Remove Ads

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Some Ideas
#1
So when there is a plane with a known bad safety record like the DC-9 or the Caravelle I think we should put a warning on the aircraft and an option where they either can pay a really high maintainence cost or they can assume the risk of having a major accident (even the maintainence cost will have a higher chance of an accident than like a 787)
Flying into warzones-a large possibilty of getting shot down. Like if you fly into Mosul or Alleppo you would have a huge risk of getting shot down.
[align=center][Image:
] [/align]
Reply
#2
Excellent ideas.
Reply
#3
(06-03-201512:59 AM)americarocks Wrote: So when there is a plane with a known bad safety record like the DC-9 or the Caravelle I think we should put a warning on the aircraft and an option where they either can pay a really high maintainence cost or they can assume the risk of having a major accident (even the maintainence cost will have a higher chance of an accident than like a 787)
Flying into warzones-a large possibilty of getting shot down. Like if you fly into Mosul or Alleppo you would have a huge risk of getting shot down.

1. Thing is though, [b]when airlines where buying planes it often was not clear that a plane had a bad safety record.[/b] Also sometimes a bad safety record is caused by time alone, the aircraft are not inherently more dangerous but as they get older and parts where out then airlines with poorer maintence plan slight not replace them properly.

2. Why would an extra risk of crash lead to a "relay high maintenance cost". Way I see it airline either pay a little extra for an increased frequency of checks (which would only be enforced after it become clear what the cause of the accident was. A good through years after the planes have crashed, if they do pay this increase then the risk of crashing should be gone. Only if airlines neglect to pay the increased manitence should a higher crash rate ensue.

3. I could not locate any record of a civilian shooting at Mosul (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong with this) showing there certainly is not a "huge" risk of shooting.

4. There are other places at war.

5. There is not always a clear line when a country is at war

6. People might be upset about deaths.

7. People might be upset that they cannot (really) use their country's airports (if they live I'm the area)
[hr]
Also a quick point to: http://aviation-safety.net/database/types/ which has excellent information about this sort of thing.
Reply
#4
1) It would take way to much time for me to add in warzones and stuff....
2) I think faster rate of disrepair would be better than higher prices.
3) I don't think it would be right to add in major accidents; and I think we already established this in older threads - no (major) accidents

| I'm the Lead Core Developer! |


A picture is worth 1000 words. FH is worth 7451 [u]lines[/u]!
Reply
#5
1. Okay
2. Okay
3. Didnt see that but Okay
[align=center][Image:
] [/align]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)