3 ms·
The post I was responding to was speaking precisely about "the least safe Boeing plane in service." The fact that airplanes are, trip for trip, much safer than
by somenameforme 2y ago
The post I was responding to was speaking precisely about "the least safe Boeing plane in service." The fact that airplanes are, trip for trip, much safer than planes is something I did not appreciate at the time when making my post. I expected most planes to be safer than vehicles, but Boeings falling well below average. The fact that vehicles are substantially safer than any plane, trip for trip, is far beyond what I expected. And it's going to make Boeing's look like death traps by comparison.
Imagine we're comparing a long flight thousands of miles around the world to a short little domestic flight between a couple of relatively nearby cities. Which flight do you expect to get the latest, most stable, and secure plane? Most of everybody would expect it to be the international flight. In reality, it's the short little domestic flight. The reason is that with planes a trip that goes on for thousands of miles is, in general, almost exactly as dangerous as the briefest of trips imaginable. Take off, landing, and pressurization are where basically all the risk (and wear and tear) come into play. So your little plane going on a hundred mile voyage is going to be exposed to far greater risks than the one traveling thousands of miles. It's why the stats, as typically offered - deaths/mile, are extremely disingenuous. And they serve very little purpose other than to mislead those who don't know better, which is the overwhelming majority of people.
As for the exact numbers, reread your own source, and include the entire quote. You're having a failure where you keep misreading something the same way. Keep in mind you quoted 1.19 for 2019-2023.
- krisoft 2y ago> You're having a failure where you keep misreading something the same way. And you are having a failure where you are not quoting what you think I'm misreading. Look at the table. First column labeled "ACCIDENT TYPE". Second row first column "All accident rate (accidents per one million flights)". Last column labeled "5-YEAR AVERAGE (2019-2023)" The data in second row last column "1.19 (1 accident every 0.88 million flights)". Go ahead and tell me where do you see "per sector" in any of that?
- somenameforme 2y agoAhhh!!! I see how you're reading it, and yeah - I think the mistake is much more on them than you. The parenthesis are not describing the value before them, but indicating what is IN the parenthesis! I'm the sort that ignores infographics and goes straight to the text, and it's much clearer there. Check out the report highlights: --- The all accident rate was 0.80 per million sectors in 2023 (one accident for every 1.26 million flights), an improvement from 1.30 in 2022 and the lowest rate in over a decade. This rate outperformed the five-year (2019-2023) rolling average of 1.19 (an average one accident for every 880,293 flights). --- So in the table their "All accident rate (accidents per one million flights)" row is giving you two different pieces of the data. The first is accident rate (which is per million sectors) and then in the parenthesis is the accidents per million flights. And actually even that's wrong, since they actually give you flights per accident -- whoever put that table together clearly was not big on the whole accuracy thing. So when you see "1.19 (1 accident every 0.88 million flights)" that means the rate per million sectors is 1.19, and the rate per million flights is 1/0.88 = 1.14.
- krisoft 2y agoThat explains it! Dang! Thank you for the help figuring that out.