Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Further Development Of Civil Craft?  
User currently offlineAstra-lena From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (14 years 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 964 times:

When voicing my opinion about this matter, many people disagree, but I just wanted to see what you all thought. With the news that the new Airbus plane is going ahead, am I the only person who thinks that it should not be developed further until there is a 0% failure rate with all other aircraft? Accidents happen, and when they do, it is devastating and effects many people. Is it really fair to bring a new plane, capable of holding three times as many passengers into general use? It's horrific enough when over a hundred people loose their lives in this horrific way - the question now to ask - is it right to risk five hundred people's lives? I understand that flying is the safest form of transport and that according to specialists, you could 'fly everyday for a thousand years' without an accident. But that suggests to me that there is no chance of the aircraft encountering difficulty - which is not true at all. Before focusing on bringing in the big bucks by developing these massive planes, I think that it would be more morally and worthwhile to focus on the fact that the planes that we have in service are not 100% safe - and I think that is the issue that should be looked at before we move on to 'bigger and better' things.
What d'ya all think of that? Big grin

12 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineJtb106 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (14 years 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 942 times:

Padded cells are pretty safe. Need one?

User currently offlineRC Pilot From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (14 years 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 941 times:

lol jtb106

The new airbus is said that itll be all nice. but itll turn into the 747 on how its packed like a cattle car in coach.

Thats how the a380 will be eventually.

You cant have a 0% failure rate. where did you ever get that idea.

Everthing that move has some kind of failure rate. Even lazyboy recliners.

Where the hell did you ever get the idea that we could have a 0% failure rate in airplanes.

Your up at fourty thousand feet going over 600 mph! Things happen, bad weather, midair collisions, ground collisions, ect.

This matter shouldnt even need to be explaining.

O% failure rate ha ha ha ha

Your a pretty good comedian

User currently offlineAstra-Lena From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (14 years 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 935 times:

Do you have any idea the offence you can cause to people who have actually *lost* friends and family?

I personally don't think that's it's a laughing matter - okay, of course things are going to happen. Just like in a car or coach-train, but these guys who design and build planes have the aim of complete success. I think it's a pretty *damn* good ambition.

They sure as hell don't laugh at the prospect of causing loss of human life.

User currently offlineRC Pilot From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (14 years 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 936 times:

I didnt mean to offend you.

Im not laughing at the loss of human life either.

They dont cause the loss of human life either. Conditions do. People make mistakes like in all other incedents.

you cant have a perfect flying environment.

User currently offlineAstra-Lena From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (14 years 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 930 times:

I understand what you are saying. But I personally believe that before all these ideas about massive planes carrying five hundred odd people and that start springing into reality, safety should be number one.

I totally get where you are coming from - that it is natural weather conditions or human error that tend to be the cause of these accidents. But still, there are *some* exceptions to this - it wasn't very long ago that Concorde was grounded. It turned out that they already new of the problem of the tires or whatever - but look what it took before modifications were made. That's what saddens me. Although safety is always said to be the number one issue - a lot of the time, it is not.

User currently offlineJtb106 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (14 years 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 927 times:

There is absolutely no way to 100% eliminate the risks of travel, be it by rocket, jet, car or foot. That's a part of life. Deal with it. Of course loss of life is tragic and not a laughing matter, but suggesting that no new planes should be developed until 100% safe, is. That way of thinking has enabled countless lawyers to become wealthy while we all pay the bill with higher prices and squelched innovation. You know, people die in the bathtub every day, which is sad and should not be a source of humor. But would you ban bathtubs and development of new tubs until they can eliminate all risks? The "If it saves one life it is worth it" argument is a stupid one.
Sorry, the world is not a Tele-Tubbies episode. Accept it.

User currently offlineRC Pilot From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (14 years 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 926 times:


I agree

Plus many people are predicating that single isle planes will take over the big planes anyway.

User currently offlineAstra-Lena From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (14 years 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 923 times:

*Groan* - let's just forget it - I wish I'd never bought it up now with you two ganging up on me! I was just pointing out, that if this new Airbus tragically happens to be in an accident in years to come - that's nearly six hundred people that will die.

Sorry I bought it up, and let's just leave it at that.

User currently offlineIMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6440 posts, RR: 31
Reply 9, posted (14 years 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 921 times:

By the "logic" given in this post, all development on commercial aircraft should stop, regardless of size. Should we just open up the DC-3 line again until we get it perfect? It is continuing research and advances in technology that makes the skies safer. Size of aircraft is irrelevant.
BTW, it is already possible for 550 peolpe to die in a single plane crash.

I am glad I was around to fly before de-regulation.
User currently offlineAstra-Lena From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (14 years 2 weeks ago) and read 919 times:

Honestly! I understand and respect all your opinions - why don't you take a sec and respect mine?

Fine, yes, I know that it is possible for over five hundred people to be killed at once at current time - now stop trying to be good and outsmart me. My opinion is that I think it is wrong. Yours is obviously *not* that, so there we go. Drop it already.

User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21592 posts, RR: 53
Reply 11, posted (14 years 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 914 times:

The fears that something could go wrong, causing unprecedented tragedy, have always accompanied development of new technologies. I think it´s important to distinguish between two very different things:

- How many lives in total are potentially at stake with a new technology?

- How much would one single accident affect you when you hear about it?

As a single technological development, the invention of the motor car has had tragic consequences of the highest order. But: every single accident - as tragic as it is for the victim´s family and friends - doesn´t impress us all too much when it´s on TV.

On the other hand, if one single accident has any kind of spectacular circumstances, it will often deeply move very many people (and it´s getting a lot more airtime). Example: The Concorde crash dominated the news for many weeks; Thousands killed in road traffic are hardly mentioned.

There is absolutely no fairness in this, but that´s how the (public) mind appears to work...  Sad

And there´s another thing: The A380, like any other new plane, will have to be built to current and anticipated standards of safety. Older Aircraft, while obviously very safe as well, can´t be upgraded beyond a certain point.

It will probably never be possible to eliminate every risk in transportation; But very many people are hard at work to reduce the probability of accidents while at the same time (and often because of that) developing new cars, planes and ships.

It´s not new planes or better safety - more often, it´s new planes for better safety.

User currently offlineJtb106 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (14 years 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 905 times:

Sorry Astra,
I was at work on 1.5 hours sleep and a bit cranky. I should be more civil in the civil aviation forum.
Don't hold it against me...

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why No Further Development Of The A330? posted Wed Aug 15 2001 14:48:47 by Rabenschlag
Development Of Carlisle Airport posted Sat Nov 25 2006 17:54:52 by CKT789
Boeing Says Development Of 787-8 On Track posted Tue Feb 21 2006 17:05:06 by NYC777
ATA Pilots Vote For Further Support Of Airline posted Wed Sep 28 2005 23:49:54 by ATA767
NWA Sues Amfa Over 'Acts Of Civil Disobedience' posted Mon Sep 5 2005 22:47:48 by KarlB737
Development Of H2 In Aviation posted Wed May 11 2005 19:57:22 by OO-VEG
Any Further Talks Of SQ SYD-SFO? posted Sat Sep 25 2004 02:06:38 by TonyBurr
The Development Of The A300 posted Sat May 18 2002 05:01:16 by Soku39
Development Of An A320-NG posted Mon Oct 15 2001 12:17:21 by SFOintern
Further Consolidation Of The SAirLines? posted Sun Dec 31 2000 03:26:23 by VirginFlyer