Ten Plane Crashes That Changed Aviation

"Graeme Hogan" wrote in message
...

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
u...
Kwyjibo wrote:
"Ned" wrote in message ...
Ten Plane Crashes That Changed Aviation
Popular Mechanics | By David Noland | October 13, 2007
snip

Hmmm. No mention of September 11, 2001.
I would have thought those plane crashes would have made the list, given
the drastic changes that resulted.


No, because the changes haven't resulted in any increase in safety.


What about Tennerife

What was the significant inventions made to aviation to prevent this
happening again?

On Nov 6, 4:55 pm, "wb" wrote:
"Graeme Hogan" wrote in message

What about Tennerife

What was the significant inventions made to aviation to prevent this
happening again?- Hide quoted text -

If you are talking about Tenerife and other accidents like it, there
have been substantial changes to SMGS airport markings and lighting.
Also, substantial changes to low vis operations, ground radar, etc. At
some airports there are higher RVR requirments to taxi than to take
off. Take a look at the 10-9 page for KBOS.

This thread has brought out once again how the truly remarkable level of
safety we enjoy in our civil aviation system has evolved primarily
through the learning experiences of a long series of crashes and
accidents.

These accidents were individually tragic -- but also individually small
in some reasonable sense of that term, and thus acceptable.

It also seems to me they were in most cases largely unanticipated and
perhaps largely "unanticipatable" -- we had to have them, in order to
evolve to the level of safety we have today.

It's these aspects of aviation safety that bother me about the analogous
case of nuclear safety (in the sense of both nuclear power, and nuclear
weapons risks). We've had a few nuclear accidents, and undoubtedly
learned from them.

But we've not had the sustained chain of nuclear accidents to teach us
the risks and the necessary safeguards of nuclear technology -- and we
may never have them until it's way, way too late.

A worst case aviation accident (a fully fueled 380 falling out of the
sky onto a fully filled football stadium) might kill a few tens of
thousands. A worst case nuclear accident might kill or poison many
hundreds of thousands and upwards, and render a major metropolitan area
or half a state uninhabitable for decades to centuries.

And, as my wife keeps saying, "fail safe systems by definition fail by
failing to fail safe".

AES wrote in news:siegman-34243A.11130907112007
@nntp.stanford.edu:

This thread has brought out once again how the truly remarkable level of
safety we enjoy in our civil aviation system has evolved primarily
through the learning experiences of a long series of crashes and
accidents.


No, they were very much secondary in their contribution.




Bertie