Tick-Tock applies to any airline. I remember people saying the same thing more than ten years ago. Eventually if something happens then they can be smug and all say "I told you so"

Quoting AFGMEL (Reply 48): 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.

I don't quite get your point re comparing the list of midairs to QF's safety record since QF hasn't had any midairs. As far as being statistically insignificant, I think that many midairs and the number of fatalities involved are quite statistically significant in terms of overall accident records and their causes during that period. How does the identity of the operator make them less significant? There are quite a few fairly large carriers with at least one midair during that period.

My point was only to show that midairs are not in fact "very rare".

Quoting TG992 (Reply 8): 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 exemplar

In that case, Kudos to Qantas' marketing, because I understood that they had never had a fatality. In fact, I believed Dustin Hoffman in "Rainman" when he insisted "Qantas never crashed..."  

I need to get out more.

Quoting AFGMEL (Reply 50): Tick-Tock applies to any airline. I remember people saying the same thing more than ten years ago. Eventually if something happens then they can be smug and all say "I told you so"

we were more talking about how funny Pam Ann is, not so much saying it's going to happen.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 51): I don't quite get your point re comparing the list of midairs to QF's safety record since QF hasn't had any midairs.

Ok, that was in response to this :

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 43): 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.

I was saying that it is statistically insignificant if we are going to compare airlines. Look at the list, airlines like BA, AA, CO, AF, etc are hardly on that list. That's why I provided the list of operators. If as you you say above that midairs are the problem, I am saying, fine. Remove midairs and then compare so we remove the advantage that QF has in having less dense airspace.

The fact is that QF have had very few incidents. There must be a reason for that. Weather and traffic density are not the reason, because most accidents are not as a direct result of those two things and in any case, bad weather is a problem here with our tropical climate up north to the thundery south. Only difference is that QF doesn't have the snow factor here very ofter, but they do taking off and landing in North America and Europe. In places like LHR QF aircraft are just as vulnerable as anyone else.

Quoting AFGMEL (Reply 54): The fact is that QF have had very few incidents. There must be a reason for that. Weather and traffic density are not the reason, because most accidents are not as a direct result of those two things

As someone else mentioned, another major factor for most of QF's history before they acquired domestic routes was the extreme longhaul nature of their route network which was almost unique. Far fewer takeoffs and landings and thus less exposure to the phases of flight when most accidents occur in proportion to their total flying hours compared to most other major carriers. And that's largely still true for QF's international operations.

And at one time QF only operated a single aircraft type which was unusual -- first the 707 (plus a lone DC-4 to serve Norfolk Island) and later nothing but 747s for several years after the 707s were retired. Having only one type to fly and maintain must make it easier to avoid errors and probably enhances skills for both pilots and maintenance staff.

It doesn't matter how many flights you fly or where, each take off / flight / landing has the same probability as any other.

If you fly for as many years as they have and only have as few accidents as they have then it is more than luck.

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 52): In that case, Kudos to Qantas' marketing, because I understood that they had never had a fatality. In fact, I believed Dustin Hoffman in "Rainman" when he insisted "Qantas never crashed..."

QANTAS were the only airline not to remove that from the movie in IFE  

Quoting AFGMEL (Reply 54): The fact is that QF have had very few incidents. There must be a reason for that. Weather and traffic density are not the reason, because most accidents are not as a direct result of those two things and in any case, bad weather is a problem here with our tropical climate up north to the thundery south. Only difference is that QF doesn't have the snow factor here very ofter, but they do taking off and landing in North America and Europe. In places like LHR QF aircraft are just as vulnerable as anyone else.

But from what I remember the majority of very fatal (ie more than 50% of px die) are not caused by cold weather

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 55): And at one time QF only operated a single aircraft type which was unusual -- first the 707 (plus a lone DC-4 to serve Norfolk Island) and later nothing but 747s for several years after the 707s were retired. Having only one type to fly and maintain must make it easier to avoid errors and probably enhances skills for both pilots and maintenance staff.

Just because QF has been 'smater' about their safety record doesnt mean they have an unfair advantage it means they have an advantage but any other airline could have done the same

Quoting Jbernie (Reply 56): It doesn't matter how many flights you fly or where, each take off / flight / landing has the same probability as any other.

But for much of QF's history, especially before they acquired domestic routes, their average nonstop flight sectors were much longer than most other international carriers, thus they made far fewer takeoffs and landings than a carrier flying the same number of hours or with the same number of aircraft but whose average flight length was much shorter. The probability of an accident on one 12 hour nonstop flight is less than on 4 flights of 3 hours each.

If Qantas ha wanted to preserve their record by not having had a hull loss with the bkk overrun then they would insist to repair the aircraft regardless of cost rather than write it off. if it cost an extra 20 of 30 million then that is well worth it to maintain the record of never having lost a jet hull.
the other point to consider is that with alot of western airlines outsourcing deep maintenance to the lowest "accredited" bidder then what difference is there between QF or any other airline that uses the same maintenance provider.

Quoting Airbusted (Reply 59): If Qantas ha wanted to preserve their record by not having had a hull loss with the bkk overrun then they would insist to repair the aircraft regardless of cost rather than write it off. if it cost an extra 20 of 30 million then that is well worth it to maintain the record of never having lost a jet hull.

I did hear that for the same cost of repairing it they could have got a new one (though I may be wrong). But I'm sure even though they would have bought another 747 (for $$$$$$$$$) Boeing would have preffered them to fix it (for their record too).

A mate of mine flies 744s for Qantas and said the plane (think he called it "OJH") that over-ran in BKK is still in service but flies weird. Said it is safe but does not handle like the other 747-400s in the fleet.

The oldest 737, which is/was flown by NASA for extreme testing (lightning, wind shear, etc.) is apparently so torqued from abuse the air frame flies crooked. That was on a Nat Geo video about the pilots flying into severe weather for testing. Pilot said the plane was bent but still safe to fly.

It might be because most of their fleet is usually PARKED at LAX!!! Just kidding, but I have seen at least 4 of QF's 744's sitting at the maintenance hangers there on more than one occasion. I think they take great pride in in their aircraft.

While many on this thread have made light of the fact that QF flies in less congested airspace; this is true, however:
Internationally, QF flies in and out of some of the world's busiest aiports and air corridors;
Domestically, MEL-SYD is one of the world's busiest air corrdiors (within the top 5)

Quoting VHXLR8 (Reply 63): Domestically, MEL-SYD is one of the world's busiest air corrdiors (within the top 5)

Wow... I never knew that but I guess it is... also alot of traffic going from AVV/MEL to regional airports along the route must make headaches for ATC

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 13): Finnair DC-3s fell from the sky like a hailstorm in the 60'es killing several dozen people

Somehow, I would have expected a bit more analysis on these accidents. The "hailstrom" was two fatal Finnair (then known as "Aero") DC-3 accidents in 1961 and 1963 caused by the pilots being heavily under the influence of alcohol and an altimeter fault at minimum landing conditions, respectively. More on the Wikipedia page, as usual.
The public reaction to these accidents resulted in the company culture being thoroughly scrutinized, and instrument landing systems were installed at problematic airports.
From 1963, no one has been killed or hurt riding on a Finnair (or subsidiary) plane. The only dents on the Finnair airframes have been caused by airport vehicle collisions, or the like.

[Edited 2007-12-08 04:05:17]

No matter what measure one uses to judge the saftey record of Qantas, it remains quite extraordinary that they have operated aircraft with notably unreliable engines (Super Constellation) , aircraft with design deficiencies so serious that major modifications need to be performed (L-188), and the first generation of pure-jets that represented a major difference in technology and operational technique.

Some airlines are able to do this and some don't.

The Caravelle was operated by many different operators who lost them with alarming regularity back in the day, yet UA had a fleet (of twenty something?) of them and operated them a good ten years or so untill they retired them, without a loss. Given the amount of cycles and hours UA could put on an aircraft for the size of their operation, this was quite an accomplishment.

Luck/karma can certainly play a part. I can remember when AF was commonly referred to as "Air Chance".
One can certainly conclude that NW had some real issues with it over the years.
The L-14 (Super Electra) and L-188 (Electra) both suffered from forms of flutter, and then an L-188 was lost to poor mx practices as well. The Martin 202 debacle nearly drove the company into bankruptsy, with so many incidents and loss of life, the cockpit crews eventually refused to fly them. The B-377 and DC-7C both had unreliable engine/propeller packages.
With the advent of their jet ops. a nasty crash in south Florida with a B-720B resulted in the first real studies on the effects of "jet-upset" and operational technique involving all swept-wing jet-turbine aircraft. ----Yet this was not enough to prevent the loss of a B-727-251 in New York due to ops/technique issues, and then there was the MD-80 disaster at DTW in the mid-eighties.

Given the frequency of ops, amount of pax carried and amount of hours flown, NW really has done a good job. Yet, when comparing their saftey record simply by the amount of hull losses, they have really had a time of it.

There are so many different criteria one can use to "rate" the saftey records of different carriers, yet IMO, it still seems to boil down to that some carriers do exceedingly well and others do not.

Oh, and then there is Korean-------they seem to have turned the corner now however it got real dicey for a while!

Quoting VHXLR8 (Reply 63): Domestically, MEL-SYD is one of the world's busiest air corridors (within the top 5)

Yep, if the airspace is so free of planes, why was my flight on Friday down to Mel from Syd slowed over Maroubra for another plane and then it appeared diverted out to the E of Nowra when most fly over Wollongong and well W of Nowra? Thick cloud made it a bit difficult for me to be sure exactly which course we took.

And as for the clement weather, I wonder why Syd airport had to be closed for an hour Friday pm delaying my return flight! It might have been the torrential thunderstorm, but we don't have those.  

i remember an article somewhere saying that sydney is known for windshear and it is also in the top 12 or 15 busiest airports in the world

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 66): The Caravelle was operated by many different operators who lost them with alarming regularity back in the day, yet UA had a fleet (of twenty something?) of them and operated them a good ten years or so untill they retired them, without a loss. Given the amount of cycles and hours UA could put on an aircraft for the size of their operation, this was quite an accomplishment.

However during the 11 years (1961-72) UA operated their 20 Caravelles, they wrote off 13 other aircraft in accidents, 7 of them involving fatalities.