Flights with no e-readers?!

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Eg, look at an airline like British Airways. How many untold millions of passengers have they carried, and yet in all their years of operating they've never had a fatal accident in flight - not one. Flying really is an astonishingly safe activity.

http://www.airsafe.com/events/airlines/bab.htm has one incident listed since 1970:
"10 September 1976; British Airways Trident 3B; Flight 476; near Zagreb, Yugoslavia: The aircraft had a midair collision with a Inex Adria DC9-32. All nine crew members and 54 passengers on the Trident were killed. All five crew members and 108 passengers on the DC9 were also killed. The probable cause of this event was failure of the Yugoslavian ATC system to provide adequate separation."

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

http://www.airsafe.com/events/airlines/bab.htm has one incident listed since 1970:
"10 September 1976; British Airways Trident 3B; Flight 476; near Zagreb, Yugoslavia: The aircraft had a midair collision with a Inex Adria DC9-32. All nine crew members and 54 passengers on the Trident were killed. All five crew members and 108 passengers on the DC9 were also killed. The probable cause of this event was failure of the Yugoslavian ATC system to provide adequate separation."

Thanks, Sparrow; I obviously overlooked that one. It really doesn't change the general point, though, that flying really is amazingly safe compared to other means of transport.

[nick101]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Thanks, Sparrow; I obviously overlooked that one. It really doesn't change the general point, though, that flying really is amazingly safe compared to other means of transport.

I agree - no question that it's about the safest for of transport in terms of deaths/serious injuries per passenger mile.

But the logic of concern is:

(a) if there's an incident (which is acknowledged to be rare), the consequences (as witness the BA incident) are potentially very bad

(b) (which is, I think the one the authorities are really concerned about) deliberate action (i.e. terrorism) distorts the probability. Planes are very reliable and, as we know, are very unlikely to suffer a catastrophic mid-air failure). The worry is the damage/destruction of a reliable machine by intention, which is not reflect in historic figures.

I'm not defending some of the (to me) irrational decisions that have been mad - just trying to illuminate some of the thinking behind it, much of which exemplifies the adage that logic is a way of being wrong with confidence.

[K-Thom]

We were all much safer off if we crossed the oceans by ships again. Ot at least on icebergs.

Takes a lot to blow them off ...

[NeilHawkes]

Originally Posted by HarryT

He wouldn't have to go through security as a transfer passenger - he'd just go into the transfer lounge (which is "airside") and then straight onto the flight to the US.

Somewhat off-topic, but does anyone know why it is that the newspaper reports are saying that it was a Northwest Airlines flight, and yet the pictures are showing what is quite obviously a Delta aircraft?

Harry,

I fly through Amsterdam every month and all the security checks are performed at the boarding gate, for every international flight.

They also have these new x-ray scanners, because I had to pass through one 2 weeks ago..........so how he got through with the requisite kit is beyond me.

I'm not looking forward to getting home from work in the next 2 weeks......because I work in Nigeria and fly through Amsterdam, woe is me!

Cheers,
Neil.

[nick101]

Originally Posted by K-Thom

We were all much safer off if we crossed the oceans by ships again. Ot at least on icebergs.

Takes a lot to blow them off ...

On which subject ...

http://www.angelfire.com/yt/anneblair/lyrics50.htm

[nick101]

Originally Posted by NeilHawkes

I'm not looking forward to getting home from work in the next 2 weeks......because I work in Nigeria and fly through Amsterdam, woe is me!

Cheers,
Neil.

Might as well give yourself up now mate ... if you come quietly, we'll make it easy on you

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by nick101

I agree - no question that it's about the safest for of transport in terms of deaths/serious injuries per passenger mile.

But the logic of concern is:

(a) if there's an incident (which is acknowledged to be rare), the consequences (as witness the BA incident) are potentially very bad

(b) (which is, I think the one the authorities are really concerned about) deliberate action (i.e. terrorism) distorts the probability. Planes are very reliable and, as we know, are very unlikely to suffer a catastrophic mid-air failure). The worry is the damage/destruction of a reliable machine by intention, which is not reflect in historic figures.

I'm not defending some of the (to me) irrational decisions that have been mad - just trying to illuminate some of the thinking behind it, much of which exemplifies the adage that logic is a way of being wrong with confidence.

Quite. Most of the 'security' rules are, as I stated, senseless. Wireless devices s/b turned off during flight because they might 'interfere with navigation'. Except they don't unless deliberately altered to do so-as you mentioned. Of course there are no detectors, that I know of, to indicate whether a device is operating or not-so the authorities apparently believe that a terrorist, when told (as part of a group announcement) to turn off his wireless device, will actually do so.

And then, to cap that stupidity, they allow wireless devices to be turned back on during flight if the plane has a mobile base station-as if the altered device would use that.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

...so the authorities apparently believe that a terrorist, when told (as part of a group announcement) to turn off his wireless device, will actually do so.

....

Yep, just like criminals obey the gun-ban laws.

[nick101]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Yep, just like criminals obey the gun-ban laws.

You mean they don't?

[SensualPoet]

I flew back from Mexico to Toronto yesterday. There were no restrictions at all. I closed my Kindle abt four minutes before the wheels touched down at Pearson. I did not have to take my laptop out of my carry on (I started to but the security official stopped me). FWIW, I've never been asked to turn any device on going through security, ever. And Air Canada allows two checked bags per person (up to 50 lbs each) plus two carry-ons -- without additional fees. Bonus: duty free booze does not count toward your inplane carry on.

Hopefully, flying rules to-and-from the US will improve shortly. No one likes rules which make travel more frustrating when the rules themselves do not clearly address a problem. PR stunts don't make me feel particularly safer.

[brecklundin]

this whole argument about the safety of air travel is just over the top...a far bigger amount of "terror" would be to have a dozen persons blow themselves up going through security checks all at the same time...and there is no way to stop this from happening when lines are long and backed up...face it this is a far more real issue. The guy on the plane was due to lax security which no amount of regulation can ever address. It's not like airports have chemical sniffers at the entry ways...yet. I have no problem with full body scanning of every passenger simply because the inconvenience is trivial and the potential benefit has a huge upside. but gone are the days of using an airplane as a weapon...these days a commercial aircraft can only be used to induce fear and anxiety. Of course there are privately owned cargo planes to wonder about, especially when taking off from small private air strips where the type of aircraft can be disguised given enough preparation. Sure I don't wanna see or be on a plane that gets blown up, but there will always be ways to work around lax security nor can security address every potentiality...heck, the bastages who hate, could give someone an artificial limb, hip, knee joints, fake lung, pretty much whatever, each filled with the components of a bio weapon, deadly gas or what have you... any of which could be activated with a remote of some sort, and the remote might not even appear to be what it is, it could be a hearing aid, pacemaker, ANYTHING...how ya gonna stop that?

And Harry is right...by far air travel is the safest way to travel. But there are always going to be those who are so insane they will justify what they are trying to do...and sadly often these are very smart individuals.

[brecklundin]

Originally Posted by SensualPoet

I flew back from Mexico to Toronto yesterday. There were no restrictions at all. I closed my Kindle abt four minutes before the wheels touched down at Pearson. I did not have to take my laptop out of my carry on (I started to but the security official stopped me). FWIW, I've never been asked to turn any device on going through security, ever. And Air Canada allows two checked bags per person (up to 50 lbs each) plus two carry-ons -- without additional fees. Bonus: duty free booze does not count toward your inplane carry on.

Hopefully, flying rules to-and-from the US will improve shortly. No one likes rules which make travel more frustrating when the rules themselves do not clearly address a problem. PR stunts don't make me feel particularly safer.

HAHAHA!! I need to fly Air Canookia more often!

[SensualPoet]

Originally Posted by brecklundin

HAHAHA!! I need to fly Air Canookia more often!

Nothing wrong with flying Air Canada. They have many flights from Canada to non-US destinations. We always fly direct or to non-US mid-way -- like Mexico City -- rather than fly through Chicago, Denver or LA. Of course, flying to the US is another matter ... but we no longer take trips "through" the US because the customs hassle is way not worth it. And that's nothing to do with Air Canada.

[brecklundin]

Originally Posted by SensualPoet

Nothing wrong with flying Air Canada. They have many flights from Canada to non-US destinations. We always fly direct or to non-US mid-way -- like Mexico City -- rather than fly through Chicago, Denver or LA. Of course, flying to the US is another matter ... but we no longer take trips "through" the US because the customs hassle is way not worth it. And that's nothing to do with Air Canada.

ok...apparetnly you don't get the joke so, never mind...