10 ms·
Even though this model has big design flaws and a relatively bad safety record, the absolute level of risk is still pretty low. I knowingly expose myself to lar
by shajznnckfke 6y ago
Even though this model has big design flaws and a relatively bad safety record, the absolute level of risk is still pretty low. I knowingly expose myself to larger risks in my day-to-day life. So I won’t lose any sleep over booking a flight on this type of plane.
- dimitrios1 6y agoThis is not a good argument. You can control this level of risk. Taking on any unnecessary risk when you don't have to is not a wise choice.
- zucker42 6y agoObviously you'd choose the safer plane if it's equally convenient. But if the absolute risk is low and there's no other plane at the same time, or the alternatives cost 2x as much, it's reasonable to be willing to fly on a more dangerous plane.
- YetAnotherNick 6y agoBut the alternatives are of similar price range.
- jonny_eh 6y agoDepends on the route
- WalterBright 6y ago> safer airplane Every airplane is slightly different in its risks. Sort of like every car is also slightly different. The MAX has been so thoroughly gone over, it's likely the safest airliner in the sky.
- esperent 6y ago> The MAX has been so thoroughly gone over, it's likely the safest airliner in the sky. That's quite a jump of logic.
- Robotbeat 6y agoIt is a good argument because you can control other risks, like commuting or whatever.
- drstewart 6y agoI would absolutely love to see a log of food you've eaten over the past few weeks.
- airstrike 6y agoI may be in the minority, but I don't really crave Boeing 737 MAX rides... The parent also wasn't arguing they always make wise choices, just that the grandparent's choice was unwise, which you haven't proved to be false.
- random314 6y agoI can't see any calculations by which a typical diet over a few weeks is riskier than a 737 MAX. Have you built such a risk model?
- joking 6y agoIf it was only over a few weeks probably not, but I’m pretty sure that your past few weeks diet is representative of your average diet during the last ten years, and that could be riskier than a 737 max flight.
- random314 6y agoYou have completely changed the premise of the argument now. Yes lifestyle changes have a bigger effect than a single plane ride. This calculus changes immediately if you make 1000 plane rides on a MAX. A typical diet over a few weeks is definitely safer than a MAX ride.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- TaupeRanger 6y agoNutrition epidemiology is a largely failed endeavor, so there's not much to be learned from someone's diet unless they're eating lots of trans fats or refined sugar on a regular basis.
- TylerE 6y agoHow are you getting to the airport? However the method, it's far more likely to injure you than flying on a 737 MAX.
- rurp 6y agoI don't think it makes any sense for a person engaging in one risky activity to feel obligated to engage in a second one. Do you also think it's wrong if someone wants to eat a healthy dinner after having an unhealthy breakfast and lunch?
- shock 6y ago> However the method, it's far more likely to injure you than flying on a 737 MAX. That depends. If you take a bus to go to the airport and it takes you an hour to get there, then your flight also lasts an hour (for simplicity's sake), you are almost 3 times more likely(on average) to die during the flight than you are during the bus ride [0]. In terms of number of journeys by plane and bus, for the same number of journeys you are 27 times more likely to die in a plane accident. People repeat the "plane is the safest way to travel" mantra, but it's only true in terms of nr. of km traveled. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety
- shajznnckfke 6y agoOther than that one time JetBlue ran a shuttle flight from one end of LA to the other for a publicity stunt, it don’t think this comparison makes sense. An hour bus ride isn’t a substitute for an hour plane ride.
- fsckboy 6y agoYours is not a good argument. You can't assess this type of risk, let alone control it. Even if you are an aeronautical engineer, you won't convince me that you can assess these risks, because teams of aeronautical engineers designed this plane and did it overall very safely like they did the planes that came before it, and I'd have no reason to believe your claims. None of them assessed this level of risk as risky, they were willing to fly in it, and the only thing that seems absurd is you thinking you know better. There are flaws of varying severity in every large scale human endeavor, kinks get worked out, this one is stochastically late in the game. In terms of controlling this risk, that is exactly what "we" are doing, that's what this article is about, removing an identified risk from this plane's design. There is no reason to think that the plane now has bad juu-juu, that's superstition. Air travel is incredibly safe, this plane is too.
- plasma 6y ago> Even if you are an aeronautical engineer, you won't convince me that you can assess these risks, because teams of aeronautical > engineers designed this plane and did it overall very safely like they did the planes that came before it, and I'd have no > reason to believe your claims. That feels really really naive and an unfair judgement to make. I don't need to be an aeronautical engineer to know about other market force at play, and a repeated lack of ownership of the issue by Boeing: incentive for Boeing to not go out of business, airlines to get a return on the airlines they bought, etc. They reek of dishonesty on this matter. As a traveler I would absolutely bucket that airplane model into the "Something is fundamentally wrong" and distrust.
- CaptainZapp 6y ago> because teams of aeronautical engineers designed this plane and did it overall very safely 346 people and their relatives, which crashed, burned and died in two of those brand new planes within 6 month and their relatives probably beg to differ. The history of this plane and the facts that came out after those accidents do not sound like a "very safe" design process. Read Dominic Gates' reporting (for which he got a Pulitzer) to inform yourself about some of the nastier aspects of the design of this plane.
- 6y ago
- refurb 6y agoSure it’s a good argument. Just because you have a choice doesn’t mean you should always choose the lower risk option no matter what. For example, you might have the choice between driving to work (1 in 1M chance of death) or take a bus (1 in 10M chance of death). If you can save 1hr on your commute, then choosing the higher risk option makes sense. Same thing if you need to take a flight and the option is fly on a 737 Max for an hour (no the flights available) or take a 5 hr train ride.
- CalRobert 6y agoI would be very hesitant to get on a MAX, but we take unnecessary risks all the time. Getting in a car, having a beer, etc. are all activities that carry risk. Ultimately it's "will the hassle of avoiding the MAX be worth the benefit of not getting on one?" and for a lot (probably the vast majority) of people the answer is no.
- dimitrios1 6y agoOf course we take risks, but every rational human being does so in accordance to receiving some perceived value, reward, or return out of it. As it stands right now, there is literally no reason to take a MAX flight, unless you just absolutely had to get somewhere and it was the only flight available to you (unlikely). One potential case I could see is the price of MAX flights drop low enough so that price conscious consumers decide the risk is now warranted. But that hasn't happened yet. Thus, no reason to take the unnecessary risk at this time. Future factors may change this equation.
- holler 6y ago> has big design flaws and a relatively bad safety record understatement...
- thatswrong0 6y agoYeah 2 out of 387 hull losses over 2 years is a pretty awful record. I will stick to not 737 MAX thanks.
- RandallBrown 6y agoMy understanding is that the crashes were due to properly functioning (but awkward and confusing) MCAS systems. I have to imagine that any pilot flying a 737 MAX is going to have a very solid understanding of how that system works and how to tell if it's malfunctioning and avoid the same situation. Also, it was 2 crashes in 500,000 flights. It seems a little misleading to just compare it to hull losses.
- thatswrong0 6y ago> properly functioning (but awkward and confusing) MCAS systems It had almost unlimited pitch authority, used only one (potentially faulty) AOA indicator to decide to activate, and could activate repeatedly unless purposefully deactivated. Even the way in which it was certified was extremely suspect. I'm curious as to how you think that is "properly functioning". Its initial implementation was straight up dangerous, as should be plainly obvious by the 346 deaths it caused. (https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-faa-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faile...) In the cases of the Ethiopian crash, they _were_ aware of the "proper" procedure to deactivate the MCAS: > But on the Ethiopian Airlines flight, the pilots appear to have recognized the errant MCAS problem and flipped the cutoff switches as described in the checklist. But then it appears that the pilots were unable to move the manual wheel, likely because the forces on the tail made it physically challenging to turn. > The bottom of Boeing’s runaway stabilizer checklist seems to acknowledge the possibility of this physically challenging scenario. It suggests that the pilots can first use the electric trim to neutralize those potential forces before hitting the cutout switches. > After failing to manually control the stabilizer, the Ethiopian Airlines pilots appear to have flipped the cutoff switches back on, which awakened the MCAS system. It soon sent the plane diving to Earth. (https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-altered-key-switches-in-737-max-cockpit-limiting-ability-to-shut-off-mcas/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boein...) They let their airspeed get too high, so they were unable to manually trim because of the physical forces involved. But making this mistake during this phase of flight this is somewhat understandable, as they encountered the problem just one minute after takeoff (which is a pretty critical / task heavy phase of flight) and were still very close to the ground. Chelsea Sullenberger (the guy who ditched into the Hudson) commented that "Even knowing what was going to happen, I could see how crews would have run out of time and altitude before they could have solved the problems." (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-20/fight-for-survival-on-doomed-jet-came-down-to-two-cockpit-wheels https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-20/fight-for...) > Also, it was 2 crashes in 500,000 flights. It seems a little misleading to just compare it to hull losses. If we're talking about the relative safety of different aircraft, no it's not. Compared to, say, the Airbus A320neo (which has had 0 hull losses over ~1300 aircraft over 10 years), it's terrible. It's a far less safe plane.
- random314 6y agoYou will have to quantify your argument
- rsynnott 6y agoI think the difference is that this is a (potentially) higher level of risk for a generic product. You can avoid it by simply avoiding the plane, which will be trivial for some consumers.
- shajznnckfke 6y agoCan anyone locate statistics on the total numbers of passengers, or passenger-miles that have happened on a 737 MAX? It would make it possible to run a bunch of estimated risk calculations instead of taking a handwavy intuition-based approach.