We're All Going To Die

[powdarrmonkey]

Wouldn't work - he's so hard the plane wouldn't take off...

I really hope you mean 'tough'...!

[mattx]

I really hope you mean 'tough'...!

Dirty Boy.

[Tyiell]

I really hope you mean 'tough'...!

...and the tone was lowered!! Tsk

[LosOjos]

I heard that Chuck Norris caused the quake: his hayfever caused him to sneeze while he was fetching a bowl of lava for his cornflakes

On a more serious note, I'm supposed to be flying to Amsterdam on Friday, and to be honest if the flights are on I'm going to take the risk, you only live once!

[mattx]

I heard that Chuck Norris caused the quake: his hayfever caused him to sneeze while he was fetching a bowl of lava for his cornflakes

On a more serious note, I'm supposed to be flying to Amsterdam on Friday, and to be honest if the flights are on I'm going to take the risk, you only live once!

Not if you are James Bond.....

[Pottsey]

FN-GM said “10% risk of something going wrong with the aircraft is a big risk. There is always a risk but why would you make the risk even bigger.
So 1 in every 10 planes is at risk of something going wrong becuase of the ash? Would you be ok with that? If the ash was not there, there wouldn't be this 10% riskb”

I don’t read it like that. I read it as 10% most or all the planes will have problems and 90% chance no planes have problems. Why would 10% be 1 out of 10 planes? Its not 10% of planes flying though the ash have problems. It is 10% chance the ash will cause problems for all planes that fly though.
At least that’s how I interpret it.

[Tyiell]

FN-GM said “10% risk of something going wrong with the aircraft is a big risk. There is always a risk but why would you make the risk even bigger.
So 1 in every 10 planes is at risk of something going wrong becuase of the ash? Would you be ok with that? If the ash was not there, there wouldn't be this 10% riskb”

I don’t read it like that. I read it as 10% most or all the planes will have problems and 90% chance no planes have problems. Why would 10% be 1 out of 10 planes? Its not 10% of planes flying though the ash have problems. It is 10% chance the ash will cause problems for all planes that fly though.
At least that’s how I interpret it.

10% = 10 chances out of 100, which is the same as 1 chance in 10.

Hence 1 in 10 planes are at an increased risk if they fly through the ash...

[jamesb]

FN-GM said “10% risk of something going wrong with the aircraft is a big risk. There is always a risk but why would you make the risk even bigger.
So 1 in every 10 planes is at risk of something going wrong becuase of the ash? Would you be ok with that? If the ash was not there, there wouldn't be this 10% riskb”

I don’t read it like that. I read it as 10% most or all the planes will have problems and 90% chance no planes have problems. Why would 10% be 1 out of 10 planes? Its not 10% of planes flying though the ash have problems. It is 10% chance the ash will cause problems for all planes that fly though.
At least that’s how I interpret it.

Costs of a risk are generally calculated by the cost of the hazard (in this case, a place crash) multiplied by the chance of the hazard occurring (crash due to ash damage). So you work out the cost as .1 (10% expressed as a decimal) multiplied by the number of flights. Then you work out if the benefits of going ahead are worth the cost.

So let's say you've got a plane and someone's life does actually depend on the flight. If you fly, there's a 10% chance that it'll crash, killing 5 people (medical place, very small, pilot, a few medics, patient). If you don't crash the patient will get the treatment they need and have a 100% chance of living. If this flight isn't done, then there's 100% chance of the patient dying.

So the risks balance out as 5 people * .1 vs. 1 person * 1. Cost of making the flight is .5 lives, cost of not making it is 1 life. So you fly.

Of course, this is a massively simplified and patently ridiculous example, which doesn't take economics, convenience and so on into account.

[FN-GM]

FN-GM said “10% risk of something going wrong with the aircraft is a big risk. There is always a risk but why would you make the risk even bigger.
So 1 in every 10 planes is at risk of something going wrong becuase of the ash? Would you be ok with that? If the ash was not there, there wouldn't be this 10% riskb”

I don’t read it like that. I read it as 10% most or all the planes will have problems and 90% chance no planes have problems. Why would 10% be 1 out of 10 planes? Its not 10% of planes flying though the ash have problems. It is 10% chance the ash will cause problems for all planes that fly though.
At least that’s how I interpret it.

@Tyiell explains it

[LosOjos]

10% = 10 chances out of 100, which is the same as 1 chance in 10.

Hence 1 in 10 planes are at an increased risk if they fly through the ash...

I think that what Pottsey is getting at is his interpretation is not that 1 in 10 planes are at risk of crashing, but that there is a 1 in 10 chance that all/most planes will be at risk, i.e. it's not a lottery of a particular plane having a problem but that they all/most will (don't know if I've put it any simpler than Pottsey did! lol)

[Tyiell]

I think that what Pottsey is getting at is his interpretation is not that 1 in 10 planes are at risk of crashing, but that there is a 1 in 10 chance that all/most planes will be at risk, i.e. it's not a lottery of a particular plane having a problem but that they all/most will (don't know if I've put it any simpler than Pottsey did! lol)

I see - you can see why they say that there are lies, damned lies and statistics!!! So you read it as saying all planes flying through the ash have a 10% increase of risk?

It's all down to interpretation - When I looked at it, I read it as 1 in 10 will experience negative effects of all the planes flying through the ash. Maybe all of them will be effected in some way, but 10% of them are at serious risk.

Re-reading it I suppose the former is more logical, but either way I think it's unnecessary risk to peoples lives!!

[Sarconia]

I don't really know much about aviation but it seems to me that if there is even a slight chance that it's unsafe to fly then planes shouldn't fly.

There's not really much chance of surviving if a plane did fall out of the sky so it's simply not worth it when the risk is almost certain death.

[jamesb]

I think that what Pottsey is getting at is his interpretation is not that 1 in 10 planes are at risk of crashing, but that there is a 1 in 10 chance that all/most planes will be at risk, i.e. it's not a lottery of a particular plane having a problem but that they all/most will (don't know if I've put it any simpler than Pottsey did! lol)

Risk-wise, it's still considered in the same way. The assumption to make with a 10% risk is that it will affect 10% of the events involved. Whether this is by having a 1 in 10 chance that everything fails, or by 1/10 of the planes failing, it's calculated the same way.

[CAM]

There is a chance our passengers may die. For the sake of safety and good PR we will agree to the delay.

Wait, this is taking a few days longer then we thought. We are losing money! Get in the air! Get in the air!

[ICT_GUY]

The Larry Vaughn law.

When a politician says its safe, run for the hills.