It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are you afraid of aeroplanes?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Im not as bad with flying as i thought i should be, in the last couple of years i have flown all over the world and find that the complementary alcahol really does help
, for me its the take offs and landings i dont like but thats probably because i had a bad landing at heathrow once(well not that bad but it wasnt great). Someone else touched on the fact that you are not in control, i think that has a lot to do with it and plus if things do go wrong their is not much anyone can do you are just waiting to crash and die. I never used to dream about flying but now i fly more often nearly all of the flying dreams are bad.
I find Helicoptors a much safer prospect as i have had a bit to do with them and i enjoy every moment if it.




posted on May, 6 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Never been afraid to, obviously sense I was in the airforce.

But that being said before I ever took my first plane flight I learned how to fly through a simulator, not a fancy one just a small computer program years ago. Reason being at the time I thought if the pilot had a heart attack someone better know how to land the thing.

Interestingly enough the cheaply computer simulator was right on target as I found out later. Got the chance to fly and it was a cake walk.

Now for control tower communications (radio freq's. etc) didn't have a clue but if it had wings, throttle and moving I could land it.

However if it's a small helicopter even today well then I'm going to die as those things are tough to fly much less land lol.

You mentioned boats, I will not go on a boat anywhere I've been on 6 boats and 5 sunk or capsized. The 6th was military so it was all good needless to say after the 5 smaller ones I will not go near one unless it's an aircraft carrier with a plane fueled and ready to go just in case lol.

That being said when I fly over the Ocean I get very nervous as there is no where to land. Not to mention when you 36,000 ft. in the air and can see the waves I can only imagine how big they really are.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darthorious

However if it's a small helicopter even today well then I'm going to die as those things are tough to fly much less land lol.


Nah c'mon, if you can drive a car you can fly a chopper. Its not as hard as the pilots make it out to be, im not saying i can fly one but the basics of it are very simple, flying a remote control chopper on the other hand is harder than flying the real thing. Ive got 3 chopper pilot friends none of which can fly the RC ones which i find funny.

If travelling on a boat was cheaper than it is that would be my preffered mode of transport to travel long distance.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by pazcat

I find Helicoptors a much safer prospect as i have had a bit to do with them and i enjoy every moment if it.


Given my previous comments, I should be the last one to cite statistics, but, statistically speaking, helicopters are way likelier to get you killed.

Think about it: they tend to be operated at much lower altitudes, and over heavily populated urban areas, so if something goes wrong, the window of opportunity in which the pilot can regain control of the situation is much, much narrower.

Furthermore, when an airplane loses power, it becomes a glider. When a helicopter loses power, it drops like a rock, and the only hope you have is if the pilot already has all the right responses so ingrained that he or she reflexively takes those actions and somehow gets the motor started and/or properly takes advantage of auto-rotation during that very brief plunge.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Regarding this whole issue of control, I'm sure that's part of the fear for a lot of people, but it's not the whole picture, as those very same people probably have no problem hopping on a bus or commuter train.

For me personally, control has got to be part of it, 'cause I love driving fast (even got my license suspended recently, for going 106mph, which is absurd, because there were no other cars around me, and I was therefore not endangering anybody but myself), but I hate riding on rollercoasters.

Regarding radio-controlled helicopters, I can fly those competently, but I can't see how flying a real one would be easier, other than the fact that the pilot is always pointed in the same direction that the heli's pointed, and therefore doesn't have to ever remember that when the heli's flying towards him, the controls are "reversed."

Also, these co-axial helicopters that are all the rage are, theoretically, a lot easier to fly, 'cause you don't have to worry about using a tail-rotor to control or limit your rotation. They're not so good outdoors, though, unless there's no wind.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
WOW!!!!!!

I never expected that even pilots or people that work in the industry will absolutely NOT fly...

That's a surprise to me and i will mark it up in my mind for future reference.

I guess the lack of passenger or craft chutes comes to greatly reinforce this non control, no second chance trend.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by flightsuit
 


Personally, trains are awkward, but I can manage them without the blink of an eye yes.

Other public transport like buses are different, if a bus crashes theres an amazingly good chance you will come out of it okay.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
double post sorry

[edit on 6-5-2009 by pazcat]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by flightsuit



oops


Although i do agree and have made the same argument as yourself, helicoptors are not that bad, and they do glide not drop like a stone, its taught to the pilots nowadays, and surely operating at a lower altitude is better than falling from further up, more people survive helicoptor crashes tha planes, i am told, admittedly my info come out of the mouths of pilots and i accept they are biased but they have changed some of my views about iminent air crash and what craft i would rather be in, my answer was neither, but helicoptors get a bad rep.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by pazcat

Originally posted by flightsuit



oops


Although i do agree and have made the same argument as yourself, helicoptors are not that bad, and they do glide not drop like a stone, its taught to the pilots nowadays, and surely operating at a lower altitude is better than falling from further up,


Hmmm... You are talking about a 'Auto-rotation' that emergency protocol helicopter pilots do in case of engine failure where they reverse the rotor pitch and let it spin like a windmill as the helicopter descends and when the helo is near the ground, it's pitched normally again(flare) to reduce the descent rate for a safe landing..

But when I watched the flight testing of the Eurocopter or something. They never attempted killing engine and the Auto-rotation manuever at low altitude. However, they did at much higher altitude.

The pilots said something about that Auto rotation at lower altitudes is not safe because it doesn't give enough time for rotors to gain enough speed and momentum to slow the descent of the helicopter during the 'flare'.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
I admire the knowledge shared on the various air tranpost pros and cons.
I just hope this thread does not turn into an air vehicle comparison place.

What i had in mind when openong the thread was means of mass transport such as the aeroplanes are.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by pazcat

Originally posted by flightsuit



...and surely operating at a lower altitude is better than falling from further up...


If you're definitely going to be falling the whole time, you'd obviously want to fall from the lowest possible height. However, if the pilot has any hope whatsoever of regaining control of the situation, altitude is his friend. The higher you are when things go wrong, the more time you have to try taking the various actions that might lead to a safe landing.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by flightsuit
 


Yep, that's what I'm trying to point out, it applies similarly to helicopters.

And mandatory for airplanes to have some capacity to save itself in case of engine failure immediately after take off(suggesting that low-altitude flight is inherently dangerous).

For twin engine planes for example, should be able to sustain 1000 ft/min climb and full control authority if one engine fails during take off for example.... Hope this gives some peace of mind to air travelers



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
I guess there might be a big chance you have seen the thread of my friend schrodingers dog. He includes a video showing air traffic around the world in a sped up 24 hour frame.

For those who missed it here it goes again:



You would never expect that there is such enormous air traffic right?
Well i guess we were all wrong.

So maybe things are not as bad as many have suggested.
The number of flights daily is just overwhelming compared to the accidents.
Its also quite a fact that a plane crash always draws a lot of media attention so everybody hears about them.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
There's just something about flying in a giant metallic tube through the clouds some thousands of feet high that strikes panic in me sometimes. Ofcourse, I try not to think about it.

[edit on 10-5-2009 by cmazzagatti]

[edit on 10-5-2009 by cmazzagatti]



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by cmazzagatti
 


Its not all that hard. most of the time it feels like a comfy bus.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Given that I'm now in the US Air Force as a crew chief I personally have little trouble flying. The chance's of anything going wrong are pretty slim, and most aircraft have enough redundancies and pilot's have enough procedures to get out of a lot of tricky situations. I figure if I need to be more than a couple hundred miles away it's a lot safer to just fly that distance, not to mention more convenient.

I also happen to enjoy not having to drive hundreds of miles to get someplace. Being able to just watch stuff on my laptop for a couple hours while being served snacks and drinks is perfectly fine by me. The only thing I don't like about flying is going through airport security these days.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 06:36 AM
link   
Airport security can be a bummer in many cases but usually i had no trouble and most personnel is quite polite.
On the other hand when they are not discrete and start getting bumpy with me i start getting really frustrated. Most of the times they recognise that so that i don't have to unleash the devil out of me. I guess its all part of the redundancies to serve flight safety.
I wish i had flying clearance my self though as well as a set of wings or rotors to practice air commuting personally. I guess our grandchildren might have a chance of that...
Somehow i agree that holding your own fate in your hands feels more comfortable.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ahnggk

Originally posted by flightsuit
Sure, if you're compiling statistics according to miles covered, air travel may look a lot safer. But what if you change the metric you're tracking and compare fatalities per hour spent on the road, vs. fatalities per hour spent in the air?


Yes, fatalities on air vs on road with regards to hours spent, will definitely make flying a lot more dangerous.


According to this page...

www.kenkifer.com...

...driving results in three times more fatalities than airline flying based on exposure hours (though general aviation is over 30 times more dangerous).




[edit on 11-5-2009 by nscopheacriaaclters]



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   
This is just so enormously sad:

USA Today piece regarding Flight 3407

The parts of that story which really jump out at me are,


The NTSB estimated that Shaw, 24, who had been hired a year before the crash, earned an annual salary of about $16,000.


and



The low pay, lengthy commutes and lack of areas where pilots could rest added up to a risk to passengers, said NTSB member Kitty Higgins.



Very, very sad.


[edit on 13-5-2009 by flightsuit]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join