Germanwings Flight 9525 crashes in French Alps

520 posts in this topic

All other things being equal, given the choice to fly in a 25 year old A318/A319/A320/A321 or a new one, I would most definitely take the new one.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is far far too early to start cancelling your next flight on an A320!

 

All modern airliners are incredibly safe, the A320 amongst the very safest.

 

A minuscule number still sadly crash on rare occasions.

 

The difference between the airline industry and many others is that the cause for this crash will likely be discovered and meaningful steps taken to ensure a plane doesn't crash for those reasons again. It is exactly this process of continuous improvement and learning from accidents that makes air travel so safe today.

 

I would MUCH rather fly on a 24 year old A320 today than the same aircraft 24 years ago when it came out of the factory. It will have had many parts replaced and service procedures improved because of other aircraft that have unfortunately crashed and taught us valuable lessons in the process.

 

Budget airlines like Germanwings, Ryanair etc. do not cut corners on maintenance-they can least afford to in fact as they know full well the way the media will spin it and the effect it will have on business.

9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Frightening to think there are 6000+ of these aircraft in active service...

 

What is frightening about an A320.

One takes off every 2 seconds, if they were so bad they would be falling from the skies like leaves.

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bottom line is that this was a 24 year old plane which should have been put out to pasture not wrung out for every cent of profit by a budget airline with a mandate to be in the air as much as physically possible with such afast turn around that engineers are under pressure to perform ground checks too quickly, too superficially. Will anyone say that though? Doubt it. I think this was waiting to happen.

 

Obviously written by someone who was got a fucking clue about aircraft but is not afraid to spout crap when given the chance.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You are entitled to your own opinion with which I respectfully beg to disagree.

 

I am happy to report I barely survived my A320 flight last night. It was horrific and imagining there are over 6000 in service today is just harrowing. :::::read with sarcasm::::

 

Everyone is entitled to be stupid and Ill informed.

7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm not mistaken, A320 is the most popular aircraft ever produced by Airbus and one of the most popular airplane model in the world. Then, statistically it's more likely to crash that any other aircraft, that's it.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Statistically you are correct, the probability is a more accurate way of looking at it.

 

You know what the say - Lies, Lies and Statistics.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. Statistically, they say, aircrafts provide the safest way to travel - so what does that mean?

 

It is based on the number of casualties per mile. Given that only a limited number of people fit on a plane, while a plane can do thousands of miles on a single trip, you are obviously going to get a very low casualty/mile rate.

 

However, an equally valid statistic says quite the opposite: If you take the number of casualties per undertaken journey (regardless of the distance), then flying is – by far – the unsafest way to travel.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There are still a few dozens DC3 in service, same goes for the legendary B52.

The A 320 series was built a few thousand times, each day thousands of them fly. Since decades.

 

Just to put the DC3 in context, it was designed and built in the 1930s. Before the days of electronics as we know it. Imagine that, a plane flying without electronics. It still flies, and is the aircraft of choice in parts of Africa and the Arctic where more modern but delicate aircraft fall apart.

 

An A320 takes off every 2 seconds. So yes probability demands it has an accident sooner or later.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

However, an equally valid statistic says quite the opposite: If you take the number of casualties per undertaken journey (regardless of the distance), then flying is – by far – the unsafest way to travel.

 

 

Wrong. Bicycle and motocycle are both more dangerous on a per journey basis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#Statistics

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bus crashes do not get the same coverage and even less car crashes. You never hear about cyclists die and never about pedestrians unless someone drives into a group.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes, but I was referring to passenger transport, i.e. plane vs. bus/rail/ship.

 

I still think your ideas are misleading. If I want to travel from berlin to moscow, for example, to work out which is safest I should look at the deaths or injuries per kilometer and by this metric flying is by far the safest.

 

The fact that busses and trains have an excellent safety record for what they do, much safer than private transport, should not detract from the fact that flight is still incredibly safe and should be, based on risk, the first choice for travel.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention that the commercial airplane fuel usage per passenger kilometer is amongst the lowest of any form of mechanized transportation. It's actually "greener" to fly than drive.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bus crashes do not get the same coverage and even less car crashes.

 

Its the fear of the rare threat (e.g. death by snake-bite) vs fear of the common threat (death in car accident).

The former gets more coverage.

 

 

You never hear about cyclists die and never about pedestrians unless someone drives into a group.

 

Actually our local paper reported on a severe crash recently - between two cyclists.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

 

Not to mention that the commercial airplane fuel usage per passenger kilometer is amongst the lowest of any form of mechanized transportation. It's actually "greener" to fly than drive.

Bullshit.

 

Current expectation for an airplane for medium distances is 2.5 to 3 liters/100km/Passenger.

 

Any f*cked up Vauxhall Shitbox or Opel Katzenklo can do 100km with 8 liters and carry 4 folks + 1 driver -> 2liters/100km/Passenger.

 

Cheers

Franklan

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Example_Values

 

Show of hands, how many people who drove *today* had more than 1 person in the car with them.

Now, how many had a total of 5 people, and still got better than 2.5liters/100km/passenger?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now