MH17
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None |
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | | Pies4shaw wrote: | | Cabin pressure failure at altitude. It happens. |
Is there any evidence for that vs the standard hypothesis ? |
The cabin pressure failure was caused by a missile blowing one wing off. It happens.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
 |
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| You see the same decompression occurring from time to time in high-altitude migratory species flying over war-zones. |
|
|
|
|
Jezza 
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 3.14159 wrote: | Explosive decompression followed by total loss of structural integrity is what can happen when you fly a large plane over a war zone.
After MH 370 you'd think Malaysian Airlines would be the last air-line to endanger it's passengers needlessly ... but you'd wrong! |
Correct me if I'm wrong mate but weren't other airlines flying over the Eastern Ukraine area just before the plane was shot down and then as a result everyone stopped flying over it as the map on page 4 or 5 in this thread demonstrates.
I do agree with your original premise that flying over a war zone is sheer incompetence even if airlines most likely did it on the basis of efficiency and saving fuel.
_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
3.14159
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
|
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I heard somewhere (sorry no link, can't remember where from) the due to quite heavy losses to the Ukrainian air force in the war they had taken to shadowing civilian air liners on their incoming flight path, making their attack runs and getting out. In this instance however the SAM locked on to the airliner rather than the fast jet. Considering the rebel forces have significant anti air capability, flying over that zone was criminally negligent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ukrainian_aircraft_losses_during_the_Ukrainian_crisis
That shows the kind of losses the Ukrainian air forces were suffering. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | Considering the rebel forces have significant anti air capability, flying over that zone was criminally negligent. |
This demonstrates why people who don't know much about something shouldn't comment without due care.
In fact, around half of all the relevant airlines were flying over that part of the world. No fewer than 88 airliners were flying over that area at the time, including ones belonging to several of the biggest and best-run airlines in the world. Lufthansa is an example; Singapore Airlines (widely recognised in the industry as the best and safest airline in the world) is another. To blame Malaysian Airlines in the light of these facts is absurd, and to talk of "criminal negligence" is like blaming a violent rape victim for walking home from the bus stop. But don't let that stop you Mr Putin's Little Friend, it certainly wouldn't stop Big Mr Putin.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
3.14159
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | Considering the rebel forces have significant anti air capability, flying over that zone was criminally negligent. |
It's not criminally negligent, but it is negligent.
NOTAM only prohibited US pilots & planes from flying over the war zone.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) took action in April to prohibit all US airlines from flying over Crimea because of the dispute between Ukraine and Russia about which country controlled the airspace in the Simferopol region covering the Crimea peninsula.
The International Civil Aviation Organization, a branch of the United Nations warned airlines on 3 April to avoid the area but obviously didn't/doesn't have the teeth to prohibit flights over the area.
Airlines ignored the ban/warning for one reason, to cut fuel costs at the expense of passenger safety.
This really isn't good enough.
QANTAS, the safest airline in world heeded the NOTAM and flew around the area as did British Airways and many others!
Airlines have a duty of care to the lives they hold in their hands.
The ICAO should be given the same powers to ban heavy passenger planes from flying over war zones!
~~~
Here's how insurance companies feel about airlines that continue to ignore flight safety warnings!
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/airline-safety-flight-mh17-downing-hurts-perception-of-air-travel-1.2715597
| Quote: | Airline experts are now taking risk assessment into their own hands to a degree they've never had to before, both to reassure passengers that they are safe, and also to head off insurance claims of negligence.
If the reality of international air travel really has changed for good, insurance companies may well decide it's not worth it — a development that would wreak havoc on an industry finally back on two feet.
"They may decline coverage,they may tell the airline 'if you want to fly into a conflict zone, we won't cover you' and the airline then would then have to take the risk themselves," D'Cruz said. |
"But sir, I wasn't the only one doing it" isn't a valid excuse when people's lives are at stake!
... |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 3.14159 wrote: | | QANTAS, the safest airline in world |
Bullshit. Complete bullshit. Qantas was very good for a few decades, but has come right back to the peloton these days. Partly, their good early record was good luck, but a lot of it had to do with very good, dedicated staff, good (by the standards of the day) management and training, and above all a preparedness to spend whatever it took to stay safe. None of these things apply now.
Qantas has had a series of very nasty accidents in recent years and didn't wind up killing people purely through good luck. They have gone to extraordinary lengths to cook the books about them. In the case of the very serious off-runway accident in SE Asia, Qantas only managed to pretend that it wasn't what it was by repairing a very badly damaged airliner at double or triple the cost of simply writing it off and buying a new one. It was wrecked, no two ways about it, but Qantas management has managed to keep the dreaded hull loss accident off the books by spending up big to "repair" (read complete rebuild) it. (Hull loss accidents are the ones the safety numbers are calculated on, so they were really rather clever.)
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
It's all very well to say "you shouldn't have flown there, it was dangerous" after the event, but to do so is quite pointless. There is hardly anywhere in the world which is not a good place not to fly, for one reason or another. Not only are there war zones all over the damn place, there are large areas where there are natural hazards (volcanos, which have brought down modern aircraft before and will again; all sorts of nasty weather - still a massive cause of accidents, way, way, way worse than war zones; and general incompetence of all kinds, such as Russia's hopeless air traffic controllers, to mention just one example).
Then you have to set all of those multiple, overlapping, and conflicting risk factors against the constant demand for faster, more direct, cheaper, on-time every time flights. And you can't just ignore those things in search of greater safety. Well, you can, but the industry has a term for airlines which do that: bankrupt. You just can't do it. All you can do is make the best judgment that you can and hope that the next disaster happens to some other poor bastard.
Here in Australia, we actually used to place safety as the number one and to hell with the cost. This was in the days of the Two Airline Policy and it gave us the best, safest airlines in the world. Oh, and a ticket cost three times as much as an equivalent ticket elsewhere. Those days are long gone here, and even longer gone everywhere else in the world.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
One more thing: the overall safety of modern air travel - all those factors mentioned above notwithstanding - is incredibly good. Your chance of dying in an airliner are incredibly small. You could start at the airport, fly to London and back 100 times without ever getting out of the aeroplane, and drive home at the end of it, and by far your greatest risk would be the drive home. That's how safe it is. The machinery is incredibly good, mind-blowingly good, and the training and procedures are way, way in advance of almost any other industry.
So get a grip.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | Wouldn't an uneconomical repair still be considered a write off? |
In one word, no. That's why they spent that insane amount of money on repairs - money that could have bought a brand new 747 and left plenty of change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_1
Qantas are very, very good at maintaining their reputation. Good for them. But no-one seriously rates them as highly as, for example, SIA or Lufthansa these days.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | You could start at the airport, fly to London and back 100 times without ever getting out of the aeroplane, and drive home at the end of it, and by far your greatest risk would be the drive home. |
^ Um. Assuming that in amongst our risk factors we are not counting airline food, of course.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
3.14159
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: |
Then you have to set all of those multiple, overlapping, and conflicting risk factors against the constant demand for faster, more direct, cheaper, on-time every time flights. And you can't just ignore those things in search of greater safety. Well, you can, but the industry has a term for airlines which do that: bankrupt. You just can't do it. |
QANTAS, British Airlines, US airlines (and many others) paid a little extra to do what they were advised to do yet haven't gone bankrupt.
[i]Even QANTAS has settled down and started making money once it's hysterical "chicken little" CEO's plan/rant to sell off it's International arm was shot down by a sceptical senate.
Malaysian airlines posted a $600 million loss in 2013 so I guess you could argue that airlines that cut corners are the ones bordering on bankruptcy.
| Tannin wrote: | All you can do is make the best judgment that you can and hope that the next disaster happens to some other poor bastard.
|
Well you'd think of all the carriers Malaysian would have all it could to make sure it was some-other poor bastard... |
|
|
|
|
3.14159
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | 3.14159 wrote: | | QANTAS, the safest airline in world |
Bullshit. Complete bullshit. Qantas was very good for a few decades, but has come right back to the peloton these days. Partly, their good early record was good luck, but a lot of it had to do with very good, dedicated staff, good (by the standards of the day) management and training, and above all a preparedness to spend whatever it took to stay safe. None of these things apply now.
|
Complete bullshit is a harsh summation!
QANTAS international has all ways got it's passengers up in the air and back down on the ground unsurrounded by flaming debris and dead bodies (so far).
Sure luck has something to do with it but they say you make your own luck but a small detour around an area they were advised not to fly over is a good example of why lady luck has thus far stayed with our national carrier!
The fact that they've been doing longer than just about every other airline , makes them (to me anyway) the safest in the world.
If Singapore A. was ignoring the warning I'd be even less likely to concede them the crown of world's "safest airline".
... if QANTAS can survive the constant bad business decisions and hysterical tantrums of it's current CEO with it's 100% air-safety record intact, it can survive just about anything! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
