Are you safer in an airplane, statistically speaking, shortly after another airplane has crashed?
The odds don't change.
I've always believed that when its been a long time since a crash pilots, traffic controllers and mechanics become too relaxed and are more likely to make mistakes, but when there's been a crash they are more focused on the importance of their jobs.
Each flight carries its own set of statistics. Today's crash is not based on tomorrow's.
It's irrelevant. The next plane has no memory. Without additional knowledge (perhaps that airline has let maintenance lapse) the risk is the same.
I think you're safer in airplane than a car. You're not going to have another airplane where someone's been doing meth, pot or alcohol and gets behind the wheel.
More people get killed in car crashes than plane crashes, but some people just prefer to be in control and feel like they are safer when they are in control
Get a pilot's license!
It's interesting. As I mentioned in my previous poll, I also modeled this question on a discussion in the plane crash poll.
The basic statistical principle is how (if at all) an event effects the probability of a second event.
When I framed ...
... it in the context of winning the lottery, I got a 100% (last time I looked) agreement that the two events are independent.
When I put the question in the context of a plane crash, the results are (so far) 50% each way.
It would appear that ...
... people "do the math" differently, depending somewhat on their feelings.
You are outlining a classical statistical error, the "Monte Carlo fallacy". Humans are very bad at analyzing data when emotions are involved.
Either the same or more so, assuming pilots and everyone would be even more careful after a crash occurs