Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How the airline industry got wise to seat belts

airspacemag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 81 posts

Re: How the airline industry got wise to seat belts

#41

Post by throwaway0a5e »

zipiridu wrote: post #16
ceejayoz wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. The "fatalities per mile" chart is pretty astounding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#/media/File:Fa...

IIRC takeoff and landing are the most dangerous parts, so I'd be more interested fatalities per trip. An intercontinental plane ride would cover more miles than I drive in a year which makes the per mile stat meaningless to me. I think it would still be in the plane's favor but probably not as significantly. And in that case if you're a safe driver (healthy adult, doesn't drink or do drugs, doesn't speed, etc) it mig…

The stat is doubly misleading because it is skewed by the proliferation of long direct flights as turbofan widebody jets proliferated and air travel became more affordable which both happened in the same time period as that chart.

I don't think flying is particularly dangerous but the person you're replying to is being highly naive or misleading by taking that chart at face value.

Re: How the airline industry got wise to seat belts

#42

Post by throwaway0a5e »

mertd wrote: post #29
zipiridu wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC takeoff and landing are the most dangerous parts, so I'd be more interested fatalities per trip. An intercontinental plane ride would cover more miles than I drive in a year which makes the per mile stat meaningless to me. I think it would still be in the plane's favor but probably not as significantly. And in that case if you're a safe driver (healthy adult, doesn't drink or do drugs, doesn't speed, etc) it mig…

If you are a terrible driver, you can certainly make your individual odds of accident a lot worse than the average case, but I'm not sure being a good driver improves your odds by that much. A lot of the risks are totally out of the driver's control (e.g., other road users, equipment, weather etc..).

Choice of weather conditions is within your control, just don't drive in terrible weather.

Being a good driver does a ton to insulate you from the shenanigans of

Equipment failure is basically a rounding errors but also within the driver's control since "flat tire at speed" is probably lion's share of crashes in that category.

Re: How the airline industry got wise to seat belts

#43

Post by bmitc »

nemo44x wrote: post #40
bmitc wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have personally never liked being blankly told that flying is safer than driving, because I’d like to understand how safe flying is versus driving when something goes wrong .

Things “go wrong” fairly “frequently” on airplanes but they are hardened for this with redundant systems and manual (as well as computer) overrides. You don’t hear about most of them but they are all logged and used for improvements. The main difference is when a car has a catastrophic failure there’s a good chance the people involved survive.

I suppose by wrong I mean something more than the redundant, robust, and various protection systems can handle. For example, on a car, I wouldn't consider the anti-lock brake system kicking in as something going wrong.

I've had an engine failure in my car while driving it. I simply was able to slow to a crawl until I got home. I don't think engine failure on an airplane is such an anti-climatic event, on average.

Re: How the airline industry got wise to seat belts

#44

Post by naniwaduni »

bmitc wrote: post #37
ceejayoz wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two seconds of inattention in a car is a lot more likely to kill you than it is in a plane. It’s fairly constant risk - going off the shoulder is just a few dozen feet at most. They also tend to be less well maintained, and the other participants less trained.

That makes sense at first glance, but it's something I'm in control of. I was even thinking of this before, because the comparison is a little mismatched. I'm 100% likely to be a passenger when I'm in any plane, whereas I'm probably >98% likely to be a driver when I'm in a car. I'm not sure why I was downvoted, because I'm just stating I'd like to understand (data/studies) instead of people's anecdotes and opinions,…

Considering that ~half of collisions involve multiple vehicles, I suspect your feeling of being in control is a bit of an illusion.

Re: How the airline industry got wise to seat belts

#45

Post by ceejayoz »

bmitc wrote: post #43
nemo44x wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Things “go wrong” fairly “frequently” on airplanes but they are hardened for this with redundant systems and manual (as well as computer) overrides. You don’t hear about most of them but they are all logged and used for improvements. The main difference is when a car has a catastrophic failure there’s a good chance the people involved survive.

I suppose by wrong I mean something more than the redundant, robust, and various protection systems can handle. For example, on a car, I wouldn't consider the anti-lock brake system kicking in as something going wrong. I've had an engine failure in my car while driving it. I simply was able to slow to a crawl until I got home. I don't think engine failure on an airplane is such an anti-climatic event, on average.

> I don't think engine failure on an airplane is such an anti-climatic event, on average.

It often is, actually. They have more than one engine precisely for that scenario, and can fly quite well with one down. Flights over water are also carefully planned based on distance to the nearest airport with an engine out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS

Even if you lose all four on a 747, there’s surprisingly large amounts of time to troubleshoot if you’re at cruise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

Re: How the airline industry got wise to seat belts

#46

Post by pfranz »

zipiridu wrote: post #16
ceejayoz wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. The "fatalities per mile" chart is pretty astounding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#/media/File:Fa...

IIRC takeoff and landing are the most dangerous parts, so I'd be more interested fatalities per trip. An intercontinental plane ride would cover more miles than I drive in a year which makes the per mile stat meaningless to me. I think it would still be in the plane's favor but probably not as significantly. And in that case if you're a safe driver (healthy adult, doesn't drink or do drugs, doesn't speed, etc) it mig…

I remember hearing with the rise of regional airlines starting in the 90s the number of flight cycles (takeoffs/landings) went way up for some types of planes...and I assume for the "average flight." An increase in the number of short trips would make lowing the per-mile rating more impressive.

Re: How the airline industry got wise to seat belts

#47

Post by ceejayoz »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #41
zipiridu wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC takeoff and landing are the most dangerous parts, so I'd be more interested fatalities per trip. An intercontinental plane ride would cover more miles than I drive in a year which makes the per mile stat meaningless to me. I think it would still be in the plane's favor but probably not as significantly. And in that case if you're a safe driver (healthy adult, doesn't drink or do drugs, doesn't speed, etc) it mig…

The stat is doubly misleading because it is skewed by the proliferation of long direct flights as turbofan widebody jets proliferated and air travel became more affordable which both happened in the same time period as that chart. I don't think flying is particularly dangerous but the person you're replying to is being highly naive or misleading by taking that chart at face value.

I’m neither naive nor misleading. By any measure, airline travel - particularly in the US - is remarkably safe.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/13/colgan-air-crash-10-years-ag...

Re: How the airline industry got wise to seat belts

#48

Post by barrkel »

Spooky23 wrote: post #32
runako wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Data for transport modes excluding motorcycles: https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics... (airplanes are zero most years) Data for motorcycles: https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-motorcyc... Eyeballing, it looks like motorcycles have roughly ~50x as many fatalities per mile as passenger autos.

It makes sense. Motorcycles are unforgiving in terms of safety features and attract disorganized and reckless people like flies to light. Successful pilots are the opposite personality. They tend to be adventurous in terms of seeking experiences but are able to embrace following strict rules.

Per unscientific survey cited in https://www.rideapart.com/news/254972/why-your-next-motorcyc... 85% of pilots have motorcycle licenses.

There are many breeds of motorcycle rider, as I'm sure there are different breeds of pilot. The pipe and slippers brigade very much embrace following strict rules. In the UK, you'll frequently find them in RoSPA, where they follow the System of Motorcycle Control.

I don't know how true to life the Top Gun cliche of fighter pilot / sportsbike rider is, but anecdotally riding a sportsbike is the closest experience a civilian can get to a fighter plane on the ground.

Motorcycle racers are usually pretty exacting about the mechanical state and safety of their bike, and many top ranked competitive riders never ride on the road, only on track. The hazards on track vs on road are almost completely different.

Amateur stunters, weekend warriors and young squids are more likely matches to the cliche I think you have in mind: thrill-seekers who dabble but not particularly serious about it.

Re: How the airline industry got wise to seat belts

#49

Post by slownews45 »

Spooky23 wrote: post #32
runako wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Data for transport modes excluding motorcycles: https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics... (airplanes are zero most years) Data for motorcycles: https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-motorcyc... Eyeballing, it looks like motorcycles have roughly ~50x as many fatalities per mile as passenger autos.

It makes sense. Motorcycles are unforgiving in terms of safety features and attract disorganized and reckless people like flies to light. Successful pilots are the opposite personality. They tend to be adventurous in terms of seeking experiences but are able to embrace following strict rules.

I'm actually a rider (or was).

They don't attract reckless people. But what happens, you get used to the speed, the risk, the cornering - and so yes, you start going faster and faster. Problem is - hitting something at 100 on a bike, even just a little something on road - can be seriously game over. I stopped riding (kid / wife etc).

Re: How the airline industry got wise to seat belts

#50

Post by redis_mlc »

sklargh wrote: post #2

Recent failures by Boeing aside, the amount of thought that goes into the holistic safety of commercial aircraft is astounding. It kind of blows my mind how hardened a typical passenger cabin is to fire, not to mention other hazards.

> It kind of blows my mind how hardened a typical passenger cabin is to fire

That's far from true for the interior.

Things have improved over the years, but the interior is mostly plastic. This became a major concern after the investigation of the London ground fire where half the passengers died of smoke inhalation, and the 1998 JFK Swissair accident where the entertainment system wiring burned through.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111

In the 2013 SFO Asiana accident the interior fiercely burned, for example (see pics in W):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214

Post reply on HN