Airline Safety - carriers with poor record

[QFflyermelbourne]

It's very good to have these 'feelings' but are they supported by evidence? How much research have you done into the safety culture at Air France?

Regarding MH... what evidence has led you to the conclusion that MH is safer now than it was before? If, for example, a court finds MH was negligent in its choice of flight path, would that change your opinion?

Sorry perhaps I wasn't clear. I meant Air France maintains a high ranking on my do not fly list. This is based on the almost constant stream of near misses that get reported, not to mention the significant number of actual accidents.

My views on MH came about from knowing a senior engineer there as well as having a number of friends who are very senior pilots at QF and elsewhere. These are views I've heard from them and which seem to be backed up by JB.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Sorry perhaps I wasn't clear. I meant Air France maintains a high ranking on my do not fly list. This is based on the almost constant stream of near misses that get reported, not to mention the significant number of actual accidents.

My views on MH came about from knowing a senior engineer there as well as having a number of friends who are very senior pilots at QF and elsewhere. These are views I've heard from them and which seem to be backed up by JB.

Ah! Apologies. I see what you mean!

I think there are two (or even more) aspects to 'safety'. There's the branch of safety concerning pilot skills, along with the maintenance of aircraft (etc).

Then there's a separate side which looks at policies and procedures. You may have a perfectly maintained plane, and a pilot with a lot of hours and considerable skill... but company policies and procedures may not have covered an event that subsequently leads to an accident. You may have a perfectly maintained plane, but management authorises a flight path which potentially puts an aircraft in danger.

I'm concerned more with the latter, rather than the former.

 

[jb747]

Doing some research on AF447 turned up an article, which if true, could change safety perception. It appears there may have been a similar incident, involving another Air France jet, in the year before AF447. It is argued that had pilots been briefed on the outcome of that incident over Madagascar, AF447 may have been prevented: Pilot briefing 'could have prevented Air France tragedy' - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk

AF447 crashed because the pilot who was flying it disobeyed the basic tenets of aviation. There is nothing difficult about flying without air data, nor is the AB hard to control in alternate or direct law. He wasn't really a pilot at all.

Regarding MH... what evidence has led you to the conclusion that MH is safer now than it was before? If, for example, a court finds MH was negligent in its choice of flight path, would that change your opinion?

It's only random luck that you aren't talking about Singair or Emirates, or a number of others who were nearby.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

It's only random luck that you aren't talking about Singair or Emirates, or a number of others who were nearby.

That is a fair comment, but the bottom line is that for a claim of negligence, you have to have damage.

While the questions around the choice of flight path apply equally to all airlines, only MH (as far as I'm aware) is on the record as saying they should be able to focus on cabin comfort rather than the safety of the flight paths they use.

 

[medhead]

That is a fair comment, but the bottom line is that for a claim of negligence, you have to have damage.

While the questions around the choice of flight path apply equally to all airlines, only MH (as far as I'm aware) is on the record as saying they should be able to focus on cabin comfort rather than the safety of the flight paths they use.

As per the last time you raised this I still maintain you've taken that comment out of context and have jumped to a false conclusion. Why continue to present your debatable opinion as fact?

 

[dajop]

That is a fair comment, but the bottom line is that for a claim of negligence, you have to have damage.

While the questions around the choice of flight path apply equally to all airlines, only MH (as far as I'm aware) is on the record as saying they should be able to focus on cabin comfort rather than the safety of the flight paths they use.

For reference I have found the full article with this commentary here. One can make up their own minds.

 

[Reggie78]

Personally, SQ scares the bejesus out of me more each year and I would gladly go MH ahead of them.

Can I ask why? Am I missing something? I hardly read anything about SQ..... or am I looking in the wrong direction?

 

[medhead]

For reference I have found the full article with this commentary here. One can make up their own minds.

That's right. Every airline needs to develop an in house military intelligence capability, much like the CIA. Clearly negligent that they haven't done so.

 

[QFflyermelbourne]

Can I ask why? Am I missing something? I hardly read anything about SQ..... or am I looking in the wrong direction?

It's a pattern of mostly small things, although of course the Taiwan incident from years ago was terrifying.

But small things too like crashing an A380 into the airbridge at Sydney and I think there are many questions raised about the handling of the engine issue in China last week. Not to mention stories I hear from pilots about the culture within the organisation. I just have a sense they are skating on thin ice away from another major incident.

 

[Archphoto]

Had the opportunity to fly MH last year after the MH370 incident; price was *extremely* palatable for a J flight back to AU, but it wasn't my thoughts of safety that helped me make my decision, rather the ineptitude and farcical progress that was (not) being made with that investigation.

The thought of my family going through the exact same thing as those with family and friends on MH370, was what won out in the end. Too much secrecy, too little transparency and a what appears to be a total lack of communication and general failure between all involved at the time of the disappearance, wasn't something I wanted to inflict on my family.

Asiana - flown them once SYD-ICN, but only because it was the only flight available, and Garuda, again only flight available. If I had to fly both routes again, I'd ensure I had input into the carrier selection and give both a miss but unfortunately, often you don't have that choice.

Had to fly AirAsia (Thailand) a few days after the crash in Indonesia, and yes, it was in the back of my mind (I *know* they are two separate franchises); crazily enough I felt much better flying Jet* Asia back to BKK. Safer? No idea, but at the time I felt better knowing I was getting onto Jet* over AirAsia for that return flight.

If I could have flown CX I would have, but I had to fly in early and out later the same day - they don't offer times that suited my schedule. (Jet* was the same - no early enough flight out, but fine for the return journey.)

Would I fly MH in the future? Not sure, the second incident could have happened to any of the other carriers that flew over that area around that time. It's the unknown factor of where MH370 is (and the initial poor response and actions to its disappearance) that is keeping me from choosing them currently; given time, I will probably reassess my take on them, but for now, they are on my no-fly list (which also includes those airlines listed by others above).

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Would I fly MH in the future? Not sure, the second incident could have happened to any of the other carriers that flew over that area around that time.

And I think that's an important point... 'other carriers that flew over that area around that time'. MH, in setting out their defense via Mr Dunleavy, won't address the issue that other airlines chose not to fly over the area. Instead they focus only on those that did (of which they were one).

Ultimately a court will decide on the issue.

 

[dajop]

And I think that's an important point... 'other carriers that flew over that area around that time'. MH, in setting out their defense via Mr Dunleavy, won't address the issue that other airlines chose not to fly over the area. Instead they focus only on those that did (of which they were one).

Ultimately a court will decide on the issue.

Interesting that if you focus on those who chose to avoid that specific part of Ukraine and not get confused with the noise about present tense /past tense, or those complying with directives to avoid flying over Crimea or those who simply don't have natural flight paths over that part of Ukraine (such as airlines flying from DXB-LHR), you get to CX, BA and AF (maybe one or two others). So in this case AF showed was a example for others to follow.

Also you seem to be fixated on the court case. Court cases are there to attribute blame and determining who pays. They may not (and indeed probably won't) get to the root causes and contributing factors - that's where the official investigations are important and likely to generate lessons that MH and the industry can learn from.

Anyways. All this talk of airline safety. At the moment busy trying to work out which Myanmar based airline for domestic flights in a couple of weeks time. I survived Novoair in Bangladesh last December so new adventures await now ....

 

[RooFlyer]

<snip>

Anyways. All this talk of airline safety. At the moment busy trying to work out which Myanmar based airline for domestic flights in a couple of weeks time. I survived Novoair in Bangladesh last December so new adventures await now ....

Check out drron's Trip Report 'In search of Empire' for a first hand account of flying domestic in Myanmar. IIRC holding the door closed featured somewhere.

Me ... I chose to take a 9 hour car trip Yangon to Mandalay rather than flying domestic there!! Would have been abt 7 hrs except we took the scenic route in part; I would still choose to drive rather than fly domestic in Myanmar.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Also you seem to be fixated on the court case. Court cases are there to attribute blame and determining who pays. They may not (and indeed probably won't) get to the root causes and contributing factors - that's where the official investigations are important and likely to generate lessons that MH and the industry can learn from.

I mention the court case because I can't make a determination as to whether someone has been negligent. Only a court can make that finding. A court may determine MH acted reasonably.

Agree the official investigation(s), ongoing discussions between airlines and governing bodies (etc) will all be useful and hopefully generate improvement.

 

[OATEK]

I remember being absolutely fixated on the AF447 crash, and very much concerned about the fact a "pilot" who seemed not to understand flying could have caused such a crash. I had them on my no-fly list for a while after that. However, I was looking for a direct flight CDG-VIE, and AF fitted the bill. Thought hard, and eventually decided to give them a go, enjoyed the service and were set down gently despite bouncing all over the place on approach (it was blxxdy windy). So played the odds and 1 out of 1 flights ok! Will I repeat - not sure.

 

[BAM1748]

I remember being absolutely fixated on the AF447 crash, and very much concerned about the fact a "pilot" who seemed not to understand flying could have caused such a crash. I had them on my no-fly list for a while after that. However, I was looking for a direct flight CDG-VIE, and AF fitted the bill. Thought hard, and eventually decided to give them a go, enjoyed the service and were set down gently despite bouncing all over the place on approach (it was blxxdy windy). So played the odds and 1 out of 1 flights ok! Will I repeat - not sure.

All about our own risk assessments we make.

We all make risk assessments every day and see others make them, when someone runs across a busy George St or Flinders St .... . Shall I risk injury or death or wait 20 or 30 seconds until the walk sign comes up and the traffic stopped.

Sometimes we don't use our logic or reason.

AF not my fly list because of your fist point and the management attitude issue AF seems to have to it never being their fault when something goes wrong.

Matt