4 ms·

The Normalization of Deviance

26 points by rdl 11y ago

earljwagner 11y ago
An additional factor is the low probability of negative consequences.
earljwagner 11y ago
This also shows up on the part of airplane passengers. How many people listen to the safety instructions, well, as is their lives depended on it?
- vonklaus 11y ago
  Well, to qoute fight club, it is simply the illusion of safety at 30000 feet. In reality, and as this articld recounts, the pilots control the plane and an eggregious piloting error will not ve corrected regardless of whether I am aware that my seat cushion is bouyant, or that I should secure my own oxygenmask before helping others. Also, I would suspect that given the element of fear and urgency in a crisis, this information no matter how valuable, will be ignored by everyobe except a mibority of overtly obedient passengers and the most measured individuals. Tl;dr Malaysian Airlines didn't have a 100% mortality rate because no one payed attention to the onboarding safety demo.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
nier 11y ago
Quote from the original accident report: "Further, a review [...] revealed that the flight crewmembers had neglected to perform complete flight control checks before 98% of their previous 175 takeoffs in the airplane, indicating that this oversight was habitual and not an anomaly." Sounds like an opportunity for automated robotic testing.
lwhalen 11y ago
I'm speaking from complete ignorance here, but why couldn't the airline industry standardize a bit more? It seems that a pilot has to have special high-intensity training on each individual aircraft model, whereas I can jump in pretty much any car from here to Hong Kong and be able to control the machine safely after a ~60 second glance at the dash and steering column. Yes, I understand that adding that extra third-dimension of travel (up and down, in addition to forward-back and left-right) adds complexity, but I have a hard time believing that a standardized control interface for aircraft of X-class engine size wouldn't increase safety.
- throwaway_xx9 11y ago
  First, airliners have complex systems that need to be understood in detail since you can't just pull over at the side of the road like in a car. Second, newer families of airliners by Airbus and Boeing do have similar systems and often a type rating covers 2 or 3 models now. Third, each operator has their own standards and practices. In fact, airline operator standards are considered to be more pertinent than general FAA or mfg. requirements.

26 points by rdl 11y ago

An additional factor is the low probability of negative consequences.

This also shows up on the part of airplane passengers. How many people listen to the safety instructions, well, as is their lives depended on it?

vonklaus 11y ago
Well, to qoute fight club, it is simply the illusion of safety at 30000 feet. In reality, and as this articld recounts, the pilots control the plane and an eggregious piloting error will not ve corrected regardless of whether I am aware that my seat cushion is bouyant, or that I should secure my own oxygenmask before helping others. Also, I would suspect that given the element of fear and urgency in a crisis, this information no matter how valuable, will be ignored by everyobe except a mibority of overtly obedient passengers and the most measured individuals. Tl;dr Malaysian Airlines didn't have a 100% mortality rate because no one payed attention to the onboarding safety demo.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

nier 11y ago

Quote from the original accident report: "Further, a review [...] revealed that the flight crewmembers had neglected to perform complete flight control checks before 98% of their previous 175 takeoffs in the airplane, indicating that this oversight was habitual and not an anomaly." Sounds like an opportunity for automated robotic testing.

lwhalen 11y ago

I'm speaking from complete ignorance here, but why couldn't the airline industry standardize a bit more? It seems that a pilot has to have special high-intensity training on each individual aircraft model, whereas I can jump in pretty much any car from here to Hong Kong and be able to control the machine safely after a ~60 second glance at the dash and steering column. Yes, I understand that adding that extra third-dimension of travel (up and down, in addition to forward-back and left-right) adds complexity, but I have a hard time believing that a standardized control interface for aircraft of X-class engine size wouldn't increase safety.

throwaway_xx9 11y ago
First, airliners have complex systems that need to be understood in detail since you can't just pull over at the side of the road like in a car. Second, newer families of airliners by Airbus and Boeing do have similar systems and often a type rating covers 2 or 3 models now. Third, each operator has their own standards and practices. In fact, airline operator standards are considered to be more pertinent than general FAA or mfg. requirements.