5 ms·

A train can go from "cruising speed" to letting passengers off to escape a fire in about a minute. A plane might take anywhere from five minutes to several hou

by ash_091 10mo ago

A train can go from "cruising speed" to letting passengers off to escape a fire in about a minute. A plane might take anywhere from five minutes to several hours to be able to safely let passengers out. Personally I feel that's a good enough reason to impose more robust restrictions on Things Which May Cause Fire on planes compared to trains. Especially in the case of lithium batteries where they're more or less impossible to extinguish one they're going.

JumpinJack_Cash 10mo ago
[flagged]
- nxm 10mo ago
  Cigarette fires and battery fires are not same in terms of efforts to put them out. Look up electric vehicle fires and what it takes to contain them
zamadatix 10mo ago
I agree with the concept of comparing risk being the meaningful approach, but I disagree this is how you go about measuring risk. How many people are being injured/killed per million km or something is the type of metric. Air travel far exceeds those types of metrics vs other common modes of travel, yet is always the first one to be further focused on how bad it could potentially be.
- appreciatorBus 10mo ago
  I would argue at the performance of aviation safety, and the constant focus on how bad it could be, is exactly why aviation is safe. The day that we decide to stop focussing on what could go wrong, is the day that aviation stops being safe. For example, if aircraft come within five nautical miles or I think it’s 1000 vertical feet, it’s considered a very serious incident. Not because anyone is in danger at five nautical miles or 1000 vertical feet, but because if you don’t draw the line there, and treat that barrier as seriously as if two aircraft had collided, then there isn’t really a barrier at all.
  - TylerE 10mo ago
    I disagree with there being no danger at 5nm. Depending on courses and speeds that 5nm could go to zero in as little as 16 seconds or so. Airliners are not especially maneuverable. Yes, the odds of the courses actually intersecting are small, but not zero.
    - appreciatorBus 10mo ago
      Yes, of course that’s my point. We have to draw large safety margins around these systems, and then we have to treat incidents that breach those margins as seriously as we would an actual collision.
  - zamadatix 10mo ago
    Naturally it's why it's so much safer, but the options for air travel safety most certainly aren't uniquely only between "as safe as possible" or "not safe at all". It should be no different than how we weigh safety regulation for any other mode of travel, and this kind of "either we do everything possible or we won't have safety" instead of focusing purely on what the measured target should be and how we currently measure against it is precisely the irrationality around it.
    - JumpinJack_Cash 10mo ago
      It's holding the global economy back actually who cares about the global economy...it's holding our personal happiness by making flight more expensive than it should be. If I want to fly somewhere I already know that once I land there I face a considerable risk when I get in the metropolis. Risk of illness, violence, assault etc. Some metropolis are worse and some are better but the risk is always there. The plane is the least of my problems. The monopoly of aircraft production and the fact that planes can be used everywhere in the world is forcing us to withstand the same level of risk tolerance as the U.S. , and not even avg U.S citizen....for obvious reasons due to what happened theatrically some 25 years ago the risk tolerance of aviation is forced to be the same as Billionaire's Row , Central Park West , NYC, NY and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington D.C. On the other hand...trains get to do this and nobody cares because they are local not global: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsN5_NoffsY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsN5_NoffsY The FAA and the FDA are enemies of progress
Wistar 10mo ago
I have, for a while now, wondered when an airborne battery incident will be calamitous enough for a complete ban on power banks.
- abenga 10mo ago
  There was one accident, but it was a pallet of batteries on a cargo plane that killed the crew.

by ash_091 10mo ago

JumpinJack_Cash 10mo ago

[flagged]

nxm 10mo ago
Cigarette fires and battery fires are not same in terms of efforts to put them out. Look up electric vehicle fires and what it takes to contain them

zamadatix 10mo ago

I agree with the concept of comparing risk being the meaningful approach, but I disagree this is how you go about measuring risk. How many people are being injured/killed per million km or something is the type of metric. Air travel far exceeds those types of metrics vs other common modes of travel, yet is always the first one to be further focused on how bad it could potentially be.

appreciatorBus 10mo ago
I would argue at the performance of aviation safety, and the constant focus on how bad it could be, is exactly why aviation is safe. The day that we decide to stop focussing on what could go wrong, is the day that aviation stops being safe. For example, if aircraft come within five nautical miles or I think it’s 1000 vertical feet, it’s considered a very serious incident. Not because anyone is in danger at five nautical miles or 1000 vertical feet, but because if you don’t draw the line there, and treat that barrier as seriously as if two aircraft had collided, then there isn’t really a barrier at all.
- TylerE 10mo ago
  I disagree with there being no danger at 5nm. Depending on courses and speeds that 5nm could go to zero in as little as 16 seconds or so. Airliners are not especially maneuverable. Yes, the odds of the courses actually intersecting are small, but not zero.
  - appreciatorBus 10mo ago
    Yes, of course that’s my point. We have to draw large safety margins around these systems, and then we have to treat incidents that breach those margins as seriously as we would an actual collision.
- zamadatix 10mo ago
  Naturally it's why it's so much safer, but the options for air travel safety most certainly aren't uniquely only between "as safe as possible" or "not safe at all". It should be no different than how we weigh safety regulation for any other mode of travel, and this kind of "either we do everything possible or we won't have safety" instead of focusing purely on what the measured target should be and how we currently measure against it is precisely the irrationality around it.
  - JumpinJack_Cash 10mo ago
    It's holding the global economy back actually who cares about the global economy...it's holding our personal happiness by making flight more expensive than it should be. If I want to fly somewhere I already know that once I land there I face a considerable risk when I get in the metropolis. Risk of illness, violence, assault etc. Some metropolis are worse and some are better but the risk is always there. The plane is the least of my problems. The monopoly of aircraft production and the fact that planes can be used everywhere in the world is forcing us to withstand the same level of risk tolerance as the U.S. , and not even avg U.S citizen....for obvious reasons due to what happened theatrically some 25 years ago the risk tolerance of aviation is forced to be the same as Billionaire's Row , Central Park West , NYC, NY and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington D.C. On the other hand...trains get to do this and nobody cares because they are local not global: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsN5_NoffsY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsN5_NoffsY The FAA and the FDA are enemies of progress

Wistar 10mo ago

I have, for a while now, wondered when an airborne battery incident will be calamitous enough for a complete ban on power banks.

abenga 10mo ago
There was one accident, but it was a pallet of batteries on a cargo plane that killed the crew.