OT - delving into aviation (was: XP2001 looks good from the air)

["Dave Proctor" <daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au>]

"trendy rechauffé" <trendy_rechauffe@start.com.au> wrote in message
NriJ4.4678$5D.10063@ozemail.com.au">news:NriJ4.4678$5D.10063@ozemail.com.au...

> Don't forget that qantas only flies around 100 planes, compared to over
700
> united planes. A lot of flights in the US are very short shuttles with the
> planes operating constantly like buses. I'm not surprised american
carriers
> have a lot of accidents.

That is a lot of rot (as I am sure that David Bromage and our other lurker
in aus.aviation will attest to).

The rate of accidents is much higher in the United States - i.e. they have
more accidents per 1000 cycles (take-offs and landings) than we do per 1000
cycles. This cannot be attributed to airport congestion, since many airports
outside of the US are far busier (Heathrow is the busiest).

Since it is based on a percentage of take-offs and landings, you cannot say
that because they have more cycles, they will have more accidents. You also
cannot say that their skies are more congested, because the European airways
system is far more congested that the US airways system.

> I'd be a bit worried if a qantas jet flew over me and a large chunk of
> engine fell off, just like a few months back near brisbane. Luckily it was
> over water at the time. It could just as easily fallen off in Sydney over
> land.

The only people at risk from that were people on the ground. The aircraft
was in absolutely no danger, and the media frenzy which ensued was gross
exaggeration.

Dave