How safe is flying?

[EHM-1199 Philip]

I just started reading a book about the safety of flying. They suggest that the idea of flying being the safest form of transport is a lie put about by the aviation industry. In fact, it is only the safest form of flying if you look at miles travelled which is of course quite weighing things in the favour of flying as flights tend to be long journeys and statistically over 75% of problems with flights happen on take-off or landing.

Consequently what they came up with is a statisitic showing that if you look at number of journeys instead of number of miles travelled the most dangerous type of transport is the motorbike at 100 deaths per million. Next is flying at 55 deaths per million and then all other forms of transport are just 3-5 deaths per million.

Also, death by flying is ten times more likely than winning the lottery on one ticket vs. one flight comparison. Do the maths. I am going on holiday this year once and that will be my only two flights of the year. I buy four lottery tickets each year. Therefore my chance of dying in a plane crash this year is 104 times more likely than my chance of winning the lottery this year.

What do folks think of the safety of flight. The book is called 'The tombstone imperative' and looks like it will be a fascinating read. It covers the theory that air safety is improved only on a speculative monetary value of human life. I.E. no matter how hideous the disaster you need to weigh out how many lives were lost before acting to make aircraft more safe. Hence, smoke hoods which cost pence are still not in place despite the fact that they would save a majority of lives in 'burning' planes. Also, airlines tell the public that the cost of any specific safety measure (such as smoke hoods) is prohibitive and will up the price of the ticket too much then spend literally millions on advertising.

[EHM-0005 Maarten]

I think you shouldn't look at the amount of deaths per million, but at the amount of accidents that happen. When an aircraft crashes, you have far more deaths than when a car crashes.

The amount of deaths has nothing to do with the level of risk that is involved. The amount of risk has to do with the chance that you are involved in an accident.

[EHM-1199 Philip]

Are the two not connected though Maarten. Surely although less planes are involved in accidents when one is the result is far more fatalities and consequently this effects the safety record of air transport. This would only be highlighted even further if/when an A380 or similar comes down.

The level of risk to any individual is the likelihood of dying on any one journey and therefore you would need to look at deaths per million as that would be the indicator of the likelihood of an accident and therefore the risk.

Don't get me wrong - I love planes and will always cheerfully jump aboard but this book does seem to have a point concerning the way the statistics are put forward.

It reflects also in the statistics of individual airlines. For example, Quantas claims the best safety record in the industry based on number of passenger miles travelled. However this is misleading - the most dangerous part of the flight is the takeoff and landing and Quantas in proportion to many other airlines doesn't have that many takeoffs and landing because they fly very long trans continental routes. If you rejig the statistics and instead consider the number of deaths per journey as opposed to per mile travelled then Quantas apparantly slips well down the table.

[EHM-0005 Maarten]

It sure says something, but not in this case. You say it yourself: "...although less planes are involved in accidents...".

We are here talking about the individual risk that is involved in flying. This has nothing to do with the amount of persons that die in a plane crash. For me as person, it is only interesting how big the chance is that I am involved.

You could say that with new developments as the A380, the chance that a large amount of people die during a crash is bigger, but what has that to do with the individual risk?

I totally agree with you that airlines should not base their safety record on the miles they travelled, but that brings me back to my original point: The risk should be based on the amount of flights and not on POBs, time or miles travelled.

[EHM-1199 Philip]

[quote
You could say that with new developments as the A380, the chance that a large amount of people die during a crash is bigger, but what has that to do with the individual risk?

[/quote]

Surely it has everything to do with individual risk. The more that die in any one crash the more the statistics are skewed against safety. If a cessna drops and a couple die the overall safety record of the cessna is marginal. If an A380 drops and 700 people die the safety record of the plane is seriously hampered. Take concorde - although that isn't a perfect example because of financial issues the safety record of such a prestigious and well known brand was tarnished beyond repair after just one serious incident in 40 years!

[EHM-1506 Emre]

At my point of view let me explain it on my way:

I was working at Adnan Menderes Airport which in İzmir. It is not quite big airport. It makes about 700 flights aproximately per week both foreign and domestic included. And that makes 700*4= 2800 flighst per month and that makes 33600 flights per year. Each plane can be calculated as 80 people onboard than that equals to 2.688.000 people every year are flying from LTBJ. Again it is not a big airport. Every year lets say 2000 people are dying in plane crashes. At this moment 0,074 per cent of LTBJ pessangers likely to die in a crash. I hope that is enough for the safety...

I just want to say something about statistics... Statistics is very very good science to tell lies with it. Because it depends on the point of researchers view. You can show that flying is safe or very very dangerous thing with same data.

Kind of regards.

[EHM-1199 Philip]

Absoutely agree - statistics are the best tool of the fabricator. However, the statistics here are not in debate - the only point really is why the statistics presented are never the ones that reflect the reality of an individual death - that is the deaths per million. The deaths per mile travelled is a slightly skewed way of looking at things when youthink that just a package holiday is likely to run into several thousand miles for a single flight.

Just thought 'd share a little of this book anyway and open up the discussion

[EHM-1539 Pierre]

Message original :  Plymyphil
It covers the theory that air safety is improved only on a speculative monetary value of human life. I.E. no matter how hideous the disaster you need to weigh out how many lives were lost before acting to make aircraft more safe. Hence, smoke hoods which cost pence are still not in place despite the fact that they would save a majority of lives in 'burning' planes.

Well, actually it's not a theory, it's official, unfortunately.

[EHM-1199 Philip]

Originally posted by maabaa

Message original :  Plymyphil
It covers the theory that air safety is improved only on a speculative monetary value of human life. I.E. no matter how hideous the disaster you need to weigh out how many lives were lost before acting to make aircraft more safe. Hence, smoke hoods which cost pence are still not in place despite the fact that they would save a majority of lives in 'burning' planes.

Well, actually it's not a theory, it's official, unfortunately.

Makes you wonder why they're not in place eh? I totally feel comfortable flying but ... it seems the statistics do lie and it's not quite as safe as made out. In burning planes ... just for reference ... the survivors are the ones that hit the deck at the first sniff of smoke - simple science really, heat rises and they're the lastto get smoke inhalation and in the coolest part of the cabin!

[liam]

i personaly thuink its safer in the air.. i love hights