Qantas Safety Record

TruemanQLD · Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:07 am

QANTAS has never had a fatal jet aircraft accident in its lifetime or a hull loss (dont know about that 743). Why is QANTAS this lucky when you compare it to airlines like AA and UA (Yes they carry more passengers but they still have more fatalities per 1000000 passengers)?. Is it there safety standars or is it just pure luck?

Viscount724 · Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:19 am

For most of QF's history they were a very small carrier in comparison to the other carriers you mention and many other major airlines. That's an apples and oranges comparison.

Other carriers much bigger than QF also have excellent safety records. For example, BA hasn't had a fatal accident in over 30 years apart from the fire involving the 737-200 of their British Airtours subsidiary at MAN in 1985.

Braybuddy · Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:19 am

Obviously there must be a high standard of safety in Qantas, like most major airlines, I assume, but no doubt luck plays a part too. This one could have been nasty:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...8/1090089033717.html?from=storylhs

Qantas: great airline, great staff and a CLASSIC livery! bigthumbsup

prebennorholm · Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:28 am

Well, landing a 744 on a golf course in Thailand (23rd Sept 1999) and all 407 on board walk away, that's at least what I would call a lucky day.

Probably as lucky as a "hole in one"?

Just imagine that people had been out playing golf! Or if there had been a fire. I don't know about Thailand, but in my part of the world the golf course fire brigades are not among the fastest in the world.

http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/qf1/10.shtml

But you are right, the Qantas safety record isn't among the worst in this world. I would happyly fly them any day.

futurecaptain · Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:37 am

Geography may play a small part in the safety record. Australia is a long way from most other major cities requiring Qantas to fly alot more long haul routes than, say, domestic US carriers. Takeoff and landing are the most dangerous parts of any flight so all the long hauls should statistically be safer.

But, Qantas does seem to have many great people working for them and maintenance people all over the world from 99% of airlines do great work. Keep up the good work all of you.

Birdseed · Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 am

Qantas is a truly great airline; they have exceptional standards.

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 2):
but no doubt luck plays a part too.

Or grace.

mariner · Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:43 am

I thought a Constellation - or a Super Connie - crashed back in about 1960, VH-EAC, in Mauritius, maybe.

I could be wrong.

mariner

Scipio · Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:46 am

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 3):
Well, landing a 744 on a golf course in Thailand (23rd Sept 1999) and all 407 on board walk away, that's at least what I would call a lucky day.

This was not a case of landing on a golf court, but a case of a golf court being on an airport. I remember taxying in a B747 right next to a bunch of playing golfers on Bangkok Airport. From my vantage point, the golfers looked way too close to the aircraft from the perspective of any reasonable safety standards. I think our wing was hanging above their heads.

I wonder how many airplanes have suffered golfball strikes or golfball ingestion at Bangkok Airport.

[Edited 2007-12-03 17:04:45]

TG992 · Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:01 am

Quoting Mariner (Reply 6):
I thought a Constellation - or a Super Connie - crashed back in about 1960, VH-EAC, in Mauritius, maybe.

I could be wrong.

mariner

Officially, Qantas claim they've never lost a jet aircraft (a Constellation of course, not being a jet). All up, they've had ten fatal accidents, the last in 1951, with the total loss of 78 souls.

Since then, the safety record has been exemplary, and there's no doubt they're amongst the safest airlines in the world (although I remember reading ages ago that it would take Qantas about 130 years to fly as much as United does in one year!)

JAL · Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:05 am

I don't think they have any fatal accidents so far just like FinnAir.

mariner · Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:07 am

Quoting TG992 (Reply 8):
(a Constellation of course, not being a jet

My mistake. I missed the limitation to "jet" in the opening post.

mariner

AFGMEL · Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:11 am

Quoting JAL (Reply 9):
it would take Qantas about 130 years to fly as much as United does in one year!)

That may have applied before QF starting flying domestically, but not sure. The were international only until a few years ago.

Lufthansa · Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:12 am

Lets not forget that Qantas also doesn't have to contend with things like Winter Operations.
How often would a QF 737 Need to be de-iced? Because its a daily event, or several times a day even for say, UA at DEN /ORD or SAS at ARN, and NW's 747s at MSP etc.

Also QF flies in relatively empty skies.

So you can see a lot of the major risk factors... like iced problems during take off and landing,
highly congested airports,
Air Traffic Control Errors in heavily used airspace etc are
minimual influence for Qantas.

I mean the majority of the Qantas fleet have probably never even seen de-icing fluild. 747's at LAX hardly need it.
I'm thinking a very odd day at Frankfurt would be about it. the A330s may see a day or two in PEK, and
the 767s never at all, and the odd 737 that gets sent across to Queenstown in New Zealand.

So I think that's vastly improved their odds.

prebennorholm · Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:33 am

Quoting Scipio (Reply 7):
This was not a case of landing on a golf court, but a case of a golf court being on an airport. I remember taxying in a B747 right next to a bunch of playing golfers on Bangkok Airport.

Well, after crossing the golf course they also made it onto a public road. Have a look at http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/qf1/photo.shtml

Don't tell me that Qantas was proud of that "landing". And don't tell me that it was a fault of the golf glub.

Luckily everybody walked away, and they "landed" within walking distance from the airport. The accident wasn't categorized as a navigation fault.

Quoting JAL (Reply 9):
I don't think they have any fatal accidents so far just like FinnAir.

Finnair DC-3s fell from the sky like a hailstorm in the 60'es killing several dozen people. That's a long time ago, and I flew with them with great pleasure earlier this year.

Viscount724 · Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:35 am

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 12):
I mean the majority of the Qantas fleet have probably never even seen de-icing fluild. 747's at LAX hardly need it. I'm thinking a very odd day at Frankfurt would be about it. the A330s may see a day or two in PEK, and the 767s never at all, and the odd 737 that gets sent across to Queenstown in New Zealand.

Apart from FRA, LHR usually has a few days every winter that require de-icing. And I expect one or two QF 744s might have encountered some de-icing fluid at JFK this past weekend.
http://www.wnyc.org/news/articles/89770

TruemanQLD · Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:37 am

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 13):
Well, after crossing the golf course they also made it onto a public road. Have a look at http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/qf1/photo.shtml

Don't tell me that Qantas was proud of that "landing". And don't tell me that it was a fault of the golf glub.

Luckily everybody walked away, and they "landed" within walking distance from the airport. The accident wasn't categorized as a navigation fault.

Yes but that is one airport overun with no fatalities. How many of these happen every year? IB A346 springs to mind as well as AF A340 etc so it is really a minor incident.

TruemanQLD · Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:38 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 14):
Apart from FRA, LHR usually has a few days every winter that require de-icing. And I expect one or two QF 744s might have encountered some de-icing fluid at JFK this past weekend.

Aswell as 744's at YVR

Gemuser · Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:55 am

Quoting Mariner (Reply 6):
I thought a Constellation - or a Super Connie - crashed back in about 1960, VH-EAC, in Mauritius, maybe.

Sure did. 24/8/1960 VH-EAC, L1049G at Plaisance, Mauritius. The aircraft overran the runway during an aborted takeoff attempt. But there were NO fatalities. See http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/v...960®=VH-EAC&airline=Qantas+Airways for details.

Gemuser

mariner · Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:28 am

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 17):
But there were NO fatalities

It was a hull loss, though:

http://www.adastron.com/lockheed/constellation/h2vheac2.htm

Which is what I picked up on in the OP, while missing "jet".

mariner

Gemuser · Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:48 am

Quoting Mariner (Reply 18):

It was a hull loss, though:

http://www.adastron.com/lockheed/constellation/h2vheac2.htm

Which is what I picked up on in the OP, while missing "jet".

It certainly was!!!
But the OP did say "fatal, jet aircraft accident" Smile

Looking at the photos it's amazing that all 50 POB walked away.

Gemuser

mariner · Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:32 am

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 19):
But the OP did say "fatal, jet aircraft accident" ÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™Ãƒâ€ Ã¢â‚¬â„¢%u201AÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â

Yes, as I've said twice now, "jet" went over my head. Smile

But he also said:

Quoting TruemanQLD (Thread starter):
or a hull loss

I picked up on "a hull loss".

mariner

baroque · Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:10 am

Possibly the best mock on Qantas and it safety record, came from Spike Milligna the well known misprint in his famous contributions in 1971 to the ABC news read by Rod McNeil. It got Milligan banned from the ABC for quite a while. Qantas had won "the prestigious Cumberbatch Trophy" for its safety record. As cited in:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=11561&page=2

The news went as follows:

".ROD McNEIL: The news in brief. The Prime Minister Mr McMahon arrived back . .in Australia today after his overseas tour, he told newsmen at Sydney Airport . .that he could not have had more valuable discussions with both President . .Nixon and the British Prime Minister Mr Heath...

SPIKE MILLIGAN: What about Spike Milligan?

ROD McNEIL: But he refused to give details of the discussions before he . .had spoken in the house.

SPIKE MILLIGAN: What about Spike Milligan?

ROD McNEIL: Mr McMahon also refused to comment when asked about criticism . .of him by two former Ministers, Mr Gorton and Mr Killen.

SPIKE MILLIGAN: And Spike Milligan.

ROD McNEIL: The Prime Minister was met at the airport by his two children...

SPIKE MILLIGAN: And Spike Milligan.

ROD McNEIL: ...and members of the Cabinet, including the Treasurer Mr Sneddon . .and Spike Milligan.

Australia's national international airline Qantas . .has been awarded a trophy by the British Guild of Air Pilots and Navigators . .for its safety record...

SPIKE MILLIGAN: And 33 crashes.

ROD McNEIL: Qantas is the second Australian airline to win the um cumber . .batch trophy. TAA won it in 1958.

The Australian Post Office is doing . .good business in the United (laugh), in the United States

SPIKE MILLIGAN: Wo ho.

ROD McNEIL: An agent for the Post Office in New York says sales of stamps . .to collectors could bring in $200,000 in the first year of business.

The . .South Australian Attorney-General Mr King has warned that people in the . .state who stock or sell a New South Wales publication Search Light run the . .risk of prosecution. Mr King said the three issues of the publication that . .he had seen were obviously very offensive to a great many people. Mr King . .was speaking in the South Australian Parliament.

SPIKE MILLIGAN: Where there was nobody listening.

ROD McNEIL: More news in one hour.

SPIKE MILLIGAN: You'll never make it."

. .Ahh, Mr Milligna, the well-known typing error, how sadly you will be missed. Batty as a fruitcake of course..

FLY777UAL · Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:13 am

As Pam Ann put it, "tic-tock..." Wink

F L Y 7 7 7 U A L

Gemuser · Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:24 am

Quoting Mariner (Reply 20):

I picked up on "a hull loss".

mariner

And I didn't embarrassed

Gemuser

AJ · Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:14 am

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 12):

I mean the majority of the Qantas fleet have probably never even seen de-icing fluild. 747's at LAX hardly need it.
I'm thinking a very odd day at Frankfurt would be about it. the A330s may see a day or two in PEK, and
the 767s never at all, and the odd 737 that gets sent across to Queenstown in New Zealand.

I have personally been deiced in a 767 in Christchurch, the fleet has also been deiced in Melbourne, Narita and Sapporo over the last year.

ECONOMICS · Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:16 am

didn't QF have an incident at ROM about 10 years ago, when a 743 lost RHS wheels as turning at end of runway to take off ?

(can't seem to find any photos or reference to this incident anywhere though)

Curmudgeon · Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:08 am

1.QF did have a 747-300 main gear strut fail during line-up, but it would be strtching a long bow to call that an accident.

2. The BKK accident was a runway overrun on landing. They did not have a navigation error and land on a golf course. The damage to the aircraft was caused by leaving the runway at something like 60 knots. A landing on a golf course would be foll wed by immediate disintegration. There were no golfers because it was night. And raining heavily.

3. The operational environment at QF is the definition of benign. There might be the odd spray of glycol but nothing like the complications of true all-weather operations on contaminated runways. The route network is also lacks frequent operation to high density airports.

4. The dice simply get rolled less frequently as well, especially historically. QF was international only until 15 odd years ago and still has a small fleet compared to AA, UA, DL, BA etc. When QF used to trumpet their safety record it was a marketing program aimed at people who don't do math.

5. In modern times aircraft and avionics have been getting better* and more reliable, training has been too, and CRM programs target human factors, all of which lifts everybody's boat, QF included.

(* GPS, FMCS make navigation trivial, enhanced GPWS goes a long way to preventing CFIT, data links, HUD's, and other advances make flight more reliable and safer)

6. QF does take safety very, very seriously. They sell tickets, not chances.

Cheers

ECONOMICS · Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:27 am

Quoting Curmudgeon (Reply 26):
1.QF did have a 747-300 main gear strut fail during line-up, but it would be strtching a long bow to call that an accident.

yes, but I called it an incident. Then again, what if it had happened on landing !!!

Many QF staff used to bag other airlines, but went quiet after the BKK incident.

CV990 · Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:46 am

Hi!

QANTAS also lost an Avro Lancastrian back to the 40's, VH-EAS...but once again no casualties!!! The plane burned out!
Regards

mandala499 · Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:35 am

QF has good standards, the number of accidents/incidents speaks for itself... however, BKK was a gentle and wet reminder not to get sloppy.

Lucky? Yes... Systematic safety? That too.

qf772 · Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:39 am

As well as the less crowded skies and milder weather conditions I think it also reflects on Australia's high safety standards that not only Qantas but AFAIK no Australian Airline has had a jet hull loss.

I'm pretty sure the Ansett 743 which got a bit intimate with the Sydney Runway in 1994 was repaired.

FlyingAY · Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:06 pm

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 13):
Finnair DC-3s fell from the sky like a hailstorm in the 60'es killing several dozen people. That's a long time ago, and I flew with them with great pleasure earlier this year.

Yep, they lost 2 DC-3s, but I still wouldn't call that a hail storm. One in 1961 and the other one in 1963. But they have never lost a jet either.

CHRISBA777ER · Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:47 pm

I've always thought BA were pretty much the safest - no fatal accident for more than 30 years (I dont count the BA Airtours 732, Loganair Shorts 360 or the refueller killed at DEN) and many millions of flights short and long haul.

* Huge numbers of short-haul flights every day meaning many more rotations.
* A lot of "dodgy" airports served in West Africa and some of the former Soviet Republics.
* Appalling weather for much of the year.
* Some of the most overcrowded and congested skies in the world over its two main hubs, and covering its entire European network.
* Many regions served where ATC is not up to anything like UK standards and a midair is statistically much more likely for a number of reasons - i.e.: parts of China, India, the Middle East, West Africa, the Balkans etc - BA have a big presence at all these places.
* UK a big target for terrorism.
* Majority of the fleet is modern third gen airframes but this has not always been the case and there are still large numbers of statistically much less safe 2nd gen types in the fleet such as 737 classics etc.
* Highly congested and overstressed hubs at LGW and LHR in particular - ramp collisions are common and a major runway incursion or ground accident can be stated to be probably more likely at LHR than many airports worldwide.

Despite this, BA has an awesome safety record that I think is equally as good as QF's. There have been a few close shaves - the BA 742 in the Volcano ash over Indonesia, the Kenyan nutter who broke into the cockpit on a NBO-bound BA 744 and almost put her into a terminal dive, a few close mid-air TCAS alerts, and the BA 772 at DEN where they got the fire out very quickly.

There were also a few that sounded an awful lot worse than they were, such as the A319 with total loss of ECAM displays and electrical power for a while over the Thames Estuary, the BA 744 that did LAX-MAN on three engines etc and so on, but they just go to show what fantastic pilot training the BA crews have.

airnewzealand · Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:25 pm

Interesting discussion folks.

Could someone confirm for me this statement...

On a recent flight i was operating...the Captain stated QF has the highest utilisation of 747-400 aircrafts in the world and sits in the top 5 for 767 aircrafts too.

If this is in fact true, then it would seem we have very high standards in terms of maintanence.

Safe flying everyone.

CHRISBA777ER · Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:46 pm

That BKK Golf Course QF incident always amuses me - Imagine you are just about to crack a 250 yard drive down the fairway of the 8th - a workmanlike Par-3. Stance? Check. Grip? Check. Neck position? Check.

You open your eyes and see the QF 744 at the top of this very page right about where the green is and moving very quickly indeed. You briefly consider taking the drive anyway before the enormity of your situation hits you....You drop the clubs and make a dash for the clubhouse - suddenly your £350 TaylorMade graphite laser putter doesnt seem so important now!

Question is, do you shout "Fore!"

..... or "Seven Fore Seven!".

aviateur · Tue Dec 04, 2007 8:33 pm

QF is a relatively small carrier, and a high percentage of its flights are long-haul (fewer takeoffs and landings, during which most accidents occur). Not to mention Australia's climate. Not many icy runways, etc.

As another poster pointed out, there are many carriers, some larger than QF, with comparable records.

I did a couple of articles on this topic that some of you might be interested in...

Crashes, consequences, and the truth about Qantas...
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/07/14/askthepilot194/

Fatality-free airlines and safety as a marketing tool...
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2005/02/18/askthepilot124/

PS

GeorgeJetson · Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:03 pm

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 17):
Quoting Mariner (Reply 6):
I thought a Constellation - or a Super Connie - crashed back in about 1960, VH-EAC, in Mauritius, maybe.

Sure did. 24/8/1960 VH-EAC, L1049G at Plaisance, Mauritius. The aircraft overran the runway during an aborted takeoff attempt. But there were NO fatalities. See http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/v...960®=VH-EAC&airline=Qantas+Airways for details.

More about this at:

http://www.adastron.com/lockheed/constellation/vh-eac2.htm

aussie747 · Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:35 pm

Quoting Aviateur (Reply 35):
QF is a relatively small carrier, and a high percentage of its flights are long-haul (fewer takeoffs and landings, during which most accidents occur). Not to mention Australia's climate. Not many icy runways, etc.

not as small as you think. 221 Aircraft in its group fleet with only around 55 aircraft used internationally

Viscount724 · Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:46 pm

Quoting Aussie747 (Reply 37):
Quoting Aviateur (Reply 35):
QF is a relatively small carrier, and a high percentage of its flights are long-haul (fewer takeoffs and landings, during which most accidents occur). Not to mention Australia's climate. Not many icy runways, etc.

not as small as you think. 221 Aircraft in its group fleet with only around 55 aircraft used internationally

But in terms of the safety record discussion, the shorthaul domestic operations are a relatively recent development in comparison with major US airlines for example, and domestic operations in Australia suffer from far fewer weather-related issues than in North America or Europe, and much less congested airspace. While QF, and Australian carriers in general, have always had a strong safety culture, those other factors also make it easier to achieve a good safety record. For example, there's much less risk of a QF domestic flight skidding off a snow-covered runway.

BlueSkys · Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:58 pm

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 34):
That BKK Golf Course QF incident always amuses me - Imagine you are just about to crack a 250 yard drive down the fairway of the 8th - a workmanlike Par-3. Stance? Check. Grip? Check. Neck position? Check.

You open your eyes and see the QF 744 at the top of this very page right about where the green is and moving very quickly indeed. You briefly consider taking the drive anyway before the enormity of your situation hits you....You drop the clubs and make a dash for the clubhouse - suddenly your ï¿½350 TaylorMade graphite laser putter doesnt seem so important now!

Question is, do you shout "Fore!"

..... or "Seven Fore Seven!".

LOL! that would be a good story, although somehow I doubt there was one golfer on the course during the heavy rainstorm and the pitch blackness....

Although, golfing conditions like that would make the game much more amusing!

[Edited 2007-12-04 14:59:34]

Stealthz · Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:23 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 38):
But in terms of the safety record discussion, the shorthaul domestic operations are a relatively recent development in comparison with major US airlines for example,

Not exactly, the domestic carrier absorbed into Qantas (TAA/Australian) had similar exemplary record as did it's major competitor.
The safety culture certainly plays a significant part as does the generally benign weather and terrain.

Patrick in his Salon article mentions some airlines with similar safety records(well half the timeframe anyway), some of those are much smaller some are much younger.

The basic point to remember that with the exception of a few operators and some isolated areas, air travel is so safe and incidents so rare that any accident skew the stats out of any reality.

Cheers

airnewzealand · Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:32 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 38):
For example, there's much less risk of a QF domestic flight skidding off a snow-covered runway.

-BUT-

in this example, wouldnt we be MORE at risk when we fly into these airports with snow covered runways/weather as we do not have "more" expoerience than the carriers in these regions.?

For example, PEK / SEL / ZQN / CHC / WLG / NGO / JFK / BKK / FRA / LHR / CTS?

Cheers

AFGMEL · Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:44 pm

If you're going to use WX as the reason other carriers don't have such a exemplary record, then an apples to apples should be drawn by withdrawing fatals that were a DIRECT result of WX. WX in this case being snow and ice. Australia has plenty of high winds and thunderstorms etc - including one two days ago over my house which resulted in flooding.

Viscount724 · Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:50 pm

Quoting AFGMEL (Reply 42):
If you're going to use WX as the reason other carriers don't have such a exemplary record, then an apples to apples should be drawn by withdrawing fatals that were a DIRECT result of WX. WX in this case being snow and ice. Australia has plenty of high winds and thunderstorms etc - including one two days ago over my house which resulted in flooding.

The much lower density of air traffic in Australia is another factor. Less risk of mid-air collision which was the cause of several major fatal accidents involving US carriers in the propeller and early jet era. Also several in Europe where traffic density is even higher in many areas.

prebennorholm · Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:50 pm

Quoting FlyingAY (Reply 31):
Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 13):
Finnair DC-3s fell from the sky like a hailstorm in the 60'es killing several dozen people. That's a long time ago, and I flew with them with great pleasure earlier this year.

Yep, they lost 2 DC-3s, but I still wouldn't call that a hail storm. One in 1961 and the other one in 1963. But they have never lost a jet either.

Dear FlyingAY, you don't think that two is a hailstorm? I was exaggerating a bit. It has happened before, and it is likely happen again.

Finnair is truly an airline to be proud of, easy to do business with, friendly, great regularity even if the greater part of the flights in some nasty climate, if not in Finland, then in the rest of Northern Europe. Snow covered runways being the rule half of the year, a dry runway being almost the exception the rest of the year. Plenty of fog, plenty of traffic in the most dense air space in the world and many of the most congested airports. (No, here I am not exaggerating). And nothing has gone really bad for almost 50 years.

Keep up the good work. Because on the other side, if comparing safety statistics to for example the large US majors, then - taking the limited size of Finnair into account - they should also not do anything stupid during the next 200 - 300 years.

AFGMEL · Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:09 am

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 44):
The much lower density of air traffic in Australia is another factor.

Hmm, I suppose, but if we take it from say 1970 onwards, midairs are very rare indeed. Hardly statistically significant. Airports like SYD are almost at capacity and the SYD-MEL corridor is very busy indeed. Ok, not as busy as some airways, but busy enough.

qantas787 · Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:09 am

I don't recall the exact details, but a few years ago I believe a QF aircraft enroute OZ-ASIA encountered severe turbulence and diverted to DRW. A lady who was injured subsequently died from those injuries. I guess that would equate to a fatal flight. My apologies for the rather vague memory of the details but I am sure somebody on here would be able to recall better than myself.

Viscount724 · Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:30 am

Quoting AFGMEL (Reply 45):
Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 44):
The much lower density of air traffic in Australia is another factor.

Hmm, I suppose, but if we take it from say 1970 onwards, midairs are very rare indeed. Hardly statistically significant.

Unfortunately that's not correct. Using your 1970 onwards time frame, approximately 60 airliners have been involved in midair collisions. Not all were fatal but many were with more than 2200 fatalities. And that doesn't include collisions on the ground of which there have also been many with hundreds of further fatalities. Based on a quick check I don't see any records of mid-air or ground collisions involving airliners in Australia.

AFGMEL · Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:53 am

Well I did a check of midairs since 1970. Mind you, it was quick and nasty, but this is the list that I have come up with.

I still maintain that it's statistically insignificant as you will see by the operators involved. If we are to compare QF we can remove these from the stats if you like.

List since 1970

UncleBuck · Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:35 am

Quoting FLY777UAL (Reply 22):
As Pam Ann put it, "tic-tock..." Wink

F L Y 7 7 7 U A L

exactly what I came here to post Silly

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net