4 ms·

What wasn't mentioned directly was that since 2009, US passenger airlines have had a perfect record of zero fatalities, which is mind blowing.

by maxcan 10y ago

mikeash 10y ago
Especially mind blowing considering that not all that long ago, it was common to see hundreds of airline fatalities per year, despite much reduced traffic. If the 1960 level of safety carried through to today, we'd see over three thousand airline deaths each year.
- imglorp 10y ago
  Furthermore, fatalities are still in the hundreds world-wide, often with the same equipment flown by US airlines. This number tells us that the FAA+NTSB, despite some other criticism, _usually_ has its act together where it counts the most. They iterate on identifying safety problems and force the airlines to adopt solutions.
  - npunt 10y ago
    US airlines often sell their older planes to foreign airlines, which may account for some of the increased issues those airlines have. Your point still stands though - culture and processes rule.
    - mjevans 10y ago
      You could argue that those planes should be forced to retire instead. A different perspective might be to require that every 10000 hours of service see a new mark painted on the hull. This way passengers could be informed of how much 'age' a plane has had and the regulations could also apply to any plane which /might/ fly in to the US (or Europe).
      - cjrp 10y ago
        The hull's age only tells part of the story though; how well it's maintained, and the ability of the pilots flying it would need to be factored in as well.
        mikeash 10y ago
        Those are probably far more important. I'd be far more comfortable boarding a 30-year-old airliner with great maintenance and great pilots than boarding a brand-new 787 with a clueless maintenance crew and pilots who aren't quite sure which way to move the stick (edit: yoke) to make the houses get smaller. If you look at the causes of crash, it's usually pilot error or improper maintenance, occasionally design flaws, but not equipment age.
  - enjo 10y ago
    It brings to mind a flight just last week that crashed due to likely negligence (not carrying enough fuel). http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/29/americas/colombia-plane-crash-investigation/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/29/americas/colombia-plane-crash-...
    - imglorp 10y ago
      So it turns out not only was that guy negligent, but there was also another plane in the pattern who got priority because, at the time, it looked like that other one was low fuel also (maybe a false alarm). Here's a reputable source. https://fearoflanding.com/accidents/not-enough-fuel-the-disgusting-truth-about-lamia-flight-2933/ https://fearoflanding.com/accidents/not-enough-fuel-the-disg...

What wasn't mentioned directly was that since 2009, US passenger airlines have had a perfect record of zero fatalities, which is mind blowing.

by maxcan 10y ago

What wasn't mentioned directly was that since 2009, US passenger airlines have had a perfect record of zero fatalities, which is mind blowing.

mikeash 10y ago

Especially mind blowing considering that not all that long ago, it was common to see hundreds of airline fatalities per year, despite much reduced traffic. If the 1960 level of safety carried through to today, we'd see over three thousand airline deaths each year.

imglorp 10y ago
Furthermore, fatalities are still in the hundreds world-wide, often with the same equipment flown by US airlines. This number tells us that the FAA+NTSB, despite some other criticism, _usually_ has its act together where it counts the most. They iterate on identifying safety problems and force the airlines to adopt solutions.
- npunt 10y ago
  US airlines often sell their older planes to foreign airlines, which may account for some of the increased issues those airlines have. Your point still stands though - culture and processes rule.
  - mjevans 10y ago
    You could argue that those planes should be forced to retire instead. A different perspective might be to require that every 10000 hours of service see a new mark painted on the hull. This way passengers could be informed of how much 'age' a plane has had and the regulations could also apply to any plane which /might/ fly in to the US (or Europe).
    - cjrp 10y ago
      The hull's age only tells part of the story though; how well it's maintained, and the ability of the pilots flying it would need to be factored in as well.
      - mikeash 10y ago
        Those are probably far more important. I'd be far more comfortable boarding a 30-year-old airliner with great maintenance and great pilots than boarding a brand-new 787 with a clueless maintenance crew and pilots who aren't quite sure which way to move the stick (edit: yoke) to make the houses get smaller. If you look at the causes of crash, it's usually pilot error or improper maintenance, occasionally design flaws, but not equipment age.
- enjo 10y ago
  It brings to mind a flight just last week that crashed due to likely negligence (not carrying enough fuel). http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/29/americas/colombia-plane-crash-investigation/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/29/americas/colombia-plane-crash-...
  - imglorp 10y ago
    So it turns out not only was that guy negligent, but there was also another plane in the pattern who got priority because, at the time, it looked like that other one was low fuel also (maybe a false alarm). Here's a reputable source. https://fearoflanding.com/accidents/not-enough-fuel-the-disgusting-truth-about-lamia-flight-2933/ https://fearoflanding.com/accidents/not-enough-fuel-the-disg...