4 ms·

> Then walk. Seriously... I'm not an idiot. I understand that there is always some risk in flying. My point was that the idea is to eliminate risks to the best

by ajxs 7y ago

> Then walk. Seriously... I'm not an idiot. I understand that there is always some risk in flying. My point was that the idea is to eliminate risks to the best of our ability. That should have been obvious by my post. If we know there's a preventable risk, prevent it. > You probably also wouldn't be satisfied with... If that was the recommendation of the regulators, I'd accept that. I don't like the idea of manufacturers policing themselves. We have regulatory bodies precisely because we don't want companies making 'cost effectiveness' a factor in deciding which safety features to implement. Boeing attempting to circumvent regulations is how they ended up in this bind to begin with, resulting in many deaths. > If one of your loved ones died due to this fix... In what world would this be satisfactory at any level? I'm not sure exactly what your point is here. If the company is ordered by regulators to retrofit the aircraft to comply with new safety regulations we expect them to do it in a competent manner, don't we? That's not to say that I expect them to retrofit every existing 737... That's another matter entirely.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
In software, one more-or-less generally-accepted result is that, when you fix a big, the probability of introducing new bug is somewhere between 20 and 50%. One would hope that it's much less for critical software, but it's not zero. In the same way, what's the probability of introducing a new defect when replacing the wiring harnesses? It's not zero. It's never zero. So the answer to "should we fix this issue?" is not "yes, of course". It's "will the fix make things better, or worse?" And of course, you don't know with certainty, but you make your best estimate of the probability of the new problem being worse than the old, and then you decide. So even if "eliminating risks to the best of our ability" is in fact the right goal, that doesn't always equate to "eliminate this risk", even if we can do so. > I don't like the idea of manufacturers policing themselves. Here I agree with you completely. We've seen that movie; let's not watch it again.

by ajxs 7y ago

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

In software, one more-or-less generally-accepted result is that, when you fix a big, the probability of introducing new bug is somewhere between 20 and 50%. One would hope that it's much less for critical software, but it's not zero. In the same way, what's the probability of introducing a new defect when replacing the wiring harnesses? It's not zero. It's never zero. So the answer to "should we fix this issue?" is not "yes, of course". It's "will the fix make things better, or worse?" And of course, you don't know with certainty, but you make your best estimate of the probability of the new problem being worse than the old, and then you decide. So even if "eliminating risks to the best of our ability" is in fact the right goal, that doesn't always equate to "eliminate this risk", even if we can do so. > I don't like the idea of manufacturers policing themselves. Here I agree with you completely. We've seen that movie; let's not watch it again.