So weird that it's only fallen 7% considering before January 2025 we hadn't had a fatal plane crash in almost 16 years, and now we've had multiple in a month.
Flying is still the safest form of transport.
There's 1.17 deaths and 42 injuries per 100 million miles travelled by car in the USA. In comparison, there's only 0.007 injuries per 100 million miles flown in commercial planes in the USA. Even trains are more dangerous at 0.1 injuries per 100 million miles.
You're far, far more likely to be in a car crash on your way to the airport compared to being involved in a plane crash.
These stats reflect years of institutional intervention from the FAA and NTSB. With alterations to those regulators its unlikely these stats will continue to be relevant.
Even if flying gets a bit less safe, there would have to be far, far more plane crashes (at least three orders of magnitude more) for it to become anywhere near as dangerous as driving.
It also ignores how hard it is to be a pilot or a train conductor vs driving a car around town. Got an easy to obtain license and some cash and you're golden. Try to do that with a plane or train. Takes some serious education in comparison
This is a reason why people should feel safer taking a plane or train, which is my point.
You spitting some real pre-2025 numbers unless the only car you're including is a cyber truck
Of course they're pre 2025... It's only February so there's no full year stats for 2025 yet.
Dying in a car crash takes so many forms. Instantly crushed by a truck? Or die slowly in the hospital?
But i imagine dying in an airplane almost always involves 20mins of sheer terror as you plummet towards the earth knowing that you will die, or if you might survive and be floating in the ocean for days.
Just getting us peasants prepared to not have air travel available to us.
This is funny to me because the amount of commerce in the U.S. that is dependent on reliable air travel for average Americans is massive. If people stop flying the economy is going to be what ends up in freefall.
I really don’t think we hold any industry to the superhuman standards we hold aviation to.
The only other industry that individuals entrust their lives to in large numbers that I can think of is the medical industry, and that kills around 100k people a year, yet people don’t quit seeking treatment en masse (problems with US medical system access and affordability aside).
Pilots are tested at least yearly with simulators dealing with emergencies of all sorts, from fires to engine failures, education and reviews of aircraft systems and aviation regulations, along with medical examinations and random drug testing to continually check fitness for flight. Cabin crew also see yearly testing dealing with emergencies, medical or things like fires in the cabin, evacuations, along with training on how to deal with passengers who may be drunk or a threat in some way.
The best time to fly is after incidents. Everyone is on high alert, training departments and unions remind crews to take extra care in their duties, all crews are aware of extra scrutiny.
You're mostly right, but your comment also assumes independent probabilities rather than correlated probabilities of danger. Sometimes multiple crashes can trace back to the same cause: one particular manufacturing defect on a model of aircraft sold thousands of times, one bad practice on air traffic control procedure, one bad actor targeting multiple aircraft, etc.
Purely hypothetically, as an example, if it turned out that there was a terrorist group targeting aircraft via anti aircraft missiles, then that group's success at bringing down an airliner would actually worsen the odds of passengers on other aircraft, at least until we receive external information that the threat has passed.
One bad actor causing chaos amongst the staff entrusted with keeping airlines safe….
Exactly. Some of the fears that people have are about factors that affect all flights, not just the risk of a single pilot operating a single aircraft.
Flying is still safe and has a strong safety culture built into the industry independent of government regulation, that wouldn't change overnight even if the government regulators change. But removing a slice of Swiss cheese is still bad, and cause for concern.
Also, Boeing notwithstanding…
The best time to fly is after incidents.
That used to be good advice. The best time to fly now is before planes started falling out of the sky.
Reminds me of that guy who deliberately books vacations to places that have just suffered terrorist attacks. Cheap as fuck and super safe since there are security forces everywhere. Not sure I agree with the practice, but can't really fault the logic.
Yep, that's pretty similar. Might be a good travel idea, but one would have to take care regarding any issue that the locals might have with foreigners after tragedies in their communities.
Everyone dies.
I'm not flying until this gets sorted out. The fact that we elected a fucking Russian saboteur twice is just incomprehensible. NPVIC might save us in the nick of time, but I doubt it.
I just wish traveling were a more pleasant experience in general. I gotta take an extra day off after coming back home because modes of travel in USA are so exhausting.
Yeah, it's pretty horrible you have to fly first class to lay back any substantial amount. Even business class just gives you more ass room. I also wish they would run the cabins at a bit higher pressure. I can never seem to get used to that 10,000ft standard.
I should probably move to Colorado for a couple months, I hear once you get conditioned to altitude you don't have problems with it anymore
I can never seem to get used to that 10,000ft standard.
The standard is 8,000 feet, not 10,000. Some planes, like the Boeing 787, are pressurized to 6,000ft instead.
Good to know, whatever it is still with me a headache half the time
They should have the crash chance on the departures/arrivals screen.... Ohio... 7:56am on time 67%. On boarding, Sanf Francisco 4:25pm delayed 75%.
Quick everyone, start talking about high speed rail!
Maybe we have the slightest shot of actually building out, y'know, cheap, fast, effective mass transit for once?
President Musk will never allow it.
Be prepared for cars in tunnels! And poorly functioning cars at snail pace, if that!
Not as long as the cargo railroad companies hold all the power. America needs an alternate timeline with no fascism, sane governance, and making all railroads public.
You wouldn't build high speed rail on cargo lines, anyway. New rail corridors need to be established. The LA-Vegas line is being built along an existing interstate, which solves a lot of right-of-way and land usage issues. That's what you want to do.
Elon is in power and has too much money shame him into building hyperloop finally
He never intended to build the Hyperloop. From the start, it was a lie to shut down a proposed project to build a west coast high speed rail line.
Yeah, and it can be defeated with elementary school level math, so anyone in government who agreed to fund it should be brought back to school (though they are probably just more corrupt than stupid).
Everyone in the industry tries to focus on how fast a hyperloop can go, and tries to keep any criticism focused on the engineering challenges (and to be clear, there are many, many engineering and safety challenges).
It should never be discussed as "LA to the Bay in X minutes", it needs to be discussed in terms of passengers per hour.
Given that these vehicles travel very fast, passengers will need to remain seated while the vehicle is in motion. Let's pretend that the occupants of each vehicle are capable of leaving the vehicle with their luggage in under the FAA's targeted evacuation time of 90 seconds (even though luggage makes it take like 10x that). That's 40 loads per hour, and let's be generous and say they fit 40 people, that's 1600 people per hour.
That puts it on par with a lane of car traffic. Maybe you can squeeze some more people in there, or really crack a whip to get people out quick, but you won't be able to get to a fraction of the passengers per hour of high speed rail at ~20,000.
When you actually do calculations with all the other factors, you get ~350 passengers per hour.
If only DEI was abolished, then these planes should never have crashed
/S
most people aren't aware that Air Traffic Controllers are forced to retire at 55. no old, slow reaction employees allowed.
when Reagan fired thousands of ATCs in the 80s, then hired and trained all new scabs, he inadvertently created an enormous cohort who would all be retiring at around the same time due to forced retirement.
fast forward to today,
data nerds can point to historical accident statistics from the past 20 years up to what, 2020? all you like. trend lines don't often accurately predict the future, they merely describe the past.
I recommend thinking twice before placing all your loved ones on a plane over the next couple years. there's going to be more of this.
My brother works ATC at one of the busiest airports in the country. While forced retirement is at 55, an informal poll of his coworkers that he and his buddies did this week revealed that nearly all of them are planning to take early retirement at 50.
They mapped it out and 80% of the facility will be retiring by 2030. To account for this, his facility alone will need to hire nearly 100 controllers. I asked him how many controllers they've hired recently. He said 2 since 2022.
We're fucked.
Thanks Regan. And Trump. It's gonna be a painful number of years/decade(s) for parts of the US.
Even if there were 10x the number of accidents flying would still be one of the safest ways to travel.
But I’d still avoid it because of the ergonomics and customer service.
My confidence in air travel fell completely after the former head of QA for Boeing’s plane factory said he wouldn’t get on a Boeing plane
Thank you! I tried to make the same point in the comments of another recent article. This isn't a reason to avoid air travel (yet).
However, it is a reason to criticize the Trump administration, and they deserve blame for the excess deaths under their watch. We should be hammering home the point that cutting regulation and oversight will nilly comes with life and death consequences. If it isn't lack of FAA funding that kills you, it could be cuts to NIH, leaving WHO, turning a blind eye to corruption (which compromises quality - ask Russia), etc.
Firing several hundred people in a profession vital to safety that's already stretched thin, implementing a hiring freeze so they cannot be replaced, and them blaming DEI practices for the recent crashes is certainly not going to help a thing. I have yet to see anything he's done that is actually beneficial. I mean, I agree with the penny bit, but you can't just bibbidy bopity boop them out of circulation.
The problem is that even if it's still safe now, these changes cannot help, and it won't be apparent until planes start crashing.
The industry also runs on perception of safety more than the reality. If it's perceived unsafe, then the industry could collapse quickly.
Airplanes aren't as safe as trains!
And the externalities from air travel are fucking horrendous.
We're also dealing with a baseline of relatively low numbers. That means it only takes a few additional deadly accidents to become 10X worse.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
