Recently, Peter Duniho posted:

Most of the safety improvements for motor vehicles comes from improved
handling and stopping, and stronger (but usually heavier) structure.

I disagree, here, Peter. In which vehicle would you rather be a passenger
in a high-speed accident, an SUV or an Indianapolis racer? As a long-time
sports car owner and driver, I can tell you that safer construction is not
dependent on weight. My first sports car, a 1959 Austin Healy Sprite,
weighed about 1,400 lbs. was wrecked when a Cadillac cut me off and hit me
on a 45º angle driver-side collision front-end when I was doing about 50
mph on a divided roadway. Yet, I suffered no injuries whatsoever. There is
no amount of money that would get me to try that in any typical sedan.

None of those solutions are applicable to aviation. Of course, motor
vehicles also enjoy a much lower velocity during an accident; if no
aircraft ever went faster than 60mph (even in a dive or after
structural failure), fatalities would be much lower.

I think this is the main factor that differentiates auto and aviation
fatalities. If you only consider accidents above 60 mph, I suspect that
automobiles will look a lot worse compared to aircraft, given that many
aircraft accidents at that speed, such as gear-up landings result in no
serious injuries.

I am not convinced that technology is likely to improve safety in
aviation as much as it has in motor vehicles, even if I do agree that
overly-stringent regulation stifles innovation (which I do). Not
until airplanes are basically just flying themselves, removing the
human element altogether.

We're looking at different overly-stringent regluations, here. On one
hand, innovative aircraft design and certification has been stifled by
regulation. Meanwhile, the human element, which may be the most critical
component to providing safety, is being *less* restricted by allowing more
people with less training to get involved in aviation. I think we've got
it backwards.

Regards,

Neil