Hacker News Reader

Comment by Asbostos | Hacker News Reader

That would make small countries look unfairly safer because of their shorter flights. Maybe deaths per passenger-kilometer? Unless the duration of the flight doesn't really affect the risk.

View on HN

The duration of the flight can be ignored. Almost all accidents happen during take-off or landing which is why statistics usually refer to the number of passengers.

Edit: Data to back it up: http://www.1001crash.com/index-page-statistique-lg-2-numpage...

Makes sense. Takeoff and landing are the most critical phases of flight (much less time to correct mistakes).

On the other hand, the risk of driving from New York to Boston is drastically different from the disk of driving New York to LA. So if you want to make a safety comparison between different transit systems, looking at deaths per passenger mile makes sense for the big picture.

But if all you're looking at is the risk per flight like this, it's like you said, takeoff and landing are where crashes happen regardless of distance.

If I have to move my piano 120 feet down the street, cars are considerably safer than planes.

It's very difficult to compare miles traveled. Even when comparing a cross country trip, how safe am I driving if I come anywhere close to US airline's safety standards: very well maintained car, never drive tired, avoid bad road conditions, etc...?

Yes, thank you for saying this. You'll often see the relative safety of different modes of travel compared using passenger miles. Passenger miles are an important consideration for some modes of travel, but not air travel.

This wouldn't work for Nepal, where the flights are short from a 2D perspective, but are absolutely necessary from a 3D one.

Like flying into Kai Tak, but significantly scarier?

I propose that the measurement be in crashes per aircraft type.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com