Hesche on 23/2/2017 at 09:28
Quote Posted by SD
On balance I think I'd probably rather hitch a ride in a Prius than the Hindenburg, but each to their own.
What can I say, blimpin´ain´t easy.
If I presented you a new transport technology that would get you quickly from A to B but would be responsible for around 1,750 casualties per year in Great Britain while seriously injuring around 22,000 would you put your money on that? That´s around 4 British Airways A380 crashes per year.
But still I guess everybody would rather choose being attacked by a lion than be in an airplane which is about to crash. Because there´s so much that could be done against a lion attack: you could run, you could fight Gladiator-style, you could tame it with a lvl 4 Beast charming spell...
Sulphur on 23/2/2017 at 09:40
Quote Posted by Hesche
Funny business, this biased risk assessment, isn´t it? 10e2 people killed in one incident leads to the renouncement of a whole technology branch while a technology causing 10e6 deaths per year is accepted just fine for decades now.
On balance, I don't think anyone really has reason to be afraid of planes exploding by being caught in a mooring mast and then having the combined mass of propellant catch fire and blow up.
Hesche on 23/2/2017 at 10:29
But what a plane can do is run over a titanium alloy strip (435 millimetres (17.1 in) long, 29 to 34 millimetres (1.1 to 1.3 in) wide and 1.4 millimetres (0.055 in) thick), cutting a tyre and sending its drebris into a fuel tank with leaking fuel catching fire, damaging one engine and disintegrating the port wing sending 107 people in a building at 370 km/h.
Accidents happen. They just stick better to memory when a lot of people die in one rare accident compared to few people dying on a regular basis.
Sulphur on 23/2/2017 at 11:09
Even if that chain of causality and maths check out for the <1% probability of occasions where punctured tyre debris reaches a fuel tank, I think it's safe to say that planes have better manoeuverability and safety regulations in place for that not to happen 99% of the rest of the time.
When you have a low manoeuverability vehicle that has a comparably higher mass of flammable material contained within a body that's not as durable as the metal used in today's aeroplanes (I assume, not being a zeppelin expert), I'd say safety probabilities weigh in favour of the aeroplane.
That said, I don't disagree with accidents happening regardless of the mode of transport. The Hindenberg model didn't work because of a mass of things planes are simply better at, but the explosion does stick out in most people's memory.
Nameless Voice on 23/2/2017 at 12:28
I read up about the Hindenberg a while back, and the problem was that it was filled with hydrogen (flammable) when it should have been filled with helium.
At the time, the USA was the biggest source of helium, and they wouldn't sell any to the Germany-based Zeppelin company, so they had to improvise and use hydrogen.
Seems a bit silly that it ended all airships just because one with various design flaws exploded in film.
IRRC a lot of the passengers were actually evacuated safely, unlike a plane crash which generally kills everyone on board.
