Sydney Airport Message Board Sydney Airport Message Board  

Go Back   Sydney Airport Message Board > Technical > Flying and Technical Discussion
Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 2nd September 2009, 11:30 AM
KrishnaM KrishnaM is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Turrella
Posts: 55
Default Reduce your Odds of Dying in a Plane Crash

Dont know who made this or where its from but it makes you think

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 2nd September 2009, 12:35 PM
Gareth Forwood Gareth Forwood is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 372
Default

Some interesting stats there, but I wasn't aware that Qantas has had any fatal accidents - according to this they have had 11!

Also keep in mind that statistics can be used to show what you want - for example (from Wikipedia) there is a strong correlation between US highway fatality rates and the number of tonnes of fresh lemons imported to the US from Mexico - Wiki Link

I must say though, I do like the fact that we have a greater chance of dying from a nuclear accident than flying...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 2nd September 2009, 01:37 PM
Adam G Adam G is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Forwood View Post
Some interesting stats there, but I wasn't aware that Qantas has had any fatal accidents - according to this they have had 11!
They've never lost a jet - prior to the jet age however....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...atal_accidents
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 2nd September 2009, 02:04 PM
Kelvin R Kelvin R is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 167
Default

According to the Wiki list which has been misquoted QF has had 11 accidents, however the list does not specify as the image does that the accidents were indeed fatal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_air_disasters
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 2nd September 2009, 03:19 PM
Adam G Adam G is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 170
Default

I'm pretty sure they also lost a connie on takeoff from somewhere in Africa too didn't they?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 2nd September 2009, 03:19 PM
Gareth Forwood Gareth Forwood is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 372
Default

I think it's a bit unfair of this guy to include pre-jet incidents, when none of those aircraft fly any more. But I guess if he didn't include all flights it would add the complication of where exactly to draw the line. Also, he presents the proportion of fatal incidents to the number of aircraft for the aircraft type category, but doesn't do this with regards to airlines...

Sorry if this seems a bit pedantic, but being an engineer and having studied statistics, it's my nature to be exact...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 2nd September 2009, 04:39 PM
Rhys Xanthis Rhys Xanthis is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 992
Default

The first graph doesn't adjust for the amount of flights flown (so by this, flying anywhere else in the world is safer than the USA )).

Also counting pre jet age incidents etc, rather useless I think. How can you minimise risk?

Fly on a well known carrier, and fly to well known destinations where engineers and spare parts are plentiful.
__________________
Next Flights: 08/7 PER-DRW QF | 15/7 DRW-PER QF // 14/8 PER-MEL JQ | 15/8 MEL-PER JQ
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 2nd September 2009, 04:40 PM
Philip Argy's Avatar
Philip Argy Philip Argy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Strathfield
Posts: 1,402
Question Where does the 11 fatal accidents figure come from?

So far none of the links have led me to evidence that Qantas has had 11 fatal accidents, as depicted in the original post. The diagram should be withdrawn or corrected.

It is also fallacious to include the wartime military flights that were hardly reflective of regular scheduled airline services.

To the extent to which the original report purports to give contemporary information and to reflect current risk levels (which I glean from the inclusion of blogging as a low risk activity) the cutoff should be more recent, say 50 years to be pretty generous.
__________________
Philip
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 2nd September 2009, 06:00 PM
Liz E Liz E is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19
Default

If this chart were the work of a high school student completed as part of a mathematics/statistics assesment, it might be worth a B+. But the aviation industry would likely deem that it falls far short in relevance and overall accuracy. Having said that, I don't like my chances of surviving a heat stroke induced fall whilst blogging during a nuclear attack.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 2nd September 2009, 06:09 PM
Nathan Long Nathan Long is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: YMML
Posts: 263
Default

How about the DC-9 profile being an F28 and the A300 and A320 profiles being 737s?
__________________
My JetPhotos photos
All Australia Canada NZ UK
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time now is 04:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright © Sydney Airport Message Board 1997-2022
Use of this web site constitutes acceptance of the Conditions of Use and Privacy Statement