The Economist called up some review, all they said was "According to some new studies, airplane transport is not the safest, it;s most dangerous after motorbike riding".

Further, they said, if you take into account the number of transportation vehicles, the frequency of trips and how long the trips were, it makes you think".

Don't flame me for this but that's all they said.

Across the planet, if you think, there are 2000 B-737s in the air at any moment, even while you are reading this.

1000 B-747s...and we can go on.

Possibly, 15,000 passenger jets in the air at any time.

How many trains? How many buses? How many cars?

How long their trips are?

Then, how many accidents?

The Economist called up some review, all they said was "According to some new studies, airplane transport is not the safest, it;s most dangerous after motorbike riding".

Further, they said, if you take into account the number of transportation vehicles, the frequency of trips and how long the trips were, it makes you think".

Don't flame me for this but that's all they said.

Across the planet, if you think, there are 2000 B-737s in the air at any moment, even while you are reading this.

1000 B-747s...and we can go on.

Possibly, 15,000 passenger jets in the air at any time.

How many trains? How many buses? How many cars?

How long their trips are?

Then, how many accidents?

i was always told that flying was the safest way to travell ,someone has been misleading me

The sourcing seems to be obscure, to say the least.

ok, so take a journey usa, uk or australia to thailand by bus, train, car or ship.

just yestarday a full couch left London heading to australia - would take several weeks to get there and costs £4k/$8k per person, so many times over the air fare.

anyhow, some airlines or some airplanes might be safer than the others - your choice which you choose. Taking long flights is safer than taking short flights - the exidents happen on take off or on landing. For the environmental concerns ecologists are against short houl flights are they are more wasteful than public transport, think of lifting up tens of tons some 10km up the air just to fly it for, say, 30 minutes.

Edited September 17, 200718 yr by londonthai

The sourcing seems to be obscure, to say the least.

I really don't know, what I posted was their take. The Economist.

IMO, quite possible.

I would say even some of the dodgier airlines are in fact quite safe.

waz just thinking about it today. If i look at the potential possible interactions ( motorcycle with wall, motorcycle with car, motorcycle with truck )... and then cars, buses, trucks etc....... there must be a gazillion possible opportunities for crashes.........

dont have stats, and not sure what previous ones were based on, but as a % of the population in transit, not sure how planes really match up

The Economist called up some review, all they said was "According to some new studies, airplane transport is not the safest, it;s most dangerous after motorbike riding".

Further, they said, if you take into account the number of transportation vehicles, the frequency of trips and how long the trips were, it makes you think".

Don't flame me for this but that's all they said.

Across the planet, if you think, there are 2000 B-737s in the air at any moment, even while you are reading this.

1000 B-747s...and we can go on.

Possibly, 15,000 passenger jets in the air at any time.

How many trains? How many buses? How many cars?

How long their trips are?

Then, how many accidents?

The average western airline averages a fatal event approximately once every 1.4 million departures. So if you flew once a day it would take you on average over 3800 years to be onboard an aircraft involved in a fatal event (and that doesn't necessarily mean that you'd be one of the ones killed)

I would say even some of the dodgier airlines are in fact quite safe.

40 new airbuses for Air Asia. Who is going to pilot and crew them?

It's usually 40 crew members a plane.

Where do they come from? Broken Ansett has sent their pilots around the planet, many with Cathay or Singapore.

Where can the asian low costs get more of qualified pilots?

The Economist called up some review, all they said was "According to some new studies, airplane transport is not the safest, it;s most dangerous after motorbike riding".

Further, they said, if you take into account the number of transportation vehicles, the frequency of trips and how long the trips were, it makes you think".

Don't flame me for this but that's all they said.

Across the planet, if you think, there are 2000 B-737s in the air at any moment, even while you are reading this.

1000 B-747s...and we can go on.

Possibly, 15,000 passenger jets in the air at any time.

How many trains? How many buses? How many cars?

How long their trips are?

Then, how many accidents?

The average western airline averages a fatal event approximately once every 1.4 million departures. So if you flew once a day it would take you on average over 3800 years to be onboard an aircraft involved in a fatal event (and that doesn't necessarily mean that you'd be one of the ones killed)

Then what? Put in the proportion and the picture is different.

If memory serves {I recall this being years ago. maybe they resurrected it} the aim was to question the figures which suggest that flying is dramatically safer than driving. To do this however, the measurement had to be based on the risk factor by comparing deaths with the number of trips made rather than the, more usual, miles covered. On that basis aircraft score worse than cars.

The Economist recalculated the figures per number of trips, and reported that cars appeared to be 12 times safer than airplanes, though I thought the article suggested only motorcycles were the more dangerous conveyance. They also took a more neutral measure based on the fatality rate per man-hour of exposure which places cars and aircraft on a par.

There was a spirited discussion at the time, which suggested that their calculations were less reflective of the real world, e.g. the affects of an Airplane crash is disproportionate to a RTA.

Regards

so flying is fine ,

how above them take offs and landings ...........................

If memory serves {I recall this being years ago. maybe they resurrected it} the aim was to question the figures which suggest that flying is dramatically safer than driving. To do this however, the measurement had to be based on the risk factor by comparing deaths with the number of trips made rather than the, more usual, miles covered. On that basis aircraft score worse than cars.

The Economist recalculated the figures per number of trips, and reported that cars appeared to be 12 times safer than airplanes, though I thought the article suggested only motorcycles were the more dangerous conveyance. They also took a more neutral measure based on the fatality rate per man-hour of exposure which places cars and aircraft on a par.

There was a spirited discussion at the time, which suggested that their calculations were less reflective of the real world, e.g. the affects of an Airplane crash is disproportionate to a RTA.

Regards

Whatever. Air travel safety is not out of scrutiny.

The Economist called up some review, all they said was "According to some new studies, airplane transport is not the safest, it;s most dangerous after motorbike riding".

Further, they said, if you take into account the number of transportation vehicles, the frequency of trips and how long the trips were, it makes you think".

Don't flame me for this but that's all they said.

Across the planet, if you think, there are 2000 B-737s in the air at any moment, even while you are reading this.

1000 B-747s...and we can go on.

Possibly, 15,000 passenger jets in the air at any time.

How many trains? How many buses? How many cars?

How long their trips are?

Then, how many accidents?

The average western airline averages a fatal event approximately once every 1.4 million departures. So if you flew once a day it would take you on average over 3800 years to be onboard an aircraft involved in a fatal event (and that doesn't necessarily mean that you'd be one of the ones killed)

Then what? Put in the proportion and the picture is different.

I'm lost as to what you're saying now.

Whatever. Air travel safety is not out of scrutiny.

Ignorance is such bliss. Enjoy.

Regards

Whatever. Air travel safety is not out of scrutiny.

Ignorance is such bliss. Enjoy.

Regards

Yeah? I would welcome some hard data, better than what The Economist has hinted about.

And no CNN or other rubbish fluff.

Whatever. Air travel safety is not out of scrutiny.

Ignorance is such bliss. Enjoy.

Regards

Yeah? I would welcome some hard data, better than what The Economist has hinted about.

And no CNN or other rubbish fluff.

i would still sooner fly than take a bus in thailand............