3 ms·

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 f

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

>> 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