6 ms·

With all the attention given to the 737 MAX lately, it's easy to forget that airline travel is dramatically safer today than it was just 30 years ago when this

With all the attention given to the 737 MAX lately, it's easy to forget that airline travel is dramatically safer today than it was just 30 years ago when this incident took place. Fatalities per revenue passenger-mile have decreased by a factor of 15x from 1989 to 2018 (and 54x from 1970 to 2018) [1]. [1] https://theblogbyjavier.com/2019/01/02/aviation-safety-evolution-2018-update/ https://theblogbyjavier.com/2019/01/02/aviation-safety-evolu...

jacquesm 7y ago
Now assume Boeing and the FAA did their jobs and re-calculate.
- ekianjo 7y ago
  So things get better over time but instead of recognizing the advances made, you take the point of view that nothing is good enough because it could have been better?
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    Is today national strawmen day or did I miss a memo or something?
  - CaptainZapp 7y ago
    Well, you can chalk the first 737 MAX crash up to greed, hubris, bad design decisions and a generally rotten culture in a once great, engineering driven company. Not grounding the plane after that, despite the fact that Boeing must have had the knowledge of what have gone on is corporate mass murder for profit. you take the point of view that nothing is good enough because it could have been better? Yes, it would definitely had been better if 346 people wouldn't have been killed by a greedy corporate behemoth, which very obviously cares much more about profits than about the people they killed. This point is pretty obvious when you listen to their mealy mouthed pr bullshit. I trust this answers your question.
- mlyle 7y ago
  Remember that the failure we complain about on the 'MAX was an effort to improve margin on the design (to make over-rotation and nose rising on climb a lot less sporty on a heavier aircraft)... that was completely screwed up by both Boeing and regulators. Mistakes will be made; automation in the name of safety has killed people and will continue to kill people. But overall automation and resource management in the cockpit have conspired to make aviation incredibly safe compared to the past.
dclowd9901 7y ago
That plane crashed because of an unpredictable freak event. The Max planes crashed because of budgets and sidestepping a poorly run regulatory body. I’m sorry, but when capitalism starts crashing planes, I tend to forget about “advances we’ve made.”
- pdonis 7y ago
  > That plane crashed because of an unpredictable freak event. No, it crashed because of a predictable event that a number of engineers had already warned could happen, based on an obvious design flaw that was not fixed.
  - keitmo 7y ago
    Yes, exactly. I attended a presentation by Captain Haynes back in the early 90's. He showed several photos of the DC-10's hydraulic system. In many places the triple-redundant hydraulic lines were parallel and in close proximity to each other, close enough to be taken out by a single piece of shrapnel from an uncontained engine failure.
  - dclowd9901 7y ago
    Ah, I see I've misremembered which flight disaster this was. Apologies.
- ekianjo 7y ago
  Funny you point to "capitalism" where everything in your statement points to cutting corners which has nothing to do with capitalism per se. We would not even have planes that cost hundreds of millions if we did not have a system for investments.
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    If you replace "capitalism" with "competition for low prices" then I think the comment is a little less inflammatory while still making a similar point. The fact that a capitalistic system is what gives rise to macro economics that facilitate building planes like this doesn't mean it's perfect and can't be improved upon, say with regulation that doesn't outsource the checks to the company making the planes. Capitalism is fantastic, but the extremes it gives rise to can be checked by assiduous oversight. I'm not saying the government is a paragon of efficiency here, but it's better than nothing, and with some reform could be much better.
ineedasername 7y ago
Commercial airline travel, yes. Fatality rates from personal and private aircraft rival automobiles.
- kccqzy 7y ago
  Is that just because personal and private aircraft tend to have fewer passengers? If we measure fatality by "per mile flown" instead of "per passenger-mile" would there be a difference?
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    Less experienced pilots, less reliable equipment, poorer planning, overconfidence. Just one of many examples of what can go wrong: overreliance on instruments and information that is lagged vs. reality, around severe conditions, at night. Five souls lost. ATC had repeatedly advised the pilot against his course of action, to no avail. https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=83uvKWJS2os https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=83uvKWJS2os
DataJunkie 7y ago
Yes, especially in the US. I think the only crash of a large commercial airliner since 9/11 was AA 587. In the 80s/90s it seemed to happen once a year.
- klausa 7y ago
  Asiana 214 was arguably a "crash of a large commercial airliners", though thankfully only 3 people died.
  - DataJunkie 7y ago
    Yes, you're right. I was referring to crashes where 1) there were mass fatalities, and 2) the airline was US based.

jacquesm 7y ago

Now assume Boeing and the FAA did their jobs and re-calculate.

ekianjo 7y ago
So things get better over time but instead of recognizing the advances made, you take the point of view that nothing is good enough because it could have been better?
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Is today national strawmen day or did I miss a memo or something?
- CaptainZapp 7y ago
  Well, you can chalk the first 737 MAX crash up to greed, hubris, bad design decisions and a generally rotten culture in a once great, engineering driven company. Not grounding the plane after that, despite the fact that Boeing must have had the knowledge of what have gone on is corporate mass murder for profit. you take the point of view that nothing is good enough because it could have been better? Yes, it would definitely had been better if 346 people wouldn't have been killed by a greedy corporate behemoth, which very obviously cares much more about profits than about the people they killed. This point is pretty obvious when you listen to their mealy mouthed pr bullshit. I trust this answers your question.
mlyle 7y ago
Remember that the failure we complain about on the 'MAX was an effort to improve margin on the design (to make over-rotation and nose rising on climb a lot less sporty on a heavier aircraft)... that was completely screwed up by both Boeing and regulators. Mistakes will be made; automation in the name of safety has killed people and will continue to kill people. But overall automation and resource management in the cockpit have conspired to make aviation incredibly safe compared to the past.

dclowd9901 7y ago

That plane crashed because of an unpredictable freak event. The Max planes crashed because of budgets and sidestepping a poorly run regulatory body. I’m sorry, but when capitalism starts crashing planes, I tend to forget about “advances we’ve made.”

pdonis 7y ago
> That plane crashed because of an unpredictable freak event. No, it crashed because of a predictable event that a number of engineers had already warned could happen, based on an obvious design flaw that was not fixed.
- keitmo 7y ago
  Yes, exactly. I attended a presentation by Captain Haynes back in the early 90's. He showed several photos of the DC-10's hydraulic system. In many places the triple-redundant hydraulic lines were parallel and in close proximity to each other, close enough to be taken out by a single piece of shrapnel from an uncontained engine failure.
- dclowd9901 7y ago
  Ah, I see I've misremembered which flight disaster this was. Apologies.
ekianjo 7y ago
Funny you point to "capitalism" where everything in your statement points to cutting corners which has nothing to do with capitalism per se. We would not even have planes that cost hundreds of millions if we did not have a system for investments.
- ineedasername 7y ago
  If you replace "capitalism" with "competition for low prices" then I think the comment is a little less inflammatory while still making a similar point. The fact that a capitalistic system is what gives rise to macro economics that facilitate building planes like this doesn't mean it's perfect and can't be improved upon, say with regulation that doesn't outsource the checks to the company making the planes. Capitalism is fantastic, but the extremes it gives rise to can be checked by assiduous oversight. I'm not saying the government is a paragon of efficiency here, but it's better than nothing, and with some reform could be much better.

ineedasername 7y ago

Commercial airline travel, yes. Fatality rates from personal and private aircraft rival automobiles.

kccqzy 7y ago
Is that just because personal and private aircraft tend to have fewer passengers? If we measure fatality by "per mile flown" instead of "per passenger-mile" would there be a difference?
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Less experienced pilots, less reliable equipment, poorer planning, overconfidence. Just one of many examples of what can go wrong: overreliance on instruments and information that is lagged vs. reality, around severe conditions, at night. Five souls lost. ATC had repeatedly advised the pilot against his course of action, to no avail. https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=83uvKWJS2os https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=83uvKWJS2os

DataJunkie 7y ago

Yes, especially in the US. I think the only crash of a large commercial airliner since 9/11 was AA 587. In the 80s/90s it seemed to happen once a year.

klausa 7y ago
Asiana 214 was arguably a "crash of a large commercial airliners", though thankfully only 3 people died.
- DataJunkie 7y ago
  Yes, you're right. I was referring to crashes where 1) there were mass fatalities, and 2) the airline was US based.