PDA

View Full Version : Driving safer than flying.... (merged)


Champagne Anyone?
8th Feb 2006, 17:04
Flying isn't the safest way of travelling, it's official... Richard Madely says so...

Just got back from work, turned the TV on for the news and that kcid head madely and his troll are scaremongering again!

They now says that air travel is no safer than driving, infact you are taking your life in your hands every time you fly. The troll states that we have been mislead into thinking that air travel is safe.

I wondered what other Ppruners views are on this couple of low quality journos, going on TV and scaring the viewers into thinking that we are severely at risk every time we fly. If many viewers weren't affraid of flying before, there will be quite a few sitting scared because, as they heard it on punch and judy, it must be true. (not!)

Should these type of presenters be allowed to report such facts, which I think most of us know to be untrue, with the sole intention of alarming the public?

What do you all think?

Pontious
8th Feb 2006, 17:14
His title was Author and Broadcaster (so he's a Freelance Journo) who was the 'Technical Adviser' on the recent series on British Television about Air Crashes. His name is Philip Weir and he's a ******. He was almost as crass as that pompous, vanity-riddled buffoon DICK Madely who fronts the show.

Weir's point was that travelling by car is safer than travelling by aircraft, enthusiastically encouraged in a desperate search for sensationalism my Dick.

In a vain attempt to leak the truth the two real aviation professionals brought in to challenge Weir(d), tried their best to counter his 'findings'.

Anyway, back to 'Hamster Wheel'.

:ok:

VFE
8th Feb 2006, 17:35
With much embarrasment I confess to having watched this too....

The way the aviation industry calculate the stats (according to him) is based on miles travelled but his point was that 70% of fatal air accidents occur on take off and landing therefore it's misleading and unfair on the other modes of transport to include the miles travelled during the aircraft cruise phase.

I wonder how many fatal road and rail accidents occur during rush hour or in rural area's? Can we assume it fair game to include only those when calculating the danger in those forms of transport?

He was talking out his pipe and it was typical of the media penchant for sensationalism when it comes to air safety that this doghead even made it onto our TV sets this evening.

Personally, I was suprised that Richard Madely took his viewpoint onboard without realising you could slim down the figures for the other two forms of transport just as easily in order to make them seem more dangerous. Expected more from him really but guess not...

Seems the media are trying their damndest to hurt the aviation industry all the time - who needs Al Q?

VFE.

Jerricho
8th Feb 2006, 18:17
I wonder how many fatal road and rail accidents occur during rush hour or in rural area's?

How many accidents are caused from idiots pulling out of their driveway? :rolleyes:

Where's my baseball bat?

419
8th Feb 2006, 18:20
Weir's point was that travelling by car is safer than travelling by aircraft
So, I take it that next time he has to travel to the USA, he will be driving!

Saintsman
8th Feb 2006, 19:29
I remember seeing a comment about the Southwest aircraft that overshot the runway at Chicago and crashed into a car on an intersection, killing a young boy. The comment was 'You are more likely to die in a car crash than in an aeroplane crash'.

Journalists can turn any statistic into any story they want and if it sells they will never stop.:hmm:

BALIX
8th Feb 2006, 19:34
The way the aviation industry calculate the stats (according to him) is based on miles travelled but his point was that 70% of fatal air accidents occur on take off and landing therefore it's misleading and unfair on the other modes of transport to include the miles travelled during the aircraft cruise phase.


What a bunch of arse. That is simply saying that you ignore those stats that don't fit in with your theory. It would be like taking those car accidents that don't involve alcohol out of the stats as a high proportion of car crashes are alcohol related.

frostbite
8th Feb 2006, 20:08
You don't get that sort of crap on Blue Peter (on at the same time and rather more interleckshul).

stue
8th Feb 2006, 20:35
infact you are taking your life in your hands every time you fly.

You take your life in your hands everytime you drive, or even walk anywhere!

I feel alot safer in the good old C152 than i do in my car anyway!

Load of Bull:mad: hit, its just a shame that people will belive him:rolleyes:

Davaar
8th Feb 2006, 20:39
I am not a journalist, broadcaster, or statistician, so help me here.

The distance from Vancouver to Tokyo is 4,697 miles.

The distance from Vancouver to Seattle, WA is 116 miles.

If one passenger flies from Vancouver to Tokyo and is killed on landing at Yokyo, there is 1 fatality per 4,697 passenger miles.

If one passenger flies from Vancouver to Seattle and is killed on landing at Seattle, there is 1 fatality per 116 passenger miles.

It is obviously a lot safer to fly to Tokyo than to Seattle. Right?

In each case, however, there is one passenger fatality per flight. That looks to me like 100% fatalities per flight. If it is one per two flights, that is 50%.

Is it better for the one to be killed to look to the number of flights or the distance covered? Why should he care how far he has flown before he got the heavy chop?

As a supplementary, am I in these few questions guilty of:
(a) scaremongering;
(b) a desperate search for sensationalism;
(c) trying my damndest to trash the aviation indistry;
(d) a bunch of arse;
(f) bull***hit?

If Yes to any of (a) through (e), Why?

colmac747
8th Feb 2006, 20:41
I watched this "report" too - for all of 30 secs.
Smarmy Dick is enough to make you switch off the TV at the best of times, but when something ridiculous as this comes up -t'was enough for me to get out my armchair and go head to head with said Dick from the comfort of my living room.

:rolleyes:

:ouch:

stue
8th Feb 2006, 20:42
(a) to (e) eh??


(ffffffffffff...........):E

Davaar
8th Feb 2006, 21:10
Falsa demonstratio non nocet, and I may add de minimis non curat lex.

I hesitate to be hurtful to the sensitive readers here, but I have even seen studies that assert, with of course statistical backup, that the safest means of transport is the long-distance bus. That one will send a frisson up the spine.

Lord Snot
8th Feb 2006, 21:18
I don't know what you're talking about but everyone's gonna die sometime.

At least in an airplane wreck you'll probably hit the ground at more than the speed of pain and therefore won't feel a thing.

Who cares about statistics? Statistics are for the living........:zzz:

mcgoo
8th Feb 2006, 21:18
Davaar, to be honest though what are the chances of just 1 person dying on a plane crash, lets say for example it was a full 747 and everyone died, that's about 400/500 people, that reduces your stats to 1 fatality to every 9 or 10 miles for the aircraft, lets not forget statistics can prove or disprove anything depending on how they are presented!

As long as the post you are referring to is still on the thread and visible to everybody, there is no need to quote the entire post. It's an 'unhealthy' practice that pollutes many other bulleting boards and which, with your cooperation, we would like to keep off PPRuNe .
Thank you
f40 :)

419
8th Feb 2006, 21:18
that the safest means of transport is the long-distance bus

Let me guess. No fatalities for years, then 3 come along at the same time:)

Lord Snot
8th Feb 2006, 21:24
There has yet to be a single fatality as a result of a Matter Transport accident.

patdavies
8th Feb 2006, 21:41
There has yet to be a single fatality as a result of a Matter Transport accident.


What about the fly in "The Fly"

Davaar
8th Feb 2006, 21:53
Mcgoo, I was just trying to keep the arithmetic simple. Of course the statistics are not made of one passenger fatality or one flight, but of many of both.

Many data go into the numerator,and, many data, flights/ hours/ aircraft type/ operator/ pilot's licence/ aircraft age/ whatever you want to test, go into the denominators. They all come down eventually to simple ratios of incidents in the measured context. That is their purpose, honest or false, valuable or not. They are kept to help someone plan something, replacement of equipment, insurance rates, recruitment of personnel, deceive the public, or anything else you can think of.

I have seen such data expressed, for example, as fatalities per hour. Suppose we expect one fatality per 10,000 aircraft type hours per measured unit (squadron, fleet, flying club) assuming a common level of pilot skill. Good. On the probabilities that gives pilot Bill 10,000 hours to play with if he is the only pilot.

If the said aircraft are being shared among Bill and nine colleagues, the one in 10,000 hours remains unchanged, but if Bill and Tom and the others each do much the same amount of flying, then the likelihiood of Bill or mate going in is one in 1,000.

If the aircraft in the sample fly, say, 1,000 hours per year, this means that one of Bill and his none colleagues will bite the dust in that year, on the probabilities; that ratio is thus 1:10 or ten per cent. That is a long way from one in 10,000.

The absolutely safest way per mile to travel, by one meaure, is by US spacecraft. Lotsa miles for one blast-off. It's not for me, though, and I care not who knows it.

Farmer 1
9th Feb 2006, 06:01
What about the fly in "The Fly"

There's always a fly in the ointment.

Marvin the Robot
9th Feb 2006, 06:28
Flying must be safer than driving.

I mean when you drive, you're sharing the road with a load of self centred, egotistical, poorly taught, disgruntled, stressed, undernourished and excessively tired animals, harrassed by stupid, power crazed womenfolk sat behind them.

Whereas when you fly you're sharing the sky with.....................:uhoh:


OK, point taken.

goshdarnit
9th Feb 2006, 09:51
I heard that 67% of statistics are total invention (and the other 46% are just made up).

I don't think the fly in 'The Fly' died - he was rather integrated with Jeff Goldblum. Statistically speaking that's gonna ruin your whole day...

GDI

Biggles' Apprentice
9th Feb 2006, 09:56
Like it or not the Journo MIGHT have a point.

You see, it's all about how you measure this.

It's generally held amongst stattos that Air travel is 10 times safer per mile travelled, but 4 times more dangerous in terms of cycles )or journeys) commenced. And these stats are totally supported.

To put this in perspective, there have been 1380 74's built, and 33 have been lost (24 inflight). That means that 2.4% of every one built will go down somehow and eventually.

However as generally you commence a hell of a lot more car journeys in your life than air cycles, it's still not that worrying.

Kolibear
9th Feb 2006, 10:46
"There are lies, damn lies and Statistics"

In a comparison such as this, the figures can be selected to prove which ever standpoint you wish to take.

Flying is a safe as driving - crashing tends to be bad for the health though.

hercboy
9th Feb 2006, 11:01
BURN HIM!!!!! AARRRGGGHHHH (pirate voice)

UniFoxOs
9th Feb 2006, 11:05
However you count it, every year there are at least 3 times as many people killed on the roads in the UK as in all the aircraft crashes of every type throughout the whole world.

Cheers
UFO

effortless
9th Feb 2006, 11:18
However you count it, every year there are at least 3 times as many people killed on the roads in the UK as in all the aircraft crashes of every type throughout the whole world.
Cheers
UFO

And how many fly as compared to drive? The fact remains that if you count it by number of journeys undertaken rather than miles travelled then driving is, statistically, safer. Wasn't there a book about the tombstone effect? I wish I could remember what it was called.

mocoman
9th Feb 2006, 11:37
funnily enough:

The Tombstone Imperative

by

...


....


...

Andrew Weir!!!!:oh: (wonder if there's any relation...)

You can still get it if you want... (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743415833/026-8550011-0533238)

:ugh:

UniFoxOs
9th Feb 2006, 11:43
effortless, I cannot believe that all the people in all the world that fly do less than 1/3 of all the car journeys in the UK, it just doesn't seem reasonable.

Davaar
9th Feb 2006, 11:46
.... or, as they say in Glasgow: "Ye cannae tell me .... staun's tae reason ...."

Send Clowns
9th Feb 2006, 12:31
The stats might show that individual car journeys are safer, but that is only relevant to those who are basically innumerate. How many 2-mile plane rides do you take?

In fact in deciding for a particular journey how to travel the only way is to combine the stats for number of trips and for number of miles. This is beyond my capabilities so I shan't comment on the results, except to say that for a very short journey a car is probably slightly safer and for a medium journey or longer a 'plane safer, rising to far safer. Short journeys probably depend on far more, smaller factors, as safety will be similar. This is also beyond the interviewee in question's abilities too, but it seems it did not stop him abusing the statistics.

Both aeroplane and well-planned car journeys are most dangerous at the beginning and end. Take off and landing are the high-risk times in an aircraft. The roads in the middle of a car journey tend either to be high-quality highways (motorways, interstates, autoroutes etc) or else if the traffic is insufficient then they tend to be quiet trunk roads. Both are very safe. At the end of journeys are often motorway intersections and small, crowded streets or busy main roads around towns. So in both cases number of journeys and distance must be taken into account.

Effortless

I've read the book. It's a complete load of garbage, clearly written by someone who has never been in the western aviation industry, or else only worked for some sharp operators (who exist, albeit as a rare breed).

UniFoxOs

But travel further in those journeys. The combined stats might even show about parity. Effortless is using poor stats, but quoting poor stats back doesn't really help.

goshdarnit
9th Feb 2006, 13:15
Send Clowns, thoroughly well thought out and rational post - are you sure you are on the right website?

ORAC
9th Feb 2006, 13:28
Third most dangerous job in the world is pilot. (most dangerous is lumberjack, followed by Alaskan crab fisherman). Truck and bus drivers don't make the list...... :ouch:

effortless
9th Feb 2006, 14:38
Perhaps we should use percentage of pilots involved in accidents v. the percentage of car drivers.

I would certainly dispute the idea that road journeys are more dangerous at each end than in the middle though I accept the motorway analogy.

I wouldn't say that I am trying to show that flying is more or less dangerous than driving. I am merely agreeing with the idea that we don't look at the data appropriately.

I won't use anecdotal evidence garnered from forty odd years of driving up to twenty thousand miles a year. Though I can't remember every one of my car crashes but I do remember the two aircrashes I was involved in. :}