ALGIERS, Algeria (AP) — A flight operated by Air Algerie and carrying 116 people from Burkina Faso to Algeria's capital disappeared from radar early Thursday, the plane's owner said.
Air navigation services lost track of the Swiftair MD-83 about 50 minutes after takeoff from Ougadougou, the capital of Burkina Faso, at 0155 GMT (9:55 p.m. EDT Wednesday), the official Algerian news agency said. That means that Flight 5017 had been missing for hours before the news was made public.
The flight path of the plane from Ouagadougou, the capital of the west African nation of Burkina Faso, to Algiers wasn't immediately clear. Ougadougou is in a nearly straight line south of Algiers, passing over Mali where unrest continues in the north.
Link - (
New Window )
No it's not. Only 3 people died from the Asiana crash, and you could probably claim 1 of those was due to a "car accident". There were 307 people on board, so <1% killed in that crash.
That's why planes don't fly when their "check engine" lights are on and you get mechanical delays. I'm sure millions of people a day drive their cars with the check engine lights on (which also likely check a lot few things than those on a plane).
No one gives a shit what you think either. Definitely don't care if no one agrees with me, but saying one is safer than the other when talking about planes means death or no death. Were you talking about hitting your head in the bathroom stall?
And the plane crashed, people died (I would imagine). So talking about planes crashing is what this thread is kind of about.
Just jokin around man :)
From the article, there's about 1.3 deaths per every 100 million vehicle miles driven vs about 1.9 deaths per every 100 million vehicle miles flying.
There are so many different ways of figuring it out. If I have a fender bender with no injuries, does that count as a driving risk? What about the number of times my airline has been delayed or cancelled due to something or other, or that I missed my connecting flight? injuries per mile driven? I'll bet my last dollar that there's far more than 1.3 injuries per 100 mil miles driving and that there's not much more than 1.9 injuries per 100 mil miles flying, but that's just a guess.
Bottom line is I don't have a problem flying to Chicago, or driving to Chicago. the odds are overwhelmingly in my favor of getting there by either method.
statistics can be so enlightening, and so stupid at the same time.
That's my whole point which fkap articulated far better than I did.
That comparison is about as apples to apples as it gets.
It doesn't matter that when a crash happens who is more likely to die. The fact remains that the chances of dying from a car crash is more likely than dying from a plane crash.
nice troll job on this thread UConn. yeah, comparing two methods of travel is like comparing apples and oranges. LOL.
And no it isn't apples to apples. Too many factors aren't taken into account in those statistics. Just like QBR or whatever you want to rank QB's with. Stats only tell so much.
If everyone started hot air ballooning everywhere people would die at high rates. Why? Because crashing almost always results in death.
I'm not afraid to fly, if its my time its my time. But I 100% feel safer in my car with me controlling most of my own fate than I do when getting into a plane.
good to know, dale earnhardt.
How about them apples?
Plus, you don't exactly control your own fate in a car. You're half the battle. There are plenty of reckless drivers out there on the road that can kill you even if you're doing everything right as a driver.
And yes, good drivers get into accidents. But i feel safer in my car 100%.
The math is directly comparable - you get into something, you travel a certain distance, and you either get there alive, or you don't. The data is available for each of those variables over very long periods and for very large sample sizes...what exactly is not being factored in?
There are a number of different choices that you can make when taking the ratio. The only thing matters is that you take a common ratio between the two, allowing for the comparison.
The statistic is correct. It's the interpretation and trying to determine causality that leads to differences in opinions.
That's gotta factor into the statistics somewhere.
And yes, good drivers get into accidents. But i feel safer in my car 100%.
"feeling" safer and actually "being" safer are two vastly different things.
if you feel safer in a car then you are under a delusion. because it's NOT safer. period. it's not an opinion.
one is more dangerous than the other. again, by a huge margin. if the data don't impact your perception that's your issue, not ours.
My overall point is the crash portion, which has been constant the entire thread. Just my interpretation as its more than just 1 + 1 = 2 for me. IMO, too much can go wrong in a plane for it to feel safer. When things go wrong in a car, there are many things you can do to alleviate the situation, and if the worst happens, your chances of it being fatal is still very small.
Cars, on the other hand, are maintained by Sal down the block when people get around to it.
What you are debating is two different things - you are saying that the probability of a particular accident being fatal is greater in the air (intuitively I think that is correct), what everyone else is saying that the probability of a fatal accident is lower with flying (demonstrably correct).
You can't pull over and get out if it starts acting funny, and if things happen to go really awry, you're powerless to do anything about it (and probably fucked).
We're all mortal and destined to check out some day, a plane crash is probably one of the more terrifying ways to go. While it would probably be mostly (if not entirely) painless, I think that the thought of being instantaneously obliterated in that kind of high-impact disaster adds to the "irrational" fear of flying vs. driving.
Also, most people are at least somewhat intrinsically afraid of heights...but if given the choice, I the majority would rather free fall to their doom in the open air rather than be trapped inside of a doomed aircraft.
You can't pull over and get out if it starts acting funny, and if things happen to go really awry, you're powerless to do anything about it (and probably fucked).
We're all mortal and destined to check out some day, a plane crash is probably one of the more terrifying ways to go. While it would probably be mostly (if not entirely) painless, I think that the thought of being instantaneously obliterated in that kind of high-impact disaster adds to the "irrational" fear of flying vs. driving.
Also, most people are at least somewhat intrinsically afraid of heights...but if given the choice, I the majority would rather free fall to their doom in the open air rather than be trapped inside of a doomed aircraft.
don't disagree with anything you wrote here. just want to point out that what many of us have been arguing to UConn on this thread is that if you fear flying more than driving, that's an "irrational" fear, just as you put it.
nobody is denying that there are some people who fear that particular method of death more than another (though i can't imagine dying in a car crash is much more pleasant than dying in a plane crash), but the point is, if you choose to fear the plane more than the car, then you're not doing it based on your actual chances of living or dying. you're doing it based on something irrational.
they're....that should do it