Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I know this is off topic but 28 out of 1,000 planes lost in accidents?

That's super high, and they say that's normal? Really?

by Upstate NY on Sat Apr 10th, 2010 at 10:28:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The issue is many of the crashes have been categorised as down to bad conditions and bad air traffic control, especially in the wilder parts of Russia. It's unreasonable to blame the plane for those.
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Sat Apr 10th, 2010 at 11:47:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
.
Quite a few accidents happened in Iran and others were due to terror attacks. Even Ukraine shot a Tupolev out of the air by accident en route from Tel Aviv to Siberia. [Same general responsible for shooting down Korean flight KAL007]

"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

'Sapere aude'

by Oui (Oui) on Sat Apr 10th, 2010 at 04:36:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
28 must have been only the number with high fatalities, the figure I find is 59; but either way, it's airplanes, not flights. While others noted non-construction-related factors impacting Tu-154s in a special way, I note that the ratio does not stand out compared to similar-aged or older airplane families. Check the stats here: for example, of 856 Boeing 707 built, 164 were lost in the past 52 years.

(I remember reading somewhere that the overwhelming majority of ships built throughout history finished their life by sinking -- which, again, shouldn't be shocking, because the danger of ship travel should be calculated in terms of trips, not ships.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sun Apr 11th, 2010 at 06:40:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series