there, there were times that kits were shipped back because of wrong parts, including non-conforming material that was meant to be destroyed, as well as experimental parts making their way onto the assembly line and the only thing that stopped them from going into a plane was the assembler who was paying attention.[/QUOTE]That is really, really troubling. I've heard of non standard parts being shipped to the customer before now but never really had any first hand word of it - it's just been doing the rumor mill.
[QUOTE=runtime;44172990]That is really, really troubling. I've heard of non standard parts being shipped to the customer before now but never really had any first hand word of it - it's just been doing the rumor mill.[/QUOTE]
I am in no way authorized to disclose any company information about any companies I have worked for and any information you gain from me is only my opinion.
I am pretty paranoid about talking about that experience because A. I don't know if I'm allowed to, or what I'm allowed to talk about, and B. for months after I was fired "random" people contacted me via email and facebook saying things like "Hey I see you worked for *redacted* can you tell me how it was working there?" and things like that made me feel as though they were trying to trap me into breaking some rule or law. My employment ended there through very unfair treatment.
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;44172931]Oh jesus fucking christ, I was tempted due to this to thread to hear ATC recordings.
And the one of the 2010 Polish Air Force accident just freaked me the fuck out....hearing those screamings at the end and the rush of air plus those awful WOOOP WOOOP PULL UP WOOOP WOOOP PULL UP is just too fucking creepy.
Man, say air accidents are few compared to land/sea ones, but hell, I'm 100% sure I would rather be in one in land/sea than in air.[/QUOTE]
Plane flights are far safer, it's just, on the rare chance something goes wrong, it CAN be catastrophic. There are over 3400 aircraft over the USA alone at any given moment, and thousands more in the rest of the world. Major plane incidents, which may not necessarily be crashes, number no more than twenty per month.
[QUOTE=frozensoda;44173003]I am in no way authorized to disclose any company information about any companies I have worked for and any information you gain from me is only my opinion.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely, I understand. It's been a muttering in the shadows of the circles I'm part of and nobody I know has spoken specifically about it.
[editline]8th March 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=racerfan;44173010]Plane flights are far safer, it's just, on the rare chance something goes wrong, it CAN be catastrophic. There are over 3400 aircraft over the USA alone at any given moment, and thousands more in the rest of the world. Major plane incidents, which may not necessarily be crashes, number no more than twenty per month.[/QUOTE]
This. So much this.
[QUOTE=racerfan;44173010]Plane flights are far safer, it's just, on the rare chance something goes wrong, it CAN be catastrophic. There are over 3400 aircraft over the USA alone at any given moment, and thousands more in the rest of the world. Major plane incidents, which may not necessarily be crashes, number no more than twenty per month.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, of course, I know!
But look, thing is, from what I see in news and in real life (Argentina, you can see for yourself 3 or 5 accidents per day. As a matter of fact, yesterday I witnessed 4 fucked up accidents) most people manage to survive accidents. A drunk guy who came out of a closed neigh. crashed into a pole, but only he died while the 2 accomp. survived. That's 33% fatality rate. Same for buses and trucks. In the past years buses carrying around 50 to 70 persons always crashed (On summer, people went to the coast) and while there were a lot of casualties, they weren't more than the 50%.
Plus, if you are the one driving or sitting next to the driver, you can be totally sure you can prevent an accident by driving carefully and paying attention to other drivers. I saved my father and I from a couple of accidents by double checking left and right at night. 4 times we were almost hit by a Ford Falcon or Renault's 504 without lights, painted black/green. Those are basically ground missiles. You can't see them nor hear them.
However, in planes. How many people survive them? As you said, it CAN be catastrophic and that part freaks me out. Because, If I'm unlucky enough to be in the 2% of people involved in accidents...what are my chances of surviving statistically? Unless the pilots are some fucking cracks that they manage to land without control and only by maneuvering thanks to one engine or ditch it into a river, hell yeah. But most of the time when it happens it's a 90-100% casualty rate.
I would love to be proved wrong.
To anyone that hasn't and is interested in plane crash survival statistics, check out Discovery's documentary "How A Plane Crashes". They intentionally crash a 747 into a desert to see how the test dummies fare in the impact.
-snip
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;44173215]Yeah, of course, I know!
But look, thing is, from what I see in news and in real life (Argentina, you can see for yourself 3 or 5 accidents per day. As a matter of fact, yesterday I witnessed 4 fucked up accidents) most people manage to survive accidents. A drunk guy who came out of a closed neigh. crashed into a pole, but only he died while the 2 accomp. survived. That's 33% fatality rate. Same for buses and trucks. In the past years buses carrying around 50 to 70 persons always crashed (On summer, people went to the coast) and while there were a lot of casualties, they weren't more than the 50%.
Plus, if you are the one driving or sitting next to the driver, you can be totally sure you can prevent an accident by driving carefully and paying attention to other drivers. I saved my father and I from a couple of accidents by double checking left and right at night. 4 times we were almost hit by a Ford Falcon or Renault's 504 without lights, painted black/green. Those are basically ground missiles. You can't see them nor hear them.
However, in planes. How many people survive them? As you said, it CAN be catastrophic and that part freaks me out. Because, If I'm unlucky enough to be in the 2% of people involved in accidents...what are my chances of surviving statistically? Unless the pilots are some fucking cracks that they manage to land without control and only by maneuvering thanks to one engine or ditch it into a river, hell yeah. But most of the time when it happens it's a 90-100% casualty rate.
I would love to be proved wrong.[/QUOTE]
Statistically, between 1983-2000, all plane accidents (not necessarily crashes, but major enough to be investigated by the NTSB) had a 95.7% survival rate. An aircraft accident is when the aircraft is at least substantially damaged with the intention to fly, and may or may not have fatalities.
I'll see what I can find on crashes alone, but it's no doubt air travel is probably the safest out there, and it's greeting even safer as we develop new technology.
[editline]8th March 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=FFStudios;44173297]To anyone that hasn't and is interested in plane crash survival statistics, check out Discovery's documentary "How A Plane Crashes". They intentionally crash a 747 into a desert to see how the test dummies fare in the impact.[/QUOTE]
There was a similar test using a Boring 707 on 1984, and despite there being a huge fireball during the crash, roughly 25% of the passengers would have still survived of it were real.
These stolen passports really don't bode well.
The fact that there are between 50,000 - 100,000 flights per day worldwide, and that something like this rarely happens, is a miracle.
[QUOTE=Brandy92;44173488]These stolen passports really don't bode well.[/QUOTE]
Yeah makes me think someone tried to hijack the plane with a bomb and for whatever reason the bomb went off. Maybe faulty wiring, maybe a trembling finger on the switch, maybe a passenger who would rather go down with the plane than let it be hijacked and cause more damage. Maybe the goal was just to blow up a plane. From all the information I've read in this thread and in other places it seems that something catastrophic had to have happened very quickly for there to have been no radio contact or emergency signals sent out.
Whatever happened here it is a tragedy.
[QUOTE=Wikipedia]The aircraft was involved in a prior accident at Shanghai Pudong airport in August 2012, where its wingtip collided with another aircraft and broke off.[/QUOTE]
If this is correct, I wonder if the plane's wing was damaged and improperly repaired. Some countries don't have very stringent maintenance procedures, so it might be possible.
[QUOTE=Cheshire_cat;44174449]If this is correct, I wonder if the plane's wing was damaged and improperly repaired. Some countries don't have very stringent maintenance procedures, so it might be possible.[/QUOTE]
[t]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/32814946/140308-malaysian-jet-collision-0912_8785483b83a985db9ae72716530f46ff.jpg[/t]
I highly doubt it. The plane would probably still be able to fly if this happened mid air.
[QUOTE=Cheshire_cat;44174449]If this is correct, I wonder if the plane's wing was damaged and improperly repaired. Some countries don't have very stringent maintenance procedures, so it might be possible.[/QUOTE]
It's possible, but even if a broken wing was the issue that shouldn't have prevented the pilots from sending out a mayday before impact.
[QUOTE=adam1172;44174509][t]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/32814946/140308-malaysian-jet-collision-0912_8785483b83a985db9ae72716530f46ff.jpg[/t]
I highly doubt it. The plane would probably still be able to fly if this happened mid air.[/QUOTE]
A missing winglet will make it slightly harder to fly. If a wing fully fell off, it depends on what they were doing at that time. The stresses could have ripped the plane apart mid air too if a wing fell off.
[QUOTE=jordguitar;44174563]A missing winglet will make it slightly harder to fly. [b]If a wing fully fell off, it depends on what they were doing at that time.The stresses could have ripped the plane apart mid air too if a wing fell off. [/b][/QUOTE]
yes an entire wing falling off would probably affect aircraft performance, good insight
[QUOTE=adam1172;44174509][t]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/32814946/140308-malaysian-jet-collision-0912_8785483b83a985db9ae72716530f46ff.jpg[/t]
I highly doubt it. The plane would probably still be able to fly if this happened mid air.[/QUOTE]
would be unstable as heck but it would probably still be in the air
[QUOTE=Zambies!;44171462]You'd break your neck instantly[/QUOTE]
Brace position.
Could it have just exploded? That's what I've been thinking. Dudes got onboard with bombs or something and blew up the plane. Either way, I think we're gonna find out in the coming weeks.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
