Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel News
Reload this Page >

This yearís freak spate of crashes doesnít mean air travelís getting more dangerous

This yearís freak spate of crashes doesnít mean air travelís getting more dangerous

Reply

Old Jul 25, 14, 12:39 am
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: LAX
Programs: UA/AA
Posts: 1,689
This yearís freak spate of crashes doesnít mean air travelís getting more dangerous

But even though 2014 has indeed been one freakishly bad year for air travel, flying is still one of the safest ways to get around. Hereís some key context, in charts:

http://qz.com/239928/this-years-frea...ore-dangerous/
jaymar01 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 25, 14, 5:24 pm
  #2  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 570
Yet another reason I don't like to drive very much. I can't wait for the day where the majority of passenger vehicles are self-driven.
tys90 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 25, 14, 5:31 pm
  #3  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ORD
Programs: US Air, UA BA LH AI DELTA MARRIOTT CHOICE SGP
Posts: 8,328
saw a news report on NBC news that the chances of you in a commercial flight are once in 60000 years of flying. Let' s go
HMPS is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 25, 14, 6:54 pm
  #4  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Programs: MR/SPG LT PLT, AA LT PLT, HH GLD, UA SLV, Avis PreferredPlus
Posts: 23,178
The statistician in me has to ask:

doesn’t mean air travel’s getting more dangerous
2014 is on track to be the deadliest year in air safety since 1998
While I understand the point that air travel is much safer than any other mode of transportation, isn't the title simply false?
CPRich is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 25, 14, 7:52 pm
  #5  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: AA Lifetime PLT , BA Silver , BD RIP , HH Gold, SPG / Marriott PLT , EF Subscriber
Posts: 6,586
deleted
UncleDude is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 25, 14, 10:05 pm
  #6  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: SF Bay Area
Programs: AA EXP, UA*G, HH Dia, MR Platinum, IHG Amb/Plat, Hyatt Exp
Posts: 4,256
Originally Posted by tys90 View Post
Yet another reason I don't like to drive very much. I can't wait for the day where the majority of passenger vehicles are self-driven.
I agree that air travel is super-safe. Let's go!

But let's not get around urban areas with self-driving cars. We need more high-density, walkable (or bicycle-able) urban environments where you don't even need a car. Frankly, the post-World War 2 suburb (including most of Silicon Valley) is total B.S.
Explore is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 26, 14, 5:47 am
  #7  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: LHR / IAD
Programs: BA/AA/UA
Posts: 2,955
Honestly, before this spate and for a long while, I was thinking we really haven't had any air disasters to speak of. And even these, mostly, are not due to aircraft issues.
China Clipper is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 26, 14, 8:37 pm
  #8  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: SFO, formerly of ORD
Programs: MileagePlus Premier Silver
Posts: 45
Originally Posted by CPRich View Post
The statistician in me has to ask:





While I understand the point that air travel is much safer than any other mode of transportation, isn't the title simply false?
The statistician in you should ask whether an increased fatality rate this year would be statistically significant or well within the expect range of noise in the data.
ChrisMD123 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 14, 12:34 am
  #9  
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 3,447
Originally Posted by ChrisMD123 View Post
The statistician in you should ask whether an increased fatality rate this year would be statistically significant or well within the expect range of noise in the data.
I think that one could make a strong case that the degree of global instability is much worse than the norm, and the likelihood of an terrorist takedown, or a possibly inadvertent shoot-down such as the Malaysia flight over the Ukraine, is significantly increased in such an unstable environment.

I think the crashes in Mali and Taiwan could in all likelihood be chalked up to a noise spike generating random events, but I believe the Malaysia shoot-down in Ukraine is a result of an actual increase in hazard from a known causal factor that is worse presently than it had been in the past. Of course, it's pretty near impossible to model the increased risk based upon one data point, but I do believe that there is a clearly observable increase in that one specific risk factor - and that increased risk factor has been seen to cause to a catastrophic event. It's even possible that this same risk factor has caused the prior Malaysia Air loss as well, but the lack of the plane makes that simply a guess at this point.
lhgreengrd1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 14, 7:11 am
  #10  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Scotland - ABZ
Programs: Qantas LTG, BA, KLM -Silver, SAS - Silver, M&M
Posts: 1,961
People will ignore these stats for a very good reason:

In a car, you have a great deal of control over your own safety. Therefore the accident and fatality stats will be skewed toward those who drive with less care, and their few passengers.

In a plane, you have surrendered control. Your chances of survival are only as good as every other passenger's.
mandolino is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 14, 8:37 am
  #11  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 3,723
I'm no statistician, but even I can see that there are normal variations in just about anything, and some years are going to have more crashes than others.

Personally, though, I do not include MH17 in the list of "crashes", since it was intentionally destroyed in an act of war. I'd classify it the same as any other civilian casualties of war, though I do condemn the airlines for not routing their flights around a hot conflict zone where the combatants on both sides have anti-aircraft weaponry.

Originally Posted by Explore View Post
I agree that air travel is super-safe. Let's go!

But let's not get around urban areas with self-driving cars. We need more high-density, walkable (or bicycle-able) urban environments where you don't even need a car. Frankly, the post-World War 2 suburb (including most of Silicon Valley) is total B.S.
Getting around on foot or bike is perfectly feasible in a suburban environment, too. I grew up in one and went everywhere on foot or bike till I was 17, and even after I got a car I still made plenty of local trips by foot or bike.

Personally, I prefer a lower population density, which reduces not only vehicular traffic, but also reduces noise, crime, pollution, disease, and the other miseries of an overcrowded environment. The suburbs include many more natural settings - trees, streams, hills, fields, animals, etc - that either don't exist in urban areas, or exist only in a rigidly contained artificial setting that's more like a snow globe or a potted plant than real nature.
WillCAD is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 14, 11:32 am
  #12  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Programs: Diamond Club, Krisflyer, BA Exec
Posts: 374
Originally Posted by HMPS View Post
saw a news report on NBC news that the chances of you in a commercial flight are once in 60000 years of flying. Let' s go
That the chances of you 'getting a nice crew' in a commercial flight...?

That the chances of you 'not getting a blocked toilet'...

That the chances of you 'getting first meal choice'...

gordies is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 14, 12:07 pm
  #13  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: SJC, SFO, YYC
Programs: AA-EXP, AA-0.41MM, UA-Gold, Ex UA-1K (2006 thru 2015), PMUA-0.95MM, COUA-1.5MM-lite, AF-Silver
Posts: 13,437
The self control argument is irrelevant. The statisitcs matter. Commerical aviation is safe, at least in western countries.

It is self control that makes surface transportation dangerous. If cars were self driving there would be fewer deaths period.
mre5765 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 14, 12:14 pm
  #14  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: YYZ, YKF
Programs: Skymiles GM
Posts: 183
Originally Posted by mandolino View Post
People will ignore these stats for a very good reason:

In a car, you have a great deal of control over your own safety. Therefore the accident and fatality stats will be skewed toward those who drive with less care, and their few passengers.

In a plane, you have surrendered control. Your chances of survival are only as good as every other passenger's.
That's what I think most people believe. Control means even inexperienced, at least you "chose" your fate.

Unfortunately, drivers don't have control over other freak events like overpasses collapsing, flying truck tires (deadly!), deer, rampaging hijacked snowplows or the "usual" red-light runners and impaired drivers.
SoroSuub1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 14, 12:29 pm
  #15  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 61
what is a statistic and what is a statistician

Originally Posted by jaymar01 View Post
But even though 2014 has indeed been one freakishly bad year for air travel, flying is still one of the safest ways to get around. Here’s some key context, in charts:

http://qz.com/239928/this-years-frea...ore-dangerous/
An inference is drawn from the mathematical interpretation of the behavior of a large number of INDEPENDENT events.

A causal relationship may trigger a bias in the outcome of a series of inferred independent events.

There was a Deming, and woes are we as that it more than appears to me that all who have written and quoted here may know nothing of his work which was probably responsible for the historical reduction in our perceived random outcomes.

Dear Reverend Bayes would say the probability of the shoot down was high.

He might base his mathematics on causal items so simple as are there things that can shoot down a plane, are there people who might want to shoot down a plane, have there been any planes shot down with such things in that region, etc.....etc....etc....

The history of the ATR gives cause to wonder as to whether anyone studied that history before including it in the equipment resource base in an area of the world that has some rating of higher than average turbulence.

After all did it not take over 100 years for some country's engineers to learn the simple fact that punched rivets weaken the metal and failure is thousands and perhaps millions of times more likely to have a catastrophic outcome. And did!

The rules:

1.Create constancy of purpose for improving products and services.
2.Adopt the new philosophy.
3.Cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality.
4.End the practice of awarding business on price alone; instead, minimize total cost by working with a single supplier.
5.Improve constantly and forever every process for planning, production and service.
6.Institute training on the job.
7.Adopt and institute leadership.
8.Drive out fear.
9.Break down barriers between staff areas.
10.Eliminate slogans, exhortations and targets for the workforce.
11.Eliminate numerical quotas for the workforce and numerical goals for management.
12.Remove barriers that rob people of pride of workmanship, and eliminate the annual rating or merit system.
13.Institute a vigorous program of education and self-improvement for everyone.
14.Put everybody in the company to work accomplishing the transformation

Someone said that Toyota became who they are based on the above consultant's rule

Its the arrogance and apologies that will harm us.

Last edited by overdahill; Jul 27, 14 at 1:12 pm Reason: add on about quality control
overdahill is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: