Latest USA safety statistics

[orangehuggy]

Sup guys, have not written for a bit, everyone is being ultra safe. So a friend is a nervous flyer, and many fof videos and articles give a statistic of 1 in 11 million of dying in a plane crash. Considering 2 million fly each day in the US that number did not seem that reassuring to her. Well, using the last 20 years worth of data for US domestic airline flights I found the chances of being a fatally injured passenger to be 1 in 105 million. If you avoid propeller planes it is 1 in 271 million. And if you avoid regional jets there has only been one death in 20 years so about 1 in 13 billion. An update to some articles out there is in order I think.

[Gabriel]

I wonder how you came up with these numbers. I don't have statistics but it intuitively feels incorrect to me. Please share your calculations.

Also, fatal accidents in commercial aviation are so rare (especially in the US and other western countries) that it is hard to make meaningful statistics.
As an example, there was 1 Death in scheduled passenger flights in the US in airplanes that were neither propeller planes nor regional jets, in the last 10 years. But if you had made the same research just 18 days ago the number would have jumped to 266, taking your 1-in-13-billon (if correct) "just" 1 in 48 million (and it suddenly becomes irrelevant whether you include or exclude regional jets).

In any case, the chances are extremely low to the point of being almost negligible. Make your friend compare the chances of dying in a plane crash with the chances of dying while doing any of the other activities he or she does daily. In the United States, the odds of one dying from choking on food is around 1 in 2,535. Does your friend. Does your friend refrain from eating? (I hope not because the chances of dying of that are 100%). If your friend is going to die in that flight, it is about 4000 times more likely that it will be due to chocking on the free snack than due to the plane crashing,

The real problem with fofers, I discovered, is not they believe that they are at an increased risk of flying. Most fofers are rational persons and when faced with factual information and data they realize that that is extremely unlikely to happen, but they cannot help it. Fear of flying is a foiba, which buy definition is an IRRATIONAL fear. While rationalizing the situation helps, it is not enough. It requires different techniques to manage the fear from an emotional and psychological point of view, not a rational one.

[Evan]

Statistics like this are useless as they ignore the factors that cause plane crashes. Most plane crashes—almost all of them—are the result of pilot error arising from poor training, poor discipline and risk-prone culture. Target these groups and you see more alarming rates. Omit these groups and you rarely see anything of concern. If you want to fly safely, become aware of where these groups are commonly found and avoid them.

[orangehuggy]

So the data came from https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ts-since-2004/ for pax #s I rounded to 650 million per year, and the fatalities were from ntsb database 20 year search: 124 total pax deaths, 48 non-prop, 1 non regional.

[TeeVee]

Statistics like this are useless as they ignore the factors that cause plane crashes. Most plane crashes—almost all of them—are the result of pilot error arising from poor training, poor discipline and risk-prone culture. Target these groups and you see more alarming rates. Omit these groups and you rarely see anything of concern. If you want to fly safely, become aware of where these groups are commonly found and avoid them.

this is an ignorant statement. the well and poorly trained are all part of aviation. in fact what you propose, would lead to intentionally skewed and even more useless stats.

[TeeVee]

So the data came from https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ts-since-2004/ for pax #s I rounded to 650 million per year, and the fatalities were from ntsb database 20 year search: 124 total pax deaths, 48 non-prop, 1 non regional.

conveniently missing 9/11. which yeah, i get it--not part of normal aviation, but still aviation.

[orangehuggy]

conveniently missing 9/11. which yeah, i get it--not part of normal aviation, but still aviation.

just because it was over 20 years ago and we have to decide on a relevant time period, I'm not picking and choosing what to include

[3WE]

Fear of flying is a foiba, which buy definition is an IRRATIONAL fear. While rationalizing the situation helps, it is not enough.

Be Careful.

A little fear of going 500 MPH, 6 miles up in the sky in a thin aluminum or cheap composite tube IS logical.

People have did died, and many of us may have only a few degrees of separation from someone who did died.

Sitting in the back seat of a car has a certain bit of helplessness (as does being in 24A.)

Plus, look at some of the rather extreme safety procedures we use…maybe it is a little bit dangerous.

[Gabriel]

Be Careful.

A little fear of going 500 MPH, 6 miles up in the sky in a thin aluminum or cheap composite tube IS logical.

People have did died, and many of us may have only a few degrees of separation from someone who did died.

Sitting in the back seat of a car has a certain bit of helplessness (as does being in 24A.)

Plus, look at some of the rather extreme safety procedures we use…maybe it is a little bit dangerous.

Of course, there is a rational fear that is proportional to the risk. Commercial aviation is full of intrinsic risks, which are addressed extremely well so they almost never materialize in a fatal way.
Now... driving or being drove, earing, taking a shower, taking a walk.... all these activities have their intrinsic risks, and are more likely to kill you.

If you don't refrain from doing these activities, or you can do them without needing to take a valium or get drunk to manage the fear, or without becoming extremely uneasy, anxious and sweaty and hyperventilating due to the terror you feel when you do them, but you do when flying or intending to fly, then the fear is irrational.

[3WE]

On another angle, when crashes seem to be Uber-basic failures, ass-hat parlour talkers are tempted to pontificate how we would not have crashed in similar circumstances.

Such failures are tough to stomach.

And stastickticks may be of limited value there, too.

[orangehuggy]

Risk of dying from eating has been mentioned a couple of times here, so can we compare eating a meal and flying on a us airline flight? If that 2535 number mentioned above is correct it works out to about 1 in 194 million. So safer than a prop but more dangerous than a rj.

lol

[Evan]

Risk of dying from eating has been mentioned a couple of times here, so can we compare eating a meal and flying on a us airline flight?

Eating a meal on Northwest Airlines was risky, especially the meatloaf, but, in retrospect, I prefer that risk to getting thrown a bag of peanuts.

[Evan]

this is an ignorant statement. the well and poorly trained are all part of aviation. in fact what you propose, would lead to intentionally skewed and even more useless stats.

I cannot imagine that Delta has any pilots capable of the stoogery we've seen from Indonesian or Pakistani (or French) airlines. In fact, I'm confident that the poorly trained are not a part of Delta. Safety culture, through and through. Same with LH's beloved Lufthansa. Sure, any pilot can make errors, but a sound safety culture anticipates them. If we're talking about odds, that is where you find the best odds. Not from statistics.

[3WE]

I cannot imagine that Delta has any pilots capable of the stoogery we've seen from Indonesian or Pakistani (or French) airlines.

Ironingly, a couple years ago on this very forum ATL pointed out a string of incidents, and asked what that meant.

[Gabriel]

Risk of dying from eating has been mentioned a couple of times here, so can we compare eating a meal and flying on a us airline flight? If that 2535 number mentioned above is correct it works out to about 1 in 194 million. So safer than a prop but more dangerous than a rj.

lol

I really don't get your math. 1 in 2535 is 1 in 2535. What does 1 in 194 million have to do with it?

And is not "dying from eating". 1 in 2535 persons on average dies from chocking to death with food. That is just one out of several ways of dying from eating, so the chances of dying from eating are even higher.