Here is a thing. The mishap rate (accidents and serious incidents) of a commercial airliner, including the 787 is magnitudes below that of driving to the airport.
The reason the 787 was grounded previously, was that Boeing and the FAA determined that the battery pack was insufficiently protected. The protection of the battery pack has been upgraded, both physically and electrically.
RC batteries and their charging systems are not nearly as thoroughly designed or protected as aircraft batteries.
Citation? We know of 3 fire mishaps on the 787, across 66 planes over 1.5 years of service. That's 1 mishap per 33 service years, which doesn't sound 'magnitudes' better than a typical road vehicle. Perhaps you have better statistics?
Fire departments responded to 194k vehicle fires per year in the US, across 254M vehicles. That's one serious fire every 1310 car-years. Thus, 787s catch fire 40 times more often than cars.
Just to add to this - I have been involved in 2x car fires. 1 had the fire brigade involved (car completely burnt out), the other 1 we dealt with and all was well (welding some rust at a friends and the boot/trunk caught fire). I image there aren't many plane fires where authorities aren't notified, but this is a guess. Does anyone have any knowledge of aircraft incident reporting rates?
120,000+ people killed in 4 years on the roads, and how many seriously injured? The Asiana crash was the first major accident in the US in 4 years. The 787 incidents have been non-fatal, and nobody seriously hurt.
I'm not sure the exact statistics, but how often does somebody crash their car on the way to the airport, including fender-bender accidents? A lot more than airliners sustain substantial damage.
Even though fire in an aircraft is a critical emergency, these 787 mishaps were only "incidents" and didn't cause substantial damage to the aircraft involved.
Doesn't a car typically break down at least once every 33 service years or so, too? For that matter, I wouldn't be too surprised if 1/33 cars crashed each year (or significantly higher than that), so I think that the 787 is still looking pretty reliable in comparison. (maybe not in comparison to a 747, but that's a different argument)
I'd like to nitpick that "magnitudes" depends on your base. Base 10 is commonly used, though base e is probably more accurate. So if 33/e^2 == 4.46 incidents happen, I'd probably call it "magnitudes".
Let's not exaggerate. Per mile, airliners are roughly 10x (one order of magnitude) safer than cars. It is generally true that driving to/from the airport is the most dangerous part of an airline trip, but not by a particularly large factor.
"safety/danger per-mile" is not a very reasonable metric in many cases though.
E.g., for airplanes, most of the danger is in takeoff/landing, and whether you fly 300 miles or 10000 miles in between is much less significant. For cars, long distances often involve highway driving, which is safer, and driving to the airport probably(!) doesn't involve alcohol, which is a much bigger factor in overall accident rates... etc etc.
What would be more interesting to know is the risk per flight, and compare that with a risk estimate for a given airport drive...
[In my case I just take the train to the airport from my house, and the lines I use have fatality rates which are essentially negligible (1-2 per century). I suppose I'm mostly likely to get hit by a car on the walk to the station... or just slip on the steps. >< ]
I had never thought about it like that, but that's a great point. The overall risk of dying on a 500-mile airplane trip is probably almost the same as the risk of dying on a 5,000-mile trip. Risk evaluation is hard.
I am always surprised by the way car versus plane safety come up. I know how to drive a car, and have control over the situation when I do. This doesn't mean its completely safe, but I can help control the risks. In a plane (or train, or taxi or any mode of transport where I am a passenger) I have almost no control and I expect the transport provider to provide me with transport that is safe. Very safe.
Of course in many cases, car drivers feel like they have much more control over things than they actually do.
Being in a commercial airliner on the other hand, actually emphasizes the feeling of helplessness: you're strapped in a seat and have little room to move, you cannot effect what's happening, you can't even see who's in control, or often even see your surroundings... it's like being trapped in a box tumbling down the mountainside.
I've found that even just unstrapping my seatbelt and taking a quick walk down the aisle on an airplane actually makes me feel safer, even though of course the reverse is actually true. This makes some sense given that human instincts probably value having the ability to flee or react in a dangerous situation but those instincts still exist even in situations where they make no sense.
Thus the perception many people have that they're "safer" in a car than on an airliner, even though the reality is that the odds are very much reversed. Large disparities between perception and reality can of course lead to people making very poor choices...
We should minimize the risks as much as possible. For RC aircraft (better chargers?), and definitely use fully optimized charging systems in electric vehicles, and for 787s.
Comments
Here is a thing. The mishap rate (accidents and serious incidents) of a commercial airliner, including the 787 is magnitudes below that of driving to the airport.
The reason the 787 was grounded previously, was that Boeing and the FAA determined that the battery pack was insufficiently protected. The protection of the battery pack has been upgraded, both physically and electrically.
RC batteries and their charging systems are not nearly as thoroughly designed or protected as aircraft batteries.
Citation? We know of 3 fire mishaps on the 787, across 66 planes over 1.5 years of service. That's 1 mishap per 33 service years, which doesn't sound 'magnitudes' better than a typical road vehicle. Perhaps you have better statistics?
Fire departments responded to 194k vehicle fires per year in the US, across 254M vehicles. That's one serious fire every 1310 car-years. Thus, 787s catch fire 40 times more often than cars.
[refs] http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/v13i11.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_Unit...
Just to add to this - I have been involved in 2x car fires. 1 had the fire brigade involved (car completely burnt out), the other 1 we dealt with and all was well (welding some rust at a friends and the boot/trunk caught fire). I image there aren't many plane fires where authorities aren't notified, but this is a guess. Does anyone have any knowledge of aircraft incident reporting rates?
Mishap rate might have been the a little imprecise. For the number of passengers in airliners, vs cars, the statistics are clear.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewstibbe/2013/07/08/dont-le...
120,000+ people killed in 4 years on the roads, and how many seriously injured? The Asiana crash was the first major accident in the US in 4 years. The 787 incidents have been non-fatal, and nobody seriously hurt.
I'm not sure the exact statistics, but how often does somebody crash their car on the way to the airport, including fender-bender accidents? A lot more than airliners sustain substantial damage.
Even though fire in an aircraft is a critical emergency, these 787 mishaps were only "incidents" and didn't cause substantial damage to the aircraft involved.
Doesn't a car typically break down at least once every 33 service years or so, too? For that matter, I wouldn't be too surprised if 1/33 cars crashed each year (or significantly higher than that), so I think that the 787 is still looking pretty reliable in comparison. (maybe not in comparison to a 747, but that's a different argument)
For a car to be "magnitudes" worse (which is the claim being made) the mishap rate would have to be at least every 0.33 service years.
I'd like to nitpick that "magnitudes" depends on your base. Base 10 is commonly used, though base e is probably more accurate. So if 33/e^2 == 4.46 incidents happen, I'd probably call it "magnitudes".
4 years per accident sounds reasonable.
Wow, I'd say that was terrible. 16 years and one crash for me I don't consider myself better than average at all.
Let's not exaggerate. Per mile, airliners are roughly 10x (one order of magnitude) safer than cars. It is generally true that driving to/from the airport is the most dangerous part of an airline trip, but not by a particularly large factor.
"safety/danger per-mile" is not a very reasonable metric in many cases though.
E.g., for airplanes, most of the danger is in takeoff/landing, and whether you fly 300 miles or 10000 miles in between is much less significant. For cars, long distances often involve highway driving, which is safer, and driving to the airport probably(!) doesn't involve alcohol, which is a much bigger factor in overall accident rates... etc etc.
What would be more interesting to know is the risk per flight, and compare that with a risk estimate for a given airport drive...
[In my case I just take the train to the airport from my house, and the lines I use have fatality rates which are essentially negligible (1-2 per century). I suppose I'm mostly likely to get hit by a car on the walk to the station... or just slip on the steps. >< ]
I had never thought about it like that, but that's a great point. The overall risk of dying on a 500-mile airplane trip is probably almost the same as the risk of dying on a 5,000-mile trip. Risk evaluation is hard.
So? Why should we accept a dangerous battery if there is no compelling reason to use it, just because cars are more dangerous?
I am always surprised by the way car versus plane safety come up. I know how to drive a car, and have control over the situation when I do. This doesn't mean its completely safe, but I can help control the risks. In a plane (or train, or taxi or any mode of transport where I am a passenger) I have almost no control and I expect the transport provider to provide me with transport that is safe. Very safe.
Of course in many cases, car drivers feel like they have much more control over things than they actually do.
Being in a commercial airliner on the other hand, actually emphasizes the feeling of helplessness: you're strapped in a seat and have little room to move, you cannot effect what's happening, you can't even see who's in control, or often even see your surroundings... it's like being trapped in a box tumbling down the mountainside.
I've found that even just unstrapping my seatbelt and taking a quick walk down the aisle on an airplane actually makes me feel safer, even though of course the reverse is actually true. This makes some sense given that human instincts probably value having the ability to flee or react in a dangerous situation but those instincts still exist even in situations where they make no sense.
Thus the perception many people have that they're "safer" in a car than on an airliner, even though the reality is that the odds are very much reversed. Large disparities between perception and reality can of course lead to people making very poor choices...
We should minimize the risks as much as possible. For RC aircraft (better chargers?), and definitely use fully optimized charging systems in electric vehicles, and for 787s.
You aren't even addressing my comment.