Thread: Another plane down.

Originally Posted by Eevo

actually they are reported, or at least they should be.

incident vs accident. both should be reported.

yeah, just so it makes it easy to manipulate the statistics...

near miss events should be but often aren't recorded as actual accidents.

I mean after all at the end of the day all this is is another incident of an unscheduled airframe/ground interface.

The last year as been one of the safest on record for Air Travel. The press just like to make a bigger issues of things.

Originally Posted by Blknight.aus

yeah, just so it makes it easy to manipulate the statistics...

near miss events should be but often aren't recorded as actual accidents.

I mean after all at the end of the day all this is is another incident of an unscheduled airframe/ground interface.

In aviation, incidents and accidents are different - an accident is where actual damage is present, but an incident is where risk is increased or a regulation is broken. This could, for example, be anything from a loss of communications en route with no risk to anyone to a near-miss where two aircraft passed within a few feet of each other.

All incidents are supposed to be reported, but quite clearly are not, especially where the only person who could have reported it is someone who was involved. And adding incidents to accident statistics would not be very helpful both because of the unknown level of reporting and the simple fact that most incidents are fairly trivial. But reporting incidents is a very important tool in increasing aviation safety.

John

thanks JDNSW

I disagree, mainly because of the way the statistics can be read..

the system we have is crippled because something thats a minor incident on the ground can be a catastrophic event in the air.

a slightly less banket way of saying it would be....

if it happens while the aircraft is configured for flight like operations its an accident regardless of the outcome. (think taxi-ing for flight, take off, landing or during passanger loading/with passangers on board)

if the aircraft is configured for ground works then its an incident unless the aircraft is damaged or someone gets hurt. (think being taxid to a maintenance location, being towed, while in maintenance, being cleaned)


the easy way of telling if a plane is supposed to be in flight configuration is simple, if the operation you are about to undertake occurs after or during a a pre flight safety by a pilot but before the plane is handed back to maintenance personal/ground crews its in flight configuration and should be perfect (ignoring CFU's)
hh

Interesting to note the recording of incidents & the reason for them happening. Someone mentioned computers.
A year or so ago Wifey & I were on a Ferry, when I noticed it going straight towards some cliffs, which got closer,...and closer!! About 20/30 meters off shore, the boat finally stopped, & came to a standstill. It then slowly turned left, & we resumed our journey.
Upon leaving the boat, I asked a crew member what happened & he informed me that there had been a computer "lock up" which had temporarily "frozen" the ship's navigation system, and it had taken a while to get manual systems operating. Nothing was ever mentioned in the Press.
We were never in any danger, as the water was shallow, & the seas were calm, but I can see that a similar computer "freeze" situation in an aircraft could possibly have far more severe consequences.
Pickles.

More news about the 320 sensors.
Just wondering how common it is this problem on the 320 models and if it has been resolved.
I am not in favor in relaying only in electronics, human intervention it is a good backup to have

Jetstar, Tigerair warned about A320 fault: report

Originally Posted by Blknight.aus

I disagree, mainly because of the way the statistics can be read..

the system we have is crippled because something thats a minor incident on the ground can be a catastrophic event in the air.

You may disagree, but the two terms are defined in the Air Navigation Regulations and Air Navigation Orders. And accidents and incidents are not recorded for the purpose of generating statistics, but for the purpose of increasing air safety by finding the causes of accidents ("accidents") and potential accidents ("incidents").

Data collection for accidents is probably pretty complete, because damage is seen or needs to be repaired etc, whereas it is pretty certain that incident reporting is very incomplete, as nobody likes filling out 225s. This means that conflating the two data sets is likely to be misleading, although some incidents could very likely lead to accidents, but did not, simply due to circumstances - for example when the plane I was flying dropped a valve about thirty miles from Wagga; since I was at 9,000ft and still had some power, it meant an emergency landing at an airport, where if I had been climbing over the Great Divide 1500 ft above terrain, the outcome would have been very different.

John