3 ms·
There is a difference between proactively pursuing safety, which will yield diminishing returns sooner or later, and acting to correct a known defect that puts
by caconym_ 8y ago
There is a difference between proactively pursuing safety, which will yield diminishing returns sooner or later, and acting to correct a known defect that puts human lives at risk via a clearly understood mechanism.
- dabbledash 8y agoI’m not sure that’s right. Proactively searching for risks would cost more, but the same reasoning still applies. I think we know that if we limited cars’ top speed to 10mph, they would be much safer. But it’s not worth it. I think it would make sense to require the disclosure of known flaws though, if it isn’t required already.
- userbinator 8y agoYou could say that everything is a known defect. Pilots can make fatal mistakes or just become suicidal, all the engines could be overwhelmed by birds, etc. The argument against that is, succinctly, "life is a risk." Humans do things all the time with the full knowledge that what they're doing could kill them.
- jetrink 8y agoBut we attempt to mitigate the risks you cited as well. Engine designs are subjected to bird ingestion tests. Controls and procedures are designed to reduce the chance that pilots will make serious errors. Pilots can be ordered to undergo psychological testing by an FAA-approved physician if they show signs of mental health issues. Etc.