Ten Plane Crashes That Changed Aviation

"Graeme Hogan" wrote in
:

What about Tennerife

A greater emphasis on CRM.


--

"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".

On Oct 31, 11:31 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
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.

Sylvia.
This is completely not true ! The industry has completely changed the
way they handle security, hijackers, disturbances, etc.. The loopholes
that were explioted that day no longer exist. You have FAMs, FIFDOs,
secure cockpits, pasengers willing to stand up and fight, and a whole
host of security mesures the traveling public knows little or nothing
about.
I think this article is silly and very incomplete.

F. Baum wrote:
On Oct 31, 11:31 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
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.

Sylvia.
This is completely not true ! The industry has completely changed the
way they handle security, hijackers, disturbances, etc.. The loopholes
that were explioted that day no longer exist. You have FAMs, FIFDOs,
secure cockpits, pasengers willing to stand up and fight, and a whole
host of security mesures the traveling public knows little or nothing
about.
I think this article is silly and very incomplete.


You correctly identify a change in passenger attitudes. I didn't regard
that as relevant, because it was not a change introduced by the industry
or regulators, but simply a changed perception on the part of passengers
seeking to look after their own interests.

The remaining changes, such as preventing people from taking knitting
needles on board, are a stable-door closing reaction that has not done
anything to improve safety, exactly because of the change in passenger
behaviour.

What the rules have done is to ensure that passengers are completely
disarmed so as to have nothing to use against the next terrorist who
dreams up a novel approach to air piracy.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else wrote:

The remaining changes, such as preventing people from taking knitting
needles on board, are a stable-door closing reaction that has not done
anything to improve safety, exactly because of the change in passenger
behaviour.


Knitting needles are permitted.
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtrav...ted-items.shtm

The list is still stupid.

You can bring a walking cane, but not a hockey stick or pool cue.

mrtravel wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:

The remaining changes, such as preventing people from taking knitting
needles on board, are a stable-door closing reaction that has not done
anything to improve safety, exactly because of the change in passenger
behaviour.


Knitting needles are permitted.
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtrav...ted-items.shtm


The list is still stupid.

You can bring a walking cane, but not a hockey stick or pool cue.

Kniting needles are banned in Australia.

But the amount of inflammable material you can take on board (2kg of
matches, for example) is unbelievable. You can also take 2 litres of
lighter fuel, though nowadays you'd have to buy it in the secure area
because of the general (and totally stupid) limit on liquids.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else said the following on 7/11/2007 2:32 PM:

The remaining changes, such as preventing people from taking knitting
needles on board, are a stable-door closing reaction that has not done
anything to improve safety, exactly because of the change in passenger
behaviour.

I think the term is security theatre

You correctly identify a change in passenger attitudes. I didn't regard
that as relevant, because it was not a change introduced by the industry
or regulators, but simply a changed perception on the part of passengers
seeking to look after their own interests.

The remaining changes, such as preventing people from taking knitting
needles on board, are a stable-door closing reaction that has not done
anything to improve safety, exactly because of the change in passenger
behaviour.

What the rules have done is to ensure that passengers are completely
disarmed so as to have nothing to use against the next terrorist who
dreams up a novel approach to air piracy.

Sylvia.

Not so. I for one had options before 11 September that still exist
today. It was not for terrorists like 9/11 but the rare whacked
individual who would try to enter the cockpit.

Ron Lee