Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site onfcanim.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!watnot!watcgl!onfcanim!dave
From: dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale)
Newsgroups: net.aviation,net.politics
Subject: Re: "A Design Proposal That Would Make Passenger Planes Safe"
Message-ID: <14774@onfcanim.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 10-Jan-86 18:36:17 EST
Article-I.D.: onfcanim.14774
Posted: Fri Jan 10 18:36:17 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Jan-86 20:54:30 EST
References: <3223@hplabsb.UUCP> <4785@alice.UUCP>
Reply-To: dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale)
Organization: ONF, Montreal
Lines: 18
Xref: lsuc net.aviation:652 net.politics:2829

In article <4785@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) writes:
>
>> The question to ask is: "Is the general public willing to fly in an airplane
>> that is designed to crash?"
>>
>> Safety doesn't sell; ask the auto industry.
>
>There was a recent article in Aviation Consumer that picked the airplanes
>in each of several categories with the best and worst safety records.
>In essentially all cases, the safest airplane was the most popular,
>by a fairly wide margin.  Are you still sure safety doesn't sell?

Perhaps this is due to a difference between the education of pilots, which
stresses the presence of risks and their management, and the education
(or lack thereof) of automobile drivers and airline passengers.

Or maybe people who don't like thinking about risks just don't become pilots,
but form a majority of the population?