2 ms·

The big question every one seems to be ignoring is whether air travel in the US should now be considered dangerous. If ATC is understaffed or filled with unqual

The big question every one seems to be ignoring is whether air travel in the US should now be considered dangerous. If ATC is understaffed or filled with unqualified people, then how is any flight safe? Why would anyone get on a plane unless they really have to and have no other option?

gruez 2y ago
>whether air travel in the US should now be considered dangerous Air travel is orders of magnitude safer than the alternatives. According to the first result on google: "In 2022, the fatality rate for people traveling by air was .003 deaths per 100 million miles traveled. The death rate people in passenger cars and trucks on US highways was 0.57 per 100 million miles" Even if the current administration's cuts made planes several times dangerous, it'd still be preferable than the alternative. The same applies to the recent panic about 737 MAX.
- citadel_melon 2y ago
  According to your own figures, if plane travel gets even just 200x less safe, it would become less safe than driving. I mention this not because I know how much less safe flying is going to become, but because you don’t either. 200x less safe may be relatively easy for us to achieve if flying fatalities are as low as I believe they are. Moreover, I’m not sure if I give into the framing of your figures. According to google, a plane ride on average goes 500 miles, while an average car trip is 11 miles. I am not sure if I’m doing the math correctly, but I’m pretty sure an average plane ride is thus less safe than an average car trip. Sure, you can argue that a road trip is less safe than the same flight distance as a plane — and I don’t think I would even disagree with making that the standard — but I think saying flying is safer across the board would require narrowing yourself to a more subjective definition for “safer” than your comment suggests.
Levitz 2y ago
Because air travel is ridiculously safe. The incident with the helicopter and the plane is making the rounds precisely because of how insanely improbable it is, and even then from what we know, chances are the error was in the helicopter, not the tower.
- hwillis 2y ago
  A plane and helicopter over DC came within 500' of each other over DC barely 24 hours before the crash. They avoided collision because they were over 1000' and the TCAS was still active: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huVFZ__q2rI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huVFZ__q2rI During the day the only thing that was keeping those collisions from happening under 1000' was pilots seeing each other. At night the only thing keeping it from happening was luck. The error is in allowing flightpaths to be so close to each other in distance and time.
  - BJones12 2y ago
    > A plane and helicopter over DC came within 500' ... They avoided collision because they were over 1000' and the TCAS was still active That's not an example of why air travel is dangerous, that's an example of why air travel is safe.
    - sangnoir 2y ago
      The Aviation safety industry considers near-misses as an indicator of danger, and worth reviewing. A near-miss followed by a crash is maximally damning of the system.
    - hwillis 2y ago
      There is a single failsafe which barely worked when the event was above 1000'. Under 1000' TCAS is automatically shut off. The flightpaths in the area of the airport are all significantly below 1000'. There are zero protections there except for the awareness of the pilots.
      - coin 2y ago
        TCAS RAs are disabled below 1000 feet, TAs are still enabled
  - coin 2y ago
    > They avoided collision because they were over 1000' and the TCAS was still active No. The RPA4514 had the helicopter insight. Pilots are required to follow TCAS RA regardless of ATC instructions or if insight. What makes you think they would have collided if TCAS hadn't alerted?
Yeul 2y ago
Rich people got on airplanes in the 1930s despite the fact they crashed frequently because it was still better than spending weeks aboard a cruise liner.

gruez 2y ago

>whether air travel in the US should now be considered dangerous Air travel is orders of magnitude safer than the alternatives. According to the first result on google: "In 2022, the fatality rate for people traveling by air was .003 deaths per 100 million miles traveled. The death rate people in passenger cars and trucks on US highways was 0.57 per 100 million miles" Even if the current administration's cuts made planes several times dangerous, it'd still be preferable than the alternative. The same applies to the recent panic about 737 MAX.

citadel_melon 2y ago
According to your own figures, if plane travel gets even just 200x less safe, it would become less safe than driving. I mention this not because I know how much less safe flying is going to become, but because you don’t either. 200x less safe may be relatively easy for us to achieve if flying fatalities are as low as I believe they are. Moreover, I’m not sure if I give into the framing of your figures. According to google, a plane ride on average goes 500 miles, while an average car trip is 11 miles. I am not sure if I’m doing the math correctly, but I’m pretty sure an average plane ride is thus less safe than an average car trip. Sure, you can argue that a road trip is less safe than the same flight distance as a plane — and I don’t think I would even disagree with making that the standard — but I think saying flying is safer across the board would require narrowing yourself to a more subjective definition for “safer” than your comment suggests.

Levitz 2y ago

Because air travel is ridiculously safe. The incident with the helicopter and the plane is making the rounds precisely because of how insanely improbable it is, and even then from what we know, chances are the error was in the helicopter, not the tower.

hwillis 2y ago
A plane and helicopter over DC came within 500' of each other over DC barely 24 hours before the crash. They avoided collision because they were over 1000' and the TCAS was still active: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huVFZ__q2rI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huVFZ__q2rI During the day the only thing that was keeping those collisions from happening under 1000' was pilots seeing each other. At night the only thing keeping it from happening was luck. The error is in allowing flightpaths to be so close to each other in distance and time.
- BJones12 2y ago
  > A plane and helicopter over DC came within 500' ... They avoided collision because they were over 1000' and the TCAS was still active That's not an example of why air travel is dangerous, that's an example of why air travel is safe.
  - sangnoir 2y ago
    The Aviation safety industry considers near-misses as an indicator of danger, and worth reviewing. A near-miss followed by a crash is maximally damning of the system.
  - hwillis 2y ago
    There is a single failsafe which barely worked when the event was above 1000'. Under 1000' TCAS is automatically shut off. The flightpaths in the area of the airport are all significantly below 1000'. There are zero protections there except for the awareness of the pilots.
    - coin 2y ago
      TCAS RAs are disabled below 1000 feet, TAs are still enabled
- coin 2y ago
  > They avoided collision because they were over 1000' and the TCAS was still active No. The RPA4514 had the helicopter insight. Pilots are required to follow TCAS RA regardless of ATC instructions or if insight. What makes you think they would have collided if TCAS hadn't alerted?

Yeul 2y ago

Rich people got on airplanes in the 1930s despite the fact they crashed frequently because it was still better than spending weeks aboard a cruise liner.