Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Planes are not safer than cars

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Planes are not safer than cars

    Please read my journal and tell me what you think. I dismiss the myth of the century that planes are safer than cars.

    Here is the link to my journal:

    http://thefridayknight.livejournal.com/



    Thank you.

  • #2
    I Agree with most of what you said,

    But don't forget that planes sometimes are the only solution to travel overseas ... and that what cars can't do ... maybe ships yes, but that would take forever ...

    I've always wondered, why don't they use Giant Parachutes for planes so that if the pilot feels that something is wrong, just turn off the engines and pull the parachute out and let the gravity do the rest .... is it impossible for mankind after all this developing sciences to invent such a parachute for a plane as a safety procedure ...

    rather, they equip the planes with life jackets and bullshits that are never used ... all planes fall from sky, so for god sake how would a life jacket be helpful in such cases .... they better come up with new ideas and creative solutions for safety issues or the aviation industry will really have a giant relapse ...

    Thanks, Shadi
    Aviation Disasters
    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=112925902080462
    Join On Facebook

    Comment


    • #3
      In response to the above, DISCLAIMER: "I'm not a pilot or work in the industry" - You have to do this for some people.
      Firstly, there are parachutes for planes, light planes, Cessna size. And yes they've been used and saved both pilot and in most cases the aircraft aswell.
      But, with commercial airliners your talking two BIG differences:
      1. The weight of a commercial airliner...100+ tons
      2. The relative speed these craft travel. Easy to pull a parachute in a stalled Cessna travelling 80 odd knots or less (by the time they are in trouble). But airliners travel 500 miles an hour (yes hasn't changed in 50 years). Difficult therefore for a parachute or parachutes to stop and support 100 tons+ travelling at 300-500 miles an hour!
      Just imagine a hercules travelling at 500mph and opening the back door to let out a 100 ton package...the parachute would just tear away.
      Can you imagine travelling at 500 MPH and suddenly jerked to a stop in an aircraft? Everyone would be in first class in about a second!
      I may be wrong, but thats my logic.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by thefridayknight View Post
        ......How many people walkaway from plane crashes?........
        After thinking for a few minutes my answer would be many.
        Some examples that I recall are:
        • the LHR 777 crash (no fatalities out of 152 aboard),
        • the LAX DC-10 crash (two fatalities out of 197)
        • the Soiux City DC-10 crash (112 fatalities out of 296)
        • AF 358 toronto crash (zero fatalities out of 309)
        I think there is a chart somewhere on the NTSB site but could not locate it.

        Comment


        • #5
          The risk of experiencing an incident or accident while sitting in a plane is not that high than having an accident with a car. Car drivers usually sitting alone in a car, doing something else what very often has really nothing to do with steering a vehicle (like using a cell phone, reading newspapers, shaving, tuning the radio..etc.). While pilots plan their trip accurate, knowing a lot about the job they are involved - the responsibilty of their passengers and freight included -, a usual car driver cares for nothing. Not for traffic signs, not for speed limits, even defect headlamps will be ignored while driving in dark, fog or snowfall. Going to holidays, usually the car is heavily loaded with baggage, all important windows are filled with baggage or bags, between them you're gonna find the kids. Long distances trips were conducted by one person (the driver) and only interrupted by a short stop for refuelling or looking for a toilet. Tyre pressure will not be checked, head lamps not levelled... and so on. Responsibility for their passengers - their family - I don't think that some of the drivers doesn't really know what it actually means. Tell me now: is flying in a plane more dangerous than doing a 10 or even 100 mile ride in a car together with hundreds of uncontrolled egoists who think streets are their property?
          I'm sure, if using a car would be taken as serious as riding a plane, a lot of stupid accidents and incidents would never occur.


          get FRA spotting informations here:
          www.Frankfurt-Aviation-Friends.eu

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Luka View Post
            In response to the above, DISCLAIMER: "I'm not a pilot or work in the industry" - You have to do this for some people.
            Firstly, there are parachutes for planes, light planes, Cessna size. And yes they've been used and saved both pilot and in most cases the aircraft aswell.
            But, with commercial airliners your talking two BIG differences:
            1. The weight of a commercial airliner...100+ tons
            2. The relative speed these craft travel. Easy to pull a parachute in a stalled Cessna travelling 80 odd knots or less (by the time they are in trouble). But airliners travel 500 miles an hour (yes hasn't changed in 50 years). Difficult therefore for a parachute or parachutes to stop and support 100 tons+ travelling at 300-500 miles an hour!
            Just imagine a hercules travelling at 500mph and opening the back door to let out a 100 ton package...the parachute would just tear away.
            Can you imagine travelling at 500 MPH and suddenly jerked to a stop in an aircraft? Everyone would be in first class in about a second!
            I may be wrong, but thats my logic.
            You are correct (however parachutes can be deployed in stages to hold loads to acceptable levels). However one key problem is that a high altitude (probably over 20,000-ft) is needed to deploy a parachute system capable of recovering a small aircraft such as a 737. Some auxiliary impact attenuation device would be needed - such as a retro rocket.

            An example of a large parachute system is that used to recover the Space Shuttle solid rocker booster - each booster weighs 175,000-lb with a parachute systen weighing 8,000-lb and an impact velocity of around 80 ft/sec.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by thefridayknight View Post
              Please read my journal and tell me what you think. I dismiss the myth of the century that planes are safer than cars.

              Here is the link to my journal:

              http://thefridayknight.livejournal.com/



              Thank you.
              I dont think you proved anything, you've got no meaningful statistics to back up your position, you just stated your opinion because you can and are entitled to, and used a 'logical' argument to move forward, even though a touch of research would show otherwise.

              from


              I count 15 accidents of which only 11 had fatalities, and not all of those killed everyone on board, and several were general aviation, or such with no passengers. In fact, less than half the people on board those flights died. So from that list ive got a 1 in 2 chance of dying IF there is a crash.

              It's not a complete list but all im saying here is, you say it only takes one plane crash to kill you, but by that same logic, it only takes one car crash to kill you too. However, both are survivable...

              Also, apart of comparing safety requires location parameters and timeframes,

              I could quote New Zealand Domestic air travel in the 5 year period 2004-2008, 0 fatalities
              versus driving fatalities in NZ in the same period -> 2020 fatalities.

              At which point, flying becomes statistically the far safer option.

              And as for your question, what are your chances for survival if there is an accident? how is that a comparison?

              Hypothetical (exaggerated) example,
              If i have a 1 in 10 chance of being in a car crash per year, and hypothetically a 1 in 4 chance in dying in said crash, i then have a 1 in 40 chance per year of dying. If an airline gives me a 1 in 100 chance in being in an accident (and from the 2008 statistics) a 1 in 2 chance of dying, thats still a 1 in 200 chance of dying, meaning im going to have to fly 5 x as much to have the same chance in dying, even if im twice as likely to die in a plane crash.


              But yeah, im not really sure where i went with this, but my points are, you cant discount the rate of accidents in favour of survivabilitty of accidents to favour your side because they BOTH contribute to the safety of the mode of transport.

              And as a side note, ive been far more terrified from being in the car when my friends have been driving to any flight ive ever had.
              Sam Rudge
              A 5D3, some Canon lenses, the Sigma L and a flash

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Highkeas View Post
                After thinking for a few minutes my answer would be many.
                Some examples that I recall are:
                • the LHR 777 crash (no fatalities out of 152 aboard),
                • the LAX DC-10 crash (two fatalities out of 197)
                • the Soiux City DC-10 crash (112 fatalities out of 296)
                • AF 358 toronto crash (zero fatalities out of 309)
                I think there is a chart somewhere on the NTSB site but could not locate it.
                You can go here.


                BTW, i did a search there in the link above, and counting only the accidents in the us where there is survivors, jp.net might suspend me due to overuse of bandwith if i list them all.

                Comment


                • #9
                  This is of course completely nonsens !!!!

                  If u see the accidents with death in Germany and u compere them with all the victims in civil airliners u will discover that flying ist the safest way of travelling.
                  The most dangerous part of my journey to Sydney was the taxi drive to the airport !!!!!!!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The argument is interesting because, like many situations in life, the answer depends on how the problem is defined.

                    For example one may propose that incidents per travel hour are compared where an "incident" is a crash where someone is injured. Globally the number of travel hours in cars would be far far higher than in aircraft but so would the number of incidents. I suspect this measure may favour airline travel.

                    But if you compared fatalities per travel hour you would presumably get a much different picture because air crashes are far more likely to result in fatalities than road crashes, and they are also more likely to involve multiple fatalities.

                    I haven't done the maths but I suspect if one was really a pessimist they would probably be well advised to choose rail travel whenever possible!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by thefridayknight View Post
                      Please read my journal and tell me what you think. I dismiss the myth of the century that planes are safer than cars.

                      Here is the link to my journal:

                      http://thefridayknight.livejournal.com/



                      Thank you.
                      The Friday Knight,

                      After reading your blog I will say something that I very very seldom say:

                      You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

                      Let's analyze it a bit:

                      "Planes are safer than cars". We've all heard that for years.. but what is that statement based on? It's based on the fact that more people die from car crashes than plane crashes.
                      That's not true. Source? Reference? link?

                      Truth is, there is not one way to measure airplane safety and car safety, and the comparison between the both is hard if it makes sense at all. More on that later.

                      What should the basis to determine safety really be? The true premise to determine safety should be...In the event of A crash; what are your chances of survival? [...] How many times something crashes is irrelevant when you consider the fact that it only takes one accident to kiss your rear end goodbye. [...] This is the TRUE basis that one (and the airline industry) should use to determine safety.
                      That's about the most absolutely ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

                      With that logic, I'll claim that walking on the sidewalk is extremely dangerous because, in the event that a piano falls on you, what are your chances of survival?

                      Let me exaggerate to be clear with the concept.

                      Say that your chances to survive a car accident are 99%, but your chances to survive a plane accident is zero. By your logic, cars 100 times safer than planes. Right?

                      ABSOLUTELY NOT!

                      You MUST take into account how often cars crash, and how often planes crash. Not in absolute numbers but in relative ones.

                      For example, say cars crashed once every 2 trips. In this way, while your chances of dying in any given car accident is 1 out of 100 crashes, your chances of being involved in such an accident in the first place is 100 times every 200 trips, and hence your chances of dying in a car crash is once every 200 trips.

                      In the same way, say that planes crashed once every 2000 take off's. In this way, while you would die in any given plane crash with a 100% chance, your chances of being involved in such an accident in the first place would be once every 2000 times you board a plane, and hence your chances of dying in a plane crash would be once every 2000 times you board a plane. That's 100 times safer than a car.

                      Why does this metric (chances of dying per trip) makes much more sense that yours (chances of dying per crash)?

                      It should be obvious, but when you leave home you say "Bye honey, I'm flying to Chicago, wish me luck" or "Bye honey, I'm driving to Chicago, wish me luck", but NOT "Bye honey, I'm crashing on my way to Chicago, wish me luck".

                      To say it another way, every time you start a car trip you know you are in a car trip, but you don't know if you are going to crash or not, let alone if you are going to die in a crash.

                      Or to say it in yet another way, when you engage in a trip you have two ways of not dying in a crash: not to crash OR to crash and survive. But you have only one way to die in a crash: to crash AND die.

                      So there are three possible outcomes:
                      No crash.
                      Crash but you survive.
                      Crash and you die.

                      Your logic leaves out the first possible outcome WHICH IS BY FAR HOW MOST TRIPS END, be it by car or by plane.

                      Another metric that would be even more favorable for planes would be to measure the chance of dying per mile travelled. That's because each trip is, on average, much longer in a plane than in a car (in distance).

                      However, I object this way of comparison, because you can't take a plane to go downtown from home and you can't drive to Hawaii. Plane and car are two different means of transportation used, in may cases, for two different missions where tho other one can't do the job. It's not like saying "will I eat an apple or a banana?". Many times you can't choose plane or car. It's either you go or you don't in the only choice that takes you there.

                      And when you can choose, there are other factors that came into play. Sure, you can go from Buenos Aires to Toronto by car... in maybe a few weeks of driving. Or you can fly non stop in 13 hours. Most of the times when you are in a car or plane the idea is not to spend some time moving, but to get somewhere. So the time spent on the ride is unproductive. If you have say one month of time for the trip, you could think of how many hours you are free for doing things instead of using them from A to B, and calculate the chances of dying in an accident not per ride, not per km, but per free hours.

                      Of course, the plane would be useless if your idea is to visit the landscapes, historic places, wildlife and cities along the road.

                      The bottom line is, there is no absolute right way to compare car safety vs plane safety. There are absolutely wrong ones though, like yours.

                      In any event, the commercial aviation safety is extremely high and historically improving. What takes us to...

                      Let's think about the "fear of flying"; it's treated as a pathology that people have to go get professional help for. I believe that the "fear of flying" is a natural response to the presence of danger. The fear of flying is our natural, innate intelligence telling us:.. "this shit is crazy"!! "You mean to tell me that I'm going 20 to 30 thousand feet up in the air in this thing that weighs hundreds of thousands of pounds?!!
                      Again, plain wrong. Because commercial aviation is extremely safe, and your chances of dying in a plane crash are extremely low (in the event that you take a flight, not in the event that your flight crashes), the truth is that one shouldn't be afraid of flying more than of other things that one does every day.

                      If one does, then that fear is either uneducated or irrational. The characteristic of the fearful flier is that he/she knows that flying is extremely safe, but cant avoid the fear.

                      That's an irrational fear and, by definition, a phobia.

                      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Oh, and one more thing.

                        Every morning I wake up at home, an apartment on the 20th floor of a building that weights who knows how many thousands of tonnes, take a shower with water taken from the polluter river, then poisoned with chlorine, and then heated up at home using an explosive gas, shave myself with a blade of hardened and ultra sharp steel, drink a coffee irradiated with microwaves, make the toasts in a device connected to 220V that could fry me in seconds, go down in a cart that hangs from a string, drive my 3000 pounds car that is filled with flammable liquids and explosive vapours at 80mph passing inches away of other similar cars doing the same crazy thing and driven by who knows what drunk driver while enjoying the smell of the polluted air, cross a bridge made of thousands of tonnes of concrete which, nevertheless, hangs from strings dozens of feet over a cold river, get to my stressful job where I work under pressure at constant risk of a stroke, sitting in front of a box that emits electromagnetic waves straight into my eyes and holding a device next to my head that fries my brain with radio waves, have lunch at MacDonald's, return home and sometimes even have sex with my wife who, I hope, is not dating with someone else or if she does maybe she takes care to prevent infecting me with AIDS....

                        Still, I do all those things everyday and, while I know, accept and try to manage the risks, I'm not fearful of doing them...

                        And you want me to buy that the fear of flying is our natural, innate intelligence telling us:.. "this shit is crazy"!! "You mean to tell me that I'm going 20 to 30 thousand feet up in the air in this thing that weighs hundreds of thousands of pounds?!!

                        GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!

                        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          It helps to look at actual numbers, not just keywords...

                          Although I generally dislike Wikipedia, they have this excellent comparison on deaths per kilometer, per hour, and per journey. When looking at deaths per passenger per kilometer, air travel comes out clearly the eafest way of transportation - this lead to the infamous statement that on a trip from NYC to London, the most dangerous part is the car ride to the airport. This is however not true, since you spent many more kilometers on the aircraft than on the car - and this is where the "deaths per hour" come in. Air travel still looks better than car transportation, but now only by a factor of 4.

                          Finally, there is the "deaths per journey", and here it is clear that an air journey produces four times more dead people than a car journey.

                          So - boarding an aircraft leaves you with a risk to die that is four times higher than when boarding a car! Or, wait - you? Of course, this is an average over all the journeys by all people in the world. Youir personal mileage may vary, of course...And - how often do you board a car, and how often an aircraft? In the end, even the most exaggerated freuqent flyer is more likely to die on a car than on an aircraft.

                          If you want to stay as safe as possible - don't travel, or at least travel by bus & rail, they are the safest in all statistics!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by mfeldt View Post
                            If you want to stay as safe as possible - don't travel, or at least travel by bus & rail, they are the safest in all statistics!
                            Try to go NYC - London by train or bus and then tell me which one is the safest way to complete the mission.

                            Try to go from Queens to New Jersey flying United and then tell me which is the safes way to complete the mission.

                            Elevators are even a safer mean of transportation. They won't take you anywhere but several feet above your feet, though.

                            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Oh .. I missed that. Water is also in the statistics and it's almost always worse than flying ... how far back does the statisctics reach? Titanic?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X