SAFETY IN FLYING
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
Sue,—In common with many others who have a belief in the future of commercial air lines, I have read with slight interest two letters which appeared recently under the above heading. It is a well-known fact that with sufficient skill and bias it is possible to prove most things by suitably juggling with statistics. Fascinating as this may become as a hobby, from the point of view of general interest, would it not be still more delightful to make up our minds as to what (if anything) we are trying to prove, and then prove it ?
Though one often notices air line and joy-riding concern figures jumbled together in inexplicable confusion as a basis , for proving how safe and satisfactory, or devastating and dangerous, aviation is, one is more rarely asked to consider the joint fatality list of Atlantic shipping and boating on the Serpentine compared to the public service of electric trolley buses in Ipswich.
Whilst it is, I believe, admitted that ground and marine transport have to-day reached such a pitch that improvements arc usually of a very minor character, air lines have by no means reached this stage, and one is constantly hearing of both major and minor advances on the technical, operational and air sides that can only make for increased general efficiency.
Another point which seems to have escaped attention is that one is reasonably entitled to assume that it is twice as dangerous to walk 200 yards along Piccadilly as it would be to walk 100. In other words one cannot compare the risk to twenty people travelling one mile by train with the risk to twenty people travelling 250, miles by air.
If comparisons are to be made we should get nearest the truth by considering the various performances in passenger- miles for a period of say, the last twelve months. Perhaps the experts could produce these.—! am, Sir, &c.,
FRANKLYN BARNARD.
Windy Ridge, Pond Field Road, Hayes Lane, Ken ley.
Previous page
