The same Ohio river valley where the Wright brothers pioneered human flight will soon manufacture cutting-edge electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft.
Flying is less dangerous per capita because fewer people fly than drive and are required to have more training to fly commercially. But the is t true for these sorts of craft, and small engine aircraft are far more dangerous with a far higher rate of crashes. So are helicopters. And increasing the number of those aircraft and flights would only raise those numbers further.
Large commercial aircraft with 2 trained pilots, air traffic control, a full flight crew, autopilot, and millions of dollars of advanced avionics.
These are not the same type of aircraft, nor are they the same caliber of pilots that will be flying them with 10,000+ hours of experience flying those types of craft. And there won’t be air traffic control to back them up, either. You’re comparing apples to oranges.
Edit: I suppose there will be ATC? But that opens a different can of worms and adds a huge burden to an already overtaxed system.
Major airlines have two pilots and expensive avionics. But “commercial aircraft” refers to all aircraft with paying passengers, including Cessnas with a single pilot that take a few passengers sightseeing. As I said, fatalities are extremely rare in any of these flights.
And all pilots are guided by air traffic control, from major airliners to solo private pilots. Air traffic control is meant to prevent mid-air collisions, an air traffic control system that ignored small aircraft would be pointless.
The risk increases with any aircraft, the size is irrelevant. You might as well complain whenever Boeing builds a new airplane. And they build hundreds each year.
Fortunately, ATC regulates the number of aircraft - of any size - that can safely fly in a particular section of airspace.
So you admit I’m right, but you’re still arguing against me and then throw a false equivalence in to top it off. How the hell does that make any sense? Lmao
Yeah, it’s very clear that your argument is a false equivalence because you’re ignoring the massive differences between the different types of planes and the different safety records between them. And there’s lots of things to suggest that, you’re just ignoring them.
Not to mention this article and this whole discussion is about increasing the most dangerous form of air travel.
It must be very convenient for you to constantly ignore every part of the discussion that doesn’t align with your narrative, and then act as if you’d never heard it before.
Flying is less dangerous per capita because fewer people fly than drive and are required to have more training to fly commercially. But the is t true for these sorts of craft, and small engine aircraft are far more dangerous with a far higher rate of crashes. So are helicopters. And increasing the number of those aircraft and flights would only raise those numbers further.
Flying is safer, period.
In the US, there are only about ten fatalities per year on commercial aircraft. You are more likely to die of a lightning strike.
And if you only consider major airlines, in the last twenty years there has been exactly one passenger fatality in the US.
Large commercial aircraft with 2 trained pilots, air traffic control, a full flight crew, autopilot, and millions of dollars of advanced avionics.
These are not the same type of aircraft, nor are they the same caliber of pilots that will be flying them with 10,000+ hours of experience flying those types of craft. And there won’t be air traffic control to back them up, either. You’re comparing apples to oranges.
Edit: I suppose there will be ATC? But that opens a different can of worms and adds a huge burden to an already overtaxed system.
Major airlines have two pilots and expensive avionics. But “commercial aircraft” refers to all aircraft with paying passengers, including Cessnas with a single pilot that take a few passengers sightseeing. As I said, fatalities are extremely rare in any of these flights.
And all pilots are guided by air traffic control, from major airliners to solo private pilots. Air traffic control is meant to prevent mid-air collisions, an air traffic control system that ignored small aircraft would be pointless.
And with that many more tiny little craft flying around, the risk increases. How do you not understand that?
The risk increases with any aircraft, the size is irrelevant. You might as well complain whenever Boeing builds a new airplane. And they build hundreds each year.
Fortunately, ATC regulates the number of aircraft - of any size - that can safely fly in a particular section of airspace.
So you admit I’m right, but you’re still arguing against me and then throw a false equivalence in to top it off. How the hell does that make any sense? Lmao
I’m arguing that building these planes is no worse than building any other plane.
And there is nothing to suggest that air travel is currently unsafe due to congestion, if anything air travel is decreased from previous years.
Yeah, it’s very clear that your argument is a false equivalence because you’re ignoring the massive differences between the different types of planes and the different safety records between them. And there’s lots of things to suggest that, you’re just ignoring them.
Not to mention this article and this whole discussion is about increasing the most dangerous form of air travel.
It must be very convenient for you to constantly ignore every part of the discussion that doesn’t align with your narrative, and then act as if you’d never heard it before.
Per capita means per unit of people. So by definition the group size does not matter.
You just explained how group size does matter