We're All Going To Die

[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.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Pottsey

[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.

[srochford]

 

Erm - perhaps you should also check up the meaning of risk, because what you listed are 'hazards'! Risk is the LIKELIHOOD of a hazard occurring.

 

Sorry; I should have included a bit more detail for clarity.

 

For each of the hazards I have described, there is a >0 likelihood that it will occur. In that case, there is a non-zero risk. Does that help to make it clear? To go back to the original point, there are so many things which could go wrong with flying a plane that there is again always going to be a risk when you fly (the likelihood that (eg) the engines all failing simultaneously is not huge but it's not zero. The likelihood that a terrorist will get on board with some kind of bomb is not huge but it's not zero. I could go on.)

 

Does that help to explain why I think it's nonsense to say you should never fly "if there is any risk at all"??

[localzuk]

Does that help to explain why I think it's nonsense to say you should never fly "if there is any risk at all"??

 

I think they were talking within the context of 'ash related risk'...

[jamesb]

Sorry; I should have included a bit more detail for clarity.

 

For each of the hazards I have described, there is a >0 likelihood that it will occur. In that case, there is a non-zero risk. Does that help to make it clear? To go back to the original point, there are so many things which could go wrong with flying a plane that there is again always going to be a risk when you fly (the likelihood that (eg) the engines all failing simultaneously is not huge but it's not zero. The likelihood that a terrorist will get on board with some kind of bomb is not huge but it's not zero. I could go on.)

 

Does that help to explain why I think it's nonsense to say you should never fly "if there is any risk at all"??

 

Technically it is a perfectly sensical sentence, not nonsense at all.

 

I'm with you though, let us crack down on all of this lazy use of language which leaves so much to interpretation. Everything should be written to be taken in the exact, literal sense. I believe lojban is an attempt to do this.

[tech_guy]

To make sure it's safe to fly, they should have sent a plane full of politicians up first?

[jamesb]

To make sure it's safe to fly, they should have sent a plane full of politicians up first?

 

If it's not safe to fly, can we send up another one just to make sure?

[tech_guy]

That was what I was thinking.

[mattx]

To make sure it's safe to fly, they should have sent a plane full of politicians up first?

 

Amen to that.

[mattx]

British Airways Flight 9 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

'nuff said.

[jamesb]

British Airways Flight 9 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

'nuff said.

 

It always stuns me how calm people seem to stay during genuine crises, especially considering how they can react when something's merely an inconvenience.

 

The quote from Captain Moody seems to sum up the idealised British attitude - Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them under control. I trust you are not in too much distress.

[ICT_GUY]

The Larry Vaughn law.

 

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