Comments
3:44 pm 27/01/2012
djskitzy
747's are designed to be able to approach at 45 degrees angle to the runway, then kick it round just as they touchdown.... awesome skill, to able to do that to a 250 ton plane travelling at 200mph, 3ft off the deck..... 
4:01 pm 27/01/2012
happyhollie
Yeah, it's times like that when I would be shitting myself. I deal, when it comes to flying, but rocky takes offs & landings...I don't do so well.
4:31 pm 27/01/2012
happyhollie
A lot. I've flown in during horrible winds & you can feel the plane rocking back & forth. It is a very unsettling feeling. I white knuckle the arm rests...or the poor person next to me.
4:49 pm 27/01/2012
djskitzy
It comes close to waking me up... I stir, peek out the window, have a deep sigh because I've gotta wake up soon, and drop off until the plane's parked up.... Sometimes the take off can wake me also.
safest form of transport known to man. Proven a million times over. I dont stress when I get in a car, and they're loads more dangerous than planes, so why stress when I get on a plane? I don't. I sleep. There's fuck all else to do and you feel like you got there quicker.
6:27 pm 27/01/2012
cyvoid
Quote by djskitzy:
safest form of transport known to man
I have often heard that, but I wonder if the statics are not flawed. Of course more people die in cars wrecks yada yada, but have the statistics accounted for the higher number of drivers, cars, shear amount of time spent in a car vs the air.
My gps tracks the amount of time I have been in the car. Since christmas I have been in the car for more than 70 hours. I guarantee that most people won't spend half that time in an airplane in their entire lives.
6:30 pm 27/01/2012
happyhollie
It's the 'being that far off of the ground,' that does it for most people.
6:39 pm 27/01/2012
djskitzy
Quote by cyvoid:
I have often heard that, but I wonder if the statics are not flawed. Of course more people die in cars wrecks yada yada, but have the statistics accounted for the higher number of drivers, cars, shear amount of time spent in a car vs the air.
My gps tracks the amount of time I have been in the car. Since christmas I have been in the car for more than 70 hours. I guarantee that most people won't spend half that time in an airplane in their entire lives.
Quote by djskitzy:
safest form of transport known to man
I have often heard that, but I wonder if the statics are not flawed. Of course more people die in cars wrecks yada yada, but have the statistics accounted for the higher number of drivers, cars, shear amount of time spent in a car vs the air.
My gps tracks the amount of time I have been in the car. Since christmas I have been in the car for more than 70 hours. I guarantee that most people won't spend half that time in an airplane in their entire lives.
a few years back I was doing 30 hrs flying a week, to Spain and back 5 times a week most weeks, sometimes as many as 9 times in a week, I'd be in spain.... 70 hrs? less than 20 days....
6:52 pm 27/01/2012
Flee
Quote by cyvoid:
I have often heard that, but I wonder if the statics are not flawed.
Number of people/flights per day/deaths per flight... This beats cars by a long margin.
Remember, there are multiple car deaths per day in the world.
7:45 pm 27/01/2012
tricpe
Quote by WolfenUWG:
Landings I'd be okay with... it's the takeoffs that would get me.
I'm pretty much the opposite!
7:46 pm 27/01/2012
tricpe
Quote by djskitzy:
a few years back I was doing 30 hrs flying a week, to Spain and back 5 times a week most weeks, sometimes as many as 9 times in a week, I'd be in spain.... 70 hrs? less than 20 days....
Why?
2:57 am 30/01/2012
cyvoid
Quote by Flee:
Number of people/flights per day/deaths per flight... This beats cars by a long margin.
Remember, there are multiple car deaths per day in the world.
Quote by cyvoid:
I have often heard that, but I wonder if the statics are not flawed.
Number of people/flights per day/deaths per flight... This beats cars by a long margin.
Remember, there are multiple car deaths per day in the world.
yes but there are exponentially more cars and time spent in cars.
11:27 am 30/01/2012
tricpe
Quote by cyvoid:
yes but there are exponentially more cars and time spent in cars.
Yes, but if we measure the distance instead of time...?
12:02 pm 30/01/2012
djskitzy
Quote by tricpe:
Quote by djskitzy:
Why?
a few years back I was doing 30 hrs flying a week, to Spain and back 5 times a week most weeks, sometimes as many as 9 times in a week, I'd be in spain.... 70 hrs? less than 20 days....
I get bored easy.....
2:00 pm 30/01/2012
cyvoid
Quote by tricpe:
Quote by cyvoid:
Yes, but if we measure the distance instead of time...?
yes but there are exponentially more cars and time spent in cars.
I would think that due to the shear number of cars, the distance would also be exponentially greater
2:13 pm 30/01/2012
djskitzy
When it comes to a question about risks associated with a particular long-range travel from one city to another, the most suitable statistic is "Deaths per billion passenger-kilometres".
Quote by Deaths per billion passenger-kilometres:
Air: 0.05
Bus: 0.4
Rail: 0.6
Van: 1.2
Water: 2.6
Car: 3.1
Bicycle: 44.6
Foot: 54.2
Motorcycle: 108.9
Air: 0.05
Bus: 0.4
Rail: 0.6
Van: 1.2
Water: 2.6
Car: 3.1
Bicycle: 44.6
Foot: 54.2
Motorcycle: 108.9
although, it is worth noting that the air industry's insurers base their calculations on the number of deaths per passenger-journey statistic while the industry itself generally uses the number of deaths per passenger-kilometre statistic in press releases.
2:58 pm 30/01/2012
djskitzy
and here's an interesting, semi-comforting fact....
Quote:
Without engine thrust, a 747-200 has a glide ratio of approximately 15:1, meaning it can glide forward 15 kilometres for every kilometre it drops. The flight crew quickly determined that the aircraft was capable of gliding for 23 minutes and covering 91 nautical miles (169 km) from its flight level of 37,000 feet (11,000 m)
3:10 pm 30/01/2012
cyvoid
a more comforting fact would be whether or not a 747 can survive a 15:1 no power landing
3:10 pm 30/01/2012
cyvoid
Quote by djskitzy:
When it comes to a question about risks associated with a particular long-range travel from one city to another, the most suitable statistic is "Deaths per billion passenger-kilometres".
although, it is worth noting that the air industry's insurers base their calculations on the number of deaths per passenger-journey statistic while the industry itself generally uses the number of deaths per passenger-kilometre statistic in press releases.
Quote by Deaths per billion passenger-kilometres:
Air: 0.05
Bus: 0.4
Rail: 0.6
Van: 1.2
Water: 2.6
Car: 3.1
Bicycle: 44.6
Foot: 54.2
Motorcycle: 108.9
Air: 0.05
Bus: 0.4
Rail: 0.6
Van: 1.2
Water: 2.6
Car: 3.1
Bicycle: 44.6
Foot: 54.2
Motorcycle: 108.9
although, it is worth noting that the air industry's insurers base their calculations on the number of deaths per passenger-journey statistic while the industry itself generally uses the number of deaths per passenger-kilometre statistic in press releases.
and thus my questions are answered because i was too lazy to look myself
