The biggest reason commercial air travel terrifies me

[sanmigmike]

Actually V1 is the point you keep going unless you have strong feelings that the beast isn't going to go flying, like the wing falling off... At VR in big aircraft you are pretty much committed (we were supposed to consider ourselves "totally committed" to going flying at V1 in the older days but along with many other guys I felt and said that if we were sure that the problem was such that it would be impossible to go flying at that time maybe we should stay on the ground and have a controlled crash rather than have an uncontrolled crash at probably some much great speed some unknown distance away from the airport. (Also another point was being at some place like KLAX with a Bandit or a Brasilia or some other smaller aircraft that at VR we still had a mile and a half or more to get stopped.) Some companies got that point) but unless you are very sure that it isn't going to fly, the risks of an abort after V1 are great since you probably don't have the runway left to stop and you are going to go off the end at some unknown speed but that still might be better than trying to fly an airplane that isn't going to fly! However high speed aborts even before V1 have their own risks and they certainly are there. We had as part of our take off briefing the basic items we would abort for at low speeds and as we got faster the reason for aborts got fewer since the risks increased. The airport (runway length, elevation and surrounding terrain as well as airport and departure area weather all entered into it). Aborting at 60 knots is almost a non-event compared to aborting right before V1 at a runway limited airport. However a cowling problem like that shouldn't kill you but I think a Galaxy Electra (carrying pax) crashed due to the airstart door not being secured after start, it came open in flight (KRNO). They had no real reason to crash but they did. One person survived. Going back to the basic...Fly the airplane!

I used to haul trash in and out of SKBO. V1 was a long time before VR and all too often VR was less than 500 feet from the end of the runway. We (along with all the other trash haulers going out of there) had an emergency turn procedure that was a bit complex...so having an engine quit at night really increased the tension and work load. Originally we had a 1500 foot clearance plane after the FAA take off data stuff but some company got the bright idea of a 400 agl clearance plane so we were talked into 800 feet to let us carry a bit more to compete with them. At night that place usually had some weather near by, you always landed one way and took off the opposite way and the weights from some customers were a bit bogus. V1 was pretty early in the take off and VR was at the end of the runway. I'd tell the FE that if we had a serious problem after V1 I wanted to hear "Dumping fuel" rather than being asked...should I dump?! At night SKBO was interesting but it was almost boring in the daytime, in good weather a VFR departure would have been easy if you lost one. BUT in five years of seeing that place all too often I think I had one day landing and two day take offs. We were always performance weight limited out of there and always full power takeoffs. It, among other places we went, was challenging and "fun".

To be honest my wife and I worried more about me getting to and from the airports than crashing in an aircraft and I had about 19,000 hours of airline time when I had medical issues (back problems) and had to stop flying. A flying friend was the FO on the Galaxy flight and I have had a few other friends die in GA crashes but the last company I worked for lost two guys in less than two years in skiing accidents...fatal, not just damage enough to cause medical problems.

Edited October 24, 2015 by sanmigmike

[Horrido]

What, no "check engine" light?

[Joel_W]

I recall a JAL flight out of Toyko that was delayed for 2 hrs "due to technical difficulties". Hummm.....the plane was at the gate.....the passengers were at the gate......so why the delay? So I wandered around and noticed the big engine cowlings were all open on one engine and a team of mechanics were frantically working on it. I was confident they knew what they were doing......but I couldn't help think....if this was a worse airline....I would be quite nervous to get on the plane.

Had a similar experience several years ago on a Southwest flight. The plane was at the gate and we were ready to board, then told that there was a slight delay. You could see mechanics working on one engine for almost an hour. Finally we boarded, and took off. No issues other then the nose and being cramped in a packed flight in coach.

Joel

[sanmigmike]

Airplanes break. Pretty complex devices. They used to tell us in ground school that jet engines were pretty simple engines...yeah, the basic concept is pretty simple (some pretty cool metallurgy to get some of the innards of a turbine engine to last being subjected to some interesting temperatures and pressures tho) but when you start adding various drives and constant speed units, bleed ports, bleed valves, making it into a two or three shaft engine. variable vanes of various sorts, maybe add a reverser or make it into a turbo prop and then the fuel control units and so on...well, they didn't seem quite so simple to us as we tried to stay awake in ground school. Then the rest of the systems, fuel, electrical (at least 24 volt DC with two different AC...different in both volts and frequencies, Load Shedding buses, Essential Services, Remote Circuit Breakers, Hot Battery Bus, Battery Bus, Ground Services Bus and on and on and {sounds of snoring in the last row in ground school}), , hydraulics, air conditioning and pressurization (pneumatics like to start the engines may or may not be covered there), flight controls, anti-ice and de-ice, landing gear with anti skid and on and on...

Then we get into the paperwork. Keep in mind you can't push back until the weight of the paperwork is equal to or greater than the weight of the airplane. So the flight crew finds something wrong on the pre-flight or when they try to push and start or even worse after they actually start to taxi (some airports it is a nightmare trying to get back to the gate or parking spot if you have a problem (bad luck, weather problems, busy time at a major airport it might take an hour or more to get back to the gate...if they have a gate open...) they are either going to start writing in the log (and once that is done it has to be signed off by someone that can sign off the problem) but if it seems to be a complex problem you might call Dispatch or Maintenance Control (different names at different companies) and discuss the problem or problems (you also might not be doing something right and the problem is a switch or something in the wrong place and you want to be sure that you are actually making a good write up (you really look like and feel like an idiot when you write up something and you really just screwed up).

MX control is going to want some sort of idea of the nature of your problem so they can start getting people out to the aircraft and check on parts and any special experts they might need as well as check and see if it can be deferred and what has to be done if it is deferred (like on a DC-10 you can defer a thrust reverser for example but that takes the placards in various spots, pins (with a placard) that are actually stuck on the engine but visible on the cowling without opening anything and the pin will make it impossible for the reverser to even "unlock" much less start to move. (An unlocked reverser on a 10 was a big deal, so big that it was one of the very few things (if not the only thing) that you would address and work on after V1 but before the altitude (AGL) that you would normally start working checklists...how serious is that...engine fires...the only thing you do before that altitude is Cancel The Bell...don't screw around with anything else until the right time but a reverser unlocked the time is NOW!. Of course something on the Thrust Reverser Lever helps remind the flight crew. Now the performance hit you take for a reverser inop in the 10 was zero since almost all thrust or prop reversers cannot be checked in flight so they are not used in the performance data. But does a smart company want to send an airplane with a deferred reverser to a short runway, an wet or icy or snow covered runway, high crosswinds... They look at such things as if there are any limits as to hours of flight before being repaired, or days or number of flights, where are the parts and mechanics to fix it and on and on. What other limits might you get with deferred equipment, icing, rain, wet runways, weight limits, altitude or temperature limits, performance limits and on and on and it gets tricky when you have more than one item deferred, you can get into a situation that each separate deferral is not a big deal but the aircraft is grounded if both are deferred. You could wind up with a Day VFR 747...I am sure you can make a lot of money with a 747 with those limits.

Then you get into problems that are serious but flyable like some gear problems. Most time you can do a Maintenance Ferry but the paperwork has to be right (critical verbiage on them) make sure the limits are covered, Day VFR usually and no passengers, sometimes flight crew only other times not so restrictive so you can carry a mechanic or bring the FA's with you and since you can't get rid of the gear down drag on take off your performance takes a hit. (Used to be you could fly a Shorts 360 with the gear pinned down and could carry passengers with few limits...dunno if it has changed.) If you do a MX Ferry flight with the gear down make sure the tower knows and has passed the word on to Departure and Center {your speeds are going to be kinda slow and they will probably forget that} and even if you announce on Tower Frequency that it is a MX Ferry with the gear down everybody and their cousin (maybe even their cat if it is a smart one and can key the mike) is going to tell you that your gear is down...

So while I don't like being late or getting home or to work late I'd rather those guys standing around that opened up engine cowling scratching their heads take their time and do their work right...including the paperwork. While a cowling coming open in flight is a problem it should not be a fatal problem and would actually be less of a problem than most automobile hoods coming open (my primary car, the hood (bonnet) is hinged at the front so it really isn't a big deal if it ever did open and in my past I had a Fiat 850 Spider and that was even less of a big deal coming open even at a "high speed" in quotes since I'd have to be well down falling over a cliff to get a Fiat 850 going "fast") but while a rear hinged hood coming open at high speed could be a very serious problem (more of a problem in some ways that the usual cowling coming open problem) it isn't your engine blowing up or having parts fall off just like a cowling coming open or off isn't the engine coming apart or "blowing up" or what ever term of terror that turns you on. Of course you can use what ever terms work for you ("you know, that thingie thing that is like hanging off that thing that sticks out that that tube we sit in...oh, you know that thing like an old ironing board...a what cha ma call it...and that noisey round thinga under that just started exploding parts all over the place....smoke, flames, I was sure I was gonna die...for real! It was just like being in a war. I was sure some terror thingy was happening!") but like almost any topic...if you don't use the language of the people into that topic, cars, aircraft, motorcycles, knitting, or name your interest you self identify as an outsider, at best a newby at worse truly ignorant. When I was flying we had a term for people that were astonishingly ignorant of flying in general and of airline aviation in particular...we called them "passengers" in polite company. Of course even people working in grocery stores have their terms of contempt for some of the public they deal with...they call them "customers". The people that rode on my airplanes that I liked got drinks comped and in a grocery store the shoppers they like get more than a bit of extra help. I'd rather be one of the people they like rather than one they snicker about and tell stories about in the break room. And of course people that know about flying wonder why airlines don't always tell the whole truth or pretty much don't tell them much at all...there is that element that can't seem to understand anything and panic for no reason. When I was flying passengers I'd tell the knowledgeable ones privately what the heck the problem was and what was really going on. The rest got a certain level of BS since that "handling the truth" problem some people have.

The advantage to working for a union company is that if you have to write up an airplane (and you will...airplanes break, it is just part of the job) the union can and will support you if the company doesn't like your write-up. I've had few problems with any mechanical write-ups I've done but I have known guys that did get keel hauled for good write-ups (I've seen a few bad write-ups, some were not understanding the system or a screw up on switch positions or something being out of place due to some maintenance procedure) but most pilots and mechanics are really trying to do good work). Yeah, I've got some stories about problems from write-ups and problems from how the company wanted to handle it but most the time things worked the way they are supposed to and I've dealt with no mechanics that were trying to do anything less that a good, safe job.

Edited October 22, 2015 by sanmigmike

[ALF18]

Well said, sanmigmike. I recall flying "service air" (Canadian military air transports, usually in old Boeing 707s) as a passenger multiple times in the 70s and 80s. We would often see the (affectionately-named) great white cow sitting in front of the hangar as we waited in the uncomfortable departure lounge, with panels open and techs doing things to the jet. Sometimes wheels would be replaced right in front of us. With a large percentage of the passengers being connected in some way to the folks doing the maintenance work, we would hear an obtuse announcement about a 1-hour delay which often turned into multiple 1-hour delays and finally an overnight 24-hour rescheduling of the only jet available to do the flight to Europe.

After a few minutes, the word would circulate from the techs to the passengers that it was (pick one)

-hot brakes on the last landing, so they had to change the wheels

-a chronic hydraulic leak in an actuator that they didn't have at supply, and had to wait until another 707 landed 4 hours later so they could rob its actuator

-a panel that kept coming off because the dzus fasteners were shot and needed replacement

or any number of problems.

I had absolute confidence in our techs, though, because I knew they truly cared about their comrades-in-arms that were boarding the aircraft to go from Trenton, Ontario, to Lahr, Germany that night. Many senior techs would ensure the young ones did the jobs correctly, including the paperwork and tool control actions, even if it meant delaying the flight an extra hour. Even though the Canadian Air Force operated many of their types for several years longer than anyone would ever anticipate it should, they rarely ever had a problem in-flight.

When I flew with some of the charter companies that were contracted by the military for some deployments, I was less comfortable. I did not have the same confidence in their desire to do things absolutely right, for the good of fellow military members.

Bottom line? I am very choosy about which airlines I will fly with as a passenger. I will gladly pay a bit extra for my tickets if it means choosing an airline that I know has high standards and will do the right things to ensure passenger safety.

ALF

[Scooby]

Well said, sanmigmike. I recall flying "service air" (Canadian military air transports, usually in old Boeing 707s) as a passenger multiple times in the 70s and 80s. We would often see the (affectionately-named) great white cow sitting in front of the hangar as we waited in the uncomfortable departure lounge, with panels open and techs doing things to the jet. Sometimes wheels would be replaced right in front of us. With a large percentage of the passengers being connected in some way to the folks doing the maintenance work, we would hear an obtuse announcement about a 1-hour delay which often turned into multiple 1-hour delays and finally an overnight 24-hour rescheduling of the only jet available to do the flight to Europe.

After a few minutes, the word would circulate from the techs to the passengers that it was (pick one)

-hot brakes on the last landing, so they had to change the wheels

-a chronic hydraulic leak in an actuator that they didn't have at supply, and had to wait until another 707 landed 4 hours later so they could rob its actuator

-a panel that kept coming off because the dzus fasteners were shot and needed replacement

or any number of problems.

I had absolute confidence in our techs, though, because I knew they truly cared about their comrades-in-arms that were boarding the aircraft to go from Trenton, Ontario, to Lahr, Germany that night. Many senior techs would ensure the young ones did the jobs correctly, including the paperwork and tool control actions, even if it meant delaying the flight an extra hour. Even though the Canadian Air Force operated many of their types for several years longer than anyone would ever anticipate it should, they rarely ever had a problem in-flight.

When I flew with some of the charter companies that were contracted by the military for some deployments, I was less comfortable. I did not have the same confidence in their desire to do things absolutely right, for the good of fellow military members.

Bottom line? I am very choosy about which airlines I will fly with as a passenger. I will gladly pay a bit extra for my tickets if it means choosing an airline that I know has high standards and will do the right things to ensure passenger safety.

ALF

I'm with you 100% Alf.

Nationair was scary during the Gulf War. I serviced them in Lahr. I had white knuckles flying home with them.

[vince14]

Bottom line? I am very choosy about which airlines I will fly with as a passenger. I will gladly pay a bit extra for my tickets if it means choosing an airline that I know has high standards and will do the right things to ensure passenger safety.

Unless you're flying around Africa or parts of Asia, then there's really very little difference in airline safety standards.

[mlicari]

Unless you're flying around Africa or parts of Asia, then there's really very little difference in airline safety standards.

Indeed, although the two scary moments, for me anyway, were domestic flights. On one, one of the thrust reversers deployed itself while we were taxiing. And the pilot actually mentioned that when he explained why we were being towed back to the gate. :blink:/>

The other was on a flight into Milwaukee when we lost cabin pressure. It's the only time I've had to use the oxygen mask that drops down from above the seats. And when the flight attendant tells you that you should breathe normally...do so, since if you hyperventilate little to no oxygen flows!

Yet I've flown hundreds of times since those events, knowing that the drive to the airport is by far the most dangerous part of the trip.

Mike

Edited November 25, 2015 by mlicari

[jpk]

Well I flew home to JFK from Frankfurt Germany on the exact same Pan Am flight one year to the day after the Lockerbie flight. The plane was delayed 3-4 hours leaving Frankfurt because they went through the plane with a fine toothed comb. While waiting we were given schnitzels and beer for free. At the time I don't recall if we were aware of the reason for the delay.

[sanmigmike]

Indeed, although the two scary moments, for me anyway, were domestic flights. On one, one of the thrust reversers deployed itself while we were taxiing. And the pilot actually mentioned that when he explained why we were being towed back to the gate. :blink:/>/>

The other was on a flight into Milwaukee when we lost cabin pressure. It's the only time I've had to use the oxygen mask that drops down from above the seats. And when the flight attendant tells you that you should breathe normally...do so, since if you hyperventilate little to no oxygen flows!

Yet I've flown hundreds of times since those events, knowing that the drive to the airport is by far the most dangerous part of the trip.

Mike

Thrust Reverser problem...big no-no on some aircraft. A DC-10 with suspected reverser problem means pining that reverser locked closed. A Reverser Unlocked (or worse yet actually moving) right after take off was the only think we had to immediately start to work on...okay, a fire you could cancel the bell but nothing else but a reverser that meant work right away! While it got your attention I'd rather have all my reverser problems on the ground while at taxi speeds...thank you very much!

Once was at KLGA going to jumpseat on Eastern and saw a reverser try to stow with some jack screws turning and some not and the reverser not moving...a self destruction thing...kinda interesting. Bits left on the taxi way.

[11bee]

Thrust Reverser problem...big no-no on some aircraft. A DC-10 with suspected reverser problem means pining that reverser locked closed. A Reverser Unlocked (or worse yet actually moving) right after take off was the only think we had to immediately start to work on...okay, a fire you could cancel the bell but nothing else but a reverser that meant work right away! While it got your attention I'd rather have all my reverser problems on the ground while at taxi speeds...thank you very much!

Once was at KLGA going to jumpseat on Eastern and saw a reverser try to stow with some jack screws turning and some not and the reverser not moving...a self destruction thing...kinda interesting. Bits left on the taxi way.

I believe an in-flight deployed thrust reverser brought down a 767 a few decades ago. Big problem.

Getting back to the original post, here is another situation that would "terrify" me. Qatar A350 on it'a inaugural flight out of JFK with a bunch of VIP's. Airplane had some sort of computer glitch and decided to automatically abort takeoff. Video is pretty interesting. Airbus refuses to comment.

http://www.cnet.com/news/qatar-airways-a350-in-scary-aborted-takeoff-on-inaugural-us-flight/

Those poor people in business class, can you imagine the hell they went though? One guy actually had to look up from his phone for a few seconds.

On another Qatar note - one of their 777's took off from the wrong runway intersection and went off the end before striking approach lights while becoming airborne. A problem? No way, it's all normal.

Akbar Al Baker, the chief executive of Qatar Airways, which is doubling its flights to and from Australia next year, has claimed runway overrun incidents like one that damaged one of his airline's Boeing 777s upon take-off from Miami in September "happen quite often".

A preliminary report into the Miami incident by the Qatar Civil Aviation Authority this week found the runway overrun left a 46 centimetre tear in the aircraft's fuselage, which breached the pressure vessel as well as numerous dents and scratches in the airframe with 18 square metres of damaged skin.

The report found the aircraft, with four pilots in the cockpit, had mistakenly taken off using only part of the runway as they entered via a taxiway due to a misreading of information on a tablet computer. Around 1000 metres of the runway was behind them, and the recorded data from the aircraft showed they overran the runway by nearly 300 metres upon take-off but flew on to Doha, apparently oblivious to the damage.

But Mr Al Baker, rather than taking responsibility for the incident and committing to fixing the airline's procedures, on Wednesday told reporters it was the fault of air traffic control rather than the pilots - in direct contradiction of the report.

According to Flightglobal, he also said: "Such kind of incidents happen quite often, either it is a tail strike on the runway or it is contact with the landing lights."

http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation/runway-overruns-happen-quite-often-qatar-airways-ceo-akbar-al-baker-20151210-glkzi6.html

Crazy stuff....

[Jennings]

Unless you're flying around Africa or parts of Asia, then there's really very little difference in airline safety standards.

You just keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. Do you know how many inspectors the FAA has in the field? There are US airlines I won't fly because I know too many people in the business (one of them rhymes with "bahleviant").

[dylan]

Unless you're flying around Africa or parts of Asia, then there's really very little difference in airline safety standards.

standards are one thing, airline Culture is another. I have worked for a company that asked me to sign out an inspection right away then I could do it tomorrow when the plane came back. just so it could make the sched time. I said no!! I got the hell out of there less than a week later.

I am now in the great position where my word is final. If I say the plane is broken, its grounded. and I get to do the elementary maintenance training for all of our pilots. I get to know them and they get to know me. I tell them in no uncertain terms that if they dont like something on the plane then ground it.

not everyone has that, there are many places that will hound pilots to just fly it and get it fixed later.

the really disturbing trend that I am seeing in aviation is the lack of real training for the pilots coming up from the schools. there have been several crashes in the past few years directly attributed to the person at the controls not knowing that the plane was in a stall. the skills are being taught, but when someone goes from a flight school with 200 hours to flying right seat in an A320, those skills are not honed to the level they should be. pilots like Sully are not the pilot of the future.

[jester292]

Sully is hardly the pilot to hold the bar against as a standard. If you're in the industry you know why.

[dylan]

Sully is hardly the pilot to hold the bar against as a standard. If you're in the industry you know why.

enlighten me on sully. I would rather have 10 Sully's than one of those clowns that crashed the 777 in SFO a few years back.

Edited December 15, 2015 by dylan

[jester292]

Well, culture played a lot into that SFO crash. If you knew the differences between Sully the pilot and Sully the "hero", you (like the majority of the rest of us) would recognize his personality disorder. Good pilot? Probably. Best in the industry to hold every other pilot up to? Hardly. I am not saying he was a bad pilot; but he's not our favorite (or an accurate) ambassador.

[dylan]

ahh I see. for the record I dont see the guy as a hero (well as much as the media portrayed him to be anyway) but as a skilled pilot that saved the plane (and his keester) when the fit really hit the shan.

the point I was trying to make is that at least a guy like that has a background in flying going back to gliders. his stick flying skills were honed many years ago so that when him and a plane full of passengers needed them his instincts made the best of a really bad situation.

now look at the air france crash off the coast of Brasil a few years back, the PF was pulling back on the stick trying to get the plane to go up. even though it was in a stall. Basic Basic stuff that is not getting taught.

[Janissary]

Well, culture played a lot into that SFO crash. If you knew the differences between Sully the pilot and Sully the "hero", you (like the majority of the rest of us) would recognize his personality disorder. Good pilot? Probably. Best in the industry to hold every other pilot up to? Hardly. I am not saying he was a bad pilot; but he's not our favorite (or an accurate) ambassador.

So what's the story with Sully?

[jester292]

ahh I see. for the record I dont see the guy as a hero (well as much as the media portrayed him to be anyway) but as a skilled pilot that saved the plane (and his keester) when the fit really hit the shan.

the point I was trying to make is that at least a guy like that has a background in flying going back to gliders. his stick flying skills were honed many years ago so that when him and a plane full of passengers needed them his instincts made the best of a really bad situation.

now look at the air france crash off the coast of Brasil a few years back, the PF was pulling back on the stick trying to get the plane to go up. even though it was in a stall. Basic Basic stuff that is not getting taught.

Ok, Air France stall: I don't fly the Airbus, but we studied that in recurrent and learned that a specific model of pitot tube was the culprit, and Airbus no longer manufacturs with that model/ brand. Also, there may have been software involved that overrides the pilots input in certain profiles or scenarios. Again, I don't fly the Airbus, but stalls and stall recovery are taught to everyone. There was a short training history with those pilots, and it's my understanding that they were relatively new at Air France or new to the A330. Regardless, not everyone responds the correct way in a high altitude stall. Prior to that event, we weren't trained at stalls above 15,000ft. Now we are trained on stall recovery above FL350. It's very, very different. Someone with Airbus time may be able to expand on that.

Now Sully: Yes he had a history and learned the importance of basic skills while flying gliders; the guy did an amazing thing. But let's just think outside the box. If the wind were stronger, if the departure runway were different, if the waves were higher, etc etc. There are so many factors that went right for him that to think he's the sole reason things ended they way they did is a bit short sighted. His skill was a good thing to have. I think many, many airline pilots are as skilled as he is. But I think that he got a bit lucky. His attitude after the event has really been anything but modest.

Edited December 15, 2015 by jester292

[falcon20driver]

I would like to say that some of us younger guys still know how to fly. Personally I was raised in a tail wheel aircraft from a young age, and continue to fly aerobatics as the finances allow to remain proficient in stick and rudder skills. Please don't lump us all in the same boat. Remember, if we do our jobs to perfection for our entire career you'll never know who we are nor hear about us. Every profession has its good and bad.

[dylan]

I hope I didnt come across as saying all the young guys out there are lacking in skills. that was not my intent.

I talk to the pilots about this type of thing all the time because most of our newer pilots recently came from instructing jobs at FTU's here in B.C. they have some real horror stories of foriegn students barely able to pass, then going on to sit right seat in an A320. these are the guys that scare me.

most of the pilots I work with and are friends with have to have some decent hand flying skills, because the 1900 doesnt have an autopilot.

[jester292]

I used to captain a 1900. Some had autopilot, some didn't. I also had FOs from Korea. Some were very, very sharp. Some not so much.

[vince14]

You just keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. Do you know how many inspectors the FAA has in the field? There are US airlines I won't fly because I know too many people in the business (one of them rhymes with "bahleviant").

No, I don't know how many inspectors the FAA has in the field (and I'm pretty sure you don't, either) but I'll wager that there are more FAA inspectors in Montana than there are safety inspectors in the whole of southern Africa. You can compare one US airline to another and say 'Ooooh, they're dangerous' all you like, but go and fly with a typical operator in Angola or the DRC, and I guarantee you'll be happy as Larry flying on that 'Dangerous' US airline when you're back home.

[TaiidanTomcat]

You just keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. Do you know how many inspectors the FAA has in the field? There are US airlines I won't fly because I know too many people in the business (one of them rhymes with "bahleviant").

What is an acceptable level of FAA field inspectors and what are they looking for/preventing?