Do you think Air Travel is safe these days?

[khunJam]

2 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

It is still safe to fly whether you are afraid of it or not!

If someone is scared of something it’s because they think it’s not safe!

[cdnvic]

Removed an off topic personal argument. The participants will be next.

[richard_smith237]

2 minutes ago, khunJam said:

6 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

It is still safe to fly whether you are afraid of it or not!

If someone is scared of something it’s because they think it’s not safe!

 

Irrelevant...  irrational fear does not alter safety from a statistical perspective. 

 

 

20% of Thailands road deaths are in 4 wheeled+ vehicles - thats about 5000 per year.

 

Does the same person who is scared of flying, get scared of driving ? - that covers the irrational angle you may have attempted to counter with. 

 

 

 

[khunJam]

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Irrelevant...  irrational fear does not alter safety from a statistical perspective. 

 

 

20% of Thailands road deaths are in 4 wheeled+ vehicles - thats about 5000 per year.

 

Does the same person who is scared of flying, get scared of driving ? - that covers the irrational angle you may have attempted to counter with. 

 

 

 

Irrational people who have a fear of flying have no interest in statistics. They have a genuine fear to board a plane because they think it will crash. They prefer to drive because they are in control and can stop and get out when they choose.

[khunJam]

5 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

20% of Thailands road deaths are in 4 wheeled+ vehicles - thats about 5000 per year.

Really now, say something new.

[GinBoy2]

It's been a bad week for aviation, but it's an outlier in the overall picture of air safety.

 

I think most folks understand that air travel is the safest of all transportation.

 

But somehow back in the primordial brain stem, it's the fear that if it all goes tits up everyone dies.

 

This week I think it's pretty clear the Azerbaijan crash, wasn't a crash and was shot down by Russian air defenses.

 

Jeju well lets wait and see. But what I would say watching the video, the reasons given so far suggest weather and a bird strike. I'll go with bird strike, but the weather looks perfect, and if you look, I can't see the main gear, but the nose gear certainly wasn't deployed

[transam]

35 minutes ago, Ralf001 said:

 

any stats for 2024 ?

 

A bit early for that, but the estimate for Commercial flights in 2024 is 38,700,000.........

 

As 2024 has not finished yet, you will have to Google post-Wednesday for Commercial flight crash numbers...😉

[zmisha]

Half of the crashes are in war combat zones. If you avoid flying there - you are safe.

[GinBoy2]

I hate myself for doing this, but well this is a chat room not accident investigation.

 

If Jeju was a birdstrike and it took out both engines resulting in a total loss of electrical power, the RAT would be deployed restoring electrical power, and subsequently keeping hydraulics online.

Thats why I'm puzzled by the lack of landing gear

[Ben Zioner]

44 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

However, this definitely does not mean that air travel is good.

 

It was sooo good when Singapore Arlines hostesses were wearing those slit-dresses..

[richard_smith237]

7 minutes ago, khunJam said:

You make no sense because you are unable to read text. Instead your imagination overrides clear thought. Go back and read carefully. Before too long I’m sure you’ll get the hang of it.

 

If someone has an irrational fear, that does not impact statistics and probability.... 

 

... they just 'think' it does...      flying is not more unsafe just because you accidentally wee a little bit through fear during take off... 

[richard_smith237]

6 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

I hate myself for doing this, but well this is a chat room not accident investigation.

 

If Jeju was a birdstrike and it took out both engines resulting in a total loss of electrical power, the RAT would be deployed restoring electrical power, and subsequently keeping hydraulics online.

Thats why I'm puzzled by the lack of landing gear

 

I'm surprised by the lack of run-off area... Though, depending on location, I think a lot of airports are like this due to space constraints... 

 

But, had that wall at the end of the runway not existed and instead there were a longer run off area, this disaster may not have been so extreme.

 

Of course, airports are not designed expecting 'landing gear failure'... 

[Lacessit]

Generally, air travel is very safe.

 

Having said that, I would never get on a Russian aircraft. They are cannibalizing their Boeings and Airbuses because of sanctions.

 

The two brands make up 70% of the domestic fleet, does anyone feel lucky?

[GammaGlobulin]

11 minutes ago, Ben Zioner said:

It was sooo good when Singapore Arlines hostesses were wearing those slit-dresses..

 

Yes.

Also, the same garb was worn by the gals of China Airlines.

 

But, some slits were higher than others.

I think China Airlines might have broken the record back in the 1980s.

 

[treetops]

15 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

If Jeju was a birdstrike and it took out both engines resulting in a total loss of electrical power, the RAT would be deployed restoring electrical power, and subsequently keeping hydraulics online.

Thats why I'm puzzled by the lack of landing gear

 

Even without hydraulics it can be manually lowered.

[richard_smith237]

13 minutes ago, treetops said:

30 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

If Jeju was a birdstrike and it took out both engines resulting in a total loss of electrical power, the RAT would be deployed restoring electrical power, and subsequently keeping hydraulics online.

Thats why I'm puzzled by the lack of landing gear

 

Even without hydraulics it can be manually lowered.

 

Yup the 737-800 landing gear can be unlocked from the cabin and manually lowed via-gravity and free-fall into place and locked with a spring-loaded mechanism...  (according to other reports).

 

Thus: were the pilots aware of the landing gear failure before touchdown ?

 

--------

 

Bringing this on topic - the amount of media attention this gets fuels the discussion regarding airline safety, however, 52 people died on Thailands roads just yesterday (not accounting for those who die 2-3 days later in hospital) - Air-travel, is still so much safer than road travel. 

 

 

 

[Ralf001]

1 hour ago, transam said:

A bit early for that, but the estimate for Commercial flights in 2024 is 38,700,000.........

 

link ?

[scottiejohn]

I cannot believe that the Airline safety  "experts" on here have pronounced their findings into the incident before any official investigation has even started, never mind the bodies being buried!

[transam]

1 minute ago, Ralf001 said:

link ?

And I thought even you could use Google............🤪

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/564769/airline-industry-number-of-flights/

[bkk6060]

2 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

The question was rhetorical with the objective of highliting the safety of air-travel. 

 

If the risk of air-travel was not so 'insignificant' then the higher paying passengers would be placed in the safest area of the air-craft - but that measure is not taken because comfort and convenience by far outweighs the almost Infinitesimally small risk. 

Yes, I agree.  Also, there is historical negative connotation about people being at the back of anything.  You know, things like black people use to be placed at the back of the bus during Jim Crow.  A liitle discriminatory in a way I guess.  Business class, then premium economy, then the poor people in economy at the back.

[richard_smith237]

19 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

I cannot believe that the Airline safety  "experts" on here have pronounced their findings into the incident before any official investigation has even started, never mind the bodies being buried!

 

I'm sure you ONLY ever comment on any thread involving an accident or incident once official investigations have been concluded...   

[pgrahmm]

2 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I'm surprised by the lack of run-off area... Though, depending on location, I think a lot of airports are like this due to space constraints... 

 

But, had that wall at the end of the runway not existed and instead there were a longer run off area, this disaster may not have been so extreme.

 

Of course, airports are not designed expecting 'landing gear failure'... 

It was the 2nd landing attempt..... I'm wondering why they didn't foam the runway.....

[zmisha]

Is someone testing a new system to destroy planes from satellites?
The war is becoming global.

[Clapped out]

Air Travel..........Well its darned well safer than drinking in a bar

[liddelljohn]

not if you are in a Boeing plane made in last 15 years    or Flying near russia

[liddelljohn]

Another Boeing Gone down today  ,, its either pilot error  as no landing gear deployed  or major  systems faliure ,,      Korea  170+ dead

[still kicking]

7 hours ago, Chivas said:

I'll be guarded in my response but after my flight on Thai back to London on 26th December I will never be flying them again

Nonsense I flew Thai twice this year BKK Perth never had any problem  

[Dan747]

It's Safe, but it also depends on the airline-Especially out of third world countries!!

[gamb00ler]

It's safe if you restrict your flights over Russia and its environs.

[attento]

The safety issue /fear of flying maybe linked to the number killed/injured in each accident, whereas in road vehicles, the 'per incident' number of fatalities is usually in single figures.