Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

PMzyox t1_ivs3vxn wrote

That’s a pretty close call, and microbursts are still one of the perils of flying today, unfortunately. That being said, it’s still by far the safest form of travel.

71

makalder t1_ivs5aep wrote

Modern planes are well equipped to detect and avoid microbursts. Only a handful of crashes are attributed to microburst where pilot error wasn’t a contributing factor.

54

PMzyox t1_ivs5mzf wrote

Actually was going to say that if there ever is a problem in the air, it’s likely pilot error is the cause, or at least involved. Just didn’t want to sound morbid

24

makalder t1_ivs5rfi wrote

I get that too. It’s nice to know that, while tragic, pilot error can be learned from and corrected for the future IMO

7

CalligrapherCalm2617 t1_ivs7vss wrote

If you get caught in a microburst there's literally nothing you can do

−6

makalder t1_ivtflo8 wrote

That’s why you don’t fly through thunderstorms, especially at low altitude.

5

Boogiemann53 t1_ivsyui4 wrote

Train.

−1

AkshuallyGuy t1_ivt73rn wrote

Yes, airline pilots train extensively. That and modern equipment are two big reasons why commercial aviation are so safe.

10

Kassabro t1_ivtb1hr wrote

I'm p sure he meant trains are the safest form of travel.

3

AkshuallyGuy t1_ivte3b0 wrote

Then he's wrong.

The rate of Amtrak accidents per million train miles traveled grew from 41.1 in 2008 to nearly 58.8 by November 2017

Large commercial airplanes had 0.27 fatal accidents per million flights in 2020, or one fatal crash every 3.7 million flights -- up from 0.18 fatal accidents per million flights in 2019.

So even if each flight was a single mile, they'd still be far safer than trains. Adjusting to passenger miles, trains are death traps compared to commercial flights.

11

frezik t1_ivtjl6y wrote

Note that Amtrak has substantially higher fatalities than elsewhere. European trains have 0.85 fatalities per billion KM (source). If my math is right, that's 1.37 per million freedom units.

So yes, still worse than airplanes, but Amtrak sucks. That's what happens when suffering from years of neglect and sharing rail with coal haulers.

16

akeean t1_ivtp5vw wrote

IMO It should be noted that people falling/hopping in front or getting caught on a grade crossing by a train is massively dominating the fatality statistics.

Fatalities from derailments and train on train crashes are minuscle in comparison at least in Japan.

9

Kassabro t1_ivtf5be wrote

I knew flying was the safest form but seeing it in actual numbers in mind-boggling. 0.27 fatal accidents per MILLION flights. Damn.

9

Nachohead1996 t1_ivxzmfk wrote

Whilst you are right, even fatal train accidents generally lead to far fewer casualties than fatal plane crashes, because a 'fatal plane crash' quite often means everybody in the plane dies, whereas a 'fatal train crash' may merely be 1-2 wagons being crashed, multiple deaths occuring, but still having a majority of the passengers surviving the crash.

Besides that, your amount of Amtrak accidents per 1m train miles also includes non-fatal accidents, and even accidents without any injuries.

Besides that, planes are a lot faster, so whilst the fatality rate per 'unit of distance of your choice' are far lower for planes (0.05 (plane) VS 0.6 deaths per 1 billion kilometers, thus making trains seem 12x more deadly), your odds of dying per 'amount of time spent traveling' are almost equal, but slightly higher for planes (30.8 (plane) VS 30 (train) deaths per 1 billiion hours spent traveling by mode of transport)

So yeah, it depends on your perspective, but looking at time spent air travel would be more dangerous than travelling by train - counteracted by the fact that people generally spend way more time in their lives commuting by train, rather than by plane

Source

3

fatamSC2 t1_ivvxkz2 wrote

People riding normal trains is lower, though.

1

adamcoe t1_ivvzmiu wrote

If you go by deaths per passenger miles, I imagine cruise ships are crushing it too. 3000-5000 people per ship, and there are ~100 or so ships that size (conservatively, could be slightly higher), travelling say, 1500 nautical miles per week (again that's very conservative), 52 weeks a year. Puts you in the neighbourhood of 27-30 billion passenger miles per year (much more if you include the crew of said ships), with astonishingly few deaths. (We're talking deaths due to the fact that they travelled by ship, as opposed to people who roll up and have a heart attack or choke or something.) Big cruise ships don't sink, as a rule.*

*unless you're showing off and run one up on the rocks in Italy for example. And technically still didn't "sink."

1

DischargedElectron t1_ivv3r7u wrote

There are three kind of accident statistics: per mile, per trip and per hours travelled. All meaningful in the right context. Airlines like to emphasize per mile statistics because it favours them. Comparing forms of travel using the other two methods shows different results.

0

AkshuallyGuy t1_ivv9q8q wrote

>Airlines like to emphasize per mile statistics because it favours them.

And yet the stats I reported were per flight. The results of any comparison will show air travel to be safer than train travel, unless you are abusing methodologies.

3

AWF_Noone t1_ivtt41j wrote

r/fuckcars and their ignorance is leaking…

2

mountjo t1_ivudhg7 wrote

Nah, trains rule and are way safer and more sustainable than cars. This person just seems misinformed.

−2

AWF_Noone t1_ivuhrvy wrote

Of course they are, but they are not safer than air travel, which is what the comment was about.

Also, being misinformed is a form of ignorance

3

fatamSC2 t1_ivvxw5x wrote

Normal trains are marginally safer than planes, at least for those riding them and not including bystanders on the tracks etc being lumped into the death stats. But it's a pointless debate either way you want to nitpick it; both are similarly safe

0