Air Ships and Airplane safety

[morfydd]

Originally Posted by Carlobrand View Post
Not to be picky about it - this is interesting - but where are you getting the million kilometers over 111 years for "air ships"? Is this just dirigibles or all types of lighter-than-air craft?

Also, why are your airline death rates 100 times higher than my sources? All my sources are talking about passenger deaths per hundred million or billion passenger kilometers (or miles for the American sources). NTSB talks about 1 to 2 deaths per hundred thousand flight hours, which unless those planes are flying at 10kph suggests a rate far below your 2 per million entry.

http://www.scienceservingsociety.com... Chapter.pdf

http://www.mackinac.org/5773

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2006/060317.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_safety

There were NO deaths on U.S. commercial airlines in 2010 OR 2011, with over 800 billion passenger miles flown each of those years.

thats all types of Air Ships in commercial and exploration operation
over the past 111 years

90% of the fatalities occured on hydrogen lift gas vessels

deaths are per vehicle kilometer not passenger kilometer (dont have the passenger kilometer data handy as I dont have a total number of passengers handy but I had total kilometers flown and total number of deaths ..)

well yes the USA has the best safety record ..but I was looking at jet travel not just usa jet travel ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft

even if I narrow it down to 1900 to 1930 ..for the air ship time frame I get .
less than 1 death per 1,000,000 vehicle km travelled for airships ..not counting WWI

82 deaths and over 90,000,000km's flown...from 1900 to 1930 this does not count war flights only commercial flights
and all deaths are on hydrogen vessels ...Helium vessels have a much higher safety margin and account for 6 deaths in commercial operation ever ..military is a different story.....

I really do not want to hijack the ops thread ..and I sencerly applogize I just hope he finds a bit of this usefull ..like dont use hydrogen ..its bad ..

 

[aramis]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlobrand View Post
Not to be picky about it - this is interesting - but where are you getting the million kilometers over 111 years for "air ships"? Is this just dirigibles or all types of lighter-than-air craft?

Also, why are your airline death rates 100 times higher than my sources? All my sources are talking about passenger deaths per hundred million or billion passenger kilometers (or miles for the American sources). NTSB talks about 1 to 2 deaths per hundred thousand flight hours, which unless those planes are flying at 10kph suggests a rate far below your 2 per million entry.

http://www.scienceservingsociety.com... Chapter.pdf

http://www.mackinac.org/5773

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2006/060317.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_safety

There were NO deaths on U.S. commercial airlines in 2010 OR 2011, with over 800 billion passenger miles flown each of those years.
thats all types of Air Ships in commercial and exploration operation
over the past 111 years

90% of the fatalities occured on hydrogen lift gas vessels

deaths are per vehicle kilometer not passenger kilometer (dont have the passenger kilometer data handy as I dont have a total number of passengers handy but I had total kilometers flown and total number of deaths ..)

well yes the USA has the best safety record ..but I was looking at jet travel not just usa jet travel ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rcial_aircraft

even if I narrow it down to 1900 to 1930 ..for the air ship time frame I get .
less than 1 death per 1,000,000 vehicle km travelled for airships ..not counting WWI

82 deaths and over 90,000,000km's flown...from 1900 to 1930 this does not count war flights only commercial flights
and all deaths are on hydrogen vessels ...Helium vessels have a much higher safety margin and account for 6 deaths in commercial operation ever ..military is a different story.....

I really do not want to hijack the ops thread ..and I sencerly applogize I just hope he finds a bit of this usefull ..like dont use hydrogen ..its bad ..

Your claim is erroneous... Or based upon a narrow selection criteria. The NTSB keeps widebody jets in a separate class from prop and narrow-body jet commuter lines

Don't forget: commercial air traffic includes non-line charter flights, smaller airlines using 50 seat and smaller aircraft, and commuter and Air-taxi lines... and indeed, there WERE people killed in the US in 2010-11. 15 Occupational fatalities in 6 crashes in Alaska alone in 2010. Amongst these crashes was a famous passenger: Sen. Ted Stevens. He died in a commercial plane crash on a chartered flight.

In fact, 54 crashes since 1 Jan 2000 in Alaka that are classed as occupational fatality crashes. Somewhere around 7.5 crashes per million departures for all aviation in the US.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6025a1.htm

 

[morfydd]

the end quote is missing sorry failed in the thread move ...was trying to quoate from one thread to another

 

[saundby]

Hydrogen's not the only safety problem with airships. Dealing with weather, buoyancy, and docking/landing causes problems. Basically, when you're trying to maintain control while near something (land, docking tower) it's a problem. Fatalities aren't the only metric of merit for different flight technologies, either.

Part of why many airship proposals are for high altitude, long endurance platforms presently is those sort of operations have reduced risks compared to terminal-to-terminal or wildland lift support operations. They fly high, away from severe weather, and don't have to land/dock or be hangared often.

Right now, it looks like a combined buoyancy/aerodynamic lift vehicle may be an improvement over the classic airship for near-earth use.

If I'm covering old ground, excuse me--I wasn't following the old thread, I just came in with what's here.

 

[morfydd]

Hydrogen's not the only safety problem with airships. Dealing with weather, buoyancy, and docking/landing causes problems. Basically, when you're trying to maintain control while near something (land, docking tower) it's a problem. Fatalities aren't the only metric of merit for different flight technologies, either.

Part of why many airship proposals are for high altitude, long endurance platforms presently is those sort of operations have reduced risks compared to terminal-to-terminal or wildland lift support operations. They fly high, away from severe weather, and don't have to land/dock or be hangared often.

Right now, it looks like a combined buoyancy/aerodynamic lift vehicle may be an improvement over the classic airship for near-earth use.

If I'm covering old ground, excuse me--I wasn't following the old thread, I just came in with what's here.

its okay and understood ..We were discussing airships as regards to an Imperial world operating at tech level 4 ..as opposed to other issues..I broke it out of the old thread to avoid hijacking the thread ..yes several issues with old style airshoips ..but aerodynamic/hybrid Airships seem to have fewer issues than the ones made with ox guts, covered in parafin to hold the hydrogen ..(even at tech 4 rayon coated with latex is better than ox guts covered with parafin and much lighter ..they already know how to extract helium so its less of an issue

 

[77topaz]

its okay and understood ..We were discussing airships as regards to an Imperial world operating at tech level 4 ..as opposed to other issues..I broke it out of the old thread to avoid hijacking the thread ..yes several issues with old style airshoips ..but aerodynamic/hybrid Airships seem to have fewer issues than the ones made with ox guts, covered in parafin to hold the hydrogen ..(even at tech 4 rayon coated with lates is better than ox guts covered with parafin and much lighter ..they already know how to extract helium so its less of an issue

Coating something with paraffin seems like one's just asking for a big fire...

 

[saundby]

Have a look at the Marriott Avitor. It's a buoyancy-assisted heavier-than-air aerodynamic craft, very early.

 

[77topaz]

Have a look at the Marriott Avitor. It's a buoyancy-assisted heavier-than-air aerodynamic craft, very early.

Interesting.