3 ms·

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.the

by 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...
  - yeukhon 13y ago
    You are not getting the actual point. The point is not the number of death or likelihood of getting into an accident. We are not comparing the 300k airplanes (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/584144.html http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/584144.html) with "254,212,610 registered passenger vehicles" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States#Total_number_of_vehicles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_Unite...) in the U.S. back in 2009. And yes, I know airplane now is equipped with auto-pilot which increases the safety of flying. What we have been arguing is the likelihood to survive when an accident has occurred. Compare the followings: 1. Heart attack during flying vs during walking/on a bus/on a train 2. Airplane crashes into ocean vs drunk drive crashed into another car on highway 3. Gunman hijack airplane vs gunman hijack a Starbuck In every case, ground accidents are more likely to receive assistance than flying accidents, logically. If we equip vehicles with auto-pilot system, will that make driving safer? Living in the space is quite safe as long as nothing goes wrong. But in a zero-gravity environment, middle of nowhere, far away from Earth, living in the space is still more dangerous than living next to the most active volcano today. Why? Because you could relocate (if it's a sudden eruption, fine...). Yet given enough time and with a warning, one could escape from the island on their own or with helps before the eruption.

by yeukhon 13y ago

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...
- yeukhon 13y ago
  You are not getting the actual point. The point is not the number of death or likelihood of getting into an accident. We are not comparing the 300k airplanes (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/584144.html http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/584144.html) with "254,212,610 registered passenger vehicles" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States#Total_number_of_vehicles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_Unite...) in the U.S. back in 2009. And yes, I know airplane now is equipped with auto-pilot which increases the safety of flying. What we have been arguing is the likelihood to survive when an accident has occurred. Compare the followings: 1. Heart attack during flying vs during walking/on a bus/on a train 2. Airplane crashes into ocean vs drunk drive crashed into another car on highway 3. Gunman hijack airplane vs gunman hijack a Starbuck In every case, ground accidents are more likely to receive assistance than flying accidents, logically. If we equip vehicles with auto-pilot system, will that make driving safer? Living in the space is quite safe as long as nothing goes wrong. But in a zero-gravity environment, middle of nowhere, far away from Earth, living in the space is still more dangerous than living next to the most active volcano today. Why? Because you could relocate (if it's a sudden eruption, fine...). Yet given enough time and with a warning, one could escape from the island on their own or with helps before the eruption.