Are there any statistics available on the survivability of a technical snag occurring in a car vs. that occurring in a plane? I'd wager the automobile is more survivable. The plane has far more critical components that are likely to fail, and likely to lead to a fatal disaster, as a result, should they happen, than the car. Like always, statistics can be designed to "favour" a viewpoint.
IMO Cars are designed to be safe. Many millions have been spent in crash tests and safety devices.
Planes are designed to be light and to make money for the airline. The only safety feature is heavy maintenance to be sure they never crash.
Once a plane is assuredly headed for a crash the plan is for the passenger to lean forward and put his head between his legs, While there you can kiss you butt goodbye.
That's the job of the MSM in their endeavors in informing the public.
I'd wager the automobile is more survivable.
Why?
The plane has far more critical components that are likely to fail, and likely to lead to a fatal disaster, as a result, should they happen, than the car.
That's why cars don't require annual, 100 hour, 200 hour, 300 hour, 600 hour, 1000, 1200 hour, 5000 hour, 10,000 hour tear down inspections and tractability guaranteed on every part replaced on them.
Like always, statistics can be designed to "favor" a viewpoint.
. . . and apples are oranges?