• themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    Right, but I’m driving the car and responsible for maintenance. I can mitigate some of the risk, and have insight into the level of risk.

    When I get in a plane, I want absolute confidence in the competence of the pilot and crew. I want to know that the plane has been inspected and certified, and the maintenance logged and triple checked.

    Finding out that my confidence was misplaced, that the manufacturer has been cutting corners related to safety and structural integrity, that’s a deal breaker for me. An auto manufacturer can regain trust with a new model car that fixes previous defects. Airplanes are in service for decades, and you don’t always know what plane you’ll get until you are at the gate. Airlines will avoid buying new Boeing aircraft, which will drive down the prices, which will encourage further cost-eaving measures at the expense of quality assurance.

    • Coreidan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Just wait until you find out what happens in the car industry.

      If you think poor safety standards and corner cutting is bad in aviation you’ll cringe when you read up on what happens with car manufacturers.

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Right, but if my airbag doesn’t deploy or the brakes fail, I don’t get sucked out of the car at 30,000 feet.

        • Coreidan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          7 months ago

          No but you could just as easily lose control of your car for a dozen other mechanical failures causing you to drive straight into oncoming traffic or a bridge abutment.

          • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Sure, but so could the pilot. In my car, the buckle, the airbag, the crumple zones, they might save my life. If the plane crashes because of mechanical failure or pilot error, it would make a bridge abutment seem like a featherbed.

            • Coreidan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Not sure how you missed the point but some how you did.

              The point is mechanical failures in cars happen. If it happens to something like the airbag or brakes then it’s likely not a life threatening issue.

              If something happens to your wheels or suspension, your axels, etc then it can have catastrophic outcomes when you’re traveling at highway speeds.

              People die all the time to mechanical failures in cars resulting in freak accidents. They happen more than you think and a lot of the time it comes down to manufacturing defects. Haven’t you ever seen fight club? The car industry is a lot more lax on safety standards then aviation is and the annual death statistics backs it up.

              On the other hand mechanical failures on planes happen all the time. The reality is very few of them result in inoperability and therefore death. It would also require a series of freak incidents to fully cause a crash. Watch the show “Air Disasters” for reference. It’s virtually never just one thing or one mechanical failure that causes a catastrophic incident.

              • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                I think you’ve missed the point. The side came off a plane, and we’ve learned that it was because Boeing and the airlines cheaped out on the bolts, the labor, and the maintenance, and then dodged safety regulations.

                Yes, cars are also dangerous. Driving is statistically more dangerous than flying, but if a car manufacturer knowingly dodges safety regulations, that’s the end of that car. The difference is that, while everyone remembers the Pinto for the explosions, but nobody thinks of it when they buy an F150.

                Boeing can’t do that with a new model of plane. They have to keep promising that they aren’t skipping bolts anymore, and that the side of the plane won’t fall off again. It’s going to take a long time to earn back that trust.

                • Coreidan@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  we’ve learned that it was because Boeing and the airlines cheaped out on the bolts, the labor, and the maintenance, and then dodged safety regulations

                  And the same exact thing happens with cars except it happens more easily, more often, and affects more of the population.

        • robotopera@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Statistically you’ve been in a car where the airbag wouldn’t fail to deploy but instead would explode and shoot shrapnel into your face shotgun style.

          • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            All the more reason to drive defensively. As a driver, I maintain some level of control, and can choose how much additional risk I am comfortable with. As a passenger, I’m putting my trust, my future, my life into someone else’s hands. If a panel fell off the side of a city bus, I would have similar concerns related to boarding one. And a bus drives really slow in the right lane, on the ground.

    • juicy@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      The more important difference is that the plane cannot pull over in the event of an engine or steering malfunction. Everything needs to continue working for the aircraft to continue its defiance of gravity.

      • Vortieum@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        Not necessarily true. Quite a bit can fail (including engine and steering systems) on a modern aircraft and it will still safely defy gravity.

    • ClockworkOtter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      You’re also having to place that confidence in every other person you’re sharing the road with, as well as their dealers and mechanics.

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Which is the same as a plane. I’m putting my confidence in every other pilot, mechanic, air traffic controller, ground crew, and security. So that’s a wash.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          But it’s not a wash. That’s like saying a shark attack or an undercurrent could kill you at a beach, so it’s a wash. One is incredibly more likely than the other.

          There are at least two capable airline pilots on every flight, plus air traffic control in case anything goes wrong. There’s very little traffic in the skies, and that traffic is highly regulated and coordinated, so a collision is incredible unlikely. There are tons of cars on the roads, many of which have distracted, sleepy, or intoxicated drivers, and it takes just one to ruin your day or even your life.

          You may feel your risk is lower when driving because you’re “in control,” but the statistics don’t lie, you’re incredibly more likely to die in a car than a plane.

          • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            Sure, but nobody here is talking about statistics. This article, this entire conversation, is about trust and confidence. I’m confident I can drive a car to the store and not die. Statistically, I’m more likely to die in an accident within a mile from my house, but that doesn’t stop me from driving in my neighborhood because I trust myself to drive. Accidents can happen anywhere to anyone, and there are a lot of other drivers to be worried about, but I can take steps to mitigate some of that risk. The higher chance of dying in my car doesn’t make anyone feel better about flying, it just makes you feel worse about driving. The two levels of trust are unrelated.

            Like I know I have a higher chance of being killed by a deer. Statistically, deer kill a lot of people by causing car accidents, and they spread diseases. Wolves don’t kill anyone. Wolf attacke are extremely rare, and increasing the population of wolves in the wild would be very good for our North American ecosystems. But if I’m sitting in my backyard, and a wolf approaches from the left and a deer approaches from the right, I’m going to be worried about the wolf. Statistics don’t enter into the thought process.

            I need to trust planes to board one. I have to drive my kids to school, so I have to get comfortable with the risk of getting behind the wheel. I don’t have to get on a Boeing airplane.

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              But you don’t have to drive, that’s a cultural misconception.

              One day my car’s battery was completely dead. Instead of just having my kids take the day off, I took them in my bicycle trailer and picked up a new battery on my way home. I could totally go without a car if necessary.

              Taking a bus or train is much safer than driving. Cycling is also net healthier than driving because the health benefits outweigh the conflict with cars. We spend so much money researching ways to make cars safer (air bags, crumple zones, lane drift alerts, etc), yet it’s still incredibly dangerous.

              The problem with driving is that people “feel” safer than they are and get complacent. It’s similar to someone working in a large machining plant or something, they’ll feel safer after a year than a week on the job, but they’re probably more at risk because they’re more complacent about the risks.

              Statistics don’t enter into the thought process

              But they absolutely should. If you want to be safer, trust the statistics. Almost any mode of transportation is safer than driving, and the ones more dangerous than driving are often more dangerous because of cars.

              Airplanes are still way safer than cars. Yeah, one had a door blow out, but the risk of something like that happening is so incredibly low compared to someone crashing into your car that it’s almost not worth talking about. The news overreports the one-off cases and underreports the common cases, because surprising news sells. If the news reported every car death, you’d quickly stop reading it because it’s just so common.