Look, I'm not suggesting driving is safer than flying, I'm saying the stats can be spun to suggest that. ...and it is a fact that every time 2 vehicles pass one another with only paint bt them, each vehicle is at the other's mercy, that the other driver will keep his lane. That's 1,000's of potential fatalities avoided by and for each driver--such that is we were to used fatalities avoided as the denominator, the fatalities not avoided, would be infitesimal. We take it for granted though, bc cars breaching the painted lines and causing head on collusion is so rare in comparison that it is disregarded as realistic possibility, though that (cars keeping their respective lanes) is literally what happens millions of times a day.
If pilots flew into the ground there would be a lot of fatalities. They avoid killing all their passengers ever single second they are in the air... back to being safer than driving using avoidable fatalities.
That's 1x/ flight--already part of the equation, and faaaaaar < cars aimed at you but missing you by inches (due to that unbreakable barrier known as a painted solid/dotted line) hundreds of times/ day
Now for the real reason for the disaster: a "localizer antenna" instrument landing system at Muan International Airport is supposed to be installed at the end of the runway, but it is not supposed to be supported by a concrete barrier. It is supposed to be collapsible. The presence of concrete in the design is described as "verging on criminal". South Korea plane crash: Placement of runway barrier ‘verging on criminal’
For the life of me I can’t follow what you’re trying to explain. You mention the invisible barrier between cars and crashes avoided by repeating that barrier, but that is already taken into account in statistics. It’s baked into the numbers.