>he fell for the airplane meme
Airplanes are fucking deathtraps.
There's at least one crash every year with no survivors.
It's mind boggling to me how something that tales so much careful planning and time to construct still fails quite frequently.
How do engineers justify this?
If I pull that mask off, will you die?
What's a better alternative?
Why stop at airplanes? More people die in cars per year than they do planes. Shit is going to happen when you put people in something that necessitates a high amount of energy to function.
compare the number of crashes to the number of flights. Tell me the fraction.
Now do the same with cars.
The odds of surviving a car crash are way better.
There are way more cars than planes.
>he fell for the car meme
Cars are fucking deathtraps.
There's millions of car crashes every year with million of deaths.
It's mind boggling to me how something that tales so much careful planning still fails quite frequently.
How do engineers justify this?
Ford literally farts out a car every second.
Planes take 10 years to make.
>More people die in cars per year than they do planes.
what a retarded logic
your lifetime odds of dying in a car crash are 1 in 600
your odds of dying in a plane crash are 1 in 11 million
dead is dead. your car is much, much more likely to kill you
>The odds of dying in this vehicle that you use every day are greater than in this other vehicle that you don't use every day.
Tell me more
>number of plane flights in 2014
37 million
>number of "aircraft incidents" in 2014
20 listed (on wikipedia), almost all involving Africans or Chinese
I think it's pretty safe my dude
this has nothing to do with his assertion that planes are death traps, they are not
airlines: 0.07 fatalities per billion passenger miles
cars: 7.3 fatalities per billion passenger miles
>journalistsresource.org
cars are literally 100x more dangerous than planes
>he fell for the car meme
Cars are fucking deathtraps.
There's at least one point three million crashes every year with no survivors.
It's mind boggling to me how something that tales so much careful planning and time to construct still fails quite frequently.
How do engineers justify this?
pretty sure he wasn't talking about averages. The fact is if the plane fucks up there is a 99.9% chance you will die. It doesn't matter if it fucks up .0001% of the time because it's basically guaranteed death. Car crashes have a much better survival rate.
/thread
If people used airplanes as often as they drove in cars then more people would die in airplanes
Crashing isn't the problem here. Imagine how much CO2 the 24/7 flights of thousands of gigantic flying machines produces each day.
Their fuel doesn't melt steel beams, how dangerous can it possibly be?
That's a lot of loyalty for a hired engineer
No, but it would be extremely painful.
And that much CO2 might account for a 0.3C temperature change over 200 years!
>There's at least one crash every year with no survivors.
>Posts a picture clearly proving himself wrong.
>Where have all the non brainlets gone?
84 years straight, Ill give it to him. I dont think the point of his arguement is literally that there has been a fatal airplane accident every year in recorded history. His point is still garbage, because cars are far more dangerous, but not for that reason.
>he fell for the life meme
Life is a fucking death trap.
Given a long enough time scale, there are no survivors.
It's mind boggling to me how something that takes so much biological planning and time to evolve still fails quite frequency.
How do God justify this?
people die every year from going outside wats ur point
According to nsc.org
So if you don't shoot yourself before you board a plane, you're pretty much safe.
retard alert
So just wait until one crashed each year before making a plane journey, then the change of yours crashing as well is almost 0.
>50% chance of fucking emma watson provided you guys date
>doesn't matter that theres a 0.00001% chance of that happening, you're gonna treat it like you have a 50/50 shot
If everyone who fucked Emma Watson lost their dick in the process you wouldn't get near her.
THIS guy gets it.
Thats why I always take a bomb with me on airplanes.
The chance of two bombs being on an airplane at the same time is insignificant.
Ahaha, no. Not even close.
Please see
Even when adjusting for shit like that planes are safer
planes are literally the best engineered and safest transport device we have ever engineered the fuck out of and conceived
Wrong
Well....
We conceived of walking slowly and carefully. Probably safer, but then, not as convenient for going to Hong Kong.
But yeah, they are amazingly fucking safe, especially considering how completely hostile is the environment where they operate.
Yeah, you're right. I'll just walk. Ride my bike. Drive. Swim.
Yes they are. You are much more likely to die in a plane crash than a car crash given equal number of miles traveled.
Except not? Consider the amount of miles traveled by a single plane every year and the amount of miles traveled by a car. Which one travels more? Even if a plane crashes it will have a LOT more miles than a car.
>not just kayaking across the atlantic when you need to go to yurop
Good argument
>plane: travels in empty sky, still crashes and burns, no survivors
>car: travels in 2D plane full of other cars and obstacles, crashes are more likely yet you're more likely to survive them
You're a big guy
>The odds of surviving a car crash are way better.
the odds of being involved in a car crash are way higher than being involved in an airplane crash
People do all sorts of dangerous things to fill their mostly meaningless lives. They're willing to add risk to their life, to suffer the certain toxins and radiation found at altitude and breathing in dozens of people's exhalations of bacteria, viruses and other diseases. People were not meant to live at the height of the highest mountains. This is why we don't find megacities on mountaintops.
For you
That is objectively false. Cars have more fatalities per mile than commercial aircraft.