How safe is flying REALLY?

Also consider, that if you crash your car, you have a fair chance of
survival. But if a plane crashes (unlikely as it may be) chances are
your
dead.

This is pretty meaningless. One of these things happens all the time and
one
almost never does. The only way you can compare is by falities (or serious
injuries, or whatever you're concerned about ) per trip or per mile or per
hour.

I agree its meaningless, I am just trying to suggest another reason why
people may be scared of flying.

Also consider, that if you crash your car, you have a fair chance of
survival. But if a plane crashes (unlikely as it may be) chances are
your
dead.

This is pretty meaningless. One of these things happens all the time and
one
almost never does. The only way you can compare is by falities (or serious
injuries, or whatever you're concerned about ) per trip or per mile or per
hour.

I agree its meaningless, I am just trying to suggest another reason why
people may be scared of flying.

This is pretty meaningless. One of these things happens all the time and
one
almost never does. The only way you can compare is by falities (or serious
injuries, or whatever you're concerned about ) per trip or per mile or per
hour.

It seems that one needs to count fatalities per trip, since take off and
landing are the danger zones. Once you're cruising, you can rack up many
"safe" miles, thus distorting a comparison with, say, car miles travelled.

"From 1982 to 1998, a period of 17 years, there were a total of
8,109,000,000 passenger enplanements. During that same time period, there
were 2,211 fatalities, and 348 serious injuries. This amounts to a 0.00003%
chance of being seriously injured or killed in a commercial aviation
accident. This is far less than any other mode of transportation." [Source:
NTSB, Passenger Injuries and Injury Rates, 1982 through 1998.]

Who knows anything about probabilities? I was wondering this: QANTAS is
supposed to be the safest airline since they lost no (or the fewest?) PAX
ever. Does this mean that a) they are indeed safe, or b) that they are now
due for a big one?

Ok, this is a bit tongue in cheek, but assuming that maintenance and staff
competence will, in the long run (and I'm talking about decades here) tend
to be equal in all major airlines, doesn't QANTAS' record mean they have
actually been lucky? Or has safety traditionally been counted as
fatalities/miles, thus distorting the statistics in favour of those airlines
that travel over greater distances like Australia (disadvantaging, for
instance, European airlines that make many small hops?)

This is pretty meaningless. One of these things happens all the time and
one
almost never does. The only way you can compare is by falities (or serious
injuries, or whatever you're concerned about ) per trip or per mile or per
hour.

It seems that one needs to count fatalities per trip, since take off and
landing are the danger zones. Once you're cruising, you can rack up many
"safe" miles, thus distorting a comparison with, say, car miles travelled.

"From 1982 to 1998, a period of 17 years, there were a total of
8,109,000,000 passenger enplanements. During that same time period, there
were 2,211 fatalities, and 348 serious injuries. This amounts to a 0.00003%
chance of being seriously injured or killed in a commercial aviation
accident. This is far less than any other mode of transportation." [Source:
NTSB, Passenger Injuries and Injury Rates, 1982 through 1998.]

Who knows anything about probabilities? I was wondering this: QANTAS is
supposed to be the safest airline since they lost no (or the fewest?) PAX
ever. Does this mean that a) they are indeed safe, or b) that they are now
due for a big one?

Ok, this is a bit tongue in cheek, but assuming that maintenance and staff
competence will, in the long run (and I'm talking about decades here) tend
to be equal in all major airlines, doesn't QANTAS' record mean they have
actually been lucky? Or has safety traditionally been counted as
fatalities/miles, thus distorting the statistics in favour of those airlines
that travel over greater distances like Australia (disadvantaging, for
instance, European airlines that make many small hops?)

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 12:49:02 +0200, Karl Wagner wrote:


Who knows anything about probabilities? I was wondering this: QANTAS is
supposed to be the safest airline since they lost no (or the fewest?) PAX
ever. Does this mean that a) they are indeed safe, or b) that they are now
due for a big one?

Well, at the risk of offending the probability business, in the Alaska
Airlines case, which went through a long period with a similar record, it
clearly ended up meaning b). :-)


Ok, this is a bit tongue in cheek, but assuming that maintenance and
staff competence will, in the long run (and I'm talking about decades
here) tend to be equal in all major airlines, doesn't QANTAS' record
mean they have actually been lucky? Or has safety traditionally been
counted as fatalities/miles, thus distorting the statistics in favour of
those airlines that travel over greater distances like Australia
(disadvantaging, for instance, European airlines that make many small
hops?)

First, I would rather use statistics *per departure.*

Second, the assumption that all airlines are run in the same way is surely
not always true. So perhaps this means that Qantas has been running a
tight ship?

Then there are cultural differences which unavoidably come to play.
Alaska and their prayer comes to mind. Or the Egyptair cash.

Finally, still thinking about Alaska, complacency is always a risk.
Especially after a long period without accidents.

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 12:49:02 +0200, Karl Wagner wrote:


Who knows anything about probabilities? I was wondering this: QANTAS is
supposed to be the safest airline since they lost no (or the fewest?) PAX
ever. Does this mean that a) they are indeed safe, or b) that they are now
due for a big one?

Well, at the risk of offending the probability business, in the Alaska
Airlines case, which went through a long period with a similar record, it
clearly ended up meaning b). :-)


Ok, this is a bit tongue in cheek, but assuming that maintenance and
staff competence will, in the long run (and I'm talking about decades
here) tend to be equal in all major airlines, doesn't QANTAS' record
mean they have actually been lucky? Or has safety traditionally been
counted as fatalities/miles, thus distorting the statistics in favour of
those airlines that travel over greater distances like Australia
(disadvantaging, for instance, European airlines that make many small
hops?)

First, I would rather use statistics *per departure.*

Second, the assumption that all airlines are run in the same way is surely
not always true. So perhaps this means that Qantas has been running a
tight ship?

Then there are cultural differences which unavoidably come to play.
Alaska and their prayer comes to mind. Or the Egyptair cash.

Finally, still thinking about Alaska, complacency is always a risk.
Especially after a long period without accidents.

Karl Wagner wrote:

Who knows anything about probabilities? I was wondering this: QANTAS is
supposed to be the safest airline since they lost no (or the fewest?) PAX
ever. Does this mean that a) they are indeed safe, or b) that they are now
due for a big one?

Not really b), since the airplane cannot know if and when there has been
a crash lately, or ever for that matter. If there was someone deciding
that Qantas was due for a crash, then it would apply, but since no-one
is, it doesn't apply.

Think of it this way. Roll a dice a good amount of times (hundreds),
and you'll notice that each number should come up about the amount
of times. Small variations of course do apply, unless the dice is
loaded.

Now, all of a sudden, you get a streak of 6:s. Say 10 sixes in a row.
In the next throw, would it be a) more likely, b) less likely, c)
equally likely that a six would come up?

And in the same way as the dice doesn't have a memory for past throws,
the airplane doesn't have a memory for past crashes. So other
things must affect the outcome, for example, maintenance of the
airplanes. And given that everything else stays the same (maintenance,
security etc. etc.), how would it affect to the probability of
a crash that a) a crash just occurred or b) a crash has never occurred?

I don't know if this made any sense, but something to think about
anyway...

--
Mikko Peltoniemi
Film & Video Editor, Avid Technician at large.
http://editor.is.dreaming.org

Karl Wagner wrote:

Who knows anything about probabilities? I was wondering this: QANTAS is
supposed to be the safest airline since they lost no (or the fewest?) PAX
ever. Does this mean that a) they are indeed safe, or b) that they are now
due for a big one?

Not really b), since the airplane cannot know if and when there has been
a crash lately, or ever for that matter. If there was someone deciding
that Qantas was due for a crash, then it would apply, but since no-one
is, it doesn't apply.

Think of it this way. Roll a dice a good amount of times (hundreds),
and you'll notice that each number should come up about the amount
of times. Small variations of course do apply, unless the dice is
loaded.

Now, all of a sudden, you get a streak of 6:s. Say 10 sixes in a row.
In the next throw, would it be a) more likely, b) less likely, c)
equally likely that a six would come up?

And in the same way as the dice doesn't have a memory for past throws,
the airplane doesn't have a memory for past crashes. So other
things must affect the outcome, for example, maintenance of the
airplanes. And given that everything else stays the same (maintenance,
security etc. etc.), how would it affect to the probability of
a crash that a) a crash just occurred or b) a crash has never occurred?

I don't know if this made any sense, but something to think about
anyway...

--
Mikko Peltoniemi
Film & Video Editor, Avid Technician at large.
http://editor.is.dreaming.org

Not really b), since the airplane cannot know if and when there has been
a crash lately, or ever for that matter. If there was someone deciding
that Qantas was due for a crash, then it would apply, but since no-one
is, it doesn't apply.

Excellent point. I should have thought of that. I did know that all those
people keeping track of numbers at roullete are on a fool's errand ;-)

It's safe to say that 9/11 has resulted in a dramatic increase in
deaths, due to more people driving instead of flying to their
destination.

A few excerpts from Salon's "Ask the Pilot" series -

"At major airports across America, airplanes come and go at a rate
approaching 100 per hour. Every day in this country, the major
airlines and their affiliates alone operate more than fifteen thousand
flight segments. Of these, almost none fail in their attempt to
successfully defy gravity. During calendar year 2002, not a single
fatality was recorded among the country's commercial airlines - five
million takeoffs and landings by the biggest carriers alone. It's not
always so impressive, but it's always close."

"Earlier this year, Michael Flannagan and Michael Sivak of American
Scientist magazine conducted a study to reevaluate the old
flying-v-driving contention. In the end, their data showed that if a
passenger chooses to drive, rather than fly, the length of a typical
nonstop flight segment (just over 1,100 kilometers), he is now 65
times more likely to be killed."

The last words of Flannagan's and Sivak's report: "For flying to
become as risky as driving, disastrous airline incidents on the scale
of those of September 11th would have to occur about once a month."


Lots of places to review the statistics, among them -

http://www.geocities.com/khlim777_my/ashowsafe1.htm

http://aviation-safety.net/airlinesafety/index.html