Heaven forbid

[mik]

Originally Posted by mike_nofx

I think even regardless of that planes are safer.

Say you take 10 journeys in a car driven by yourself per week, I still think you'd be much much safer taking 10 journeys in a plane per week.

yes but as a result of the impending plane ride you took a melbourne or sydney taxi to said airport which increased your chances of dying 100 fold .

you can always look at it like that , statistics can be looked at in many different ways .

if you do have a serious incident in mid air, collision etc , the chances are on the high side more than likely you are going to die in a flaming wreck.
the chance of a car having a mid air crash are exceedingly low .

you could die from airline food .

[Outbackjack]

Originally Posted by mike_nofx

And how many deaths has Airbus had per person, per journey, per kilometre compared with human driven cars?

Very few. But thats not the point. The main point I was trying to get across was that a plane flying through a giant sky in a straight line is a whole lot less complicated than a car driving through a large city.

I guess thats why the old saying is " you are far more likely to die driving to the airport than on your plane journey "

[mike_nofx]

Originally Posted by mik

yes but as a result of the impending plane ride you took a melbourne or sydney taxi to said airport which increased your chances of dying 100 fold .

you can always look at it like that , statistics can be looked at in many different ways .

Hence why I tried to simplify it to the bare basics and not include extras.
In your scenario its a car that kills you.

Skew it how you like, planes are safer.

[FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0]

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

Very few. But thats not the point. The main point I was trying to get across was that a plane flying through a giant sky in a straight line is a whole lot less complicated than a car driving through a large city.

I guess thats why the old saying is " you are far more likely to die driving to the airport than on your plane journey "

Um, no offence, OJ but I'm guessing you haven't had much to do with aircraft operations before, right?

Aircraft operations are nowhere near as "less complicated" as you think. For starters, aircraft operate in a three dimensional environment: cars really only operate in two dimensions. Cars are (generally speaking) restricted to operating in an environment that is marked for them (designated roads, with line markings indicating where they should stay and what they should or shouldn't do); aircraft on the other hand can operate anywhere in the 3 dimensional space. There's no roads for them to follow, there's no lane markings to stay within, there's no line markings indicating what they should or shouldn't do. Aircraft very rarely only operate in "straight lines", they do from way point to way point, but even then, there's other aircraft that are also using those same way points that could be approaching from any direction (no lanes to follow) and at any altitude. I could go on, but I think you get the gist.

Also, whilst the risks of aviation are far more controlled than our motoring, you have to remember that the consequences if something goes wrong are far higher. For a starter, you can't just pull over on the side of the road and take a breather (gravity is not your friend ). Given the numbers that aircraft can carry, if something untoward were to happen, the number of fatalities will generally be higher.

So, I think you have majorly underestimated how difficult it is for aviation to operate safely, in comparison to motoring.

[Outbackjack]

Mate , I spent 5 years as a commercial pilot.... Moved into IT to make some reasonable money. I am the happy owner of a Corby Starlet and a Vans RV8.

I know where you are coming from. But as you are very aware almost all flights are monitored on the ground by airservices etc. Excluding people like me in our bug bashers of course (at least most of the time). Any automated car will never have that kind of external support. Cars will also operate within inch's of other cars, people, trams, dogs, etc. They will also operate in weather conditions that a/c dont. Thick fog for example.

I am still sure that we are all putting too much faith in automation too soon.

[Vesper Martini]

The tech is already here, I think it will be introduced in controlled environments. which means Public transport is at the top of the list, despite the amount of people being involved.
I heard on the radio yesterday talk of the driverless bus operation in Perth, currently there is one "human" on-board, for a just in case..
places where I see it being ideal is the Melbourne airport carpark busses. the other day there we had to wait, and then 3 in a row all turned up. computers would have them spaced apart properly.
trains, I really don't see why they still have drivers, with all the signals and cameras on a fixed route. apparently there's a lot of money to be saved there too.

[FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0]

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

Mate , I spent 5 years as a commercial pilot.... Moved into IT to make some reasonable money. I am the happy owner of a Corby Starlet and a Vans RV8.

I know where you are coming from. But as you are very aware almost all flights are monitored on the ground by airservices etc. Excluding people like me in our bug bashers of course (at least most of the time). Any automated car will never have that kind of external support. Cars will also operate within inch's of other cars, people, trams, dogs, etc. They will also operate in weather conditions that a/c dont. Thick fog for example.

I am still sure that we are all putting too much faith in automation too soon.

Well, in that case, I'll take my guess back! Lucky for me I did not 'assume' anything, as we all know what happens when you assume....

Anyway, despite my error in making a guess, I just don't agree with your assessment that flying a plane is less complicated than driving a car. But I'm happy to have a different point of view, it is the essence of what makes this world tick.

[mike_nofx]

Also worth remembering is that a lot of commercial planes still in use are 80's and 90's designed planes, now I'm sure that some updates get made along the way to the automation systems but probably not a full overhaul. The missing Malaysian plane was a 2002 model I believe.

Now its probably going to be a good 15 years before fully automated cars hit out streets and more like 20 years before it goes from super high end cars no-one can afford to the mainstream family car.

So comparing with planes still in use today we're talking a technology span of a minimum 15 years compared with a plane designed and built today right up to 40+ years for the older planes still being used today.

A lot changes in the world of technology in 15 years, let alone 40 years.

[roddy1960]

G'day...On aircraft auto pilot stuff that we mention on the thread. AUTO PILOT . One form or other of auto pilot goes back quite a long way now..In truth it ranges from almost 'old technology' to absolutely state of the art depending on circumstances...I know with modern military aircraft the pilot more monitors the plane these days than actually flies it and several layers of back up systems have to exist ..I saw a doco on the FA 18 Superhornet that the RAAF use and to fly the jet totally manually to achieve the aerobatic capability these fighters have would be really difficult . To achieve the incredible agility it has to have it is deliberately designed on the edge of instability. It seems the trade off to have high speed battle capability is a lower speed inherent instability and this requires lots of help to the crew .No doubt modern passenger jets are control fail safe engineered for safety and pilot mistakes for a myriad of reasons not least landing the big buggers .Horses for courses autonomy..I suppose the same could be said for cars..Without realizing it our cars achieve more autonomy as each year passes..Imagine showing someone a modern car that had been in locked away on a desert island or jungle since 1960 or so and to see their reaction to what a car does compared to then..they probably wouldn't believe it...Cheers Rod..

[Sprintey]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-0...l-s-miles-away

"As such, we suspect that Chinese hackers posting the first-ever evidence on youtube that they can hack into moving Teslas and control the vehicles from miles away won't be of much concern to shareholders either. "


lulz