KLM685
Topic Author
Posts: 1506
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:41 pm

Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 1:48 am

Hey everyone, I was looking at the forum and at the news and it called my attention the number of incidents/accidents that are being reported.

1. Military airplane makes belly landing in the US. (Don't have further info)

2. an MD-82 from Panama to Martinica crashes in Venezuela

3. Helios 737 crashes


The first one had no casualties, which the other two did had. My prayers goes for all the dead people and hope they all RIP.

It's already hard to listen that one accident happened, but to listen that it was not only one but a few it's even harder.

Also, the Air France A340 was not long ago too (no casualties fortunately). Which is making accidents frequent.

Anyway, I hope we don't have to listen about another one.

Cheers

Alonsou
KLM- The Best Airline in the World!
 
Orion737
Posts: 3044
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 10:14 pm

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 1:51 am

The year 2005 is another 1985 as far as air accidents go.
 
henpol747
Posts: 563
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2001 5:53 am

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 1:51 am

Plus the ATR crash in Italy, and the chopper crash in afghanistan,

What a crappy month!!

 Sad

Ya parenle cabrones!!
Vive la France! ¡Viva México!
 
killjoy
Posts: 601
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 1999 6:00 am

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 2:37 am

And Copterline in the Baltic Sea.
 
dforce1
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 4:16 am

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 2:44 am

*Another one to add to the list....

Canadian Forces jet crashes in Quebec
Last Updated Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:04:11 EDT
CBC News
SAGUENAY, Que. -- A Canadian Forces CF-18 fighter jet crashed in Quebec at 8:40 AM Tuesday, but the pilot ejected safely.

Col. Yvan Blondin of CFB Bagotville has confirmed that the pilot, Colin Marx of Dartmouth, N.S., has been rescued and is being examined in hospital as a precaution. Marx has been with the Armed Forces for 12 years but had arrived at the base only a month ago to train as a fighter pilot, said Blondin, the base commander.

Cause of the crash is not known at this time.
 
casa235-300
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 4:12 am

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 3:19 am

Hi

I'm also very sorry today

Today 16th August 2005 crashes a Puma helicopter from the Spanish Army in Afghanistan killing the 17 Spanish militaries on board. We don't know if it was an accident or an attack.

We all pray for all the dead people and their families

Very bad situation for the aviation these days

Please no more
 
keta
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 7:14 am

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 3:26 am

And yet another one...

Spanish helicopter crash in Afghanistan - 17 killed
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050816/...;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

This is being a sad month.  Sad
With all the development on airplanes, how can so many accidents happen? Since three weeks ago, we are watching a new crash every week. That's too much, for sure. Also, the crew is supposed to be trained better than before. In the Venezuelan crash it seems like an engine went down; the pilots are supposed to handle this situation with normality. Of course, while time goes by we will know what really happened in this accident. But I still ask myself how can this happen.  Sad
Where there's a will, there's a way
 
User avatar
Vasu
Posts: 2939
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:34 am

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 3:34 am

And on top of all the incidents, UK news keeps going on about the latest BA / Gategourmet developments... BBC news is turning into an aviation channel!
 
philb
Posts: 2645
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 5:53 am

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 3:44 am

Quoting Orion737 (Reply 1):
The year 2005 is another 1985 as far as air accidents go.

In numbers of accidents almost but in terms of fatalities it is far better.

The following figures are for fixed wing air transport accidents only, scheduled, charter or ferry, passenger or cargo. Not included are general aviation, helicopters and military aircraft (unless transports operated for the military by a civilian operator).

Accidents year to date:

1985: 19

2005: 18

Deaths year to date:

1985: 1902

2005: 580

So 2005 is nowhere near as grim a year as 1985.

Statistically it is even less grim if the figures are viewd in accidents or deaths per passenger thousand kilometres flown or per rotations performed.
 
dc863
Posts: 1466
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 1999 10:52 am

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 3:52 am

Orion737 that's exactly what I thought, 2005 is very similar to the summer of '85. Just one of those years i suppose.
 
carmenlu15
Posts: 4517
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2004 1:24 am

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:03 am

Quoting Henpol747 (Reply 2):
What a crappy month!!

Tell me about it... Since this was a long weekend, I went on a trip to the countryside, to forget about daily worries for a while.

On Sunday I read the paper and realized that last week (Aug. 9) was the 10th anniversary of the GU flight that crashed in El Salvador... a sad day for Guatemalan aviation.

On Monday I grabbed the paper again and first thing I saw was the Helios 737 accident.

Today, back at home, my radio alarm set off to the news of the crash in Venezuela.

Add to that a helicopter that went down over two houses in Guatemala City last week (no fatalities)...

Quoting KLM685 (Thread starter):
I hope we don't have to listen about another one.

Amen!
Don't expect to see me around that much (if at all) -- the contact link should still work, though.
 
User avatar
alberchico
Posts: 2937
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 5:52 am

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:28 am

yeah this is turning out to be one hell of a bad month for aviation......
short summary of every jewish holiday: they tried to kill us ,we won , lets eat !
 
philb
Posts: 2645
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 5:53 am

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 5:23 am

Quoting Dc863 (Reply 9):
Orion737 that's exactly what I thought, 2005 is very similar to the summer of '85. Just one of those years i suppose.

Not so. On the basis of the figures in my previous post and taking summer as June, July and August we have:

Accidents:

1985: 6

2005: 7

Deaths:

1985: 1280

2005: 360
 
vfw614
Posts: 3163
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 12:34 am

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 5:35 am

What is particularly striking how evenly disaster is spread between the manufacturers:

1 Airbus
1 Boeing
1 McDonnell Douglas
1 ATR
1 Sikorsky
1 Eurocopter

Let's hope we don't see an Embraer or a BAe involved in an accident over the next couple of weeks.....
 
dogfighter2111
Posts: 1867
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 3:02 am

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 5:55 am

Maybe it is something about all of the 5's:

WARNING!!! POP-UP BLOCKER RECCOMMENDED

1955: http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/view_year.cgi?year=1955

1965: http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/view_year.cgi?year=1965

1975: http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/view_year.cgi?year=1975

1985: http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/view_year.cgi?year=1985

1995: http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/view_year.cgi?year=1995

2005: http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/view_year.cgi?year=2005

I must admit that some other years are not as bad, but looking at those years you must admit there are alot of accidents.

Thanks
Mike
 
philb
Posts: 2645
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 5:53 am

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 6:24 am

Dogfighter2111,

Depends what you mean by a lot. The total accidents and deaths in 1955 will be proportionately massive compared to 2005 based on the number of passenger kilometres and/or rotations.

Accidents are random based on human and mechanical error (and that includes weather because a human has to make a decision to penetrate bad weather and if it proves wrong, it is an error).

One thing that does show a pattern is that the mid year of each decade has, for various reasons, shown a growth in traffic faster than in the immediate preceeding years.

1955 Peak post war year for growth in USA to date and better than 1956. European airlines reporting strong growth and increase in routes.

1965 Growth in US helped by increase in jet fleets and build up in MAC charters and logistics flights to do with Vietnam. Growth of supplemental carriers.

In Europe the holiday charter market showed strongest growth since it started. Strong growth in scheduled traffic.

1975 Throughout the world, traffic levels returning to normal after the 1973 Yom Kippur war and the 1974 fuel crisis. Massive growth in popular travel for holidays on both scheduled and charter airlines

1985 Economies on a boom throughout the world. Massive explosion in travel as ticket prices at an all time low in real terms, i.e. against value of earnings.

1995 First year of "normal" growth after slowdown for Gulf War. Service and pax levels returning to pre 1989 levels. Greater number of flights to/from ex Iron Curtain countries

2005. Service and pax levels back to pre 9/11 figures and massive growth despite oil prices. LCCs fueling further growth.
 
ZKSUJ
Posts: 6804
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 5:15 pm

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 6:38 am

Also don't forget BA had an overun with an ERJ yesterday at HAJ. Fortunately no one was injured.
 
Chiguire
Posts: 1848
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 5:11 pm

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 6:49 am

There was a Do228 emergency landing in Venezuela, near San Juan de los Morros that kiddel one woman. I think it was on Friday or Saturday. I am trying to find the link...
 
usnseallt82
Posts: 4727
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 6:54 am

Quoting Philb (Reply 8):
So 2005 is nowhere near as grim a year as 1985.

I think one thing that definitely helped out this year's statistic for fatalities would be the miracle of all passengers on the AF A340 flight that got off without a single death. Surely if the 'crap' had hit the fan on that one, this year may be very comparable to 1985.

But, the stats are alarming considering we still have over 4 months of the year left. Hope nothing else major happens.

Cheers!  Big grin
Crye me a river
 
Chiguire
Posts: 1848
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 5:11 pm

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 6:56 am

OK, so here it is (sorry Spanish)
http://www.eluniversal.com/2005/08/15/ccs_art_15412G.shtml

The Dornier Do228 from Wayumi Airlines went down due to failure of one engine on a field in the Venezuelan plains. 11 passengers and the pilot were hurt, a lady died in this accident.
 
philb
Posts: 2645
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 5:53 am

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:01 am

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 18):
Quoting Philb (Reply 8):
So 2005 is nowhere near as grim a year as 1985.

I think one thing that definitely helped out this year's statistic for fatalities would be the miracle of all passengers on the AF A340 flight that got off without a single death. Surely if the 'crap' had hit the fan on that one, this year may be very comparable to 1985.

Sorry, I thought maths was a prerequisite for an aviator.

301 total SOB on AF at YYZ. Add to 580 gives a YTD total of 881 - less than half of the YTD figure for 1985.

Add to the summer figure for 2005 and you get 661, just over half the summer figure to date for 1985.

In terms of where we are at in the categories quoted we are a about average.
 
usnseallt82
Posts: 4727
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:06 am

Quoting Philb (Reply 20):
Sorry, I thought maths was a prerequisite for an aviator.

Thanks. I must have forgotten that course in college...hmm.

What I meant was that if the AF flight had been a total loss, the numbers would be more and closer to the same ballpark as 1985. I was being slightly sarcastic...I guess you forgot that course...maybe spelling too.  Big grin

Obviously it wouldn't be equal, but with 4 months left in the year, who knows what will happen. Thanks for the comment though...I'll be sure to do some reading tonight.  Big grin

Cheers!
Crye me a river
 
philb
Posts: 2645
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 5:53 am

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:19 am

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 21):
What I meant was that if the AF flight had been a total loss, the numbers would be more and closer to the same ballpark as 1985

As I stated, YTD they would bring the figure to less than half of the 1985 YTD figure or just over half of the 1985 "summer" to date figure. How do you make that to be closer to the same ball park? If you make 50% difference the same ball park you'd better watch your fuel calculations.

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 21):
Obviously it wouldn't be equal, but with 4 months left in the year, who knows what will happen.

We're not speculating on what might happen here, we are comparing like for like to dispel the illusion some have here that 2005, to date, has as bad a record as 1985.

Now then apart from a typo "viewd" in Reply 8, what's wrong with the spelling?
 
usnseallt82
Posts: 4727
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:46 am

Quoting Philb (Reply 20):
maths

Any questions?

And yes, you're most certainly right about the comparison between the two years being rather absurd, which is why I was relatively sarcastic about my original comment. I think people see a sharp yet isolated rise in the number of major incidents and believe its the apocalypse or something. It just so happens that there is a lot of media coverage for these incidents and therefore gives the impression that the sky is falling in the world of aviation. However, as you've stated, when you check the stats, we're no where near 1985.

So, in my own defense, I will say that I should have been more clear about what I meant and am very happy to see a fellow aviator save me from my wayward path. Heaven knows the lives of millions were dependent upon this thread.  Big grin

Quoting Philb (Reply 22):
If you make 50% difference the same ball park you'd better watch your fuel calculations.

Hmm...I knew something didn't seem right last night...hmm.

P.S. Humor is never considered excess baggage. Lighten up a little. My entire point was that it could have been worse with some of the incidents we've had thus far. If you add 301 more names to the list and have more incidents to come, then the year is now comparable to 1985...but no one knows until the end of the year. The math is fairly simple... x+y='85, x is what we have and y is what is yet to come. If y is less than 1322, then there is no equal to that year. Its called being happy for the fact that we're NOT yet comparable to 1985...its as simple as that.
Crye me a river
 
wukka
Posts: 884
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:08 pm

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:58 am

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 23):
Quoting Philb (Reply 20):
maths

Any questions?

That's not a misspelling... it's you being US-centric.  Wink


edit: missed the wink first time around -- didn't want to come across so cocky... sorry

[Edited 2005-08-17 01:04:58]
We can agree to disagree.
 
philb
Posts: 2645
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 5:53 am

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:58 am

Maths is the correct English abbreviation for mathematics -the word is a plural, you don't say mathematic so the Americanism, which I often use myself, is a regional usage, not a proper abbreviation.

I've no problem with you trying to lighten the thread. Let's face it, there are a good number looking to make things miserable!

Just for the record, in the context of the type of flights I've been using to compile the figures, from this date until the end of the year, 1985 had a further 8 accidents killing another 493.

Add that to this years total to date on the hypothesis that the figures will match exactly and you get 1073, 56.41% of the 1985 figure.

Safe landings - and get that fuel figure right!!
 
usnseallt82
Posts: 4727
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 8:07 am

I gotcha now. The problem with the sentence was that you used 'was,' denoting a single-tense noun. Yes, 'maths' itself may be plural, but when referring to a plural item the sentence would have sounded better saying 'maths were.' So, my fault, I corrected the wrong word...didn't know which one you meant for sure.

And yes, I know what you mean about enough people dragging down the threads. I will apologize because I thought you might be another one of them and it didn't need to happen again. But, I thankfully stand corrected and know that those were never your intentions. Glad to see someone else who's tired of the bashing like I am!  Big grin

Don't worry, I got the fuel right...but what do all these damn buttons do?  Big grin

Cheers!
Crye me a river
 
Derico
Posts: 4206
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 1999 9:14 am

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 8:25 am

It really comes down to a matter of pure chance. I hate to say this, but since it's not going to bring anyone from those horrible accidents back to life, I might as well: I was really wondering why there hadn't been a 'major' airliner incident in so long before AF at YYZ...

And since then, as we can see, a rash of disasters. I, nor anyone else, can explain why life or this universe we reside in works in such ways.

All that said, I think air travel has never been safer than it is today.
My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
 
philb
Posts: 2645
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 5:53 am

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 8:25 am

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, mathematics is both singular and plural.

In UK English you would say maths is/was in common usage when referring to the subject of mathematics - as in "maths was my best subject at school" or "maths is difficult for many kids".

On the other hand, you might say the maths are/were when referring to a series of calculations as in "the maths were very complex involving dozens of calculations" or "the maths are going to take some working out"
It's a case of separation by a common language.
 
usnseallt82
Posts: 4727
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 8:36 am

I think its just a difference in our forms of English. We would say, "I thought math was important for an aviator," and just knock off the 's' altogether. Its kind of like how BBC has the sports section labeled "Sport" on the evening news, because it can be used as both singular and plural. But American English adds the 's' to say "Sports" to denote it as specifically plural.

While UK English is the original form of the English language, from England, we Americans done' decided to butcher that mess and put some other junk in thare!  Big grin

To all other members, at 1200 GMT tomorrow, Philb and I will give spelling lessons and castrate the thread bashers of A.net!  Big grin

Cheers!
Crye me a river
 
philb
Posts: 2645
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 5:53 am

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 8:43 am

Agreed!! Off to bed now as it's 00.38 BST, though as I live at exactly 10W the real time is 22.58 - UTC less 40 minutes - so I'm really having an early night!!!
 
usnseallt82
Posts: 4727
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 8:45 am

Goodnight and thanks for the vocab lesson! I honestly was wondering about the BBC's using of "Sport" last night when I watched their news, so I think this answers it. Learn something new everyday!  Big grin
Crye me a river
 
vatveng
Posts: 1092
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 11:49 pm

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 9:36 am

Quoting KLM685 (Thread starter):
1. Military airplane makes belly landing in the US. (Don't have further info)

More on that here

and here

It was a US Navy C-2A Greyhound that made a belly landing at Naval Station Norfolk.
 
usnseallt82
Posts: 4727
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 9:43 am

Quoting Vatveng (Reply 32):
It was a US Navy C-2A Greyhound that made a belly landing at Naval Station Norfolk.

Yeah, it was due here at NPA today, along with the other C-2's and E-2's of the wing that came in to get ready for carrier quals.
Crye me a river
 
QFA380
Posts: 2013
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:38 pm

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 12:22 pm

Quoting Philb (Reply 8):
Statistically it is even less grim if the figures are viewd in accidents or deaths per passenger thousand kilometres flown or per rotations performed.

Although there are alot more flights being flown and alot more passengers being flown over long distances we are advancing rapidly with our technology and accident numbers should be slowing as technology advances even further.

Back on thread there was a metroliner that crashed over here and killed all eleven people. aswell as a light plane crash that killed three peopl in the mountains.
 
cgagn
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 5:30 am

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 12:46 pm

I read about a Jazz DH8 emergency landing with smoke in the cockpit. Another incident that could have ended alot worse. Emergency landing was made in Kamloops.

C-GAGN
Widebodies flown on:A330-300,A340-300,A380-800,747-400,767-200ER,767-300ER,777-200A,777-200ER,777-200LR,777-300ER,787-9
 
UA772IAD
Posts: 1269
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2004 7:43 am

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 1:18 pm

Yes, this month is definetly giving the airplance crash statistic quite a work-out. I believe that it's more like 1987, where the Federal Government delegated, mandated and enforced stricter regulations on SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) for Air Traffic Control. Talk about bad timing, I wonder if these events are hurting airline sales, as air travel becomes more like London's transit these days, avoid it like the plague.
 
AGM114L
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:12 am

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 1:27 pm

Strange. You would think most aviation incidents involve human error. Except for the Frog pilots, three incidents involved mechanical failures. Sounds like some serious MX issues going on across the globe.
My Boeing can blow up your Boeing
 
philb
Posts: 2645
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 5:53 am

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 3:54 pm

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 34):
Although there are alot more flights being flown and alot more passengers being flown over long distances we are advancing rapidly with our technology and accident numbers should be slowing as technology advances even further.

Sorry QFA380, it doesn't work like that. Advances in technology push boundaries. Now that doesn't mean at the same time safety can't be more accessible but the fact is that, whatever training you give, no matter how much you refine a product, Murphy's Law still applies -

"If it can go wrong it will"

No human is mistake free, no manufactured product is consistently flaw free, degradation can be measured as an average and replacement cycles worked out but exceptions occur and nature being based on entropy, when things go wrong the error tends to multiply.

Quoting UA772IAD (Reply 36):
as air travel becomes more like London's transit these days, avoid it like the plague.

two totally STUPID ideas in one phrase!!

In what way is air travel remotely like London's transit?
Thankfully Londoners and tens of thousands of visitors are more sensible than you and are using London Underground and London Buses at levels returning to pre July levels.

You need to grow up sonny.

Quoting AGM114L (Reply 37):
Except for the Frog pilots,

I suppose you are quite relaxed about certain Mullahs calling you a pilot for the Great Satan - in other words, an evil devil?
 
philb
Posts: 2645
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 5:53 am

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:06 pm

Quoting UA772IAD (Reply 36):
I believe that it's more like 1987,

Against this year's 580 deaths up to today, 1987 had 655. However the the enforcement of stricter SOPs only involved the USA and there is a whole world outside to 50 States which was not affected by the enactments - believe it or not. Also ATC involvement in accidents is rare and minimal.
 
UA772IAD
Posts: 1269
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2004 7:43 am

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Sun Aug 21, 2005 5:43 pm

Quoting Philb (Reply 38):
two totally STUPID ideas in one phrase!!

In what way is air travel remotely like London's transit?
Thankfully Londoners and tens of thousands of visitors are more sensible than you and are using London Underground and London Buses at levels returning to pre July levels.

You need to grow up sonny.


How is this statement stupid in any way. For your information, I work for Metro in Washington DC. I was working during both bombings, in fact, I was commuting by subway. I saw it, and I experienced it, so don't talk down to me and assume with your little condescending, moronic attitude that I haven't experienced it. Question my sensibility when you handle suspicious package calls over the radio, and are constantly allerting the police. But you don't know what your talking about, so do yourself a favor and back off. Also what I said was the fear and uncertainty in air travel has become similar to the fears behind using pubic transportation. I never said they were the same.

You need to learn to read better "sonny".

Quoting Philb (Reply 39):
which was not affected by the enactments - believe it or not.

Thank you for putting words into my mouth again. Why not read harder? My comment was a COMPARRISION, and further support to what the original poster said.

[Edited 2005-08-21 10:49:21]
 
usnseallt82
Posts: 4727
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Bad Days For Aviation

Mon Aug 22, 2005 12:56 am

Quoting UA772IAD (Reply 36):
Yes, this month is definetly giving the airplance crash statistic quite a work-out.

Isn't that the truth. Its funny that when you wrote this post, three other incidents were waiting to happen with NW aircraft! Although the fatality stats haven't changed, and hopefully won't, this certainly is a odd month for aviation incidents.

Even the military is experiencing quite a few!

Cheers!
Crye me a river

Who is online