Safety on low cost flights.
The original question was whether people 'feel' safer - very subjective and not always relevant to the (hopefully) more objective science of statistics. For myself, on two occasions in 33 years and 10000 hours of aviation I've walked away from a flight thinking "that was close - could've died there". The number of times in the same years of driving that I felt I could have died is beyond counting.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lisbon
Age: 51
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
deltahotel
You are an ATPL, highly trained and experienced professional aeroplane driver.
Now, what level of driving licence do you hold?
Could it be that your judgment is rather more informed in the flight deck and thus you have less concerns?
You are an ATPL, highly trained and experienced professional aeroplane driver.
Now, what level of driving licence do you hold?
Could it be that your judgment is rather more informed in the flight deck and thus you have less concerns?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Kent
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deltahotel's perception of risk is one I share and, I would suspect, so do many others.
Given that take-off and landing are by far the riskiest periods of flight, the bulk of the risk associated with flight - and the bulk of unease, if you are a nervous passenger - happens in a short time, and distance, at the beginning and end of the journey. For most of the travel time, most people will feel safe.
In a car, there are significant risks before you move off and, as soon as you gather any speed, those risks mushroom, and don't you know it. For most of the travel time, most people will be aware of the dangers of travelling by car.
Imagine travelling from Paris to St Petersburg by plane, and back by car: On the outbound leg, you've got one or two individual journeys (if you fly via Moscow) and you spend most of your time in well-managed airspace, shared by aircraft which will, at your altitude, have a couple of professionals at the pointy end. The leg back will have rather more individual journeys, on roads of varying quality shared with cars and drivers of indeterminate reliability. Oh, and 150 of those cars will carry the passengers you shared the flight out with.
Hopefully, you'll not perish on either leg. But which trip is likely to give you more near-misses?
In answer to the original question, I enjoy driving but I feel safer flying. I've got confidence in the airline experts; but confidence in other road-users...? Not even in myself, some days
NS
Given that take-off and landing are by far the riskiest periods of flight, the bulk of the risk associated with flight - and the bulk of unease, if you are a nervous passenger - happens in a short time, and distance, at the beginning and end of the journey. For most of the travel time, most people will feel safe.
In a car, there are significant risks before you move off and, as soon as you gather any speed, those risks mushroom, and don't you know it. For most of the travel time, most people will be aware of the dangers of travelling by car.
Imagine travelling from Paris to St Petersburg by plane, and back by car: On the outbound leg, you've got one or two individual journeys (if you fly via Moscow) and you spend most of your time in well-managed airspace, shared by aircraft which will, at your altitude, have a couple of professionals at the pointy end. The leg back will have rather more individual journeys, on roads of varying quality shared with cars and drivers of indeterminate reliability. Oh, and 150 of those cars will carry the passengers you shared the flight out with.
Hopefully, you'll not perish on either leg. But which trip is likely to give you more near-misses?
In answer to the original question, I enjoy driving but I feel safer flying. I've got confidence in the airline experts; but confidence in other road-users...? Not even in myself, some days
NS
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fact is driving is safer.
Deaths per billion journey's:
Car: 40
Air: 117
Car: 40
Air: 117
Also the 'deaths per journey' stat is misleading because all the deaths in that billion probably happened on only several aircraft, whereas the 40 deaths that supposedly happened in cars represents probably at least 20 accidents. What are your chances of being on several fatal crashes per billion plane journey? Almost nothing...
Lets say for argument's sake you will be in 5 fatal flying accidents for every billion journeys you take (117 deaths could be one accident but lets use 5 to illustrate the point)
But those 40 deaths as I said above will probably represent about 20 fatal car crashes, so rather than 5 plane crashes you will be involved in 20 fatal car crashes for every billion journeys...still think driving is safer?
Safety being compromised
I do beleive that safety is being compromised ( In the Cabin ) I have travelled on low cost just a few times and the amount of baggage that is being carried Into the cabin per person and put In the overhead lockers Is to much,On my last trip ZRH - LGW There were Nine people with three peices of baggage many had suitcases Quite large ( and larger than the official size for cabin Baggage ) being put Into the overhead locker one person could hardly lift It. I was sitting two seats away from one of the said pax who had a laptop case , a ruck sack and a suitcase all taken into the cabin and the suitcase went into the overhead locker. If the overhead lockers came down In an accident they would probably break all of our necks. I checked to see If there was a weight limit after the flight and there was a clear Placard staighting the weight In the lockers. But the rules are not being adheered to.
PS Sorry about the Spelling
ATPL Retired
PS Sorry about the Spelling
ATPL Retired
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know if this is still the case but last time I went on easyJet there was no limit on hand baggage weight at all...which does potentially seem dangerous. If there is no weight limit then how do the cabin crew know when the overhead locker weight limit has been exceeded?...As t211 rightly points out.
People could be transporting bricks in the bags for all the cabin crew would know...
People could be transporting bricks in the bags for all the cabin crew would know...
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The number of journeys is pretty irrelevant in reality though:
I want to go from London - Madrid. What is the safest way to do that? 1100 miles by car or by plane? Of course the answer is plane - because I am so much less likely to die per each of the miles travelled. In other words, 1100 hundred miles on open road would be so far above and beyond the average journey length/speed in a car, that it would actually constitute multiple journeys.
If planes were as 'safe' as cars, given the number of miles they travel, the number of deaths from planes would be through the roof.
I want to go from London - Madrid. What is the safest way to do that? 1100 miles by car or by plane? Of course the answer is plane - because I am so much less likely to die per each of the miles travelled. In other words, 1100 hundred miles on open road would be so far above and beyond the average journey length/speed in a car, that it would actually constitute multiple journeys.
If planes were as 'safe' as cars, given the number of miles they travel, the number of deaths from planes would be through the roof.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think a few minor facts have been overlooked with the swell of emotive but baseless argument
The most accurate method is to compare the number of deaths with the number of journeys made. So accurate, in fact, that this is the measure used by the industry and its insurers. This makes much more sense, because what matters to the individual is the journey, not how long it took or how far it went. Also, it enables comparison of different types of jet, both long haul and short haul.
By this measure, air travel takes on a rather different complexion. Deaths per 100 million passenger journeys are, on average, 12 for airliners compared with 3 for cars, and 2.7 for trains. Only motorbikes, at 100 deaths per 100 million passenger journeys, are more risky than aircraft on this basis.
By this measure, air travel takes on a rather different complexion. Deaths per 100 million passenger journeys are, on average, 12 for airliners compared with 3 for cars, and 2.7 for trains. Only motorbikes, at 100 deaths per 100 million passenger journeys, are more risky than aircraft on this basis.
The real problem is that we cannot comprehend how many cars and drivers are out there compared to aircraft. In the UK alone as I have already stated there are 34 million cars compared to 1010 aircraft. In the states there are 250 million cars compared with around 7,000 commercial aircraft.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think a few minor facts have been overlooked with the swell of emotive but baseless argument
I do see the OP's point though, it's all a perception thing and the general public usually doesn't appreciate the rigorous safety standards that apply to all Western aviation.
Here in Asia I would never ever contemplate a LOC or any airline that wasn't SQ/CX. Adam Air anyone?
Here in Asia I would never ever contemplate a LOC or any airline that wasn't SQ/CX. Adam Air anyone?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
contact tower I hope you don't think too often
which part of this statement do you think makes it clear that GA is not included:
which part of this statement do you think makes it clear that GA is not included:
The most accurate method is to compare the number of deaths with the number of journeys made. So accurate, in fact, that this is the measure used by the industry and its insurers. This makes much more sense, because what matters to the individual is the journey, not how long it took or how far it went. Also, it enables comparison of different types of jet, both long haul and short haul.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The most accurate method is to compare the number of deaths with the number of journeys made. So accurate, in fact, that this is the measure used by the industry and its insurers. This makes much more sense, because what matters to the individual is the journey, not how long it took or how far it went. Also, it enables comparison of different types of jet, both long haul and short haul.
OK yes I admit I missed that when you first posted it...however that it may have included GA was not my main point...
The point I was making...which you seemed to have completely ignored is that your deaths per passenger journey is misleading because it does not account for the fact that aircraft carry a lot more people than cars do.
These statistics do just that.
At a personal level I need to take approx 333,000,000 car journeys before I die.
In comparison I only need to take 85,000,000 flights before I die.
At a personal level I need to take approx 333,000,000 car journeys before I die.
In comparison I only need to take 85,000,000 flights before I die.
200,000,000 journeys needed before I will be involved in a fatal aircraft accident.
Now if we make the assumption that your 40 deaths per billion journey in cars is about 20 crashes, I reasonable assumption since most cars travel with only one or two people in then:
50,000,000 journeys will be needed before being involved in a fatal accident.
Yes I agree per passenger journey air travel kills more people, but from an individual perspective, assessing my risk air travel is safer because those deaths are spread across a much lower number of accidents...
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lisbon
Age: 51
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ContactTower
Each of us only dies once.
The point I was making...which you seemed to have completely ignored is that your deaths per passenger journey is misleading because it does not account for the fact that aircraft carry a lot more people than cars do.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Each of us only dies once.
As I demonstrate above ones personal risk of being in a fatal plane crash is LOWER than being in a fatal car crash for a billion journeys...it really isn't rocket surgery you know...
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hi contact, would you be surprised if I said you are wrong.
The statistic is already balanced. What you are doing is advocating the importance of one aspect (amount that die in an accident) but completely ignoring that aviation deaths are spread over a few thousand aircraft compared to car deaths being spread out over hundreds of millions of cars.
Thats why this statistic is accurate, thats why this statistic is used by insurers but most importantly, thats why the aviation industry doesn't want to use it.
On an individual basis, one has more chance of dying whilst flying than driving.
And its not my point, I am just repeating somebody elses hard work.
The statistic is already balanced. What you are doing is advocating the importance of one aspect (amount that die in an accident) but completely ignoring that aviation deaths are spread over a few thousand aircraft compared to car deaths being spread out over hundreds of millions of cars.
Thats why this statistic is accurate, thats why this statistic is used by insurers but most importantly, thats why the aviation industry doesn't want to use it.
On an individual basis, one has more chance of dying whilst flying than driving.
And its not my point, I am just repeating somebody elses hard work.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats why this statistic is accurate, thats why this statistic is used by insurers but most importantly, thats why the aviation industry doesn't want to use it.
The statistic is already balanced. What you are doing is advocating the importance of one aspect (amount that die in an accident) but completely ignoring that aviation deaths are spread over a few thousand aircraft compared to car deaths being spread out over hundreds of millions of cars
I think we may have to agree to disagree on this one but I'll try to make my point one more time...
As an individual when I get on a plane I'm not concerned as such with how many people will or have died flying per journey I'm interesting in how many times the plane will crash per billion journey because that is what is important to whether I die or not.
Lets say for arguments sake all airliners carry ten people per flight, and they crash at a rate of one for every ten flights...that means I have a one in ten chance of dying when I go flying.
Then lets say airliners grow a bit and now carry 100 people per flight yet still crash at the same rate. Therefore my chance of dying is still the same since I will still die on my tenth flight.
THEREFORE, the deaths per journey HAS gone up but my personal risk of dying is the same. I'm not trying to prove your stat is wrong, just that it does not represent personal risk when comparing cars and planes.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The statistic isn't how many crashes. The statistic is deaths per billion journeys.
So to counter it makes no difference how many died on an individual basis or how many an aircraft carries. Per billion journeys on average 117 people will die compared with only 40 in a car. The amount of accidents is irrelevant.
Therefore my chance of dying remains at approx 1 in 333,000,000 car journeys in comparison to 85,000,000 flights.
Now to go the extra mile, aviation safety is in fact even worse because the statistic relates to only a few thousand aircraft (less than 20,000) whereas the car statistic is drawn from literally billions of cars.
The amount of car journeys taking place as we post is unimaginable yet only 40 die per billion journeys. That is something quite incredible.
So to counter it makes no difference how many died on an individual basis or how many an aircraft carries. Per billion journeys on average 117 people will die compared with only 40 in a car. The amount of accidents is irrelevant.
Therefore my chance of dying remains at approx 1 in 333,000,000 car journeys in comparison to 85,000,000 flights.
Now to go the extra mile, aviation safety is in fact even worse because the statistic relates to only a few thousand aircraft (less than 20,000) whereas the car statistic is drawn from literally billions of cars.
The amount of car journeys taking place as we post is unimaginable yet only 40 die per billion journeys. That is something quite incredible.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 3,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Joao da Silva
...each of us only dies once.
I'm not going to stop any of you in any way - Rock On! It just seems to me that you can twist the stats every which way to suit?