5 ms·

Surely a 737 Max is orders of magnitude safer than a paraglider...

mrtksn 7y ago
The performance and safety certification of the gliders seem more trustworthy than FAA and Boeing at this point. Also it is expected to get trained for the failure modes of the wing(unlike with the 737 max, apparently). Not a dangerous sport if you don’t take risks and have proper equipment.
- Skunkleton 7y ago
  According to a random study I found on the internet, your are at a 50x risk of death in a paraglider vs in car. I don't think there really is a comparison here between paragliding and flying in a MAX 8.
  - mrtksn 7y ago
    Deaths don’t occur randomly. This number might be relevant for insurance companies but your death can be greatly delayed by flying only with stabile equipment in good weather. The same goes with the transportation, you can greatly reduce your risks by picking your equipment. Not All cars are 50X safer than paragliding and you can choose on which side of the average you will be.
- spookthesunset 7y ago
  You have to be kidding me. You are trying to assert that paragliding is safer than flying on a 737 MAX? Seriously? How is this even a reasonable, thought out argument to work against? I downvoted you (and a lot of the other over-the-top reactionary nonsense from armchair “aviation experts”) but I figured I’d at least explain why. Why is it every discussion on this site that involves any large company full of such over-the-top vilification? It’s so predictable and eye rollingly childish....
  - mrtksn 7y ago
    Obviously 737MAX and paragliders cannot be compared directly but paragliders don't come with an inherently dangerous design that is not disclosed to the pilots. Gliders do have failure modes but that is O.K. because pilots are trained to handle these. No surprises, therefore safer than 737 MAX with MCAS. Hundreds of people died, Boeing repeatedly tried to deny the existence of the problem, the responsibility and at the end, the CEO only lost his seat in the board and nothing else. A deeper look unveiled multiple scandals about Boeing and FAA and you are complaining that I am vilifying this company? You have to be kidding me. Why is it every discussion on this site that involves any technology that is a nerds childhood dream needs to be whitewashed? It’s so predictable and eye rollingly childish
    - spookthesunset 7y ago
      Doesn’t need to be whitewashed but doesn’t need a bunch of hyperbole painting every giant Corp as the most evil villain ever. Nobody anywhere can do any right on this website. Very tiring. Like, does anybody here understand the engineering and business trade offs in airplane design? I doubt it. Just a bunch of dunning Kruger affected people who think knowing to program equates to expertise in every other field.
      - mrtksn 7y ago
        >Nobody anywhere can do any right on this website. Very tiring. You are being unreasonable here. I see you have an emotional investment in this but let's not pretend that this is a witchhunt. HN is a very positive community that supports good work and attempts, but in this case, we are literally talking about a company that did very bad job by producing a craft unfit for use by humans that cost the lives of hundreds. How positive and supporting you are expecting me to be to the work of a giant corporation that cost so much and tried to defer blame? If anything, scrutiny is what would keep the repetition of this. This is not a mom and pop store that made a mistake and asking for forgiveness, it is a giant malfunctioning structure that created big trouble and is resisting to change.
- mrosett 7y ago
  6 people were killed paragliding in 2017 in the US. There haven't been any US fatalities on the 737 Max (which is the group I'm interested in, since I'm willing to believe that there are relevant differences in pilot quality across countries.)
  - mrtksn 7y ago
    How many of these are due to a defect in the gliders or undocumented features of wings sold as "the same wing but glides better, no need of training"?

The performance and safety certification of the gliders seem more trustworthy than FAA and Boeing at this point. Also it is expected to get trained for the failure modes of the wing(unlike with the 737 max, apparently). Not a dangerous sport if you don’t take risks and have proper equipment.

Skunkleton 7y ago
According to a random study I found on the internet, your are at a 50x risk of death in a paraglider vs in car. I don't think there really is a comparison here between paragliding and flying in a MAX 8.
- mrtksn 7y ago
  Deaths don’t occur randomly. This number might be relevant for insurance companies but your death can be greatly delayed by flying only with stabile equipment in good weather. The same goes with the transportation, you can greatly reduce your risks by picking your equipment. Not All cars are 50X safer than paragliding and you can choose on which side of the average you will be.
spookthesunset 7y ago
You have to be kidding me. You are trying to assert that paragliding is safer than flying on a 737 MAX? Seriously? How is this even a reasonable, thought out argument to work against? I downvoted you (and a lot of the other over-the-top reactionary nonsense from armchair “aviation experts”) but I figured I’d at least explain why. Why is it every discussion on this site that involves any large company full of such over-the-top vilification? It’s so predictable and eye rollingly childish....
- mrtksn 7y ago
  Obviously 737MAX and paragliders cannot be compared directly but paragliders don't come with an inherently dangerous design that is not disclosed to the pilots. Gliders do have failure modes but that is O.K. because pilots are trained to handle these. No surprises, therefore safer than 737 MAX with MCAS. Hundreds of people died, Boeing repeatedly tried to deny the existence of the problem, the responsibility and at the end, the CEO only lost his seat in the board and nothing else. A deeper look unveiled multiple scandals about Boeing and FAA and you are complaining that I am vilifying this company? You have to be kidding me. Why is it every discussion on this site that involves any technology that is a nerds childhood dream needs to be whitewashed? It’s so predictable and eye rollingly childish
  - spookthesunset 7y ago
    Doesn’t need to be whitewashed but doesn’t need a bunch of hyperbole painting every giant Corp as the most evil villain ever. Nobody anywhere can do any right on this website. Very tiring. Like, does anybody here understand the engineering and business trade offs in airplane design? I doubt it. Just a bunch of dunning Kruger affected people who think knowing to program equates to expertise in every other field.
    - mrtksn 7y ago
      >Nobody anywhere can do any right on this website. Very tiring. You are being unreasonable here. I see you have an emotional investment in this but let's not pretend that this is a witchhunt. HN is a very positive community that supports good work and attempts, but in this case, we are literally talking about a company that did very bad job by producing a craft unfit for use by humans that cost the lives of hundreds. How positive and supporting you are expecting me to be to the work of a giant corporation that cost so much and tried to defer blame? If anything, scrutiny is what would keep the repetition of this. This is not a mom and pop store that made a mistake and asking for forgiveness, it is a giant malfunctioning structure that created big trouble and is resisting to change.
mrosett 7y ago
6 people were killed paragliding in 2017 in the US. There haven't been any US fatalities on the 737 Max (which is the group I'm interested in, since I'm willing to believe that there are relevant differences in pilot quality across countries.)
- mrtksn 7y ago
  How many of these are due to a defect in the gliders or undocumented features of wings sold as "the same wing but glides better, no need of training"?