POLL: Are you afraid of flying?

[ZetaEpyon]

Not afraid. Which is good, since I'm flying to Japan in a month.

 

[Vampirrella]

not afraid at all. What happens, just happens.. not going to let it rule my life.

 

[mundane]

As long as it remains the quickest, cheapest, and safest way for me to travel 2,000 miles and back, I will continue to fly.

 

[potato28]

Safer than driving most of the time.

 

[ViviTheMage]

its kind of fun to fly!

exciting

 

[DrPizza]

I've never flown in commercial aircraft. Not that I'm afraid, but I prefer to drive. (I've never gone far enough to make flying worth it)
i.e. If I'm going to Florida, it's about a 17 hour drive. I'd be with a family of 4. Let's see... 2 hours to the airport, get there an hour early to make sure I'm through security, 2 hour flight, an hour before I've got the rental car and am clear of the airport... 6 hours at least spent.

Now, if I drive, it's only an extra 11 hours... well worth the savings in my opinion. I'd be saving at least 800 dollars; that works out to roughly $40 an hour for driving... (based on round trip)

 

[Slickone]

I'm more afraid on driving. Way to many people out there that can't drive, especially now with idiots that talk on cell phones and don't pay attention. Course I could screw up and kill myself too (or my tire blow, whatever).

There's no way you're more likely to die flying on a commuter plane than driving!? For one thing, those stats are per trip and you'll make a lot more trips in a car than you will in a plane.

 

[LanceM]

One of my recent trips was fairly rough, so I'm not exactly aching to get on a plane again. We were in a horrible storm and repeatedly freefell for what seemed like a billion feet, and the landing was just as rough.

But it beats driving across states, I guess.

 

[FoBoT]

nope, i fly to san diego on oct 1 and return to KC on oct 6
no fear here

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
I'm not afraid of flying, Im afraid of falling.

Why? Falling isn't going to kill you. It's the sudden stop at the bottom.

Well, if he was afraid of the sudden stop killing him then he probably would have said that he was afraid of dying.

To me, the anxiety of knowing that I was going to die would be far worse than a sudden death. The falling would be far worse than the "sudden stop at the bottom" as you put it.

 

[Slickone]

Originally posted by: ManSnake
The 'communter plane' that site is refering to is a small propeller plane.

Where does it say those stats are all 'small propeller planes'? The stats say taken 1995-2004. Regional jets were flying even before that. The CRJ was in service in '92 for example.

Originally posted by: ManSnake
The commuter jets that are flying today are all jet engined planes.

Also incorrect. There are still commuter turbo props flying today. Several airlines are still flying ATR's and Dash 8's for example.

 

[artikk]

Since humans can't fly I don't see how I am supposed to be afraid to do it in the first place.

 

[DaShen]

No, but I have only been in a plane 3 times in my life (I never got the chance to travel much other than a few road trips my dad had planned when I was a kid )

I am terribly acrophobic though. I get dizzy if I am on the 3rd floor or higher looking straight down, and on the second floor I get extremely anxious if I look straight down. Usually stairs are okay unless there is a big drop in the middle.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I've never flown in commercial aircraft. Not that I'm afraid, but I prefer to drive. (I've never gone far enough to make flying worth it)
i.e. If I'm going to Florida, it's about a 17 hour drive. I'd be with a family of 4. Let's see... 2 hours to the airport, get there an hour early to make sure I'm through security, 2 hour flight, an hour before I've got the rental car and am clear of the airport... 6 hours at least spent.

Now, if I drive, it's only an extra 11 hours... well worth the savings in my opinion. I'd be saving at least 800 dollars; that works out to roughly $40 an hour for driving... (based on round trip)

wow, never gone overseas in 40ish years?

 

[eflat]

Originally posted by: ManSnake
With the recently foiled terror plot and plane crash, are you afraid of flying?

yes i'm afraid of fly, but not because of any terror plot.

it's more the part about being 40,000 feet in a glorified glider.

i must say though that the most amazing statistic in the world is that of plane crashes. i have no idea how they make it so safe.

 

[Cuda1447]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
I'm not afraid of flying, Im afraid of falling.

Why? Falling isn't going to kill you. It's the sudden stop at the bottom.

Well, if he was afraid of the sudden stop killing him then he probably would have said that he was afraid of dying.

To me, the anxiety of knowing that I was going to die would be far worse than a sudden death. The falling would be far worse than the "sudden stop at the bottom" as you put it.

Yea, thats exactly what I meant. Duh...

 

[IGBT]

..prior to 9-11 my concerns were composite materials in fuselage and tail sections (Air Buss). To date non destructive inspections procedures have a very hard time determining structural integrity of composities that have been stressed and/or high operating hours. And overall maintaince practices throughout the industry. With terrorism and innefective and hobbled passenger scrutiny.. the risk is unacceptable for only the most necessary and required trips with driving the first option.

 

[Amused]

Nope. Annoyed, yes. Afraid? No.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Usually safer than driving.

 

[Kadarin]

I hate flying, but don't fear it. The hate comes more from the inconvenience than anything else.

 

[homercles337]

Im not afraid of flying and it has nothing to do with the actions of the DumbYa Administration.

 

[ManSnake]

Originally posted by: Slickone

Originally posted by: ManSnake
The 'communter plane' that site is refering to is a small propeller plane.

Where does it say those stats are all 'small propeller planes'? The stats say taken 1995-2004. Regional jets were flying even before that. The CRJ was in service in '92 for example.

Originally posted by: ManSnake
The commuter jets that are flying today are all jet engined planes.

Also incorrect. There are still commuter turbo props flying today. Several airlines are still flying ATR's and Dash 8's for example.

Read more carefully. Commuter jets are not propeller planes. Turbo props make up a very small portion of the commuter flights today. In the early 90s, major US airlines replaced those with the new jet powered planes (mainly Canadair and Embraer jets) also called regional jets.

According this site:

Introduced in 1992, there are 1,360 CRJ-series aircraft of various configurations in service around the world. The planes, which each sell for about $25-million, have flown more than 13 million hours with just two other accidents involving death.

Turbo props are not jets!

If you look up the past accidents involving commuter planes, they are mostly propellers, not jets. In fact regional jets have a better safety record than large commercial planes.

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: ManSnake

Originally posted by: Slickone

Originally posted by: ManSnake
The 'communter plane' that site is refering to is a small propeller plane.

Where does it say those stats are all 'small propeller planes'? The stats say taken 1995-2004. Regional jets were flying even before that. The CRJ was in service in '92 for example.

Originally posted by: ManSnake
The commuter jets that are flying today are all jet engined planes.

Also incorrect. There are still commuter turbo props flying today. Several airlines are still flying ATR's and Dash 8's for example.

Read more carefully. Commuter jets are not propeller planes. Turbo props make up a very small portion of the commuter flights today. In the early 90s, major US airlines replaced those with the new jet powered planes (mainly Canadair and Embraer jets) also called regional jets.

According this site:

Introduced in 1992, there are 1,360 CRJ-series aircraft of various configurations in service around the world. The planes, which each sell for about $25-million, have flown more than 13 million hours with just two other accidents involving death.

Turbo props are not jets!

If you look up the past accidents involving commuter planes, they are mostly propellers, not jets. In fact regional jets have a better safety record than large commercial planes.

That site is incorrect. There have been 5 fatal CRJ crashes, and 6 total. Not that 6 makes it unsafe.

 

[Slickone]

Originally posted by: ManSnake

Originally posted by: Slickone

Originally posted by: ManSnake
The 'communter plane' that site is refering to is a small propeller plane.

Where does it say those stats are all 'small propeller planes'? The stats say taken 1995-2004. Regional jets were flying even before that. The CRJ was in service in '92 for example.

Originally posted by: ManSnake
The commuter jets that are flying today are all jet engined planes.

Also incorrect. There are still commuter turbo props flying today. Several airlines are still flying ATR's and Dash 8's for example.

Read more carefully. Commuter jets are not propeller planes. Turbo props make up a very small portion of the commuter flights today. In the early 90s, major US airlines replaced those with the new jet powered planes (mainly Canadair and Embraer jets) also called regional jets.

According this site:

Introduced in 1992, there are 1,360 CRJ-series aircraft of various configurations in service around the world. The planes, which each sell for about $25-million, have flown more than 13 million hours with just two other accidents involving death.

Turbo props are not jets!

If you look up the past accidents involving commuter planes, they are mostly propellers, not jets. In fact regional jets have a better safety record than large commercial planes.

Sorry I didn't read that correctly and assumed you said "the commuter planes that are flying today are all jet engined planes". And I think that's what you were *trying* to say. I certainly didn't think you would say the commuter jets flying today are all jet engine planes. That's redundant.
Yes, I agree, the commuter jets flying today are all jet engine planes. The commuter turbo prop planes flying today are all turbo prop powered planes. Etc.

As far as stats, I was just referring to the stats you linked, which didn't say anything, that I saw, about the commuter stats only/mainly being props.

One thing to remember is, compared to prop driven commuters, RJ's are generally newer technology and newer aircraft themselves, with newer, more advanced avionics. Because of the more advanced avionics, they're easier to fly, look out for weather, traffic and terrain better, and monitor the plane's condition itself better (and give better warnings of failures). And more things are automatic now. A prop driven commuter designed today would be no less reliable than a jet. BTW, props/turbo props do better in precip than jets.

 

[RallyMaster]

eh...no.