Quote from J.B. :

Looking at the list though, the real question is how can the rest of the world be content with having such an appalling safety record compared to Europe?

other than that they cant afford anything better than what they currently have?

Whether they can afford it or not is not the issue. Planes that don't pass FAA checks cannot fly. There is no decision making concerning what gets fixed and what doesn't, they simply don't fly. That means whoever is checking these planes is not doing a thorough enough job. It is hard for a mechanic to spot a genuine manufacturer part or a cheap knockoff, so sometimes (rarely) an airline can cut costs that way but that doesn't happen often.

guys, plane are really pretty safe. just think about how many planes flew each day, and a lot of the incidents happened didn't end up in disaster, most of the minor failures didn't caused even an emergency landing and the passengers don't even know about it. many many things kill more people globally per day. you are 100 times more likely to die in a car crash. and since this thread was posted more than 200,000 flights had lifted off and safely landed in the world.

you can't expect new technology to suddenly revolutionized commercial aviation, planes are expensive and were designed to last for decades, not like airline company can afford renewing their fleet often, and for plane builders, it's a huge investment in time and money to design a new plane.

In the world there are a lot of small regional airlines who flys old planes, second hand third hand planes bought from other companies, with maybe less than ideal maintainence programmes, but they don't really have the resource to change it.

but hey, the Dreamliner is on the horizon (if the airline company can survive the oil price that is)

Quote from flymike91 :

Planes that don't pass FAA checks cannot fly.

i think weve tried to explain this to you before but the us is not running the entire world
jbs wording might have been a bit inaccurate but the gist of it was that flying in what is so nicely refered to as the first world is very save on average and both europe and the us are a part of that
second and especially third world airlines use planes that are in comparison death traps and they cant afford any better which is in many ways the first worlds fault but thats a different matter alltogether

Quote from JJ72 :

but hey, the Dreamliner is on the horizon (if the airline company can survive the oil price that is)

and the ridiculous costs and incertainties when maintaining a carbon fibre piece as big as that

Quote from CSU1 :

listen, bathtubs and 300km per hour carnage does not compare, don't be silly to compare the two. We are talking about real lives and real people not some " target="_blank">www.funny2.com/odds

Your prepared to go karting with very few safety measures? You drive a road car without issue? But are scared of planes just because when one does crash it is a bit messy? Stop being such a wimp and live a little.

Quote from ajp71 :

Your prepared to go karting with very few safety measures? You drive a road car without issue? But are scared of planes just because when one does crash it is a bit messy? Stop being such a wimp and live a little.

You are an idiot.

FTR i find chanoman, 11sully11 and ajp71's input somewhat distasteful.

Quote from flymike91 :

Whether they can afford it or not is not the issue. Planes that don't pass FAA checks cannot fly. There is no decision making concerning what gets fixed and what doesn't, they simply don't fly. That means whoever is checking these planes is not doing a thorough enough job. It is hard for a mechanic to spot a genuine manufacturer part or a cheap knockoff, so sometimes (rarely) an airline can cut costs that way but that doesn't happen often.

Here you just give money, and bang! you have the maintainance or exam done

EDIT: What you mean by distasteful?

Quote from CSU1 :

You are an idiot.

FTR i find chanoman, 11sully11 and ajp71's input somewhat distasteful.

I don't really see what is distasteful about my point of view. Simply put there has been a plane crash which is a nasty occurrence, but sufficiently rare to warrant front page headlines for two days in a row. Surely that in itself is testament to how plane crashes are not a common occurrence or an unacceptable risk? The 19 that did survive (which the media doesn't focus on), survived because of the excellent safety measures and response that would have saved the lives of many more in a less serious (but more common) incident.

Plane crashes get lots of attention in the media, which in turn makes people paranoid, because they are so infrequent. Aside from the issue of safety in current planes what suggestion are you making to improve them, surely you haven't got a solution that is better than a steel box with fuel tanks sticking out of it, if you have I'm sure lots of people would like to hear your idea, if not I suggest you just accept that current air travel is very safe and the chance of a serious accident is kept so low that it offsets the mess when you do have one.

Quote from CSU1 :

You are an idiot.

FTR i find chanoman, 11sully11 and ajp71's input somewhat distasteful.

Your a drunk !

back on topic,any further news on what actually caused the crash ?

Everyone says something different but what is clear is that a simple engine failure could not cause this. Some say the engine exploded just before touching the ground, meaning that the crash was not caused by the explosion.

The only thing we can do is wait...

RIP.

Rest In Peace

Quote from anbiddulph :

notice, he said 'in a plane crash'. Not how many crashes there are

I think he is talking about the death toll in a plane crash compared to the death toll of a car crash...

another plane crashed in Kirguistan (?) ... o god :/

Quote from ajp71 :

surely you haven't got a solution that is better than a steel box with fuel tanks sticking out of it.....

I guess the EU isn't really surprised that it crashed. The kyrgyzstan airline is banned from EU airspace for not being deemed safe. I wonder how many passengers were informed of that.

Quote from chanoman315 :

nope, they had an engine problem when they were running the usual checklist, but they repaired it before takeoff...

The first problem was the External Temperature sensor of the Nacelle Anti Ice System, the circuit breaker feeding the sensor was removed as its the maintenance operation. The aircraft was dispatched in MMEL Conditions.

For the record:

1. Emergency landings are carried out usually with minimal fuel loads (use google for jettison)

2. There is one system in modern aircrafts to inert the Fuel (use google for IGSS: Inert Gas Generating System)

3. A Catastrophic Failure in aeronautics is 1e-9/Flight Hour, so you can do the maths to know the probability of an aircraft crash due to a single failure....


Still there are things like lighting stroke, bird impact or UERF (Uncontained Engine Rotor Failure) that can not be avoided, they just happen!

Modern Aircrafts are designed to fully accomplish safety requirements, the thing is people don’t know how difficult is to certificate a civil aircraft to fly (at least in Europe/USA).