Why do people act like flying is a reasonable mode of transportation?

[Anonymous]

You forget all these flying peanuts !

[Anonymous]

I do not enjoy it at all.

However, the alternative is never going anywhere beyond where I can drive and that is a sad life driven by anxiety. Which is not how I want to live and not the example I want to set for my children.

So I get on the plane.

[Anonymous]

I work in aviation. Having highly trained professionals both as pilots and mechanics and all the extra space that the sky allows relative to the ground as well as other professionals and technology that allocate the airspace makes me feel more than comfortable flying. In fact there's no list no place I feel more safe than on a commercial flight. Now general aviation that's entirely another matter. I don't do that anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised at these answers. I do fly but I wouldn't call it reasonable. I always marvel that it actually works! It doesn't seem crazy and counter-intuitive to you guys? Of course I fly and trust 'precious babies' (lol) to it but it always strikes me as amazing.

No. But then, I'm an engineer and I understand the concept of lift. Yes, modern science and engineering is amazing mostly because of how fast the technology is evolving. But that doesn't make it incredible, only inspiring.

It's not that different from understanding the concepts of gravity for answering why we stay on the ground and don't spin off into space from centrifugal force generated by the spinning of the Earth. Then again, if you are a flat-Earther, then you don't believe in either gravity or centrifugal force.

It one thing to understand the concept, it's the different thing to make it relatable. Despite years of physics in college I could not feel it. What actually helped me with accepting it is race car design (and why race cars don't fly).
Gravity is a bad example though, as nobody can explain it yet.

[Anonymous]

I will fly anywhere. Literally the only time I will drive is if it’s less than 8 hours and the destination airport is not convenient (ie: NC beaches.) In fact, every time we drive to NC my kids ask, “why can’t we fly there?”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised at these answers. I do fly but I wouldn't call it reasonable. I always marvel that it actually works! It doesn't seem crazy and counter-intuitive to you guys? Of course I fly and trust 'precious babies' (lol) to it but it always strikes me as amazing.

No. But then, I'm an engineer and I understand the concept of lift. Yes, modern science and engineering is amazing mostly because of how fast the technology is evolving. But that doesn't make it incredible, only inspiring.

It's not that different from understanding the concepts of gravity for answering why we stay on the ground and don't spin off into space from centrifugal force generated by the spinning of the Earth. Then again, if you are a flat-Earther, then you don't believe in either gravity or centrifugal force.

Off topic, but there is actually no such thing as a centifugal force that could propel you off the face of the Earth...which is why this physicist doesn't worry about it.

[Anonymous]

I'm flying Wednesday morning for a meeting in Dallas and will be home the same day by dinner. I would never drive to Dallas, and not interested in a 40hr round trip in an automobile when I can make it in 5hrs round trip.

We went to Italy over spring break. how else would we get there? A cargo ship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will fly anywhere. Literally the only time I will drive is if it’s less than 8 hours and the destination airport is not convenient (ie: NC beaches.) In fact, every time we drive to NC my kids ask, “why can’t we fly there?”

We fly to NYC all the time. it's only a 5hr drive, but f, that! only 45min from IAD to LGA. We never even get to full altitude. it is up and down.

[Anonymous]

I am perpetually amazed at the concept of air travel but that's because I have no mind for engineering. I am similarly awed by large construction achievements. But I am not worried about it in terms of my personal safety for the most part, because while I don't academically understand it, I know the professionals do.

[Anonymous]

Explain “reasonable” in your question? I’m confused as to what exactly you’re asking. If you could elaborate on what your thoughts on flying are I’d appreciate it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am with OP. I hate flying. Luckily, I don't like travel, so I only do it out of necessity.
Plus, statically speaking, the better measure of "safety" is based on the number of deaths per passenger hour traveled. Cars and planes are very close based on that statistics.

Nonsense. If you are choosing whether to fly or drive somewhere, it is deaths per mile that is the relevant criterion, statistically speaking.

That is what it make it relevant to you: statistics as it relates to getting to a destination. The other camp prefers statistics as time of your life spent on activity. We are not arguing convenience. Whether you spend three hours out of your life flying or driving give you pretty much the same probability of dying.

I just googled it and couldn't find anywhere where someone had calculated the stat but at this point I would not be surprised if in on a per hour basis flying is significantly safer than driving is at this point.

There were no commercial airline deaths anywhere in the world in 2017 and there has not been a commercial airline death in the US since 2009!

And flying in the US is not some fringe thing - there are over 10,000 commercial flights per day in the US moving over a million people per day

So at this point there are literally tens of millions of flown hours in the US since the last commercial fatality.

Dozens of people die every month in our region alone in auto accidents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am with OP. I hate flying. Luckily, I don't like travel, so I only do it out of necessity.
Plus, statically speaking, the better measure of "safety" is based on the number of deaths per passenger hour traveled. Cars and planes are very close based on that statistics.

Nonsense. If you are choosing whether to fly or drive somewhere, it is deaths per mile that is the relevant criterion, statistically speaking.

That is what it make it relevant to you: statistics as it relates to getting to a destination. The other camp prefers statistics as time of your life spent on activity. We are not arguing convenience. Whether you spend three hours out of your life flying or driving give you pretty much the same probability of dying.

I just googled it and couldn't find anywhere where someone had calculated the stat but at this point I would not be surprised if in on a per hour basis flying is significantly safer than driving is at this point.

There were no commercial airline deaths anywhere in the world in 2017 and there has not been a commercial airline death in the US since 2009!

And flying in the US is not some fringe thing - there are over 10,000 commercial flights per day in the US moving over a million people per day

So at this point there are literally tens of millions of flown hours in the US since the last commercial fatality.

Dozens of people die every month in our region alone in auto accidents.

The beauty of statistics. Let's omit all non commercial flights. People play lottery too. Slim chance but it can happen. Human reactions to "it can happen" varies. I hate losing that $2 more than I would love winning the jackpot. Humans are not rational (except for the Lucas's ex-wife, who got a half of his Nobel prize for the rational expectations, based on their divorce decree)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am with OP. I hate flying. Luckily, I don't like travel, so I only do it out of necessity.
Plus, statically speaking, the better measure of "safety" is based on the number of deaths per passenger hour traveled. Cars and planes are very close based on that statistics.

Nonsense. If you are choosing whether to fly or drive somewhere, it is deaths per mile that is the relevant criterion, statistically speaking.

That is what it make it relevant to you: statistics as it relates to getting to a destination. The other camp prefers statistics as time of your life spent on activity. We are not arguing convenience. Whether you spend three hours out of your life flying or driving give you pretty much the same probability of dying.

I just googled it and couldn't find anywhere where someone had calculated the stat but at this point I would not be surprised if in on a per hour basis flying is significantly safer than driving is at this point.

There were no commercial airline deaths anywhere in the world in 2017 and there has not been a commercial airline death in the US since 2009!

And flying in the US is not some fringe thing - there are over 10,000 commercial flights per day in the US moving over a million people per day

So at this point there are literally tens of millions of flown hours in the US since the last commercial fatality.

Dozens of people die every month in our region alone in auto accidents.

The beauty of statistics. Let's omit all non commercial flights. People play lottery too. Slim chance but it can happen. Human reactions to "it can happen" varies. I hate losing that $2 more than I would love winning the jackpot. Humans are not rational (except for the Lucas's ex-wife, who got a half of his Nobel prize for the rational expectations, based on their divorce decree)

Why would you criticize omitting non commercial flights? Very few of us will fly anything other than commercial. So the death rates for the private planes is meaningless to men.