flightsim - Spagiola is correct. The China crash is 99% certain to be a failure to extend the flaps for takeoff. Not only was there no investigation, but the Chinese would not allow examination of the allegedly failed part. Highly smelly. As also stated, the Morocco accident looks like CFIT, and there was another fatality when a pilot committed suicide by diving a 146 into the ground.
The door problem must be fixed then, as I haven't heard of this happening in the time I have been flying it.
>> but fumes are incidents that could lead to acidents & the above numbers show every 131 flights in a 12 fleet airline is a little too often. Safety & the regulations do rely on more than just fatal accidents- but obviously not in your book.<<
Most of the reason for the high reported incidence of cabin fumes is that 146 crews are being asked to report even the slightest instance of cabin fumes. Much of the time the cause isn't leaky engine seals, but any number of other causes, for example oven fumes, in some cases fumes from toilet fluid, de-icing fluid getting into the APU, etc.
Safety and regulation comes from many sources. Mostly it is about the analysis of risk. I'd be curious to know why you think that the 146, that has never killed anyone, should be singled out while the 737 (which has killed hundreds due to mechanical failure) should be exempt from such scrutiny. That is a serious double standard that has far more implications for safety.
BAe were exactly right in what they told the Aussies- you can't legislate effectively for "possible" risks to flight safety, if you take that approach, you'd have to ground all aircraft everywhere and never fly again.
[edited for shoddy grammar]
[This message has been edited by Raw Data (edited 28 April 2001).]