3 ms·

I think he's making the point that car engines of today are very reliable, as well as efficient (compared to aircraft engines, that is).

• potatolicious 17y ago
  How so? How often do you see cars pulled over at the side of the road, hood flipped up and driver screaming into a cell phone? Sure, it doesn't happen to everyone everyday, but it happens. Now imagine that happening 8,000 feet in the air.
  • lutorm 17y ago
    That is a false analogy because a) the vast numbers of vehicles on the road means that you will see many of them pulled over even if the individual chance of failure is small, and b) they can be pulled over for any number of failures that are not engine related (tires, transmission, axles, etc.) or caused by neglected maintenance. Moreover, as far as I remember, the majority of GA fatalities fall into two categories: stall/spin and weather. A simple engine out should really not result in a fatality unless it's over very bad terrain. Let's play with numbers: According to the AOPA there were about 600 general aviation fatalities over 26e6 hours in 2004, which gives a fatality rate is about 1.3e-5/flight hour. The total number of vehicle miles in the US traveled is 3e12mi/yr (!). If we assume an average speed of 50mph, this means 6e10 hours of driving per year. At the aviation fatality rate, this translates to almost 800,000 fatalities/year! You'd see dead people in cars all over...
    • rbanffy 17y ago
      But wopuldn't the higher fatality per flown mile rate of aircraft demonstrate the need to be conservative?