Originally posted by Peoplesoft bloke
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
About 20 plane crashes this year , weren't there ?
Collapse
X
-
Will work inside IR35. Or for food. -
Originally posted by VectraMan View PostIt seems to me a plane is inherently dangerous. If you're up in the air in a plane, you're not in a safe situation. You need the plane to keep working, the wings to stay attached, the engines to keep firing, the pilot to stay sober ,the ground crew to have put in enough fuel to reach an airport, etc. All these things have to happen to keep you alive.
The reason it's so statistically safe is because of the enormous amount of effort that goes into making sure all those things do happen. But they still fail, from time to time, and that usually means certain death.
A moving car is also inherently dangerous, but not nearly to the same degree. If your S2000 engine blows up (as has happened to me), you coast to a halt and you're fine. It's a PITA, and you get home late on an AA truck, but that's rather different than plummeting from 30,000 feet to certain death.
So it really comes down to whether you believe in statistics. Clearly most people don't, because otherwise nobody would be stupid enough to play the lottery.
Arguably the same is true of aeroplanes, you are probably safest at 30,000 feet as most accidents seem to happen during take off and landing.While you're waiting, read the free novel we sent you. It's a Spanish story about a guy named 'Manual.'Comment
-
Originally posted by doodab View PostArguably the same is true of aeroplanes, you are probably safest at 30,000 feet as most accidents seem to happen during take off and landing.Comment
-
My final year tutor of mechanical was tutored at university by one of the foremost aeronautical engineers in the country in the time, (his name escapes me now) he simply refused to fly as the factor of safety in airplane design is so low. OK that was in the 40s but even today planes still get away with having a far lower factor of safety than most other engineered systems we invest our safety in.
If we had never designed or built a plane but engineering advancement had continued at the same pace and someone came out with the design for the 747 today no country would pass it off as safe. It was basically wartime when safety concerns where thrown out the window where we made out biggest leaps in aeronautics.
Oh and I cannot get on a plane without being medicated due to a severe fear of heights, it's only because the girly can get a supply of cyclizine, lorazepam and valium for me I can get on a plane.Comment
-
Originally posted by doodab View PostCar's are primarily dangerous because of the risk of collision or driver error rather than the risk of mechanical failure, although obviously a tyre blow out can be pretty hairy and it's possible for e.g. gearbox / final drive failure to lock the wheels which can send you spinning out of control.
Arguably the same is true of aeroplanes, you are probably safest at 30,000 feet as most accidents seem to happen during take off and landing.
Whereas in flight and landing, so long as nothing big has fallen off the pilot can usually land it ok...
Wasn't there another crash today in Smolensk, Russia? Polish Pres. killed. Haven't read the whole thread tho!Comment
-
Originally posted by minestrone View PostMy final year tutor of mechanical was tutored at university by one of the foremost aeronautical engineers in the country in the time, (his name escapes me now) he simply refused to fly as the factor of safety in airplane design is so low. OK that was in the 40s
Originally posted by minestrone View Postbut even today planes still get away with having a far lower factor of safety than most other engineered systems we invest our safety in.
Originally posted by minestrone View PostIf we had never designed or built a plane but engineering advancement had continued at the same pace and someone came out with the design for the 747 today no country would pass it off as safe. It was basically wartime when safety concerns where thrown out the window where we made out biggest leaps in aeronautics.
Originally posted by minestrone View PostOh and I cannot get on a plane without being medicated due to a severe fear of heights, it's only because the girly can get a supply of cyclizine, lorazepam and valium for me I can get on a plane.Comment
-
I am 37 and passed my BEng hons in mid 90s so my tutor who was about to retire probably sat his degree in the 50s so his tutor would have been working through the 40s.
Onto factors of safety, you could probably tripple load a normal lift before you would see it fail, now I cannot prove that as they do not publish theoretical limits but in these types of system the ball park FOS is about 2.5 or 3. Now again I cannot provide evidence but in planes genreally have about a 1.5 FOS and I have been told that it can go down to 1.1 in some cases.
When you design a lift bumping up the FOS is not that big a deal, sure it adds on cost and weight but doubling of the lift cable is not a massive expense and the weight will only mean you have to put up the motor size. Now you cannot do that in a plane, the design of a plane component is 90% weight driven and you do have to cut corners.
I still stand by my statement that if we had just decided not to produce a plane and someone drew a plan up today nobody would have anything to do with it in these times of health and safety.Comment
-
I just googled and found a decent article on FOSs from a NASA engineer.
Most famously, the standard factor of safety for the cables in elevators is 11
In the aircraft industry, a factor of safety standard is 1.5. Think about that when you get on a commercial airliner some time. The slim factor of safety represents the importance of weight in aviation. It also means that much more time, engineering analysis, and testing has gone into the determination of maximum load and the properties of the parts on the plane.
For some reason, lost in time, the standard FS for human space flight is 1.4, just slightly less than that for aviation. That extra 0.1 on the FS costs a huge amount of engineering work, but pays dividends in weight savings. This FS is codified in the NASA Human Ratings Requirements for Space Systems, NPR 8705.2. Well, actually, that requirements document only references the detailed engineering design requirements where the 1.4 FS lives.
Expendable launch vehicles are generally built to even lower factors of safety: 1.25 being commonplace and 1.1 also used at times. These lower factors of safety are a recognition of the additional risk that is allowed for cargo but not humans and the extreme importance of light weight
EDIT: forgot to put in the linky
http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/wayneh...459081779.htmlLast edited by minestrone; 10 April 2010, 14:22.Comment
-
Originally posted by gooddayall View PostFlying is safe , it is safe trust me !
Mate , I pity the mentality in society that goes: "Flying is safe ! " . Tell that the families of the 29 crashed planes this year alone !
...
The real killers are the owners of Boeing and the other 1 , 2 monopolists. The ones that tell you flying is safe mate , just look how many people die from this or that. FLYING IS SAFE - the NUMBERS SHOW IT.Originally posted by MaryPoppinsI'd still not breastfeed a naziOriginally posted by vetranUrine is quite nourishingComment
-
If cars were allowed the freedom of space that planes were allowed then the car would be a safer means of transport.Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment