Planes are not safer than cars

[MCM]

Luka,

Correct no-one has died in a Qantas crash in the jet age, although that doesn't hold for before the jet age.

There have been a number who have been seriously injured, as with any airline.

Running off the end of the runway in Bangkok, having a depressurisation over the south china sea, having the Airbus uncommanded pitch event are all examples where they have had major incidents. Some people would use these to say Qantas aren't good, although on the flipside I'd argue that certainly the second two show the high standard of training and operational skill that the airline has. But to say they haven't had a major incident is just wrong.

There is no doubt there is an inherent fear of flying. Thats why people use irrational arguments in these sorts of debate, and why the media react why they do. People do get into the aircraft and upto cruise altitude, and get scared at every bump - that is an IRRATIONAL fear.

If we want to discuss safety stats, thats great, but there's not much using emotional arguments to prove the point, because if we do, aviation will always lose. People (Travellers and people on the ground) just seem far happier with the thought of dying in a car than dying in an aircraft, as if dying in an aircraft is somehow worse.

[SYDCBRWOD]

Dude...Qantas has never had a major event. NO-ONE has died as a result of a crash in a Qantas Jet. Hey, if i'm wrong, tell me what major accident/crash Qantas has been in? I'm from the Northern Territory (Queensalnd and Northern Territory Air Service) - i'm not going by rainman.

Convenient of you to change your post. Let me remind you of the post I replied to:

If you travel Qantas, the stats are yet to begin...

8 Fatal Accidents with 63 killed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...atal_accidents

Incidentally, just because you are from the NT (yes, I have lived there too as well as Queensland 4 times) does not automatically more qualified to comment.

[Luka]

Luka,

Correct no-one has died in a Qantas crash in the jet age, although that doesn't hold for before the jet age.

There have been a number who have been seriously injured, as with any airline.

Running off the end of the runway in Bangkok, having a depressurisation over the south china sea, having the Airbus uncommanded pitch event are all examples where they have had major incidents. Some people would use these to say Qantas aren't good, although on the flipside I'd argue that certainly the second two show the high standard of training and operational skill that the airline has. But to say they haven't had a major incident is just wrong.

There is no doubt there is an inherent fear of flying. Thats why people use irrational arguments in these sorts of debate, and why the media react why they do. People do get into the aircraft and upto cruise altitude, and get scared at every bump - that is an IRRATIONAL fear.

If we want to discuss safety stats, thats great, but there's not much using emotional arguments to prove the point, because if we do, aviation will always lose. People (Travellers and people on the ground) just seem far happier with the thought of dying in a car than dying in an aircraft, as if dying in an aircraft is somehow worse.

- The jet age is more appropriate to comment on because its then that it bacame a national and international carrier. (i think.)
And i intentionally used the word accident not incident. Anything with a motor and parts is going to have an "incident" at some stage, but not necessarily and accident. I don't think thats just simantics...And wasn't using emotion in the post (probably talking about another post i'm sure.) I think the big "FEAR" factor in an aircraft is due to not seeing where you are going, the controls or the drivers (pilots) and not being educated or aware of what is normal and what is not. In other words its the feeling of complete helplessness and lack of control that freaks most people out...Me anyway.

[Luka]

Convenient of you to change your post. Let me remind you of the post I replied to:



8 Fatal Accidents with 63 killed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...atal_accidents

Incidentally, just because you are from the NT (yes, I have lived there too as well as Queensland 4 times) does not automatically more qualified to comment.

- Didn't change my post, was just thinking modern era, with jets. I admit technically thats still makes me wrong, but the jet age is a different kettle of fish totally when talking safety. Diffrerent designs, materials, propulsion, air routes... everything is different except they both fly. But i'll take it on the jaw, i'm wrong. I'll see if i can find a medal that the word PEDANT can fit on for you.
And, being intelligent, of course simply being from the NT doesn't make me more qualified, i was referring to where i got my information from, ie: not the movie RainMan. If you had thought about what i'd said before rushing to better me, you realise that. How about you add to the conversation instead of jumping on people...

[Evan]

I,ve been in a car accident twice and it wasn't that frightening.

And how many plane crashes have you been in?

I don't really see the purpose in your argument, but if it is to determine which mode of transport is safer, the one that crashes less frequently is the safer one. Danger requires incidence. I have been in several car crashes and almost everyone I know has been in at least one. I have never been in even a minor aircraft accident and know only one person who has (a minor runway excursion). Car crashes are very common compared to plane crashes, because air travel is a far safer mode of transport.

If, instead, you are arguing that car crashes are more survivable, that is a question of survivability, not safety. Car crashes are probably more survivable, since they generally involve much slower speeds and involve less fuel, and have airbags and energy absorbent frames. But this is obvious, each performs a very different function, and how could you expect to compare the two in the first place?

Which is safer: air travel or ping pong? It's the same argument.

Here's what is comes down to: Cars are designed to crash safely because they are expected to do so very often. Aircraft are explicitly designed not to crash in the first place because they cannot be designed to crash safely. And modern aircraft are very well protected from crashing, by design, by guidance and by procedure.

[SYDCBRWOD]

- Didn't change my post, was just thinking modern era, with jets. I admit technically thats still makes me wrong, but the jet age is a different kettle of fish totally when talking safety. Diffrerent designs, materials, propulsion, air routes... everything is different except they both fly. But i'll take it on the jaw, i'm wrong. I'll see if i can find a medal that the word PEDANT can fit on for you.

Hmm, doesn't like being corrected... Will explain why the error occurred rather than just taking it on the chin... Gen Y or Gen Next?

- And, being intelligent, of course simply being from the NT doesn't make me more qualified, i was referring to where i got my information from, ie: not the movie RainMan.

So, let me get this straight, it's because you are from the Northern Territory that you know so much about Qantas. I guess I should have realised that all people from the NT have this level of special knowledge about Qantas. Is it taught in schools? Is it part of the educational curriculum? Is there any special reason why I should know this?

- If you had thought about what i'd said before rushing to better me, you realise that. How about you add to the conversation instead of jumping on people...

Thanks for the advice there pot.

[Luka]

You need to grow up mate...No ones impressed.

[brianw999]

Some simple statistics to prove you wrong...

Annual aviation fatalities from the Aircraft Crashes Records Office (Geneva)

year	deaths	# of accidents
2009	1,103	122
2008	884	156
2007	971	147
2006	1,294	166
2005	1,459	185
2004	771	172

Let's look at just one aviation month of 2009...

The world’s airlines have scheduled a total of 2.55 million flights for July 2009.

If we average 150 pax per aircraft that's 382,500,000 (three hundred and eighty two million, five hundred thousand) passengers in one month of the year where there were 1,103 deaths spread over the 12 months. This averages 92 deaths per month while flying. (Worldwide figure)

Now let's look at road accidents. I can't find any 2009 statistics so we'll have to go to 2008.....and this is not a worldwide figure, it's for the UK only !

According to government statistics there were 2,538 people killed on Britain’s roads in 2008

Divide that by 12 for a monthly average and, IN THE UK ALONE, 211 deaths per month occurred.

Let's reprise those figures...

Average monthly worldwide air fatalities..................92
Average monthly UK only road traffic fatalities........211

Are you still really trying to get us to believe that cars are safer than air travel ?

[MCM]

Luka, you did not say accident, you said accident/crash, and major event. My examples were not just a mechanical failure or breakdown, but major safety events that have affected Qantas.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the Qantas 1 in Bangkok was a major event, and probably even meets your definition of crash. It certainly meets mine. Yes, no-one was killed, however that was as much good fortune as good management.

You might also like to know that the ATSB have declared the Inflight Upset to the A330 as an "Accident". Yes, thats right, an official accident.

I am as much as a defender of the Qantas safety record as anyone, and I think that the high standards and training are the reason for the low rate of incidents and the successful outcomes following those that do occur. However to say that they haven't had any is misleading.

As for the rest of my post, yes, it wasn't aimed at you, it was at some of the fearmongering before you by those who think that "feeling" like you are going to crash makes you more likely to.

[EconomyClass]

Just out of curiosity. You always see staggering amounts for plane trips. Anybody have the faintest idea how many auto trips there are? I mean there are a couple hundred million cars in the USA alone. So it could be a billion trips a day. Or nearly so. Which means possibly 3-400 billion trips here and globally trillions? I dont know. I haven't any precise idea. But I know cars take more trips than planes. That's a slam dunk.

[brianw999]

Just out of curiosity. You always see staggering amounts for plane trips. Anybody have the faintest idea how many auto trips there are? I mean there are a couple hundred million cars in the USA alone. So it could be a billion trips a day. Or nearly so. Which means possibly 3-400 billion trips here and globally trillions? I dont know. I haven't any precise idea. But I know cars take more trips than planes. That's a slam dunk.

Yes...but what is the average car trip mileage compared to the average air trip mileage ?

I'm sorry...but this garbage about road travel being safer than air travel doesn't hold water.

I travelled to Thailand last year, a total round trip of 11,815 miles. That equates to a whole years worth of private driving for me. Allow for 300 other passengers (and the loading was actually heavier than that) and you're looking at a total seat mileage of 3,544,500 for just one flight.
I would imagine that the average car journey is not actually very long with the vast majority of journeys being local, home to work etc. Probably no more than 50 miles average overall per journey at a maximum.
Based on those figures, and I'm sure my 50 mile average is probably high, one long haul flight equates to 70,890 vehicle journeys.

Add in other factors...
Air travel is strictly controlled by ATC with no little old grannies tottering across the road in front of you, no drunk drivers, no drivers using their mobile phones, no two way traffic, no crossing traffic, no speeding motorists, no unlicenced motorists, no women doing their makeup at the wheel, no-one eating a sandwich while driving....the list goes on.

Remember also that aircraft travel at a speed which will invariably kill you if it all goes wrong whereas car drivers travel much of the time at surviveable speeds in the event of a crash...yet there are many tens of thousands of road traffic deaths every year worldwide compared to approximately 1,000 annual worldwide air traffic deaths.

In my 30 years as a paramedic I have attended around 2,000 road accidents, many of them involving fatalities. I have never attended a plane crash.

The fact remains...you are more likely to die in a car crash on the way to or from the airport than you are on the flight that you are taking/have taken.

[PMN]

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

A parachute? For a 400 ton plane? Please tell me you're joking?

As for your lifejacket comment, they said a similar thing about lifeboats on the Titanic, assuming they'd never be needed and thus were pointless. Quite a cock up, I'm sure you'll agree.

[thefridayknight]

Can someone explain to me how to use this Quote feature. I click on the Quote tab but I cant seem to figure out how to single out the sentences that I would like. I have alot of indivisual responses that i would like to make and would very much appreciate if someone helped me out. I refuse to let you very intelligent folk (I'm not being sarcastic) "scud missle" my oh so prized contention. LOL. I'm taking a beating from you guys that for sure. LOL!
I was looking for the "help" option" but I saw none. Thank You so much.

[thefridayknight]

To Simple boy

You said:
"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".

ONLY 11 out of 15 had fatalities! Thats alot! NOT EVERYONE was killed?! LOL!
Less than half died on the flights?! Thats's sounds pretty bad to me! The airline indusrty should be ashamed of numbers like that.

[thefridayknight]

I know I'm not crazy

In light of many people on this forum stating thier statistics and telling me my points were groundless. I said to myself: "O.K..... before I go on defending my point of view I'm going to take some time and take a look at some statistics" and hopefully even find some statistics that would even validate my perspective. In the process of doing that tonight... LO AND BEHOLD!....this is what I found:
http://www.airtravelsurvival.com/pages/plane-crash-statistics.htm

This ad in no way had any influence on my opinions. My perspective is original and from the heart. I just found this ad tonight. I'm the only one I know of with my argument (until now). A previous responder said he couldn't understand why I was even trying to make the comparison of the two modes of travel. All my life I've heard people say "planes are safer than cars" and I never thought so. I'm just trying to get people to at least look at things in a different perspective from what they are used to.
Sometimes statistics can be a distraction from looking at things from your "default" point of view. All the statictics that I hear and read are in favor of plane flight...there was always something fishy about that to me and they always clashed with the reality as I saw it. Brainwash tactics.. thats what I always suspected it was.

Well I will surely be buying this book. Now I dont feel so alone in my crazy theory. I knew I wasn't crazy.