5 ms·

To be fair, flying in MAX was/would still be orders of magnitude safer than pretty much any other transportation method outside flying. (No, I don't think I st

To be fair, flying in MAX was/would still be orders of magnitude safer than pretty much any other transportation method outside flying. (No, I don't think I still want to fly that, either)

vinay427 7y ago
Sure, though many people aren't deciding between flying a 737 MAX and driving or taking a bus. They're often deciding between flying on a specific flight that uses a 737 MAX and flying at a different time and/or on a different airline that doesn't use a 737 MAX.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  Most people are just choosing the cheapest flight that fits their schedule, which is usually 1.
tigershark 7y ago
From my back of the envelope calculations at the time of the second crash they had worse safety than a car. Did you run the actual numbers?
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  I'm confident I'm a safer driver than at least 50% of the people on the roads - if I thought pilots were only as safe as an average driver I'd be worried.
  - gmac 7y ago
    I'm confident I'm a safer driver than at least 50% of the people on the roads So is almost everybody else. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority#Driving_ability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority#Driving_a...
    - finnh 7y ago
      Well, if you're only claiming median skill I don't think that applies.
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      Everybody may think they are "skilled", but any given person can in principle assess their own risk more accurately than assuming they are average. Don't confuse safety with nebulous ideas of skill or ability. You can compare your insurance rate with the average, and you can consider objective factors that are really blatant such as whether you drive drunk, or when falling asleep, or while texting. And of course you can compare the number of accidents and tickets you have to average.
  - ddalex 7y ago
    80% of the drivers rank themselves in the top 20% of skill
  - techslave 7y ago
    even if that were true (statistically it isn’t), unlike with a plane roads aren’t so tightly controlled and other drivers are barely competent. head-ons happen all too frequently and i’m sure one of the victims is ... a safe driver. driving isn’t unsafe because of your own (self-assessed) skill, it’s unsafe because of that other 50%. no matter how safe of a driver you are, you should be worried.
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      skill != safety, because how much of a safety margin you leave generally swamps most of the effect of skill. And your safety margin reduces the effect of other drivers' stupidity. And I hate it when people say "statistically that isn't true". How can a fact about an individual be statistically not true? Is it statistically true that I have 2.4 (or whatever) children, even if I have none?
    - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
      I should write a treatise in every post :o) I'm aware that people over-estimate their skill, I'd have been inclined to say "in the top 20%" otherwise, lol. Whilst my reaction time has slowed slightly, and my focus deteriorated a little with age (IMO), I've been driving cars for 25 years without an at fault collision (taxi driver hit me when I braked hard to avoid killing a dog -- we were sub 30mph otherwise I'd have chosen to hit the dog). Have avoided some accidents for sure. I also hold a full motorbike license, have driven minibuses and car&trailer pairs. I'm aged enough to have calmed down and having ridden motorbikes feel I've much more road awareness than the average driver. Also, I considered head-ons, etc., where the injured party is not at fault - but whilst they increase the risk an experienced and competent drive can avoid some collisions, mitigate the harm of others, and will nonetheless reduce their chances of being in a collision from their side. If 50% of injured parties are the cause, and I can reduce that 50% by 50% then I've still reduced my chance of being injured by 25%. Does anyone think that doesn't put me in the bottom 50% for risk? Still, the point stands that I expect aeroplanes to be better maintained and have more redundant and fail-safe systems than a car; and expect pilots to be better trained and more competent (prevented from driving drugged/drunk/tired more than truck/car drivers, etc.) than the average car driver. So, aeroplanes only having the same per-mile safety as cars is [would be] terrible.
- beefield 7y ago
  I guess I should have been more prudent. Some time ago I recall reading here at HN some crude calculations about this where I got this impression.
morsch 7y ago
Only per mile. Per journey it's the most dangerous transport typically used. Per hour it's about average. This doesn't matter if you have to make a specific trip (the number of miles is fixed), but that's not always the case. Whatever you do, don't walk, that seems to be the most dangerous common mode of transportation (unless motorcycles are common). "Aviation industry insurers base their calculations on the deaths per journey statistic while the aviation industry itself generally uses the deaths per kilometre statistic in press releases." Source: Transport comparisons in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety
- svara 7y ago
  Your point that accidents per journey might be more interesting than accidents per passenger-kilometer is a very good one, however it seems like the data in the table in the Wikipedia article you linked is a bit old ("The following table displays these statistics for the United Kingdom 1990–2000"). If you take a look at the "Fatalities per trillion revenue passenger kilometres" plot in the same article, it looks like flying got a lot safer since 2000 (maybe ~10x?). The conclusion that flying isn't a lot safer than other common modes of transport when you compare by journey is still correct though... (But maybe it is a little bit safer, or similarly safe).
  - HarryHirsch 7y ago
    The other thing is that the statistics for car travel include all journeys by car. You can do a lot to improve your own safety by avoiding the common risk factors: not driving drunk, driving in daytime (that also avoids drunk drivers), not being in an all-teenage vehicle, driving well-rested & so on. If you do that, per journey you'll be safer than in your regular commercial aviation airplane.
- majewsky 7y ago
  > don't walk, that seems to be the most dangerous common mode of transportation Not walking is also a bad idea, though. I don't have numbers at hand, but I can imagine that a sedentary lifestyle gives you way more micromorts than the risk of traffic accidents when walking to work.
rsynnott 7y ago
Sure, but that's not really the choice, usually. You would in most circumstances have a choice between a MAX and an -800 or a320.

To be fair, flying in MAX was/would still be orders of magnitude safer than pretty much any other transportation method outside flying. (No, I don't think I still want to fly that, either)

vinay427 7y ago

Sure, though many people aren't deciding between flying a 737 MAX and driving or taking a bus. They're often deciding between flying on a specific flight that uses a 737 MAX and flying at a different time and/or on a different airline that doesn't use a 737 MAX.

lotsofpulp 7y ago
Most people are just choosing the cheapest flight that fits their schedule, which is usually 1.

tigershark 7y ago

From my back of the envelope calculations at the time of the second crash they had worse safety than a car. Did you run the actual numbers?

pbhjpbhj 7y ago
I'm confident I'm a safer driver than at least 50% of the people on the roads - if I thought pilots were only as safe as an average driver I'd be worried.
- gmac 7y ago
  I'm confident I'm a safer driver than at least 50% of the people on the roads So is almost everybody else. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority#Driving_ability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority#Driving_a...
  - finnh 7y ago
    Well, if you're only claiming median skill I don't think that applies.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    Everybody may think they are "skilled", but any given person can in principle assess their own risk more accurately than assuming they are average. Don't confuse safety with nebulous ideas of skill or ability. You can compare your insurance rate with the average, and you can consider objective factors that are really blatant such as whether you drive drunk, or when falling asleep, or while texting. And of course you can compare the number of accidents and tickets you have to average.
- ddalex 7y ago
  80% of the drivers rank themselves in the top 20% of skill
- techslave 7y ago
  even if that were true (statistically it isn’t), unlike with a plane roads aren’t so tightly controlled and other drivers are barely competent. head-ons happen all too frequently and i’m sure one of the victims is ... a safe driver. driving isn’t unsafe because of your own (self-assessed) skill, it’s unsafe because of that other 50%. no matter how safe of a driver you are, you should be worried.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    skill != safety, because how much of a safety margin you leave generally swamps most of the effect of skill. And your safety margin reduces the effect of other drivers' stupidity. And I hate it when people say "statistically that isn't true". How can a fact about an individual be statistically not true? Is it statistically true that I have 2.4 (or whatever) children, even if I have none?
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    I should write a treatise in every post :o) I'm aware that people over-estimate their skill, I'd have been inclined to say "in the top 20%" otherwise, lol. Whilst my reaction time has slowed slightly, and my focus deteriorated a little with age (IMO), I've been driving cars for 25 years without an at fault collision (taxi driver hit me when I braked hard to avoid killing a dog -- we were sub 30mph otherwise I'd have chosen to hit the dog). Have avoided some accidents for sure. I also hold a full motorbike license, have driven minibuses and car&trailer pairs. I'm aged enough to have calmed down and having ridden motorbikes feel I've much more road awareness than the average driver. Also, I considered head-ons, etc., where the injured party is not at fault - but whilst they increase the risk an experienced and competent drive can avoid some collisions, mitigate the harm of others, and will nonetheless reduce their chances of being in a collision from their side. If 50% of injured parties are the cause, and I can reduce that 50% by 50% then I've still reduced my chance of being injured by 25%. Does anyone think that doesn't put me in the bottom 50% for risk? Still, the point stands that I expect aeroplanes to be better maintained and have more redundant and fail-safe systems than a car; and expect pilots to be better trained and more competent (prevented from driving drugged/drunk/tired more than truck/car drivers, etc.) than the average car driver. So, aeroplanes only having the same per-mile safety as cars is [would be] terrible.
beefield 7y ago
I guess I should have been more prudent. Some time ago I recall reading here at HN some crude calculations about this where I got this impression.

morsch 7y ago

Only per mile. Per journey it's the most dangerous transport typically used. Per hour it's about average. This doesn't matter if you have to make a specific trip (the number of miles is fixed), but that's not always the case. Whatever you do, don't walk, that seems to be the most dangerous common mode of transportation (unless motorcycles are common). "Aviation industry insurers base their calculations on the deaths per journey statistic while the aviation industry itself generally uses the deaths per kilometre statistic in press releases." Source: Transport comparisons in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety

svara 7y ago
Your point that accidents per journey might be more interesting than accidents per passenger-kilometer is a very good one, however it seems like the data in the table in the Wikipedia article you linked is a bit old ("The following table displays these statistics for the United Kingdom 1990–2000"). If you take a look at the "Fatalities per trillion revenue passenger kilometres" plot in the same article, it looks like flying got a lot safer since 2000 (maybe ~10x?). The conclusion that flying isn't a lot safer than other common modes of transport when you compare by journey is still correct though... (But maybe it is a little bit safer, or similarly safe).
- HarryHirsch 7y ago
  The other thing is that the statistics for car travel include all journeys by car. You can do a lot to improve your own safety by avoiding the common risk factors: not driving drunk, driving in daytime (that also avoids drunk drivers), not being in an all-teenage vehicle, driving well-rested & so on. If you do that, per journey you'll be safer than in your regular commercial aviation airplane.
majewsky 7y ago
> don't walk, that seems to be the most dangerous common mode of transportation Not walking is also a bad idea, though. I don't have numbers at hand, but I can imagine that a sedentary lifestyle gives you way more micromorts than the risk of traffic accidents when walking to work.

rsynnott 7y ago

Sure, but that's not really the choice, usually. You would in most circumstances have a choice between a MAX and an -800 or a320.