iranian air crash

[kinell]

Oops there goes another plane. I know, and was thoroughly convinced by all your statistical arguments on a previous posting.... the safest way to travel. That should be a great comfort to the families of the deceased (if not dead alongside them)?.

[jno]

I doubt if anyone said it was guaranteed safe. No means of travel is. Nothing is. The only guarantee is that if you get through life without plane crashes, swine flu, food poisoning or being struck by lightning, you will still die. It's tough.

[Quinlad]

Just so we know before carrying on, do all comments have to comfort the families of the victims? Is that the purpose of the thread?

Or are we allowed to make rational comments too?

[ludwig]

What is the point of your questions kinell? Are you maintaining that aviation technology is inherently unsafe and should be abandoned - that no-one should get on another plane until we've gone back to the drawing board and sorted this whole 'big metal things shouldn't stay up' thing out. Or are you just a nutter who's scared of flying?

[R1Geezer]

Look if you are so thick that you cannot understand the argument then don' keep bashing us with it. You are wrong end of. What would you like us to do? ground all planes? perhaps you'd be happy if we all agree with you that flying is and unsafe way to travel. How many more times, world wide a planeful dies evry minute on the roads. Can you not get that into youn thick head?

[Gromit]

Plane crashes kill less people than many other forms of transport.

Why then try to ban something on safety grounds when there are far more dangerous forms of transport?

If you are scared of flying, then tough, you will be denied many pleasurable experiences. I sure the rest of the world can cope without your participation.

[kinell]

Hi R1 and Gromit

You were quicker than i thought.

Is not one use of this site to encourage debate and discussion?

You really should be in the Broon cabinet with your attitude towards this...............hey! we welcome your views and will take them on board PROVIDING only that they are totally in line with ours.

As ever you are right. Keep believing.

[Quinlad]

The alternative being what?

"We take your views on board and agree with them even if we're think they're ridiculous?"

People are taking your views on board. Then they're telling you why they think you're wrong. That's what a debate is isn't it?

[kinell]

Quin,

Thank you for your answer, it was intelligent and precise.

Unlike the R1Geezer who resorts to insults to further his views.............if that fails to bring me onto his side presumably the next move will be to physically assault me.

Violence the conversation tool of the really THICK undemocratic elements in our crumbling society.

[jno]

so what are your views on the matter? Hard to debate with someone who doesn't say anything

[R1Geezer]

just own up, you're talking bowlocks, end of!

[Bobbisox]

kinell maybe you would be better off in CB, insults fly around like confetti in there !!!

[Gromit]

We have had this debate several times, and you follow the same pattern each time.

Every time a passenger aircarft crashes, you come on here and state that air travel is unsafe/ a bad idea/ something we ca do without.

When we tell you with numbers how it is quite safe and nothing to worry about, you come back with the same stupid comment, 'tell that to the families of those killed'.

It is not really a debate, it is you parading your irrational fears for unintentionally comic effect.

[craft1948]

^ oi wotchit you geordie person....

[craft1948]

oops not you Gromit....

[Bobbisox]

that wouldn't be a erm of endearment there would it craft?

[buildersmate]

Risk = Probability * Impact
It's that simple.
The trouble with your argument, kinell, is that you are only looking at the Impact, not the Probability.
The Probability is incredibly low, so even though the Impact of an aircraft crashing is high (lots of dead people), your argument still doesn't stack up.
The trouble is also that newspapers just looove Impact too - nice headlines to sell newspapers. They don't give a stuff about logic or rational arguments - they'll be another story along in the mo to sell tomorrow's news.

[kinell]

buildersmate,

Not quite that simple formula.

Consider:-
Risk / Reward / Necessity Vs Probability.

I am signing off now, Aircraft Investigation is on tv.

[Clanad]

As to the original question... there are plane crashes and then there are plane crashes. Having been in the aviation industry for many years, a little research will show that certain airlines/aircraft combinations are more prone to accidents. This Iranian crash was actually Caspian Airways, operating a Russian built Tupolev TU-154M. (seen here: http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.m ain?id=376) that airline has a nearly death-wish accident rate. Although Iran would like to blame the imposed embargo for lack of parts, the true causes are linked to bad maintenance, old aircraft and poor training. There are few flights per week and the rate of accidents (nearly always fatal) is extremely high, so much so that the world body that helps determine aviation safety (ICAO) by country, has deemed Iran (among others) unacceptable for its members airline operations within Iran...

[kinell]

Clanad,

I for one (by the look of it - the only one on ab) am prepared to accept your professional knowledge on the subject.

With potential for death due to 'bad maintenance, old aircraft and lack of training' and with the aviation industry just about hanging on financially then should we not be concerned? that fair cutting to the extent that it is cheaper if you are that desperate to fly thousands of miles to get a cheap beer than it is to get on a bus to a local pub (which i do accept is a very dangerous thing to do - statistically).

[kinell]

of course meant 'fare'

before the pedants come out to join in