• gregorum@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • FlowVoid@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • gregorum@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        And with that many more tiny little craft flying around, the risk increases. How do you not understand that?

        • FlowVoid@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

          • gregorum@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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

            • FlowVoid@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • gregorum@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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.

                • FlowVoid@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  And yet you keep ignoring the fact that all forms of commercial aviation have an excellent safety record.

                  That means that if you add up annual US fatalities in the small 2-4 passenger planes that you are irrationally worried about, plus slightly larger planes of 4-10 passengers that you are irrationally worried about, plus charter planes of 5-50 passengers, plus regional carriers, plus major airliners, plus any other air passengers you can imagine …

                  … the grand total would be about ten deaths per year on average. All those different planes put together, still less dangerous than lightning.

                  And now you want me to believe that this excellent multi-decade safety record would magically be upended by building more aircraft, even though we are already building more aircraft - of all types - and have been for decades.