They say flying is the safest way to travel ?

Question

But aren't you at your most vunerable ?
With terrorists targeting commercial airliners isn't it about time that 'nominal' and 'minimal' took a back seat ? Let's face it - which form of transport would you least like to be in - if it is in trouble ?
They design fighter aircraft with ejector seats - because it would be pretty handy to get that pilot back, so he can go and kill a load more people. I would have thought by the same token that if a passenger is killed in an air disaster be it man made or otherwise it would have been better if he was still alive so you could make more money out of him/her.The humanitarian considerations seem to be non-existant - it just seems to be a case of 'stack 'em and rack 'em'.

Just for arguments sake - if the passengers in those jets hurtling towards the twin towers and the pentagon had actually had some form of 'out' be it parachute, ejector seat, etc., there wouldn't have been much point in screaming out 'in the name of allah' would there ?

No, no, no, you're all missing the point - THEY WANT TO BLOW US ALL UP - I'm not talking about accidents particularly - I repeat - THEY WANT TO BLOW US ALL UP !!!

It seems the difference between a fighter jet and commerical airline is becoming blurred - if they are likely to get blow up !

Didn't President Kennedy - say ''we don't do the things because they're easy - we do the things because they're hard" !

Well dwell on this equation: flying - terrorist - risk - ejector seat/parachaute - money - technical possibility - economics - (do or not do) = delay for as long as possible & put on back burner !

Answer 1

I dont buy into this "safer" stuff for air travel.

Here's another stat...I've been in three car accidents, all of which I've walked away from.

You can't give me the same survival odds in a similar number of plane crashes.

My point is that sometimes statisics can cloud facts or skew an issue in an effort to calm the general population.

In the wake of a violent plane crash, airline carriers could find themselves losing business...unless there was "statistical proof" that airline travel was safer than other forms of travel.

When dealing with stats, it's important to understand what's being compared/measured.

Answer 2

Two thoughts -

One reason jets have ejector seats is that fewer pilots would be willing to take the risks they do without one. That is, the deal seems to be, you keep faith with me, give me the best plane, best intelligence and an ejector seat and I'll do what you ask even if it means I'll die. At least I had a more than fighting chance.

A second is purely economic. You hear silly numbers thrown around about how much it costs to train a pilot but it certainly is a ton of money. An ejector seat is probably cost effective if it brings a highly trained pilot back.

As for commercial aircraft, I don't know of anyone who refuses to fly because there's no parachute or ejector seat, ignoring the obviously huge technical issues.

Answer 3

Dude, thats messed, Fighter jets have ejector seats because they are designed to fight. SO chances are, the are gonna get shot at. Passenger planes are to take people back and forth, not engage in dog fight and on a bombing sortie. Although that would be a fun little bonus to the on-board movie!

Flying is the safest way to travel because of the # of people on one flight at one time. So if a year goes by and no accidents, thats millions of people who traveled safe vs. millions of people travelling by car. Alot more cars have to be on the road to move a million people and the likelyhood of an accident is alot greater.

Answer 4

it somewhat is an odds interest, somewhat. the possibilities of a airplane crashing are distinctly under, working example, a motor vehicle crashing. whilst utilising or driving in an motor vehicle properly relies upon no longer in hassle-free terms on your individual skills yet in addition those of the "X" sort of drivers you stumble upon besides because of the fact the assorted mechanical problems that would reason an twist of destiny or the uncontrollables like wild animals leaping out in front of you, taking a airplane has fewer variables alongside with pilot means (that's strictly regulated}, the type of unquestionably planes contained in the sky (lots fewer than automobiles) and mechanical mess ups (which additionally are strictly regulated). no longer something is a hundred% risk-free. you need to fly hundreds of situations on your life and then get splattered by utilising a random inebriated driving force while you walk out to get the mail. basically savor the holiday.

Answer 5

It's based on statistics. More planes/people fly and arrive safely vs unsafley than cars or other means of transportation. When a plane goes down it's huge, but there are car accidents every day.. every minute even.

Answer 6

Flying is still the safest form of travel in terms of numbers. If you are in an airplane wreck, you are much less likely to survive, but airplane crashes are much less likely to occur than car crashes. Many more people have died in car crashes.

Answer 7

Make some research on the number of victims from plane crushes and from any other kind of transport and you will see...

Answer 8

I do not believe it is the safest, but usually it is the fastest.

Answer 9

absolutely the safest

Answer 10

that or a school bus, i choose flying