News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized for?. Parent comment

Re:How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized ... by dmurray on Tuesday June 30, 2020 @09:05PM (#23696652)
Is this still true for commercial flights? The most prominent airliner losses from the last 20 years were not close to takeoff nor to (scheduled) landing. I'm thinking of Air France off Brazil, the two Malaysian planes, all four 9/11 attacks, and the Germanwings crash. The exception is the Concorde crash on takeoff which just sneaks into the last 20 years (July 2000).

Of course, part of the reason these crashes were newsworthy is that they were unusual. Are there enough takeoff- and landing- related losses to make these statistically irrelevant?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized ... by dionidium on Tuesday June 30, 2020 @09:32PM (#23696781)
My information may very well be out of date! This is one of those lines I've been repeating for 20 years and it might be time to update it.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized ... by dmurray on Wednesday July 01, 2020 @05:59AM (#23699768)
Looking at Wikipedia [0], there a a lot of incidents I never heard about and a disproportionate number are "shortly after takeoff".

I didn't count them all, but from eyeballing it a 1000-mile journey is 3x as likely to kill you as a 100-mile one, not 1x or 10x.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incident...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized ... by gsnedders on Tuesday June 30, 2020 @11:46PM (#23697552)
On a per journey basis, in Europe/US/Canada, considering _only_ commercial aviation (i.e., excluding general aviation), the fatality/journey rate is comparable to both cars and walking.
[ Parent | on HN ]