4 ms·

Meanwhile you can carry a nuclear bomb on a train and nobody even bothers to check the id or ticket up until you are on board. Irrational fear of flight strike

Meanwhile you can carry a nuclear bomb on a train and nobody even bothers to check the id or ticket up until you are on board. Irrational fear of flight strikes again, it's a very long list actually of standards that aviation has to comply with in order not to thrive but to merely exist , all because people are irrationally fearful about being suspended mid air. It's the same thing for nuclear

poemxo 11mo ago
Most people don't have nuclear bombs.
- JumpinJack_Cash 11mo ago
  Yes but what I mean is that nobody checks anything
  - IAmBroom 11mo ago
    You haven't flown in the US in the last 24 years.
    - JumpinJack_Cash 11mo ago
      I meant on train dude, try to follow the discourse
- YokoZar 11mo ago
  Citation needed
ash_091 11mo ago
A train can go from "cruising speed" to letting passengers off to escape a fire in about a minute. A plane might take anywhere from five minutes to several hours to be able to safely let passengers out. Personally I feel that's a good enough reason to impose more robust restrictions on Things Which May Cause Fire on planes compared to trains. Especially in the case of lithium batteries where they're more or less impossible to extinguish one they're going.
- JumpinJack_Cash 11mo ago
  [flagged]
  - nxm 11mo ago
    Cigarette fires and battery fires are not same in terms of efforts to put them out. Look up electric vehicle fires and what it takes to contain them
- zamadatix 11mo ago
  I agree with the concept of comparing risk being the meaningful approach, but I disagree this is how you go about measuring risk. How many people are being injured/killed per million km or something is the type of metric. Air travel far exceeds those types of metrics vs other common modes of travel, yet is always the first one to be further focused on how bad it could potentially be.
  - appreciatorBus 11mo ago
    I would argue at the performance of aviation safety, and the constant focus on how bad it could be, is exactly why aviation is safe. The day that we decide to stop focussing on what could go wrong, is the day that aviation stops being safe. For example, if aircraft come within five nautical miles or I think it’s 1000 vertical feet, it’s considered a very serious incident. Not because anyone is in danger at five nautical miles or 1000 vertical feet, but because if you don’t draw the line there, and treat that barrier as seriously as if two aircraft had collided, then there isn’t really a barrier at all.
    - TylerE 11mo ago
      I disagree with there being no danger at 5nm. Depending on courses and speeds that 5nm could go to zero in as little as 16 seconds or so. Airliners are not especially maneuverable. Yes, the odds of the courses actually intersecting are small, but not zero.
Krssst 11mo ago
Uncontrolled fire in a plane is almost certain death if you don't land within minutes. You cannot land once the fire takes out the cables necessary for flight controls. Airplanes can still operate until landing after various mistreatments but uncontrolled fire is not one of them.
- JumpinJack_Cash 11mo ago
  What are the odds that a lithium battery would cause uncontrolled fire? We are around them daily, ever since the 80s-90s , to this day I have never seen one in person. Look at this guy, he puts a screwdriver through phones for show off on youtube, intentionally damaging the battry...nothing dangerous or uncontrolled happens, the little smoke is the equivalent of a couple of cigarettes. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/gcjfJfbOVkY https://www.youtube.com/shorts/gcjfJfbOVkY And all the psychological tests on pilots, no train or bus pilot has to go through the same stuff even though they have a similar number of souls on board I'll go to my grave claiming that aviation has to fight for its existence on a daily basis by clearing impossible standards because people are scared , intuitively scared of flight as humans aren't supposed to be able to do that and all our ancestors who tried failed miserably by falling off a tree or something. The percentage of people who get the physics of why a plane flies are less than 1% of those who ever flew, and that is not even the majority of the 9 billion humans yet, hell not even a quarter. "If your phone falls through the seats DON'T TRY TO RECOVER IT as the seat (which is fixed) might damage it and cause a fire" lmao Next thing they'd be making announcements on how to seat as a particularly fat individual missing their seat could land on their ass and fall through the fusolage causing a decompression...give me a break
  - icehawk 11mo ago
    Non-zero: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPS_Airlines_Flight_6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPS_Airlines_Flight_6 > The report indicated that the fire was caused by the autoignition of the contents of a cargo pallet that contained more than 81,000 lithium batteries and other combustible materials
    - 11mo ago
cameldrv 11mo ago
Did you see in the article that picture of the Air Busan plane from last year? The one without the roof? That incident happened on the ground as they were getting ready for takeoff. If that were the middle of the ocean, those people would all be dead.

poemxo 11mo ago

Most people don't have nuclear bombs.

JumpinJack_Cash 11mo ago
Yes but what I mean is that nobody checks anything
- IAmBroom 11mo ago
  You haven't flown in the US in the last 24 years.
  - JumpinJack_Cash 11mo ago
    I meant on train dude, try to follow the discourse
YokoZar 11mo ago
Citation needed

ash_091 11mo ago

A train can go from "cruising speed" to letting passengers off to escape a fire in about a minute. A plane might take anywhere from five minutes to several hours to be able to safely let passengers out. Personally I feel that's a good enough reason to impose more robust restrictions on Things Which May Cause Fire on planes compared to trains. Especially in the case of lithium batteries where they're more or less impossible to extinguish one they're going.

JumpinJack_Cash 11mo ago
[flagged]
- nxm 11mo ago
  Cigarette fires and battery fires are not same in terms of efforts to put them out. Look up electric vehicle fires and what it takes to contain them
zamadatix 11mo ago
I agree with the concept of comparing risk being the meaningful approach, but I disagree this is how you go about measuring risk. How many people are being injured/killed per million km or something is the type of metric. Air travel far exceeds those types of metrics vs other common modes of travel, yet is always the first one to be further focused on how bad it could potentially be.
- appreciatorBus 11mo ago
  I would argue at the performance of aviation safety, and the constant focus on how bad it could be, is exactly why aviation is safe. The day that we decide to stop focussing on what could go wrong, is the day that aviation stops being safe. For example, if aircraft come within five nautical miles or I think it’s 1000 vertical feet, it’s considered a very serious incident. Not because anyone is in danger at five nautical miles or 1000 vertical feet, but because if you don’t draw the line there, and treat that barrier as seriously as if two aircraft had collided, then there isn’t really a barrier at all.
  - TylerE 11mo ago
    I disagree with there being no danger at 5nm. Depending on courses and speeds that 5nm could go to zero in as little as 16 seconds or so. Airliners are not especially maneuverable. Yes, the odds of the courses actually intersecting are small, but not zero.

Krssst 11mo ago

Uncontrolled fire in a plane is almost certain death if you don't land within minutes. You cannot land once the fire takes out the cables necessary for flight controls. Airplanes can still operate until landing after various mistreatments but uncontrolled fire is not one of them.

JumpinJack_Cash 11mo ago
What are the odds that a lithium battery would cause uncontrolled fire? We are around them daily, ever since the 80s-90s , to this day I have never seen one in person. Look at this guy, he puts a screwdriver through phones for show off on youtube, intentionally damaging the battry...nothing dangerous or uncontrolled happens, the little smoke is the equivalent of a couple of cigarettes. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/gcjfJfbOVkY https://www.youtube.com/shorts/gcjfJfbOVkY And all the psychological tests on pilots, no train or bus pilot has to go through the same stuff even though they have a similar number of souls on board I'll go to my grave claiming that aviation has to fight for its existence on a daily basis by clearing impossible standards because people are scared , intuitively scared of flight as humans aren't supposed to be able to do that and all our ancestors who tried failed miserably by falling off a tree or something. The percentage of people who get the physics of why a plane flies are less than 1% of those who ever flew, and that is not even the majority of the 9 billion humans yet, hell not even a quarter. "If your phone falls through the seats DON'T TRY TO RECOVER IT as the seat (which is fixed) might damage it and cause a fire" lmao Next thing they'd be making announcements on how to seat as a particularly fat individual missing their seat could land on their ass and fall through the fusolage causing a decompression...give me a break
- icehawk 11mo ago
  Non-zero: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPS_Airlines_Flight_6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPS_Airlines_Flight_6 > The report indicated that the fire was caused by the autoignition of the contents of a cargo pallet that contained more than 81,000 lithium batteries and other combustible materials
  - 11mo ago

cameldrv 11mo ago

Did you see in the article that picture of the Air Busan plane from last year? The one without the roof? That incident happened on the ground as they were getting ready for takeoff. If that were the middle of the ocean, those people would all be dead.