4 ms·

We actually don't allow planes to crash. Crashes are a result of human error or catastrophic failure. When a crash occurs, the cause is investigated so that ano

We actually don't allow planes to crash. Crashes are a result of human error or catastrophic failure. When a crash occurs, the cause is investigated so that another crash never happens for the same reason. If a defect is ever found, all affected planes are grounded until they have been fixed. I expect Autopilot to be disabled soon. Edit: >So basically we accept that in order for each of us to fly to our destination, 300 ish people must die every so often. Like a kind of sacrifice. Your position is...crazy. No plane will take off if there is a calculated chance that it could crash.

thaumasiotes 10y ago
On the contrary, every plane that takes off does so despite the known chance that it could crash.
- jsprogrammer 10y ago
  No. I am talking about calculated chances, not "someone might decide to crash the plane" chances. If there is a known chance that a component of a plane might fail and cause a crash, it will not take off.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
    >> If there is a known chance that a component of a plane might fail and cause a crash, it will not take off. There is no component of any machine that is 100% guaranteed to not fail under any circumstances. What the bloody hell are you talking about?
    - jsprogrammer 10y ago
      Known, calculable circumstances. If a component may fail, then redundancies are added so that failure will not result in a crash.
      - thaumasiotes 10y ago
        You just keep digging. All adding redundancy can do is lower the chance of a crash. > If a component may fail As has already been pointed out to you, all components may fail, including any that you add to compensate for the potential failure of other components. An engineer should know this by instinct.
        jsprogrammer 10y ago
        An engineer should know nothing by instinct. Adding redundancy was incorrect. Redundancy should be inherent to the design. If one must be added, the design is already a failure. Redundancy does not mean adding a new component, but maintaining operation under component failure. For example, if the engines fail, it should still be possible to make a controlled landing.
        mthoms 10y ago
        If you can build an airliner with 100% failsafe redundancies at a cost that makes you competitive with the incumbants I'll be the first to buy a ticket. Heck, I'll be the first to invest.
        jsprogrammer 10y ago
        Nothing is 100% failsafe. Machines can be designed that will not enter known failure modes, given they are operating in within known conditions. If such a machine is detected to be able to enter a failure mode in expected coming conditions, it should not be used commercially. Cf. The grounding of all Boeing 787s: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner_battery_problems https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner_batter...
      - YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
        "Redundancies are added"? Sorry but you just made that up. If the risk of an accident and death was "calculable" in the way you're trying to say it is, we wouldn't "add redundancies". We'd just avoid flying (or driving) and nobody would ever die in an accident.
  - jfrisby 10y ago
    Wrong. One in 1.2 million flights crash. This is literally a "known chance". Planes take off anyway.
    - jsprogrammer 10y ago
      No, that is an observed statistic.
      - jfrisby 10y ago
        And the difference is?
        jsprogrammer 10y ago
        One is predictive, the other is retrospective.
        jfrisby 10y ago
        Except that the retrospective IS predictive.
        jsprogrammer 10y ago
        What evidence supports that position? Crashes are anaomolus events that happen for very specific reasons. Reasons that do not have any seeming connection to any other crash. I don't see how a retrospective could predict anything about the success of future flights.
        jfrisby 10y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure_rate
YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
>> No plane will take off if there is a calculated chance that it could crash. So, planes have a 0% chance to crash when they take off?
mthoms 10y ago
There are many factors that can never be anticipated and we explicitly accept that they still exist. >No plane will take off if there is a calculated chance that it could crash. I don't get this comment. If there are statistics that prove one in every X million planes crash, then every plane taking off has a 1 in X million chance of crashing. There is actually a very precise calculated chance that it could crash (but air travellers generally accept it).

thaumasiotes 10y ago

On the contrary, every plane that takes off does so despite the known chance that it could crash.

jsprogrammer 10y ago
No. I am talking about calculated chances, not "someone might decide to crash the plane" chances. If there is a known chance that a component of a plane might fail and cause a crash, it will not take off.
- YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
  >> If there is a known chance that a component of a plane might fail and cause a crash, it will not take off. There is no component of any machine that is 100% guaranteed to not fail under any circumstances. What the bloody hell are you talking about?
  - jsprogrammer 10y ago
    Known, calculable circumstances. If a component may fail, then redundancies are added so that failure will not result in a crash.
    - thaumasiotes 10y ago
      You just keep digging. All adding redundancy can do is lower the chance of a crash. > If a component may fail As has already been pointed out to you, all components may fail, including any that you add to compensate for the potential failure of other components. An engineer should know this by instinct.
      - jsprogrammer 10y ago
        An engineer should know nothing by instinct. Adding redundancy was incorrect. Redundancy should be inherent to the design. If one must be added, the design is already a failure. Redundancy does not mean adding a new component, but maintaining operation under component failure. For example, if the engines fail, it should still be possible to make a controlled landing.
        mthoms 10y ago
        If you can build an airliner with 100% failsafe redundancies at a cost that makes you competitive with the incumbants I'll be the first to buy a ticket. Heck, I'll be the first to invest.
        jsprogrammer 10y ago
        Nothing is 100% failsafe. Machines can be designed that will not enter known failure modes, given they are operating in within known conditions. If such a machine is detected to be able to enter a failure mode in expected coming conditions, it should not be used commercially. Cf. The grounding of all Boeing 787s: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner_battery_problems https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner_batter...
    - YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
      "Redundancies are added"? Sorry but you just made that up. If the risk of an accident and death was "calculable" in the way you're trying to say it is, we wouldn't "add redundancies". We'd just avoid flying (or driving) and nobody would ever die in an accident.
- jfrisby 10y ago
  Wrong. One in 1.2 million flights crash. This is literally a "known chance". Planes take off anyway.
  - jsprogrammer 10y ago
    No, that is an observed statistic.
    - jfrisby 10y ago
      And the difference is?
      - jsprogrammer 10y ago
        One is predictive, the other is retrospective.
        jfrisby 10y ago
        Except that the retrospective IS predictive.
        jsprogrammer 10y ago
        What evidence supports that position? Crashes are anaomolus events that happen for very specific reasons. Reasons that do not have any seeming connection to any other crash. I don't see how a retrospective could predict anything about the success of future flights.
        jfrisby 10y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure_rate

YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago

>> No plane will take off if there is a calculated chance that it could crash. So, planes have a 0% chance to crash when they take off?

mthoms 10y ago

There are many factors that can never be anticipated and we explicitly accept that they still exist. >No plane will take off if there is a calculated chance that it could crash. I don't get this comment. If there are statistics that prove one in every X million planes crash, then every plane taking off has a 1 in X million chance of crashing. There is actually a very precise calculated chance that it could crash (but air travellers generally accept it).