24 Injured On Vietnam Airlines Flight

[george]

Paris airport: 24 injured on Vietnam Airlines flight

PARIS, October 20, 2010 (AFP) - A Vietnam Airlines flight to Paris lurched violently in flight on Wednesday, causing 24 of those on board to suffer injuries ranging from bruises to broken bones, French authorities said.

"It might have been some kind of air pocket," a Paris airport official said, while authorities said the exact nature of the turbulence and the cause of the injuries had yet to be determined.

"It could have been turbulence," another airport employee said, speaking on condition of anonymity while investigations were ongoing.

Eight of those on board were taken to the Robert Ballanger hospital in the northern suburbs of Paris, while others were treated by fire crews before being brought to the airport's clinic to be examined.

Of those hurt, 22 were passengers and two were crew members.

Vietnam Airlines was not immediately available for comment.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2010-10-20

[Puccini]

Keeping the seat belt on would no doubt have prevented most of these injuries.

[way2muchcoffee]

Keeping the seat belt on would no doubt have prevented most of these injuries.

Probably half of those injured were either in the toilet, queuing for it, or possibly just stretching their legs. And then their are the air stewards and stewardesses.

To be sure there would be a planeload of freaked out passengers after hitting a nasty air pocket like that. Fortunately none of the injuries were fatal.

Edited October 20, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[draftvader]

I never understand why people undo their seatbelts as soon as the light goes out. The flight crews always do try to warn you in advance, but in my many, many flights I have experienced a lot of turbulence that was not announced....always alarming when your food is in front of you! Then the same people take their belts off the moment the rear wheels hit the tarmac. Strange, where are they going?

[Humphrey Bear]

I never understand why people undo their seatbelts as soon as the light goes out. The flight crews always do try to warn you in advance, but in my many, many flights I have experienced a lot of turbulence that was not announced....always alarming when your food is in front of you! Then the same people take their belts off the moment the rear wheels hit the tarmac. Strange, where are they going?

The people you are talking about are probably the same as those who stick the car seat-belts behind them when driving.

Surprising on a VN flight, though. The Vietnamese are quite good at doing what they're told under such circumstances. On the road virtually all people on motorbikes, drivers and passengers, wear safety helmets (well, helmets) for even the shortest of journeys - unlike Thailand where maybe 50% do not wear helmets.

[george]

Update:

Paris airport: 21 injured on Vietnam Airlines flight

PARIS, October 20, 2010 (AFP) - A Vietnam Airlines flight from Hanoi to Paris hit severe turbulence Wednesday, causing it to lurch violently and injure 21 of those on board, French authorities and the airline said.

"The flight hit turbulence around two-and-a-half hours after takeoff. There were light injuries but nothing serious. Nothing happened as regards the plane," a Vietnam Airlines spokesman said.

Nine of those on board the Boeing 777 were taken to hospital in the northern suburbs of Paris, while others were treated by fire crews before being brought to the airport's clinic to be examined.

Of those hurt, 18 were passengers and three were crew members.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2010-10-20

[sjjmmi]

Opps 3 fell out the wheel well

Update:

Paris airport: 21 injured on Vietnam Airlines flight

PARIS, October 20, 2010 (AFP) - A Vietnam Airlines flight from Hanoi to Paris hit severe turbulence Wednesday, causing it to lurch violently and injure 21 of those on board, French authorities and the airline said.

"The flight hit turbulence around two-and-a-half hours after takeoff. There were light injuries but nothing serious. Nothing happened as regards the plane," a Vietnam Airlines spokesman said.

Nine of those on board the Boeing 777 were taken to hospital in the northern suburbs of Paris, while others were treated by fire crews before being brought to the airport's clinic to be examined.

Of those hurt, 18 were passengers and three were crew members.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2010-10-20

[TAWP]

I was on a flight that hit an air-pocket without warning, causing the plan to do freefall of enough distance to scare the bejeeses out of a lot of people. As this happened just as dinner was served, my wine ended up in free flight and finally settled itself in landing over the arm - but it was fun seeing it float in the air infront of us for a short while...

Luckily no serious injuries occurred as this was a 747-300 with no empty seats. Now if some passengers had been up and walking I could have seen the chance someone would have gotten injured to be fairly decent...

[sjjmmi]

I was on a flight that hit an air-pocket without warning, causing the plan to do freefall of enough distance to scare the bejeeses out of a lot of people. As this happened just as dinner was served, my wine ended up in free flight and finally settled itself in landing over the arm - but it was fun seeing it float in the air infront of us for a short while...

Luckily no serious injuries occurred as this was a 747-300 with no empty seats. Now if some passengers had been up and walking I could have seen the chance someone would have gotten injured to be fairly decent...

As a traveler in this part of Asia things happen

Edited October 20, 2010 by sjjmmi

[asiawatcher]

"... "It could have been turbulence," another airport employee said, speaking on condition of anonymity while investigations were ongoing."

Did someone fart? Or maybe the current spate of fuel shortages gave them a bad batch of avgas!

[mallyrd]

Update:

Paris airport: 21 injured on Vietnam Airlines flight

PARIS, October 20, 2010 (AFP) - A Vietnam Airlines flight from Hanoi to Paris hit severe turbulence Wednesday, causing it to lurch violently and injure 21 of those on board, French authorities and the airline said.

"The flight hit turbulence around two-and-a-half hours after takeoff. There were light injuries but nothing serious. Nothing happened as regards the plane," a Vietnam Airlines spokesman said.

Nine of those on board the Boeing 777 were taken to hospital in the northern suburbs of Paris, while others were treated by fire crews before being brought to the airport's clinic to be examined.

Of those hurt, 18 were passengers and three were crew members.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2010-10-20

Given that the turbulence ocurred two-and-a half hours after takeoff then I reckon they were somewhere over the Bay of Bengal. This stretch of water between Burma and India (sometimes Bangladesh) is notoriuos for turbulence. Just a couple of weeks ago I was returning from Bahrain on Gulf Air and we were crossing the Bay of Bengal and the turbulence scared the be-jesus out of me, breakfast was not served. I always dread this part of any flight whether coming to Thailand or heading to the Middle East.

[scorecard]

I was on a flight that hit an air-pocket without warning, causing the plan to do freefall of enough distance to scare the bejeeses out of a lot of people. As this happened just as dinner was served, my wine ended up in free flight and finally settled itself in landing over the arm - but it was fun seeing it float in the air infront of us for a short while...

Luckily no serious injuries occurred as this was a 747-300 with no empty seats. Now if some passengers had been up and walking I could have seen the chance someone would have gotten injured to be fairly decent...

As a traveler in this part of Asia things happen

Are you saying that turbelence happens / or a specific type of turbelence happens (only)in this part of Asia?

Turbelence / air incidents / air rage, or whatever, can happen: anywhere in the skies / over any continent / over any country / regardless of the airline name, etc. Please clarify what you mean.

[Utterlyuseful]

sorry not buying this seatbelt argument at all....this is just an attempt by the airlines to cover up pilot error combined with some political correctness and fear of lawsuits.....I suspect that the chances of hitting severe turbulence are .00000001%....blame the passnegers, it's cheaper!

Edited October 20, 2010 by Utterlyuseful

[LaoPo]

PARIS, October 20, 2010 (AFP) - A Vietnam Airlines flight from Hanoi to Paris hit severe turbulence Wednesday, causing it to lurch violently and injure 21 of those on board, French authorities and the airline said.

"The flight hit turbulence around two-and-a-half hours after takeoff. There were light injuries but nothing serious. Nothing happened as regards the plane," a Vietnam Airlines spokesman said.

When the turbulence happened it must have been either south or north of the Himalayan mountains depending on Vietnam Airlines' route. Lots of turbulence in that area.

LaoPo

[KTD]

Update:

Paris airport: 21 injured on Vietnam Airlines flight

PARIS, October 20, 2010 (AFP) - A Vietnam Airlines flight from Hanoi to Paris hit severe turbulence Wednesday, causing it to lurch violently and injure 21 of those on board, French authorities and the airline said.

"The flight hit turbulence around two-and-a-half hours after takeoff. There were light injuries but nothing serious. Nothing happened as regards the plane," a Vietnam Airlines spokesman said.

Nine of those on board the Boeing 777 were taken to hospital in the northern suburbs of Paris, while others were treated by fire crews before being brought to the airport's clinic to be examined.

Of those hurt, 18 were passengers and three were crew members.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2010-10-20

Given that the turbulence ocurred two-and-a half hours after takeoff then I reckon they were somewhere over the Bay of Bengal. This stretch of water between Burma and India (sometimes Bangladesh) is notoriuos for turbulence. Just a couple of weeks ago I was returning from Bahrain on Gulf Air and we were crossing the Bay of Bengal and the turbulence scared the be-jesus out of me, breakfast was not served. I always dread this part of any flight whether coming to Thailand or heading to the Middle East.

I agree, I fly over the Bay of Bengal a lot and have seen some extremely wicked lighting storms and had many rough rides. I always wondered why everyone is so quick to remove their seat belts as soon as the sign goes off.

I also never forget about a story one flight attendant told me about a flight she was on were the plane went through some sudden turbulence or wind shear, food carts flew into the air

and landed back on passengers killing 3.

[tombkk]

PARIS, October 20, 2010 (AFP) - A Vietnam Airlines flight from Hanoi to Paris hit severe turbulence Wednesday, causing it to lurch violently and injure 21 of those on board, French authorities and the airline said.

"The flight hit turbulence around two-and-a-half hours after takeoff. There were light injuries but nothing serious. Nothing happened as regards the plane," a Vietnam Airlines spokesman said.

When the turbulence happened it must have been either south or north of the Himalayan mountains depending on Vietnam Airlines' route. Lots of turbulence in that area.

LaoPo

If passengers had broken bones, why did they continue for many hours all the way to Paris instead of making an emergency landing?

[jackr]

I never understand why people undo their seatbelts as soon as the light goes out. The flight crews always do try to warn you in advance, but in my many, many flights I have experienced a lot of turbulence that was not announced....always alarming when your food is in front of you! Then the same people take their belts off the moment the rear wheels hit the tarmac. Strange, where are they going?

It's probably because the majority of passengers think the seatbelt is only there to protect them in a crash, while not considering that turbulence is the key reason in-flight and can have you head-butting the ceiling. I also find it mildly annoying when you hear the click, click as soon as the plane touches down. As you say, to what end, so they can get to see the baggage conveyor being turned on? I generally wait until all the muppets have shoved themselves off, then stroll off after.

[metisdead]

sorry not buying this seatbelt argument at all....this is just an attempt by the airlines to cover up pilot error combined with some political correctness and fear of lawsuits.....I suspect that the chances of hitting severe turbulence are .00000001%....blame the passnegers, it's cheaper!

In my travels, I too have experienced turbulence about 2 - 2-1/2 hours out in the area of the Bay of Bengal. I have also experienced severe turbulence departing Tokyo going to the US. There have been multiple occasions on that sector where turbulence has caused injuries to passenger due to not using the seat belts. The scariest turbulence I experienced was flying into Denver on a turbo prop airplane. There was a strong wind from west to east and as it came over the east front of the Rockies, it produced a downdraft, a roiling effect. Indeed if passengers had not been strapped in, there would have passengers bouncing off the ceiling. I got off that flight sweating.

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/severe-turbulence-injures-25-on-la-bound-flight/19563168

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-05-25/travel/flight.diverted_1_turbulence-airline-spokeswoman-flight-attendants?_s=PM:TRAVEL

Pilot error has nothing to do with this.

Edited October 21, 2010 by metisdead

[Tigs]

sorry not buying this seatbelt argument at all....this is just an attempt by the airlines to cover up pilot error combined with some political correctness and fear of lawsuits.....I suspect that the chances of hitting severe turbulence are .00000001%....blame the passnegers, it's cheaper!

Utterlyuseful, your comment is utterlyuseless, and you display absolutely no knowledge of aviation at all. Your suspicions for hitting turbulence are 100% wrong. So you think that perhaps only 1 flight in a 100 million will hit severe turbulence? Educated guess ... NOT! By the way, the wearing of seat belts throughout your flight is critical to the safety of yourself, and if appropriate, your children.

KTD

There have been many cases of broken necks from people hitting the aircraft ceiling or overhead lockers when the aircraft has hit a pocket of clear air turbulence.

Scorecard

Actually, turbulence happens in specific areas. The type that this aircraft encountered is likely to be Clear Air Turbulence. This is beyond the detection capabilities of the majority of aircraft at the moment and does indeed occur in regions. most commonly on the boundary of the jet stream and slower moving air. The jetstream is a very powerful airflow caused basically by ultra cold air from the arctic regions meeting warmer air currents.If you are flying with the jetstream behind you, it can save you 1 1/2 hours on a long distance international flight, likewise if you are flying in to it, it could add that amount of time to your journey. On the boundary of the jet stream air conditions can be extremely unpredictable. It is also possible to encounter severe turbulence on the lee side of major mountain ranges, so as one poster has said, the Himalayas.

[Hawk]

How has Air Vietnam ended up in the Thai news forum?

Were there any Thais on that flight or something?

[sjonburi]

As "white-knuckle" flyer myself I do agree the Bay of Bengal can be quite bumpy, especially during this season.. However, it seems that the incident occurred over Western Russia, two-and a half hours prior to arrival in CDG..

Source: here

Update:

Paris airport: 21 injured on Vietnam Airlines flight

PARIS, October 20, 2010 (AFP) - A Vietnam Airlines flight from Hanoi to Paris hit severe turbulence Wednesday, causing it to lurch violently and injure 21 of those on board, French authorities and the airline said.

"The flight hit turbulence around two-and-a-half hours after takeoff. There were light injuries but nothing serious. Nothing happened as regards the plane," a Vietnam Airlines spokesman said.

Nine of those on board the Boeing 777 were taken to hospital in the northern suburbs of Paris, while others were treated by fire crews before being brought to the airport's clinic to be examined.

Of those hurt, 18 were passengers and three were crew members.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2010-10-20

Given that the turbulence ocurred two-and-a half hours after takeoff then I reckon they were somewhere over the Bay of Bengal. This stretch of water between Burma and India (sometimes Bangladesh) is notoriuos for turbulence. Just a couple of weeks ago I was returning from Bahrain on Gulf Air and we were crossing the Bay of Bengal and the turbulence scared the be-jesus out of me, breakfast was not served. I always dread this part of any flight whether coming to Thailand or heading to the Middle East.

[ukrules]

Clear Air Turbulence, the reason to keep your seat belt fastened at all times. It doesn't have to be tight but it will stop you from flying upwards when this happens.

The main worry I would have with this is a food trolley landing on me after the freefall ends, they are very heavy and anything that's not strapped down will start to float or smash into the ceiling if its a real fast drop.

[Forethat]

I was on a Singapore flight last week (Tuesday) that hit extreme turbulence. I am a VERY frequent traveller, but this was the first time since I flew over hurricane Andrew in US 1992 that I've heard people scream on a flight. It was very violent.

The thing is the turbulence on the Singapore flight last week was very sudden without any warning from flight deck. The crew was in the middle of serving dinner and hunkered down to brace themselves against the seats. Seatbelts or not, any passenger on the can was certain to get their pants stained.

Sometimes you’re not in your seat, so keeping your seatbelt fastened at all times (while you’re in your seat) may not prevent minor accidents if you have to take leak or stretch your legs.

[Tigs]

I was on a Singapore flight last week (Tuesday) that hit extreme turbulence. I am a VERY frequent traveller, but this was the first time since I flew over hurricane Andrew in US 1992 that I've heard people scream on a flight. It was very violent.

The thing is the turbulence on the Singapore flight last week was very sudden without any warning from flight deck. The crew was in the middle of serving dinner and hunkered down to brace themselves against the seats. Seatbelts or not, any passenger on the can was certain to get their pants stained.

Sometimes you're not in your seat, so keeping your seatbelt fastened at all times (while you're in your seat) may not prevent minor accidents if you have to take leak or stretch your legs.

The accidents can be far from minor. Fatalities and broken necks have occurred, and what UKrules says is also valid in that quite horrendous injuries could occur if one of the food or drinks trolleys were to crash onto your head. There is weather radar in the front that allows the crew to 'see' thunderstorm cells and take avoiding action by flying around them, but clear air turbulence cannot be seen, the first you know about it, is when you hit it.

[Utterlyuseful]

I knew the politically correct and pedantic nanny state types would jump all over this……

Rather than replying with spurious statements and ad hominem attacks, perhaps you'd like to take a shot at quantifying your outrageous fear mongering

I'll take up the challenge and give a shot at calculating the probability of being injured in a severe turbulence accident not caused by pilot error, maintenance, poor planning in avoiding storms etc… I do believe that pilot error such as in the reckless landing in the microburst wind shear in Phuket a few years back does cause accidents…faulty maintenance also causes a lot of incidents…

http://www.chacha.co...e-united-states

On an average day in the US there are 28,537 commercial flights, 27,178 general aviation flights, 24,548 air taxi flights.

Rounding to 100,000 flights/day in the US, annualize it and guesstimate multiplier to account for the air traffic in the entire rest of the world

1,825,000,000/year = 100,000 * 365 * 50

Probability = total number of serious incidents/total number of commercial flights

Let's assume 1 serious incident every 3 years or 1 per 547500000 flights

1/547500000= .000000001826

Now multiply that by the odds of being one of the injured passengers, let's say 5% of the total number of passengers actually get injured……looks like I may have OVERestimated the probability in my first post

There is certainly a much higher chance of being hit by a baht bus in Pattaya, or perhaps even being hit by a falling coconut!

sorry not buying this seatbelt argument at all....this is just an attempt by the airlines to cover up pilot error combined with some political correctness and fear of lawsuits.....I suspect that the chances of hitting severe turbulence are .00000001%....blame the passnegers, it's cheaper!

Utterlyuseful, your comment is utterlyuseless, and you display absolutely no knowledge of aviation at all. Your suspicions for hitting turbulence are 100% wrong. So you think that perhaps only 1 flight in a 100 million will hit severe turbulence? Educated guess ... NOT! By the way, the wearing of seat belts throughout your flight is critical to the safety of yourself, and if appropriate, your children.

KTD

There have been many cases of broken necks from people hitting the aircraft ceiling or overhead lockers when the aircraft has hit a pocket of clear air turbulence.

Scorecard

Actually, turbulence happens in specific areas. The type that this aircraft encountered is likely to be Clear Air Turbulence. This is beyond the detection capabilities of the majority of aircraft at the moment and does indeed occur in regions. most commonly on the boundary of the jet stream and slower moving air. The jetstream is a very powerful airflow caused basically by ultra cold air from the arctic regions meeting warmer air currents.If you are flying with the jetstream behind you, it can save you 1 1/2 hours on a long distance international flight, likewise if you are flying in to it, it could add that amount of time to your journey. On the boundary of the jet stream air conditions can be extremely unpredictable. It is also possible to encounter severe turbulence on the lee side of major mountain ranges, so as one poster has said, the Himalayas.

Edited October 21, 2010 by Utterlyuseful

[chantorn]

sorry not buying this seatbelt argument at all....this is just an attempt by the airlines to cover up pilot error combined with some political correctness and fear of lawsuits.....I suspect that the chances of hitting severe turbulence are .00000001%....blame the passnegers, it's cheaper!

The pilot could be an ex soviet trained MiG pilot.

"Let see what this American baby can do, ..."

[Utterlyuseful]

indeed!

sorry not buying this seatbelt argument at all....this is just an attempt by the airlines to cover up pilot error combined with some political correctness and fear of lawsuits.....I suspect that the chances of hitting severe turbulence are .00000001%....blame the passnegers, it's cheaper!

The pilot could be an ex soviet trained MiG pilot.

"Let see what this American baby can do, ..."

[Tigs]

I knew the politically correct and pedantic nanny state types would jump all over this……

Rather than replying with spurious statements and ad hominem attacks, perhaps you'd like to take a shot at quantifying your outrageous fear mongering

I'll take up the challenge and give a shot at calculating the probability of being injured in a severe turbulence accident not caused by pilot error, maintenance, poor planning in avoiding storms etc… I do believe that pilot error such as in the reckless landing in the microburst wind shear in Phuket a few years back does cause accidents…faulty maintenance also causes a lot of incidents…

http://www.chacha.co...e-united-states

On an average day in the US there are 28,537 commercial flights, 27,178 general aviation flights, 24,548 air taxi flights.

Rounding to 100,000 flights/day in the US, annualize it and guesstimate multiplier to account for the air traffic in the entire rest of the world

1,825,000,000/year = 100,000 * 365 * 50

Probability = total number of serious incidents/total number of commercial flights

Let's assume 1 serious incident every 3 years or 1 per 547500000 flights

1/547500000= .000000001826

Now multiply that by the odds of being one of the injured passengers, let's say 5% of the total number of passengers actually get injured……looks like I may have OVERestimated the probability in my first post

There is certainly a much higher chance of being hit by a baht bus in Pattaya, or perhaps even being hit by a falling coconut!

Utterlyuseful

Once again, now your mathematics are utterlyuseless

Your linky linky, no worky worky, so if the maths is from the site I have no idea, but you published it, so I presume you checked it first.

Firstly you get information on the number of US flights and then round it up! Your daily US flights are 80263 (are you sure that is correct!!!), and you round it up to 100 000, that is a 'round up of 25% already! and you are about to multiply that by 365 and then 50 (what is the 50 for?). Surely you would 'round' it to 80 000.

But seriously, look at the number you have come up with!!! Do you seriously think that there are 1,850,000.000 flights per year!! Are you kidding me? One billion eight hundred and fifty million!!!

You then make a blind assumption that there is one serious accident every three years where is that from? along with an assumption of 5% injuries in a serious incident. You already quote the Phuket one and that was 100%.

Accidents do occur and many of those accidents are Human Error, because we have now made the machine so good. However, you are trying to say that an aircraft in the cruise, with auto pilot engaged did not encounter turbulence but that it was Pilot error. Your initial rebuke and dismissal of the incident

sorry not buying this seatbelt argument at all....this is just an attempt by the airlines to cover up pilot error combined with some political correctness and fear of lawsuits.....I suspect that the chances of hitting severe turbulence are .00000001%....blame the passnegers, it's cheaper!

is complete horse sh*t, as are your mathematical calculations above. Now you are completely wrong on both counts. Go look at your maths again, and your data source.

Flying is the safest form of transport in the world today, and there is a reason for that...trainng. BUT, if you are involved in an incident then your chances of suffering injury are greatly reduced if you are taking the correct precautions. The chances of being involved in a car accident are remote, but if you are, and you are not wearing your seat belt, you are going to get hurt. Same for aircraft.

.

Edited October 22, 2010 by Tigs

[Forethat]

But seriously, look at the number you have come up with!!! Do you seriously think that there are 1,850,000.000 flights per year!! Are you kidding me? One billion eight hundred and fifty million!!!

I don’t want to get tangled up in your conversation here, but I suspect that the high number refers to the total number of passenger trips (one flight carries X number of pax)...?

It is possible to play with numbers and statistics any way one want to, but one of the most common misperceptions regarding air safety is that it is safer to take the plane than it is to drive your car - it is not. This statistic usually points to the km travelled/casualty-ratio, not the number of trips/casualty-ratio. When comparing the number of trips/casualty rate the plane alternative is WAY more risky than driving a car.

[Utterlyuseful]

Rather than being a fearmonger, time for you to stand up to the plate with some evidence and calculations of your outrageous claims., rather than blowing more hot air and bs......

Rounding the flight stats to 100k was done for ease of calculation but plug the 80k into the equation and tell us what you get.... it's a starting point and if you have something better prove it..you are the one making the claim of how dangerous it is.......

Assumptions are the basis of mathematics....ask Einstein.......

Since you seem unintelligent enough to use google and find information, here is the link

www.chacha.com/question/how-many-commercial-flights-are-there-per-day-in-the-united-states

Not sure why I bother though as you prefer to base your nattering nonsense on completely false statements

EXAMPLE, "along with an assumption of 5% injuries in a serious incident. You already quote the Phuket one and that was 100%. "

You obviously don't realize that this accident was caused by pilot error.......... NOT PART OF MY CALCULATION!

Time for some new eyeglasses, watch for the falling coconuts, the falling sky, and dog sh*t on the ground which is what you're likely to slip on(better wear helmet, elbow pads, shin pads, and just to be safe full body armour).........

I knew the politically correct and pedantic nanny state types would jump all over this……

Rather than replying with spurious statements and ad hominem attacks, perhaps you'd like to take a shot at quantifying your outrageous fear mongering

I'll take up the challenge and give a shot at calculating the probability of being injured in a severe turbulence accident not caused by pilot error, maintenance, poor planning in avoiding storms etc… I do believe that pilot error such as in the reckless landing in the microburst wind shear in Phuket a few years back does cause accidents…faulty maintenance also causes a lot of incidents…

http://www.chacha.co...e-united-states

On an average day in the US there are 28,537 commercial flights, 27,178 general aviation flights, 24,548 air taxi flights.

Rounding to 100,000 flights/day in the US, annualize it and guesstimate multiplier to account for the air traffic in the entire rest of the world

1,825,000,000/year = 100,000 * 365 * 50

Probability = total number of serious incidents/total number of commercial flights

Let's assume 1 serious incident every 3 years or 1 per 547500000 flights

1/547500000= .000000001826

Now multiply that by the odds of being one of the injured passengers, let's say 5% of the total number of passengers actually get injured……looks like I may have OVERestimated the probability in my first post

There is certainly a much higher chance of being hit by a baht bus in Pattaya, or perhaps even being hit by a falling coconut!

Utterlyuseful

Once again, now your mathematics are utterlyuseless

Your linky linky, no worky worky, so if the maths is from the site I have no idea, but you published it, so I presume you checked it first.

Firstly you get information on the number of US flights and then round it up! Your daily US flights are 80263 (are you sure that is correct!!!), and you round it up to 100 000, that is a 'round up of 25% already! and you are about to multiply that by 365 and then 50 (what is the 50 for?). Surely you would 'round' it to 80 000.

But seriously, look at the number you have come up with!!! Do you seriously think that there are 1,850,000.000 flights per year!! Are you kidding me? One billion eight hundred and fifty million!!!

You then make a blind assumption that there is one serious accident every three years where is that from? along with an assumption of 5% injuries in a serious incident. You already quote the Phuket one and that was 100%.

Accidents do occur and many of those accidents are Human Error, because we have now made the machine so good. However, you are trying to say that an aircraft in the cruise, with auto pilot engaged did not encounter turbulence but that it was Pilot error. Your initial rebuke and dismissal of the incident

sorry not buying this seatbelt argument at all....this is just an attempt by the airlines to cover up pilot error combined with some political correctness and fear of lawsuits.....I suspect that the chances of hitting severe turbulence are .00000001%....blame the passnegers, it's cheaper!

is complete horse sh*t, as are your mathematical calculations above. Now you are completely wrong on both counts. Go look at your maths again, and your data source.

Flying is the safest form of transport in the world today, and there is a reason for that...trainng. BUT, if you are involved in an incident then your chances of suffering injury are greatly reduced if you are taking the correct precautions. The chances of being involved in a car accident are remote, but if you are, and you are not wearing your seat belt, you are going to get hurt. Same for aircraft.

.

Edited October 22, 2010 by Utterlyuseful