That doesn’t make flying any less dangerous in general, and it’s already pretty dangerous as it is. Add to that a bunch of tiny little flying vehicles, buzzing around, and it becomes much more dangerous.
That doesn’t make flying any less dangerous in general, and it’s already pretty dangerous as it is. Add to that a bunch of tiny little flying vehicles, buzzing around, and it becomes much more dangerous.
FlowVoid@midwest.social 1 year ago
I don’t see why this should be of more concern than someone designing an inexpensive new fixed wing aircraft or traditional helo. Which happens all the time.
gregorum@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Flying is less dangerous per capita because fewer people fly than drive and are required to have more training to fly commercially. But the is t true for these sorts of craft, and small engine aircraft are far more dangerous with a far higher rate of crashes. So are helicopters. And increasing the number of those aircraft and flights would only raise those numbers further.
FlowVoid@midwest.social 1 year ago
Flying is safer, period.
In the US, there are only about ten fatalities per year on commercial aircraft. You are more likely to die of a lightning strike.
And if you only consider major airlines, in the last twenty years there have been only three passenger fatalities.
gregorum@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Large commercial aircraft with 2 trained pilots, air traffic control, a full flight crew, autopilot, and millions of dollars of advanced avionics.
These are not the same type of aircraft, nor are they the same caliber of pilots that will be flying them. And there won’t be air traffic control to back them up, either. You’re comparing apples to oranges.
Honytawk@lemmy.zip 1 year ago
Per capita means per unit of people. So by definition the group size does not matter.
gregorum@lemm.ee 1 year ago
You just explained how group size does matter