Are you concerned about flying?
Discussion
Ray Luxury-Yacht said:
So - let's have our first lesson, shall we, on what's safely possible, despite it appearing suicidal?
Huge, multi-engined 'Heavy' aircraft on final approach, laughing in the face of such trivia as 'wind shear'...
One linky of many on You Tube
Now THAT is a power slide.Huge, multi-engined 'Heavy' aircraft on final approach, laughing in the face of such trivia as 'wind shear'...
One linky of many on You Tube
Ray Luxury-Yacht said:
So - let's have our first lesson, shall we, on what's safely possible, despite it appearing suicidal?
Huge, multi-engined 'Heavy' aircraft on final approach, laughing in the face of such trivia as 'wind shear'...
One linky of many on You Tube
Some great ones here! Huge, multi-engined 'Heavy' aircraft on final approach, laughing in the face of such trivia as 'wind shear'...
One linky of many on You Tube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PdUdaXDHm4
The machines are exquisitely engineered with multiple redundancies built into the systems, they really are marvels.
A real concern is automation. The automation of the flight deck has led to a disconnect between the pilots and the aircraft. It's a paradox because the intent is to ensure safety & efficient flight, but we have seen several times how when things go wrong in otherwise perfectly serviceable planes, pilots have struggled to understand what the plane is doing & how to regain the flight. Air France 447, Aeroflot's A300 & Air Frances A320 at Mulhouse were all examples of aircraft with no faults where the pilots lost control of the flight because they did not understand what the aircraft was doing.
In the AF447 crash, the autopilot disengaged in turbulence at night in the dark & the pilots lost situational awareness, pulled the nose up in response to a turbulence generated over speed warning causing it to slow and stall. Even when one of the flight crew recognised what was going on & pushed the control stick forward to lower the nose, he was unaware the other pilot was pulling his sidestick all the way back & on Airbus aircraft, the pilot flying can press a button to take control of the stick. On Boeings. the control columns are linked, so it's obvious what one pilot is doing - the non flying pilot sees his column moving in tandem.
The point of all this is what looks like a clever, progressive development can in situations of extreme duress become highly unintuitive & work against you to the point that it costs you your life. Ghosts in the machine.
A real concern is automation. The automation of the flight deck has led to a disconnect between the pilots and the aircraft. It's a paradox because the intent is to ensure safety & efficient flight, but we have seen several times how when things go wrong in otherwise perfectly serviceable planes, pilots have struggled to understand what the plane is doing & how to regain the flight. Air France 447, Aeroflot's A300 & Air Frances A320 at Mulhouse were all examples of aircraft with no faults where the pilots lost control of the flight because they did not understand what the aircraft was doing.
In the AF447 crash, the autopilot disengaged in turbulence at night in the dark & the pilots lost situational awareness, pulled the nose up in response to a turbulence generated over speed warning causing it to slow and stall. Even when one of the flight crew recognised what was going on & pushed the control stick forward to lower the nose, he was unaware the other pilot was pulling his sidestick all the way back & on Airbus aircraft, the pilot flying can press a button to take control of the stick. On Boeings. the control columns are linked, so it's obvious what one pilot is doing - the non flying pilot sees his column moving in tandem.
The point of all this is what looks like a clever, progressive development can in situations of extreme duress become highly unintuitive & work against you to the point that it costs you your life. Ghosts in the machine.
I fly a fair bit. I'm still always concerned. Usually until the awe at the whole thing takes over.
It has got worse since the birth of my son. I really get nervous flying with him (and worrying that I won't see him again when I fly on my own) but it is entirely irrational. Last landing at Philadelphia in high winds was not fun at all.
One thing I find interesting is the presentation of risk. Air travel is safest when measured by fatalities per km travelled, but by fatalities per journey you get a different picture (third worst, behind bicycle & motorcycle I think).
It has got worse since the birth of my son. I really get nervous flying with him (and worrying that I won't see him again when I fly on my own) but it is entirely irrational. Last landing at Philadelphia in high winds was not fun at all.
One thing I find interesting is the presentation of risk. Air travel is safest when measured by fatalities per km travelled, but by fatalities per journey you get a different picture (third worst, behind bicycle & motorcycle I think).
aizvara said:
One thing I find interesting is the presentation of risk. Air travel is safest when measured by fatalities per km travelled, but by fatalities per journey you get a different picture (third worst, behind bicycle & motorcycle I think).
What WHAT!??Hang on,explain please..?
Justin Cyder said:
The machines are exquisitely engineered with multiple redundancies built into the systems, they really are marvels.
A real concern is automation. The automation of the flight deck has led to a disconnect between the pilots and the aircraft. It's a paradox because the intent is to ensure safety & efficient flight, but we have seen several times how when things go wrong in otherwise perfectly serviceable planes, pilots have struggled to understand what the plane is doing & how to regain the flight. Air France 447, Aeroflot's A300 & Air Frances A320 at Mulhouse were all examples of aircraft with no faults where the pilots lost control of the flight because they did not understand what the aircraft was doing.
In the AF447 crash, the autopilot disengaged in turbulence at night in the dark & the pilots lost situational awareness, pulled the nose up in response to a turbulence generated over speed warning causing it to slow and stall. Even when one of the flight crew recognised what was going on & pushed the control stick forward to lower the nose, he was unaware the other pilot was pulling his sidestick all the way back & on Airbus aircraft, the pilot flying can press a button to take control of the stick. On Boeings. the control columns are linked, so it's obvious what one pilot is doing - the non flying pilot sees his column moving in tandem.
The point of all this is what looks like a clever, progressive development can in situations of extreme duress become highly unintuitive & work against you to the point that it costs you your life. Ghosts in the machine.
That could equally well be seen as an argument for more automation rather than less, though, couldn't it? Or more training.A real concern is automation. The automation of the flight deck has led to a disconnect between the pilots and the aircraft. It's a paradox because the intent is to ensure safety & efficient flight, but we have seen several times how when things go wrong in otherwise perfectly serviceable planes, pilots have struggled to understand what the plane is doing & how to regain the flight. Air France 447, Aeroflot's A300 & Air Frances A320 at Mulhouse were all examples of aircraft with no faults where the pilots lost control of the flight because they did not understand what the aircraft was doing.
In the AF447 crash, the autopilot disengaged in turbulence at night in the dark & the pilots lost situational awareness, pulled the nose up in response to a turbulence generated over speed warning causing it to slow and stall. Even when one of the flight crew recognised what was going on & pushed the control stick forward to lower the nose, he was unaware the other pilot was pulling his sidestick all the way back & on Airbus aircraft, the pilot flying can press a button to take control of the stick. On Boeings. the control columns are linked, so it's obvious what one pilot is doing - the non flying pilot sees his column moving in tandem.
The point of all this is what looks like a clever, progressive development can in situations of extreme duress become highly unintuitive & work against you to the point that it costs you your life. Ghosts in the machine.
Also, the A340 and A320 have very good safety records, comparable or better than their Boeing equivalents, so your concerns seem unfounded. Unless you are worried about the future?
Ari said:
What WHAT!??
Hang on,explain please..?
By mile travelled, planes are safest. They travel a very long way, carrying lots of people. And hardly ever crash.Hang on,explain please..?
By journey completed they show a poorer safety record. Many people die each time a plane (rarely) crashes.
It is down to presentation.
Here's a summary of some DETR statistics, also including presentation using hours travelled:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/risks_of_travel.htm
Justin Cyder said:
Perhaps, but taking that line of argument to it's logical conclusion, would you be content to board an aircraft with no pilots?
I've studied many of the more famous failures of software engineering, so probably not entirely happy. However, in principle I don't see any problem with it, just as I was fine being driven by a fully automatic car (admittedly not on public roads, and following a known course). Ah, well there is a world of difference between doing something in principle & sticking your kid's necks on the block.
Besides, the point I was making was not a rant against Airbus, but rather to point out that the rise in automation of which Airbus is in the vanguard, has not been a flawless process, the issue has been not what the designers foresaw, but what they didn't.
Besides, the point I was making was not a rant against Airbus, but rather to point out that the rise in automation of which Airbus is in the vanguard, has not been a flawless process, the issue has been not what the designers foresaw, but what they didn't.
McSam said:
And if you're worried about someone coming on board with a bomb down their trousers, then think how much bloody easier it is to do that anywhere but on a jet. Even if you were going to be killed by a terrorist, your chances of doing that on a commercial flight are almost zero compared to other means, too!
Similarly, my OH initially wasn't interested in going to the Olympics because it was such a massive terrorist target: tens of thousands of people in the Olympic park, with the world's media watching. We went anyway, and after we got through all the security cordon the penny dropped: we were far, far more likely to fall victim to some semtex-covered fundiemaniac on the Tube trip, than at the venue itself... Just the same as flying.
Love flying, love being on a plane, being in the air. It never stopped being exciting.
Haven't done it since I've been this cripped up.
Terrified beyond words of risking my chair, putting my safety in strangers hands as my ability to breathe or eat is dependant on my positioning... on the plane itself would be a doddle if I could afford the cost of first class seating, it's all the other stuff that scares me witless.
Haven't done it since I've been this cripped up.
Terrified beyond words of risking my chair, putting my safety in strangers hands as my ability to breathe or eat is dependant on my positioning... on the plane itself would be a doddle if I could afford the cost of first class seating, it's all the other stuff that scares me witless.
Funny how most on here just say 'don't worry its ok, I've flown loads without an issue' but there's no 'I crashed once - really hurt' responses.... 
Its bulls
t all the 'more chance of a crash on the way to the airport' stats - at least the way to the airport might be a scrape, bump or full death but at least crashes on the road have variable chances of surviving and happen without much warning. Plane crashes seem to be certain screaming death after spending minutes of bowel emptying awareness surrounded by screaming people 
Its bulls
t all the 'more chance of a crash on the way to the airport' stats - at least the way to the airport might be a scrape, bump or full death but at least crashes on the road have variable chances of surviving and happen without much warning. Plane crashes seem to be certain screaming death after spending minutes of bowel emptying awareness surrounded by screaming people Pommygranite said:
Its bullst all the 'more chance of a crash on the way to the airport' stats - at least the way to the airport might be a scrape, bump or full death but at least crashes on the road have variable chances of surviving and happen without much warning. Plane crashes seem to be certain screaming death after spending minutes of bowel emptying awareness surrounded by screaming people
OK, then - how about the also entirely true statement that you're more likely to be killed outright instantly in a road accident than you are in a plane?t all the 'more chance of a crash on the way to the airport' stats - at least the way to the airport might be a scrape, bump or full death but at least crashes on the road have variable chances of surviving and happen without much warning. Plane crashes seem to be certain screaming death after spending minutes of bowel emptying awareness surrounded by screaming people Or perhaps that you're more likely to die very slowly and agonisingly as a result of a road accident, rather than in a plane?
Both overwhelmingly correct.
I wouldn't want to suggest you're venturing a fear as a fact, but taken as a whole, the survival rate in air crashes is above 50% & if you separate out the worst crashes - bombs, uppity mountains etc, it's more like 90%.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/01/17/t...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/01/17/t...
Ray Luxury-Yacht said:
So - let's have our first lesson, shall we, on what's safely possible, despite it appearing suicidal?
Huge, multi-engined 'Heavy' aircraft on final approach, laughing in the face of such trivia as 'wind shear'...
One linky of many on You Tube
Ahh.. the good old days. Huge, multi-engined 'Heavy' aircraft on final approach, laughing in the face of such trivia as 'wind shear'...
One linky of many on You Tube
That cloud of smoke was the result of a plane load of clenched buttocks giving a sigh of relief I'd suspect.Justin Cyder said:
I wouldn't want to suggest you're venturing a fear as a fact, but taken as a whole, the survival rate in air crashes is above 50% & if you separate out the worst crashes - bombs, uppity mountains etc, it's more like 90%.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/01/17/t...
Yeah. If you pour over the statistics (as anorak-y as I have) actually, the biggest loss of life occurrs AFTER the accident, due to smoke inhalation and fire, and not as a result of the intial impact or un-surviveable crash.http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/01/17/t...
There's an argument I've read about in many air-related text books, that in additon to providing the (fairly statistically useless) sea life jackets, that airlines would have saved more lives in history if they'd provided 'fire smoke hoods' to passengers!
magpie215 said:
get yourself to the local airport and get a few flying lessons booked you will gain an understanding of the basics and what goes on at the pointy end of the aircraft.
you never know you might really get to enjoy flying as a hobby :-)
Never was scared about flying until I got my PPL - expired now but have never been able to relax on a flight sinceyou never know you might really get to enjoy flying as a hobby :-)
Gassing Station | Holidays & Travel | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff