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

["James C." <james_ccj@my-deja.com>]

In article <1BiJ4.328$uj.799226@news0.optus.net.au>,
  "Dave Proctor" <daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> "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
[try to bring back topic into rail]

what's the chances of plane crash compare with chances of rail
accidents??



--
Cheers

James


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.