Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Yes. Airplanes are literally hundreds of times less likely to kill you per mile than cars. There has not been a single US airline fatality since 2009.



Southwest 1380 would like a word with you.

Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 was a Boeing 737-700 that experienced an uncontained engine failure[a] in the left CFM56-7B engine after departing from New York–LaGuardia Airport en route to Dallas Love Field on April 17, 2018. […] One passenger was partially ejected from the aircraft and sustained fatal injuries[…]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_13...


Based on this https://www.airlines.org/dataset/safety-record-of-u-s-air-ca... between 2009 and 2021 there were indeed 2. I think that the point stands, it is very impressive and safe.


Wikipedia says 51.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_accidents_and_...

The numbers would go up quite a bit if it included private and military. The numbers you linked to seem to have a very tight definition of which flights were considered, as the Wikipedia list showcases several more in-flight deaths involving air carrier class airplanes than just two.


I don't understand how you arrived at the number 51. Did you just tally up all the incidents in that list that occurred after 2009?

That list includes a bunch of incidents that are not really relevant for assessing risk level when flying on a commercial airline:

- Someone committing suicide by getting sucked into a plane engine while the plane was on the ground.

- Someone sneaking onto a runway and getting struck by a plane that was landing.

- Another person stealing a plane and intentionally crashing it into the ground.

- The Kobe Bryant helicopter crash.

Looking through the list I would conclude the parent comment was correct. The only incidents with passenger fatalities on US airlines since 2009 were Southwest 1380 and PenAir 3296.


It's definitely more than two.


Can you specify which other incidents on that list you think are relevant?


Airplanes are inherently much, much less reliable than cars and only reach reliability through however many millions or billions of dollars worth of redundant systems and maintenance intervals and however many man-hours. That means that when you get on an airplane, you are extremely reliant on those systems and processes having been followed.

We are seeing more and more that these systems and processes have been breaking down, from regulation to manufacturing to pilots to systems to maintenance.

It really is hard to compare, but for an airplane, a passenger has to have faith that literally hundreds of thousands of people and things have done their job correctly. When I drive my car, I am much less reliant on people, systems, and processes, as cars are just plain simple. Most leople barely change their oil or check tire pressure. I even once had a complete engine failure and was able to just roll to a stop from highway speeds. Furthermore, I am in control. If I am too tired, I don't drive. I can pay attention to other drivers. I am directly responsible for maintenance. Etc.

I think it's hard to compare airplanes to cars by numbers alone. There are subtleties that are not exposed by numbers.

For an airplane passenger, it is absolutely a risk. You rely on so much happening correctly, and you are not in control of any of it. As little bits in that chain of things that need to happen don't happen correctly, percentages of failure and death go way up, and fast.

And we haven't even discussed in-flight medical emergencies, as there are actually quite a few in-flight deaths every year that would likely not yield a death if the medical emergency happened on the ground.

> There has not been a single US airline fatality since 2009.

Wikipedia says there has been 51, not counting private or military. And that list doesnt include American aircraft flying overseas, to which the MAX planes would add hundreds.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_accidents_and_...


People die in cars due to medical emergency all the time. I even know someone who had a heart attack and it caused him to hit a utility pole and die. We just don’t have any way of tracking it, whereas the FAA keeps very detailed statistics.

You’re leaving out the biggest risk: other people. Most deaths, in planes or cars, are caused by human error. In a car you’re dependent on everyone going down the road (and there may be thousands in one trip) not drifting across the median. You’re dependent on the person coming the other way at an intersection to stop. Etc.

Traffic deaths have been climbing again after decades of decline, probably due to distracted driving. Driving is much more dangerous.


And that is why I think it is absolutely, mind bogglingly bonkers that Tesla is currently using "drive by wire" in a mass production car when this technology is not common in aviation at all. Only the huge airliners that benefit from extremely expensive maintenance schedules use full "fly by wire".


Drive by wire isn’t the problem. You already have tons of electronics in a 10 year old car, from the ECU to ABS. However, there are relevant important standards and certifications in aviation, and I’m not sure if vehicular certs are as strict.


>Drive by wire isn’t the problem

Yes it will be when you loose all power while going 80mph on a motorway because rodents ate the wiring 10 years later.

"tons of electronics" in modern cars is not required for the most basic functionality such as steering and braking. Yes, you loose power steering and power breaking if it goes off, but you can still drive (unless maybe you've never driven without it and it surprises you during a high speed takeover manouver etc).

This "drive by wire" takes away the most essential security feature present in "all" cars up to now. A direct mechanical connection between the steering wheel and the wheels. Even manufacturers of small airplanes (like "executive" 8 seater jets) say "no way" to this tech unless it controls an auxiliary control surface.

Putting it in a production car that will get crashes, it will corrode (yes copper wiring and insulation corrodes too), it will get attacked by rodents and it might get driven in 50 years from now as a "classic" is sheer, unabridged, stupidity of the highest order.


That’s a valid point, I wonder how aircrafts avoid these issues.


Every Airbus built in the last 40 years is fly by wire.


It’s only not in small planes, and then because of cost.


No, not just cost. Take a cessna columbus. An 8 seater executive jet. They chose to put fly by wire only on flaps. Is it because of cost? I doubt it. Pilots like "fly by wire" and people would gladly pay a 100k more for it on a $27 million aircraft. Even back in 2009 when it was still available.


Plane Operated by a US Airline != Plane Manufactured in the US


Yes. And? I didn't conflate those two.


Airplanes are literally hundreds of times less likely to kill you per mile than cars

A weird metric. I'd prefer travel time, not per mile.

Still far safer.


Why is it a weird metric? People travel exactly as far as they need to, not based on time.


Because when trying to compare different things (car, train, plane, space ship, etc), they all travel at different speeds, by different methods, with different categories.

An example? Travel to the moon would be the safest thing ever, even if 50% of the ships exploded, because of how far it is. I bet travel to Mars would the safest thing ever, based upon miles, even if 99% of the ships exploded.

Things break based upon two things. One is maintenance per trip. And each trip has riskier parts, of which start and end are parts. Planes have issues taking off and landing, a lot more than cruising. Same for space ships. Even cars have issues at start and end of trip, if you're driving very long distances.


What, no? Earth to the moon is 200,000 miles away. Call it a half million for a round trip.

Airliner passenger deaths are 1 per several billion miles.


Yes, but your response does not invalidate the premise.


You didn’t give a coherent premise, just this wild tangent.


An old article from 1998 says the risk of death per hour of travel for air vs car is about the same.

https://observer.com/1998/03/driving-versus-flying-the-debat...

But, I disagree with the article, I think the debate is hardly settled.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: