Talk:Aviation safety

Navigation aids

I added VOR route navigation, to that section, and provided both internal and external links.

--EditorASC 02:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Engine Failure

I revised the part on the Gimli Glider. Much of the wording was taken word-for-word from other websites, without attribution. Also, the phrase "electro-hydraulic system" was fantasy nomenclature, to put it mildly. There is no such system on the 767, or any other airliner, that I know of.

--EditorASC 07:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Stalling

The following has been removed from the Stalling section – seems original research to me.

Stalling the engine of an aircraft (i.e. causing it to stop working), although a rare problem, is thought to have been the reason for the 1973 crash of the Tupolev Tu-144 "Konkordski".

Please substantiate if willing to re-merge. BACbKA 20:15, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Fortunately, the fatal incident rate has continued to decline steadily ever since, and since 1997, the number of fatal air accidents has been no more than 1 for every 2,000,000,000 miles flown, making it one of the safest modes of transport." Who can prove this is correct? What about the August-2005 fatal accidents?

Fire

I cleaned up some of the wording of the ValuJet DC-9 accident. Oxyen generators are installed only in seatbacks, not in the overheads. Revised confusing statements about air tight cargo compartments.

Oxygen generators in the seats? They're in the overheads. The rest looks great. Dbchip 05:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

--EditorASC 03:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

My apology; it was late at night and I was pretty fatigued. I screwed up my own wording. I meant to say that the oxygen generators are not ONLY in the overheads but also in the seatbacks. The difference is between some wide bodied and narrow bodied airliners. The "overhead" is too high above the passengers, in some of the wide bodied planes, so they install the generators in the seatbacks. DC-10s are done that way.

Since I screwed it up on my last attempt, I will leave it to you to choose the way to word it, so that it won't give the impression that the generators are found ONLY in the overheads.

EditorASC 07:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've flown as FO at MD-11s (a kind of "black tied" DC-10) for a couple of years at VASP and I've never heard about oxygen generators on airliners seats or back rests. Observe that overhead ceiling could be 20 feet high or higher - it doesn't matter: the mask will fall from the ceiling and the user don't need to raise in order to catch your mask, he needs only to pull the mask to his face and the string attached to the oxygen tube will trigger the squib in the generator. Otherwise, oxygen generators can be very hot when operating: something around 500 °F (260 °C). So, I apologize Editor ASC, but I doubt firmly about such seatbacks installation of oxy generators...RobertoRMola (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You are correct about the MD-11, but my reference was to the DC-10. I flew them at UAL for 7 years. The passenger oxygen generators were located in the top of the seat backs, not in the overhead, like they were in MD-11s and narrow body airliners.

You will find these quotes in this Wiki article [[1]]

" In wide body airliners, such as the DC-10 and IL-96, the canisters and oxygen masks are mounted in the top portion of the seat backs, since the ceiling is too high above the passengers."

"An ATA DC-10, Flight 131, was also destroyed while parked at O'Hare Airport, on August 10, 1986. The cause was the accidental activation of an oxygen canister, contained in the back of a broken DC-10 seat, being shipped in the cargo compartment to a repair station."

EditorASC (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

What is a hull-loss accident?

I'm no expert on these things, and I'm trying to work out exactly what a "hull-loss accident" is. I presume that it means when the "aircraft" as a whole is unrecoverable but are there subtleties to this, e.g. you write off the fuselage and recover the engines? It just seems like a strange use of the word "hull" which doubtless means something. I can't find anything on Wikipedia which elaborates further. If someone could enlighten us (or suggest a source and I'll happily write an article) then that would be great. The only thing I've been able to find is on Boeing's website [2] which states that a hull-loss is when the "airplane" isn't "economically repairable". Is that all there is to it? Iancaddy 20:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

After Googling around, I get the impression that it's an insurance term. Sort of how the average person would use "the car was totaled" to mean it wasn't repairable. Or, rather, that it wouldn't be economically worth it to repair it. I think that's the case with this phrase. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 20:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hull losses are when an aircraft is damaged to the point where it is not used again (ie scrapped) Some incidents can be classified as 'hull loss' even if the damage is reletively minor. Often if an elderly aircraft is damaged it is not worth repairing since it was due to be scrapped soon.

It simply means that the plane was not repaired and put back into service. Such decisions are almost always based strictly on economics. For example, if repairing the plane would cost more than it would to buy another used one like it, after considering what could be earned by selling the wreck for salvage, then the plane will normally be written off as a "hull-loss." Another scenario would be that it was planned to be soon retired from service anyway, and sold for whatever the secondary market might bring. In that case, all but the most minor repairs, would make it much more sensible to use the money for new aircraft purchases.

There is one exception, that I know of: The Qantas 747-400, that ran off the end of the runway at BangKok. It should have been written off as a hull-loss, especially since what was left, would have recouped a lot of that loss, if sold for salvage parts. But, Qantas made a PR decision to spend several millions more, to have the plane rebuilt and put back into service, so they could continue to tell the world that they have never had jet hull-loss.

--EditorASC 03:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Delamination

I believe the crash of A300-600, AAL587, was not a result of delamination - it was a result of the attachements failing, rather than the tailfin itself. The huge metal anchor that kept the tailfin attached to the fuselage failed because it passed the ultimate load due to "rudder reversal" not because full rudder authority being exercised.

Rudder reversal is where full rudder is applied in opposite directions in quick succsession at highspeed and most airliners are liable to suffer fatal structual failure because of this. The safety bulletin issued regarding rudder reversals was ALSO released by Boeing, not just Airbus - and stated that fatal structual failure could result on any of its aircraft because of high-speed rudder reversal. Delamination may have occured, but the accident would have happened with or without it.

"On November 12, 2001, American Airlines Flight 587 crashed shortly after takeoff, killing all 260 persons aboard and 5 more on the ground. Both the engines of the Airbus A300-600, the rudder and the tail fin separated from the plane before impact. The pilot had been trained to use full rudder deflection to recover from wake-induced turbulence, which overstressed the fin. Numerous modern aircraft developed related problems, but most were discovered before they caused a catastrophic failure."

"Full rudder deflection" - that didn't cause it alone, it was swinging full left to full right and doing the same repeatedly that caused it. See the following: http://www.wingfiles.com/files/flight/useofrudder.pdf - UK AIS http://www.wingfiles.com/files/flight/useofrudderonairbus.pdf - NSTB

This sounds like something from the anti-Airbus lobby. It never actually says delamination caused it but it implies so and I've removed the text. If I am in error feel free to add it back in. Also the engine deattachement wasn't due to the use of composites either - I think. I am pretty sure about the rudder failure tho - delamination was not the cause, and presenting as so is unfair.

I can now backup my claims at this link http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/aa587/board_mtg_anim.htm . The Video clearly shows repeated rudder reversals before failure.

---

NB: Notice someone has reverted it but not mentioned this here, hence I am putting it back to my edit...

Alleged cell phone hazard

I think this statement, near the end of the human factors section, should be removed:

        "Some plane crashes are believed to have been caused by the use of cell phones."

While such allegations have been made, they have never been backed up with hard evidence. Whenever anecdotal reports of interference with navigation systems have been made, they have never been able to reproduce it with subsequent scientific testing. So far, such allegations are nothing more than classic Post Hoc reasoning. I am not aware of any accident, where the official invesitgative report found that the use of any passenger electronic device, was the cause of the crash.

I think there should be some hard evidence to support such claims, before they are included in an article like this.

--EditorASC 10:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the allegation that cell phones have caused crashes. That simply is not true. Also cleaned up the wording on cell phone use, to reflect the fact that it has been the FCC regulations which prohibit inflight use, unless the planes are specially wired and certified (that is happening now, but very few planes meet that new tech requirement).

EditorASC 07:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why mobile phone usage is disallowed aboard non-US commercial flights. Nor does it really explain why cell phones may be used in non-commercial flight below 10,000'. Because mobile phone transmissions have not been implicated as a factor in any accident, it is hard to say how they are worth mentioning in this article. If we mention that a cell phone might cause an incorrect compass reading, then we should also mention that the auroras cause unpredictable perturbations in the earth's magnetic field and that magnetoactive plasma produces non-linear local variance. Crashes in the Bermuda Triangle were not attributed to passengers using cell phones. 75.247.135.166 (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Nautical miles or statute miles?

Can somebody clarify what kind of miles is used in risk estimation figures? I'd also appreciate a translation to kilometres.

Shure can do. Normal miles were use in that article, despite the fact that nautical miles are used in aircraft. NathanJunyk (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Seating position matters

Perhaps this should be mentioned somewhere in the article? I'm not sure where to put it, though. Esn 04:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Excessive internal links

From September 16th to today, 66.108.191.45 (talk · contribs · logs) has slowly been adding a HUGE number of internal links throughout this article, which range from barely relevant (like Active noise reduction) to totally irrelevant (like Timeline of AIDS.) See this difference between revisions, most of which (but not all) was done by that user. In order to cut down on overlinking I'm going through the article and getting rid of most of the unimportant and irrelevant links cluttering it up. If anyone thinks some should be put back, feel free to restore the good ones. Also, please be alert for later edits by 66.108.191.45. Not all of their edits were bad, but the link creep has gotten excessive. Thanks. -- HiEv 20:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, should the "Accidents and incidents" and "Regulation" sections (both are collections of internal links) be incorporated into the "See also" section? Should some items be deleted from any of those sections? It looks like there should be more organization there if it's going to stay this large, perhaps grouping into categories. -- HiEv 19:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Has there been consideration of a "flight safety" section where, perhaps some of these issues could find a home? --Michaelsbaum 15:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

safest form of travel

http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg16321985.200-flight-into-danger.html

Air is NOT the safest form of transportation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.164.119 (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Passenger hours versus miles

While the article mentions the oft-quoted statistics about safety based on passenger-miles traveled, has anyone ever done a comparison based on passenger-hours traveled? Seems to me that that would be a more realistic measure of travel safety. This measure would probably correlate to the lifetime odds of dying. — Loadmaster (talk) 03:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As the New Scientist web article linked to in previous post above mentions,

The most accurate method is to compare the number of deaths with the number of journeys made. So accurate, in fact, that this is the measure used by the industry and its insurers. This makes much more sense, because what matters to the individual is the journey, not how long it took or how far it went. Also, it enables comparison of different types of jet, both long haul and short haul.

By this measure, air travel takes on a rather different complexion. Deaths per 100 million passenger journeys are, on average, 55 for airliners compared with 4.5 for cars, and 2.7 for trains. Only motorbikes, at 100 deaths per 100 million passenger journeys, are more risky than aircraft on this basis.

So, no, air travel is not the safest mode of travel. — Loadmaster (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that the above argument assumes that the choice is between flying vs choosing an alternative destination that's within driving distance. But if getting to a given destination is a requirement, so you're comparing flying vs other means of getting somewhere that's X miles away, then the mileage comparison is the correct one, and air travel is indeed safest. Joule36e5 (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"because what matters to the individual is the journey, not how long it took or how far it went" - erm no. What matters to the individual is still being alive and in one piece at the end of the journey. There is a difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• Insurers use per journey not because it is the most accurate, but because it has the best correlation to losses. Accidents occur mostly with either take-off or landing, not during the hours/kilometres in between. Short hauls have more losses per mile than long hauls. Insurers are not using per journey figures to compare losses between modes of transportation. The mode of transportation which is safest by a wide margin to cover thousands of miles is a non-stop flight on a large jetliner operated by a reputable commercial airline. No other mode of transportation even comes close to being that safe. 75.208.34.206 (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it is worth mentioning that common statement "You're more likely to die on the way to the airport than on a plane flight from there" is generally incorrect, based on a typical length of a car/bus ride to the airport vs. typical flight and considering per-passenger-trip statistics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.41.250 (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• We can't debunk every urban legend about aviation safety. But the statement is contradicted historically by the statistics. 75.208.34.206 (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Statistics

It would be good if someone could find the actual DETR survey report on which all of these statistics are based. Until that is done, I don't consider the stats verifiable. Meneth (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The DETR survey that is cited is from 98/99 statistics, which makes it quite old. The US Dept of Transportation has a report with statistics up to 2006 http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2007/pdf/entire.pdf. Also the Aus Dept of Transportation has a report with statistics up to 2007 http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/39/Files/ATS_2008.pdf. Maybe someone is willing to compile this info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.80.198.12 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Something not adding up - According to Nat'l Transportation Board, car accidents account for 94% of transporation fatalities. Odds of dying from car 1/20,000, odds of dying from plane 1/500,000. Please see both references -> [3][4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.120.102.115 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I tried to verify one figure in the stats: aviation fatalities. According to NTSB report about accidents on regular airlines, the best (non-zero) year was 2004 with 0.006 fatalities per 100,000 flight hours. This is 60 deaths per billion hours. The stats on the wiki page says about 30.8 deaths per billion hrs, which is twice less. But I took the best year only. If we count other years too, and other flight types (non-scheduled, air-taxis, general aviaton), the number will increase to several hundreds. So I'd rather don't consider the stats as valid at all. All numbers in the table were taken from one article which doesn't have any references to official statistical data used in calculations. Bronx (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, it would be interesting to know whether the air figure there includes private planes (which are much more unsafe) or only commercial airlines. John C PI (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC).

Here is another statistical report (from EU) comparing various modes of transportation by fatality rate (per distance and time traveled). www.etsc.eu/oldsite/statoverv.pdf This is a good read, and some of the numbers appear to be quite different from those referenced in this article. Perhaps it is worth reviewing the numbers and using those from the report instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.41.250 (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

In the article it is a claim that one billion hours on foot is more dangerous that one billion hours in plane. This Statistics is absolutely faithless. 91.77.252.73 (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I find taking into account miles travelled instead of trips travelled to be an incredibly misleading yet inherent way of measuring air travel safety. To give an example of how ridiculous this is, say we developed the technology for a spaceship that was able to travel to a distant destination one light year away, however half of all flights ended up being destroyed by asteroids. Going by the statistics used for air travel, this would actually be calculated to be safer than either air or car travel, since the one light year in terms of miles would result in far less accidents (only 1 accident per light year) as opposed to the many millions/billions of accidents that would result in car travel in an equivalent distance. Now tell me, knowing that half of these spaceships were destroyed by asteroids, would you consider spaceship flying to be billions of times safer? Hardly. If we used trips travelled as a metric, this would give us a far more likelihood of our survival per trip (which would be only 50% per trip for the spaceship) ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.207.253.227 (talk) 07:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Too much detail on ValuJet

The Fire section had way to much detail on the Valujet crash. I've deleted the following:

"The investigation determined that improperly packaged chemical oxygen generators (used for the drop-down oxygen masks in the aircraft cabin) had been loaded into the cargo hold. Oxygen generators produce oxygen through a chemical reaction that also generates hundreds of degrees of heat. When installed for use in the ceiling above the passenger seats they are surrounded by heat-resistant shielding and present no fire hazard. On this flight they had been put loosely into a cardboard box for shipment from a maintenance facility.

"It is likely that one or more of the generators ignited, during or immediately after takeoff, producing an oxygen-rich environment. The cardboard box containing the generators would have quickly caught fire from the heat of the ignited generator. The fire spread to an aircraft tire that was also carried in the hold. Ordinarily the fire would have smothered itself, because of the airtight design of that cargo compartment. But the oxygen generators kept feeding oxygen to the fire, defeating the smothering design of the McDonnell Douglas DC-9 cargo hold. The fire rapidly burned through the passenger cabin floor, incapacitating all aboard with smoke and poisonous gases very quickly. The pilots, although having smoke masks and separate oxygen supplies, had no hope of maintaining control as control cables and electrical wiring burned through.

"The maintenance facility (SabreTech) was subjected to large fines and ValuJet, due to this accident and other irregularities, was grounded. The airline reemerged as a smaller airline and eventually merged with AirTran Airways, a smaller carrier. Adopting the acquired airline's name, the airline has since provided safe service. For the airline industry, rules for the shipment of oxygen generators was severely restricted and cargo holds on larger airliners were required to have "fire bottles" installed."

69.7.41.230 (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

External link

I recently cleaned out the external links section in accordance with WP:EL and there was a link I removed which appears to be a reliable source so I'm listing it here if anyone wants to use it to improve the article.

• The Adolescence of Aviation Psychology

ThemFromSpace 03:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Journal of Business & Econimics Research

A Basic Analysis of Aging Aircraft, Region of the World, and Accidents seems like a paper that could be used for incorporating into this article. → AA ^(talk) — 16:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Volcanic Ash + airline safety--resources mentioned elsewhere

This article already seems to have a number of references to government documents and SKYbrary regarding volcanic ash. If you want more references (and possibly more info) for this section, I noticed that several resources, including scientific publications, were mentioned at Talk:Air_travel_disruption_after_the_2010_Eyjafjallajökull_eruption/Archive_1#Nice_article_on_the_engine_topic. In the popular press, the Wall Street Journal published an article, How One Airline Skirts the Ash Clouds, on April 21st discussing Alaska Airline's safety measures for dealing with ash.Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 10:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Shooting down by hostile country

Adding Ukraine's shot down of the Russian flight from Tel Aviv to a list where countries responded to either a violation of their airspace or as part of a military operation within a conflict is misleading as it suggests there were hostilities between Russia and Ukraine at the time of the shot down or that the airplane was shot down as a response to vioolation of Ukrainian airspace. 189.141.57.87 (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Saladin

misprinted airport chart

(left) Herzliya Airport (Israel) runway location and airfield traffic pattern chart was erroneously printed as a result of "black layer" 180° misplacement.
(right) Corrected chart.

Under the heading "Navigation aids and instrument flight" there is an image of a runway map of an airport in Israel and a comment about how the map was misprinted. I can't see the relevance to this article, and the misprint is not mentioned in the article on that airport. Am I missing something? 59.101.18.204 (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

True, misprint is not (yet?) mentioned in the article – but - supplying the pilot with a wrong airfield traffic pattern chart might be regarded as a major contributing factor leading to a flight failure. As such it seems to me natural to be included in the Air safety article. Actually, any misinformation given to the flight crew, be it on the radio, by printed material or by devices such as GPS, VASI, lights etc., might be regarded as air safety risk as well. Consequently I would add a MISINFORMATION section to the article, in which such topics are discussed and referenced. I think the map is highly relevant to the article but if you find a better place please suggest one. Inserting the map in the specific airport article is irrelevant. On the other hand you can find it well in error. Etan J. Tal 15:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC) (talk • contribs)

• Not only is the misprint irrelevant, it is an example of a misprint that is so flagrant that any pilot on first glance should catch the fact that there is an error. The image does not belong in the article. It is misleading that such a simple error could cause an accident. 75.208.34.206 (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Whilst the error may be obvious to you, it might not be so obvious to a pilot unfamiliar with the area being diverted to the airfield, perhaps at night.

Such errors may get you killed, especially if the chart fails to notify you of a nearby mountain or hill.

DVT or Deep Vein Thrombosis

I'd like to see this briefly discussed, especially with the aging population in the US.

198.22.21.50 (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Related documents

• "36th Annual International Seminar ‘Investigating New Frontiers of Safety’ Sept. 12–15, 2005 Fort Worth, Texas, U.S.A.." International Society of Air Safety Investigators

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hypoxia / G-forces

I would suggest briefly mentioning the effects of hypoxia or high G-forces on a pilot's ability to maintain situational awareness and control of the aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.214.156 (talk) 05:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Other possible health hazards

I think the following paragraph should be removed:

Other possible health hazards

Other health hazards may include cosmic rays (when flying above much of the Earths atmosphere), Deep vein thrombosis (from lack of movement), and chemical contamination of cabin air.

First one (cosmic rays) is too much like a weasel word statement, not to mention that radiation from the Sun is a health hazard all over the planet, not just in airliners. If we are to include such dubious "hazards" as that, then we should also mention that stepping out of an open door, while the meals are being loaded at the gate, can be fatal to passengers (that has actually happened).

Deep vein thrombosis is extremely rare and it has yet to be proved that the risk is significantly greater on an airliner, than in autos, trains, boats or just sitting too long around one's own home.

The "chemical contamination of cabin air" links to the article on Aerotoxic Syndrome. However, after reading that article, there is nothing in it which establishes that ANYONE has ever been harmed by airliner cabin air. The section of that article, which discusses media hype of that subject, indicates it may be a way to sell newspapers, but there is no scientific evidence to support the idea that breathing airliner cabin air is hazardous to health.

If we are to put crap like that into an otherwise excellent article as this, then maybe we should include the risk of collision with alien spacecraft?

An aside: It appears that the article has been "protected" against us IP Editors, but I can find no discussion as to why? The revision history doesn't seem to indicate a vandalizing problem, so would appreciate the removal of that "protection," if there is no good reason for it. Thank you, 66.81.53.103 (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've reworded that paragraph to make clear that these are possible health hazards that have been investigated and added some references to show this. I think the article should have wikilinks to the articles on these subjects and it's better in the text than in a long See also list. This article doesn't attempt to say whether aerotoxic is real or not - it just links the reader to the article that discusses the details. As for this being "an otherwise excellent article", I have to disagree - why for example does the terrorism section have a paragraph on cellphones and mid-air collision doesn't get mentioned in the text? I'm slowly working through a long list of things. If you can find a reference to a serious study into the risk of collision with alien spacecraft then that might be worth adding as well! DexDor (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it appears you were correct about the quality of the article overall. That's what I get for commenting after only a rapid skim thru, instead of taking the time to read it all with careful consideration. I like the way you took care of the undue emphasis on the minor "hazards" like DVT, etc. Reading the medical literature on that subject, indicates that it is standard for doctors/hospitals to warn all post surgery patients about prolonged sitting in ANY situation, including too long in a chair at home. Which is why I didn't think that kind of risk merited any mention in an article like this, because the location of the patient, when sitting too long, is not what causes the danger. It is just the sitting, too long ANYWHERE.

I am trying to help improve some of the paragraphs, that you correctly observed as needing improvement. Please let me know if I make any blunders; I don't have many hours to work on Wiki, like a lot of editors, so I am far less experienced. Cheers, 66.81.52.109 (talk) 02:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Good edits - I've just tweaked slightly. Letters to editor aren't WP:RS, but IMO better than no ref. Re post-operative DVT - (I'm aware from real-life that) it can be fatal, but that's a reason to mention it in the appropriate medical article (it probably is) rather than remove from Health hazards of air travel. I hope you'll continue editting and recommend you get a wikipedia account. DexDor (talk) 06:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I wondered about the link to that letter-to-editor, until I read it. Not the usual LTE type of post. The response to the initial person inquiring, goes into considerable detail about the findings of the NTSB investigation into that AMR Eagle crash, so I didn't see grounds to remove that cite link, especially since so many Wiki Aviation articles cite similar web aviation articles as being properly authoritative. Whether or not such articles are in response to a LTE type of inquiry, shouldn't be determinative (as to reliability), IMHO. Seems the substance and details provided in the article itself, should be the guideline. But then, I am not an expert on Wiki rules; just trying to use some common sense and logic as to what should be considered a reliable source.

Thanks for adding the cites needed tags. Most of those statements were already there, when I did the revision. Now, I know what needs to be supported with proper cites. Will see what I can find. 66.81.52.181 (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at the cited website when I replied earlier (morning rush). I'm not sure how RS that website is (and it calls Boscombe Down "Bascombe-Downs"!) Also does it actually compare straight/swept wings? This article's got pushed a bit down my to-do list, but I'll get back to it one day. Some things you might want to bear in mind when adding stuff is to limit the number of example accidents, but use examples from around the world (not just US). DexDor (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm, hadn't noticed the spelling difference between BAS vs BOS. That might be related to the differences in the way Brits and Yankees spell various words. I tried Googling and found quite a few spelled with the Bascombe version: [5], [6]. This American Newspaper spells it "Bascomb Downs."[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28739|This]

As to straight wings, vs swept wings, that is a logical inference on my part. I am not aware of any turbo-prop airliners that have swept wings. I think they all have straight airfoils which enable them to operate on much shorter runways, than can swept wing airliners. The downside is that the straight airfoil is much more susceptible to airframe icing, than are the swept wings.

Another point that might need to be clarified, is that the turboprop airliners usually have de-icing boots on both wings and the tail section. But, most modern day pure jet airliners, with swept wings, do not have any de-icing or anti-icing system at all, for their tail sections. One of the sentences I was trying to edit, seemed to make no distinction, about tail de-icing/anti-icing systems for the tails of those two different types of planes. I was not sure how important it was to clarify that. It would require a bit more additional text, I think, to avoid any misunderstanding of Wiki readers on that rather esoteric point. Would appreciate your opinion on the importance, or not, of correcting that passage.

Thanks again for all your help. I am learning a lot from your vast experience. 66.81.53.2 (talk) 06:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Re Bas/Bos - If the one fact I know in some text is wrong then it does make me (perhaps wrongly) doubt the rest. If you've common sense and good intentions then IMO making edits and learning from any adjustments other users make to them is a better use of time than reading rules. If you've any queries that aren't directly related to the article they'd be better on my talk page. I'm no expert on leading edges and haven't got time at moment so can't really help you there - just make sure you're not straying into WP:OR. DexDor (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Excessive examples and diversity of accidents

In response to your comment of:

"Some things you might want to bear in mind when adding stuff is to limit the number of example accidents, but use examples from around the world (not just US)."

I agree, and I did consider trimming back some of those excessive lists of accidents, as you eventually did. However, because those lists were placed there by others, I have been a bit reluctant to remove what other editors have posted, lest I be accused of trying to start an edit war. Probably better for someone like you to do that, as I haven't had enough experience yet to cut out a lot of the edits of others, without worrying too much about it causing offense. Instead, I have attempted re-writes that improve clarity, while trying to preserve as much as possible, that was posted by previous editors.

As to adding accidents from around the world (not just US), I did do that; possibly you missed it because you have many other projects to work on, besides this article. For instance, I added three new, non-American accidents here: [7]. 66.81.53.113 (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops, my comment was becoz I've seen articles where some editors seem to think "Foo" means "Foo in the US" not your particular edits. If you've a good reason to delete stuff then be WP:BOLD and make sure you explain in edit summary. In cases like this you're not deleting the info from WP - it's still in the edit history and in the main article for each accident. DexDor (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Links to other articles

There should be something about water safety or ship safety, i.e., safety of relating to travel on the water. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Image: Navigation aids and instrument flight

A modern-day Honeywell Intuvue weather system visualizes weather patterns up to 300 miles away.

Honeywell Aerospace has contributed several images to Wikipedia under a Creative Commons license. In addition to adding this one to the Honeywell Aerospace article, I felt it could be an improvement under the "Navigation Aids and Instrument Flight" section as well as at Avionics#Weather_systems. Since it is an image of a distinguishable Honeywell product and features them in the caption, I would appreciate a second opinion on if the image is actually helpful and not promotional. Corporate Minion 22:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that's good. It's been added to the article. bobrayner (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: MOVE was performed per below. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Air safety → Aviation safety – Aviation safety is a more commonly used phrase than air safety for this subject. It is more formal and professional than air safety. It is also less potentially confusing, since air safety could be perceived to refer air pollution related issues. Skrelk (talk) 04:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support appears to be the common name, also reflected in google search results. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per nom, also reduces the chance of someone expecting air quality safety topics. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support as per nom. Seems obvious to me. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 23:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved it, since there were no objections after 7 days Skrelk (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

More Generalized Approach

Instead of mentioning specific flights as examples of particular safety instances, perhaps the article would fare better, if all the prose were expressed under general and more abstract wording. This avoids the unwritten "need" to include certain flights while excluding others, where the only fair way would be to include all flights of a specific incident type. By omitting specific flight examples, this article would appear more cleanly. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 23:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this approach has merit and is worth discussing. Maybe you could provide more detail and examples here. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 12:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, the basic point is to remove all the links to specific flight incidents from the prose, especially the lists -- as there are articles that include all those flight numbers as lists. From there, this article can proceed using accident and incident reports as sources (if necessary). KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 14:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, give it a go. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

 Disagree. Rather than a specific flight, you should point to the list if each member of the list is sufficient to illustrate the hazard. But were there is a single notable example, then the link to that incident should be retained to the best example. 75.208.34.206 (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Different risk ratios for different people

Note, that the risk is the same for every passenger of the plane, but is completely different for every person using a car. For example a young 18 y.o. man returning from the party on the Saturday night has different risk, than a 40 years old man going to the office on Wednesday morning. So there is a need to show the various risk ratios for various types of people. The risk of driving a car would decrease dramatically for a "normal" person.

The same is with bikes and motors. Also the risk of swimming is different for a 18 years old boy after alcohol, than for a 35 years old woman playing with her child in the water near the beach with safeguards. This issue should be raised in the article at least as a point to consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultimaratioregum (talk • contribs) 15:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Human Factors source text

Editors may find this free e-book, publshed by NASA, a useful source text: [8] Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Dubious

Accidents and incidents: Statistics

“ In the same vein, when considering the "deaths per billion journeys" statistic, it is important to consider that airliners, buses, and trains will carry far more passengers than a car or bicycle for example. ”

This is a ridiculous statement. If there are 300 people on the plane, then 300 journeys occur. What is missing is the definition of journey as used for these statistics. 75.247.135.166 (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

In that vein, I corrected the Space Shuttle statistics to be normalized for person journeys rather than vehicle journeys (which reduces the apparent fatality rate by 7x).DavidSJ (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Flight safety statistics follow the definitions of aviation accidents and incidents which refer to the aircraft. Statistic of casualties refer to death and injury of souls on board. "Journey" in fatality statistics is defined by known common endpoint.-Yohananw (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Asiana Flight 214, lives saved because of past improvements?

There's an interesting one-page article in the Oct. 2013 issue of Popular Mechanics, Tech Watch, Aviation Safety, "How Airplanes Save Lives," Ben Iannotta, page 22.

Asiana 214 crashlanded, apparently with a fire breaking out shortly after landing and yet . . . all but three of 307 persons survived. A tragedy for these three persons and their families of course. A miracle for those who survived. Of course we also have to ask what kind of serious injuries.

The Popular Mechanics article attributes the surviving passengers primarily to three improvements:

1) seats that stay attached able to withstand 16 g,

2) floor lighting in the event of smoke and reduced visibility, and

3) improvements in less flammable materials for the cabin interior.

Now, I tend to work slow. That's both a plus and a minus. I do think this potentially would make a good addition to our article. If anyone else wants to jump in and run with this, please, be my guest. Cool Nerd (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Disputing accuracy of section Aviation_safety#Comparison_to_other_modes_of_travel

The official ICOA safety report lists 173 fatalities and 32.1 million departures in 2013. This corresponds to 5.39 fatalities per one million departures. On the other hand, the statistics shown in Aviation_safety#Comparison_to_other_modes_of_travel claims that there are only 0.117 fatalities per one million departures, which differs by a factor of 50 from the official numbers. The reference given in Aviation_safety#Comparison_to_other_modes_of_travel is an obscure website rather than an official report or a scientific study. The issue that this is not a good source has come up several times before. Unless someone can explain to me the discrepancy of a factor 50, I will delete the subsection (and perhaps try to find a better source). ylloh (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The correct statistic that anyone cares about is ( number of fatalities ) / ( number of user-events ). This is not the same as ( number of fatalities ) / ( number of flight departures ). It IS the same as ( number of fatalities ) / ( sum of number of passengers on every flight departure ). From the source (2014 ICOA safety report with 2013 statistics), "Scheduled commercial international and domestic operations accounted for approximately 3.1 billion passengers in 2013", and "173 fatalities in 2013". This equates to 0.056 fatalities per 1 million passenger departures. 2013 was a relatively good year for aviation safety, 2008-2012 each has more fatalities, 2014 will as well with the two high profile crashes so far. So the number checks out.

If anything, the problem is with the language on the page as it is. "per departure" is deceiving when each departure tends to carry hundreds of people. I was concerned the page did not do the math correctly, but I can confirm here with your source that they did. Thanks for providing that and I will remove the accuracy is disputed tag. Perhaps it needs a citation needed. I haven't looked at any other sources than this one to get a ballpark estimate. 2604:2000:E830:4D00:244A:942F:EA4D:9B2D (talk) 04:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, this settles my concerns. ylloh (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Bias in comment about statistic metrics Aviation_safety#Comparison_to_other_modes_of_travel

Essentially, the faster you travel, the less important fatalities/kilometer becomes. I don't want to argue what statistic is ultimately the best, but neither should the article. If statistics need explaining, explain them. But don't weight one over the other. Wikipedia exists to provide facts, not opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.100.0 (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You removed 1,123 bytes of text here with the edit summaries: "Statistics description was subjective and possibly misleading. Let the statistics speak for themselves" and "The statistics are very clear. The description only served to put weight on the one that favors airlines when in reality it isn't really better than the others." Would you care to suggest an alternative way of explaining the limitations in the comparisons that the table provides? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The things that are explained are not limitations. The statistics simply measure different things and the explanation right now clearly favors "fatalities/kilometer" over the other statistics, because it's focused on distance, but "fatalities/kilometer" is the only one that takes distance into account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.100.0 (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The limitation of the comparisons is that, as you say, the "statistics simply measure different things". I don't see how offering no explanation at all is better than offering some. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC) p.s. try to remember to sign your posts using four tildes like this: ~

Yes, the statistics show different things and the explanation could say that, even though it's obvious from the titles. But right now it only states that "distance" is the best way to measure transportation safety, which is not an explanation, but a subjective statement. It then says that the first two stats are insufficient to show the safety per distance - but the stats don't even try to show that, so why point it out negatively? Frankly, this is quite obvious and if this argument doesn't come to a close, I'll mark this for administrator attention, because I get the feeling that you are supporting a certain agenda here. 80.171.100.0 (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no agenda. By all means "mark this for administrator attention" if you wish, but it's normal to wait for the views from more than just two editors. I've suggested that you might like to offer improvements to the explanation, but you seem reluctant to do this. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC) p.s. thanks for signing.

And you seem reluctant to tell us how exactly it's an explanation at all. It isn't. Like I said, the statistics themselves clearly state what they show and the text doesn't make this any clearer. It only serves to persuade the reader that "fatalities/distance" is the best way of measurement and air planes are super safe. 80.171.100.0 (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think that trips, or hours, is a better metric than distance? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

What I think is the best metric is of no importance. The article should be neutral unless there is clear evidence that one is better than the others, which is not the case. 80.171.100.0 (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

They each have their pros and cons. The table presents all three. I agree the passage would benefit from sources. But I don't see that it distorts the statistics in any way or is expressing a biased point of view. I think the table benefits from a discussion of its metrics. That's quite standard practice. Perhaps a link to List of countries by traffic-related death rate would be useful? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Read this, especially "Avoid stating opinions as facts". An article is not the place for an opinionated discussion. Comparisons are fine, but saying one is better, especially without any kind of reasoning or evidence, is not. 80.171.100.0 (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You think I haven't ever read that? If you can offer a less "biased" commentary on the shortcomings of each of the three metrics, by all means suggest one. Or better still - wait for some more opinions. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I showed that the article violates Wikipedia guidelines, so until there are more opinions or a better version, the paragraphs in question should be removed. 80.171.100.0 (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree that the paragraphs need sources. You seem to also have a problem with neutrality which I don't fully understand and don't accept. I think you should wait for at least a third opinion before you remove them for a third time. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The previous section above (Statistics)explores this issue. As it very cogently points out, in an extreme example a journey in space across light years, would (factually) make the safety per mile stats utterly meaninglesss. Similarly, if to a lesser degree, the same applies to safety per mile comparisons on Earth. The fact that insurance companies use deaths per journey rather than deaths per mile says it all. They are experts in this field. From the deaths per journey it would appear that one is roughly three times more likely to die on any plane journey than on one's car journey to the airport. That is very significant. As someone who has studied statistics I am acutely aware that their relative significance is very often not obvious, and thus some sort of explanation or commentary is of great value. The current comments seem fine and objective to me.Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Pilot's stress and pressure is also one of important factors of Aviation Safety

I believe pilot's stress and pressure is also one of important factors of Aviation Safety and I can add this section to this page. I have some websites that describes different types of Pilot's stress and how they handle those stress and pressure in order to increase the safety of their flight.

Dhur2 (talk) 03:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)DHUR2

Airport design section is not related to survivability

Just passing through here, and I noticed this. The paragraph on airport design has to do with accident avoidance and aviation safety in general, but survivability assesses the ability of an average person to survive an accident, not to avoid one. Availability and response time for fire and rescue is a part of survivability, but that is not a major element in airport design, other than services should have easy access to runways. (Communication and systematic response procedures are more important than airport design per se.) What g-forces were imparted onto the passengers? How toxic was the atmosphere inside the cabin? Was there adequate oxygen inflight? To what extent did a fire penetrate the passenger cabin before evacuation was possible? Was access to exits obstructed? Did anything hinder effective emergency response? Were there any failures of systems or structures within the cabin (such as seats, seatbelts, supplemental oxygen, lighting, poor cabin design, etc.)? How effective were the actions of the cabin crew? These are survivability aspects. They assume an accident has already happened. How survivable was that accident, and what factors made it more or less survivable than predicted? Dcs002 (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aviation safety. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://livewiretest.com/analysis-of-spread-spectrum-time-domain-reflectometry-for-wire-fault-location/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010907173322/http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/risks_of_travel.htm to http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/risks_of_travel.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://eccairs-www.jrc.it/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Statistically biased comparison on death between car and air travel per bjn

The 117 deaths per bjn of air travel include chartered flights, private and light aircraft, and airlines that are less capable in terms of fleet maintenance and pilot training. Indeed, the numbers of deaths by car also included these figures, but in a context for customers (or general Wikipedia readers) to choose the means of travelling, the correct comparison should be between cars and scheduled flights using jet airliners, operated by reasonably sophisticated airlines. This will significantly change the conclusion on deaths per billion journeys. 14.203.71.4 (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aviation safety. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://livewiretest.com/analysis-of-spread-spectrum-time-domain-reflectometry-for-wire-fault-location/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/risks_of_travel.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20010303200204/http://eccairs-www.jrc.it/ to http://eccairs-www.jrc.it/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Transport comparison

I added skydiving in the list, and I tried to add a "per journey" measurement for paragliding. I practice paragliding myself, and I think it is pretty hard to time how long a paragliding flight usually is, because it ranges for 5 minutes for beginners to several hours for seasoned practitioners. I assumed 15 minutes per flight. If someone finds a better source, I will be delighted.-- 10 August 2018 Chmduquesne

I removed it as WP:OR. Mixing two different sources for a result like you did for skydiving is pretty close to WP:OR too.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I did not know about WP:OR, but I think that under this rule your deletion is fair. Now that you said that, I don't know what to think of the other statistic about paragliding deaths. The formula says 11/(27615*410)*1000000000 deaths per billion of hours. Reading the report quoted as a source, it is not obvious at all that it does not fall under WP:OR too. Here are were the figures come from: 11 is the number of deaths in one year, 410 is the average reported hours of experience the pilots who had accidents. Note that this encompasses non deadly accidents. 27615 is the total number of paragliding practitioners in France. So the formula seems to assume that the pilot who died had the same experience as the pilot who did not. Plus 410 hours would be the expected number of hours provided you have an accident, but we are trying to find out the number of deaths provided you fly one billion hours. Those are two different expected values. --Chmduquesne (talk) 09:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

No that's just the arithmetic mean, OK per WP:CALC. Honestly I don't really care about removing it, I updated someone addition with limited references with a WP:RS but it's not as nice as having a RS compiling data itself.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)