Aeroplane crashes in NT.

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by BlacKnox, Jan 19, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Welcome to Australia's leading independent Frequent Flyer and Travel Resource!
(Click HERE for a welcome message from our founder.)

Our site contains tons of information that is guaranteed to improve your travel experience. Be it tips on how to fly in First/Business at a reduced cost, smart ways to earn more points, the best way to use your points, cheap deals, hand-picked hotel recommendations, detailed trip reports.

We hope you find the information useful and decide to join our online community.

Joining AFF is fast, simple and ABSOLUTELY FREE - so why not join now by clicking on the JOIN NOW button, and take immediate advantage of these great BENEFITS.

    
Once registered, this box will disappear freeing up more space on your screen!
And you will see fewer advertisements :)

  1. BlacKnox

    BlacKnox Active Member

    Jan 29, 2005
    732
    13
    0
    Aeroplane crashes in NT
    From: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17871631-2,00.html
     
    "A LIGHT aircraft has crashed near Borroloola in the Northern Territory.
    A police spokeswoman said it was unclear how many people were aboard the aircraft and if there were any survivors.

    The twin-engine Beechcraft Baron B58 had been due at the McArthur River Mine airstrip at 9.30am (CST) today, and workers alerted police when it did not arrive.

    An air search later found the wreckage of the plane about 9km south-east of the mine, the police spokeswoman said.

    Xstrata's McArthur River Mining (MRM) said the plane had been chartered by another mining company unrelated to MRM.

    There were no employees and contractors of McArthur River Mining onboard the aircraft, the company said.

    The mine's rescue personnel were participating in the search and rescue effort, it said".
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Always sad news :( . Let's hope the search & rescue yields something positive.
    Advertisement


     
  2. JohnK

    JohnK Veteran Member

    Mar 22, 2005
    39,368
    8,262
    15
    BNE, SYD and CNX
    I guess statistics could prove me wrong but crashes involving light aircraft happen too often for my liking. :(

    You are absolutely right. "Always sad news" :(
     
  3. one9

    one9 Active Member

    Sep 14, 2005
    591
    8
    15
    yes, i think statistics will prove you wrong. as far as i am aware it is safer to fly than to drive. i think part of the reason for your thought is because virtually all plane crashes are reported in the news, where car crashes are not.
     
  4. N860CR

    N860CR Established Member

    Nov 30, 2004
    3,174
    663
    15
    Brisbane & Sydney
    A light aircraft is safer than a large commercial aircraft, however the skill levels of the pilots is what causes a larger number of light aircraft crashes. To keep an Australian PPL current, a pilot must only fly once every two years (which a lot do). In 99% of cases it all turns out ok, however if the pilot encounters some kind of aircraft failure then the lack of recent experience will lead to a more serious problem (ie: a crash in some cases).

    Just remember, if you're in a Piper Archer and suddenly the engine just stops, it's very easy to glide in and land in somebody's backyard - you can't do that in a 737
     
  5. markis10

    markis10 Veteran Member

    Nov 25, 2004
    30,088
    5,547
    15
    BNE & SYD
    Safest aircraft in the world by hours flown versus fatalities is actually a single engine helicopter - the bell Jetranger! Its also a lot of fun to fly!
     
  6. Mal

    Mal Enthusiast

    Dec 25, 2004
    12,222
    1,302
    15
    London
    Flight Map:
    View my flight map
    I think it's purely a numbers game.

    Have a look at this CASA breakdown on number of aircraft by registration type: http://www.casa.gov.au/casadata/register/recentype.htm

    I think that small single engine planes and small multi engine planes will make up a large proportion of crashes just due to their sheer volume of all registered aircraft.

    There would be other factors involved (such as pilot training) I agree.
     
  7. Alan in CBR

    Alan in CBR Member

    Apr 2, 2004
    308
    0
    0
    Canberra ACT
    This is what made me give up flying. I realised that a gap had appeared between the amount I was prepared to fly (due to cost), and the amount I needed to do to stay safe.

    Generally true, apart from a couple of famous gliding jet incidents!

    Remember though, it is much more likely that the Piper's single engine will fail, compared with the likelihood that both of the 737s engines will fail (unless some bozo shuts down the good one after one fails, as happened in the UK once).

    But I'm drifting off-topic. Very sad news to hear of the NT accident.
     
  8. NM

    NM
    Moderator

    Aug 27, 2004
    15,729
    1,190
    15
    Flight Map:
    View my flight map
    A rotary wing aircraft does not fly ... they are just so ugly that the earth repells them :p .
     
  9. straitman

    Moderator

    Apr 27, 2003
    16,530
    4,677
    15
    SE Oz (Sale)
    Flight Map:
    View my flight map
    Look from the other perspective and if you have two engines then you have twice the probability of a failure. The important questions relate to the consequences of the failure. 8) :roll: :(
     
  10. straitman

    Moderator

    Apr 27, 2003
    16,530
    4,677
    15
    SE Oz (Sale)
    Flight Map:
    View my flight map
    No, they simply beat the air into submission. :p :p :p

    -----------say he who flew six hours in a helicopter today :!: :oops: :oops: :oops:
     
  11. NM

    NM
    Moderator

    Aug 27, 2004
    15,729
    1,190
    15
    Flight Map:
    View my flight map
    Looking purely at it from a statistical perspective, the probability of engine failure in a twin is more than double the probability of engine failure of a single.

    We must remember that the two engines of a twin are not completely independent. There are some systems, and hence some failure modes, that are common to both engines on a twin. So a failure caused by a common system such as electrical or fuel (eg contamination) has the same probability for single and twin, while failure due to an independent system (ie physical failure of an engine component) is double on a twin by virtue of there being twice as many components each with the same individual failure probability.
     
Loading...

Share This Page