aeroplane safety question

[Wile E Coyote]

I was having a natter a few days ago about aeroplane safety, civil air traffic across the Atlantic.
Not a subject I know anything about, but I said I find it incredible that for decades planes have crossed the ocean both ways, several times a day, 365 days a year and yet rarely do we hear of accidents over such a vast amount of water.
Is this a testament to mechanical maintenance, or what?
our cars break down with alarming regularity. and yet planes hardly ever suffer similar fates.
Does anyone know (A) HOW MANY FLIGHTS ARE THERE ACROSS THE ATLANTIC EACH WEEK
and (B) If an aircraft ditched in the ocean, what provision is there for swift rescue, or not.

I am genuinely staggered at the safety record of all the companies that have managed to organise travel across the world , must be a million bits of equipment on a modern airliner, and yet invariably it all works.

[gandhisflipflop]

It’s not the planes/cars that are the issue, it’s the people operating them. The standard of driving I’ve seen the last few years is genuinely shocking. A lot of it is because of impatient pricks. You need far more training and patience to become a pilot.

[Iloveyoubrady]

It’s not the planes/cars that are the issue, it’s the people operating them. The standard of driving I’ve seen the last few years is genuinely shocking. A lot of it is because of impatient pricks. You need far more training and patience to become a pilot.

It’s also that cars are not maintained properly and some of them are built like crap due to people’s obsession with getting a new car every 3 years.

[Bullabill]

Redundancy is a big factor. There have been many engine failures/fires, hydraulic system failures etc., but having two or three of many systems enables continued safe flight.

[dsr]

With very few exceptions, car parts are run until they break down. You wouldn't replace a healthy clutch at 40,000 because of a fear that it might go before 80,000. When a car breaks down, it just stops on the road and you get out and wait, so no need for premature replacement of parts.

When a plane breaks down, the road is along way away, so they replace everything long before its shelf life.

So far as I know, there are no specific provisions for a plane ditching. They have to rely on who or what is nearby. When Chelsey Sullenberger's flight went down in the Hudson, it was the Hudson River ferries that were first on the scene.

[Hipper]

There was the Air France plane on a flight from Brazil to France that disappeared:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447

TWA flight from New York to Paris/Rome that exploded from fuel vapour and faulty electrics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800

I know it's not a mechanical failure but there was also an Indian 747 was that was downed by a bomb:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182

There is/was a television series called Air Crash Investigations that show how these accidents happen. Of course over the years these investigations have led to greater safety via improved technology, flying procedures and training:

https://www.natgeotv.com/int/air-crash- ... ion/videos

I would doubt there was any specific provision for rescuing a ditched aircraft. The oceans are vast and incidents rare. If a plane goes down, which will likely be surmised from a distress call, loss of radar contact or other info, I would think a signal would be sent out to aircraft and shipping in the relevant area for any observations. Just look at the difficulties involved with the Malaysian Airlines loss in the Pacific in 2014 when even now we don't really know what happened. It's true though that the Atlantic, the North Atlantic anyway, has far better radar coverage but I don't think it's complete.

Here's an idea of the air traffic at the moment, and bear in mind we are still in the Covid era:

https://www.flightradar24.com/42.9,-6.85/4

[Hipper]

Malaysian crash was in the Indian Ocean before anyone corrects me!

[claret2018]

I was in a Gulfstream a few years ago and the pilot was all for chatting to us, as we took off from Blackpool and got over Stoke he said if both engines failed now he could safely land at Gatwick

[cbx750]

https://youtu.be/sQUXMaxyhK0

[cheeseon]

Some brief reading around the edges of the subject

https://www.flightglobal.com/in-depth/h ... 04.article

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanwic ... ic_Control

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS

https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Glide_Performance

[Crewe claret]

I retired from being a senior aircraft inspector working for Airbus a few years ago and you would not believe the detail each aircraft has to go through on a servicing level, each component on the aircraft has it's own history card and when the required flying hours are met that component is changed even though it is perfectly serviceable, most aircraft these days are fly by wire and have several back up systems so flying these days is safer than ever

[claret2018]

I also remember the pilot telling me they can fix planes pretty well with special gaffer tape that costs £20k a roll, not sure if that was true though.

[Boss Hogg]

I used to think you’d had it it both engines failed but was informed that planes can land safely with a 100 mile distance with no engines.

[DCWat]

I used to think you’d had it it both engines failed but was informed that planes can land safely with a 100 mile distance with no engines.

They’d surely need a huge runway to be able to roll to a stop - the engines are part used for breaking, aren’t they?

I wouldn’t fancy a landing at somewhere like Leeds Bradford with no engines, which appear late to be quite a short runway - I’m not sure if it actually significantly shorter than others.

I remember coming into LBA on a really windy day - the pilot advised us that the last few planes had been unable to land, but he was “going to give it a whirl”. I’m sat there thinking don’t give it a bloody whirl, take us somewhere else!!

He tried once and got nowhere near, came round again and just as it appeared that we would be landing, the engines cranked right up and we were up again and down to East Midlands.

I’m usually OK with flying but that had me worried.

[1968claret]

I used to think you’d had it it both engines failed but was informed that planes can land safely with a 100 mile distance with no engines.

They can go even further than 100 miles. Depends on the height when the engines fail.
There was a case of a Canadian airbus a few years ago. Both engines failed over the Atlantic and I think it made over 1000 miles to land safely at the nearest airport

[tarkys_ears]

Is this thread a parody or are you lot this stupid in real life?

[cbx750]

They can go even further than 100 miles. Depends on the height when the engines fail.
There was a case of a Canadian airbus a few years ago. Both engines failed over the Atlantic and I think it made over 1000 miles to land safely at the nearest airport

75 miles.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236

[1968claret]

75 miles.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236

Oops

[1968claret]

75 miles.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236

That’s me not flying over the Atlantic in a twin engined plane again.

[gawthorpe_view]

That’s me not flying over the Atlantic in a twin engined plane again.

I think there used to be a rule that to fly across the Atlantic, the plane had to have more than 2 engines. This led to the development of several three-engined aircraft, 727, DC10, etc to comply. This was changed quite a few years ago as reliability increased.

[Dyched]

There’s no potholes in the sky neither. Or cyclists which cause sharp and sudden breaking.

[Hipper]

There’s no potholes in the sky neither. Or cyclists which cause sharp and sudden breaking.

Slipstreams of other aircraft can cause difficulties.

[Lowbankclaret]

I was having a natter a few days ago about aeroplane safety, civil air traffic across the Atlantic.
Not a subject I know anything about, but I said I find it incredible that for decades planes have crossed the ocean both ways, several times a day, 365 days a year and yet rarely do we hear of accidents over such a vast amount of water.
Is this a testament to mechanical maintenance, or what?
our cars break down with alarming regularity. and yet planes hardly ever suffer similar fates.
Does anyone know (A) HOW MANY FLIGHTS ARE THERE ACROSS THE ATLANTIC EACH WEEK
and (B) If an aircraft ditched in the ocean, what provision is there for swift rescue, or not.

I am genuinely staggered at the safety record of all the companies that have managed to organise travel across the world , must be a million bits of equipment on a modern airliner, and yet invariably it all works.

Aircraft operate under ETOPS rules and regulations, they have to demonstrate under testing conditions that they have a failure rate below the set limits. If they get ETOPS Approvale they are allowed to fly more than an hour away from an airport. This can be withdrawn at any point by authorities.
The closest to disaster I know of is a A330 Airbus with Trent 700 engines that ran out of fuel at 33,000 feet and glided to an airforce base in the Azores. Set the world record for an airliner gliding.
As most on here know I worked for RR. The engines are designed to run at 95% thrust for 90% of the time and only be serviced every 10,000 flying hours.
Plus all the new engines send data live to Derby and of the engine diagnosis a fault a spare can be at the airport before it’s lands.

[Lowbankclaret]

I was having a natter a few days ago about aeroplane safety, civil air traffic across the Atlantic.
Not a subject I know anything about, but I said I find it incredible that for decades planes have crossed the ocean both ways, several times a day, 365 days a year and yet rarely do we hear of accidents over such a vast amount of water.
Is this a testament to mechanical maintenance, or what?
our cars break down with alarming regularity. and yet planes hardly ever suffer similar fates.
Does anyone know (A) HOW MANY FLIGHTS ARE THERE ACROSS THE ATLANTIC EACH WEEK
and (B) If an aircraft ditched in the ocean, what provision is there for swift rescue, or not.

I am genuinely staggered at the safety record of all the companies that have managed to organise travel across the world , must be a million bits of equipment on a modern airliner, and yet invariably it all works.

Plus every incident is investigated in more scrutiny than a murder scene. When the Qantas Airbus lost a T900 engine and landed safely, well luckily it turned out. The report is 300 pages and I had it on my desk and gave it to anyone who asked me to do my job quicker. You can google it but it’s heavy reading. Just google Qantas flight 32.

[holycustard]

if you go down in the ocean you have a life vest and whistle.
Just hope the plane flying 5 miles up has the window open and the pilots earing aid is made by nasa.

[box_of_frogs]

if you go down in the ocean you have a life vest and whistle.
Just hope the plane flying 5 miles up has the window open and the pilots earing aid is made by nasa.

The life vest is to help the searchers did the wreckage, not generally for putting on…..

[Lowbankclaret]

The life vest is to help the searchers did the wreckage, not generally for putting on…..

The nlt successful ditching is n the Hudson River, the pilot was a glider pilot as his hobby so he knew the 12 degree angle of ditching and ignored the checklist to turn on the APU first.

[Claret_tinted]

I was having a natter a few days ago about aeroplane safety, civil air traffic across the Atlantic.
Not a subject I know anything about, but I said I find it incredible that for decades planes have crossed the ocean both ways, several times a day, 365 days a year and yet rarely do we hear of accidents over such a vast amount of water.
Is this a testament to mechanical maintenance, or what?
our cars break down with alarming regularity. and yet planes hardly ever suffer similar fates.
Does anyone know (A) HOW MANY FLIGHTS ARE THERE ACROSS THE ATLANTIC EACH WEEK
and (B) If an aircraft ditched in the ocean, what provision is there for swift rescue, or not.

I am genuinely staggered at the safety record of all the companies that have managed to organise travel across the world , must be a million bits of equipment on a modern airliner, and yet invariably it all works.

Black box thinking is an excellent book by Matthew Synd (Sp). It goes along way to exploring the fluid thinking of the aviation industry.

[box_of_frogs]

The nlt successful ditching is n the Hudson River, the pilot was a glider pilot as his hobby so he knew the 12 degree angle of ditching and ignored the checklist to turn on the APU first.

1 successful ditching doesn’t make it a sound course of action.

[Lowbankclaret]

1 successful ditching doesn’t make it a sound course of action.

True, but any landing you survive is a good landing. Most landings on water are just considered crashes with total loss of life. So far 1 landing everyone survived, all the others were crashes where I think all perished . You choose which you would prefer to be on.

[box_of_frogs]

True, but any landing you survive is a good landing.

Said no pilot ever

[Lowbankclaret]

Said no pilot ever

Oh yes they did, any landing is a controlled crash.

[dsr]

True, but any landing you survive is a good landing. Most landings on water are just considered crashes with total loss of life. So far 1 landing everyone survived, all the others were crashes where I think all perished . You choose which you would prefer to be on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian ... Flight_961
50 survivors on this one. Of course, this pilot didn't have a smooth river to land on - he had the sea. It's presumably harder to land on water when there are waves.

One pilot's motto, presumably tongue-in-cheek: a good landing is one you walk away from. A great landing is one where they can use the plane again.