Talk:Air safety
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Navigation aids
I added VOR route navigation, to that section, and provided both internal and external links.
--EditorASC 02:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Engine Failure
I revised the part on the Gimli Glider. Much of the wording was taken word-for-word from other websites, without attribution. Also, the phrase "electro-hydraulic system" was fantasy nomenclature, to put it mildly. There is no such system on the 767, or any other airliner, that I know of.
--EditorASC 07:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stalling
The following has been removed from the Stalling section – seems original research to me.
- Stalling the engine of an aircraft (i.e. causing it to stop working), although a rare problem, is thought to have been the reason for the 1973 crash of the Tupolev Tu-144 "Konkordski".
Please substantiate if willing to re-merge. BACbKA 20:15, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"Fortunately, the fatal incident rate has continued to decline steadily ever since, and since 1997, the number of fatal air accidents has been no more than 1 for every 2,000,000,000 miles flown, making it one of the safest modes of transport." Who can prove this is correct? What about the August-2005 fatal accidents?
[edit] Fire
I cleaned up some of the wording of the ValuJet DC-9 accident. Oxyen generators are installed only in seatbacks, not in the overheads. Revised confusing statements about air tight cargo compartments.
-
- Oxygen generators in the seats? They're in the overheads. The rest looks great. Dbchip 05:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
--EditorASC 03:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
My apology; it was late at night and I was pretty fatigued. I screwed up my own wording. I meant to say that the oxygen generators are not ONLY in the overheads but also in the seatbacks. The difference is between some wide bodied and narrow bodied airliners. The "overhead" is too high above the passengers, in some of the wide bodied planes, so they install the generators in the seatbacks. DC-10s are done that way.
Since I screwed it up on my last attempt, I will leave it to you to choose the way to word it, so that it won't give the impression that the generators are found ONLY in the overheads.
EditorASC 07:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What is a hull-loss accident?
I'm no expert on these things, and I'm trying to work out exactly what a "hull-loss accident" is. I presume that it means when the "aircraft" as a whole is unrecoverable but are there subtleties to this, e.g. you write off the fuselage and recover the engines? It just seems like a strange use of the word "hull" which doubtless means something. I can't find anything on Wikipedia which elaborates further. If someone could enlighten us (or suggest a source and I'll happily write an article) then that would be great. The only thing I've been able to find is on Boeing's website [1] which states that a hull-loss is when the "airplane" isn't "economically repairable". Is that all there is to it? Iancaddy 20:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- After Googling around, I get the impression that it's an insurance term. Sort of how the average person would use "the car was totaled" to mean it wasn't repairable. Or, rather, that it wouldn't be economically worth it to repair it. I think that's the case with this phrase. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 20:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hull losses are when an aircraft is damaged to the point where it is not used again (ie scrapped) Some incidents can be classified as 'hull loss' even if the damage is reletively minor. Often if an elderly aircraft is damaged it is not worth repairing since it was due to be scrapped soon.
[edit] ============
It simply means that the plane was not repaired and put back into service. Such decisions are almost always based strictly on economics. For example, if repairing the plane would cost more than it would to buy another used one like it, after considering what could be earned by selling the wreck for salvage, then the plane will normally be written off as a "hull-loss." Another scenario would be that it was planned to be soon retired from service anyway, and sold for whatever the secondary market might bring. In that case, all but the most minor repairs, would make it much more sensible to use the money for new aircraft purchases.
There is one exception, that I know of: The Qantas 747-400, that ran off the end of the runway at BangKok. It should have been written off as a hull-loss, especially since what was left, would have recouped a lot of that loss, if sold for salvage parts. But, Qantas made a PR decision to spend several millions more, to have the plane rebuilt and put back into service, so they could continue to tell the world that they have never had jet hull-loss.
--EditorASC 03:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Delamination
I believe the crash of A300-600, AAL587, was not a result of delamination - it was a result of the attachements failing, rather than the tailfin itself. The huge metal anchor that kept the tailfin attached to the fuselage failed because it passed the ultimate load due to "rudder reversal" not because full rudder authority being exercised.
Rudder reversal is where full rudder is applied in opposite directions in quick succsession at highspeed and most airliners are liable to suffer fatal structual failure because of this. The safety bulletin issued regarding rudder reversals was ALSO released by Boeing, not just Airbus - and stated that fatal structual failure could result on any of its aircraft because of high-speed rudder reversal. Delamination may have occured, but the accident would have happened with or without it.
"On November 12, 2001, American Airlines Flight 587 crashed shortly after takeoff, killing all 260 persons aboard and 5 more on the ground. Both the engines of the Airbus A300-600, the rudder and the tail fin separated from the plane before impact. The pilot had been trained to use full rudder deflection to recover from wake-induced turbulence, which overstressed the fin. Numerous modern aircraft developed related problems, but most were discovered before they caused a catastrophic failure."
"Full rudder deflection" - that didn't cause it alone, it was swinging full left to full right and doing the same repeatedly that caused it. See the following: http://www.wingfiles.com/files/flight/useofrudder.pdf - UK AIS http://www.wingfiles.com/files/flight/useofrudderonairbus.pdf - NSTB
This sounds like something from the anti-Airbus lobby. It never actually says delamination caused it but it implies so and I've removed the text. If I am in error feel free to add it back in. Also the engine deattachement wasn't due to the use of composites either - I think. I am pretty sure about the rudder failure tho - delamination was not the cause, and presenting as so is unfair.
I can now backup my claims at this link http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/aa587/board_mtg_anim.htm . The Video clearly shows repeated rudder reversals before failure.
NB: Notice someone has reverted it but not mentioned this here, hence I am putting it back to my edit...
[edit] Alleged cell phone hazard
I think this statement, near the end of the human factors section, should be removed:
"Some plane crashes are believed to have been caused by the use of cell phones."
While such allegations have been made, they have never been backed up with hard evidence. Whenever anecdotal reports of interference with navigation systems have been made, they have never been able to reproduce it with subsequent scientific testing. So far, such allegations are nothing more than classic Post Hoc reasoning. I am not aware of any accident, where the official invesitgative report found that the use of any passenger electronic device, was the cause of the crash.
I think there should be some hard evidence to support such claims, before they are included in an article like this.
--EditorASC 10:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed the allegation that cell phones have caused crashes. That simply is not true. Also cleaned up the wording on cell phone use, to reflect the fact that it has been the FCC regulations which prohibit inflight use, unless the planes are specially wire and certified (that is happening now, but very few planes meet that new tech requirement).
EditorASC 07:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nautical miles or statute miles?
Can somebody clarify what kind of miles is used in risk estimation figures? I'd also appreciate a translation to kilometres.
Shure can do. Normal miles were use in that article, despite the fact that nautical miles are used in aircraft. NathanJunyk (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Seating position matters
Perhaps this should be mentioned somewhere in the article? I'm not sure where to put it, though. Esn 04:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Excessive internal links
From September 16th to today, 66.108.191.45 (talk • contribs • logs) has slowly been adding a HUGE number of internal links throughout this article, which range from barely relevant (like Active noise reduction) to totally irrelevant (like Timeline of AIDS.) See this difference between revisions, most of which (but not all) was done by that user. In order to cut down on overlinking I'm going through the article and getting rid of most of the unimportant and irrelevant links cluttering it up. If anyone thinks some should be put back, feel free to restore the good ones. Also, please be alert for later edits by 66.108.191.45. Not all of their edits were bad, but the link creep has gotten excessive. Thanks. -- HiEv 20:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Also, should the "Accidents and incidents" and "Regulation" sections (both are collections of internal links) be incorporated into the "See also" section? Should some items be deleted from any of those sections? It looks like there should be more organization there if it's going to stay this large, perhaps grouping into categories. -- HiEv 19:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Has there been consideration of a "flight safety" section where, perhaps some of these issues could find a home? --Michaelsbaum 15:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Everyone bear in mind
http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg16321985.200-flight-into-danger.html
Air is NOT the safest form of transportation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.164.119 (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Passenger hours versus miles
While the article mentions the oft-quoted statistics about safety based on passenger-miles traveled, has anyone ever done a comparison based on passenger-hours traveled? Seems to me that that would be a more realistic measure of travel safety. This measure would probably correlate to the lifetime odds of dying. — Loadmaster (talk) 03:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- As the New Scientist web article linked to in previous post above mentions,
- The most accurate method is to compare the number of deaths with the number of journeys made. So accurate, in fact, that this is the measure used by the industry and its insurers. This makes much more sense, because what matters to the individual is the journey, not how long it took or how far it went. Also, it enables comparison of different types of jet, both long haul and short haul.
- By this measure, air travel takes on a rather different complexion. Deaths per 100 million passenger journeys are, on average, 55 for airliners compared with 4.5 for cars, and 2.7 for trains. Only motorbikes, at 100 deaths per 100 million passenger journeys, are more risky than aircraft on this basis.
- So, no, air travel is not the safest mode of travel. — Loadmaster (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
