• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Algeria 'loses contact with plane'

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jezbollah

Member
If Opus' pic didnt convince you - before MH17 there was one fatal civilization aviation fatality classified in 2014 (because they haven't classified MH370 as we dont know what caused it).

If you combine that statistic with the amounts of civilian air movements per day, and then add on the reliability of flying from the 1950s, then you would have 10 fatal air accidents per day.

Flying is insanely safe these days.
 

soulluos

Member
People.

ibgCMoIwpKAxAR.jpg

What does general population risk per year meaning? If I never travel by air, am I still counted in the risk?
 

Paganmoon

Member
What does general population risk per year meaning? If I never travel by air, am I still counted in the risk?

Yeah, that's why there's a lower risk in the "general population" for Motorcycles vs. cars, but of the population who ride/own a motorcycle the risk is higher vs cars.
 
It actually decreases the likelihood.
I THINK that is a fallacy. If I remember correctly, it's some a science/skeptic kind of concept of a fallacy. Maybe a logical fallacy? I think if you look at it over time, two events have little if anything to do with each other. It's a terrifying, random occurrence - but to say that it can be somehow counteracted or offset this way is false.
 
No it doesn't - unless of course you mean that initiatives will be taken to increase aircraft safety as a response to past crashes.

Yes this is what I meant.

I THINK that is a fallacy. If I remember correctly, it's some a science/skeptic kind of concept of a fallacy. Maybe a logical fallacy? I think if you look at it over time, two events have little if anything to do with each other. It's a terrifying, random occurrence - but to say that it can be somehow counteracted or offset this way is false.

Yes, in hindsight it's not accurate to say it would decrease the chances.
 

Hindle

Banned
Nice try junio....er, wait.

A full member believes this? Wow.

Too much of a coincidence that two planes have both mysteriously vanished. I accept my statement is hyperbolic as we don't know many details yet, but yea, the chances of two flights both vanishing in one year is slim to none.
 

Volimar

Member
Too much of a coincidence that two planes have both mysteriously vanished. I accept my statement is hyperbolic as we don't know many details yet, but yea, the chances of two flights both vanishing in one year is slim to none.

It follows that if a terrorist group brought down either, or both planes, they'd probably take credit for it.
 

KingSnake

The Birthday Skeleton
Too much of a coincidence that two planes have both mysteriously vanished. I accept my statement is hyperbolic as we don't know many details yet, but yea, the chances of two flights both vanishing in one year is slim to none.

You do realize that this plane is not yet misteriously vanished, right? It's vanished because it wasn't found yet. That doesn't mean it won't be found in the next days, as usually happen.
 

Septimius

Junior Member
It actually decreases the likelihood.

No it doesn't. That's a misunderstanding of probability. It isn't probable that another plane would crash during this time frame. However, when this plane took off, it had the same probability of experiencing problems like any other aircraft.

What is the chance of getting 10 heads in a row? Very low. What are the chance of the next throw being heads? Always 50%.
 

TheContact

Member
So the weather short circuited the electronics or something? I hope it landed safely, it could have glided down and made a relatively soft landing if they had the room to land. Going to keep my hopes up
 

CoolOff

Member
I knew I'd get replies like this, but yea, read my reply above.

This one?

Too much of a coincidence that two planes have both mysteriously vanished. I accept my statement is hyperbolic as we don't know many details yet, but yea, the chances of two flights both vanishing in one year is slim to none.

I'm pretty sure they're not slim to none compared to one plane vanishing. What is slim to none though, is the possibility that two flights continents apart are subject to some grand islamist terror-scheme.
 

Yrael

Member
It is possible that the plane was shot down, given there are military groups in the region. However, connecting it with Flight MH370 is rather absurd.
 
So the weather short circuited the electronics or something? I hope it landed safely, it could have glided down and made a relatively soft landing if they had the room to land. Going to keep my hopes up

Hopefully.
De violents orages (visibes sur la capture satellite en illustration) sont actuellement en cours sur cette zone, avec des rafales de vent puissantes et une activité électrique importante. Il s'agit d'une situation normale à cette époque de l'année où la saison des pluies sévit sur les pays du Sahel. Plus d'informations dans les prochaines minutes.
http://actualite.lachainemeteo.com/...ur-le-burkina-faso-25754.php#reagir_commenter
"Violent storms in the region."
20140724-111657-meteol8j8o.jpg


La Monde re-reported (from El País [Spain]) 80 [not sure if I read it wrong or of it was edited but re-looking its 50 in the article] French citizens on board.
http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/arti...disparait-des-ecrans-radars_4462204_3234.html
 
Now this is getting ridiculous, if its an airbus A320 the weather can't bring her down. These are built to handle typhoon type of weather.

Its either a mechanical failure or it was shoot down by someone, the latter is very unlikely since no one in the region have the necessary equipment.
 

marrec

Banned
No it doesn't. That's a misunderstanding of probability. It isn't probable that another plane would crash during this time frame. However, when this plane took off, it had the same probability of experiencing problems like any other aircraft.

What is the chance of getting 10 heads in a row? Very low. What are the chance of the next throw being heads? Always 50%.

I don't think plane maintenance and precautionary groundings due to weather are much left up to chance. Increased tragedy usually brings increased safety in industries where human error can cause deaths.

For example, I used to work in the Wind Turbine industry. Over a 10 year internal study (between 1998 and 2008) we showed that workplace safety increased dramatic immediately after an accident in which someone died. This was across Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. It had nothing to do with the "Gamblers Fallacy" and more to do with increased concentration on safety due to the recent tragedy.
 
Now this is getting ridiculous, if its an airbus A320 the weather can't bring her down. These are built to handle typhoon type of weather.

Its either a mechanical failure or it was shoot down by someone, the latter is very unlikely since no one in the region have the necessary equipment.

It's an MD-83.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom