4 ms·

> Thousands of screws and if one goes missing the aircraft could fall apart at critical moment This is not true. Sometimes aircraft have mechanical problems -

by objclxt 13y ago

> Thousands of screws and if one goes missing the aircraft could fall apart at critical moment This is not true. Sometimes aircraft have mechanical problems - pitot tubes icing over, for example. There An aircraft is severely over engineered for its job. Commercial aircraft have landed with gaping holes in the fuselages, engines on fire, landing gear stuck shut. There are very, very few parts of the plane that are single points of failure. Some people are understandably nervous flyers. People do get scared when an aircraft starts shaking, and that's natural, but what you should remember is that the aircraft is designed to shake. Pilot error is a far more common cause of accidents than mechanical failure. Remember, you're far, far more likely to be injured or killed driving a car than taking a plane. It's one of - if not the - safest form of transport out there.

yeukhon 13y ago
I have to be clear that one screw could lead to a fatal crash. Mechanical failure and pilot errors are more common and I agree with you on that. http://www.thelocal.fr/20111125/1869 http://www.thelocal.fr/20111125/1869 This plane took off with 30 screws missing. But if it was under critical moment (extreme weather or mechanical failure), going with 30 screws could have a chain impact and eventually lead to a fatal crash. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/13/door-falls-off-plane_n_4092987.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/13/door-falls-off-plan... This is another lucky incident at 1000 feet. Imagine this at critical moment and at 20k, 30k altitude! I would suppose some passengers would die if that happened. Remember, you're far, far more likely to be injured or killed driving a car than taking a plane. It's one of - if not the - safest form of transport out there. I think that's up to argument and depends on how one look at the issue. Is plan safer? There are more corners, more cars, more trains than aircraft combined at any given time. And the most important thing to consider is getting help. I have to press hard on this: if you are in the air, the chance of you surviving is low. Even on the ground after a serious car accident at a reasonable location, most patients could receive proper medical treatment within minutes. But when you are in the air? In the case of gunman I could try to escape on the ground but not really in the air.
- rehack 13y ago
  >There are more corners, more cars, more trains than aircraft combined at any given time. And the most important thing to consider is getting help. I have to press hard on this: if you are in the air, the chance of you surviving is low. Even on the ground after a serious car accident at a reasonable location, most patients could receive proper medical treatment within minutes. You get it man. I've always found that statistical comparison with car accidents very lame and misguided. The sheer feeling of helplessness when you are in a plane, and think something is seriously wrong. Read both your comments. My thoughts are very similar to yours in this matter. I am very afraid to fly. But of course its not always avoidable. Due respect to the "technological marvels", but some times I wonder, why can't planes be designed in a way, that they are safe even if they fall. I have no freaking idea, how this can be done. Just a wish.
  - kilburn 13y ago
    > You get it man. I've always found that statistical comparison with car accidents very lame and misguided. The sheer feeling of helplessness when you are in a plane, and think something is seriously wrong. No, you both don't get it. It's not debatable. Lets start with the numbers in [1]. There is says that ~25% of the plane crashes are fatal. Also, since 1997 there's been no more than "1 [death] for every 2,000,000,000 person-miles". So let's (incorrectly) assume that all accidents were fatal, so the rate would be no more than 4 deaths for every 2billion miles/person, or 2 deaths per 1billion miles/person. Now we look at [2] for car fatalities. Let's use the USA numbers: 8.5 deaths per 1 billion vehicle kms. This works out to 5.2 deaths per billion vehicle kms. A quick google search indicates that the average vehicle occupancy in the US is ~1.6 [3]. This turns our figure to 3.25 deaths per billion miles/person. That is, even if we assume that all airplane accidents are fatal and we only count casualties from road accidents (completely disregarding the much higher number of injuries), it is roughly 50% riskier to use a car than a plane. What do you find misguiding here? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-re... [3] http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2010_fotw613.html http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2010_fotw...
einhverfr 13y ago
Dude, planes can explode in the air because their windows are the wrong shape. That lesson got learned the hard way. Engines can fall off because of damaged mountings. Engine turbine disks can explode and take all control systems with them. Gears can jam and elevators stuck causing planes to nosedive. You are talking about a highly pressurized canister of air travelling at the better part of the speed of sound way up in the sky, and it must be made as light as possible. It's a marvel they are as safe as they are. > Remember, you're far, far more likely to be injured or killed driving a car than taking a plane. It's one of - if not the - safest form of transport out there. Right, and this is an indication of how safe one can make things even given inherent risks in the technology. It's worth remembering how much we devote to this task. And there are plenty of near-misses that are just mind-boggling, like BA-9, for example, where the 747 flew through the ash cloud of a volcano and lost all four engines as well as rendered its windshield more or less opaque. And yet they still landed safely. Aircraft are amazingly safe as they currently are. However structurally, there isn't a lot of room for redundency.

by objclxt 13y ago

yeukhon 13y ago

I have to be clear that one screw could lead to a fatal crash. Mechanical failure and pilot errors are more common and I agree with you on that. http://www.thelocal.fr/20111125/1869 http://www.thelocal.fr/20111125/1869 This plane took off with 30 screws missing. But if it was under critical moment (extreme weather or mechanical failure), going with 30 screws could have a chain impact and eventually lead to a fatal crash. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/13/door-falls-off-plane_n_4092987.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/13/door-falls-off-plan... This is another lucky incident at 1000 feet. Imagine this at critical moment and at 20k, 30k altitude! I would suppose some passengers would die if that happened. Remember, you're far, far more likely to be injured or killed driving a car than taking a plane. It's one of - if not the - safest form of transport out there. I think that's up to argument and depends on how one look at the issue. Is plan safer? There are more corners, more cars, more trains than aircraft combined at any given time. And the most important thing to consider is getting help. I have to press hard on this: if you are in the air, the chance of you surviving is low. Even on the ground after a serious car accident at a reasonable location, most patients could receive proper medical treatment within minutes. But when you are in the air? In the case of gunman I could try to escape on the ground but not really in the air.

rehack 13y ago
>There are more corners, more cars, more trains than aircraft combined at any given time. And the most important thing to consider is getting help. I have to press hard on this: if you are in the air, the chance of you surviving is low. Even on the ground after a serious car accident at a reasonable location, most patients could receive proper medical treatment within minutes. You get it man. I've always found that statistical comparison with car accidents very lame and misguided. The sheer feeling of helplessness when you are in a plane, and think something is seriously wrong. Read both your comments. My thoughts are very similar to yours in this matter. I am very afraid to fly. But of course its not always avoidable. Due respect to the "technological marvels", but some times I wonder, why can't planes be designed in a way, that they are safe even if they fall. I have no freaking idea, how this can be done. Just a wish.
- kilburn 13y ago
  > You get it man. I've always found that statistical comparison with car accidents very lame and misguided. The sheer feeling of helplessness when you are in a plane, and think something is seriously wrong. No, you both don't get it. It's not debatable. Lets start with the numbers in [1]. There is says that ~25% of the plane crashes are fatal. Also, since 1997 there's been no more than "1 [death] for every 2,000,000,000 person-miles". So let's (incorrectly) assume that all accidents were fatal, so the rate would be no more than 4 deaths for every 2billion miles/person, or 2 deaths per 1billion miles/person. Now we look at [2] for car fatalities. Let's use the USA numbers: 8.5 deaths per 1 billion vehicle kms. This works out to 5.2 deaths per billion vehicle kms. A quick google search indicates that the average vehicle occupancy in the US is ~1.6 [3]. This turns our figure to 3.25 deaths per billion miles/person. That is, even if we assume that all airplane accidents are fatal and we only count casualties from road accidents (completely disregarding the much higher number of injuries), it is roughly 50% riskier to use a car than a plane. What do you find misguiding here? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-re... [3] http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2010_fotw613.html http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2010_fotw...

einhverfr 13y ago

Dude, planes can explode in the air because their windows are the wrong shape. That lesson got learned the hard way. Engines can fall off because of damaged mountings. Engine turbine disks can explode and take all control systems with them. Gears can jam and elevators stuck causing planes to nosedive. You are talking about a highly pressurized canister of air travelling at the better part of the speed of sound way up in the sky, and it must be made as light as possible. It's a marvel they are as safe as they are. > Remember, you're far, far more likely to be injured or killed driving a car than taking a plane. It's one of - if not the - safest form of transport out there. Right, and this is an indication of how safe one can make things even given inherent risks in the technology. It's worth remembering how much we devote to this task. And there are plenty of near-misses that are just mind-boggling, like BA-9, for example, where the 747 flew through the ash cloud of a volcano and lost all four engines as well as rendered its windshield more or less opaque. And yet they still landed safely. Aircraft are amazingly safe as they currently are. However structurally, there isn't a lot of room for redundency.