Are you concerned about flying?
Discussion
Turbodiesel1690 said:
Generally I'm not concerned, I fly every week on business (usually N. Ireland to mainland UK) and long haul on occasion, the way I see it every single component on those things is designed to fly, not to mention the high redundancy built into the critical systems. The only time I was genuinely concerned on a flight was when landing into Frankfurt on a Lufthansa A321 in thick fog - all was going well, almost touched down when all of a sudden full power goes on and back up we go. It seemed quite violent and there were a few gasps amongst the passengers. The captain came on shortly afterwards to say they 'couldn't see the runway' and were 'circling the airfield for an automatic landing' - have to say it was the smoothest landing I've ever experienced, wish they would do it more often
If you fly into Chambrey regularly you become quite blase about last minute, throttles against the stops, stick-back go-arounds as a fog bank rolls off the lake and across the airfield...
If we're off snowboarding in France, I'll always try for Chambery or Lyon over Geneva. There's definitely a lot to be said for a crappy municipal airfield taking 15 flights a day over the behemoth major regionals & sod the VASI & ILS radars!@Pothole
Sorry if my post was ambiguous.
I did, of course, mean that there were zero deaths in UK commercial aviation in 2010. There were also zero deaths in commercial aviation in the USA in 2010, for the third time in 4 years.
Yes, zero.
http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/2011-01-21-RWai...
These facts illustrate the vast difference between the perception and the reality of the risks of flying on modern aircraft in developed countries. As I stated in a previous post, the situation is very different in parts of the developing world, where the vast majority of casualties occur.
Sorry if my post was ambiguous.
I did, of course, mean that there were zero deaths in UK commercial aviation in 2010. There were also zero deaths in commercial aviation in the USA in 2010, for the third time in 4 years.
Yes, zero.
http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/2011-01-21-RWai...
These facts illustrate the vast difference between the perception and the reality of the risks of flying on modern aircraft in developed countries. As I stated in a previous post, the situation is very different in parts of the developing world, where the vast majority of casualties occur.
SomeMinorTrouble said:
I used to watch air crash investigation alot so was very scared when I first flew in june.
But it was fine and im scared no more
Am I the only one who watches that show and then feels better when I get on an aircraft? It means those issues are unlikely to happen again because everyone has learnt from the mistakes in maintenance, engineering design or procedure.But it was fine and im scared no more
ClaphamGT3 said:
Justin Cyder said:
They were definitely overwhelmed at Los Rodeos & it was a world away in 1977 in terms of the way the technical side of flying was done. CRM really grew up because of disasters like Tenerife & The Saudi fire where everyone could have survived, but the captain effectively went into a form of denial with catastrophic consequences.
Indeed - and if he hadn't re-fuelled with 55 tonnes of JP54 (enough for the return to Schipol) to save time instead of doing so on arrival at Las Palmas as planned, the take-off charactaristics of the plane would have been different and the explosion may have been less catastrophic.Also, I understand that the KLM captain was world renowned as a 747 God and that both Los Rodeos ATC, Pan Am and, ultimately, even his own flight deck were loath to question his decision making.
Think that Sam is right about Los Rodeos ATC being totally overwhelmed by the number of movements on their airfield.
It's interesting, though.. all of these really only point to one thing - human error. Especially with the Los Rodeos incident, there was no problem with either aircraft at any point, it was just a horrible situation conspiring with lack of understanding. The aircraft and the procedures are so well-developed now that such things are barely possible, but when you look at more recent stuff like the Helios depressurisation incident and Flight 447(?) disappearing, once again it's human error not comprehending what was happening.
Further than that, I'd say it's seniority and its effects - that KLM pilot was most definitely renowned as the man on those jets, and I think I remember reading that KLM were even using him as their poster boy in adverts and the like. Nobody's going to want to question him and have their career left in tatters by the rebuttal. Just think of being the poor sod in the tower thinking there's a miniscule chance that the Clipper is still on the runway, but imagining what would happen if it turns out you were wrong, Mr 747 knew something you didn't, and you ordered him of all people to stop in his tracks, full of passengers, when he's already launched.
Similarly with the recent Airbus loss, the two pilots were a world apart in experience and stature and that severely hindered their communication. I really think airlines, and the whole industry, should promote an overwhelming ideal that no matter who you are, you absolutely must speak your mind with regard to any possible error or safety issue you might see. Sure, you could feel like a fool 99 times over. But once you might stop a planeload of people from never arriving. If such a mindset is drummed into everyone, the "old hands" could stop resenting their judgement being questioned and start appreciating being made to think and confirm all the time, and the younger crew could start feeling confident enough to speak any doubts.
Fine in theory. But as a cadet, even if I knew damn well an officer was wrong, telling them so is a different matter..
Edited by McSam on Tuesday 18th September 11:49
Problems that worry me are that some Far Eastern Airlines still have the deferential attitude to the Captain where they feel they cannot correct any mistakes they make. The Tenerife disaster and the Staines Disaster were examples where the Captain made bad decisions unchallenged. They is also the problem that Indian sub continent airlines are facing where a few Pilots are faking hours and or qualifications to make a senior rank. The problem is not helped by "Officials" who are easily bribed allowing them to get away with it.
Ari said:
Started a job that requires a bit of international flying about a year ago. Love the travelling, not sure I'd say I hate the flying, but distinctly uneasy about it.
I rationalise it all the time, realise probably more dangerous driving to the airport etc, but it's just being... up there. At least if you're in a car crash you're already on the ground.
I find myself analysing every noise, every change in engine note, every bump, even scrutinising every passenger in the boarding queue. Pointless.
Anyone else do this?
Anyone got past it?
I found my self doing this going to Greece & coming back last week. I especially hate turbulence!I rationalise it all the time, realise probably more dangerous driving to the airport etc, but it's just being... up there. At least if you're in a car crash you're already on the ground.
I find myself analysing every noise, every change in engine note, every bump, even scrutinising every passenger in the boarding queue. Pointless.
Anyone else do this?
Anyone got past it?
McSam said:
)
It's interesting, though.. all of these really only point to one thing - human error. Especially with the Los Rodeos incident, there was no problem with either aircraft at any point, it was just a horrible situation conspiring with lack of understanding. The aircraft and the procedures are so well-developed now that such things are barely possible, but when you look at more recent stuff like the Helios depressurisation incident and Flight 447(?) disappearing, once again it's human error not comprehending what was happening.
Further than that, I'd say it's seniority and its effects - that KLM pilot was most definitely renowned as the man on those jets, and I think I remember reading that KLM were even using him as their poster boy in adverts and the like. Nobody's going to want to question him and have their career left in tatters by the rebuttal. Just think of being the poor sod in the tower thinking there's a miniscule chance that the Clipper is still on the runway, but imagining what would happen if it turns out you were wrong, Mr 747 knew something you didn't, and you ordered him of all people to stop in his tracks, full of passengers, when he's already launched.
Similarly with the recent Airbus loss, the two pilots were a world apart in experience and stature and that severely hindered their communication. I really think airlines, and the whole industry, should promote an overwhelming ideal that no matter who you are, you absolutely must speak your mind with regard to any possible error or safety issue you might see. Sure, you could feel like a fool 99 times over. But once you might stop a planeload of people from never arriving. If such a mindset is drummed into everyone, the "old hands" could stop resenting their judgement being questioned and start appreciating being made to think and confirm all the time, and the younger crew could start feeling confident enough to speak any doubts.
Fine in theory. But as a cadet, even if I knew damn well an officer was wrong, telling them so is a different matter..
Completely agree, but it starts with the top guy. If Van Zanten had said "Thanks for correcting me - let's run through our clearance from the start to make sure we're all clear on where we are" instead of snapping "I know that!" When his 1st officer said "Wait, we don't have clearance" as he spooled up the 1st time, things could have been different. Similarly, if he'd called an abort when the flight engineer questioned whether Pan Am had cleared, the outcome would have been very different.It's interesting, though.. all of these really only point to one thing - human error. Especially with the Los Rodeos incident, there was no problem with either aircraft at any point, it was just a horrible situation conspiring with lack of understanding. The aircraft and the procedures are so well-developed now that such things are barely possible, but when you look at more recent stuff like the Helios depressurisation incident and Flight 447(?) disappearing, once again it's human error not comprehending what was happening.
Further than that, I'd say it's seniority and its effects - that KLM pilot was most definitely renowned as the man on those jets, and I think I remember reading that KLM were even using him as their poster boy in adverts and the like. Nobody's going to want to question him and have their career left in tatters by the rebuttal. Just think of being the poor sod in the tower thinking there's a miniscule chance that the Clipper is still on the runway, but imagining what would happen if it turns out you were wrong, Mr 747 knew something you didn't, and you ordered him of all people to stop in his tracks, full of passengers, when he's already launched.
Similarly with the recent Airbus loss, the two pilots were a world apart in experience and stature and that severely hindered their communication. I really think airlines, and the whole industry, should promote an overwhelming ideal that no matter who you are, you absolutely must speak your mind with regard to any possible error or safety issue you might see. Sure, you could feel like a fool 99 times over. But once you might stop a planeload of people from never arriving. If such a mindset is drummed into everyone, the "old hands" could stop resenting their judgement being questioned and start appreciating being made to think and confirm all the time, and the younger crew could start feeling confident enough to speak any doubts.
Fine in theory. But as a cadet, even if I knew damn well an officer was wrong, telling them so is a different matter..
Edited by McSam on Tuesday 18th September 11:49
ClaphamGT3 said:
Completely agree, but it starts with the top guy. If Van Zanten had said "Thanks for correcting me - let's run through our clearance from the start to make sure we're all clear on where we are" instead of snapping "I know that!" When his 1st officer said "Wait, we don't have clearance" as he spooled up the 1st time, things could have been different. Similarly, if he'd called an abort when the flight engineer questioned whether Pan Am had cleared, the outcome would have been very different.
Absolutely - I was blaming the top guys, really. Having that sort of mindset "bred" within the company would mean the top guys couldn't snap back, which stops the younger pilots being scared to question them, which was my idea.I guess van Zanten was the classic example. He was the man on that type of aircraft, predisposing anybody against questioning him/him against listening, and he'd been diverted and was pissed off already, making it worse! Even the guys on the Clipper knew he didn't want to be waiting. His excessive confidence in the procedures didn't help him, I suppose the idea of another aircraft still being on the runway never even entered his head as possible.. but then again, his first officer did say "we're at takeoff", which really isn't standard. Nor was the tower's response of "OK".. You can tell nobody really had their head screwed on straight then.
I did not know some Indian (and I presume those of other "emerging" airlines) pilots were faking hours, though.. That's phenomenal. You'd end up with a "junior" pilot being too scared to question a "senior" one who knows f
kall more than he does anyway!All I'm going to add to this is that I repair aircraft parts (for the big boys, Boeing and Airbus) for a living, and if you saw the state that some units arrive in, knowing that 48 hrs previously they had been fitted on a flying aircraft in regular passenger service....
None of you would ever get on a plane again !!
However, seeing them go out the door all shiney and fixed is a great confidence boost.
P.s I've been very lucky to have a parent that worked for 40+ years in the airlines and have thus got to travel a fair bit. Other than 1 take off from San Fransisco, I've never been scared. They really are very safe machines on the whole.
None of you would ever get on a plane again !!
However, seeing them go out the door all shiney and fixed is a great confidence boost.
P.s I've been very lucky to have a parent that worked for 40+ years in the airlines and have thus got to travel a fair bit. Other than 1 take off from San Fransisco, I've never been scared. They really are very safe machines on the whole.
I fly almost weekly for work, sometimes long haul (U.S., Asia) and around Europe, but mostly to/from London City (LCY).
Watching the approach to LHR on an Emirates A380 onboard enterntainment system was cool though.
My flag carrier uses Dash 400s for this airport, which, in stronger winds across the Thames have provided some rather twichy arsed landings.
On one occasion, the pilot approached the runway from the east, crossing the river, and twice had to abort the landing when the wheels could have only been 5m above the runway. We ended up in Stansted that day as the pilot didn't want to risk a windy landing at LCY. The passengers were all pleased to be on the ground in the end!
Watching the approach to LHR on an Emirates A380 onboard enterntainment system was cool though.
My flag carrier uses Dash 400s for this airport, which, in stronger winds across the Thames have provided some rather twichy arsed landings.
On one occasion, the pilot approached the runway from the east, crossing the river, and twice had to abort the landing when the wheels could have only been 5m above the runway. We ended up in Stansted that day as the pilot didn't want to risk a windy landing at LCY. The passengers were all pleased to be on the ground in the end!
I've become concerned about flying recently. Not sure why, but now find I face every flight with apprehension. 25 years ago I was awarded an RAF Flying Scholarship and I've flown light planes solo. I understand the principles of flight, aircraft design, and the maintenence/engineering that goes into each aircraft.
I first went on a plane when I was 6, did my first long-haul (LGW-LAX) when I was 8 and have flown countless times since. I've been on planes that have landed in severe thunderstorms, been put into a spin and pulled out of it as a pilot, and had a good chat with my cousin who was a steward on BA9 in 1982. I've lived in Oz for nearly ten years, and its a big place if you don't fly - so I fly out of necessity. Flying Oz-UK-Oz with two small kids is hard enough without feeling like you'd really not be on the plane.
Lots of experience, good and bad, and I used to love being on a plane but I just don't enjoy it at all any more. I'm sort of hoping I grow out of this phase too, as I can't really put my finger on what I don't like.
I first went on a plane when I was 6, did my first long-haul (LGW-LAX) when I was 8 and have flown countless times since. I've been on planes that have landed in severe thunderstorms, been put into a spin and pulled out of it as a pilot, and had a good chat with my cousin who was a steward on BA9 in 1982. I've lived in Oz for nearly ten years, and its a big place if you don't fly - so I fly out of necessity. Flying Oz-UK-Oz with two small kids is hard enough without feeling like you'd really not be on the plane.
Lots of experience, good and bad, and I used to love being on a plane but I just don't enjoy it at all any more. I'm sort of hoping I grow out of this phase too, as I can't really put my finger on what I don't like.
Ray Luxury-Yacht said:
You'll be even more worried then when I tell you that the 'EPR' (engine power ratio) on take-off is NOT to just mash the throttle controls as far as they'll go for 'full power' - oh, no.
The pilots work out what will be ostensibly 'enough' power to get the bird off the ground depending on the weight of the passengers and baggage, the wind and the length of the runway.
They're constantly badgered by the airlines to save fuel, and take-off EPR is a part of that.
So - you're relying on something (ok, a little more sophisticated, maybe) that is essentially a 'back of a fag packet' sum on how much power will get us all safely off the ground
Scared yet?
Nah. I used for work for an airline many years ago. There was a fuel crisis, and the pilots were told they were wasting fuel by keeping the landing gear down too long. The results were not entirely unexpected, but no one was hurt. G-APWF (which for some obscure reason I remembered).The pilots work out what will be ostensibly 'enough' power to get the bird off the ground depending on the weight of the passengers and baggage, the wind and the length of the runway.
They're constantly badgered by the airlines to save fuel, and take-off EPR is a part of that.
So - you're relying on something (ok, a little more sophisticated, maybe) that is essentially a 'back of a fag packet' sum on how much power will get us all safely off the ground
Scared yet?
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/4-1...
.
lazyitus said:
Colonial said:
But helicopters? Don't trust those fkers in the slightest.
Ah - this, absolutely. I will never, ever, ever go up in a helicopter. Ever.kers in the slightest. I've never had a problem with flying but my OH hates it. She's found the Virgin Atlantic fear of flying app very helpful recently.
A friend of mine used to be terrified of flying. That was until he was on one of the last flights out of the Southern US just as Katrina hit. He said that having seen just how much abuse a plane can take he no longer has any issues with flying.
A friend of mine used to be terrified of flying. That was until he was on one of the last flights out of the Southern US just as Katrina hit. He said that having seen just how much abuse a plane can take he no longer has any issues with flying.
Gassing Station | Holidays & Travel | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff