>
> Sam Nelson wrote:

>> In article <1ee03ef8-6eaa-45d3-8135-967ef5ee9214
>> @j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, thunderbird57303@hotmail.com says...

>>> A major air disaster then suddenly every minor aircraft technical
>>> difficulty starts making the headlines.
>>>
>>> This is very much non-news.
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7578428.stm
>>>
>>> Remember, the most dangerous part of your flight is the drive to and
>>> from the airport.

>>
>> There's a flaw in this claim: namely, it implicitly asserts that
>> everyone is an average driver. If I drive mind-numbingly badly, then
>> I'm far more likely to be killed while driving than if I drive
>> competently. Strictly statistically, the claim may be true, but on a
>> per-person basis, it matters how competently I drive. The questions
>> insurers ask about your accident history and driving experience prove
>> that.
>>
>> Driving a car, I am to some extent or other in control of my own
>> destiny. Sitting in a seat in a plane or train, I'm just a piece of
>> self-loading freight at the disposal of pilots, ATCs, and ground crew.
>> I'm so far from understanding the likely sources of danger that I cannot
>> manage the risk That's why all the fuss is made about aircrashes---the
>> people killed had absolutely no way to choose what happened, once they'd
>> got on the plane.

>
> "Some extent". Sitting in a car, waiting at lights, you are just as much
> a target at the disposal of others.
>
> The "fuss" is that any air crash usually results in a loss of life
> orders of magnitude greater than any single road accident. Whereas road
> vehicle designers have put a lot of effort into safety cages,
> impact-survivable fuel-tanks, etc - there doesn't seem to have been much
> attempt at making a plane crash survivable. The effort has all gone into
> reducing the possibility of a crash happening.