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

["Chris Downs" <cvdowns@ozemail.com.au>]

Is it due to a more competitive environment, tighter margins therefore
comparatively less $ for safety in the US?

And while on the subject or aircraft and accidents - didn't Jimmy Strong
look dapper and confident standing by the resurrected Qantas jumbo (after
having travelled on its return journey to Oz), the jumbo having been
repaired after going through the catch points in Bangkok last year!

Chris

Dave Proctor <daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
1BiJ4.328$uj.799226@news0.optus.net.au">news:1BiJ4.328$uj.799226@news0.optus.net.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
>
>
>