Plane Crash Rates: Why does US make the shittiest quality planes

>worser
Go away Ivan

Nice sources faggot

File: Capture.jpg (22KB, 503x364px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 503x364px

>>31181009
Great argument burger.

>>31181011
Here is your source faggot.

https://aviation-safety.net/database/

>>31181065
holy shit wat. Worser is in the dictionary? Thats unacceptable

>>31180994
We don't. We can just afford to fly them more often

>>31181126
Shitty reason. Aircrafts have maintenance and rated hours. I hope your army isnt a complete shit show overusing everything and doing fuck all maintenance.

File: vatnik thread.png (117KB, 1208x782px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1208x782px

Didn't we just have this thread two weeks ago? Do Vatniks ever get tired of getting BTFO or is it all just one big merely pretending tovarisch ))))) game to them?

>>31181160
Yeah right. Facts are wrong. Burgers in denial are the funniest. Worse than vatniks in that regard

>>31181200
This thread has been done ad nauseum, and it never ends well for the vatniks. I'm not going to take the bait any further, maybe someone else will and then you can crawl back in after your threadly ass-ravaging and weakly taunt the burgers for being so easy to bait.

>>31181065
>>31181104

That "Nonstandard" means it is not a real word. It is in the dictionary so plebs can argue about it.

>>31181243
It hasnt been done ad nauseum. You are just copping out like all burgers do when confronted with solid facts.

These are literally numbers. No adjectives or words at all. That says my argument is solid while all you did was name call and act like retard.

>>31181252

Nonstandard means it is valid in most places even though not officially accepted. And by increasing usage only it goes from that position to the dictionary itself

>pinko posting

>>31181272
>>31181252
>>31181104
>>31181065
>>31181009
/k/ - English and Writing

>>31181071
It doesn't have the any of the planes you mentioned are even on here.

File: Engines.png (133KB, 632x376px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 632x376px

shitty bait thread, but I just wanted a reason to post this.

File: 0b4.jpg (100KB, 453x576px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 453x576px

>>31180994

File: 67386649.jpg (101KB, 346x373px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 346x373px

>>31181142
Um, I know this is bait, but I'm bored. Did the stats you posted control for flight hours, training vs. combat, weather conditions, flight time of pilots, and other factors? And for the record I don't think Russian gear is "shit", but if I don't see the original stats w/ details imma call bullshit on this one.

>>31180994
>crash rates
so, percentage of what?

>>31180994
You can't crash planes that don't fly.

>>31181399
OH SNAP

>>31181569
crashed ever over built ever

>>31181513
This is not bait. I just found those numbers.

It doesnt control for anything. It is simply all planes crashed over all planes produced through their lifetime.

If im going to control for all that tiny variables im going to need a 8 axis graph. That would be a fuckin research paper. And why do you need all those anyway for a basic understanding?

For every comparison made here do you account for all that? Also what is normal distribution?

>>31181385

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?AcType=F16

Google for others on the same site

if you want the original stats search plane name followed by aviation safety .net

>>31181663
Breaking news, planes that fly more often are more likely to crash. Who could have lredicted the indidious law of averages?

>>31181663
>It doesnt control for anything
>It doesnt control for anything
>And why do you need all those anyway for a basic understanding?

Are you trying to trigger me, son? You're giving me percentages and then saying that they're not controlled for anything and that that doesn't matter? are you literally fucking retarded? Man, I'm fuckin outta here...this was a waste of time.

>>31181685
Planes have maintenance and service lives attached to them and if operated within their limits shouldnt crash. But hey it crashes like crazy with american planes. I wonder why.

>>31181710

What a ridiculous cop out. If you want parameters like weight of pilot and sexual orientation of the pilot. Fuck off.

Planes are delivered to a country with specified operating range. The expectation on delivery means all the planes delivered function well under the factory quoted range.

I assume all countries with a remotely competent army I hope operate within manufacturer guidelines.

This means if planes are falling out either the US army is run by a bunch of rag tags who flout the guidelines or the design guarantee given the manufacturer is bull shit. The operating conditions they specified are bullshit.

Either way it doesnt reflect right on the US

File: 1471735042730.jpg (11KB, 311x300px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 311x300px

>>31181625

>>31181765
I like how you just blatantly ignore all of the external factors that go into airplane crashes. Considering the crash rates for pre and early jet age planes, the US is doing pretty damn well, especially when the indivdual airfleets of the USAF and USN alone dwarf the size of Russia's.

File: 1472556559101.gif (1MB, 580x433px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 580x433px

>>31180994

The planes have to take off in the first place to crash.

Nice stats when your best pilot has 55 air hours.

>>31181804
Yeah your dick is larger than russias. Im not disputing it. Funny how you are so quick to point that out. Even though we are dealing in mother fuckin percentages.

>I like how you just blatantly ignore all of the external factors that go into airplane crashes.

Are you saying all the crashed are because the USAF operates its plane outside design parameters?

If so why the fuck dont your designers see where they operate and how they operate and then consider it during design.

This only means one thing. The designers live in a insulated theoretical world with no knowledge of what conditions the planes actually operate in the forces.

This clearly reflects my title. the designers are clueless on where the airforce works with their planes. Which is the definition of shitty designing

>>31181827
Bull fuckin shit. Do you mean US airforce operates its planes outside operating conditions specified by manufacturers.? because 55 hours or 100 hours, there is scheduled maintenance to fix the wear and tear. ANd if by flying within the guide lines the planes are still falling, its either shitty maintenance or shitty designing.

File: a.jpg (18KB, 149x298px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 149x298px

damn where can a fellow get one of those? (don't say russia)
I know friend ivan needs his mamushka to dress him and do his chores, but my ole mule is kinda gettin' old.

>>31181849
>>31181869
There are such things as human error and parts failure/improper maintenance or plain old mother nature. Things that some arbitrary "don't fly for x hours" limit is going to prevent or solve. The simple fact is the more a plane flies, the more chances of something going wrong.

It's like comparing a Toyata Hilux that crashed after 1000 miles to a Ford Pinto that never crashed in 10. Statistics without context are misleading at the very least and outright dishonest at the very worst.

>>31181923
Meant to type "ISN'T going to prevent"

>>31181869
>>31181849
>so long as a plane is flown to exact design specifications it can never ever crash
>t. Idiot

>>31181869

Thats not what im saying.

I'm saying that a virtual flight lab is 15% of Russia's total GDP.

File: drunk-cyclistn.jpg (28KB, 370x277px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 370x277px

>>31181765
I'm not going to engage in a discussion about statistics with someone who clearly doesn't understand how to generate, analyze, organize, present, control, and read data, and also can't proved a detailed sources for said statistics. You can call that a "cop out" if that makes you feel better, whatever you gotta do man, but I call it "not wasting my fucking time".

>>31182014
*provide not proved

>Russian crash statistics
>Trustworthy

Pick one

Didn't Russia ground their 200 Su-27s this year because of a crash?

>>31180994
do you guys wear shoes in russia?
i have an extra pair if you need them, just let me know.

>>31181953
IT shoudnt crash twice the rates of what Russia offers. Thats what im saying. Why do you retards always talk in hyperboles.

>>31181923
Human error, improper maintenance means USAF is poorly trained compared to russia.

Mother nature can account for the odd downdrafts or fog or some weird shit. If 15% of planes are facing this "mother nature" its no longer an exception. It comes within the operating regime and designers have to account for them is all im saying.

>It's like comparing a Toyata Hilux that crashed after 1000 miles to a Ford Pinto that never crashed in 10.

Except the hilux comes with a manual that says this can survive 100,000 miles if you do three services in specified intervals. Yet it crashes after doing all the services. So either service was shit or the original claim of 100,000 by the manufacturer was a lie.

Lets even russia out of this for a moment,

Every 10 planes produced has 1.5 planes crashing in the case of the F-16. Why is this even allowed. Is it that the designers dont understand the conditions where the plane is operated?

arent there more american planes by total number than russian planes?

>>31180994
>Fighters that fly more than twice the hours in training crash more often
>Implying the crash rates hurt us as much as they do Russia due to their significantly smaller numbers

>>31182058
Not just that, but our pilots get more than twice the flight hours.

>>31182077
so its just another vatnik/gopnik trolling thread then. cool.

>>31182077
OP is claiming that doesn't matter. Try and wrap your head around that, if you dare.

>>31182014
I provided the link. You lying blatantly doesnt change that.

Ill repeat google "Aviation safety .net XXXX" Replace XXXX with f 15,16.18 or Su/Mig whatever

>I'm not going to engage in a discussion about statistics with someone who clearly doesn't understand how to generate, analyze, organize, present, control, and read data

Ive clearly set my boundary in the above comments. If you cant wrap your head around that Im sorry,

The boundary is assuming that both countries operate and service their aircrafts under manufacturer specified limits, why do american aircrafts crash at twice the rates? Does that mean american designers give false guidelines/incapable of judging real world conditions or the maintenance crews are incompetent to operate it within said guidelines.

Very simple premise.

>>31182093
OP can't even grasp the simple concept of the law of averages.

>>31182028
>American crash statistics
>Trustworthy

Pick one.

Anyway the statistics are compiled by an independent third party.

>>31182119
Oh you so clever!

No seriously, Russia is notorious for fudging the numbers. The United States isn't. Nice try though, commie scum.

>>31182046
idk. but if they did their designer when confronted with a problem stop and rectify it. That maybe results in fewer crashes unlike incompetent american designers

>>31182048

No idea. Not a russian or anywhere remotely near. And i have 3 pairs already. anymore would be a waste.

>>31182104
The simple explanation is that the US flies it's planes more frequently and in more extreme conditions than Russia ever dares try to do. The USAF and USN learned the hard way that 100% safe flying/training doctrine was terrible for actually preparing pilots for combat, so they created Red Flag and Top Gun and aggressively train pilots even in oeacetime. Sure, the tradeoff is a higher accident rate, but they get much better pilots out of it.

And why do think every foreign air force is always begging to get an invite to Red Flag and won't give the Russian air force the time of day?

File: 1471981554667.png (8KB, 288x175px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 288x175px

>>31180994

>>31182058
>>31182061
>>31182077
>>31182089
>>31182093

ALL YOU RETARDED CONSCRIPT BURGERS. DO YOU KNOW WHAT PERCENTAGES MEAN.

Fuck it feels like a middle school class.

Its in mother fuckin percentages. Numbers dont matter. because it has been normalised to 100 units. Whew

And it doesnt matter how long it operates as long it is maintained as per manufacturer guidelines. Is that not what the manufacturer says? REplace this part after 50 hours and you are good to go.

But now if that part fails at 75 hours even though it was replaced at 50 hours, wtf does that mean. Someone is incompetent in the chain.

>>31182170
I feel like you're the "find the serial number on the T-72!" guy with your odd obssession over a singular piece of data.

>>31182170
>ALL YOU RETARDED CONSCRIPT BURGERS. DO YOU KNOW WHAT PERCENTAGES MEAN.
Contextless percentages.

>>31182134
What part of independent third party you dont understand shart in mart?

Go takke a fucking look
http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?AcType=F16

Anyway if you think everythin in the world is a commie conspiracy then fuck off. No argument can be made with you as all you have to do is dismiss it as communist conspiracy.

Funny thing is the country russia never was communist ever

>>31182170
>part fails at 75 hours even though it was replaced at 50 hours
how the fuck did it get back on there ivan? was it just soviet work ethic, or cutting edge vacuum tube tech?

>>31182104

Because you use the word "rate" without justifying your usage of it. Logically the word rate should refer to the number of crashes per flight hour and/or flight mission. Using the word "rate" to describe the number of airframe losses compared to airframes manufactured is nonsensical.

Also, you assume that all military aviation accidents are solely due to mechanical failure, which is a mistake in itself.

>>31182161
You are repeatedly ignoring my argument. My point is when will the designers learn the actual operating conditions?

Countries flock to the red flag to train against the latest equipment not necessarily the most reliable equipment

>>31182183
haha I miss those guys. It was like watching a 10 year old try tell you someone else stole all the cookies while he has cookie crumbs literally falling out of his mouth and you hold up a mirror and show him the cookies fall out of his mouth and he demands proofs. Shit was hilarious, man.

>>31182183
Irrelevant to the question at hand.
>>31182191
I bloody provided the context to literally 10 replies already. Go read them just above.

Or fuck it. HEre it is

>The boundary is assuming that both countries operate and service their aircrafts under manufacturer specified limits, why do american aircrafts crash at twice the rates? Does that mean american designers give false guidelines/incapable of judging real world conditions or the maintenance crews are incompetent to operate it within said guidelines.

>>31182162
Funny you say that. ITs literally the americans here saying insufficient evidence

>>31182204
Oh great. You made an insult, Now you win. Great. Fucking great. middle schoolers maybe an over estimation. Its literally primary school tier

>>31182215
When will designers realize that cars need to be designed so they cannot get into accidents!?!?!

>>31182269
An assumption is not context. What's the actual flight hour to crash ratio?

>>31182209
Rate literally means one variable in relation to another variable. thats all. my variables are crashed to produced.

>Also, you assume that all military aviation accidents are solely due to mechanical failure, which is a mistake in itself.

Agree this leaves 2 more factors. pilot skill and unexpected shit. pilot skill again reflects poorly.
If the unexpected shit is in the order of double digit percentages it no longer is unexpected. It is the operating regime. Reflects poorly on the designers again

File: 00c.png (7KB, 277x271px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 277x271px

>>31182269

>>31182273
When accident rates are over 15% it no longer is an accident. its the operating condition.

>>31182320
So says you. And does your percentage cover the aircraft over its entire lifetime or focused on older/newer variants? 70's era jets crashed all the fucking time.

>>31182299
An assumption absolutely is context. Every proposition to make sense needs data and an assumption when data is not available.

Assumption is basically statements that are most likely to be correct. If my assumption that both countries operate within design limits is not a likely statement sure then i give up.

File: d6f.jpg (82KB, 680x583px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 680x583px

>>31182340

Who would have thought planes will crash more when you fly them for more than 2 hours.

>>31181663
>WikiBase - Add and edit accidents yourself
>wiki
>add and edit
>add and edit accidents
>yourself

Credibility instantly lost

>>31182340
All aircrafts cover their entire lifetime till present obviously.

The Mig 21 is a 50s aircraft Both the Su 27 and 29 are late 70's early 80's aircraft

>>31182359
Pretty sure most eastern bloc and third world countries don't bother publicly disclosing or track their plane crashes.

>>31182358
I dare you to prove me that there is a significant error percentage there and ill delete this thread.
Something like 5 out of every 100 posts is false. Even though that is a tiny error percentage.
Data like these are absolutely useless and the only way to maintain it is through voluntary participation.

>>31182343
Sounds like you never took a statistics class ever. Basing studies off assumptions alone is the laziest and most dishonest way of doing things.

>>31182368
If you are going to say its a communist conspiracy I honestly cant say anything because any of my argument can be dismissed the same way

>>31182384
There's a reason most people don't take wikis as accredited sources. They are easy to abuse, are managed by leople who may not have the necessary special knowledge on the subject, and are incomplete. Put up a REAL study and not this wiki garbage.

>>31182404
Yep, just like how you're just casually dismissing everything you don't like.

>>31182395
My assumption is both countries operate their planes within manufacturer guideleines.

If that sounds crazy to you, let the lord show some mercy on you.

And I did take a statistics course if that is bothering you, _of course now youll point at my incompetence at the said course or how my university was shit) I cant help you with that

>>31182441
I set my boundaries clearly. And anything outside it i dismissed.

Bow you have two options.

Either my boundary and assumptions are batshit crazy or my conclusion is right. Instead you calling out me for enforcing the boundary i set for the argument is retarded.

>>31182452
It's also notable that the F-15 and F-16 had a fundamentally flawed engine (Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-100) when they entered service, that combined with a contract renegotiation that got P&W out of both endurance testing and warranty support, caused serious problems until they could get a proper competitive environment going. The F-15s were upgraded to P&W F100-PW-220, and F-16s either that or the GE F110-GE-100.

>>31182550
Finally. Finally some gives a legitimate reason why it may have happened. Ill take a look

Thank You

>>31182300
>my variables are crashed to produced.

not the guy you were arguing with but i think u also know why you can't use this number to compare US vs RUS plane's as it means nothing in this comparison (hint: u can't crash what you don't fly)

>>31182300

You have given no justification for the use of this metric to compare USSR/Russian aircraft with US aircraft.

There is an inherent risk of an incident per flight hour and takeoff + landing cycle. No shit the RuAF had fewer accidents per airframe than the USAF/USN since in the 90s their pilots flew a tenth the hours that the Americans did, while they couldn't afford to keep the airframes that were manufactured by the USSR operational.

>>31182567
There were other things going on too, the F-16's fly by wire tech was still pretty experimental as well at the time and had some serious glitches that have since been worked out.

And after all of those issues, and the F-22's teething issues in production, that's why the LRIP process was introduced for the F-35.

The difference with Russian fighters is that they're mostly doing major upgrade programs every ten years on the Flanker with current tech. Safe, but not particularly great at advancing the fleet.

>literally using a 15 year old bait image
You made it way too obvious dude

>>31180994
god this picture is retarded holding shit over your head is way fucking worse than carrying it on your shoulders. I f you hold a twig over your head for long enough eventually your arms are going to get tired. It's just the nature of the beast.

File: 1470780293549.png (375KB, 763x960px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 763x960px

>>31182137
>idk.
>but if they did their designer when confronted with a problem stop and rectify it. That maybe results in fewer crashes unlike incompetent american designers
>idk.
you just admitted to not knowing a fucking thing about it then threw in some bullshit to try & spin it into a positive light for Russia, this is how I know your a vatnik.

File: 20160602_171632.jpg (3MB, 4128x2322px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4128x2322px

plot twist get a 7 in post number and you are gone

>>31183827
lol

>>31180994
Fuck you commie.

>>31182053
>IT shoudnt crash twice the rates of what Russia offers.

If you fly your planes ten times as often as the other guy, and crash twice as often as him, that means your planes are five times less crash-tastic.
Don't mind me, just applying some of your "krokodil addled retard" logic.