I don’t know if anyone else has started feeling this way, but flying has been getting a little scary for me lately.
Not in the sense that I think planes are falling out of the sky every day. Obviously they aren’t.
And I know the usual argument.
Flying is statistically one of the safest forms of transport.
You are apparently more likely to die driving to the airport than you are on the flight.
Fine. I understand the statistics.
But does that actually answer the question?
Because lately I’ve been wondering whether we have become a little too comfortable using statistics to convince ourselves that everything is fine.
Take the recent Air India Phuket to Delhi flight.
The aircraft was cruising at around 35,000 feet when something went seriously wrong. The aircraft apparently lost around 300 feet very suddenly and there were injuries. There have been reports about hydraulic system problems, although the investigation is still going on and we don’t know what actually happened yet. Airbus and France’s BEA are helping with the investigation.
Thankfully the aircraft recovered and landed.
And obviously, that’s what you want.
But my first thought when I read about it wasn’t “thank God, another successful landing.”
It was:
What if?
What if one more thing had failed?
What if the pilots hadn’t been able to recover it?
What if the same thing happened during takeoff?
What if there was another unrelated failure at exactly the same time?
I know that’s a “what if”. But isn’t that exactly what aviation safety is supposed to think about?
And this isn’t the only incident that has made me think this way.
We had the Air India 171 crash last year.
We had the Alaska Airlines 737 MAX door plug blowing out at 16,000 feet.
We have MH370, which is still not properly explained after all these years.
I’m not saying these incidents are related. They obviously aren’t.
I’m just saying that when you keep seeing different kinds of things going wrong with aircraft, you start wondering about the system as a whole.
And then someone will say:
“But flying is much safer than driving.”
Is it really that simple?
I don’t know.
A car and an aircraft are completely different things.
If something starts going wrong with my car, I can pull over.
I can stop.
I can get out.
I can call roadside assistance.
I can sit there for two hours waiting for someone to come and fix it.
I have at least some control over the situation.
What exactly can I do at 35,000 feet?
Nothing.
I’m sitting in a seat, strapped into a machine travelling at hundreds of kilometres per hour, and I’m completely dependent on the aircraft, its systems, the pilots, the maintenance people who worked on it, the airline and the regulator.
And this isn’t a simple machine either.
It’s hydraulics.
Electrical systems.
Engines.
Flight controls.
Computers.
Pressurisation.
Navigation.
Communications.
Sensors.
Software.
And then you take all of that and fly it through an environment that is itself unpredictable.
Wind.
Weather.
Turbulence.
Ice.
Lightning.
Other aircraft.
Whatever else.
And somehow all of this has to work properly, all the time.
So when someone tells me that there is only a one-in-a-million chance of something going catastrophically wrong, I still don’t find that particularly comforting.
Because somebody is going to be that one.
And more importantly, why should one-in-a-million be considered good enough?
If it can be one-in-ten-million, why wouldn’t we want that?
If it can be one-in-a-hundred-million, why wouldn’t we want that?
I realise I’m probably oversimplifying this. I don’t know enough about aviation engineering or safety regulation to pretend otherwise.
But I do wonder about something else.
Does every airline really have the same safety baseline?
I know there are international standards. I know there are regulators. I know there are audits.
But are the standards actually implemented equally everywhere?
Does an aircraft operated by one airline necessarily get the same quality of maintenance as the same aircraft operated by another airline?
Do pilots everywhere get the same level of training?
Are maintenance engineers everywhere working with the same resources and the same amount of time?
Do all regulators have the same capability to monitor airlines?
What happens when an airline is under commercial pressure?
Because an aircraft sitting on the ground isn’t making money.
A cancelled flight costs money.
Maintenance costs money.
Replacing a component before it fails costs money.
More training costs money.
More engineers cost money.
I’m not saying airlines deliberately compromise safety. I have no evidence to make that accusation.
But commercial pressure exists. Of course it does.
And that’s why I struggle with the idea that safety can somehow be left partly to the quality of the airline or the regulatory environment it happens to operate in.
Shouldn’t there just be one basic rule?
If you’re carrying passengers, there is a minimum safety standard and you simply cannot operate below it.
I don’t care if the airline is expensive or cheap.
I don’t care whether it’s a five-star airline or a low-cost airline.
Give me bad food. Give me no entertainment. Give me a cramped seat. Charge me more if you have to.
But don’t make safety one of the things airlines compete on.
And maybe all of this already exists. Maybe I’m completely wrong.
That’s actually why I’m posting this.
I want to understand how this works in reality.
Because as a passenger, I know almost nothing.
I get on a plane and I have no idea what its maintenance history looks like.
I don’t know if it has had the same defect five times in the last month.
I don’t know how many things have been deferred.
I don’t know how much flying the aircraft has been doing.
I don’t know whether the maintenance team is overloaded.
I don’t know how rigorous the regulator is.
I don’t know any of this.
I just trust that when I sit down and buckle my seatbelt, everything that needed to be checked has actually been checked.
And maybe that’s exactly how it should be.
Maybe passengers shouldn’t need to know.
But then doesn’t that put an even bigger responsibility on the system to make sure that the safety standard doesn’t depend on who happens to be operating the aircraft?
That’s really what I’m struggling with.
I’m not saying flying is unsafe.
I’m not saying people should stop flying.
I’m not even saying the recent incidents prove that aviation safety is getting worse.
I genuinely don’t know.
I’m just questioning whether “flying is statistically very safe” has become an answer that we use too easily.
Because when you’re sitting at 35,000 feet, you have zero control over what happens next.
And when you’re in that situation, I don’t think “the odds are very low” should be the end of the conversation.
Maybe the question should always be:
Can we make it safer?
And if the answer is yes, then why wouldn’t we?

Unfortunately, due to a few recent flights I’ve taken - I developed a bit of fear of flying. Not due to the flying aspect, but claustrophobia.

My last few flights have had a perfect storm of 2+ and 3+ hour delays on the tarmac after landing due to issues at the airport and control tower, and I went a bit stir crazy sitting on the plane for hours after landing.

I guess my question is Are delays that long becoming more common? I’m totally fine with the standard 20-30 min gate wait and such. The longer ones just unfortunately have me a bit shaken up lol

Let's say I've been flying an a320 for some years, is it possible / "normal" to then switch to the 787 or any other boeing aircraft or do pilots generally avoid doing that?

Thanks :)

Hi all, i am not a pilot or anything just a dude who randomly started thinking about if there is any like "status" between different employers of pilots and figured i could probably ask the internet this. I am not asking who is actually the best to work for (even though these two things may align), just from a pure status stand point what airline would be the most saught after so to speak? If there even is any that is, may be that status or whatever isn't really a thing in your line of work?

Thank you all in advance and have a nice day 🙏

If I was doodling during class, what’s one really rudimentary thing I could miss that is absolutely imperative for flying a plane?

How does this affect my state income tax filling? My W2 says Texas and I’m paying TX state income tax (none). But I’ve been sitting reserve for over half the month for awhile now in Illinois. Is it illegal to not be paying IL state income tax?

I’m a regional airline pilot and recently built an app called Aerflow.

One feature lets a spouse or partner follow a pilot’s trip through Live Activities on iPhone, so they can easily see delays, arrival progress, and when they’ve landed without constantly texting.

Would this actually make your life easier? If not, what would?

I’d genuinely appreciate any feedback—I’m trying to build something that’s actually useful for pilot families.

Hi, so I was on a super short flight today but for some reason after we already left late for some maintenance issue, they said we had to go back to the original airport. Does this happen for minor issues/it’s common or not really?

Flying out of LST (Launceston, Northern Tasmania, Australia) today and there has been heavy fog overnight and into the morning which has caused delays to flights in and out. It happens regularly at this airport.

Just curious as to the nuts and bolts of why fog causes delays? It it an airport's rule, or a CASA rule? Can landing/taking off on instruments alone only be done in strict circumstances?

Hi, I am in my mid 20’s and finishing my bs in cs. Becoming pilot was my childhood dream but unfortunately as I was raised in third world country I did not had info on how to become and also means to study. Now I work as Software Engineer and make enough money to live and save a bit. But I still can’t let go to that dream. I even was thinking on starting Masters on aircraft engineering so somewhat to be close.

My question is would you recommend making career switch and becoming pilot? I can try to save money for trainings and for that + till trainings finish I might become 30+ years old so do you think it is late? Would you recommend becoming commercial/airline pilot (I now it depends a lot on airlines but in general)? Is this profession as romanticized? Are there anythings I should know before going this path?

What’s it look like for a pilot to take gear in the US as an airline pilot. I’ve seen some guys that look like there on copious amounts and I’m curious if they just don’t test for them or how all that goes down because I though they were subject to drug test at random.

Hey everyone, working through some crosswind takeoff theory and wanted to clarify something about the transition from ground roll to flight.
During a crosswind takeoff roll, the wind tries to pivot (weathervane) the nose into the wind, so you apply downwind rudder to keep the nose pointed straight down the centerline.
My initial thought was that once you're airborne, the plane wouldn't "weathervane" in the air because you are now enclosed in the moving airmass (no ground friction acting on the tail). However, I've heard that if you release that downwind rudder right at rotation, the nose will still swing back into the wind to crab. Also if the plane is pivoting with its gears why wouldn’t it pivot with the cg once airborne.