Login Now to remove this and all advertisements (GOLD and SILVER members)
Not a member? Register Now for free

Aeroplane crashes in NT.

Status
Not open for further replies.

BlacKnox

Active Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2005
Messages
735
Points
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.
 

JohnK

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
43,731
Points
3,070
BlacKnox said:
Always sad news :( . Let's hope the search & rescue yields something positive.
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" :(
 

one9

Active Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2005
Messages
607
Points
240
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.
 

N860CR

Established Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2004
Messages
3,714
Points
715
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
 

markis10

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Messages
30,449
Points
10
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!
 

Mal

Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 25, 2004
Messages
12,385
Points
10
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.
 

Alan in CBR

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2004
Messages
308
Points
0
danielribo said:
To keep an Australian PPL current, a pilot must only fly once every two years (which a lot do).
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.

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
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.
 

NM

Enthusiast
Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
16,333
Points
1,295
Qantas
LT Gold
Virgin
Red
markis10 said:
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!
A rotary wing aircraft does not fly ... they are just so ugly that the earth repells them :p .
 
Credit cards which earn frequent flyer points is a popular way to earn frequent flyer points. You can receive thousands of points on everyday spend. And, many of these cards offer generous signup bonuses! Compare to find the credit card that best suits your needs.

Recommended by the Australian Frequent Flyer

straitman

Enthusiast
Moderator
Joined
Apr 27, 2003
Messages
17,789
Points
840
Qantas
LT Gold
Virgin
Red
Alan in CBR said:
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).

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: :(
 

straitman

Enthusiast
Moderator
Joined
Apr 27, 2003
Messages
17,789
Points
840
Qantas
LT Gold
Virgin
Red
NM said:
markis10 said:
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!
A rotary wing aircraft does not fly ... they are just so ugly that the earth repells them :p .

No, they simply beat the air into submission. :p :p :p

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

NM

Enthusiast
Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
16,333
Points
1,295
Qantas
LT Gold
Virgin
Red
straitman said:
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: :(
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Community Statistics

Threads
86,600
Messages
2,099,937
Members
53,909
Latest member
Annie1153

Currently Active Users

Top