Flying is the safest way to travel

Flying is the safest way to travel.

Knowing this, how can so many people (myself included) still be afraid of flying?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Vtyq-8fdCsY
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

You don't know if the pilot dedices to bane post irl.

claustrophobia+acrophobia

because if something goes wrong the chances of survival are nil as opposed to shipwrecks or car crashes or low speed biking accidents.

>flying is the safest way to travel

Statistically it's true. Far more people die in car wrecks and plane wrecks.

Not sure if the statistic holds up if you account for the percentage of people who die out of the total number of people using that method of transportation, but it wouldn't surprise me if it did.

That said, flying is scary as shit because there are shitloads more things that CAN go wrong, and if they do there's basically nothing you can do about it and you're fucked. Planes don't have parachutes for every passenger.
Your best bet is to hope you crash in water where you have the highest chance of survival.

pne pilot error intentional or otherwise can kill 200 people on board before the plane even hits the ground, whereas a car crash isn't guaranteed to kill you unless you're driving a chinese shitbox or decide to plow your car into a concrete wall with no seatbelt on.

Car wrecks THAN plane wrecks*

#YOLO
I LIVE I DIE I LIVE AGAIN

I would have thought subways and trains would be one of the safest ways to travel. Some of them just go around in circles in underground tunnels,

I think there are some subways or trains in Japan with literally zero crashes ever. All computer controlled.

If you live in burgerland your GP probably won't mind prescribing you 2 Xanax if you just tell them you have a fear of flying and you've got a flight coming up.

Good question. You may have a phobia of something, but most people can just say fuck it and pull through, because logic always wins.

The floor in a plane is as close to your feet as everywhere.

Safest per travelled kilometre. Trains are the safest per passenger transported.

Pretty sure there are airlines without crashes in their history as well.

Two words: Allahu Akbar

Statistically, that happens a lot more to people on the ground.

It isn't the safest. The only thing it's the safest in is distance traveled vs deaths.

Actually a landing is quite dangerous. It's a "controlled crash". Many pilots describe it as such.

Flying through the air is relatively safe. Landings and takeoffs are way more dangerous than other forms of travel.

Hurr durr oh i dunno perhaps the reason is that you're 10KM above ground ( or ocean ) in a flying vehicle, backed up by nothing more than a few people and the trust of human engineering.

Actually, the safest form of travel is the elevator. Flying is #2.

>tfw flying, something humans weren't born to innately do, is safer than walking

Because you're a pussy.

By definition, an elevator ride does not count as travelling.

op is special snowflake
queer?

Would it be at all feasible to begin to provide passengers with parachutes? I've never parachuted before but if it was possible to just strap it on securely and pull one cord to deploy then maybe it's feasible from an operational standpoint, but idk how safe this would be. Probably more of an issue accommodating the chute on the plane and increased fuel usage.

Cause more people own cars than fucking planes.

>34 hour flight from Australia to US non-stop
>munchable drugs and phone vidya
>2 window seats to myself

Cloud 9

>Flying is the safest way to travel.
It's a bit of a meme though, yes more people die in car crashes, because loads more people drive cards than fly in planes.

If you take into account the accident rate per hour driven/flown I think I read somewhere the accident rate is actualy pretty close.

>not shinkansen

No because there are several layers of cross checks, a second pilot among others

You have no control.

nice legs but wouldn't get near her, she looks like she has the "special unique snowflake born in the wrong generation"

You forgot
>100s of untrained people all parachuting from a single plane
>a good idea

Because these people (you included) are irrational faggots.

Sure but the chance that two of professional pilots actually fuck up is much, much, much lower than the chance that some drunk kid in a car will.

>The floor in a plane is as close to your feet as everywhere
The floor on a plane has no effect on acrophobia when you're 35,000 feet in the air

Flying is the safest mode of travel per mile travelled.
It's the safest per travel too.

When a plane goes wrong you're pretty dead, but it happens tens of thousands of times less often than a car going wrong. Also in the air another plane isn't likely to fly into you.
The frequency of air catastrophes is so low that even the much lower survival rates don't matter, since you're much, MUCH more likely to die in a car.

Fun fact: The increase in traffic accidents after 9/11 because people stopped flying killed more people than 9/11 itself

>If you take into account the accident rate per hour driven/flown I think I read somewhere the accident rate is actualy pretty close.
It's actually not. Flying is still much safer.
Cars are deathtraps.

Well since they're going to crash and die jumping out of the plane with parachutes give better odds. Also there could be basic training on how to use a parachute - it isn't that hard if you're not panicking.

I didn't.. if the plane is steady and hostesses are trained to instruct people on the matter and obviously assist them in making the jump then it can't be too bad? The seating and aisle will mean people can't push/rush.. this would surely save lives compared to crashing.

Well I doubt she would even consider getting inside a 100mile radius around a Sup Forumsentooman.

Safest way to travel is walking. But it's not practical for traveling long distances.

>Safest way to travel is walking.
Check again.

I'll take my chances with the parachute.

Yes, it does. It's about what you see below your feet, not where you actually are.
If you scared of being 10 Km high in the air, it's called aviophobia.

If it were feasible, they'd do it. Passenger planes travel at 900 Km/h. That's not a speed you can reasonably jump at. Additionally, at least 50% of the passengers on a plane are not in a physical state to jump, because their too young/old or lazy, sedentary fatasses.

To your first point, resources could be better spent on holding maintenance of the plane to a higher standard and whatnot. Secondly, a situation that arises that would warrant using a parachute isn't one that wouldn't cause panic.

because you're hurtling along at hundreds of miles per hour, thousands of feet in the air, in a pressurized soda can

>Passenger planes travel at 900 Km/h.
That's a pretty big problem. But what about after engine failure? If the plane is gliding surely the speed is much lower

By the time it slowed down to 500 Km/h without active braking it's so close to ground half the people wouldn't have time to jump any more. And still going to fast.
I don't know at which speed those planes would start stalling, but slowing down isn't really an option other than making the impact softer.

hour flight

Wat

Dumbass

See, this is the thing. With parachutes you can't guarantee the safety of everyone. In fact almost for sure a lot of people would die. But then the people who know what they are doing have a good chance of survival. It's the whole political correctness thing in action.

Instead of giving parachutes to all the passengers, how about a massive one for the entire aircraft?

usually when a plane crashes it means that something has gone very wrong.
It's not like
>here's the captain speaking, the plane broke so we are going to descend a couple of thousand feet, then slow down and fly straight for a couple of miles, please wear your parachutes and be ready to exit through the emergency door

it's more like
>fuck the engine exploded oh well there goes our wing bye bye
>is that ice? *stalls and dives at hundreds of mph into the ground*
>hmm the pressurizing system is not working, time to pass out and wander in circle until the fuel runs off and we fall out of the sky
>nobody told me there was a hill before the runway, better CFIT

and so on. There's not much time even to think.

If the aircraft is still controllable, there is still a chance to land more or less safely, see the "Miracle on the Hudson"

Wouldn't save the plane in over 90% of crashes, so it's not worth the effort and costs.

It really isn't. Think about the following: Plane's engines die, and it's about to drop. People jump out at travelling speed, 80% die, 15% are severely injured. 5% make it savely (random numbers there). Pilot then manages to find a landing site and lands the plane with minimal casualties. A lot of people died there for no reason.

People say you won't be able to save lives if you put parachutes on passenger planes. But jesus christ look at how many times ejection seats have saved lives in military jets.

Yeah no shit, that's why you fucking wait until the right time to jump. What you said is not an argument for not putting parachutes on planes.

>Wouldn't save the plane in over 90% of crashes, so it's not worth the effort and costs.
Why not? What are the main problems in using a parachute(s) to bring down a plane?

Fighter pilots are trained for years and ejection seats are fucking expensive. No comparison.

What time? How fast do you think you can get 300 people to jump off a plane? You'll need like 15 minutes.

Imo it's because you have no direct control of the plane yourself. Maybe working on general trust issues would help. Also learn the basics of flying a airplane. Getting confidence with mannering it yourself is a lot helpful towards the general phobia of flying

The right time to jump is well below the stall speed of your typical airliner.

Most plane crashes happen during launch or landing. Most fatal plane accidents in mid air result in the destruction of the whole plane (structural failure, explosives, missiles).

>explosives, missiles
wat. How often has this happened? Also, if suppose a bird hit or something similar has rendered the plane unflyable but its still gliding, descending and losing speed, you could use the parachutes to bring it down, assuming the vertical travel doesn't hinder its usage.

Ignoring crashes during take off or landing, off course.

Of course they are expensive. But they save lives. A lot of lives. And you don't need to be trained to pull a handle and get automatically launched.

I don't know how important airspeed is. But people get ejected in supersonic speeds and live so it can't be that bad if you're traveling at 500 km/h.

Yeah and a lot of times also you have mechanical failures, you have ice freezing up the control surfaces or internal failures. Locking the plane its trajectory.

Ticket prices aren't enough to justify ejection seats, though they'll only need to be used 1/1000 flights though. Also, you need a massive structural change on the entire fuselage if you wanna eject 200-300 people. You need to adapt for people of different shapes and sizes. Too many variables.

Basically, not economical.

Those people are strapped in a million dollar seat with their bonedome helmets and flightsuits fastened to said seat.

Because humans are incapable of flight. We might be smart and all but try convincing your body that sitting in a metal box shooting through the sky is "safe".

youtube.com/watch?v=Vtyq-8fdCsY

appreciate it

Yeah, of course, making ejection seats for everyone would be a huge, expensive task. And I think different solutions should be more looked into. But I believe putting a relatively cheep parachute below everyones seat instead of that useless life jacket is the least you can do.

What I don't understand is

Why those niggas don't put cameras on planes? You know, so that the pilots can know what the fuck is going on in their plane without having to leave the cockpit?

Feels like if pilots could see shit like hi-jacks and loss of cabin pressure through cameras, things in general would become a lot safer. LIKE PILOTS HAVE TO DO ANYTHING BUT SWITCH KNOBS ONCE THEY'RE UP THERE.

"oh hey, change heading to 185 please, maintain x altitude"
"k lol" *turns knob*

Man up, OP! You're a big guy.

I know, if a plane crashes with no survivors it would be extremely painfull, and if somebody would pull off your oxygenmask during turbulences you would die, but maybe getting caught in a plane crash was part of god's plan for you. He could expect you to stay in the wreckage brother.

Don't be afraid!

Using parachutes isn't easy. You'll have 200-300 people panicking in a small space and trying to get out of 6-8 doors (maybe not even that considering it might not be safe to jump from doors in front of the wings) from a plane traveling at 500-600 km/h. Also, people with kids, old people, fat people etc.

It's not a very viable option.

It used to be true until Muslims decided to "fix" that

Daily reminder that Allah is merciful and gracious

>plane crashes
>put on parachute
>sprint to the door
>some fat American is stuck there, yelling about burgers, freedom and Jesus
>everybody dies
Thank you, Obama.

Yeah I'm fully aware that there are people not capable of operating a parachute. But that doesn't mean you should just let the rest die.

Americans were fat before Obama, though, right?

I'm sure there'll be a massive PR nightmare for the manufacturers for basically coming up with a system that saves the lives of a few and not the rest.

I wanna see the massive backlash from the fat apologists when they realize they cant use parachutes, though.

Also, unfit people on the plane could get mad and stop the capable ones from jumping.

>plane crashes
>you're alive on the ground
>put on parachute
>sprint to the door
>some fat American is stuck there, yelling about burgers, freedom and Jesus
>everybody dies cause a meteor hits the plane wreck.

Sup Forums is for serious discussion only.

>I'm sure there'll be a massive PR nightmare
Yes exactly this kind of political correct bullshit I'm talking about.
>Noo dont save the lives of healthy people if the fat and handicapped will die
>if im gonna die so are u!

That's what you said. "Plane crashes"

Take off speed of a 747 is 290 km/h. The primary problem wouldnt even be the speed, but the location of the doors. Youre either in front of the Engines /wings (death) or behind ( possible death from heat.) well, assuming all other variables are eliminated. They're simply not designed to be jumped out of in any situation. You're better off praying you have one hell of a pilot well trained in extreme situations.

Why not just put one giant parachute on the airplane?

Because there are quite a few people that survive car crashes, yet when a plane crashes, most often there are no survivors.
People want to console themselves that "even if an accident happens, I may survive", so they'd rather have a 5% chance for an accident with 50% survival rate, instead of a 1% chance for an accident with 0% survival rate, even though mathematically, the latter is the better option.

>Designing a plane
>Don't put doors in place you will die
That was hard.

True, its BS, but its also not that simple.

Also, reading I just recalled that you don't jump from the side of a jet plane cause of the speed and altitude. Those jumps are made from the rear of the aircraft, meaning a massive structural change in aircraft design to incorporate a rear ramp door.

Not worth it.

Most of those things aren't single failures though. Like poor maintenance or combinations of personnel errors and shit cause it.

Ice really shouldn't be a problem for commercial liners anymore (assuming the pilots are properly trained).
The pressurizing system failing would alert the pilots who have their own air masks and the masks should drop for the passengers, they can then descend to an altitude where the masks aren't needed and limp to the nearest place to land (pressurization failures are hugely uncommon)

If anything the biggest worry is that your lives are pretty much at the mercy of the pilots.

Is it true that once a plane is up there most people could also keep it up there because of all the computerized systems?

..does it really become as easy as turning knobs to certain numbers?

>meaning a massive structural change in aircraft design to incorporate a rear ramp door.
It's worse than that.
Jet airliners have a massive dome in the tail of the plane that's basically the cap sealing the pressurized portion of the craft.
You would need some way to get either around or through that, without compromising its structural integrity, in order to even consider placing a rear ramp for bailing out.

And consider that this dome failing in a 747 caused the vertical stabilizer to be blown clean off soon after takeoff in Japan once (due to poor repair work. I think the manager killed himself afterward).

Pretty much, yes. Mostly you input the path heading and let the auto pilot manage the heading changes and throttles.
The pilots are there to monitor.