Vanilla 1.1.2 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
I realize that by posting this inane question I risk being banned forever but the truth is I have never actually been on an airplane and the thought of flying scares me to death. I know that the guys at gullible.info carefully check and recheck their facts and I am interested to know what they have to say on the subject.
Actually if you look at this from a purely statistical standpoint, the answer is no. How many airplanes fly each year? (not number of flights) The largest carriers in the US (United, American, Delta, Southwest, etc) operate between 200 and 600 planes, so it is safe to surmise the total number of planes operating in the US is around 6000. Taking a quick look at the incident reports from the FAA there have been over 5000 since the 70's. This means that 83% of the aircraft in the US have been involved in "incidents." Of these incidents 1436 caused fatalities. That means that almost 25% of all planes in the US has been involved in an incident with at least one fatality.
Whereas if you look at automobiles in the US only, to save a headache on calculations, there are more than 200 million cars in the US. Each year there are nearly 200,000 automobile accidents with 42,643 fatalities. Respectively there are roughly 10% of the US cars involved in some sort of accident, and only 2.13% of people involved in any type of accident are killed.
Given that information I dare you tell me airplanes are safer.
I'm going to sticky this thread. The most-researched information will be featured in a front page update this Saturday. Happy citing!
Not related to the initial question, but there's an organization for people who have survived airplane crashes. It's called "Falling Up" and it offers therepy referalls and help with media inquiries. It has an annual convention usually attended by about a hundred survivors.
In some strange way I think that it actually makes me feel better to know that.
Great work folks. I think I might turn this sort of thread style + front page update into a regular thing.
Quick question regarding the factoid around sodium content: do you think the sodium content is intentionally high due to the need to retain more water while in flight?
Just curious. :)
in reply to cadet, yes, you can consider it that way,. but hen you have to take into consideration tha number of cars that are ACTUALLY driven out of the given amount.. that alot of those cars are not driven.. and then taking into consideration that a plane holds hundreds more than cars (which is mostly used for an average of 2 people per vehicle) and then you have to take into consideration the different causes.. drunk driving, construction, mechanical problems and everyting else. and do the same thing with the planes. and not to just look at the figural value of the amount of vehicles in the US.. as i said before, take into consideration that alot of those are not driven at the same time.. im sure a considerable amount are either show or innoperable.
just saying to take everything into consideration. as im sure the resurchers for this original fact did just that.
cadet, I totally disagree. For the following reasons;
Firstly, an "incident" means a technical issue, not necessarily an accident or crash. Planes have much more extensive safety and engineering checks than your average vehicle, this is a reason for the high number of "incidents". An "incident" equivalent for a vehicle would be a dead battery, flat tire, faulty door, etc etc etc. Not a fatal accident. I will give you one thing though, 99% of air crashes do have a 100% kill rate. However, air accidents are alot less frequent than automobile ones. And there are very few planes that are 30 years old and still operating.
Being a car occupant is second only to crossing the road as the most dangerous activity humans regularly participate in.
http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm
large planes are more than 7 times safer than a car. 52 million to 1 chance of dying.
in response to cadet
While I may have misunderstood the statistic you gave, you said that there have been 5000 "incidents" since the 70's for about 6000 airplanes, and there were 200,000 acidents from 2 million cars each year. You are comparing two different time periods. If you account that there have been probably thirty years (most 28 because they probably started counting in 1978 - the deregulation of airlines), there are an average of about 167 "incidents" a year. The percent of crashes is now 2.8%. This is a lot less then cars (10%), not including the fact that most airline incidents are very minor things that they find out about after they land.
Also, the airline buisness is one of the few were every commercial airplane is tested by the US government. Not just 1 out of 10,000 like the car industry, but 1 out of 1.
Mr. Fingers gave the link to the best answer - airliners are far safer than automobiles, while commuter planes and general aviation are less safe than automobiles (statistically, at least - I'd say GA depends an awful lot on the care taken by the owner/pilot of the plane). Here are the numbers from that page:
Odds of being killed on a single trip :
Airliner (Part 121) - 52.6 million to 1
Automobile - 7.6 million to 1
Commuter Airline (Part 135 scheduled) - 581,395 to 1
Commuter Plane (Part 135 - Air taxi on demand) - 163,934 to 1
General Aviation (Part 91) - 73,187 to 1
In response to Mr. Cadet - that's horrible reasoning. Here's an example to illustrate why. Consider that you had two companies - Company A and Company B. Company A owned 1 airplane, while Company B owned 7. Every day for a week, the each made a round trip flight between two airports. Company A used their single airplane every day, while Company B used a different airplane each day. Company A crashed on the last day of the week, while Company B had four crashes during the week. By your reasoning, you would say Company B was safer, because only 4/7 of their fleet crashed, while 100% of Company A's fleet crashed. It really must be based on something else, like travel time or number of flights, to make for a fair comparison.
Posted By: cadetThe largest carriers in the US (United, American, Delta, Southwest, etc) operate between 200 and 600 planes, so it is safe to surmise the total number of planes operating in the US is around 6000.
er -- There's no 'safe' way to leap from the short list of US carriers and the guesstimation of how many aircraft they operate to the 6000 figure.
The next part is even less credible. ~1400 incidents that caused at least one death so we can do the math: 1400/6000 is about 25%. But the ~1400 is since the 70s. How many planes have been in service since the 70s?
Posted By: MrFingersAnd there are very few planes that are 30 years old and still operating.
That's true of commercial airliners but there are many many cargo and private planes that are still being used that are at least 30 years old.
There are a bunch of > 30 year old 747s still being used. And they will continue to be so. The new Airbus 380 should have a life of 40 years.
Even though airplanes are safer, is there any kind of odds that say that you are more likely to survive an airplane than an automobile? Just curious.
If the aircraft lands at sea you haven't a chance. Those life-vests under the seat are a complete waste of space and fuel.
Posted By: Piggie8Even though airplanes are safer, is there any kind of odds that say that you are more likely to survive an airplane than an automobile? Just curious.
You're much less likely to survive an airplane crash. As stated before, there's approaching 100% fatality rate of airplane-crash victims, as opposed to a mere (Approximated) 2% fatality rate of automobile-crash victims.
Most aircraft crashes have zero fatalities as they occur on the ground.
(Yeah, I know that all crashes involve the ground eventually ... I'm screwing this up - but you know what I mean)
Posted By: PaulustriousMost aircraft crashed have zero fatalities as they occur on the ground.
(Yeah, I know that all crashes involve the ground eventually ... I'm screwing this up - but you know what I mean)
Actually, no I do not know what you mean, Paul. Rephrase your seniloquy, please?
Most accidents occur when a loading vehicle hits an aircraft, or the plane 'nudges' something something on the ground.
Take Pakistan Airlines for example.
Sometimes there are problems with landing gear.
Most accidents do not involve inappropriate descents. However, if you are going to be involved in one then make sure it does not occur at sea. SFAIK, there has never been a survivor from a large civil aircraft hitting the ocean (excluding take-off and landing in places like the Potomac)
Edit: I like seniloquy. It's a change from being obloquacious.
Edit 2: A colleague of mine was riding in a towing vehicle pulling a Jaguar round the perimeter track at the aerodrome where we worked. The plane and its towing vehicle became separated and the plane trundled on its merry way and stopped when it sank its front wheel in the mud. They had a hell of a job getting it out without damaging it.
Many of my personal inappropriate descents have directly resulted in an accident. Particularly the ones precipitated by bottles of Everclear and beautiful Halloween whores.
If you're putting on makeup with a spoon, [brain fart - what's a clever way to finish this?]
... you can have your cake and eat it.
... it will put a different complexion on things
... You won't end up looking dishy.
...Just remember your face will be upside down in the reflection.
Paul -
There's a significant difference between
Posted By: Rot Bottoman airplane crash.
and
Posted By: PaulustriousMost accidents
When a car hits another car it's a crash. There is no requirement that either be vertically displaced. The same is true of aircraft.
ac·ci·dent /ˈæksɪdənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ak-si-duhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty; mishap: automobile accidents.
3. any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause.
Definition 1 is very relevant, true. But the following word has a particular definition regarding aeronautics.
crash /kræʃ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[krash] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used without object)
4. Aeronautics. to land in an abnormal manner, usually causing severe damage: airliner crash
Bugger it! I typed in my reply and went elsewhere before pressing "Add Your comments".
Dictionary.com's definition is ridiculous. And others think so as well. Their definition of landing seems to be "coming to a halt in one or more pieces after contacting the ground". As in, the aircraft landed abnormally in the side of World Trade Center 1. A truly ridiculous definition. The author should work for gulliblewords.disinfo.
I use the word crash as per definition 1. Definition 4 is hogwash.
As an appeasement I shall rephrase my earlier statement. Most aircraft collisions do not involve fatalities.
Once again we learn that should not always believe what we read on the Internet.
I would say that all crashes are accidents, so there can't be that much of a difference.
Somebody's never seen the conspiracy theories for 9/11!
Posted By: TranceSomebody's never seen the conspiracy theories for 9/11!
Intelligent people ignore them
They said you would say that. Then they told me what you are thinking right now, but they said not to tell anyone, especially your closest friend. I trust them.
They never approached me. They must know how I think about them. Pretty much proves they exist.
They said I shouldn't tell you this, but I'm not hiding their secrets anymore even though I may be scared. Paul, you're - oh, no, I just can't do it. Pretend nothing happened, and be thankful you won't see me on the evening news tomorrow.
I am thankful.
Speaking of airplane crashes, anyone watched Faces of Death 1?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077533/.
//Edit: PG-18
Posted By: Haoest//Edit: PG-18
What does the PG stand for in America? In England it means 'parental guidance,' but I can't see an 18 year old needing that.
I wish the "Back to Discussions" link was also above/beside the "Add Your Comments" Usually its just off the bottom of my screen
Posted By: TrancePosted By: Haoest//Edit: PG-18
What does the PG stand for in America? In England it means 'parental guidance,' but I can't see an 18 year old needing that.
Same thing here. PG means parental guidance strongly suggested
So an 18 year old needs parental guidance? ooooookay...!!
I know some 40 year olds who could use some
I've never heard of PG-18. Here in the USA, the ratings go: G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17, and then there's X for some less.... "approprate" movies. X movies don't go into theaters, however. There's no such thing (as far as I know) as PG-18, though. Speaking of 18... I'm turning 18 next Friday!!! Woohoo!!!!
I though NC-17 was a space ship.
Posted By: nyarfdudeI've never heard of PG-18. Here in the USA, the ratings go: G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17, and then there's X for some less.... "approprate" movies. X movies don't go into theaters, however. There's no such thing (as far as I know) as PG-18, though. Speaking of 18... I'm turning 18 next Friday!!! Woohoo!!!!
What does NC-17 mean?
Happy birthday!! I'll be sixteen next tuesday.
Sweet! Happy birthday to you too!
Posted By: tossedoffabridgeWhat does NC-17 mean?
No Children under 17.
Anyone else remember 'M' ratings?
The entitly that rates movies trademarked their ratings below 'X' but didn't think anyone would want the X rating so they didn't bother. There was one 'X' rated movie (if memory serves) that won an Oscar -- anyone want to guess what it was? (I am not checking via Google yet.) This was way early on in the ratings game when 'X' meant 'beyond M' and not 'smut'.
Posted By: nyarfdudethere's X for some less.... "approprate" movies.
Some of them are very appropriate. It just depends on the activity one associates with it.
Posted By: nyarfdudeX movies don't go into theaters, however.
Ever been to Times Square circa 1990?
No, I have to say I haven't, FT.
And I couldn't give a Jo Buck.
That's a pretty common trivia question -- it might even be in _Trivial Pursuit_. _Midnight Cowboy_ was the only X-rated movie to with the Academy Award Best Picture. It was re-released some years later and received an "R" rating. If released today, it would be an "R". It has themes of drug use and (male) prostitution.
I'm a big movie buff, and I'd say that's a good movie, but not a great movie.
Personally, I think _Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid_ should have won that year -- that is a great movie (though I still have problems with the musical "Raindrops" interlude in the middle; while I like the break since it divides the movie nicely, I think the song is jarring since it's out-of-period), and the ending with the fade-to-sepia is PERFECT.
Oh yeah -- Butch Cassidy was terrific.
Katherine Ross was a total babe. (Still is, last I saw)
It's amazing how one's definition of a babe changes with one's accumulation of years.
How so?