im not a fan of flying… in fact, i completely hate the moment i step on the plane, and the door is sealed shut.
however, the one thing that always gets me through is that the possibility of anything happening is extremely remote.
Unfortunately though, things do happen and i think it must be one of the most horrific ways to go.
Just sparing a thought for those that were on the plane, and all the famalies waiting to hear news
+1
+2
my manager is flying with airfrance in about 2 weeks time and is now cacking himself…
Statistically you are more likely to die crossing the road then on an aeroplane. There is no need to be concerned for your safety. It was a tragic incident regardless.
This is exactly what im talking about.
statistically that is true, however, it does happen.
it is very odd however what has happened.
The French and U.S where very quick to rule out terrorism due to messages sent from the aircraft FMC, however they cannot assume anything.
There have been cases before of twin engined aircraft loosing all engine and electrical power, but in this instance the ram air propellar drops underneath, and provides enough power to glide the plane somewhere to safety. The fact that there were three pilots on board, and there was not even a mayday message or anything prooves that whatever happened, happened very, very quickly. at 35000ft, theres approximately 30mins gliding time before it gets down to ground level…
The shock over this terrible accident underlines how safe air travel has become - commercial aviation has an excellent safety record and is a real achievement considering what it takes to put 400 tons packed with fuel up in the sky.
they never cease to amaze me…
the new airbus A380, weighs something like 300 tonnes, and can fly at approx 500mph at 35000ft?
When you consider something like the size of its wing span, designed to fly in such extreme conditions at such speed, and filled to the brim with fuel, seperated by aluminium or composites thats only 3mm thick…
If you think about it too much you probably wouldn’t get in one. . . ;)
my boss was telling me the other day it will be a problem if i dont like flying…i fly back home quite regularly, and ive never been so bad as to not get on the plane, i just dont like it though.i dont like being sealed in a tube, without my feet on the ground, with your life in the hands of someone else.
I don’t like to repeat this old fact on a bike forum - but statiticians will tell you that you are far safer travelling on a plane than you are travelling on a motorbike - by miles. 
I flew back from Florida yesterday and just as we were shooting down the runway to take off the pilot slammed the breaks on throwing us all forward in our seats, then we had to all get off. Breaks had jammed on one of the wheels.
The people I was next to pointed out lighting through one of the windows when we eventually did take off.
Thing is, it’s potentially nothing to do with the airline or Airbus who make the planes, yet their share prices have plummeted.
I know this, but at least im the one in control 
I guess the “short circuit” which the plane automatically reported might have shorted out ALL the circuits in the plane, including the ones the radios are linked to (and this transmission was effectively the electrical system’s final act). The other possibility, to my mind, is that a spark ignited the fuel causing an instantaneous explosion, and that the automated message may have been sent a fraction of a second beforehand. This happened to another Paris-bound flight, TWA 800.
RIP to all on board, and condolences to all the relatives, assuming there are no survivors (but hopefully there are).
I won’t get on an Airbus plane, quite happy with the older Boeing 747 and 737 planes, the Airbus is like having a computer control your bike as you filter down the A1 :w00t: . . . with no manual over ride, at least a 747 has manual mode where a pilot can get his hands dirty.Also with a lightening strike, an A380 is more likely to be stuffed than a traditional manual/electric plane.
True, that airbus are all fly by wire now, the only boeing so far is the 777. however, without hydraulics on something like a 747, your a sitting duck. no way a human being has the strength to man handle one of those things… the a380 has a large carbon and composite make up, the problem with that aircraft is that every flight really is a test bed… they didnt even know if it would fly until the day it took off (like most aircraft though) but when you see videos of it landing, i dont think it looks very stable, its just soo big! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9216364186426086877 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bc1cab7f5c http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNk9o6SX5_8&feature=related
oh, and the nw R6 and R1 is as far as i know, also fly by wire…
737? 727? Hmmmm http://www.airdisaster.com/statistics/
But then you could come up with similar statistics by car or bike makes and come off a lot worse.
It’s still the safest way to travel (and far more so than on the roads). Bring back Concorde, I say!
the 737 is the sky bus though, the most popular, so they are going to have a higher rate of accidents.there was only a small handful of concordes, and theres approx 6000 737’s also, concorde as a craft did not generate allot of lift, and was quite difficult to fly, hence such high speed take of and landings. computers can be a good thing though: the eurofighter, could not physically fly without the help of computers constantly monitoring and altering its control surfaces- its thats unstable. however, it is one of the most agile fighters available
oh I can completely agree, but it is a mind over matter sorta thing. if you just heard an AF flight just went down and you were going to fly with the tomorrow would your chuffer not be twiching just a little.
