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

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

"James C." <james_ccj@my-deja.com> wrote in message
8d4efu$7cm$1@nnrp1.deja.com">news:8d4efu$7cm$1@nnrp1.deja.com...

> [try to bring back topic into rail]

Yeah, that is why I changed the subject.

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

Hard to say really. Looking at the number of movements on rail, compare them
with the number of movements by air too difficult a problem to work out.
There is also the fact that an accident in the air has far more potential to
kill lots of people compared with rail.

Most of what has been happening on CityRail would be classed as "incidents"
by BASI (Bureau of Air Safety Investigation) meaning that whilst they would
be investigated, they would be recognised as not being overly serious (and
would therefore be given the appropriate level of investigative resources)

Under the airline regime, I doubt that things like directing a train onto a
wrong track would even be brought to BASI's attention - passenegers were
never, ever, ever at risk, neither was the infrastructure, the signalling
was not at fault and the safeworking system would have worked (presumably)
to prevent conflicting movements. This would definitely be classed as an
incident, as would most of the events that have set the media into a frenzy
about CityRail recently. Although, most of the events regarding Qantas are
also incidents, and are the subject of gross over-reactions by the media.

Dave