5 ms·

That would be under an assumption that the distribution of planes around the globe is even. Given most jetliners are flying in corridors, I would say the actual

by bitL 13y ago

That would be under an assumption that the distribution of planes around the globe is even. Given most jetliners are flying in corridors, I would say the actual probability is much much lower. The same can be probably said about meteorites - I guess their geographic distribution is uneven as well.

surrealize 13y ago
If the meteorite strikes are evenly distributed, and if the planes aren't actually stacked (i.e., flying directly above one another) very much, then I don't think the plane positions matter for this calculation.
rz2k 13y ago
If the distribution of meteors is perfectly even and all of the planes are parked next to each other in the desert, then the probability should be the same 4% expectation within the next 20 years of one of those parked aircraft being hit. While staying within corridors would not matter, the distribution by latitude probably does, and my guess is that they align enough to actually increase the odds.
dredmorbius 13y ago
As others have said: the distribution of the planes over the Earth (and their speed -- one Yahoo site I ran across suggested they're harder to hit because they're moving fast -- that's also irrelevant, not to mention that pretty much everything on Earth is moving at about 20km/s relative to an asteroid) doesn't matter. Because meteorites aren't aimed. Odds are they'll land pretty much anywhere on the planet. I'm not entirely sure this is the case -- because the Earth orbits the Sun, the eastward-facing side should be sweeping through more debris than the west, which means that if you could concentrate your flights on that side, you'd be at higher risk. As it is, most flights tend to operate during daylight hours, with the before-noon flights being at greater risk. More reasons to catch the afternoon flight if you prefer to play things safe, or the morning flight if you feel like making history (or low-grade mysteries of the unknown TV programmes).
- FatalLogic 13y ago
  >one Yahoo site I ran across suggested they're harder to hit because they're moving fast -- that's also irrelevant, Indeed, it's not as if they're trying to dodge. However, doesn't a faster plane actually have a higher probability of intersecting the same space as a falling rock? Comparable to: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4562132.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4562132.stm ('...So running fast actually makes us wetter according to this analysis')
  - roc 13y ago
    Running makes you wetter than walking over an equivalent time period. The main goal of running in the rain is to get to a shelter -- to minimize that time. Something your link covers, and points out. [1] So it would be with a plane: Flying faster means less time in the air, where meteorite strikes are particularly dangerous (as opposed to strikes while taxiing, or sitting idle). So while a faster-flying plane is more likely to encounter a meteorite than a slower-flying plane, if flying faster means less time in the air it's going to be "safer" overall. [1] "So here we have it - more mathematical advice to avoid getting wet. Because we divide by VP in this equation, maximising our velocity now emerges as a good idea, assuming there is a shelter available." EDIT: grammar
    - FatalLogic 13y ago
      >Flying faster means less time in the air, where meteorite strikes are particularly dangerous (as opposed to strikes while taxiing, or sitting idle). That's a very good point: for a plane, reaching the ground is the equivalent of a runner reaching shelter from the rain. But I suppose planes generally spend about the same amount of time in the air, no matter how fast they go. The faster plane just travels further in that time. There's no obvious reason a fast plane would spend more time safely on the ground than a slow plane. Perhaps flying faster is safer for individual passengers, but more dangerous for the plane?
      - dredmorbius 13y ago

by bitL 13y ago

surrealize 13y ago

If the meteorite strikes are evenly distributed, and if the planes aren't actually stacked (i.e., flying directly above one another) very much, then I don't think the plane positions matter for this calculation.

rz2k 13y ago

If the distribution of meteors is perfectly even and all of the planes are parked next to each other in the desert, then the probability should be the same 4% expectation within the next 20 years of one of those parked aircraft being hit. While staying within corridors would not matter, the distribution by latitude probably does, and my guess is that they align enough to actually increase the odds.

dredmorbius 13y ago

As others have said: the distribution of the planes over the Earth (and their speed -- one Yahoo site I ran across suggested they're harder to hit because they're moving fast -- that's also irrelevant, not to mention that pretty much everything on Earth is moving at about 20km/s relative to an asteroid) doesn't matter. Because meteorites aren't aimed. Odds are they'll land pretty much anywhere on the planet. I'm not entirely sure this is the case -- because the Earth orbits the Sun, the eastward-facing side should be sweeping through more debris than the west, which means that if you could concentrate your flights on that side, you'd be at higher risk. As it is, most flights tend to operate during daylight hours, with the before-noon flights being at greater risk. More reasons to catch the afternoon flight if you prefer to play things safe, or the morning flight if you feel like making history (or low-grade mysteries of the unknown TV programmes).

FatalLogic 13y ago
>one Yahoo site I ran across suggested they're harder to hit because they're moving fast -- that's also irrelevant, Indeed, it's not as if they're trying to dodge. However, doesn't a faster plane actually have a higher probability of intersecting the same space as a falling rock? Comparable to: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4562132.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4562132.stm ('...So running fast actually makes us wetter according to this analysis')
- roc 13y ago
  Running makes you wetter than walking over an equivalent time period. The main goal of running in the rain is to get to a shelter -- to minimize that time. Something your link covers, and points out. [1] So it would be with a plane: Flying faster means less time in the air, where meteorite strikes are particularly dangerous (as opposed to strikes while taxiing, or sitting idle). So while a faster-flying plane is more likely to encounter a meteorite than a slower-flying plane, if flying faster means less time in the air it's going to be "safer" overall. [1] "So here we have it - more mathematical advice to avoid getting wet. Because we divide by VP in this equation, maximising our velocity now emerges as a good idea, assuming there is a shelter available." EDIT: grammar
  - FatalLogic 13y ago
    >Flying faster means less time in the air, where meteorite strikes are particularly dangerous (as opposed to strikes while taxiing, or sitting idle). That's a very good point: for a plane, reaching the ground is the equivalent of a runner reaching shelter from the rain. But I suppose planes generally spend about the same amount of time in the air, no matter how fast they go. The faster plane just travels further in that time. There's no obvious reason a fast plane would spend more time safely on the ground than a slow plane. Perhaps flying faster is safer for individual passengers, but more dangerous for the plane?
    - dredmorbius 13y ago