How likely is it for a 787 Dreamliner to have it's wings snap or its chassis break apart during flight?

[K. A. Pital]

I am not trying to turn this into a GA discussion - this was just additional information. My point was that flying is more dangerous compared to other modes of transport in a per-trip comparison. Even commercial airline flying.

I think I have adequately proven it. No?

[Broomstick]

No, because both of your cites say "civil aviation" which normally includes general aviation as well as commercial aviation. Commercial passenger aviation with scheduled routes is a fuckton less risky than even charter aviation, much less the sort I was doing back in the day.

Archinist asked about the B-787, not a two-seat Cessna. The appropriate stats would be for commercial passenger aviation because that's the category a Dreamliner falls into. What's the per-trip risk for scheduled airlines?

[K. A. Pital]

The statistics on trip numbers with general aviation are not complete and therefore private airplane stats are not used.

Is from the second link and for the US.

This:

Is for the EU, and "civil aviation" here means commercial aviation (although with charters) - for reasons explained above. If you don't trust me, here the original report:
http://etsc.eu/transport-safety-perform ... -overview/

Relevant bit:

Air transport fatality statistics refer mainly to scheduled flights, because air travel fatalities on unscheduled flights are only partially reported by international air transport organisations. A similar practice exists for private plane fatalities – they are neither registered worldwide nor for the EU

Sadly I don't have the statistics for per-trip fatalities on scheduled commercial airlines at hand. I will need to look for them at home.

[Broomstick]

In the US "general aviation" is everything civilian outside of the airlines or "scheduled service". It is further broken down into "commercial aviation" (for-profit) and for lack of a better term "non-commercial" aviation which would include some rather risky endeavors (Rutan's Space Ship One, for example, was authorized under the Experimental category, which would not be included under "commercial" aviation in US statistics but would be included in a blanket "general aviation" or "civilian aviation" category). Of course amateur-built airplanes flown by minimally trained pilots are going to be more dangerous than a lot of other modes of transportation, as are prototype sub-orbital spaceships even if designed and flown by highly qualified people, which is why it's important not to lump them in with other safer categories in a discussion such as this.

There may be some language/terminology issues at work here.

[K. A. Pital]

I have checked the fatal accident rate difference, and indeed for "other operations" than scheduled flights it is twice higher than for regular flights.

http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingd ... tatsum.pdf

On a per-journey basis this would still not make flying significantly safer than other modes of transport (I must admit that I like neither the per-km comparison nor the per-journey one, but the latter makes more sense from a sheer mortality risk estimation as it doesn't matter how many kilometers the plane flies safely if in the end, it crashes and you die). The per-distance figures would naturally improve for airplanes even without marked safety improvement, because modern jets can cover much greater distances and the average flight distance has rapidly grown. By per-km standards, the Space Shuttle and many spacecraft would be deemed safe, which demonstrates the key problem with this metric.

The micromort addition comparison is also interesting...

It took me years to accumulate 9 000 km on the train (I have accumulated much more than this, but it did take quite some time), but it took me just 12 hours and one return flight from Europe to China to accumulate like twice the 12 000 km for the jet airplane. Frequent flying thus will accumulate micromorts just as rapidly as other forms of transport (it will not take much to accumulate 370 km on a car either), being no safer.

[Archinist]

How safe are cruise ships compared to flights in both statistics and personal opinion? Do they still exist for travelling internationally?

[K. A. Pital]

According to this snippet from the WSJ, on a per trip basis ship is safer than plane.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240 ... 0520306938

The industry points to a report released earlier this year by GP Wild International Ltd., which conducts research and consulting in the cruise-ship industry, and has several major cruise lines as clients. The firm reported that between 2002 and 2011, six passengers and 22 crew members died as a result of incidents such as collisions and fires. That works out to about 0.13 deaths per million trips by passengers or crew members.

That compares with 0.3 deaths per million airline passengers, according to GP Wild, which attributes that figure to Morgan Stanley. The figure included all international air deaths except corporate jets and military-transport accidents. Just 0.3 in 100 million U.S. commercial-air passengers in 2010 died, according to the Federal Aviation Administration.

Yes, they still exist for travelling internationally, and a Transatlantic fast cruise to Barcelona costs around 500 bucks pp if you are smart with booking. One way.

However, on a per-distance base ships are not competitive to airplanes, so if you are planning to travel similar distances with the ship, switching to plane may be more rational from a risk perspective. Although to some people the sheer terror of powerlessness (when plane crashes, passengers are not in control, unlike a driver in case of car crash) means more than just risk alone.

Also factor in the time deficit. Rail and ship traffic means taking days and, in case of ships, weeks to get from A to B. I know that because I dislike flying myself and so does my spouse. You should be prepared for journeys, not short trips, if you choose to stay on the ground or water.

I find it preferable as I see more of the world as it is, and less of the sterilized bourgeois spaces that airports usually are. But these grounds are not good for all, and personal time constraints may not allow any other form of travel than air.

[Lord Revan]

ship travel does exist though it's signifigantly slower (as in a trip that takes few hours on a plane takes week(s) by ship) also while trans-atlantic cruises do exist IIRC they're rather expensive (and I have no idea for other routes) also they're not really that much more safer (after all the ship could sink or get attacked by pirates) then planes dispite what K.A.Pital is saying the chance of a plane crashing is still rather small and newer the plane less likely it is to crash.

To put it bluntly if you're using any major(ish) airline and not travelling a lot, the chances that you end up crashing are so small it's not worth worrying over, in fact most forms (if not all) of mass transportion are safe enough that there's no real point of worrying about accidents when using them, you'll just stress yourself for no real gain.

Essentially you don't really get any signifigant improvement to safety when using ships but the trip will take signigantly longer and probably will be more expensive as well.

[Archinist]

ship travel does exist though it's signifigantly slower (as in a trip that takes few hours on a plane takes week(s) by ship) also while trans-atlantic cruises do exist IIRC they're rather expensive (and I have no idea for other routes) also they're not really that much more safer (after all the ship could sink or get attacked by pirates) then planes dispite what K.A.Pital is saying the chance of a plane crashing is still rather small and newer the plane less likely it is to crash.

To put it bluntly if you're using any major(ish) airline and not travelling a lot, the chances that you end up crashing are so small it's not worth worrying over, in fact most forms (if not all) of mass transportion are safe enough that there's no real point of worrying about accidents when using them, you'll just stress yourself for no real gain.

Essentially you don't really get any signifigant improvement to safety when using ships but the trip will take signigantly longer and probably will be more expensive as well.

The ships cannot sink as much as a plane can fall down. They are far more stable and most ships have lifeboats which hold more people than the ship usually carries. There are also patrols by the ocean people to make sure everything is fine. Ships are basically small towns which move very slowly to your destination, much safer than a bit of metal in the sky.

A boat won't sink if it runs out of fuel, nor will it sink if the pilots have a stroke and die, which can happen on planes, especially ones with older pilots.

[K. A. Pital]

Cruise ships generally are safer (I think even per-km they are, I just don't have the numbers at hand), but they are very slow.

Expensive, yes, twice more expensive compared to airplane (as mentioned, around 400-500 bucks per person, with booking in advance slightly lower rates can probably be found). Trains generally are also more expensive than planes in Europe, which is a bit weird. So much money has been spent on introducing high speed rail and removing sleeper routes that rail travel has become stressful, expensive and only suited for richies who need to be there within the same day. In other nations rail travel with normal sleeper trains at 120 kph usually beats airplane pricewise and is also very relaxing and nice, and you see more.

I personally prefer not to fly unless there is no other way to get somewhere, but I understand that this is mostly my own preferences and not all people have enough time to travel slowly and discover the ground or the sea... or both.

Archinist, you seem to think that cruise ships are fundamentally different in an event of catastrophic failure, but they really are not. In case of catastrophic failure the sinking would happen within minutes. If asleep in chamber, death is very likely. The risk is tiny, smaller than with airplanes, but it still exists. They are not "much" safer, if numbers are to be believed, though safer still.

[Archinist]

Cruise ships generally are safer (I think even per-km they are, I just don't have the numbers at hand), but they are very slow.

Expensive, yes, twice more expensive compared to airplane (as mentioned, around 400-500 bucks per person, with booking in advance slightly lower rates can probably be found). Trains generally are also more expensive than planes in Europe, which is a bit weird. So much money has been spent on introducing high speed rail and removing sleeper routes that rail travel has become stressful, expensive and only suited for richies who need to be there within the same day. In other nations rail travel with normal sleeper trains at 120 kph usually beats airplane pricewise and is also very relaxing and nice, and you see more.

I personally prefer not to fly unless there is no other way to get somewhere, but I understand that this is mostly my own preferences and not all people have enough time to travel slowly and discover the ground or the sea... or both.

Archinist, you seem to think that cruise ships are fundamentally different in an event of catastrophic failure, but they really are not. In case of catastrophic failure the sinking would happen within minutes. If asleep in chamber, death is very likely. The risk is tiny, smaller than with airplanes, but it still exists. They are not "much" safer, if numbers are to be believed, though safer still.

What could possibly cause a massive cruiser to sink within minutes?? The titanic took at least an hour from crashing into some ice, so a modern cruiser should take at least 30 minutes. There is no possibly way for a modern cruiser to sink within minutes from simply crashing into something.

[Simon_Jester]

How safe are cruise ships compared to flights in both statistics and personal opinion? Do they still exist for travelling internationally?

Almost all "cruise ships" are personal entertainment and luxury and do nothing but sail around in big circles (visiting various ports along the way). There are a small minority of cruises that actually go from one place to another (say, US to Britain and back), but they sail very rarely and from very few ports of call. So they are not efficient ways to travel because there won't be one leaving when you want, going where you want. Plus you'd probably have to drive or fly a long distance anyway just to get to the ship's port of call.

Cruise tickets tend to cost a lot more than airline tickets, because you're buying days spent in a big floating hotel with a huge staff of people to take care of you. It's safe, but it isn't cost-effective as a way to travel. And most of the time you'd be going in circles.

Basically, airplanes wiped out the "ship passengers across the ocean in a ship" business because crossing a large ocean in a ship takes several days at least, whereas airplanes can do it in a matter of hours because they're fifteen or twenty times faster.

The ships cannot sink as much as a plane can fall down. They are far more stable and most ships have lifeboats which hold more people than the ship usually carries. There are also patrols by the ocean people to make sure everything is fine. Ships are basically small towns which move very slowly to your destination, much safer than a bit of metal in the sky.

A boat won't sink if it runs out of fuel, nor will it sink if the pilots have a stroke and die, which can happen on planes, especially ones with older pilots.

Airlines don't let pilots who are in bad health fly planes, especially not alone. Ever heard the word "co-pilot?"

Again, the simple fact is that despite huge numbers of people traveling on airplanes, very few of them die in air accidents. Your chance of dying in a plane crash is probably lower than your chance of dying randomly of a heart attack or some such thing while on the plane, by pure random coincidence.

Now, modern passenger ships are also quite safe, but that's in part because they don't go most places, and don't even try to fight their way through difficult weather that might damage or sink the ship. That means that you might not get where you want to go at all. And the change in risk is incredibly tiny.

Archinist, do you understand why this matters?

Tell me, Archinist, are you here to ask questions and talk about sensible ways to travel? Or are you here to 'prove' airplanes are dangerous?

[K. A. Pital]

What could cause a ship to sink? Structural failure in unpredictable weather conditions, I guess, though the danger is more severe with ferries than with modern cruise liners.

Judging by the Costa Concordia wreck, it took an hour or more for the ship to ground and sink, and loss of life was limited. But not totally prevented.

Cruise ships don't sail that rarely, but forget departure daily, like with the plane.

[Simon_Jester]

It's not that cruise ships sail rarely as such, it's that there aren't a lot of reliable "here to there" passenger services left on the sea. Unless you happen to live in one of a few specific cities, and intend to go to one of a few specific cities, there won't be a passenger ship that takes you from Point A to Point B, which means you have to spend a lot of time driving or flying to your destination anyway, which defeats the purpose of making yourself 'safe' by taking the ship.

The situation may be less bad in Europe, but that doesn't make it particularly good.

[K. A. Pital]

I assumed the situation with transatlantic voyages to be tolerable; you sail to one city then disembark and take the train if you need to go further. The train situation has deteriorated a bit in these years, but it is still possible to cross Europe on train alone without ever needing the airplane.

As one of the try-not-to-fly people, I think that the careful pre-planning which removes spontaneous booking, is actually very productive for the mind. A greater amout of careful planning on my side goes into any given overland trip than into a flight; for me, this is part of the fun. It makes me look up desinations carefully and explore the world along rail or road routes, unlike the teleport-like airplane travel.

Somehow I just find planes pretty damn boring. Not fundamentally unsafe... boring.

[Broomstick]

The ships cannot sink as much as a plane can fall down. They are far more stable and most ships have lifeboats which hold more people than the ship usually carries. There are also patrols by the ocean people to make sure everything is fine. Ships are basically small towns which move very slowly to your destination, much safer than a bit of metal in the sky.

A boat won't sink if it runs out of fuel, nor will it sink if the pilots have a stroke and die, which can happen on planes, especially ones with older pilots.

Planes don't simply fall out of the sky if they run out of fuel - there are at least instances I can name where airplanes lost either all fuel or all engines and everyone survived the landing, in two of those landings there weren't even minor injuries and the airplanes were re-usable.

One of the reasons airliners have at least two fully qualified pilots on board is so that if one is incapacitated or, yes, dies, the other can safely land the airplane. And yes, one pilot can safely land an airliner. Longer range trips often carry multiple complete flight crews.

Even if something does go wrong, survival rates during airplane accidents have been improving over the past decades.

I could just as easily argue airplanes are safer because they don't have to worry about hitting icebergs.

K.A. Pital is correct that there are problems in comparing modes of transportation, but really transportation in most modes, particularly commercial scheduled distance travel, is safer than it has ever been in history.

[Broomstick]

What could cause a ship to sink? Structural failure in unpredictable weather conditions, I guess, though the danger is more severe with ferries than with modern cruise liners.

Severe weather conditions that physically break the ship - weather that pleasure cruise lines go to some effort to avoid. We see that sort of "break and sink" event more often with freight ships which are more likely to try to plow through weather hazards. Even then, it's a rare event these days.

[Raw Shark]

There was even one case mentioned here, I think by Broomstick, in which a commercial jet lost all of its engines and the captain handed the controls over to the co-pilot without being incapacitated in any way, because the latter had experience piloting a glider.

[K. A. Pital]

Severe weather conditions that physically break the ship - weather that pleasure cruise lines go to some effort to avoid. We see that sort of "break and sink" event more often with freight ships which are more likely to try to plow through weather hazards. Even then, it's a rare event these days.

The last such event with lots of lives lost was Estonia (1994). The sinking there was very swift, but this was related to the ferry hold opening and taking water. A ship without a ferry hold should be less vulnerable.

You are right that we live in a time where transportation has never been safer. Regardless of what you pick (except motorcycle), you are extremely unlikely not to arrive safe and in one piece. Even per-trip or per-hour dangers of aircraft travel are not excessive, compared to other modes, and this alone demonstrates how safe it has become over the last 50 years. In 1940s and 1950s I guess one could argue aircraft was more dangerous than other modes, but I have no statistics from that time at hand.

[Broomstick]

There was even one case mentioned here, I think by Broomstick, in which a commercial jet lost all of its engines and the captain handed the controls over to the co-pilot without being incapacitated in any way, because the latter had experience piloting a glider.

That was the "Gimli Glider". It's also why I argue that experience in flying small airplanes and gliders still have a role in training modern airline pilots. Without the ability to manipulate flaps, slats, and other accoutrements the pilot(s) needed to do things like slip to a landing.

Another incident was the Air Transat Flight 236 that ran out of fuel over the Atlantic. It should be noted that not only did they successfully glide to dry land, but they came in high so the pilots had to make a few turns above the landing site to reduce their altitude prior to setting up for a landing. Modern airliners actually glide very well.

Then there was the "Miracle on the Hudson" where an airliner heavily damaged by bird strikes not only landed on/in a river but everyone survived. The airplane fuselage and wings remained intact despite a very unusual landing.

There are other examples of successful landings without loss of life with modern aircraft. Disasters certainly can happen, but these days not only are crashes and catastrophes far less likely than in the past but your chances of surviving them are much higher as well.

[Archinist]

And then there were those flights that had a 100% fatality rate because of things like a LED light breaking, mysterious spinning, some kid turning the autopilot off, and some minor electrical faults. None of those things will quickly sink a ship..

[Archinist]

I mean, they must be quite common, since I know someone whose father was killed in a 100% fatality plane crash. Apparently the plane was flying somewhere in Australia, transporting some miners down to a place and was a few minutes away from landing when the wing snapped off and it fell down and crashed near a cattle station. The station man went down to have a look and that was it. So if even I know of people that are affected, then it must be reasonably common.

[K. A. Pital]

If this was not a scheduled airline flight, this is outside the scope of discussion. Generally statistics on non-scheduled flights are worse, and they are incomplete.

Don't start confusing the two things. If airlines are safe, this does not mean flying in general is. The reverse is also true.

[Archinist]

If this was not a scheduled airline flight, this is outside the scope of discussion. Generally statistics on non-scheduled flights are worse, and they are incomplete.

Don't start confusing the two things. If airlines are safe, this does not mean flying in general is. The reverse is also true.

What do you mean? I think it was probably scheduled. It was flying on a 'regular public transport service', according to the accident report, so I guess that counts?

[U.P. Cinnabar]

And then there were those flights that had a 100% fatality rate because of things like a LED light breaking, mysterious spinning, some kid turning the autopilot off, and some minor electrical faults. None of those things will quickly sink a ship..

Really?! Because, outside the shitty series of Airport movies and their ilk, those things have happened like, well, never. The one incident I can think of where an airliner lost all electrical power was an Air Canada flight some years ago, and the crew brought that one in deadstick. The kid turning off the autopilot...since passengers of the non-terrorist/hijacker variety aren't allowed into the cockpit area(the door, in fact, is locked while in flight), that didn't happen.

Not to say there haven't been flights with a 100% fatality rate, but these are outliers, reported only because they are so rare, and almost all of them attributable to pilot/crew error, shoddy maintenance, airlines cutting corners/exploiting loopholes and not notifying the civil aviation authorities, or the odd and sod Russian air-to-air/surface-to-air missile.