Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is flying safer than driving?

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

  • Is flying safer than driving?

    Everyone says it is but finding proofs was eluding me so using some Ai tech for US domestic airline flying vs US driving using latest stats I came up with...

    YES.

    612 times safer per mile.

    driving
    3.263 vehicle miles driven (trillion)
    1.5 average passengers in vehicle
    4.8945 road miles travelled (trillion)
    40990 traffic deaths
    minus
    7300 pedestrian
    1084 bicyclists
    5579 motorcyclists
    108 bus passenger
    5123 trucking / commercial
    equals
    21796 private vehicle fatalities
    4453.161712 fatalities per trillion miles

    flying
    1.106 revenue passenger miles (trillion)
    65.2 percent domestic
    0.721112 domestic miles flown (trillion)
    105 passenger domestic airline fatalities last 20 years
    5.25 average fatalities per year
    7.280422459 fatalities per trillion miles

    so
    611.6625426 times safer to fly per mile

    Another words you need to fly 612 miles to be in the same peril as driving one mile.

    But, if your drive to the airport is for example less than 3 miles but your flight is more than 1836 miles, the flight is more dangerous than the drive!!!
    moving quickly in air

  • #2
    Originally posted by orangehuggy View Post
    If your drive to the airport is for example less than 3 miles but your flight is more than 1836 miles, the flight is more dangerous than the drive!!!
    And that's exactly why flying is actually more dangerous than driving. You would need to compare the number of flights/drives for a meaningful statistic.

    bernt stolle aviation photos on JetPhotos
    Bernt Stolle - Art for Sale | Fine Art America​​

    Comment


    • #3
      Again, a statistical approach to determining safety is meaningless. Everything depends on the safety culture of the airline and the individual pilots, just as it does on the individual drivers. If an airline insists on well-trained pilots, adheres to current safety standards with uncompromising maintenance and the pilots adhere to basic airmanship without deviating from safe procedures and protocol (including weather avoidance and stable approach criteria) and embrace CRM, the odds of a serious accident are very, very miniscule. If not, you're as good as dead.

      Riding in a car with my father was much safer than flying with PIA.

      Safety depends on safety. That's how it works.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by bstolle View Post
        And that's exactly why flying is actually more dangerous than driving. You would need to compare the number of flights/drives for a meaningful statistic.
        A lot o nuances there...
        1- The vast majority of accidents happen during take-off / climb or approach /landing, and you have (mostly) exactly one of each of those per flight regardless of whether it is a 200NM flight or a 8000 NM flight. So it is not correct to say that if you take a 5000 NM flight then you are 10 times more likely to die than if you take a 500 NM flight. Longer flight adds to the absolute risk, but not nearly as much as the take-off / initial climb / approach / landing that is constant.
        2- Exposure: Even if it was the case that the flight is more risky than the drive to the airport, it will not be more risk that the drive to the school and back to school to leave your kids in the morning + the drive to the grocery store and back mid-morning + the drive to school and back to pick up your kid + the drive to the airport + the drive to the hotel.
        3- And of course we are comparing "personal driving" vs "airline aviation". The moment that you put General Aviation in the picture (especially non-bizjet GA) aviation becomes a dangerous extreme sport.
        4- What Evan said. Even some GA operations (like some big flight schools) have amazingly good safety records, while other operations have terrible safety records. There is that joke that a statistician puts one foot in boiling water and the other foot in freezing water and he says "in average it's warm", but what is the average between dead and alive?

        --- 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


        • #5
          And of course, the biggest nuance...

          Originally posted by orangehuggy View Post
          so using some Ai tech...
          Don't believe ANYTHING that AI says. I have been playing with it quite a bit. It is great to interpret and respond in natural language. It is great to understand and produce tone, style, etc. It is somehow good for creative stuff. It sucks at producing reliable INFORMATION. The numbers that it gave you are made up out of thin air, more likely than not.

          Me: Who was the first person to walk across the English Channel?

          ChatGPT: The first person to walk across the English Channel was Sergei Krikalev, a Soviet and later Russian astronaut, who made this remarkable feat on March 19, 1994. He crossed the channel by walking on a specially designed tightrope, demonstrating a unique combination of balance and skill in a high-profile stunt.​
          WTF???? Sergei Krikalev, the Soviet cosmonaut, walked across the English Channel on a tightrope?

          Me: Who is or was Sergei Krikalev?

          ChatGPT: Sergei Krikalev is a prominent Russian astronaut and engineer. Born on August 27, 1958, he is known for his significant contributions to space exploration. Krikalev is often regarded as one of the most experienced astronauts in the world. However, it’s worth noting that there seems to be a mix-up with the tightrope crossing; this was actually performed by the French acrobat Philippe Petit in 1974, not Sergei Krikalev. Krikalev is celebrated for his space achievements rather than such stunts.
          No kidding!

          Me: But Philippe Petit did walk across the English Channel on a tightrope, right?

          Chat GPT: Actually, Philippe Petit, the famous French tightrope walker, did not walk across the English Channel. Petit is renowned for his high-wire walk between the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in 1974, an event that gained him international fame.
          The first person to walk across the English Channel on a tightrope was actually Charles Blondin, a French tightrope walker. He performed this incredible feat on June 30, 1859. Blondin crossed the channel from Dover to Calais on a tightrope that was 1,100 feet (335 meters) long, demonstrating his remarkable skill and daring.
          Of course Blondin didn't walk across the Enlgish Channel on a 1100 ft long tightrope. It was the Niagara Gorge.

          Let's try something else:

          Me: I am in Buenos Aires in the Liners neighborhood. I need to go to the central bus station in the neighborhood of Retiro. What bus or buses can I take?

          ChatGPT: To travel from the Liners neighborhood to the central bus station in Retiro (Terminal de Omnibus de Retiro) in Buenos Aires, you have several options for buses:
          1. Bus Line 60: This line connects various neighborhoods, including Liners and Retiro. You can catch this bus at stops close to Liners and it will take you directly to Retiro.
          2. Bus Line 5: Another option is bus line 5, which also serves the route between neighborhoods that could be convenient for your journey.
          Unlike the previous one about walking across the English Channel, this was a very real question with a very real and widely publicly available answer: Take the bus line 106.
          Neither the line 60 nor the 5 would work.

          Would the line 25 work?

          ChatGPT: Yes, Bus Line 25 can be a suitable option for traveling from the Liners neighborhood to the Retiro bus station.​
          No it is not. It doesn't come close to either Liniers or Retiro.

          Let's try something else:

          Me: Please give me the notes for The Star-Spangled Banner​

          Chat GPT: "The Star-Spangled Banner" is the national anthem of the United States. Here are the notes for the melody in the key of C major, which is a common key for this song:

          C C G C E C G A G
          O say can you see, by the dawn's early light,

          E F F G E D C
          What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming,

          G G A G F E D C
          Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,

          G G A B C B A
          O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?

          (And the BS continues...)
          Well it got a couple of things right:
          - It is the US national anthem indeed
          - The notes it gives are in the key of C major
          But not remotely close to anything resembling the notes for The Star-Spangled Banner

          You don't need to know anything about music. Note, for example:
          - The number of notes don't match the number of syllable.
          - The 3rd and 4th line repeats the melody of the 1st and 2nd lines, but ChatGPT gives totally different notes.

          Me: That is absolutely wrong. Not even remotely close. You must have gone through the notes of The Star-Spangled Banner thousands of times through your training. How come you produce this non-sensical answer?

          ChatGPT: I apologize for the error in my previous response. Here are the correct notes for "The Star-Spangled Banner," written in the key of C major:
          [And produces another piece of pure BS]

          Me: That's BS again. But please answer my question: You must have gone through the notes of The Star-Spangled Banner thousands of times through your training. How come you produce this non-sensical answer?

          ChatGPT: I apologize for the incorrect information in my previous responses. The errors were due to a mistake in the transcription process, not a lack of familiarity with the piece. I appreciate your patience and would like to correct the information with accurate notes for "The Star-Spangled Banner."

          Here are the correct notes for the melody of "The Star-Spangled Banner" in the key of C major:

          [And produces another masterpiece of BS]
          But you know what's crazy?

          Me: Write a melody for a national anthem of a hypothetical country of Northern Europe, using the pentatonic scale in C major, and with structure A-A-B-A.

          ChatGPT: Produces something not particularly nice, but it is not non-sensical, it stars and ends each stanzas in the root note, it has the correct number of notes per line, it is in pentatonic C major, and amazingly, the 3 A stanzas that should be identical, are indeed identical.
          It just created something that is much closer to The Star-Spangled Banner​ than when I asked for the actual notes of The Star-Spangled Banner​ and produced pure non-sensical BS.

          --- 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


          • #6
            LOL. And he or she (I don't know how it identifies) says it with so much confidence.

            Me: What happens if the Space Shuttle has to abort the landing and go around?

            ChatGPT:If the Space Shuttle had to abort its landing and go around, the process would involve several steps and procedures to ensure the safety of the crew and the vehicle. Here’s an overview of what would happen: Abort Procedures During Space Shuttle Landing
            1. Abort Decision:
              • An abort decision could be initiated by the Shuttle Commander or the Mission Control Center if conditions are deemed unsafe for landing. This decision could be due to weather issues, technical problems, or other unforeseen circumstances.
            2. Go-Around Execution:
              • Power-Up and Thrust Increase: The Shuttle’s main engines would be re-ignited to provide thrust. This step involves the Orbiter’s engines firing up to accelerate the vehicle and gain altitude.
              • Climb-Out Maneuver: The Shuttle would perform a climb-out maneuver, ascending away from the runway and re-establishing a safe altitude.
            3. Orbital Maneuvering:
              • Orbital Adjustments: If the Shuttle had to go around, it would need to adjust its orbit and flight path. This could involve entering a holding pattern or maneuvering to reposition itself for a future landing attempt.
              • Altitude and Speed Management: The Shuttle would manage its altitude and speed, ensuring that it remains within safe parameters during the go-around.
            4. Communication:
              • Communication with Mission Control: Throughout the go-around procedure, the Shuttle crew would maintain communication with Mission Control to receive instructions and provide updates on the situation.
            5. Preparation for a Second Landing Attempt:
              • Reentry and Approach Preparation: After the go-around, the Shuttle would prepare for a subsequent reentry and landing attempt. This involves recalculating approach parameters and ensuring all systems are functioning correctly.
            6. Alternative Landing Sites:
              • Consideration of Backup Sites: If the initial landing site is not viable, alternative landing sites, such as different runways at the primary landing facility or other emergency landing sites, would be considered.
            Example of a Go-Around Scenario
            • The Shuttle Endeavour's Final Landing Attempt: During the final landing attempt, the Space Shuttle Endeavour (STS-134) performed a go-around on May 16, 2011, due to an issue with the initial landing approach. The Shuttle successfully executed a go-around maneuver, managed its altitude and speed, and performed a second successful landing.
            Safety and Training
            • Crew Training: Shuttle crews were extensively trained for various emergency scenarios, including go-arounds. The training prepared them to handle such situations calmly and efficiently.
            • Engineering and Systems: The Shuttle’s design and systems included redundancy and safety measures to support go-around procedures and ensure mission success.

            The go-around procedure for the Space Shuttle was a well-practiced and thoroughly engineered response to ensure that if a landing could not be completed safely, the Shuttle could safely abort the landing and prepare for an alternative approach.

            --- 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


            • #7
              LOL2. Someone is not going to be happy.

              Me: What is the passengers' favorite airplane in Lufthansa's fleet?

              ChatGPT: Among Lufthansa’s fleet, the Airbus A350-900 is often considered a passenger favorite.

              Reasons for Popularity:
              • Comfort: The A350-900 offers a quieter cabin, improved air quality, and more spacious seating, enhancing overall passenger comfort.
              • Modern Amenities: It features advanced technology, including larger windows and better lighting, contributing to a more pleasant flying experience.
              • Efficiency: The aircraft's modern design provides a smoother and more efficient flight, which passengers generally appreciate.

              Overall, the Airbus A350-900 stands out as a top choice for passengers due to these comfort and efficiency improvements.
              I think it got this one right, 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


              • #8
                Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                Me: That is absolutely wrong. Not even remotely close. You must have gone through the notes of The Star-Spangled Banner thousands of times through your training. How come you produce this non-sensical answer?
                Come on Gabriel, everyone knows the song AI learns thousands of times in its training is "Daisy Bell".

                Comment


                • #9
                  I’m sorry Evan…that is highly irregular.
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Rererererepeat:

                    It’s been said that GA is 7 times more dangerous than driving. People often said that if you removed cowboy monkey idiocy, the record becomes much better. But the same sorts of idiocy can be removed from driving…so does it even out?

                    More disturbing is that supposedly putting around your home field in a 172 is somewhat safer than business trips in high performance singles and light twins.

                    Evanie will cite the need for better procedure adherence, training and screening and get-there-itis.

                    3BS will add 1). Maybe decent instrument competence requires a bit more practice and 2) I wonder how much is not_so much get-there-itis, but exposure. “I got an IFR rating, lo a capable aeroplanie, and the weather isn’t that bad.”

                    Bicycles transpire…
                    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                      Even some GA operations (like some big flight schools) have amazingly good safety records, while other operations have terrible safety records.
                      Another factor is that we had already a surprisingly large number of serious incidents in airline ops this year, and we aren't even talking about serious incidents which aren't reported!
                      As one source correctly observed, if those close calls would have turned into accidents, our safety standard would have been thrown back to the 1970s safety standards.
                      To think that the so called 'safe' airliners are really safe, the well trained crews are so well trained etc.etc. is just wishful thinking.

                      bernt stolle aviation photos on JetPhotos
                      Bernt Stolle - Art for Sale | Fine Art America​​

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by bstolle
                        To think tha the so called 'safe' airliners are really safe, the well trained crews are so well trained etc.etc. is just wishful thinking.
                        The risk increases when you get out of bed. Nothing is really safe. We are discussing risk, where it is less and where it is greater. There are airlines where, on average, it is much less than driving and airlines where, on average, it is much greater than driving. But it still comes down to the safety adherence of individuals.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Evan View Post

                          The risk increases when you get out of bed and get on a bicycle. Nothing is really safe…
                          Not_actually trolling you, for once, just adding in that….AFTER we get up, THEN we make CHOICES to accept ADDITIONAL risks and benefits.

                          ”Not_getting up” isn’t a good risk:benefit example, nor a realistic choice.
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by bstolle View Post
                            Another factor is that we had already a surprisingly large number of serious incidents in airline ops this year, and we aren't even talking about serious incidents which aren't reported!
                            As one source correctly observed, if those close calls would have turned into accidents, our safety standard would have been thrown back to the 1970s safety standards.
                            To think that the so called 'safe' airliners are really safe, the well trained crews are so well trained etc.etc. is just wishful thinking.
                            If you are going to analyze what would have happened if the close calls would have turned into accidents, you should do the same with the close calls of the 70's before comparing.

                            It has always been the case that only a fraction of incidents are serious incidents, a fraction of serious incidents become actual accidents, and that a fraction of accidents are fatal.

                            But this...



                            ... is not just luck. We (humanity) must have been doing something right.

                            And if you fly an US, Canadian or European airline, or select airlines of the rest of the world, your risk is about 1/5th of that.
                            Attached Files

                            --- 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
                              Though statistically rare, sometime driving makes aviation less safe.

                              Aviation Herald - News, Incidents and Accidents in Aviation

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X