• mmddmm@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    Just to point out, but the last time we had a scandal about a plane that kills people, it’s safety record was about the same as riding a motorcycle in city transit (AKA, one of the most dangerous things people actually do).

    Just because the average is very low, it doesn’t mean whatever problem people are pointing isn’t an issue.

  • fmtx@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 days ago

    The way that airline safety is positioned has always annoyed me. Back in the day they used to say, “Your odds of dying in a car crash are greater than dying in a plane crash.” That statement never sat right with me because while the aggregate number of casualties is greater for car crashes than airline crashes, it doesn’t address the survivability for the passengers of a single incident.

    I forget the statistics, but depending on the type of car crash, passenger seat position mattered in a car, with higher mortality rates for the driver’s side vs passenger side, and higher mortality for front seat vs back seat.

    Now what about a single airplane crash? It doesn’t matter if you are seated in first class, business class, economy, the flight deck, or in the cargo hold. Survivability rates for the entire plane are low for the entire plane in the event of a crash.

    Yes, planes have less incidents compared to cars, but if a plane has a problem, it’s going to be a big problem for everyone on board.

    /rant

    • Lumiluz@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      I don’t think you understand statistics…

      Also, you’re more likely to survive in the back of the plane versus the front.