3 ms·

What I was trying to say was more that avionics are by nature risk averse, so if they're doing something it's probably worth understanding why. So it's not so m

by hnarn 7y ago

What I was trying to say was more that avionics are by nature risk averse, so if they're doing something it's probably worth understanding why. So it's not so much "it's safe because it's in an airplane", I was more going for "consider why this very safety-focused environment looks different". So sure, I might be in the wrong if what I said was interpreted as a simple appeal to authority, but I was trying to get a point across that people spent a lot of time trying to make and keep these systems secure, so let's try to learn from that instead of invalidate it as being simply old or outdated (which Boeing themselves ironically seem to be guilty of).

barkingcat 7y ago
It is very clear that the aviation industry is NOT risk averse. They are averse to losing money (via needing to spend money to redesign systems, recertify interfaces, re-train pilots, rebuy new equipment and simulators, all of those reduce risk but are capital intensive). But they are no longer risk averse. They might never have been risk averse at all - the roots of the aviation industry is exceedingly risk seeking in the first place (to fly is itself a risk seeking activity - and that's something understood by all pilots and all aviation and aerospace engineers on day 1 of wanting to fly) You can say the civilian oversight groups that seek to regulate the industry are risk averse, but the companies that build the planes themselves, if they had their say, we'd be flying mach 3 upside down all day.
- WalterBright 7y ago
  > They are averse to losing money (via needing to spend money to redesign systems, recertify interfaces, re-train pilots, rebuy new equipment and simulators, all of those reduce risk but are capital intensive). Re-designing systems introduces risk and uncertainty. Being able to leverage existing pilot training reduces risk (because crashes have resulted from pilots forgetting they were flying X and applied training for Y). Buying new equipment introduces risk of manufacturing defects that wasn't present in the working one.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

by hnarn 7y ago

barkingcat 7y ago

It is very clear that the aviation industry is NOT risk averse. They are averse to losing money (via needing to spend money to redesign systems, recertify interfaces, re-train pilots, rebuy new equipment and simulators, all of those reduce risk but are capital intensive). But they are no longer risk averse. They might never have been risk averse at all - the roots of the aviation industry is exceedingly risk seeking in the first place (to fly is itself a risk seeking activity - and that's something understood by all pilots and all aviation and aerospace engineers on day 1 of wanting to fly) You can say the civilian oversight groups that seek to regulate the industry are risk averse, but the companies that build the planes themselves, if they had their say, we'd be flying mach 3 upside down all day.

WalterBright 7y ago
> They are averse to losing money (via needing to spend money to redesign systems, recertify interfaces, re-train pilots, rebuy new equipment and simulators, all of those reduce risk but are capital intensive). Re-designing systems introduces risk and uncertainty. Being able to leverage existing pilot training reduces risk (because crashes have resulted from pilots forgetting they were flying X and applied training for Y). Buying new equipment introduces risk of manufacturing defects that wasn't present in the working one.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]