6 ms·
People are seriously concerned with aircraft near misses when we let cars kill 45,000 Americans a year. Absurdity.
by oatmeal1 3y ago
People are seriously concerned with aircraft near misses when we let cars kill 45,000 Americans a year. Absurdity.
- syndicatedjelly 3y agoIt’s possible to be concerned about two things?
- oatmeal1 3y agoAbsolutely, but one is a trifling concern compared to the other. Yet the trifling concern gets the media attention.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- tqi 3y agoWhat is your point, that newspapers should lay out A1 with "concerns" ordered whatever arbitrary metric you personally have decided is the "right" measure of importance?
- jamilton 3y agoNewspapers already are applying their own metrics for what's fit to print, seems reasonable to prefer one's own metric (if not reasonable to expect that to happen without action).
- syndicatedjelly 3y agoAlright, the media sucks. It’s amazing that people fixate so much on this obvious point, rather than be more concerned with rising ATC incidents or car accidents
- vore 3y agoWould you like people to not be concerned with aircraft accidents?
- kevinmchugh 3y agoCertainly the concern is why air travel is so safe.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- rdtsc 3y agoOnly if the people who are concerned could be channeling their concern into solving the problem. Here, I am guessing, not many people can actually solve the problem, so we can safely be very concerned about both things simultaneously! It would be different if it were the same exact group of people and the same budget who are in charge of plane safety, as those in charge of the car safety. We can then scold them for wasting time on planes and told them to shift focus to cars instead.
- 1letterunixname 3y agoStop making sense! It would be useful if the readily mechanizable aspects of ATC-piloting and driving were done by machine but with human-in-the-loop. The fixations with completely human, manual processes and the leap to full automation are both too risky. There is plenty of middle-ground to derisk and remove points where human-error is mostly likely to occur. TCAS has been an excellent aid. Perhaps an automotive "TCAS" would also be useful.
- toast0 3y ago> Perhaps an automotive "TCAS" would also be useful. Forward Collision Warning systems and automatic emergency braking are becoming common in new cars. The problem and solution spaces are pretty different, so I don't think applying TCAS directly would be helpful --- I don't think there's a chance of cars having transponders anytime soon, and certainly deer, cyclists and pedestrians are unlikely to participate in an active transponder system, and there's no opportunity for cars to pull up or sink. At the same time, TCAS does not instruct to reduce or increase horizontal speed.
- mikrotikker 3y agoAutomatic emergency braking is fucking horrifying tho... It has false positives and can be dangerous.
- lotsofpulp 3y agoIs it more dangerous than people not braking because they are watching something on their phone?
- pizza 3y agoIt's reasonable to monitor risk at an individual level. Considering one person's fuckup can affect hundreds of people directly, this is reasonable. The two concerns are not mutually exclusive.
- swagempire 3y agoI think a better question is why the "car accident" people are always hijacking threads to push their agenda. Like the topic is Air Traffic Control. Why are you bringing up car accidents?
- akira2501 3y ago50% of accidents are single vehicle accidents that involve drugs or alcohol. It's more if you add in youth an inexperience. So, _most_ vehicle deaths are self-inflicted. 16% are pedestrians. They usually get hit from behind, and even if they don't, almost always at night. 16% are motorcycles. I ride. I love riding, but the reason for that statistic is obvious. There's zero safety margin when you're on one. Finally, the average death count from a vehicle accident is like 1.2. The average death count from two planes having an accident is like 600. The reason this all matters is because there are several orders magnitude _more_ car journeys than there are airplane journeys in any given year. You can't compare them 1:1 and the relative differences matter more than the relative similarities.
- _Tev 3y agoSuch a ridiculous comment > The average death count from two planes having an accident is like 600 Do you realize, that your "average" death count has literally never happened in aircraft accidents?
- dragonwriter 3y ago> The average death count from two planes having an accident is like 600. Its...not. If I had to guess averages, the median is probably closer to 3, the mean probably under 10. Most planes aren't commercial passenger airliners, and that's even more true of most planes involved in accidents.
- quickthrower2 3y agoWat?! You can compare them. Ok if you are being pedantic you need to compare the airline, route, plane model and weather characteristic's with an equivalent car journey route, car model, mechanical condition and driver experience and mental fortitude. But in general planes are way safer than cars. If you are 40, perfect vision, sober as a saint in a modern safe car and drive mostly on highways at safe speeds you are still safer in a plane.
- syndicatedjelly 3y agoOk if you are being pedantic you need to compare the airline, route, plane model and weather characteristic's with an equivalent car journey route, car model, mechanical condition and driver experience and mental fortitude. You can’t compare a plane journey with a car journey; they’re not interchangeable. Most miles for people are just to and from work - planes can’t just replace all those journeys, even if you sum them up to some ridiculously large number. If that’s wrong, then explain which pilot + aircraft combo you think is equivalent to the “typical” suburban car journey.