I'm not sure I agree with you Rumbo. Whilst test flying is, and almost inevitably always will be, considerably more hazardous than operational flying, I don't believe the gulf has widened. All of my experience is that both have over the years improved markedly, usually for the same reasons - good management practice, good education of professionals, better reliability of equipment. So on the whole, I think the difference between the two remains similar to it always has done.
Eurofighter has recently lost it's 5th(?) prototype with no loss of life after a very long test programme. Columbia's loss is tragic, but comes at the end of a long series of (barring one exception) highly successful missions. I was recently reading Sir Geoffrey de Havilland's autobiography and the accounts of losses in routine test flying were far worse than anything we see today. I've been working in test flying amateur built aeroplanes for the last 5 years, and have yet to encounter a test flying fatality - which I'm quite certain would not have been true of an equivalent period in the 1950s, or certainly the 1930s.
So, no I think you are wrong. The gulf is clearly there, and large - but I don't think it has grown, I believe all forms of aviation have become safer over the years. I do hope this trend continues.
Now another question might be what one might do to bring test flying to the same safety level as operational flying. I think it's something we should be constantly trying to do - but equally I think that we must accept that we will never succeed. However, could I ask if you'd like to discuss this further that perhaps you could start another thread for the purpose.
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 8th Feb 2003 at 17:03.