487
Most Dangerous Jobs
(lemmy.nz)
Pilot is pretty safe job
Feel like there is a translation issue somewhere.
This maps out to top dangerous jobs IF you change Pilot to Driver - Anyone who drives all day for a living - Delivery Driver, etcetera
Don't work in the aviation industry, I take it?
Can you give me statistics of pilot deaths/serious injuries during job?
I don't think anyone thinks Police Officer is the most dangerous job, even cops.
I have an uncle that was a police officer. When he got out of doing highway patrol, he was relieved, because that was the most dangerous job for police. I pictured high speed chases, drivers pulling weapons, catching wanted criminals... (I was approximately 10 at the time)
It turned out it's because walking on the side of a highway is insanely dangerous, and a driver obliviously hitting you sounds and looks almost the same as a driver responsibly passing by.
His state rolled out flashing lights that were better at grabbing attention, and that cut the total deaths for all police by something like 10%.
If pizza delivery people were allowed to be armed and trained to fight, there'd be a lot less pizza delivery driver injuries/fatalities.
In the USA the most dangerous job, is agricultural jobs. The fact that these jobs are largely done by immigrants, minorities, and the severely poor and exploited reads its exclusion as a little problematic.
Also, sex workers are workers, and I'm sure that occupation is also very dangerous, but because it is prohibited by law, I don't think good stats exist, though IMO worth mentioning
load more comments
(16 replies)
Hang on to this take to make policing a bit less dangerous
Departments could have their officers start wearing less tactical uniforms, maybe blue shirt and pants. Maybe they could have the officers then walk around towns, visit local stores, go to town hall meetings to get to know the neighborhood. Maybe be seen doing some volunteering and helping the community out. You know have the officers be an upstanding citizen of the community that helps out. A person that the community trusts. They could also MAYBE just MAYYBEE be trained to de-escalate situations with negotiation tactics?
I know it's a crazy idea, it's never happened in the past. Remember we have always lived in an over militarized police state that shoots first and never asks questions.
Departments could have their officers start wearing less tactical uniforms, maybe blue shirt and pants. Maybe they could have the officers then walk around towns, visit local stores, go to town hall meetings to get to know the neighborhood.
Already the case for most PDs, and has been for decades.
Maybe be seen doing some volunteering and helping the community out.
Less common but still done; it's usually labeled "performative" or "copaganda."
They could also MAYBE just MAYYBEE be trained to de-escalate situations with negotiation tactics?
Already the case for virtually all agencies, and has been for decades.
I know it’s a crazy idea, it’s never happened in the past.
It's not a crazy idea, it's just that you don't pay much attention to what's going on so you don't realize it's already done; your priority seems to be circle-jerking.
I know it's a crazy idea, it's never happened in the past. Remember we have always lived in an over militarized police state that shoots first and never asks questions.
Obvious sarcasm is obvious (though apparently not to you)
Whooshed a bit there, eh?
They're saying policing should go back to what it was a few decades ago before the extreme militarization of police that's happened in the last few years.
The city I work in has a population of less than 4,000 and we border a major metro area. There's no reason for us to have 25 police officers, all of which are outfitted with assault weapons and riot gear. We shouldn't even have a SWAT team. If we ever need one we can call for help from the city next door.
They want enough cruisers that they have a backup for every single vehicle, and are now asking for an MRAP. And police get whatever they want while we have to fight for a goddamned printer.
Whooshed a bit there, eh?
No.
They’re saying policing should go back to what it was a few decades ago before the extreme militarization of police that’s happened in the last few years.
That's a slightly different sentiment. They proposed several individual things that should be changed without realizing they're already that way.
The city I work in has a population of less than 4,000 and we border a major metro area. There’s no reason for us to have 25 police officers
That's a ratio of 1:160, roughly on-par with Spain:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_number_of_police_officers
all of which are outfitted with assault weapons and riot gear.
I doubt that.
We shouldn’t even have a SWAT team. If we ever need one we can call for help from the city next door.
How does moving your militarization from City to County make things less militarized?
They want enough cruisers that they have a backup for every single vehicle, and are now asking for an MRAP. And police get whatever they want while we have to fight for a goddamned printer.
That's pretty silly - you should be petitioning your city government about that. Barely relates to militarization, though.
I work in the same building with them. Every officer takes an AR and body armor to the squad car when heading out to man their speed trap and bring it back at the end of the shift to store in their air-conditioned locker (not just the locker room - the actual interior of each locker itself has its own thermostat and air supply).
All that being said, there is a need for specialized units. But the big change the US has seen over the past 25 years or so has been giving SWAT-style weaponry and resources to everyone. The traffic cops pullings people over for speeding in a school zone don't all need riot gear and an AR in the trunk. Detectives performing investigations don't need access to tear gas and flashbangs. But for major cities with thousands of occifers, having a few dozen specialists makes sense.
Small towns used to just call the state or nearby major city for assistance if they needed heavier equipment or tactical units. Now they all have the heavy equipment, and when they have it they'll find an excuse to use it.
A nearby town had a mental health crisis recently with a kid threatening to kill himself. The police had just gotten a new-to-them MRAP, and instead of talking to the kid or just using the key the parents had given them, they drove a tank through the front of the house, deployed flashbangs, and tackled the kid.
So the kid now has more mental health issues AND the family lost their house.
Every officer takes an AR
Ah you think rifles are assault rifles. That explains a lot.
I work in the same building with them. Every officer takes an AR and body armor to the squad car when heading out to man their speed trap and bring it back at the end of the shift to store in their air-conditioned locker (not just the locker room - the actual interior of each locker itself has its own thermostat and air supply).
Sounds like 90% of your complaints have nothing to do with militarization, however valid they are.
All that being said, there is a need for specialized units. But the big change the US has seen over the past 25 years or so has been giving SWAT-style weaponry and resources to everyone. The traffic cops pullings people over for speeding in a school zone don’t all need riot gear and an AR in the trunk.
Even citing your own unverifiable anecdote you failed to explain how your traffic cops have riot gear, so I don't know why you're re-asserting it as fact.
Detectives performing investigations don’t need access to tear gas and flashbangs. But for major cities with thousands of occifers, having a few dozen specialists makes sense.
I'm sure they figure they want to be self-reliant and not have to depend on another agency. Is your county agency objectively the same quality or better? If so, as long as the plurality of voting residents of your city don't mind the much higher response times in emergencies, your point here makes sense. Otherwise, it does not.
Small towns used to just call the state or nearby major city for assistance if they needed heavier equipment or tactical units. Now they all have the heavy equipment
Again, mostly because American voters have insisted the equipment and training is distributed down the pyramid in the wake of things like Columbine. There's pros and cons, as described above.
The police had just gotten a new-to-them MRAP, and instead of talking to the kid or just using the key the parents had given them, they drove a tank through the front of the house
Are you conflating MRAPs with tanks?
I understand this and the Rifle vs. Assault Rifle issue can seem pedantic, but if you actually want to address concerns in an objective, solutions-focused manner, you should want to be accurate.
Obviously if you're just venting it doesn't matter, but I like to solve problems rather than (listen to a) vent about them, so you can just save yourself the effort.
I know what an assault rifle is. I used to work in the firearm industry and own over 50 personal guns. The police have select-fire rifles built on the Armalite platform. They're assault rifles. The guns used by our department don't have an M designation because they're not US military spec or military issue. It's like the difference between an M9 and a 92FS.
They have riot shields, tear gas, etc in the cruisers. They carry the heavy body armor and the weapons back and forth because they are sized/kitted out to the officer's size and preferences and they share cruisers between shifts.
I know what an assault rifle is. I used to work in the firearm industry and own over 50 personal guns. The police have select-fire rifles built on the Armalite platform. They’re assault rifles. The guns used by our department don’t have an M designation because they’re not US military spec or military issue. It’s like the difference between an M9 and a 92FS.
I sincerely doubt 25/25 of the LEOs at your city's PD have select-fire rifles, or even 10/10 of the patrol cars or whatever it works out to be with the following:
They have riot shields, tear gas, etc in the cruisers. They carry the heavy body armor and the weapons back and forth because they are sized/kitted out to the officer’s size and preferences and they share cruisers between shifts.
Are you asserting they're donning these at every call? Otherwise what difference does it make if they have them available in seconds versus 20-minute drive to get the gear and a 20-minute drive back to the scene of a riot? Gas expenditure going towards oil barons or giving nasty people 40 minutes to do their thing before the cops get there rather than 1?
Patrol officers shouldn't all be SWAT. That's a specialist designation that should be reserved for extreme cases.
When everyone is outfitted and trained as a militarized unit, they treat more situations like a military exercise. When someone has a warrant because they forgot to pay a speeding ticket, they shouldn't be breeching doors. When someone threatens to kill themselves, they shouldn't respond with armored vehicles and sniper rifles.
That's what the militarization of beat cops has done. They're trained and equipped in a manner that causes them to take extreme measures that do not serve the needs of the public. Essentially, every police call is now an activation of SWAT, which is overkill 99.99% of the time.
We've actually needed a militarized response zero times in the history of our department, but they devote massive amounts of resources to the ability. Those resources would be better spent on fire prevention, infrastructure maintenance, and municipal projects while relying on our already-existing mutual aid interlocal agreements for heavy police response in the event it's ever needed.
As for timing, right now if there were an emergency, our police would travel to go to a scene, gear up behind the cars, and make plans for a response, then engage. A SWAT team from a nearby agency would gear up and make plans while en route in the back of the van and be ready to engage just as quickly while being better trained for the job.
Oh okay, we're adding the "rifles are assault rifles" issue to the pile of topics you've abandoned too?
Patrol officers shouldn’t all be SWAT. That’s a specialist designation that should be reserved for extreme cases.
It seems like you're conflating SWAT with riot police.
When someone has a warrant because they forgot to pay a speeding ticket, they shouldn’t be breeching doors
I'd be shocked if you could prove that's happened, let alone it happens often enough that you're asserting it's normal - for your local agency or US law enforcement more broadly.
When someone threatens to kill themselves, they shouldn’t respond with armored vehicles and sniper rifles.
Likewise for this claim.
I'll skip over the soapboxing because it's predicated on your very unlikely assertion that your local agency is set up the way you claim, let alone that the vast majority of agencies in the US are set up that way.
As for timing, right now if there were an emergency, our police would travel to go to a scene, gear up behind the cars, and make plans for a response, then engage. A SWAT team from a nearby agency would gear up and make plans while en route in the back of the van and be ready to engage just as quickly while being better trained for the job.
My county agency has a SWAT team, but they're distributed throughout the county so their response time is around an hour. I think you'll find that's more often to be the case than this Hollywood scenario you're suggesting is both universal and guaranteed.
I'm not making wild supposition about my police department. I'd show the numbers if I weren't one of the 11 people that work for the city that isn't a cop. I work in the same building and park next to their cruisers every day. I attend the meetings where they get their infinite budgets for flahbangs, tear gas, and new cars while I have to figure out how to squeeze enough money from the budget to replace my permit tech's keyboard.
Then maybe you shouldn't rely on your extremely rare and unverifiable situation to make assertions about the entire US.
On an unrelated note, I am paid $5,000,000 per second in a job that totally exists and is extremely common but I can't prove because it would dox me.
Why is it dangerous to be a pilot?
Major airline pilot is quite safe. There have been like a single digit number of fatal accidents among American major airlines in the 21st century not counting 9/11? That CRJ-700 that collided with a military helicopter in Washington is like, the only accident involving that type.
I used to be a flight instructor. On a fundamental level, what that job is is climbing into the passenger seat of an airplane while someone who is not qualified to fly the plane climbs into the pilot's seat and does as much of the flying as possible.
Airline operations are pretty safe during enroute flying; they're at high altitude miles above terrain on IFR flight plans participating in air traffic control to assist in separation from other aircraft. It gets dangerous when you're near the ground and especially near airports because there's more things to crash into. The vast majority of general aviation flight instruction takes place within 5,000 feet of the ground. There was a large TV mast within sight of the airport I taught at with two surface-to-air kills.
Operating near airports is particularly dangerous. The pilot's workload increases dramatically; enroute you might actually get bored, during departure or approach your workload is very high. Couple that with the increased concentration of other air traffic, low altitude of flight and the fact you're going to touch the ground, on purpose...is there a wonder a lot of accidents take place on or near airports? That recent mid-air collision I mentioned? Happened within a mile or two of the runway. A major airline pilot might land 4 times a day? Maybe as few as one for trans-continental or trans-oceanic pilots. Hell, there are some crews that take off, fly for a few hours, then go to bed as another crew takes over to land the plane. Regional jet pilots might land a plane 8 or 10 times in a day on more, shorter trips. My record is 86. I did 7 hours of instruction one day when all of my students just happened to be practicing landings so I did an entire work day in the pattern logging between 11 and 13 landings each. At an uncontrolled airfield, in VFR flight, self-announcing and coordinating with other aircraft in the pattern or arriving on IFR approaches.
Add to that airframes and power plants designed in the 50's, manufactured in the 70's and still in use today, significantly less oversight of aircraft operators, maintenance personnel and air crews compared to the airlines, and I think you're starting to see my point.
Most pilots aren't widebody Boeing or Airbus pilots.
high chance of crashes due to miscommunicaiton, or mental breakdown?
And a major reason why stormtrooping is dangerous is because they constantly kill themselves (and much more other people ofc) by driving like murderous shitbags. Fuck cops. Fuck cars.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Sidebar, averages sometimes aren't the best way to tell the story. Like crab fishing in the Caribbean? Not so dangerous. Crab fishing in Alaska? More dangerous. Cop in a small town that hasn't had a murder in over 50 years? Not so dangerous. Cop in an area with heavy gang activity and drug sales? More dangerous.
No it's not, on avg the thing that kills most cops is getting run over on the highway. A cop that lives in gangland is still more likely to die by car accident.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/police-officer-deaths-trend-research-1.6834737
Yeah but this graph is for Canada eh. Gunshot deaths er on the rise over here
https://nleomf.org/2023-law-enforcement-fatalities-report-reveals-law-enforcement-deaths-dropped/
6 other jobs is my favorite
load more comments
(1 replies)
Not relevant but I assume these are, like, bush pilots, not “flight attendants please prepare the cabin for arrival” pilots.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2026
487 points (99.2% liked)
Flippanarchy
2741 readers
772 users here now
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
-
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS